I'm not so sure. After reading the article, I want to buy more TSLA - it seems as if all "industry sources" had only disbelief to offer. If you read the article, for every single aspect, they went through the following chain:
1) Getting Tesla from A to B was impossible.
2) They achieved it - they are at B now.
3) Now they want to go from B to C. That's impossible.
4) "Industry sources" say going from B to C will be very hard. Musk says it can be done, other experts don't quite believe it.
And there are so many items that they seemed to have missed: From the point of Tesla being to change transportation (i.e. one of the reasons to invest in Germany is exactly to stimulate some German competition), to using the car industry standard approach to retailing (did anybody ever see Tesla advertise on TV?), to other issues of scale-ability.
For my own long term investment thesis regarding Tesla, I continue to read articles like this, but what I'm really looking for is an article written by somebody that clearly owns and drives EV's, and understands the nuances and how life changes when you own an EV, to write something like this. That will be my first clue that the stock run, and possibly the company's run, might be coming to an end.
In the meantime, it's not the only thing I'm looking for, but as long as the negative and "balanced" articles are being written by people that demonstrate how little they understand of the EV paradigm, I rest comfortable in the idea that the revolution hasn't arrived yet.
My conclusion - not an insightful article. Rather a heavily slanted article revealing ignorance on a number of points. If the writing was truly neutral, and the ignorance was sourced from the industry sources, then all the better for TSLA (the company and stock), and all the worse for us as a species.
- - - Updated - - -
I'd say the article makes the "automotive experts" cited look rather foolish. History is full of statements that dispel the possibility of change.
Then there is cherry picking of numbers. They compare the hypothetical $3.5b investment to start a new car maker with the $795m cash in Tesla's bank account. This discards all the efforts Tesla has already spent and the objectives already fulfilled. I think it is very remarkable that Tesla has cash in the bank, no debt!
The fact that not every Chinese can park and charge an electric car is described as a hurdle to enter China. But MS is designed for premium segment, that was a market 1m cars in 2012 in China. They will find a way to charge their new EV.
IMHO this article illustrates the limited capability of experts to think outside their box.
On the topic of cash and comparing back to the traditional auto industry, people aren't making nearly enough of Tesla's cash conversion cycle. Tesla purchases raw materials and receives income from the sale of a finished car at approximately the same time. Whether it's really -1 month or +2 months, it's a ridiculously fast cash conversion cycle relative to the rest of the automotive industry. Unlike the rest of the industry, the growth of the company funds the growth - there is no gargantuan and growing inventory to finance in order to support the growth.
Other companies have made a business model around optimizing their industries cash conversion cycle, and doing nothing else particularly well
- - - Updated - - -
"If Tesla wants to be perceived as a viable automaker, they say, it has to play by the same rules as all automakers."
And there you have it. Apparently the established automakers are doing everything in the best possible way with no room for improvement. Tesla should clearly just do things the way they did, or just pack up and go home.
I don't know anything about standard accounting practices, but I don't think anyone is arguing that Tesla isn't making money on the model S, they have money in the bank, they've repaid their loans ahead of schedule. They may be investing in further infrastructure at a rate that exceeds the money they bring in through sales, but that isn't any deviation from what they have been saying they would do all along.
There are challenges of course, but doing what Detroit did isn't always a good plan.
The confusion around the "lease accounting" that Tesla has adopted in order to account for the 36-39 month repurchase guarantee is huge (and is yet another thing I am keeping an eye out for - when that starts being clear, and people have arguments using the reality and the troubles, ..). Tesla receives full cash for the sale up front, as its not really a lease (for those that elect to purchase so that they have the residual guarantee) - it's a financed sale with the loan provided by a bank. Tesla receives the full cash amount of the sale up front - I've read they also receive a finder's fee for putting bank and buyer together (as an auto dealer would receive).
Tesla then agrees to buy the car back between month 36-39, where a 3 year lease would be terminating, at a particular price. In the example in the article, the assumption that seemed to be made was that a) all cars Tesla has sold have that residual guarantee (they don't - I believe it's about 30%), and that b) the exercise of the guarantee would result in a loss to Tesla of 10%.
End result - Tesla as measured on cash is immediately positive on these leases. Tesla has adopted the most extremely conservative form of accounting for this arrangement that is unique in the industry. If anything, I would be making the case that the accounting is misleadingly conservative. I guess since it's misleading in my favor, my outrage is muted
Here's my guess, to go alongside of their guess, of what the resale market will look like when those 3 year residual guarantees start resulting in used cars coming back to Tesla. My guess is that there is a gargantuan pool of people that want desperately to drive a Model S, but they can't afford a $100k car even if it was free to drive once they owned it. But if they could buy a $50k used Model S with 40k miles on it, they're standing in line and bidding up the prices on those used cars. The used Model S's (and later X's) become the initial version of the Gen 3 in the market if you will
But that's my guess - I don't know that's what will happen, anymore than people generalizing from a Leaf and it's resale to the Model S, without also articulating or understanding all of the ways that its different know what will happen (side disclosure - though I don't drive a Leaf, I love the car and the fact that it exists; I love that I'm seeing more and more of them, and I wish Nissan well with the car).
- - - Updated - - -
Seriously...I have driven my wife's car exactly two times and very begrudgingly since I got my Model S 10,000 miles ago. And she drives my car more than hers now! If someone is not using it as their daily driver, I can't imagine why--either why they bought the car that obviously wasn't a fit, or why they don't love their car as much as they should. As my wife frequently says, "I never understood before when people talked about enjoying driving." My neighbor's kid is always looking for an excuse to ride in my car...that never happened before, and doesn't in most daily drivers...that's what makes this car so great is that it is an exotic, beautiful daily driver that's also cost-effective from a maintenance and "fuel" perspective, environmentally sound, roomy, etc. no compromises other than range, which is 80% addressed for me (Texas) by superchargers.
As an example riceuguy, if I see your name on an article like that, with the understanding that you have of what it's like to drive one of these cars and EV's more broadly - that's when I'll really be paying attention. An important part of my personal investment thesis is that disruption happens to companies and industries that don't "get it".
I haven't seen one of these articles yet.
(Not meaning to pick on you btw - just that I liked what you had to say, and the insight you have about how the changes ripple throughout one's life, so you became my guinea pig

).