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.
Exactly. The story isn't the fake news inside all those articles and Chanos, Speigel et al. gibberish talking points given airtime on the financial "news" networks, the informative story this flood of articles and on air nonsense actually conveys is the phenomena of this massive and wide campaign that involves leaving the public with false negative impressions about Tesla and its products.

We can be a part of raising awareness that each day's slew of media gibberish actually conveys the message "oh, more negative campaigning directed at Tesla" (rather than "oh, Tesla having more problems").

As gene said, please share this video!
I'm waiting for ISIS to drive a tesla into pedestrians. That's how rattled this onslaught has made me feel. I expect everything to get much worse. Tesla is way disruptive to too many interests. Was going to delete this as too harsh but every day is one hit job after another. No pun intended.
 
Last edited:
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: SteveG3 and kbM3
Hello everybody, there are a lot going on on EM`s Twitter right now.

1. AWD costs additional 5K $ and goes 0-60mph to 4.5 sec
2. AWD performance version with options costs 78K $ and goes 0-60 in 3.5 seconds
2. Tesla starts delivering the dual motor Model 3 in July
3. White interior will be available for non-performance models in 3-4 months
 

Attachments

  • musk.jpg
    musk.jpg
    95.1 KB · Views: 58
Hello everybody, there are a lot going on on EM`s Twitter right now.

1. AWD costs additional 5K $ and goes 0-60mph to 4.5 sec
2. AWD performance version with options costs 78K $ and goes 0-60 in 3.5 seconds
2. Tesla starts delivering the dual motor Model 3 in July
3. White interior will be available for non-performance models in 3-4 months

I like the specs and pricing a lot – IMO a great balance between competitiveness, affordability and increasing the (average) profit (per car sold)!
 
How about this: Model 3 ASP in the second half of 2018 may be more than $60,000.

Since Standard Range is now a 2019 story, and P (10% take rate) and D (50%) are around the corner, as well as already popular EAP (80% take rate) and possible FSD-exclusive features in the coming months with the new-and-improved Karpathy-magic neural networks (50% take rate in 2H18 but possibly as high as 80% with a killer feature like even highway-only Level 3 at $3,000), including wheels and premium paint and delivery:

OPTIONS
Enhanced Autopilot: $5,000; 80% take rate
Full Self-Driving: $3,000; 80% take rate as exclusive features roll out
Premium Upgrades Package: $5,000; 50% take rate
Premium Wheels: $1,500 to $4,500; 50% take rate with $2,000 average
Paint: $1,000 to $1,500; 80% take rate with $1,200 average

MODELS
Long Range: $44,000 - 45%
Long Range with Dual: $49,000 - 45%
Performance with Dual: $75,000 - 10%

ASP without options: $49,350
ASP of options: $10,860
ASP: $60,210 excluding $1,000 delivery

Model 3 ASP may be more than $60,000 in 2H18.

Now consider that the ultra-bearish UBS analyst had estimated Model 3 breakeven (not COGS but EBIT-level so including R&D and SG&A expenses) at $41,000 (page 45 of 95) even using $160/kWh battery cost estimate, which is just dumb. His other dumb assumptions include D&A per unit and Warranty Provision per unit, which should be combined $3,000 per unit lower, but to be conservative, let's use his bear-level dumb assumptions.

$60,000 ASP in 2H18 - $41,000 COGS, R&D, SG&A = $19,000 EBIT per Model 3

31.66% EBIT margin in 2H18.

That's better than Apple.

Time to revisit this.

Given pricing announced last night, which was generally in-line with above estimates, and the “1,000/week” data point, I now estimate Model 3 ASP will be closer to $65,000 in 2H18:

Positive variances: PUP take rate remains 100% (+$2,500 impact), and P mix will be ~15% for now (+$3,000 impact).

Negative variance: FSD take rate will likely remain lower than my estimate until exclusive features are announced.

This is quite something.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AZRI11 and bdy0627
Time to revisit this.

Given pricing announced last night, which was generally in-line with above estimates, and the “1,000/week” data point, I now estimate Model 3 ASP will be closer to $65,000 in 2H18:

Positive variances: PUP take rate remains 100% (+$2,500 impact), and P mix will be ~15% for now (+$3,000 impact).

Negative variance: FSD take rate will likely remain lower than my estimate until exclusive features are announced.

This is quite something.
Q3 revenue estimates?

I’d say
3.9 billion Model 3
60,0000 delivered and about 70,000 built.
2.5 billion S/X
30,000 delivered 27,500 built.
400 million TE
Revenue seems to be increasing. Could be higher, but still hard to estimate.
6.8 billion is almost 2016 revenue.
Free cash flow should be at least 500 to 700 million, which is about break even after depreciation costs. Q4 should be closer to 1 billion in free cash flow and 300 to 500 million profit.
We could still be in for a bumpy ride until Q3 earnings. The street won’t seem to quit on the tsla = zero meme. Even then, a good chunk of the street has been predicting Apple’s demise since 2008.
 
Q3 revenue estimates?

I’d say
3.9 billion Model 3
60,0000 delivered and about 70,000 built.
2.5 billion S/X
30,000 delivered 27,500 built.
400 million TE
Revenue seems to be increasing. Could be higher, but still hard to estimate.
6.8 billion is almost 2016 revenue.
Free cash flow should be at least 500 to 700 million, which is about break even after depreciation costs. Q4 should be closer to 1 billion in free cash flow and 300 to 500 million profit.
We could still be in for a bumpy ride until Q3 earnings. The street won’t seem to quit on the tsla = zero meme. Even then, a good chunk of the street has been predicting Apple’s demise since 2008.

Opening of D&P configs, at least to me, signals that sustainable weekly Model 3 production is already approaching 5,000 units. I suspect we may get an announcement to that end at the shareholder meeting. Tesla has repeatedly said in the last year that it will employ software, along with some low CapEx hardware, upgrades to push exiting equipment to beyond 5,000 weekly units, possibly to 7,000. I’m curious to see 3Q production numbers; I think your estimates may prove conservative.
 
Wrong. My post above was a rather universal comment on product development circles and the problems that arise when heavy and costly machinery is required for production.



Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.

Actually it's all pretty effing straight forward: You tore it down and see Tesla's applied design principles in front of you. Every design decision tells you a story; and based on those, you can get a decently complete picture of Tesla's thinking. But what the hell do I know, right? Right? :)

By the way, word on the street here is, that BMW's R&D department was really impressed by what they saw when tearing down their M3. Beside the software, no signs of a "special sauce", though. Hate to brake it to you.



Thanks for letting us know. So, how again are you adding value to this discussion, Sir?


This, and maybe 1k+ apologetic posts in a fan boy forum.


As if anyone would care :rolleyes:

I think this post speaks for itself, no need to respond further.
 
Time to revisit this.

Given pricing announced last night, which was generally in-line with above estimates, and the “1,000/week” data point, I now estimate Model 3 ASP will be closer to $65,000 in 2H18:

Positive variances: PUP take rate remains 100% (+$2,500 impact), and P mix will be ~15% for now (+$3,000 impact).

Negative variance: FSD take rate will likely remain lower than my estimate until exclusive features are announced.

This is quite something.
I tend to agree - somewhere between $60-65,000 looks very likely.
 
The battery was designed to a certain spec, which is made out of maybe hundreds of parameters like cost, weight, storage capacity, rigidity, material availability, etc. Getting those absolutely right, for a new component of such complexity is simply impossible – there are just too many levers.

So here's what you usually do for the initial design: You overspec the critical parameters (eg. safety and storage capacity), while giving others (eg. profitability, etc.) a lower priority. After all, your top priority to get it out ASAP,. Everything else is pretty much highly educated guesswork.

If your lucky and did your job as best as you could, you'll still end up with a breakthrough – like in the case of the M3 pack.


BUT here's the kicker:

As I said before, true profitability – not being 15%, but 50% cheaper than your competitors – often kicks in with later revisions, when they know what fat to trim and what parameters to adjust.

To me it is still unclear, how they'd do pack revisions without affecting the much needed 24/7 production. Major revisions could easily result in multiple weeks of downtime for a production line, and they obviously can't just add new lines for every revision. Even updating lines one-by-one would be a logistical nightmare.

Now, having a breakthrough product at hand doesn't mean it's future proof. As we speak right now, there are hundreds of people around the world reverse-engineering the M3 pack. Let's say, they find some fat to trim and combined with their own expertise, they somehow manage to come up with a pack that's 20% "better" (read: lighter at same rigidity, cheaper, etc.) than what Tesla has now. So when they start to build those reverse-engineered M3 v2 packs in eg. 2021, it's in Teslas best interest to counter those with an even better battery.

R&D wise, TSLA can do it, no doubt. But how do they plan to actually pull those revision-cycles off in the factories is not clear to me. I'm happy to hear everyones thought on this.


The M3 pack is as much a MS pack, as the iPhone 4 was an iPhone 3GS.

Okay, so not only are you second-guessing Tesla's engineering team, but you feel that hardware should be designed iteratively in production, despite various CAD, CFD, and simulator tools available on the market already.

Engineering is indeed about making trade-offs, but the reason good products are re-designed have nothing to do with a lack of optimization. The redesigns are a result of the introduction of new materials or tech, or the addition of new features. Notice how the 18650 battery pack is still the best battery pack out there now, almost a decade after its introduction? The 2170 battery pack came about because of the new cell format that was essentially willed into existance by Tesla.

Your 15%, 50%, and 20% numbers were pulled from thin air and serve no purpose other than to form the foundation for uncertainty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.