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.
This could get really interesting. If they take away the incentives and all of a sudden people stop buying compliance EVs, while the CARB requirement is still in effect, what will all the ICE carmakers do?

They'd lobby even harder to not have to meet CARB requirements. This is already playing out with the people in DC framing the issue as CA forcing their crazy climate beliefs on the other states and that is killing jobs and is wrong and must be stopped. If the tax credit goes away (which as you noted will disproportionately hurt the sales of compliance EVs), expect attacks on CARB to be intensified. CARB (and the dozen or so other states that follow CARB rules) is able to have stricter clean air standards than the Federal reqs b/c of a waiver granted under the Clean Air Act. So I'd expect that waiver to be the target. Bush attacked it years ago, and Obama reversed course. Whether they can succeed in the face of the inevitable lawsuits from CA (and most likely the other CARB states) if they try to do that is another question. But certainly the lower sales without the tax credit would play to the advantage of the Feds/Car companies, as they'd use it to show that the regulation is onerous and customers don't want their clean cars, and that they cannot sell them profitably, as the tech isn't "ready" yet. The counter argument is now we have Tesla, showing that you can make EVs that customers want (Tesla needs to become profitable to really drive this point home).

I think the CARB waiver under the CAA is most likely going to be attacked / weakened by the federal government, regardless of the ZEV credit status. Seems like they've attacked or dismantled so many environmental regulations already that they'd be unlikely to stop.
 
They'd lobby even harder to not have to meet CARB requirements. This is already playing out with the people in DC framing the issue as CA forcing their crazy climate beliefs on the other states and that is killing jobs and is wrong and must be stopped. If the tax credit goes away (which as you noted will disproportionately hurt the sales of compliance EVs), expect attacks on CARB to be intensified. CARB (and the dozen or so other states that follow CARB rules) is able to have stricter clean air standards than the Federal reqs b/c of a waiver granted under the Clean Air Act. So I'd expect that waiver to be the target. Bush attacked it years ago, and Obama reversed course. Whether they can succeed in the face of the inevitable lawsuits from CA (and most likely the other CARB states) if they try to do that is another question. But certainly the lower sales without the tax credit would play to the advantage of the Feds/Car companies, as they'd use it to show that the regulation is onerous and customers don't want their clean cars, and that they cannot sell them profitably, as the tech isn't "ready" yet. The counter argument is now we have Tesla, showing that you can make EVs that customers want (Tesla needs to become profitable to really drive this point home).

I think the CARB waiver under the CAA is most likely going to be attacked / weakened by the federal government, regardless of the ZEV credit status. Seems like they've attacked or dismantled so many environmental regulations already that they'd be unlikely to stop.
If it indeed happen, we'll look back in 5-10 years and see this as a moment that Trump/GOP gave the traditional automakers a sedative instead of adrenaline at the most critical stage of their fight for survival against the new EV makers.
 
How many auto manufacturers can move production of critical parts in-house the way Tesla does? Most of them just look for other suppliers.

Not just take it in house, but take it in house and then kill it. Rewrote the entire code in a fraction of the time and made it better than it would have been.

It hurts in the moment and looks bad and and and. To me it’s not worth more than an eye roll of thought. They’re on it. Let me know when it’s a problem without a solution, then you’ll have my attention.
 
Last edited:
Tesla Model 3 production was slow because a supplier 'really dropped the ball' said Elon Musk

alternative forum. i believed 95% of posters here are part of the Elon's cult membership. All of my posts have good logic and reasoning behind it. . I am a Tesla investor too, but I recently sold all my stock. Like I said, I will reinvest once Tesla provides me with IRON CLAD DATA that model 3 production is smoothly and efficiently .

I particularly liked some of these posts in yahoo forum:
"Had to rewrite software from scratch?? That's what caused the delay??? I'm throwing the BS flag. Why then did you make and sell 270 cars?? Something smells really fishy with Elon's story. Snake Oil salesman!!"

"so Elon promised 5K model 3 by next Q ... Translation = 1K of model 3"

"lousy Tesla management blames on the contractor. who is in charge? trust contractor for everything? It is sad to say how Tesla stock can fly. If this happens to a traditional industrial company its stock would drop to rock bottom.lol. High flying tech stocks are the bubbles like bitcoinon.!!"
 
Wow! Where are all the regular posters who post habitually, even all weekend long - all about the great things Tesla is about to achieve and quick to hit "disagree" if anyone posts anything that's even the slightest bit negative (ie, realistic)?

The usual suspects sure are mighty quiet today. I have a feeling they are licking their wounds right now.

I too have seen a huge loss today - but unlike those who can only see the flowers, I had already seen the weeds and knew their would be some bad bumps in the road, maybe even catastrophic ones. It's always best to take a dose of reality every now and then, and don't hype yourself up to the point of blind hysteria. but, everything's gonna be fine. There will be good days again. We're just in a rough patch right now.

And hopefully Elon will hire an adviser or a team of advisers to help him with his ridiculous time frames predictions and estimates he provides. Heck, sell that $20 million dollar house and use it to hire some PR folks. He is yet to be on time with anything. AP2 is unbelievably bad and WAY behind schedule. The M3 is now way behind schedule (and yes, I know he moved up the damn schedule himself - WHY DID HE DO THAT!!??!!).

Well, I see one of the usual suspects at least is here and disagreed with my post. If nothing else, at least I can respect his/her consistency.
 
It'll have a bigger adverse effect on other manufacturers.

Chevy Bolt has sold about 17,600 cars in the USA. Not sure about numbers for the Opel Ampera-E. This means it has about 225,000 more Chevy Bolts that will lose the $7,500 tax credit. They will jump up in price from $30,000 base price to $37,500 base price - a jump of 25%. (jump will shrink if you buy car with options)

Tesla has sold about 146,000 case in the USA. This means it has about 95,000 more cars to sell that will lose the $7,500 tax credit. Model S base price will jump up 11%, Model X base price will jump up 10% and Model 3 will jump up 27% although they are not selling the base model at present. Model 3LR will jump up 21%. All percentages are less if you're buying the car with even more options.

This is just the pricing change for BEVs.

If you're primarily a combustion-engined car manufacturer, and you no longer get ZEV credits when you build a BEV, that means your combustion engined cars will have to go up in price, or your CAFE will have to go up. I'm not sure about the particulars of the rule, perhaps someone else can expand on this. Bottom line - I believe that manufacturers who like things the way they are now (i.e. all of them) will lobby to retain the tax credit, because it makes selling their combustion cars easier.

EDIT: Fiat-Chrysler being the poster child of manufacturers who use this mechanism as a way to pump out more gas guzzlers.
Please note that ZEV credits are not the same as the Fed tax credits, and secondarily that neither are directly tied to CAFE which is also federal. That said, anything that encourages BEV sales in CARB states helps with the ZEV requirements/credits and also raises the CAFE numbers for that manufacturer. End result is that reduced BEV sales for old-guard Auto companies mean buying more ZEV credits and increasing ICE efficiency or crying/bribing to politicians for reduced CAFE standards, which they’re already doing...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Matias
Wasn't my point. I worked at Lockheed and managed hundreds in an organization with tens of thousands in a company with hundreds of thousands. The only time you let that many folks go at the end of the year especially when things are behind is when there is a RIF. You do not jam your HR group and the same managers you need to catch up, who are apparently in OT "hell", with interviews etc during the holidays. I don't care who you site. It's not the right or best way to do it.
The firings were done two months before the holidays. I guess when you are in the government aerospace business you start wishing for the holidays to come starting in mid October. It doesn't work that way at Tesla. Give it a rest.
 
While I appreciate Elon taking responsibility for the supplier's F up on the battery pack line, I'm surprised* none of the analysts asked what Tesla was going to do to avoid that situation in the future. I'm glad that Tesla has the capacity to take these operations in-house and kick butt and do it better than their supplier, but it would also be nice to know if Tesla was going to take steps to identify their failures in supervision of contractors to avoid this type of situation in the first place. Not the first time they have been burned by suppliers, so not sure there is any evidence of them getting better at it. And their response is the same every time -- take it in-house. Seems like their are not addressing a root cause, which is not properly supervising their contractors.

(*not actually surprised -- the analysts almost always ask worthless questions, and fail to ask relevant ones)
 
While I appreciate Elon taking responsibility for the supplier's F up on the battery pack line, I'm surprised* none of the analysts asked what Tesla was going to do to avoid that situation in the future. I'm glad that Tesla has the capacity to take these operations in-house and kick butt and do it better than their supplier, but it would also be nice to know if Tesla was going to take steps to identify their failures in supervision of contractors to avoid this type of situation in the first place. Not the first time they have been burned by suppliers, so not sure there is any evidence of them getting better at it. And their response is the same every time -- take it in-house. Seems like their are not addressing a root cause, which is not properly supervising their contractors.

(*not actually surprised -- the analysts almost always ask worthless questions, and fail to ask relevant ones)

I use to be a business owner, and I can relate to Tesla’s trouble with others screwing things up. I can remember that every 2-3 weeks, someone somewhere will drop the ball. It could be a bank, a bounced check, an late employee, an accident on the road that caused missed oppertunities with clients, etc. the possibilities are endless, the variables are impossible to predict, etc. with that being said, you hit the nail on the head, Tesla is able to take over and kick butt when necessary. There’s way too many variables when dealing with automobiles, add robotics in the equation and we get this delay. The good thing is that whatever TESLA is fixing, lines 1&2 at the GF will be more efficient (per Elon’s comment). Looks like we regained the $300 line in the sand, hope we close above it :)
 
Microsoft chasing fool cells.

Microsoft Is Getting Hungry for Fuel Cells

Microsoft is also attracted to fuel cells because they are responsible for less greenhouse gases than traditional sources. They emit small amounts of CO2, but no pollutants such as sulfur or nitrogen oxides that are typically produced by burning fossil fuels.

Errr... wat?

While it will be using natural gas in its fuel cells at first, it will seek to procure a clean fuel such as hydrogen made from renewable energy in a similar fashion that it signs power purchase agreements with solar and wind developers, James said.

*facepalm*

“Essentially what we want to do is get out of R&D as soon as possible and actually use them to power the data center, we hope to do that as soon as possible,” he said. “Unfortunately we have a supply chain issue. I need hundreds of megawatts of these things.

Gee, if they were actually looking for energy storage (not a convoluted way to generate electricity from natural gas), I think I know a company that could provide those "hundreds of megawatts"...
 
Antonio M. Sacconaghi - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC
Yes. Thank you. I have a question and a follow-up, please. Elon, you just talked about sort of this trade-off between growth and capital spending. And quite frankly, I think it's really the first time that I've heard you talk about that potential trade-off. Usually, Tesla's been all about doing as much as quickly as possible to lead the move to electrification, to establish a first-mover advantage, et cetera. So is the hesitancy in going all-out growth, is that a concern that you might run out of cash and have to raise more cash? Is that a bandwidth concern for the organization in terms of trying to do too much, too quickly? Is that a concern about using capital effectively? What's at the root of that decision? And why is there even a decision, I guess, is the question.

Jeffrey B. Straubel - Tesla, Inc.
I would say that it's probably a bit of both. I mean it's prudent for us to think through all of that as we are continuing to grow. Certainly, we want to be in a certain sense of fiduciary responsibility that we have in addition to just growing like crazy. So...

Elon Reeve Musk - Tesla, Inc.
I mean these are mad substantial growth rates for the auto industry. I think we made some comparison of Tesla growth rate relative to Ford in the Model T era, and we're talking about a rate of growth faster than the Model T, which is the fastest in history. So these are nutty growth rates.

Jeffrey B. Straubel - Tesla, Inc.
It's really not the first time we've thought about this.

Deepak Ahuja - Tesla, Inc.
Yes. We have talked about that. And our growth rate, I don't recall the exact numbers, but I think it's been in the 70%, 80% every year. And next year even at 5,000, it will be like crazy compared to this year. So growth rate continues to be extraordinary.

Elon Reeve Musk - Tesla, Inc.
Yes. Yes. Our growth rate continues that anything like that in the coming years I mean, if it continues to be something like that, Tesla will be the largest car company in the world by volume as well.

Jeffrey B. Straubel - Tesla, Inc.
I mean, Toni, it may be helpful, it accelerates with new product introductions too. Model X reached Model S demand rates in half the time, so twice the rate of demand build, so not only are we growing but we're accelerating as we grow.

Elon Reeve Musk - Tesla, Inc.
Yeah, exactly, Model 3 will be I'd call it five times – it will be five times Model S...

Jeffrey B. Straubel - Tesla, Inc.
And if you look at the timing and it's order of magnitude shifts a bit downward. Yeah.

Elon Reeve Musk - Tesla, Inc.
Yeah.

Tesla (TSLA) Q3 2017 Results - Earnings Call Transcript | Seeking Alpha
Brian,
You have been on both side of the trade on TSLA. Do you agree with the 70 to 80% growth expectation? If so, what multiple on revenue would you put? Say, fair market cap value of 7 to 8x the revenue?

Will you be a buyer at this stage? What is your take on the ER and CC? Thanks
 
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: Turing and Lessmog
I wouldn’t be surprised if swapping the NVidia board with a board with Jim Kellers chip was always the plan: when AP2 was released, it was explicitly stated that the board was easily replacable. Now we hear 1) should the old board not be sufficient it will be replaced for free 2) it was very challenging to get their vision algorithms to work within the allocated power envolope. 3) Previously IIRC Elon also mentioned that a custom chip would be much more power efficient than a GPU. Putting the dots together...

Note that swapping all deployed nvidia cards would solve the issue of having to develop the vision software to fit in a wide power and/or power envelope.

hmm, I don't know much about this technology... would this mean Tesla may end up with a share of profits from other automakers using a custom chip that Tesla had designed, or, if they wanted to would the other automakers be quite able to make a similarly effective piece of hardware with their own IP (I am aware of Tesla's open source policy, but, they appear to be viewing the race to full autonomy in a more competitive manner than converting transportation to EVs).
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Lessmog
hmm, I don't know much about this technology... would this mean Tesla may end up with a share of profits from other automakers using a custom chip that Tesla had designed, or, if they wanted to would the other automakers be quite able to make a similarly effective piece of hardware with their own IP (I am aware of Tesla's open source policy, but, they appear to be viewing the race to full autonomy in a more competitive manner than converting transportation to EVs).

I doubt Tesla would want to sell their chip to other automakers, and certainly not if it is so good that it gives them a competitive advantage. And it makes sense to target a design that gives them a competitive advantage, otherwise it is not worth doing the effort.
The other automakers will use an Intel/MobilEye chip, or a GPU.
 
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: hobbes and SteveG3
hmm, I don't know much about this technology... would this mean Tesla may end up with a share of profits from other automakers using a custom chip that Tesla had designed, or, if they wanted to would the other automakers be quite able to make a similarly effective piece of hardware with their own IP (I am aware of Tesla's open source policy, but, they appear to be viewing the race to full autonomy in a more competitive manner than converting transportation to EVs).

Wrong. Tesla isn't a battery or AI chip technology company. The battery technology is derived from Panasonic,whereas the AI chip is originated from Nvidia. Nvidia is the world leader in GPU and Ai. In other words, Tesla outsourced all of these technology from a company they partnered with.

I can say with 110% certainty that Tesla will do AI chip swap once the Nvidia Pegasus comes out next year. The Pegasus has 10x more computing power than Tesla's AP2 (aka Drive PX 2 chip). Although Nvidia said the Pegasus chip could do level 5 autonomy, I doubt it. I say it is level 4 autonomy at best. For level 5 to happen, it will need something more powerful than the Pegasus (third generation chip).

I am 90% sure we can do level 5 autonomy with a fifth generation chip.
 
Good summary on the quarter results from one of my favorite YouTube channels:

This guy is joined Tesla's cult membership. He put a positive spin to every piece of bad Tesla news.

When the time is ripe, Tesla is a good investment. Right now, Tesla is going backwards with their production.

Until Tesla fix all of their roof-high level bottlenecks, then it would be the best time to go in... It is little embarrassing right now
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.