Blatant tilt on sales figures (to aid shorts?)

believe it or not but California is not the center of the universe and there are many others states and countries on this planet alone.

Q1 and Q2 are basically the same
Q2 and Q3 difference is due to shipping to Europe
Q3 and Q4 are basically the same

 

That's it? 2.55% (47!) fewer registrations in CA durig a period in which they were focused on European deliveries and had declared capacity constraints? Panic!

What's really funny is that a journalist could alternatively say "Tesla Californian Sales Trend Improves Again In Q4" or "Charged Car Company Curtails Cali Collapse". I mean, at this rate of improvement, Q1 2014 should be way higher.

Click bait.

 

Believe it or not CA is critical to the success of Tesla. Not only is CA 11% of the overall US auto market but 48% of the overall American BEV market. IF sales were trending down AND Tesla were demand constrained it would be a very bad sign.

 

This. I don't find that these numbers necessarily indicate anything. The difference is minimal and easily explained. Nothing to see here…

 

Sales down does not = demand down. Sales are down in CA because Tesla is choosing to sell more of their cars in other markets. They could easily sell more in each quarter in CA if they wanted to, but that wouldn't make sense as it would just make wait times longer in other important markets.

 

The explanation is SIMPLE: tesla chose to DELIVER a higher percentage of their production to other markets.

DELIVERIES in CA is NOT a reliable indicator of DEMAND in CA

No one except tesla knows what Tesla's order book looks like for any geographies.

My view is that demand in ALL markets continues to grow.

 

there was a backlog in CA just as there was everywhere...Tesla wanted to sell as many as possible in CA early to take advantage of ZEV credits...ongoing demand (new reservations per week from new people who were not aware of Tesla before one year ago) is still increasing very steadily everywhere.

 

I had read this article earlier today and dismissed it. This is an example how you can manipulate or misinterpret numbers to make them fit your preordained outcome. This author wants to show that there is decreasing demand for the model S. So, instead of looking at it objectively he has chosen to ignore the business plan that TM has implemented. Take advantage of the state where you are located and has the highest tax credits, California. Then, establish a sales plan in the US and Canada (local). Then introduce your product in Europe and China where there are tax and/or environmental incentives to maximize penetration of your brand and all EVs.

As someone else pointed out: TM is supply constrained worldwide. TM ultimately cares that the world goes to EV transportation. What nationality the buyer is does not matter. Worldwide sales and demand are rising.

 

The SA author (Paulo Santos) has been saying for about 6 months that US demand has peaked. He continues to make the same logical error (demand=deliveries) no matter how many times (at least 4 digits) it is pointed out to him in the comments that Tesla is production-constrained and is "starving" US customers to deliver elsewhere. Paulo clearly understands this fact (which was stated in the last ER call) yet he continues to repeat his FUD. I will never click on another article by him.

 

Oh, I have another one: Look at Norway! They were at more than 600 units in September and less than 100 in October !1!one!!eleven (according to this here). Clearly, it is not just CA, it is also Europe....

And then, when the China deliveries start, let's go out and claim that US & European demand collapses etc.

In reality, it's quite amazing that even well over one year after the first deliveries you find used Teslas being sold at prices higher than the new Teslas. So people seem to be happy to pay a premium just to avoid the wait. This does not seem like a collapse in demand to me.

 

I would be very cautious in trotting out this argument. The "study" that reached this conclusion did not compare the original sales price to the resale price of a particular car, but only looked at averages. If the cars being resold were heavily optioned, then each resale could have been at a lower price than the original purchase price, while it still being true that the average (new) sale price was lower than the average resale price.