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

Articles/megaposts by DaveT

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was interested in finding out what the analysts had to say after this earnings, so I found this:
Here's what every major analyst had to say about Tesla's profits: 'This quarter was different'

It turns out the vast majority seem to be in some kind of denial.


We can dismiss Spiegel et. al. as blind idiots but, you ask, why are the analysts in (partial) denial? Because analysts are just people, and they float in the same ocean of systematic disinformation as all of us.

Needham’s Rajvindra Gill - Sell
" Given the lead time data, we contend that the majority of the 455k net reservation list are for individuals who reserved for the base model"

I've never met Mr Gill but I assume he's got some smarts about him to be doing the job he is. And I've got no reason to think he has some nefarious motive. But you only have to look at this quote to see what an intellectual black hole he and so many market observers have fallen into. Tesla haven't started selling outside of North American yet and most likely at least half of early reservation holders were from overseas. So there's good reason to think that the overall options mix won't suffer too much if at all in the coming few quarters.

So what's going on? I posted this on the "Big Thread (aka Market Action)" but things get lost there.
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

Tesla's stock price is battling heavily ingrained cognitive dissonance. There's hence a good chance that the short percentage and analyst recommendations barely budge for a little while. Over the coming quarters, I expect we'll see continued improvement in auto margins and unit volume, and quite dramatically reduced leverage.

Like @neroden, I think Tesla will pay down basically all of the maturing debt and if they can improve their working capital efficiency further, could conceivably be below 3x Debt/EBITDA and maybe 1.5 gross gearing by the end of Q2 2019 (dependent upon new China bank loans for Shanghai facility). These would be modest leverage ratios for a company with the growth path of Tesla.

S&P 500 and Investment Grade credit ratings are not far away and for long term investors, the stock price will eventually take care of itself. Sentiment might slowly shift before it cracks.
 
So what's going on? I posted this on the "Big Thread (aka Market Action)" but things get lost there.
Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

I was going to the end of the thread to say the same thing in reply to some comments upthread.

The analysts have been telling each other Tesla is just a fad and it will implode any day now since the company started. Now that it looks more likely than ever that the company will not only make it but thrive, they can't handle it. I've seen some reports published the same day as the earnings report with tags that the article had been corrected still saying that Tesla lost money in the 3rd quarter. Do they think Tesla was lying?
 
What’s wrong with Kara Swisher?
(An interview by her is in the works already, so we’ll see quite soon.)
She constantly interrupted Elon, for one.
Looked to me like she cut him short every time an answer either eluded her or wasn't going to bring her a worthwhile headline.

Let's see what Ryan McCaffrey can bring to the table.
 
I think communication problems are a corporate culture issue, and I think corporate culture is very, very hard to change. I still *hope* they'll fix these problems, but they need a really loud wake-up call or they won't.

I think some of the comms/PR work is pretty simple organizational issues. Building a,strong PR team isn’t just simple messaging in a symmetric messaging world, meaning you are not getting a message out to a handful of key media outlets. It’s an asymmetric world and you need analytics monitoring for social media, including news media outlets. You need heuristic models to address negative stories and you need forensic research to find origin sources and worst case, be prepared to go nuclear with litigation if you find recurring false narratives. All of this needs to be done at least one layer removed from Elon. You probably are not getting this done for less than 5-10 million a year, but it’s key to controlling the story and limiting the effectiveness of the alt facts short sellers and skeptics.

A more subtle example of the issue is an outlet like Bloomberg. Historically bullish reporters like Dana appear to be forced to include boilerplate negative Elon narratives. I don’t think mike Bloomberg is protecting the coal or oil industry, so why does his editorial team have such a strong anti-tesla bias. Having a PR team to reach out and make peace, or get tough , if needed, has to be part of the strategy.

Tesla and Elon are lucky in having a strong fan base to counter negative stories and trends, so I think they can afford to take the high road most of the time. I think they’ve already done most, if not all of what I’ve described above. Digital forensics probably don’t show up in headlines, unless they file suit against someone for libel or slander.
 
I think some of the comms/PR work is pretty simple organizational issues. Building a,strong PR team isn’t just simple messaging in a symmetric messaging world, meaning you are not getting a message out to a handful of key media outlets. It’s an asymmetric world and you need analytics monitoring for social media, including news media outlets. You need heuristic models to address negative stories and you need forensic research to find origin sources and worst case, be prepared to go nuclear with litigation if you find recurring false narratives. All of this needs to be done at least one layer removed from Elon. You probably are not getting this done for less than 5-10 million a year, but it’s key to controlling the story and limiting the effectiveness of the alt facts short sellers and skeptics.

A more subtle example of the issue is an outlet like Bloomberg. Historically bullish reporters like Dana appear to be forced to include boilerplate negative Elon narratives. I don’t think mike Bloomberg is protecting the coal or oil industry, so why does his editorial team have such a strong anti-tesla bias. Having a PR team to reach out and make peace, or get tough , if needed, has to be part of the strategy.

Tesla and Elon are lucky in having a strong fan base to counter negative stories and trends, so I think they can afford to take the high road most of the time. I think they’ve already done most, if not all of what I’ve described above. Digital forensics probably don’t show up in headlines, unless they file suit against someone for libel or slander.

With at least some US reporting on Tesla, it isn't a matter of being in big oil or the traditional car industry's pockets, but it could be skepticism from experience. The last car company start up to survive in the US was Chrysler in 1925. Since then there has been a parade of start ups that didn't make it. Some were based on fraud like Dale, others were well meaning, but they weren't up to the challenge of making cars like Tucker. In the last 20 years there have been several start ups that either made a few cars and folded like Fisker, or did a lot of splashy promotion, but never went anywhere like Faraday Future.

I think some news outlets and/or reporters may have become convinced no car start up could possibly make it out of infancy and because of that they assume Tesla is more hype than substance and report from that bias. A large scale economic collapse could take down Tesla. Something like a Ford Pinto type recall due to a severe engineering error could kill them too. But barring one of those two scenarios, Tesla will probably make it at this point. Not all news outlets have come to that conclusion though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Curt Renz and dc_h
Organizational issues aren't simple. And Musk is known for undervaluing organizational structure.

That could be his kryptonite.

Indeed that's been widely reported and repeated. However, Maxwell Motors was a startup in 1904. It was bought by Walter Chrysler in 1921 who renamed it after himself in 1925.

True, though Chrysler is the youngest incorporated. There have been so many mergers you need a flow chart to track the history of all these companies. The major automakers have different nameplates in part because sometimes they wanted a car nameplate that would appeal to a different demographic, like Saturn, but in some other cases the separate nameplate was a separate company gobbled up by a bigger car company.

Jeep is about the last remaining remnant of a big mishmash of cars companies that make up American Motors. That included Willys-Overland (aka Jeep), Nash Motors (which was also merged with Kelvinator appliances before joining American Motors), and Hudson Motors. When Jeep was picked up by American Motors it was part of the Kaiser empire.

General Motors similarly gobbled up a lot of different car companies in its early days.

There is a Youtube channel called Autozone or something like that which had a few interviews with Munro Associates about their Model 3 teardown. It was interesting but the host was speculating which car company was going to buy Tesla like it was a foregone conclusion. The idea that Tesla could make it as its own car company was an idea beyond consideration. That's the sort of mindset driving some of the opinions in the media. They aren't in anyone's pocket, they just can't conceive of something that different happening.

The car industry is far more conservative (small c) than the electronics industry. The rules of the entire electronics industry has been rewritten entirely several times in my lifetime. When I was 5 my father was doing some photographic work for the new scientific calculators from NCR (yes they once made calculators) and I got to play with some of the samples he had. They were the coolest electronic gadgets I had ever seen. By today's standard they are stone age technology. I hadn't even seen a push button phone at that age. My aunt had the first one I had ever seen and that was a couple years later.

But cars evolved a lot less over that time. My father bought a Chevy Caprice when I was 7 months old. It definitely has differences with ICE sold today, but if you subtract the revolutionary electronics, there is very little difference. Suspensions have improved, and so have transmissions, but the same small block V-8 is still going into many GM vehicles today with some tweaks to the design. How many electronic components that were key elements in designs from the 1960s are going into electronic devices today with few changes?

The car industry in the US has faced a few shakeups over the last 50 years. The biggest were the Japanese "invasion" during the oil crisis and the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler, but those aren't that big when compared to the massive revolutions in electronics. In the 1960s a "computer" took up a large room and probably had less computing power than a cheap Android cell phone. Back when I was looking at those calculators handing the most forward thinking visionary in the electronics industry an iPhone may have caused their head to explode.

Tesla is a car company with it's feet planted in Silicon Valley. They think on electronic industry time frames and the car industry gurus can't get their head around it.

Tesla is way ahead in battery production, fast charging convenience, updating cars, and a few other areas, but the one area they are ahead and few people notice is in head space. They think differently from the rest of the car industry and don't have the conceptual boxes that hold everyone else back.

As I commented above, I agreed Elon is not great at organization and that is a sword that cuts both ways. It frees Tesla's minds to think outside the industry's boxes, but it also makes the company chaotic and struggle to get some things done that are rather easy for other companies.

Fiat-Chrysler makes pretty crappy cars overall, but if you get in a minor accident, there isn't a massive delay for parts and when your car breaks down there is rarely a long wait for service.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: neroden
"undervaluing organizational structure" What is this? Wall St/Madison Av analysis?

How do you do what Elon has done with SpaceX: Falcon, Falcon Heavy; BFR prototype being built; Tesla (he was the 5th CEO, remember? and from 500/year to +250,000 in a decade); GigaFactory (so simple most everyone is copying it, just kidding); Storage Systems; Solar City GlassRoofing (still in startup). This is just troll talk. Don't fall for it @wdolson.

SpaceX ~7,000 employees; Tesla ~45,000 employees - and he does all this while "undervaluing organizational structure"

PS- Sloan creating GM is a fine example of Wall St. takeover of companies, In My Opinion.
Manufacturing isn't all that easy. Especially in vehicle market of 100 million units per year and no competitor with more than what? 7% share? especially if you add in trucks.

Care to name what vehicle manufacturer in its first 15 years has matched (or exceeded) Tesla growth or product offering or market share? Come on @wdolson don't fall for that BS. Give us a specific example and I'll give it serious consideration.

care to name competitors to:
- SpaceX?
- Luxury Car maker out selling Model S -{S Class Merc in China Perhaps?)
- How does Model X compare?
- Model 3 ?
- Storage business? - industry still in startup, so I haven't read much.

PS - a few things Elon has managed to do see this post at: TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable
 
Last edited:
SpaceX's day to day operations run much more smoothly than Tesla's. A large part of this is Gwynne Shotwell's doing. SpaceX is in a different industry with different products and it's a privately held company, so there are a lot more differences than just the COO, but Shotwell does an amazing job behind the scenes making sure everything works. Tim Cook did that for Steve Jobs at Apple.

Tesla has great designs, they have zero internal resistance to the mission (unlike the legacy auto makers), and they have done many of the key steps towards achieving that mission. However they suck at logistics and it leads to quality problems in production as well as well as backups at service centers, long waits for spare parts, a mad rush at the end of every quarter, and all sorts of drama just getting anything done. Tesla lurches from one crisis to another and always has.

Elon Musk knew that to achieve the Model 3's mission, they needed the Gigafactory. That was a key element in the mix and it was done right. However, they also needed to expand the spare parts department, expand service centers, expand delivery centers, get more body shop capability, and build more spare parts for all the cars. These are just the logistics of expanding the business and that has not gone well.

It's a testament to the dedication of their customers that Tesla had existing customers turn out to help deliver cars at the end of last quarter. Personally it was fun to help out, but from a logistical standpoint it's nuts. It's a problem that should have been addressed and done before the Model 3 entered production.

I saw the bottleneck building as the Model 3 started delivery. The Portland service center was already maxxed out and they were planning on tripling the fleet supported by the center or more in just the first year. A large percentage of service centers were in the same boat. Ever since I joined this forum in 2015 I have heard people complain about the long wait for parts if the car has to go into the body shop. Sometimes waits for replacement parts for defective parts can be long too.

During the last earnings call Elon said he had just discovered they are losing a lot of money because of the time between manufacturing and delivery of cars in the US. They had a system that was not the epitome of efficiency for the S and X and it's gotten worse adding the Model 3. The factory had a rail spur which was unused and maybe there was a good reason for tearing it out, but they now have to truck all cars to Richmond, CA to go on a train and in recent months some cars have been going to a waiting yard near Stockton, CA. There are rumors those are cars destined for states that can't sell direct in like Texas, but nobody is sure.

In any case they need to do extra steps just got get the cars to their destinations that GM and Toyota did not do when the Tesla factory was the NUMMI plant.

People like Elon don't think about logistics until it bites them. They are too busy focused on the big picture, but logistics can make or break a company. It's costing Tesla money they could put into paying off debt, expansion, or give a price break to their customers.

A good COO deals with these problems before they become problems and things run smoothly. I mentioned Fiat-Chrysler, they have some serious problems, but they have plenty of logistics people who keep the gears turning and probably a COO who is reasonably competent at logistics.

I've never had a Chrysler, but I have had a few GM cars. When I needed parts, I never had any trouble walking into the local dealership and buying what I needed. One time I needed to order parts, but I had a fairly rare car that had been out of production 6 years and needed some body parts (fender bender accident I partially repaired myself). But that wasn't surprising I needed to order those parts. I still got them in less than a week.

Try getting a Model S bumper in less than a week. And there are more Model Ss in the world than ever existed of that GM car (Buick Roadmaster).

That's Tesla's biggest challenge right now and Elon really doesn't grok the scope of it. Now that he's looking at cost savings some of these problems might get addressed, but I am concerned about some of the others like spare parts.

Tesla has pulled off a modern miracle getting this far and it is an achievement, but there is room for improvement.
 
SpaceX's day to day operations run much more smoothly than Tesla's.

How do you know that?

SpaceX has few dozen customers vs Tesla's few hundred thousand.
SpaceX has ~7k employees vs Tesla's ~40k.
SpaceX is building few dozens rockets a year vs Tesla's few hundred thousand cars.
SpaceX is (probably) building those rockets mostly by hand vs Tesla highly automated factory.
SpaceX is a private company with very little outside insight into its inner workings vs Tesla that is a public company with a lot of insight into its inner workings and millions of eyes looking at its every detail.

You just can't compare the operational day to day of these two companies just because they happen to share a CEO.
 
SpaceX's day to day operations run much more smoothly than Tesla's. A large part of this is Gwynne Shotwell's doing. SpaceX is in a different industry with different products and it's a privately held company, so there are a lot more differences than just the COO, but Shotwell does an amazing job behind the scenes making sure everything works. Tim Cook did that for Steve Jobs at Apple.

Tesla has great designs, they have zero internal resistance to the mission (unlike the legacy auto makers), and they have done many of the key steps towards achieving that mission. However they suck at logistics and it leads to quality problems in production as well as well as backups at service centers, long waits for spare parts, a mad rush at the end of every quarter, and all sorts of drama just getting anything done. Tesla lurches from one crisis to another and always has.

Elon Musk knew that to achieve the Model 3's mission, they needed the Gigafactory. That was a key element in the mix and it was done right. However, they also needed to expand the spare parts department, expand service centers, expand delivery centers, get more body shop capability, and build more spare parts for all the cars. These are just the logistics of expanding the business and that has not gone well.

It's a testament to the dedication of their customers that Tesla had existing customers turn out to help deliver cars at the end of last quarter. Personally it was fun to help out, but from a logistical standpoint it's nuts. It's a problem that should have been addressed and done before the Model 3 entered production.

I saw the bottleneck building as the Model 3 started delivery. The Portland service center was already maxxed out and they were planning on tripling the fleet supported by the center or more in just the first year. A large percentage of service centers were in the same boat. Ever since I joined this forum in 2015 I have heard people complain about the long wait for parts if the car has to go into the body shop. Sometimes waits for replacement parts for defective parts can be long too.

During the last earnings call Elon said he had just discovered they are losing a lot of money because of the time between manufacturing and delivery of cars in the US. They had a system that was not the epitome of efficiency for the S and X and it's gotten worse adding the Model 3. The factory had a rail spur which was unused and maybe there was a good reason for tearing it out, but they now have to truck all cars to Richmond, CA to go on a train and in recent months some cars have been going to a waiting yard near Stockton, CA. There are rumors those are cars destined for states that can't sell direct in like Texas, but nobody is sure.

In any case they need to do extra steps just got get the cars to their destinations that GM and Toyota did not do when the Tesla factory was the NUMMI plant.

People like Elon don't think about logistics until it bites them. They are too busy focused on the big picture, but logistics can make or break a company. It's costing Tesla money they could put into paying off debt, expansion, or give a price break to their customers.

A good COO deals with these problems before they become problems and things run smoothly. I mentioned Fiat-Chrysler, they have some serious problems, but they have plenty of logistics people who keep the gears turning and probably a COO who is reasonably competent at logistics.

I've never had a Chrysler, but I have had a few GM cars. When I needed parts, I never had any trouble walking into the local dealership and buying what I needed. One time I needed to order parts, but I had a fairly rare car that had been out of production 6 years and needed some body parts (fender bender accident I partially repaired myself). But that wasn't surprising I needed to order those parts. I still got them in less than a week.

Try getting a Model S bumper in less than a week. And there are more Model Ss in the world than ever existed of that GM car (Buick Roadmaster).

That's Tesla's biggest challenge right now and Elon really doesn't grok the scope of it. Now that he's looking at cost savings some of these problems might get addressed, but I am concerned about some of the others like spare parts.

Tesla has pulled off a modern miracle getting this far and it is an achievement, but there is room for improvement.
Well, glad to hear after what, 80 years? GM does a few things well. However, they may not be the best example.

GM's share of the US market has decreased since its peak of 50.7 percent in 1962, falling to 17 percent in 2016. Ford Motor Company's market share has likewise fallen but relatively less, from a high of 29.3 percent in 1961 to 14.6 percent in 2016. I have watched both of these manufacturing giants do great and not so great things. GM last 50 years not a great example, but I guess good enough for the Wall St. monthly or quarterly profit numbers. They have been consistent - down almost every single year.

You are completely correct - room for improvement - seems a "continuous improvement strategy" would be in order.

reminder: GM one of the leaders in electric - 1960 with the Corvair; 1997? EV1; one year Before Model 3 the Bolt.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Snerruc
How do you know that?

SpaceX has few dozen customers vs Tesla's few hundred thousand.
SpaceX has ~7k employees vs Tesla's ~40k.
SpaceX is building few dozens rockets a year vs Tesla's few hundred thousand cars.
SpaceX is (probably) building those rockets mostly by hand vs Tesla highly automated factory.
SpaceX is a private company with very little outside insight into its inner workings vs Tesla that is a public company with a lot of insight into its inner workings and millions of eyes looking at its every detail.

You just can't compare the operational day to day of these two companies just because they happen to share a CEO.

I did say it was hard to compare the two companies because their businesses are different. Being a privately held company SpaceX does not have to do the level of public reporting Tesla does so we hear less about what's going on in the company.

Elon has been CEO of 4 somewhat established companies now: Zip4, Paypal/x.com, SpaceX, and Tesla. All do/did different things so it is difficult to draw complete comparisons, but Zip4 was a typical startup chaotic mess, but that's expected in a startup. Paypal/x.com was so chaotic the board pulled a coup while Elon was on vacation and removed him. Chaos seems to be the norm at Tesla. From Vance's book, it sounds like there has been some chaos at SpaceX too, but it's been much less than any of Elon's other companies and the difference is his COO who runs a tight ship.

Well, glad to hear after what, 80 years? GM does a few things well. However, they may not be the best example.

GM's share of the US market has decreased since its peak of 50.7 percent in 1962, falling to 17 percent in 2016. Ford Motor Company's market share has likewise fallen but relatively less, from a high of 29.3 percent in 1961 to 14.6 percent in 2016. I have watched both of these manufacturing giants do great and not so great things. GM last 50 years not a great example, but I guess good enough for the Wall St. monthly or quarterly profit numbers. They have been consistent - down almost every single year.

You are completely correct - room for improvement - seems a "continuous improvement strategy" would be in order.

reminder: GM one of the leaders in electric - 1960 with the Corvair; 1997? EV1; one year Before Model 3 the Bolt.

In 1960 GM had three somewhat viable competitors in the US market: Ford, Chrysler, and AMC. The import cars were mostly down in the noise except the counter culture VW products. Starting in the 1970s GM had increasing competition first from Japan, then from South Korea and Europe. The automotive market in the US is far more Balkanized than it was 60 years ago.

Just about everyone who was in the US market then has seen a decline in share. VW might be slightly bigger, but the US is not VW's biggest market (though it probably is the biggest market for Porsche).

The established car companies are selling dinosaur technology, which is why a nimble young competitor like Tesla has a shot. People are buying Tesla's because of the technology and the cost of ownership, not because of great build quality or their rep for great customer service.

Tesla doesn't need to be as chaotic as it is. I've contracted with or worked for a number of companies. All have had weak spots, though the company I have been contracting with the last 8 years has been the best run. It's a small company and can be very dynamic in their approach, but there is also some structure to fall back on and they manage to produce products without too much hair pulling. A few times they have been slammed with orders and the engineers have been doing manufacturing work for a few weeks. Being flexible like that short term is a good thing, but they've been in that mode maybe 2 months total the entire time I've worked with them. Tesla goes into some kind of panic mode every three months.

A balance can be struck between anarchy and bureaucracy.
 
  • Love
Reactions: neroden
I did say it was hard to compare the two companies because their businesses are different. Being a privately held company SpaceX does not have to do the level of public reporting Tesla does so we hear less about what's going on in the company.

Elon has been CEO of 4 somewhat established companies now: Zip4, Paypal/x.com, SpaceX, and Tesla. All do/did different things so it is difficult to draw complete comparisons, but Zip4 was a typical startup chaotic mess, but that's expected in a startup. Paypal/x.com was so chaotic the board pulled a coup while Elon was on vacation and removed him. Chaos seems to be the norm at Tesla. From Vance's book, it sounds like there has been some chaos at SpaceX too, but it's been much less than any of Elon's other companies and the difference is his COO who runs a tight ship.



In 1960 GM had three somewhat viable competitors in the US market: Ford, Chrysler, and AMC. The import cars were mostly down in the noise except the counter culture VW products. Starting in the 1970s GM had increasing competition first from Japan, then from South Korea and Europe. The automotive market in the US is far more Balkanized than it was 60 years ago.

Just about everyone who was in the US market then has seen a decline in share. VW might be slightly bigger, but the US is not VW's biggest market (though it probably is the biggest market for Porsche).

The established car companies are selling dinosaur technology, which is why a nimble young competitor like Tesla has a shot. People are buying Tesla's because of the technology and the cost of ownership, not because of great build quality or their rep for great customer service.

Tesla doesn't need to be as chaotic as it is. I've contracted with or worked for a number of companies. All have had weak spots, though the company I have been contracting with the last 8 years has been the best run. It's a small company and can be very dynamic in their approach, but there is also some structure to fall back on and they manage to produce products without too much hair pulling. A few times they have been slammed with orders and the engineers have been doing manufacturing work for a few weeks. Being flexible like that short term is a good thing, but they've been in that mode maybe 2 months total the entire time I've worked with them. Tesla goes into some kind of panic mode every three months.

A balance can be struck between anarchy and bureaucracy.
just a reminder - 5 people started Tesla - 2003? - and now over 44,000 employees
Elon and investor from the start was the 6 th CEO - founder Martin Eberhard and then 4 others, before the rest of the board talked Elon into taking the job in 2008??, 2008 a few hundred Roadsters built at Lotus and final assembly in Palo Alto. 10 years later +250,000, we shall see at the end of the year. Stock price from what $20 to +$250 - and you want to complain. Give us a break. Tesla so fast moving - finding any balance would be amazing. Constant improvement - also means constant change.

Sure, there are things that could always benefit from improvement. Seems to me things are improving - IF they were trending in the wrong direction, then surely competitors would be taking advantage and do better. Where are they??

perfect? no. Best in the auto industry? or just average? customers will decide. Jag (the entire line) can't seem to get number of sales up. We shall see how Volvo does.
 
Has the mob (media, shorts, influencers, etc) now moved on from TSLA to FB and AMZN for a couple months before they find yet another target?

And could it all be instigated by the same person that nobody knows about?
I may be crazy, but I correlate quietness around TSLA, with SEC opening case based on few people here complaining about New York Times article.
Poor and sensationalistic press coverage persists (like for any company), but that seemingly coordinated effort of bad BS articles and onslaught on negative 'analysis' just went away overnight.
It's like they are hiding, trying to show SEC there is nothing going on here? I almost started a thread on this subject, but I'm trying to stay away from these forums.
 
I may be crazy, but I correlate quietness around TSLA, with SEC opening case based on few people here complaining about New York Times article.
Poor and sensationalistic press coverage persists (like for any company), but that seemingly coordinated effort of bad BS articles and onslaught on negative 'analysis' just went away overnight.
It's like they are hiding, trying to show SEC there is nothing going on here? I almost started a thread on this subject, but I'm trying to stay away from these forums.

Dang! Where are you going instead? I always appreciated your healthy skepticism around here.
 
Tesla doesn't need to be as chaotic as it is. I've contracted with or worked for a number of companies.

Some good examples:
-- A huge number of problems would be solved if Tesla hired someone to look up the laws of each state regarding registration / insurance / financing / etc. etc., and make it into a little handbook, and keep it updated when new laws were passed, and hand that handbook out to all the delivery staff for reference.
-- An even larger number of bigger problems would be solved if Tesla would get a decent bug tracking system for the car software, and design decent regression tests, and assign people to work on fixing the bugs with the most customer complaints, and to get customer feedback before releasing UI changes.

These are very, very far from rocket science; these are *simple* and they are *cheap*; Tesla is undervaluing organization by not doing this stuff.

A balance can be struck between anarchy and bureaucracy.
 
  • Like
  • Funny
Reactions: Brando and wdolson
Status
Not open for further replies.