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

Anti-Tesla Gibberish

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
As I read the article, he's trying to tell us Tesla can't succeed because they are competing with the established car makers in the high end market where they are most profitable rather than competing in the low end, low margin, but high volume sector. Incidentally, the place where the current manufacturers could use their high profit vehicles to subsidize and undercut any price Tesla could sell an entry level vehicle at.

His Apple (AAPL) argument is specious, as well. Yes, they started with the Apple and Apple ][ computer. But their disruptive product was the Macintosh, which was sold at a premium price to high end users like designers. They still sell their products at premium prices.
 
J. Sobes said:
Tesla's first production vehicle, the roadster, was not a financial success as much as it was a technological surprise.
First, let me spin it the other way...

Tesla's first production vehicle, the roadster, was more of technological surprise than a financial success.
To which I say "Great!" and I think Elon would agree with me. Mission accomplished.

Now let's take what was hinted at in his original phrasing...
the roadster, was not a financial success
Perhaps I've mixed up my numbers, but I thought the Roadster was profitable and that the company didn't become profitable because it immediately shifted into Model S investments. Is my recollection incorrect?
 
Perhaps I've mixed up my numbers, but I thought the Roadster was profitable and that the company didn't become profitable because it immediately shifted into Model S investments. Is my recollection incorrect?

Your recollection is correct. However, I wouldn't expect the author of the trashy article to let facts stand in the way of a put down.
 
Your recollection is correct. However, I wouldn't expect the author of the trashy article to let facts stand in the way of a put down.

I would advise anyone looking for investment advice to stay away from most main stream analysts. The independent bloggers and usually a lot more accurate.

See Phillip Elmer-Dewitt's report card on Apple analysts. The bloggers usually win out as a whole vs the "Professions"
 
"Seeking Alpha" Didn't trash Tesla, J. Sobes did. Seeking Alpha is a platform where contributors can post stuff. There have been plenty of pro-Tesla posts on there as well.

As an aside, the article is terribly written. I hope Mr. Sobes is not a native English speaker, or his problems are larger than one would expect, even when factoring in his poor analytical abilities.
 
Wow, I expected better from Forbes

While Tesla is Heading into the Valley of Death, Kandi has Already Crossed - Forbes

Peterson is a fan of this Kandi company, I think that's all you need to know.

Wow it sounds like Kandi is behind Tesla in product/factory development. And about on par with vehicle orders (16,000 vs 15,000). The major difference I see is their profit per car is pretty thin at only about $1,500 per unit, versus Tesla's $15,000+ (25% of a low level Model S).

Seems to me that Tesla is, at least, as good a buy as Kandi.
 
I love it when financial analysts think, because they can identify Balance Sheet and Income Statement "norms", that they are experts in market strategy.

1) Why eschew the high margin segments? As pointed out earlier in this thread, Apple was wildly successful by focusing there. Suggesting low margin, high volume? Did Apple make a $500 laptop of which I'm unaware?

2) "However, as the Volt and Leaf have both proven, the technology still isn't quite there to be fully price competitive with the general gasoline-powered automotive market. " Competitors can't do it, so how can Tesla? Is that the argument? Did they really prove it?

3) "Additionally, any consumer that can afford a $50,000 car probably isn't as concerned about the cost of fuel as they should be. Their marketing premise suddenly seems somewhat flawed as well." Really? This is probably the biggest BullSh!t line in the whole article. First of all, people don't get wealthy by ignoring costs. Second, plenty of non-affluent folks buy near-$50K SUVs and were screwed as gas broke $4/gal. Furthermore, fuel cost is only one piece of the Tesla value proposition.

This sounds like type of analyst that said Costco was a bad stock because its employee costs were higher than its peers...ignoring that its sales per cubic feet were over double Sam's...

Sometimes financial ratios don't tell the whole story. I prefer to look at the strategy and the leadership of companies. And I bet long on guys that can put a rocket in space...
 
"The Zone will provide support in the form of infrastructure, promotion, and incentives in order to help the company sell no less than 20,000 EVs per year in Shandong Province. The factory will have capacity to manufacture key components of up to 100,000 vehicles per year, and is expected to be completed within two years."

So KNDI is 2 years behind Tesla, is relying on governement lease contracts and is competing in the lowest-margin segment possible.

According to Wikipedia, this article is rubbish.
 
What a joke. And did you see this link in one of the comments:

BOYCOTT TESLA: The Hummer of the 1%. The car company of crooks

Whoever has that blog is a paranoid schizophrenic off his meds.

Buried in the article is :
"You can buy an electric car that does much more than a Tesla for many, many, many times less money. There is no need for Tesla."

So then, he should be able to tell us where it is and what it's called, etc.

Even if you could believe any of the rest of what he claims (and who knows, he may have some partial truths buried in the article), the electric car that does much much more than a Tesla would make anyone sane (or at the least marginally knowledgeable) distrust all of what he says.