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.
Kind of an interesting (to me) thing I ran across today that could fit into Tesla Network. I grabbed a little breakfast snack at Mickey D's today and noticed on the bag an advert for Uber Eats (APP UberEATS)). Apparently Uber will deliver Mickey D's to your door?! So what if a business owner (pizza, car parts, whathaveyou) purchased a couple of M3's, put them on the Tesla Network and you could order from these businesses, they put your food/product in the car and then simply sent it to your door for delivery? Then the car goes back to the business. Or what if a small entrepreneur fixed chainsaws and other small devices and sent the car out to pick up items to be fixed and dropped off other items that were already fixed...you get the idea.


More profitable would be high end restaurants. Bring people to your eatery, get *sugar* faced at the bar on top of a $50 meal and get home worry free. Old folks don't need to deal with smart phones either. Just call the restaurant on your landline.
 
My guess why @Starno may be right. Lot's of oil/gas is supported by debt. Debt financed by major banks/institutions. When the "renewable revolution" takes off, there's going to be a lot of stranded assets, imploding majors and defaults...IMHO. Just hoping that there will be enough jobs created by renewables (and subsequent industries and off-shoots) to absorb the workers.
So far renewables have been very labor-intensive, specifically in the field of installers -- there are so many buildings to retrofit. And so many retrofits to do to each one (insulation, heating system replacement, solar panels, batteries.) And each building is different which makes automation practically impossible. So I think there will actually be a solid increase in employment until the building retrofit business drops off. (The new building business... much more automatable.)
 
We might also have rolling recessions, for instance healthcare that takes up about 20% of GDP
May suffer a recession if and when market forces are introduced.
Well, this is a US-specific thing. Nobody else has a health care system nearly this messed up.

I think, after a lot of analysis, that the economic benefits from single-payer would *immediately* outweigh the loss of jobs in the paper-pushing side of healthcare. We'd lose a *lot* of useless paper-pushers at doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, and employers.

The benefit, however, is this: with employers relieved of the weight of "health benefits" (a massive overhead attached to hiring a worker) they would have a huge incentive to hire more people full time. Rather than what they currently do, which is minimizing the number of workers and pushing workers to do overtime, and occasionally hiring part-timers with no benefits. Employer-provided health insurance is a market distortion which creates unemployment.

The second benefit is that there would be a huge boom in entrepeneurship. Right now people are afraid to run their own businesses because they can't afford health insurance without an employer covering it, and so running their own business exposes them to a risk of death from illness. This would go away with single-payer. Of course, private individual-market health insurance is simply a failure (I've been dealing with it for 20 years now); it's dead and it can't be revived.

This leaves two options: single-payer, like Medicare or Medicaid or Tricare (where doctors and hospitals still compete with each other); or a national health service, like the VA hospitals. Either would massively increase employment nationwide, and also increase the ability for entrepeneurs to start their own businesses without fear of dying of illness.
 
It's a dog eat dog world:

"Panasonic Eco Solutions North America and US-based inverter manufacturer Pika Energy have formed a partnership to offer Harbor 10P/15P Smart Battery, a DC-coupled solar smart battery solution.
Harbor 10P/15P will begin shipping in late 2017 and is available for pre-order today, the companies announced.
The solar-ready Harbor Smart Battery combines Panasonic's renowned Lithium-Ion battery modules and Pika Energy's power electronics in a slim, floor-standing, wall-mounted enclosure. Powered by Panasonic's Li-Ion battery technology, this smart battery provides 10kWh or 15kWh of usable energy and up to 6.7kW of continuous power. Harbor 10P/15P can be used for clean back-up power, self-supply, time-of-use and other solar-plus-storage applications."

Panasonic, Pika Energy offer Harbor Smart Battery for solar-plus-storage - Clean Technology Business Review
Where's the price?
 
The benefit, however, is this: with employers relieved of the weight of "health benefits" (a massive overhead attached to hiring a worker) they would have a huge incentive to hire more people full time. Rather than what they currently do, which is minimizing the number of workers and pushing workers to do overtime, and occasionally hiring part-timers with no benefits. Employer-provided health insurance is a market distortion which creates unemployment.

Please note that in countries with single payer systems, the cost of health care most often is covered by a payroll tax -- i.e., a larger employer-share for social security. So they are even more disincentivized to hire workers than the US system of employer/employee sharing of health care. E.g., in Spain, I think the employer share of social security is something like a 33% tax compared to US at ~7.5%.

Back to regularly-scheduled programming...
 
@neroden, and other NY residents, the reason that Tesla doesn't have stores in upstate NY is that they are currently capped at operating five stores in the state, and they have chosen to locate those five near NYC (not a surprise). This site maintained by Tesla has more information plus an online petition to NY lawmakers:
Lift the cap on Tesla in New York!
Tesla is currently capped at operating five stores in New York. More Tesla stores will create jobs for technicians, salespeople and corporate functions. New energy products will generate additional work for electricians and other contractors key to the installation and maintenance process.

We need your voice to tell lawmakers to lift the cap on Tesla in New York. Sign now:

Plus a form for writing letters to Contact Your Representatives:

Take Action - Tesla New York
 
IMO that means that you are guaranteed to have an extremely conservative estimate.
It's extremely dangerous to make your stock market projections based on the assumption of technological improvements which have not actually happened yet. Sure, they THINK they can do the next one... but what if they simply can't? Your stock market projections become worthless.

This is why I pay careful attention to the specific technical developments. Tesla switched from manual attachment of battery packs to automated attachment of battery packs -- a huge step, since attaching bolts was considered a hard problem for automation. This is a big deal. Tesla's head of automation is focused specifically on the wiring harness and how to make it machine-installable -- also a very big deal. (I can think of a couple of ways which should work, so I'm optimistic.) In other ways, they are doing redesigns of the car to eliminate steps which they can't automate and replace them with steps which they can automate. So on the whole I'm pretty optimistic about the car factory automation.

I know enough about so-called "deep learning" and machine learning to know that they aren't even looking at the right *problems* yet when it comes to autonomous driving. As a result, any stock market estimates based on them getting fully autonomous driving soon are nonsense. I know enough to know how to tell when they're starting to solve the tricky problems, but they're just barely starting to *look* at them. It's a long road from "We can identify a kangaroo" (which they can't do yet, but probably soon) to "We have full self-driving".

To be clear, it'll certainly work eventually, but this is a field where a CS professor assigned grad students the problem of identifying faces in pictures in the 1970s (thinking it was easy), and we started being able to do it in the 2000s. It's a field KNOWN for over-optimistic projections.

Right now this is a pretty good description of the state of the art of machine learning:

xkcd: Machine Learning
 
Last edited:
Please note that in countries with single payer systems, the cost of health care most often is covered by a payroll tax -- i.e., a larger employer-share for social security. So they are even more disincentivized to hire workers than the US system of employer/employee sharing of health care.

This is totally incorrect. The employer in the US (unless it is a very, very large employer) often has effectively a flat overhead of $30,000 + for hiring an employee, due to the health insurance costs. The percentage payroll tax, as in Spain, ends up being way less than the flat overhead suffered by employers in the US.

Think about it a bit: in Spain, it's cheaper to hire an extra worker and pay the payroll tax than to pay an existing worker time-and-a-half overtime and payroll tax on that.

In the US, it's cheaper to pay your existing worker *time and a half overtime* than to hire another worker and face the fixed overhead associated with their health insurance. Nasty.

That's the warped incentive structure. Switch from the "per worker flat fee" which they pay now to a payroll tax, the incentive to hire more workers increases massively. (And yes, the workers will have fewer hours of work each. I think that's a good thing in some ways.)
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Dwdnjck and Buran
This is totally incorrect. The small or medium sized employer in the US has effectively a flat overhead of $30,000 + for hiring an employee, due to the health insurance costs. The percentage payroll tax, as in Spain, ends up being way less than the flat overhead suffered by employers in the US.

I would have to see your math on that. Reasonable health insurance in the US is roughly $1,200/month for an individual and very roughly $2,200/month for a family. Most employers don't cover the family margin -- i.e., the $1,000/month. But if they cover the $1,200/month, the cost to them is $14.4k per annum rather than $30k per annum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
@neroden, and other NY residents, the reason that Tesla doesn't have stores in upstate NY is that they are currently capped at operating five stores in the state, and they have chosen to locate those five near NYC (not a surprise).

Tesla is, however, allowed to operate service centers statewide. They don't need to open stores to open service centers. Yes, I checked the law.

It would be nice if the store restriction was eliminated, and I wrote my state legislators, but this doesn't get Tesla off the hook. They could open a Syracuse service center tomorrow if they wanted to.
 
I would have to see your math on that. Reasonable health insurance in the US is roughly $1,200/month for an individual and very roughly $2,200/month for a family. Most employers don't cover the family margin -- i.e., the $1,000/month. But if they cover the $1,200/month, the cost to them is $14.4k per annum rather than $30k per annum.
OK, fair enough. (I was running from memory of some specific instances; it's higher in some areas, and rising everywhere -- I was probably loioking at employers with family coverage).

The result is still the same; it acts as a flat fee per employee hired. It creates an incentive to abuse overtime rather than hiring employees.

It's fixed costs vs. variable costs again. The variable costs are preferable if you want companies to hire more people.

(This is apart from the problem of all the family members who go without health insurance because the employee can't afford to spend $1000/month on it.)
 
I know enough about so-called "deep learning" and machine learning to know that they aren't even looking at the right *problems* yet when it comes to autonomous driving. As a result, any estimates based on them getting fully autonomous driving soon are nonsense. I know enough to know how to tell when they're starting to solve the tricky problems, but they're just barely starting to *look* at them. It's a long road from "We can identify a kangaroo" (which they can't do yet, but probably soon) to "We have full self-driving".

Right now this is a pretty good description of the state of the art of machine learning:

xkcd: Machine Learning
You expect me to believe that you know massively more than virtually every expert in the field and Elon?

Did you include that link as an intentional joke, or do you take it seriously? Because it's ludicrous!

It's extremely dangerous to make your stock market projections based on the assumption of technological improvements which have not actually happened yet. Sure, they THINK they can do the next one... but what if they simply can't? Your stock market projections become worthless.
I'm not counting on "them getting fully autonomous driving soon" as part of my stock market projections. What I am hoping for is that advanced AP will give my Jan18 and Mar18 options a nice boost as it continues to improve. IMO you the one who is making unfounded negative market projections based upon nothing but your own non expert opinion.
 
Last edited:
You expect me to believe that you know massively more than virtually every expert in the field and Elon?
No, I'm expecting you to believe that I actually have heard the views a bunch of the *actual* experts in the field, and know enough about the field to understand what they're saying, technically. They're way more pessimistic than the guys you're listening to. The term "expert" gets thrown around a lot...

I'm not counting on "them getting fully autonomous driving soon" as part of my stock market projections.
Good. ValueAnalyst, however, is counting on it, which is making a mess of her projections.

What I am hoping for is that advanced AP will give my Jan18 and Mar18 options a nice boost as it continues to improve.
That will probably happen, IMO. :) Improved driver assist features are going to be a constant value-add to the car.

It's just the "sleep while driving" or "take a car out, solo, while drunk" or "car drives to your door with nobody in it" scenarios which are a long way in the future, and even if you think it'll be 2025, might be 2035. Those scenarios specifically. Anyone who is pricing those scenarios into their stock market predictions is being reckless.
 
It strikes me that the Model 3 is compromised as a ride service platform (specifically being over-designed). I am aware that the intent is that owners that share it out will need/want it's capability, but it will need to compete with other specialized vehicles eventually.

Imagine a specialized ride service vehicle for people that want solo rides.

1) It only needs to be designed to fit one person and their belongings.
2) No need for performance capabilities.
3) If fast enough recharge, then no need for large battery pack.
4) Could have nice screen directly in front of user.
5) No need for driver capabilities (steering wheel, pedals...)
Luxury version could in addition have:
6) Plushy ride
7) High quality recliner.
8) Food tray.
9) Beverage container.
10) And more...
 
In densely populated megacities, I see self-driving services being banned quite quickly because of the massive gongestion increase. Loitering self-driving cars is the menace of the future =)

I see this tech working best in lower density areas. As it has been said here many times, mass transit is there for a reason.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden
I didn't realize what a big US Moat not being saddled with dealers is for Tesla (no they can't do that now [or ever?] and it's number one on Seth's list!):
Chevy Bolt: Here are 10 things GM could and should do to improve its flagship EV right now
Chevy Bolt: Here are 10 things GM could and should do to improve its flagship EV right now

I’ve now had my Chevy Bolt for about 3 months and I’m still love with the car with every new day. However, there are some things that either have irked me from day one or that I’ve found bother me over time. In a lot of ways, the Chevy Bolt EV just works exactly like it should. Plug it in at night, you have 238 miles of range every morning. But like everything else, there are a list of areas that could use some improvement.

1. Dealerships. This outdated business model is the majority of Chevy’s problem and could easily be half of this list. Where to start? The overarching problem is that dealers aren’t incentivized to sell EVs. This seems like a catastrophic problem for Chevy to me: Dealerships are the customer’s interface to Chevy and that experience is totally out of Chevy’s hands.

If dealers want to sell a bunch of ICE combustion engine trucks that require a lot of maintenance, there’s not much Chevy can do about it. In my experience, Chevy dealers have been horrible at selling electric vehicles. They lack knowledge, showroom space, ability to educate, charging infrastructure and trained/motivated employees. Chevy has been unable to provide any evidence that this will ever change even though it is a huge obstacle in selling EVs.

I really think GM should either revitalize its Saturn brand for EVs or start up a new brand or sub-brand within Chevy that can be dedicated to EVs only. Until this happens, dealers will try to steer customers away from EVs.

By the way, I still get robo/calls and emails from my Chevy dealership about once a week for marketing or other purposes. I hate them.

Of course number two on his list isn't a surprise:

2. Fast charging infrastructure – Chevy is not only lacking fast charging infrastructure, but also has no public roadmap to getting there. That’s a shame because they have a network of thousands of dealers spread out throughout the country (usually off highways/intersections) which should be already incentivized to have fast charging stations to sell more cars. You’d think it would be a no brainer to have a 55kW+ charger at every one of them. If for no other reason, you have a EV owner on your lot for an hour at a time – you can try to sell them another EV.

But what if Chevy built owners lounges at these Fast charger stations? What a great way to create brand loyalty and get a customer for life?

Amusingly, a Chevy rep told me that he couldn’t make it home for Christmas via Detroit – > Chicago corridor in a Bolt because there were no fast charging stations en route and they are of course powerless to change that.

Chevy must rely on ChargePoint, EVGO and other networks for fast DC charging. The problem here is that these companies only want to put charging stations in highly populated areas because they want people to be around to use them. However, getting across the country requires remote station locations where installing/maintaining a charging station is extremely expensive and probably cost prohibitive if your goal is only to make money on charging stations. If your goal is to give your owners freedom to travel anywhere in the country (see: Tesla) then these remote charging stations get built.

I’ve personally used NRG EVGO and hated the experience. NRG cuts off after a half hour requiring me to return to the station to initiate the charge again (and of course get billed twice or three times!) and their technology is in the dark ages (no app?!), and is again way overpriced to the point of gouging.
 
I find it difficult to project financial results from level 5 automated driving. I've mostly stayed out of any of this discussion because I think we are too far out to wrap our heads around it for stock valuation. Its fun to talk about future stuff like this, but not really something to be looked at from a financial modeling perspective.

I think we will have level 4 for a very long time. Tesla's FSD is basically a level 3/4, which means a licensed driver must be available in the car. The take over is not immediate, but it won't be at the level where you can expect to throw your kids into the robot car and give it an arbitrary address and it will be fine going there completely on its own. If we are at level 3 for 2-3 years, then level 4 for another 5-7, we're talking 7-10 years before we can really talk about Tesla Network. That's too far out to make any projections.

The thing is, we don't need level 5 to have an extremely robust sales level and stock price. As it stands, there are cadres of people that buy Tesla's in order to deal with mind numbing traffic each day. As the vehicle gets better and better at handling 95+% of the every day commute, to the point where you can sleep or read a book safely while the car is driving itself in traffic, that's all that is necessary to drive sales to be production constrained. The next part is the ability to drop off all passengers and find its own parking spot and charge at a local shopping center. That's on private property and can be done with special toll tags/parking areas if need be, so that Tesla owners never need to hunt for a parking space. That's a game changer. No need for full Uber/Lyft replacement in some distant future in order for Tesla to be production constrained. Of course, the issue is then monetization by the mile or by the trip rather than by the sales/service of the vehicle. Sure, we've all seen the various calculations. I just don't think we'll have a handle on that for quite some time. And again, it depends on how quickly it arrives.

As for level 5 fully automated driving, I'm looking forward to red-eye drives. Especially at slow speeds. If you want to get to a destination that is about 300 miles away, you can get into the car at night and wake up at your destination. The car can go as slow as possible so that you can arrive at the right time in the morning. If that means driving 40 mph, then great... lower energy consumption, smoother ride. We can't do that today because humans don't want the drudgery of driving for an even longer period of time, not to mention the safety and strain of driving overnight. And multiple speeds of vehicles on the highways is dangerous today. But maybe that won't come to pass. It might be that every trip is a service fee, as I get a vehicle on demand that suits for the number of passengers, the distance, and the speed required. Maybe we go back to the pod concepts with exchangeable power modules. So much is unknown as we move forward into this new automated driving world.
 
Last edited:
It strikes me that the Model 3 is compromised as a ride service platform (specifically being over-designed). I am aware that the intent is that owners that share it out will need/want it's capability, but it will need to compete with other specialized vehicles eventually.

Imagine a specialized ride service vehicle for people that want solo rides.

1) It only needs to be designed to fit one person and their belongings.
2) No need for performance capabilities.
3) If fast enough recharge, then no need for large battery pack.
4) Could have nice screen directly in front of user.
5) No need for driver capabilities (steering wheel, pedals...)
Luxury version could in addition have:
6) Plushy ride
7) High quality recliner.
8) Food tray.
9) Beverage container.
10) And more...


WALL-E-382.jpg
 
I find it difficult to project financial results from level 5 automated driving. I've mostly stayed out of any of this discussion because I think we are too far out to wrap our heads around it for stock valuation. Its fun to talk about future stuff like this, but not really something to be looked at from a financial modeling perspective.

I think we will have level 4 for a very long time. Tesla's FSD is basically a level 3/4, which means a licensed driver must be available in the car. The take over is not immediate, but it won't be at the level where you can expect to throw your kids into the robot car and give it an arbitrary address and it will be fine going there completely on its own. If we are at level 3 for 2-3 years, then level 4 for another 5-7, we're talking 7-10 years before we can really talk about Tesla Network. That's too far out to make any projections.

The thing is, we don't need level 5 to have an extremely robust sales level and stock price. As it stands, there are cadres of people that buy Tesla's in order to deal with mind numbing traffic each day. As the vehicle gets better and better at handling 95+% of the every day commute, to the point where you can sleep or read a book safely while the car is driving itself in traffic, that's all that is necessary to drive sales to be production constrained. The next part is the ability to drop off all passengers and find its own parking spot and charge at a local shopping center. That's on private property and can be done with special toll tags/parking areas if need be, so that Tesla owners never need to hunt for a parking space. That's a game changer. No need for full Uber/Lyft replacement in some distant future in order for Tesla to be production constrained. Of course, the issue is then monetization by the mile or by the trip rather than by the sales/service of the vehicle. Sure, we've all seen the various calculations. I just don't think we'll have a handle on that for quite some time. And again, it depends on how quickly it arrives.

As for level 5 fully automated driving, I'm looking forward to red-eye drives. Especially at slow speeds. If you want to get to a destination that is about 300 miles away, you can get into the car at night and wake up at your destination. The car can go as slow as possible so that you can arrive at the right time in the morning. If that means driving 40 mph, then great... lower energy consumption, smoother ride. We can't do that today because humans don't want the drudgery of driving for an even longer period of time, not to mention the safety and strain of driving overnight. And multiple speeds of vehicles on the highways is dangerous today. But maybe that won't come to pass. It might be that every trip is a service fee, as I get a vehicle on demand that suits for the number of passengers, the distance, and the speed required. Maybe we go back to the pod concepts with exchangeable power modules. So much is unknown as we move forward into this new automated driving world.

Well reasoned reply. I like i and would bet accordingly.

Don't be a Lebron James with not one, not two, not three, not four, nor five, not six, not seven championships bluster.

We meet eight hundred dollar share price with a fully dialed in L4 without tesla network.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Status
Not open for further replies.