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.
TE related news:

California bill would force utilities to give rebates for energy-storage systems.

"A bill that recently won state Senate committee approval would make California the first state to require utilities to dole out rebates to customers who install energy storage systems.

The Energy Storage Initiative (SB700) was approved last week by the state's Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee and is awaiting a full senate vote.

The bill, authored by State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat, would require the electric utilities to provide rebates to their customers by Dec. 1, 2018 for the installation of energy storage systems meeting certain requirements.

SB700 would require utilities to collect up to $166 milliion annually from ratepayers from 2018 through 2027 to fund the Energy Storage Initiative, which would then use the funds to provide rebates to customers who install energy storage systems."


"According to market research firm IHS, over the next decade lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries will become the mainstream energy-storage technology, with more than 80% of global energy storage installations including it by 2025."
 
Last edited:
I don't know if a BIW line has to be fully populated to run a few robots for a RC build. If it is, sure, you could be right. But Tesla has done a lot of things differently from how things used to be done. So unless you have some 1st principle explanation on why that just can not possibly happen, I remain skeptical of your certainty.
My first principle explanation is that the area identified for the Model 3 BIW line was a completely empty space on 12/20/16.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Lessmog
replied to post in q1 thread that is more general in nature below - on the topic of model 3 gross margin.

i don't know if it's as hard as you think to get those 20% gross margins on a base-ish 3. the key is that there are significant software options - especially autopilot and self-driving. it's really underappreciated how big of a software company tesla will become in the next 12 months: $4000 ap option x 250,000 vehicles x 60% up-front take rate = $600m in software revenue from model 3. then add: $5000 ap option x 100,000 s/x x 70% up-front take rate = $350m in software revenue from model s/x. that's nearly $1b in software revenue and faster growth than in most cloud computing companies.

if we assume ap is $4k at a 60% take rate and runs at a 90% gross margin (being all software), that alone is going to contribute ~ 6.2% to gross margin per (otherwise base) vehicle. so really that $35k model with nothing on it, you only need to get to around 13.8% gross margin to run 20% average on all the base vehicles. that means it could theoretically cost as much as 30.2k to produce the 35k vehicle, and the software options will make up the difference to get to 20% gross margin. notice i haven't brought in self-driving yet, which will have meaningful impact as well. hope that wasn't too confusing, not very well written on my part.

if you work with that 30,200 as the needed target for base model 3 cost, then assume a 60kwh battery costing $125/kwh from the gigafactory:
cost to produce base 3 needs to be 30,200
battery cost is 60 x $125 = 7,500
cost to produce base 3 excluding battery needs to be $22,700.

another way to think of it: let's assume the current base model s has 25% gross margin. let's assume that 75kwh battery pack costs $165/kwh at present.

so for that 69,500 base s, cost is 0.75 x 69,500 = 52,125.
battery cost is 75 x $165 = 12,375.
so cost of base model s minus battery = $39,750.

we need to find the path from $39,750 (current base s) to $22,700 (needed base 3 cost).
it sounds like a lot but let's get some obvious things:
1. smaller size saves say 5% = about $2,000
2. eliminate 2 nice displays replace with 1 basic display = save $1200
3. get rid of power liftgate and door handles = save $500
4. get rid of power heated mirrors = save $300
5. cut amount of wiring in half = save $1500 (assumes $1/meter all-in cost).
6. simplify seats = save $400
7. increase automation = save $2000
8. improve reliability / fewer parts = lower warranty expense = save $200
9. faster line speed = spread facilities depreciation across more vehicles = save $2000
10. cheaper wheels = save $500

so far i'm at $10,600. i brought the $39,750 down to $29,150. still have another $6500 of cost cuts to go to get to target. i don't know what they all are but i'm sure tesla has found them. maybe someone else knows and wants to have fun with it.

Margins will be a problem with the base Model 3. No one has made a compelling all electric car at the $35,000 price point. The cars that aspire to this label are sold at a loss. If Tesla can make any money at all on the base model, that will be a revolutionary development in the auto industry. Margins of 20 % for the base model will be a small miracle. I expect this will happen in time and we will all be amazed at the hard work, discipline and technology required to get there. Fully optioned Model 3s will be much easier. Bottom line: a steady increase in S and X production is more likely to get us to profitability than the early ramp of Model 3.
 
unless they've changed it recently, the funds that want to track the index have to get filled on the closing print the day of the add. it's literally as simple as an order like "buy 10 million tesla market on close."

because it's known roughly the size of the order and the time it will arrive, everyone who can reasonably frontrun the trade does, and then they flip shares back to the index funds.

if too much of this happens you can get a short term top in the stock (or even a long term top) as happened with jds uniphase years ago. on the other hand if a number of funds say, "we'll gamble on being able to buy it for less later" and don't pay that closing print... and the stock starts to move, why then you can have some further sustained movement as the stock forces a long squeeze (longs have to get in or risk tracking error/underperformance).

Someone with more experience than me might be able to say how it works - I'm not sure how long those index tracker funds will have to acquire their shares, or how long before it is added to the S&P we will know about it.
 
boost share price - yes, probably around 7-10%.
cause a short squeeze - to the extent it boosted share price, yes. cause a crazy 2013-style short squeeze, not without other indicators changing (high cost to borrow for example, or new large entrants).
tesla won't be added to the s&p next month.

you've got spunk but i think you're overly optimistic in general. this stock will test your resolve before it's all said and done. all other great stocks i have seen have done that. isrg cmg aapl etc. all had > 50% declines from peaks and then continued on to new highs. i don't know if that will happen from a high of 400 500 600 700 etc. and if it will happen in 2018, 2019, or later, but it will happen. it always happens.

I agree that we'll see 50% decline or two in the next five years, and I'll be ready with more dry powder. I've been in this too long to f around with options.

Long only, diversified is the name of the game.
 
My first principle explanation is that the area identified for the Model 3 BIW line was a completely empty space on 12/20/16.

Yeah.

I will say though, that Tesla has never cited "Robot Integration/calibration" as a reason for MX production issues and delays. MX was supplier related...

So, I think a Tesla has a very good handle on how to install and configure the robots.

I think biggest risk to tesla's M3 launch ramp is Suppliers (as they've stated many times). Time will tell.

We will certainty get some color in a week
 
From the Sept. 1, 2016 Electrek article:

Tesla Model 3: Tesla’s robot supplier vows to do everything it can to bring up production line on time

It's interesting that this quote is from Fanuc, not Kuka, who is installing the 400+ robots for Model 3. Both are current suppliers to Tesla. Does anyone know if one supplier does the current BIW lines and the other does the S/X final assembly? It might give us a clue as to the purpose of the robots that we saw pictured this week.

Acording to this video Model S BIW (#1) as well as stamping area use Kuka, while larger Fanuc robots move MS painted body and position it on the final assembly line. So this might suggest that Kuka robots are used for BIW, unless Tesla changed roles for suppliers between the MS and M3.


There is also this interesting video of Fanuc robots doing assembly of a pen at Tesla Fremont Plant (uploaded by Steve Jurvetson in 2010). May be Kuka will be used for M3 BIW, while Fanuc - for final assembly?

 
replied to post in q1 thread that is more general in nature below - on the topic of model 3 gross margin.

i don't know if it's as hard as you think to get those 20% gross margins on a base-ish 3. the key is that there are significant software options - especially autopilot and self-driving. it's really underappreciated how big of a software company tesla will become in the next 12 months: $4000 ap option x 250,000 vehicles x 60% up-front take rate = $600m in software revenue from model 3. then add: $5000 ap option x 100,000 s/x x 70% up-front take rate = $350m in software revenue from model s/x. that's nearly $1b in software revenue and faster growth than in most cloud computing companies.

if we assume ap is $4k at a 60% take rate and runs at a 90% gross margin (being all software), that alone is going to contribute ~ 6.2% to gross margin per (otherwise base) vehicle. so really that $35k model with nothing on it, you only need to get to around 13.8% gross margin to run 20% average on all the base vehicles. that means it could theoretically cost as much as 30.2k to produce the 35k vehicle, and the software options will make up the difference to get to 20% gross margin. notice i haven't brought in self-driving yet, which will have meaningful impact as well. hope that wasn't too confusing, not very well written on my part.

if you work with that 30,200 as the needed target for base model 3 cost, then assume a 60kwh battery costing $125/kwh from the gigafactory:
cost to produce base 3 needs to be 30,200
battery cost is 60 x $125 = 7,500
cost to produce base 3 excluding battery needs to be $22,700.

another way to think of it: let's assume the current base model s has 25% gross margin. let's assume that 75kwh battery pack costs $165/kwh at present.

so for that 69,500 base s, cost is 0.75 x 69,500 = 52,125.
battery cost is 75 x $165 = 12,375.
so cost of base model s minus battery = $39,750.

we need to find the path from $39,750 (current base s) to $22,700 (needed base 3 cost).
it sounds like a lot but let's get some obvious things:
1. smaller size saves say 5% = about $2,000
2. eliminate 2 nice displays replace with 1 basic display = save $1200
3. get rid of power liftgate and door handles = save $500
4. get rid of power heated mirrors = save $300
5. cut amount of wiring in half = save $1500 (assumes $1/meter all-in cost).
6. simplify seats = save $400
7. increase automation = save $2000
8. improve reliability / fewer parts = lower warranty expense = save $200
9. faster line speed = spread facilities depreciation across more vehicles = save $2000
10. cheaper wheels = save $500

so far i'm at $10,600. i brought the $39,750 down to $29,150. still have another $6500 of cost cuts to go to get to target. i don't know what they all are but i'm sure tesla has found them. maybe someone else knows and wants to have fun with it.
I think a huge cost cut factor at almost every step should be economies of scale. They will be building these cars at 5-10x the quantities of model S & X. That alone should allow almost all of the parts to be much cheaper.
 
let me pose a question: how much of the purchase price would have to be earned back in the first year to make solarcity a steal? would 20-25% be high enough?

Sorry for the delay answering the questions you posed in regards to my post to you about your post and Solar City being a steal or not.

Answers: Irrelevant and irrelevant

Solar City needed to be part of Tesla for the reasons outlined by Elon Musk back then. If it could have been part of Tesla from day 1 it would have been. Solar City was a piece of the Tesla ecosystem that needed to be integrated.
 
You did? When?
Yes, few days ago. Quoted below.
I did a simulation with very generous assumption that each year, pure EV sales increase by 0.5 M, assume 25 GWh additional batteries will show up from somewhere (Mars?). Simply, there is nothing constraining the 0.5M additional pure EV sales each year. This is very very generous, considering the worldwide growth in EV+PHEV sales in the last few years (check insideevs/evsales) is much less.
I see that BEVs can replace 50% of 2 billion ICE vehicles in120 years! Full replacement of ICE in 220 years! Go figure :)

View attachment 223876
( Horizontal axis is years. Rest of the numbers are in millions.)

I'm also providing my model with the 60 lines of code. You can play around with your hugely optimistic numbers.
My assumptions are very reasonable (actually, quite optimistic). Look at how many GWh the GF is producing after 3 years of start and ~1 year of the opening party. It also assumes small cars. Larger cars will require a larger pack than 50 KWh, which means fewer EVs with same battery capacity increase.

Also, see here. Currently ~1.4 billions cars in the world; expected to grow to 2 B by 2035.
1.2 Billion Vehicles On World's Roads Now, 2 Billion By 2035: Report

== Program ev_transition.cxx =====
// All numbers in millions
// Assumptions:
// 1. Cars retired after 20 years in service. Ignore the ones wrecked before 20 years.
// 2. 100 million annual sales held steady over simulation, except very late, letting EV-only sales exceed 100M units a year.
// 3. 0.5M EV sales added to prior year EV sales each year. That means, a new GF for 0.5M EVs ( ~35-50 GWh) added each year.
// 4. Assume enough raw materials for new cells.
// 5. Assume no other constraint to sales of EVs; that is, all the additional 0.5M cars each year can be sold.
// 6. Startimng point: 2B ICE light duty vehicles exist in the world to be replaced with BEVs.

#include <stdio.h>

// Parameters to play around
const float WORLD_WIDE_FLEET_SIZE = 2000;
const float EV_ADDL_SALES = 0.5;
const float ANNUAL_CAR_SALES = 100.0;
const int RETIRE_AFTER = 20;

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
float ev_sales[1000];
float ice_sales[1000];

// Populate data for first 20 years before transition starts, all sales are ice; net 2 B cars on the planet
for(int year = 0; year < RETIRE_AFTER; year++) {
ev_sales[year] = 0;
ice_sales[year] = ANNUAL_CAR_SALES;
}

// printf("All numbers are in millions except year.\n");
printf("Year , New EV sales , Total EVs , Remaining ICE Vehicles\n");

float ev_total = 0.0, ice_total = WORLD_WIDE_FLEET_SIZE;
float ev_annual_sales = EV_ADDL_SALES, ice_annual_sales = 99.5;
for(int year = RETIRE_AFTER; year < 1000 && ice_total > 0.0001; year++) {
// Retire old cars
ice_total -= ice_sales[year- RETIRE_AFTER];
ev_total -= ev_sales[year- RETIRE_AFTER];

// New sales add to numbers
ice_total += ice_annual_sales;
ev_total += ev_annual_sales;

if(ev_total + ice_total > WORLD_WIDE_FLEET_SIZE) {
ice_total = WORLD_WIDE_FLEET_SIZE - ev_total;
}
if(ice_total < 0) ice_total = 0.0;

printf("%4d , %14.2f , %6.2f , %20.4f\n", year - RETIRE_AFTER +1, ev_annual_sales, ev_total, ice_total);

// Record annual sales for future years, to compute retiring vehicles in future
ev_sales[year] = ev_annual_sales;
ice_sales[year] = ice_annual_sales;

// Update new sales per year. Let ev sales float over ANNUAL_CAR_SALES a year
ev_annual_sales += EV_ADDL_SALES;
ice_annual_sales = ANNUAL_CAR_SALES - ev_annual_sales;
if(ice_annual_sales < 0) ice_annual_sales = 0.0;
}

return 0;
}



===================================
If you tweak to increase of 1 M additional EV sales annually (1% chance, IMO), it is still 110 years for full replacement.
With 2 M additional EV sales per year (0.01% chance, imo), it is still 60 years to replace all ICE light duty vehicles the world.

Schedule with 0.5M additional annual ev sales:
Year , New EV sales , Total EVs , Remaining ICE Vehicles
1 , 0.50 , 0.50 , 1999.5000
2 , 1.00 , 1.50 , 1998.5000
3 , 1.50 , 3.00 , 1997.0000
4 , 2.00 , 5.00 , 1995.0000
5 , 2.50 , 7.50 , 1992.5000
6 , 3.00 , 10.50 , 1989.5000
7 , 3.50 , 14.00 , 1986.0000
8 , 4.00 , 18.00 , 1982.0000
9 , 4.50 , 22.50 , 1977.5000
10 , 5.00 , 27.50 , 1972.5000
11 , 5.50 , 33.00 , 1967.0000
12 , 6.00 , 39.00 , 1961.0000

...
204 , 102.00 , 1945.00 , 55.0000
205 , 102.50 , 1955.00 , 45.0000
206 , 103.00 , 1965.00 , 35.0000
207 , 103.50 , 1975.00 , 25.0000
208 , 104.00 , 1985.00 , 15.0000
209 , 104.50 , 1995.00 , 5.0000
210 , 105.00 , 2005.00 , 0.0000

PS: This is obviously a very simplistic model. One can make the total fleet size grow gradually, annual sales grow every year etc. to make it more realistic. But those will only make the full transition even longer.
 
Last edited:
Spiegel lightening up short position for ER. Hmmm, does that mean SP about to launch, or is he ringing the bell at the local top just like his presentation at that investor forum rang the bell at the bottom.

Interestingly, I also bought another round today. So Spiegel and I may have been buying around the same time. What are the odds?

Mark B. Spiegel‏ @markbspiegel 6h6 hours ago
Mark B. Spiegel Retweeted Mark B. Spiegel

I've lightened my $TSLA short ahead of the report just in case there's a giant spike on manipulated "profits." I plan to upsize right after.
 
PS: This is obviously a very simplistic model. One can make the total fleet size grow gradually, annual sales grow every year etc. to make it more realistic. But those will only make the full transition even longer.
Using a linear model to describe an exponential curve is waay too simplistic. It will take time to get to 100% BEVs, but it will a lot closer to 50 years than 200 years.

If no one else will build BEVs, Tesla will do so. They will take the money generated by gigafactory one, and build two new gigafactories. Then they will take the money generated by the three gigafactories and build six new gigafactories. Then they will take the money generated from the 9 gigafactories and build 18 new gigafactories. Again, that's if the other car makers don't pull their weight.

But I think (some) of the large car companies will pull their weight. As I mentioned before, I think VW had a real wake-up call with the dieselgate fraud. And I think the rest will in the near future realize that if they don't get out ahead of this, they will be toast. For some, the realization will come too late, but I think *most* will manage to make the transition.
 
Spiegel lightening up short position for ER. Hmmm, does that mean SP about to launch, or is he ringing the bell at the local top just like his presentation at that investor forum rang the bell at the bottom.

Interestingly, I also bought another round today. So Spiegel and I may have been buying around the same time. What are the odds?

Mark B. Spiegel‏ @markbspiegel 6h6 hours ago
Mark B. Spiegel Retweeted Mark B. Spiegel

I've lightened my $TSLA short ahead of the report just in case there's a giant spike on manipulated "profits." I plan to upsize right after.

He shouldn't be losing sleep over near-term fluctuations. This temporary 130 point move off the Spiegel bottom is really just a blip on the way down to zero.
 
Spiegel lightening up short position for ER.

<snip>

Mark B. Spiegel‏ @markbspiegel 6h6 hours ago
Mark B. Spiegel Retweeted Mark B. Spiegel

I've lightened my $TSLA short ahead of the report just in case there's a giant spike on manipulated "profits." I plan to upsize right after.

I wonder how much of a $ loss that covering resulted in for his fund.

.. and if this covering was forced on him. If he truelly believed the only risk was a short spike he could have kept his position (assuming he was not close to forced covering anyway).
 
Using a linear model to describe an exponential curve is waay too simplistic. It will take time to get to 100% BEVs, but it will a lot closer to 50 years than 200 years.

If no one else will build BEVs, Tesla will do so. They will take the money generated by gigafactory one, and build two new gigafactories. Then they will take the money generated by the three gigafactories and build six new gigafactories. Then they will take the money generated from the 9 gigafactories and build 18 new gigafactories. Again, that's if the other car makers don't pull their weight.

But I think (some) of the large car companies will pull their weight. As I mentioned before, I think VW had a real wake-up call with the dieselgate fraud. And I think the rest will in the near future realize that if they don't get out ahead of this, they will be toast. For some, the realization will come too late, but I think *most* will manage to make the transition.
Talk is cheap. Show me progress/data. I'm jaded by talks of exponential ramps and hundreds of GWh of batteries coming from Gigafactory. I see no progress or data on actual output numbers. In the 30% GF, Tesla already shifted motor assembly and PW2 and PP2 assemblies. I see no sign of any preparation for rapid ramp up in cell production.

Here comes the Cobalt spike already.
Electric Bar Boom Sets Cobalt Up For Massive Price Spike
 
Last edited:
Talk is cheap. So me progress/data. I'm jaded with talks of exponential ramps and hundreds of GWh of batteries coming from Gigafactory. I see no progress or data on actual output numbers. In the 30% GF, Tesla already shifted motor assembly and PW2 and PP2 assemblies. I see no sign of any preparation for rapid ramp up in cell production.

Here comes the Cobalt spike already.
Electric Bar Boom Sets Cobalt Up For Massive Price Spike
Currently, Tesla is tripling the size of the Gigafactory - and you don't see that as preparation for a rapid ramp in cell production? I guess it's just a Potemkin village. :rolleyes:

They shifted some production from Fremont to prepare for making >500k cars there. (Powerwall/powerpack products have probably always been intended for production at the Gigafactory. Motors, I'm less sure about. They may have been thinking of moving it to some other facility in the bay area, but liked the lack of regulation in Nevada, and just placed it in the Gigafactory.)
 
New calls for Elon Musk to 'dump Trump'

CNBC devoted 4 minutes to this guy & his cuase.

Doug Derwin, Silicon Valley startup investor, discusses his push to get Elon Musk to 'dump Trump.' Derwin says President Trump's policies directly contradict Musk's core values.
Derwin is wrong. (Probably why he was named "Der" -- "Duh"). Trump is outdated when it comes to future technology, but has similar goals to Musk. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. In some issues, they complement each other, and in other issues, they add to each other. We need to worry more about places where both of them have the same blind spots. None of those blind spots are consistent with the usual lies said about Trump. (Most of the lies said about Trump are pretty much the opposite of Trump's best qualities, and do nothing to help this country, much less the world; to the contrary, most lies said about Trump seem designed to hurt our country and the world, probably in the view of benefit for some particular person(s) and/or other country(ies).) Our best effort when complaining about Trump & Musk together would be to fill their blind spots (especially their common blind spots), not get them to separate, unless some think that Trump being with Musk would make Musk too effective at putting forth his methods which are too faulty, but the complaint isn't worded like that: they are saying the opposite direction, that Musk is enabling Trump, not the other way around, and we need to enable Trump all we can, so the notion of trying to disable Trump is useless.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EnzoXYZ
Status
Not open for further replies.