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

General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
He “couldn’t do it months ago,” because he was busy with Falcon Heavy.

Who wants to vote again on the comp package?

Its worrisome that anyone would think it should be reversed.

A CEO with real skin in the game...ask yourself how many dollars of shareholder value that is worth to a company like this. To me, it is priceless. I wouldn't be involved in something as risky as a new car company if I was the one shouldering all of the risk & concern while the CEO ended up unscathed, regardless of how the company performs. Giving him additional incentives to stay, work night and day, and make this company into a monster is very appropriate.

Another reason: resolve. Tesla shareholders have great resolve and that vote proves it. Want to know why the short-sellers, haters, etc. hated that vote so much? It shows how big of a wall they are up against. Don't underestimate the hidden value in metrics like this.
 
Just need to speak up here - I know Dana & she's extremely ethical. You may disagree with her articles at time (I do), but she's not anti-Tesla or pro-Tesla. She's a reporter. (And fyi, she's been attacked many many times as being just another Tesla fangirl. Also unfair.)
She may be a nice person, but her reporting on Tesla is demonstrably biased. I have already pointed out some of them over time. Here is one more just today.

As questions swirl about Tesla, Elon Musk sends 'tone-deaf' tweets

Edit: Wow.. she partially quoted Gene Munster’s report to give it a negative spin. Here is the full quote :

kif on Twitter


Worst part is that this lazy FUD gets syndicated beyond Bloomberg like a malignant tumour.
 
Last edited:
The company you're calling into question has a long history of making cars and trucks that people buy. It also makes money and pays a generous dividend. Investors value those things.

The massive shift you mention has yet to be demonstrated. Much as I'm in favor of them, I don't expect EVs to be more than a blip on the radar for a number of years. Companies like Ford have lots of time to get their acts together and not rush something into production.

Many people here point to the low number of Bolts being sold and blame it on a variety of issues. I think GM's intent was to test the waters and learn from their customers what works and what doesn't. Follow-on products produced in volume will incorporate what they hear about the first model. In contrast, for example, Tesla is now committed to the touch-screen interface on the M3 that many people (like me) don't like. I doubt they'll keep it in the MY.

The switch to EVs is not a sprint - it's a long-distance race. The big boys clearly have the financial muscle, manufacturing resources and engineering skills to make the transition while many question if Tesla will be able to stay solvent.
For one, I'm answering a statement that basically says to invest in a company such as Ford or GM on the sole basis of its balance sheet, and some vague promises of being ahead of industry changes. I think it is short sighted. The OP picked GM (and Ford), I did not.

For two, I'm well too aware of the fate of established companies that have been serving customers for decades. They become big, fat, slow cats that at some point will be unable to adapt to change. I'm not arguing about the fact they make millions of vehicles and billions of profits today (after being bankrupt once though), this is fact. I disagree with the implication that because they do so today, they'll be able to do it in the future. Look at Fortune 500 companies 15 years ago and at the list today, how many dozens literally disappeared? GM may in fact survive and even thrive, most established automakers won't.

Then, the 'massive shift to EV'. What's your threshold? Personally, I'm amazed that this year, Tesla will represent 1% of the US auto market (possibly more). That is in units sold, in $ market share it’d probably be at least twice. Add the other EVs ; it may not seem much, but it matters very much to the entire ecosystem. In a market that may not even see growth this year, you have to cope with 1.5% less, which will be 2% or even 3% less next year and so on. By the time you realize it, the most fragile part of this ecosystem will start to collapse, starting with the countryside gas stations, then dealerships, etc. You just don't want to be in a market that is shrinking year after year, it completely changes the rules of the game. Again, if you stick your view to ‘today’, disruption is still very much a blip to many, but in a year or two consequences will start to be visible. I do not share the view that companies have a lot of time to get their act together. That is probably a very common thought in many board rooms – “we have the money (which is true) we’ll figure it out”. It is unlikely because they do not have the software prowess Tesla and few others are developing (ie Waymo), and I haven’t seen anyone coming even close.

Out of the many people that are critical of the Chevy Bolt, count me in. I have the advantage of first-hand experience of owning one that will soon be replaced by a second model 3 – again I’m of the opinion that products do matter. I’d take a Bolt over any other ICE car without thinking too much based on the inherent superiority of an electric powertrain. I’d take the cheapest Tesla to replace it in a heartbeat. The thing with disruptive products is that consumers don’t know what they don’t know. They’ll take the same crappy interface with outdated third party technology and thousands of knobs and buttons like in a brand new Bolt even if it is useless (why a start button?) until they are shown that it doesn’t need to be so complicated. If my grandparents can use an iPhone, anyone can – ask Blackberry. I respect the fact you don’t like the interface of the M3 (do you have one?), I’m surprised about the statement that many dislike it – what is your source?

I don’t find it perfect myself but it already improved 2 times through OTA – something I had to force through a hack and a USB key with the Bolt just to get access to a functioning Android Auto. I’m ready to bet they will double down with the Y – more than likely keep the same.
 
Last edited:
They’ll take the same crappy interface with outdated third party technology and thousands of knobs and buttons like in a brand new Bolt even if it is useless (why a start button?) until they are shown that it doesn’t need to be so complicated. If my grandparents can use an iPhone, anyone can – ask Blackberry. I respect the fact you don’t like the interface of the M3 (do you have one?), I’m surprised about the statement that many dislike it – what is your source?

To this point -- I'm a UX designer and spend a lot of time using software tools, but I must admit that the Model 3's screen-centric controls felt a bit eye watering in the first 12 hours. Now, after driving the car for a week, the screen controls feel completely intuitive and more powerful than a traditional dash. I'm not missing banks of buttons and knobs in the least. It feels like moving from the control systems of the Millennium Falcon (steam punk, banging on things to get them to work) to the bridge of Picard's Enterprise (efficient, sleek, adaptable). Basically, switching to Model 3 is an iPhone transition -- it takes some getting used to, but once you do, you'll never go back.
 
They’ll take the same crappy interface with outdated third party technology and thousands of knobs and buttons like in a brand new Bolt even if it is useless (why a start button?) until they are shown that it doesn’t need to be so complicated. If my grandparents can use an iPhone, anyone can – ask Blackberry.

I don’t find it perfect myself but it already improved 2 times through OTA – something I had to force through a hack and a USB key with the Bolt just to get access to a functioning Android Auto. I’m ready to bet they will double down with the Y – more than likely keep the same.

Thank you. Why does the Bolt have a start button??

Also why does BMW I-drive exist, but that can be another topic
 
As critical as the M3 ramp in Q1 is, I think as long term investors we need to be mindful why it's critical. M3 ramp is important because it helps Tesla achieve high margin on M3 at high volume, which enables Tesla to continue growing.

So here's some some good news on Tesla M3 margin:

Tesla Model 3 Competitive Advantage — Costs ~$10,000 Less To Make Than Chevy Bolt | CleanTechnica

‘Analysis’ that is stil peddling the $9000 nummer for the bolt, especially when comparing it with marginal cost basis for the 3 is not even worth the paper it is written on. And this one doesn’t even come on paper.
 
Jamie Albertine Consumer Edge Research:

Analyst: Tesla is going to have 'a very good year'

“[Tesla] is the most highly contested stock in the auto industry, it is the most highly debated technology stock out there. Shorts are well aware that there is this catalyst that’s coming, that might be a positive catalyst, so there’s no surprise that all these negative news is swarming ahead of that catalyst.”

He hit it right on the bullseye. Shorts know their days are numbered.

Jamie Albertine also concluded that the M3 ramp will determine all of Tesla’s cash needs, if it goes well then Tesla will have a very good year ahead. Even if Tesla makes 2,500/ week in the coming month, then Tesla will be very close to where they need to be. Watch the interview...

He also stated "I don't intend on changing our target price until we know more about the Model 3.”

They have an overweight rating of $385 PT on Tesla!
 
‘Analysis’ that is stil peddling the $9000 nummer for the bolt, especially when comparing it with marginal cost basis for the 3 is not even worth the paper it is written on. And this one doesn’t even come on paper.
I'd be interested in any newer updates on the Bolt cost/margin just out of curiosity. As a Tesla investor, I'm linking it for the purpose of looking at M3 margin.
 
I'd be interested in any newer updates on the Bolt cost/margin just out of curiosity. As a Tesla investor, I'm linking it for the purpose of looking at M3 margin.

Here you go. I know it’s from reddit but the logic is right. Basically loss is less than $9000 and to compare with model 3 you need to add back over $1500 in sg&a, $5500 in dealer incentives and $7500 in R&D because Tesla excludes all those from gross profit but drops them in OpEx.

Model 3 line now producing 50% more cars per day than the Chevy Bolt line. • r/teslamotors
 
Maybe these are the reasons Shorts weren’t able to push Tesla AH as it rebounded a bit:

This analyst has a 'hold' rating on Tesla

Gene Munster weighs in: The worst still to come for Tesla?
Here you go. I know it’s from reddit but the logic is right. Basically loss is less than $9000 and to compare with model 3 you need to add back over $1500 in sg&a, $5500 in dealer incentives and $7500 in R&D because Tesla excludes all those from gross profit but drops them in OpEx.

Model 3 line now producing 50% more cars per day than the Chevy Bolt line. • r/teslamotors


Isn’t opening new showrooms, service centers and superchargers part of the OpEx for Tsla? If so the initial cost might be high, but it allows them to expand and saves them the dealer fees.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: 1 person
Here is the description my bank uses for Tesla:

Business Description
Founded in 2003 and based in Palo Alto, California, Tesla is a vertically integrated sustainable energy company that also aims to transition the world to electric mobility by making electric vehicles. It sells solar panels and solar roofs for energy generation plus batteries for stationary storage for residential and commercial properties including utilities.

It is NOT a car company !!! :eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacRocket
She may be a nice person, but her reporting on Tesla is demonstrably biased. I have already pointed out some of them over time. Here is one more just today.

As questions swirl about Tesla, Elon Musk sends 'tone-deaf' tweets

Edit: Wow.. she partially quoted Gene Munster’s report to give it a negative spin. Here is the full quote :

kif on Twitter


Worst part is that this lazy FUD gets syndicated beyond Bloomberg like a malignant tumour.
She may be a nice person, but her reporting on Tesla is demonstrably biased. I have already pointed out some of them over time. Here is one more just today.

As questions swirl about Tesla, Elon Musk sends 'tone-deaf' tweets

Edit: Wow.. she partially quoted Gene Munster’s report to give it a negative spin. Here is the full quote :

kif on Twitter


Worst part is that this lazy FUD gets syndicated beyond Bloomberg like a malignant tumour.

Holy cow! I read the article in full and only now noticed that Dana actually split Munster’s quote into two parts and pasted them in different sections of the article .. the first part taken out of context to spin it negatively is at the beginning of the article and the second part where Gene speaks positively about Tesla is at the tail end of the article where few people will have noticed.

This is deliberate douchebaggery, not journalism.
 
Isn’t opening new showrooms, service centers and superchargers part of the OpEx for Tsla? If so the initial cost might be high, but it allows them to expand and saves them the dealer fees.

The exercise is to take away those expenses so we can compare like-for-like production costs for different models. Besides, SG&A is mostly recurrent. Salaries, rents for the showrooms, maintenance on the superchargers (it is unclear how much of that is SG&A), updating marketing material, .... There is very little 'investment' there. And yes, it allows Tesla to save on dealer profit (which is very little anyway on straight sales) but at the scale Tesla is currently operating, those savings are fully swallowed by the expense of maintaining a sales and service infrastructure nearly everywhere even if 2 months out of 3 it isn't used at capacity.
 
As critical as the M3 ramp in Q1 is, I think as long term investors we need to be mindful why it's critical. M3 ramp is important because it helps Tesla achieve high margin on M3 at high volume, which enables Tesla to continue growing.

So here's some some good news on Tesla M3 margin:

Tesla Model 3 Competitive Advantage — Costs ~$10,000 Less To Make Than Chevy Bolt | CleanTechnica

I usually like that outlet, but that was a poor article based on circular logic.

Holy cow! I read the article in full and only now noticed that Dana actually split Munster’s quote into two parts and pasted them in different sections of the article .. the first part taken out of context to spin it negatively is at the beginning of the article and the second part where Gene speaks positively about Tesla is at the tail end of the article where few people will have noticed.

This is deliberate douchebaggery, not journalism.

Please stop dismissing everything that contradicts Elon says. Journalists and shorts/bears have been right about nearly everything in the last year, despite Elon telling us otherwise. Besides the endless production bottlenecks and surprisingly slow autopilot development, the stock has trailed Nasdaq by 50 percent in three quarters. Maybe you should read what the journalists say more closely. Maybe Elon should too.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.