Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
no, no, calm down mate.

Your posts don't have the smack about them that myusername's do, and now that I've reviewed Ichabod's posts, he also falls squarely into the "paid opposition" category.

You don't.
And don't be silly asking for proof of something that is nigh impossible to prove. I said this was obvious TO ME based on my prior experiences in stock boards. You can take me at my word or not, ultimately I don't really care.
I don't give investment advice, but I will tell you that if you put me in the "paid opposition" category, I would advise you to recalibrate your meter. I make no secret that I'm no uberbull, and I try to question everything. As the leading bull forum for TSLA, this is the best place to fully understand the bull thesis. Part of understanding that is questioning and pushing against it sometimes. I've never posted a single comment on SA, mostly because there is so much hyperbole on both sides that you can't have a reasoned discussion on there. Generally, one can get a reasoned response on here, which is why although I don't post much, I do read here constantly and occasionally post something.

Seriously, your BS meter is calling a neutral person who questions both sides a paid bear shill, so I would bet that it couldn't even remotely call out a paid shill on the other side. And yes, there are paid shills on both sides, I am quite certain. If I was one, I would certainly feel guilty for taking payment for what I've done. Laughable.
 
Initially I bugged out about it to, but it's pretty damning to not question if there is an agenda if there are no 7 series or S Class on the list. IIHS also has an incredibly small list of vehicles it has tested.
Because it costs money and those cars don't have the same sales volume and are pretty expensive, so the IIHS doesn't bother and the companies probably don't want to pay. As far as I can tell the NHTSA and Euro NCAP have not tested those cars either. In addition both the the 5-Series and E-Class, which are a small step down from the 7-Series and S-Class and probably on the same platform both got a TopSafetyPick+
 
Note that Elon's number of twitter followers is now increasing at a rate of 25,000-30,000 per day, up from 20,000-25,000 per day until very recently, and 15,000-20,000 earlier this year. I expect this rate to accelerate to 40,000 to 50,000 rate per day in the coming months, which means the number will likely exceed 17 million by the end of 2017, which would put him in top 100 most followed list. I think this is more significant than investors realize. Tesla's brand value is increasing at a very high rate.

Elon's twitter followers jumped nearly 40,000 in the last 24 hours (possibly because of SpaceX launch). This is ahead of the rate I predicted just yesterday. I'll be keeping an eye on this in the coming days/weeks to see if the higher rate of increase continues.

I track this metric as I believe it may provide us with insight into how widespread Elon's name is around the world, which may be important to Tesla's brand value.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: callmesam
The demand question.. why it's silly to think there is some kind of demand issue:

1) the market for large luxury cars and SUVs both have a fairly set size. Assuming that you might think that Tesla had reached saturation with anywhere from 30-40% share in the US for the S. But that value is only the base, as 2013-2016 cars come off leases or are traded in for newer models the base will be enhanced by recurring orders, meaning if you can add 30,000 customers in 2016 in the US, you can add that many customers every year as a base. As those cars age, something like 90% will buy a Tesla again, so for the next few years at the least the total sales in the US will continue to go up based on the growth over the passes 3-5 years.
1.5) can't believe I forgot this. Tesla still can't sell in every state in the US. Huge markets are still not ideally serviced. This will change over the next year. This will help improve sales growth as some people won't but the car if they can't get service. Model 3 is forcing expansion of service and Supercharging, which benefits model S/X more then congestion at an individual Supercharger or service center. Let's not forget that shortchanging for model 3 will not be free, free Supercharging is 90% of the reason I go to a super charger. There expansion us making it infinitly more convenient. In Chicago there are a half a dozen Superchargers in a 20 mile radius. There used to only be 3 just a month ago.
2) I focused on the US and the model S first because it is the most mature market and a good example of what we should see world wide. There are places where the S has just started selling, like UAE, South Korea which are not small car markets. There are also outliers like Norway where they are moving completely to electric and Tesla has the only car in the class which would give it more like 90% market share. All of the less mature markets will continue to grow and those cars will eventually roll over to new models.
3) model X had just recently got normal production levels, aside from the recent 100KWh battery production issue. This entire brand has realistically only 1.5 years in the market. Tesla didn't even have test drive and show room cars in all stores until recently. How do you grow in a market with out being able to manufacture even enough cars for demo? The answer is that this market is really only in ours infancy in the US and had much larger prospects world wide. In 1.5 years the X in the US will be in a similar place the S is today only the base market for large luxury SUVs is about 2-3 times the size for their large luxury car cousins. I don't believe the X will capture 40% if the market like the S but I could see 30% from the current penetration of approx. 10%.
4) model 3 could be eating into to some of that model S demand, but that pressure will flip when the 3 hits the streets in mass and tax credits start to pass out. If you didn't reserve day one, you won't get the full tax credit, period. This will drive massive demand in the US for model S which will be available and I have theorized that Tesla will pull some levers to rachet up production in anticipation. I believe this group of people are those that could not afford an S but last year would have found a way to get it, saved up or cut expenses to fit the S in their budgets. Don't underestimate the size of this group. They will eventually be model 3 customers and anyone who loves Tesla enough to give to lattes and movie channels for are going to be great long term customers that will eventually but an S/X. The issue is that has inflated the base above but should only be a tiny fraction of that base, maybe 5% or 1500 model S per year going forward. People uprating to the new model after their lease or after the first 5 years should more then compensate going forward. Next year alone 5K should be in this group every quarter. Base + turnover next year should go from 30k - 1500 + 16k (90% of 5k/Q from 2015) = 36k or 20% increase over 2016. There could be a plateau in the US in 2019, but the rest of the world will just be maturing and turnover will just be getting started in ernest so sales for S should continue to grow into 2020 world wide.
5) model X should lag model S by a year or so. Only a year because it had the advantages of piggy backing on the groundwork of model S expansion. Supercharging maturity, more stores compared to the same point in the cycle for the S.
6) exposure to model 3 will help bolster the brand more then the vampire effect on S sales noted above. I see the model Y being a bigger drag on model X but only because the small SUV is so popular and the market size so large. With battery costs coming down so quickly, the Y hitting the market in mass in 2020 should end many competitors ability to stay afloat. 2020 is also when model X will finally have full market penetration so it's good timing for mass production of the Y to contribute to growth. If you are Tesla and you're going to lose sales, lose them to Tesla.

This supposed demand issue is silly, just apply some basic logic and simple math. Tesla still has room to grow everywhere.

19 states have sales restrictions currently as of two weeks ago.
 
If we could step back a moment from the, I am sure entertaining, discussion on who is a paid shill and who should be on whoms ignore list, may I venture a relevant topic instead?

I did a very rough estimate for the upcoming quarterly report. Welcoming some discussion should I find time to refine this a little more like last quarter.

Assuming improvement in vehicle average sale price of 75 base points and excluding recognition of any delayed EAP/FSD revenue I get a revenue of $1,732M. Assuming an improvement of the same 75BP in production efficiency, costs are $1,303M. For leasing I am estimating flat cost and revenue. Obviously the increased fleet should make them grow but last quarter saw exceptionally few leasing starts because of large Hong Kong deliveries which were straight sales. So making those cancel out against each other I get revenue of $254M and cost of $166M.

Service cost and revenue I don't see that changing a lot compared to last quarter, so let's take identical numbers ($193M revenue, $214 costs)

Energy storage and generation : are there any big projects that hit the bottom line this quarter? There are the first deliveries for Powerwall 2.0 to account for. 5k delivered @ $6200 adds $31M to the revenue side. Assuming gross margin of 10% (Gigafactory not yet at volumes) adds $28M to the cost side to reach $245M and $180M respectively.

Adding it all together I get revenue of $2,392M and costs of $1,835M for a gross profit of $557M.

R&D growing by 10%, SG&A dropping by 10% with the winding down down of SolarCity and adding $5M to the interest expense due to the new convertibles written this quarter I get to respectively $354M, $543M and $104M. On the plus side losses attributable to non-controlling interest of $66M

Final tally a loss of $375M. Possible upsides : ZEV credits (didn't sell any last quarter) maybe up to $100M and recognition of previous EAP revenue maybe as high as another $100M.
 
there are many. perhaps an app or something for newusers "These users are ignored by "X" number of people or these folks have greater than "X" number of disagrees. give that a weighted function of some kind and
make a "Believeability index" or similar.
it could be tweaked by folks having a high "believeability index" have greater weight of their ignores or dislikes. like a WMA or EMA as opposed to a SMA.
(there's gotta be an 'app 4 that')
just a random thought
I believe you are searching for a truthiness quotient.
 
Initially I bugged out about it to, but it's pretty damning to not question if there is an agenda if there are no 7 series or S Class on the list. IIHS also has an incredibly small list of vehicles it has tested.
I read somewhere that they have to actually buy the cars themselves so that's why luxury vehicles don't show up as often.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GoTslaGo
Vehicle deliveries revisited:

Here are the numbers
2017 Q1. 25,418 Produced, 25000 + delivered, 4650 in transit
2017 Q2. 25708 , 22000+ delivered

based on the above, there are ( 4650+ 25708 - 22000) = 8358 Vehicles produced but not delivered (note if there was inventory prior to Q1, might be even more)

Now here is Service Center/Gallery count (from Tesla support page, manual count)
US - 112
Rest of World 218
total - 330

So question is:
1. Did Tesla figure out logistics so that at the end of quarter, there are no vehicles in transit?
2. On average provide 8358/330 = 25 loaners, display vehicles per service Center

I think there is some confusion as to why the vehicles in transit numbers were not provided in 2Q? And hence added to the S/X inventory glut discussion
Did Tesla just not choose to report or missed it in report? it seems highly unlikely that all 8K vehicles were provided as loaners.
Wish they could clarify, but might have to wait till earning for that.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Spidy
2017 Tesla Model S (models built after January 2017) 40 mph small overlap IIHS crash test
Seems to be a seatbelt issue. They changed seatbelts at one point -- I think they did get the top rating on this IIHS crash test for the 2013 model. Can anyone check?

Edit: oh, I see, this test wasn't being done in 2013. It's a brand new test. Whatever, then.
 
Last edited:
Vehicle deliveries revisited:

Here are the numbers
2017 Q1. 25,418 Produced, 25000 + delivered, 4650 in transit
2017 Q2. 25708 , 22000+ delivered

based on the above, there are ( 4650+ 25708 - 22000) = 8358 Vehicles produced but not delivered (note if there was inventory prior to Q1, might be even more)

Now here is Service Center/Gallery count (from Tesla support page, manual count)
US - 112
Rest of World 218
total - 330

So question is:
1. Did Tesla figure out logistics so that at the end of quarter, there are no vehicles in transit?
2. On average provide 8358/330 = 25 loaners, display vehicles per service Center

I think there is some confusion as to why the vehicles in transit numbers were not provided in 2Q? And hence added to the S/X inventory glut discussion
Did Tesla just not choose to report or missed it in report? it seems highly unlikely that all 8K vehicles were provided as loaners.
Wish they could clarify, but might have to wait till earning for that.
I suspect we're reaching a steady run rate for vehicles in transit -- roughly 5000 at any given time. That had to happen.

There are a minimum of 2 cars per gallery (preferably 4) and each service center needs a *lot* of loaners (5? 10? More for busy centers... at least one per bay, maybe) so let's call it 6 each and guess around 2000 minimum to supply galleries and service centers, probably more. Don't forget 100 shipped to Dubai and 100 shipped to New Zealand to "set up shop".

P.S. As model 3 ramps up, the number of vehicles in transit at any time will also ramp up. There's only so much you can do to speed up delivery; there will always be a steady flow of vehicles in transit, roughly proportional to delivery rate.
 
Vehicle deliveries revisited:

Here are the numbers
2017 Q1. 25,418 Produced, 25000 + delivered, 4650 in transit
2017 Q2. 25708 , 22000+ delivered

based on the above, there are ( 4650+ 25708 - 22000) = 8358 Vehicles produced but not delivered

Now here is Service Center/Gallery count (from Tesla support page, manual count)
US - 112
Rest of World 218
total - 330

So question is:
1. Did Tesla figure out logistics so that at the end of quarter, there are no vehicles in transit?
2. On average provide 8358/330 = 25 loaners, display vehicles per service Center

I think there is some confusion as to why the vehicles in transit numbers were not provided in 2Q? And hence added to the S/X inventory glut discussion
Did Tesla just not choose to report or missed it in report? it seems highly unlikely that all 8K vehicles were provided as loaners.
Which they could clarify, but might have to wait till earning for that.

The service center I just went to, Highland Park in north Chicago Suburbs, had at least 10 model X's for display/loaner and its a fairly small service center. Oddly, they didnt have any S to loan out, only a 2013 pre-owned. The guy was saying they never had any for display or test drives until recently. I think the first time I saw an X in the showroom, they have room for only 1 car inside, was a couple of weeks ago. I go there a lot to charge and sit and have free coffee! I think they move the demo/loaner cars out fairly quickly and dont hold on to them for long. Someone pointed out something I thought was interesting and is they chose to go with highend cars for loaners because they could still sell them at a profit after loaning them out for a few months and it makes sense because the margins are so high on the P100Ds. This service center did not have any P100Ds to loan out though.
 
But many cars fail the small overlap test since it was introduced in 2012. Sound familiar? Some new car was released that same year. So in their first production car Tesla failed to design for a test they probably didn't even realize was coming - or if they did it was probably too late. I don't see how the test existing is a bad thing and it sounds like Tesla did fairly well regardless. Someone has to do a better job explaining to me where the conspiracy is here. The negative spin is one thing and it is really sad that almost all news sources do this but the test and rating is completely fair IMHO.

It could be argued that the overlap test is setup to bypass most of Tesla's superior crumple zone. That insurance companies have a vested interest in slamming slowing down Tesla keep their autonomous technology from obviating the insurance industry. I'm not sure I believe that argument, but I'd listen. It could be argued that insurance companies will make more profits on Tesla's because of reduced claims.

That said, I think the best way to support Tesla is not to slam the test, but demand more cars be tested and see how they stack up against Tesla.
 
based on the above, there are ( 4650+ 25708 - 22000) = 8358 Vehicles produced but not delivered (note if there was inventory prior to Q1, might be even more)

Historically we are currently at 16979 vehicles produced but not delivered.

1. Did Tesla figure out logistics so that at the end of quarter, there are no vehicles in transit?

No there were still vehicles in transit. With Tesla not mentioning the number I would wager on a normal amount of cars in transit (4000-5000).
 
  • Like
Reactions: elasalle and TMSE
From the last earnings call:

Elon Reeve Musk - Tesla Motors, Inc.

Sure. With respect to the battery stuff, it's a little lumpy right now because we had a big inflation in fourth quarter with Southern California Edison. And then we had a bit of a gap between the Powerwall 1 and Powerwall 2. So we should start to see that correcting in, Q2, Q3, and particularly, towards the end of this year I would expect quite a dramatic ramp in storage deployment, like really dramatic.

 
One of a dozen so-called independent agencies!?!? Please name the other 11. Don't get me wrong the CNBC article had a pretty obvious negative spin but the IIHS itself is basically the only other agency that anyone pays attention to in the US. So Tesla is only acceptable with the relatively new small overlap test. 2 out of the 3 cars that got the highest mark in this test were completely redesigned for 2017. Maybe Tesla figured it out for the Model 3 but either way it is the same test that all automakers are getting and a large number of them are having a hard time getting the 'good' rating. Only a complete redesign will be able to pass and I have high confidence Tesla will get it right when they release a full redesign in a couple years.
Most car companies struggle with the slight overlap. Toyota improved the Prius by bolting on a triangle shaped deflector onto the engine the year after they did poorly on that test. No other modifications, unknown if it would be of any use in a real-world scenario, but Tesla likely could make some similar modification to the body to compensate.

Edit: Adding link to the Prius info:
Confirmed: Toyota only reinforced one side of the Prius (photos inside)
 
Last edited:
Historically we are currently at 16979 vehicles produced but not delivered.



No there were still vehicles in transit. With Tesla not mentioning the number I would wager on a normal amount of cars in transit (4000-5000).

Thanks all, I agree with the transit numbers. In one of the clips TV segments I watched after work a few days back, they were questions on why transit numbers were not reported and hence the theory on supply glut.

So better to believe in the following statement also in the report:
Provided global economic conditions do not worsen considerably, we are confident that combined deliveries of Model S and Model X in the second half of 2017 will likely exceed deliveries in the first half of 2017.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
It could be argued that the overlap test is setup to bypass most of Tesla's superior crumple zone. That insurance companies have a vested interest in slamming slowing down Tesla keep their autonomous technology from obviating the insurance industry. I'm not sure I believe that argument, but I'd listen. It could be argued that insurance companies will make more profits on Tesla's because of reduced claims.

That said, I think the best way to support Tesla is not to slam the test, but demand more cars be tested and see how they stack up against Tesla.
Insurance... Liability claims should be reduced for Tesla drivers, including injury claims on the opposing side. Injury for occupants inside the Tesla should also be lower. However property damage claims for comprehensive/collision are much higher from what I've read. Un-insured and under-insured drivers will bump up claim amounts, since they are ungodly expensive to fix. Minimums in most places are $25k, and most people don't carry more than $50k on property liability. (Why should they since most people with expensive cars have underinsured motorists coverage?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.