How much more damage will Remarketing do to Tesla sales before they figure it out?!?

[TSLA Pilot]

I played with KBB and Edmunds and they both came back at about 95k on my pre refresh P90DL. Like you, I have every option except rear facing seats. Having bought and sold many cars in my life, this is about what I would expect from a dealer trade in. I'm not saying that either of these two sites are an authority on used car pricing but they do trend near what a dealer would normally offer in trade. If Tesla were to offer me 100k I would feel pretty good about it.

I'm sure this isn't your point.

Should Tesla offer me more than dealer trade? maybe even the same price in trade as they would sell the vehicle for? I don't know any other business that would accept a loss on both ends of the deal in the name of increasing sales volume. The mission is to bring sustainable transportation to everyone. But the company is publicly traded and shareholder value is #1. This means they need to have a path to profitability and this probably doesn't include eating the cost of the CPO program.

There is no doubt that Tesla could benefit from a better business process. The CPO program is no exception. But Tesla never set out to fix the used car business. It seems that they have a CPO business only because they need to. It also seems unlikely that they will solve the problem unless they spin off CPO or partner with a company like CarMax. Neither seem like something that will happen.

The best thing you could probably do is sell the car yourself. this puts your car directly into the hands of a new owner and you get to determine the value (mostly). In this way, you are directly helping the mission and not trying to put the onus on the manufacturer to solve all problems for you.

Nope, not quite on point.

I live in a state where we get 100% credit for the trade-in on sales taxes. Thus, it behoves us to trade it in given the check I wrote to our county tax assessor when I purchased the car. That's huge as it's money that Tesla could use to induce me to upgrade to a P100D or a heavily optioned 90D; it is squandered if I private party sale our P90DL.

Tesla is not like other brands--per Elon's decree, the price of the new Tesla is effectively set in stone. That price, even if slightly discounted for an inventory car, generates the cash flow that keeps the lights on. It is key to Tesla's (and TSLA's long-term price increase) success.

For arguments sake, let's speculate/assume the GM on a loaded P100D is $40,000. If they give me a $105,000 for our 18-month old P90DL, and then Tesla sells it (very incompetently, as can be seen on Tesla.com) for $100,000, they still net $35,000. Let's step down to a heavily optioned 90D with a "guestimate" GM of half of a P100D, or $20,000. They still come out $15,000 ahead, AND in either case, there is another new, sold Model S in the world.

There appears to be production capacity at Fremont that is unused; if so, this is unacceptable as we have a planet to save. Even at 500,000 units per year, we would still be a fraction of 1% of the global market, just to give you an idea of the scale of the problem before us. Every production slot at Fremont needs to be filled, and every Tesla made needs to be sold and displace the sale of another ICE vehicle. (First Rule of Holes: When in one, STOP DIGGING.)

As stated earlier, Tesla needs to target market these CPO/Trade-In Teslas to people that understand Tesla, want a Tesla, but think they can't afford one. They can. One place to start: long-term, low-interest loans for employees. This gets the cars they built into their own hands--reminds me of Henry Ford. Next step: 1st tier supplier employees. Next step: 2nd tier supplier employees. Next step: EPA, and various state equivalent, employee groups. Next step: Sierra Club, other non-profit organization employee groups. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit here and it's frustrating to see Teslas ending up on used car "mega dealers" like these guys--only eight showing up tonight, but sometimes it's in the teens or twenties:

Get WOW'd at Texas Direct Auto!

When they end up here, or at other used car dealers, it means Tesla re-marketing failed.

Assuming many or all of these were Tesla's cars (and I'd suspect they were), Tesla probably lost their shirt on these at some wholesale auction, getting only a fraction of the price that TDA is selling them for (WITH REAL PICTURES OF THE ACTUAL CARS--Wow, imagine that!?). So why not take some control of the used Tesla market by working a little harder and selling them to people that might pay more than the wholesale auction price, especially with creative financing that would fit very well with their "known quantity" employees, and would also very much want a Tesla at a good price?

There's more to this, but this basic summary sounds like win-win to me.

Again, very good things happen at Tesla if they can get more of us on an "iPhone-like" trade in cycle, but to make it work requires an entirely new approach to marketing CPO Teslas.

p.s. Could also see a scenario where a Tesla trade-in's value is on a graduated scale, maxing out if you pony up for a P100D, and only slightly stepped up if you're buying an MS 60 . . . this could be fun to experiment with.

 

[carter_seattle]

The plain truth ... hope the original poster reads this

Lol. Of course he read it. He's read 100% of these posts and responded to 90% of them. Will he be persuaded and change his mind?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[St Charles]

Nope, not quite on point.

I live in a state where we get 100% credit for the trade-in on sales taxes. Thus, it behoves us to trade it in given the check I wrote to our county tax assessor when I purchased the car. That's huge as it's money that Tesla could use to induce me to upgrade to a P100D or a heavily optioned 90D; it is squandered if I private party sale our P90DL.

Tesla is not like other brands--per Elon's decree, the price of the new Tesla is effectively set in stone. That price, even if slightly discounted for an inventory car, generates the cash flow that keeps the lights on. It is key to Tesla's (and TSLA's long-term price increase) success.

For arguments sake, let's speculate/assume the GM on a loaded P100D is $40,000. If they give me a $105,000 for our 18-month old P90DL, and then Tesla sells it (very incompetently, as can be seen on Tesla.com) for $100,000, they still net $35,000. Let's step down to a heavily optioned 90D with a "guestimate" GM of half of a P100D, or $20,000. They still come out $15,000 ahead, AND in either case, there is another new, sold Model S in the world.

There appears to be production capacity at Fremont that is unused; if so, this is unacceptable as we have a planet to save. Even at 500,000 units per year, we would still be a fraction of 1% of the global market, just to give you an idea of the scale of the problem before us. Every production slot at Fremont needs to be filled, and every Tesla made needs to be sold and displace the sale of another ICE vehicle. (First Rule of Holes: When in one, STOP DIGGING.)

As stated earlier, Tesla needs to target market these CPO/Trade-In Teslas to people that understand Tesla, want a Tesla, but think they can't afford one. They can. One place to start: long-term, low-interest loans for employees. This gets the cars they built into their own hands--reminds me of Henry Ford. Next step: 1st tier supplier employees. Next step: 2nd tier supplier employees. Next step: EPA, and various state equivalent, employee groups. Next step: Sierra Club, other non-profit organization employee groups. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit here and it's frustrating to see Teslas ending up on used car "mega dealers" like these guys--only eight showing up tonight, but sometimes it's in the teens or twenties:

Get WOW'd at Texas Direct Auto!

When they end up here, or at other used car dealers, it means Tesla re-marketing failed.

Assuming many or all of these were Tesla's cars (and I'd suspect they were), Tesla probably lost their shirt on these at some wholesale auction, getting only a fraction of the price that TDA is selling them for (WITH REAL PICTURES OF THE ACTUAL CARS--Wow, imagine that!?). So why not take some control of the used Tesla market by working a little harder and selling them to people that might pay more than the wholesale auction price, especially with creative financing that would fit very well with their "known quantity" employees, and would also very much want a Tesla at a good price?

There's more to this, but this basic summary sounds like win-win to me.

Again, very good things happen at Tesla if they can get more of us on an "iPhone-like" trade in cycle, but to make it work requires an entirely new approach to marketing CPO Teslas.

p.s. Could also see a scenario where a Tesla trade-in's value is on a graduated scale, maxing out if you pony up for a P100D, and only slightly stepped up if you're buying an MS 60 . . . this could be fun to experiment with.

Perhaps you should just keep your car.

 

[SpiceWare]

Lol. Of course he read it. He's read 100% of these posts and responded to 90% of them. Will he be persuaded and change his mind?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

I know, I bust out laughing when I read "And then there are those whose minds are made up and who can't be bothered with facts"

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Perhaps you should just keep your car.

Am very likely to do so having just made a spirited run to the post office in our P90DL yesterday. It's really a great car. Frankly, the "do nothing" default position is not a bad place to be . . . . Plus, I'll be refinancing to another loan going from 1.24% APR to 1.49% APR, if I end up buying a new Tesla, and I much prefer cheap money to "less cheap" money.

But remaining with our current car is a major part of the problem for Tesla: unused capacity at Fremont; unsold Teslas. IT IS THE LOSE/LOSE OUTCOME, the outcome that all of us are trying to avoid.

In case you missed this from the last conference call, deliveries were down 10%, while production was down 1%, QoQ.

Introduction | Tesla Motors

Granted, it's a smallish snapshot, but it is a problem on many levels. First, TSLA is a "growth company" stock. Very, very bad things happen to the stock price if growth stalls, and very, very bad things happen to the planet if Tesla fails.

Since this is our only planet, well, we are all for Tesla succeeding, hence our purchase of about six of MS's thus far (among the family at large).

And, with the caveat that we only have a sliver of the "big picture" here in the world outside of Tesla HQ, but I posit the following, repeating what should be obvious but is apparently not:

PART 1:

IT WOULD BE FAR BETTER FOR TESLA TO MAKE A NET $35K OR $15K PROFIT ON THE SALE OF NEW TESLA, RATHER THAN NOT MAKE THE SALE AT ALL. Breaking-even or even losing money on the trade-in is well worth it to Tesla as it all hinges on the sale of new Teslas.

Part 2:

Fix the remarkably broken CPO program to boost the value of used Teslas by marketing them correctly versus dumping them via wholesale, dealer-only, used car auctions.

Given the generally high level of discourse commonly found on these threads, I find it hard to understand why this concept is so obtuse for so many.

 

[St Charles]

Am very likely to do so having just made a spirited run to the post office in our P90DL yesterday. It's really a great car. Frankly, the "do nothing" default position is not a bad place to be . . . . Plus, I'll be refinancing to another loan going from 1.24% APR to 1.49% APR, if I end up buying a new Tesla, and I much prefer cheap money to "less cheap" money.

Sounds like this is the correct decision.

But remaining with our current car is a major part of the problem for Tesla: unused capacity at Fremont; unsold Teslas. IT IS THE LOSE/LOSE OUTCOME, the outcome that all of us are trying to avoid.

In case you missed this from the last conference call, deliveries were down 10%, while production was down 1%, QoQ.

You keep bringing this up as if there was only one explanation, yours. Several others on this thread and elsewhere have put forth other explanations:

1. Capacity restrictions (problems with building cars)
2. Supplier difficulty (inability to obtain necessary parts)

Unless, you have some evidence to present then your interpretation is no more valid than others. I will put my own interpretation in the ring. Since delivery estimates are still two months after order date, combined with other factors like mandatory overtime for employees, the problem is far more likely due to supplier and assembly constraints. If I were an investor, I would be much more concerned with these problems over a possible drop in orders.

PART 1:

IT WOULD BE FAR BETTER FOR TESLA TO MAKE A NET $35K OR $15K PROFIT ON THE SALE OF NEW TESLA, RATHER THAN NOT MAKE THE SALE AT ALL. Breaking-even or even losing money on the trade-in is well worth it to Tesla as it all hinges on the sale of new Teslas.

MBA-101: Don't do things that aren't profitable. It does not make sense to operate an entire business unit at a loss in the name of profitability from another business unit. It makes far more sense to make the failing business unit profitable. Your "Part 2" directly states this and is in complete opposition to your ask of Tesla.

Part 2:

Fix the remarkably broken CPO program to boost the value of used Teslas by marketing them correctly versus dumping them via wholesale, dealer-only, used car auctions.

See above. The CPO business will never be profitable if it is taking a loss in trade-in AND a loss at sale. You can not ask Tesla to take a loss on your trade and simultaneously expect the business unit to turn a profit. This is a contradiction of ideas.

Again, it is to yours and Teslas advantage for you to sell your car privately. Your state is trying to level the playing field by offering a tax incentive for vehicle trade-in situations. Evaluate your current financial situation and options then choose what makes the most sense to you.

Given the generally high level of discourse commonly found on these threads, I find it hard to understand why this concept is so obtuse for so many.

Obtuse, huh.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

MBA-101: Don't do things that aren't profitable. It does not make sense to operate an entire business unit at a loss in the name of profitability from another business unit. It makes far more sense to make the failing business unit profitable. Your "Part 2" directly states this and is in complete opposition to your ask of Tesla.

But it is not that simple, is it.

Just consider the razorblade business model. See, there is even a name for it. Or the loss leader products in retail to get people into your store. The idea that you sell something at zero margin or a loss, to make more money overall, is nothing new (in this case, sell the trade-in at a loss to get the lucrative new car sale - instead of no sale at all).

Now, Tesla is obviously well within their rights to say this is not their choice for handling trade-ins, but @TSLA Pilot 's suggestion is not unfathomable from a business strategy point of view at all. It makes perfect sense from a sales promotional perspective.

Which is better for Tesla is of course debateable.

 

[St Charles]

But it is not that simple, is it.

Just consider the razorblade business model. See, there is even a name for it. Or the loss leader products in retail to get people into your store. The idea that you sell something at zero margin or a loss, to make more money overall, is nothing new (in this case, sell the trade-in at a loss to get the lucrative new car sale - instead of no sale at all).

Now, Tesla is obviously well within their rights to say this is not their choice for handling trade-ins, but @TSLA Pilot 's suggestion is not unfathomable from a business strategy point of view at all. It makes perfect sense from a sales promotional perspective.

Which is better for Tesla is of course debateable.

You are applying a business model where it doesn't make sense. Losing $1.00 on a toy in order to capture $100's of additional sales is not even close to the same as losing thousands to make thousands. The scale of the problem does not justify the margin loss per transaction. This is to say nothing about the additional encumbrance to the CPO system.

Before you respond, keep in mind Tesla already tried something like this and discontinued the program. Ask yourself why they would discontinue a program if it was working? If this model was profitable, why wouldn't every major car dealership in America be doing it?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

You are applying a business model where it doesn't make sense. Losing $1.00 on a toy in order to capture $100's of additional sales is not even close to the same as losing thousands to make thousands. The scale of the problem does not justify the margin loss per transaction. This is to say nothing about the additional encumbrance to the CPO system.

It makes no difference if we are talking about pennies or thousands, when the scope of the sale remains relative. And remember, unlike the loss leader in the store or the razor blade or printer which make losses (where there is no guarantee the customer ever buys the profitable other items), the car trade-in by nature guarantees the follow-up purchase that makes the profit.

In the trade-in scenario, Tesla overall would not make a loss at all, they would simply make less profit on the overall transaction (minus trade-in loss, plus new car profit), offset by the fact that they might make more transactions - thus in absolute terms they might make more money because there would be more sales. There is nothing unreasonable or unrealistic about this as a theory IMO.

Why would it make any difference to Tesla where they make the profit, in the trade-in, or the in the new car, if some optimization would allow them to overall make more money?

This is me talking the theory. I am interested in understanding why this could not work in theory? We can leave our belief or whether or not it works for Tesla out of it, because I have no opinion on that. I do not know. I am just discussing different business tactics and concepts and see nothing fundamentally weird about @TSLA Pilot 's idea from that perspective.

Before you respond, keep in mind Tesla already tried something like this and discontinued the program. Ask yourself why they would discontinue a program if it was working? If this model was profitable, why wouldn't every major car dealership in America be doing it?

Apples and oranges. What Tesla discontinued was effectively a multi-year, long-term price guarantee. The risks involved in that are quite different compared to a trade-in valuation at a much closer pre-determined date (say a few months from today instead of years), where the follow-up new car sale (with its hefty mark-up) is also a guaranteed part of the deal.

Mind you, I am not saying Tesla should do what @TSLA Pilot suggests. I am not saying it would be the best for Tesla. I do not know. Maybe it would be, maybe it would not be. What I do know is, the suggestion is perfectly reasonable. I don't think we can dismiss the idea with any business 101. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea in its own right.

Its effectiveness and suitability, though, are debatable as ever.

Business, including pricing, is always a balancing act. Rarely is there one good strategy, let alone a universally good strategy.

 

[St Charles]

It makes no difference if we are talking about pennies or thousands, when the scope of the sale remains relative. And remember, unlike the loss leader in the store or the razor blade or printer which make losses (where there is no guarantee the customer ever buys the profitable other items), the car trade-in by nature guarantees the follow-up purchase that makes the profit.

In the trade-in scenario, Tesla overall would not make a loss at all, they would simply make less profit on the overall transaction (minus trade-in loss, plus new car profit), offset by the fact that they might make more transactions - thus in absolute terms they might make more money because there would be more sales. There is nothing unreasonable or unrealistic about this as a theory IMO.

Why would it make any difference to Tesla where they make the profit, in the trade-in, or the in the new car, if some optimization would allow them to overall make more money?

This is me talking the theory. I am interested in understanding why this could not work in theory? We can leave our belief or whether or not it works for Tesla out of it, because I have no opinion on that. I do not know. I am just discussing different business tactics and concepts and see nothing fundamentally weird about @TSLA Pilot 's idea from that perspective.



Apples and oranges. What Tesla discontinued was effectively a multi-year, long-term price guarantee. The risks involved in that are quite different compared to a trade-in valuation at a much closer pre-determined date (say a few months from today instead of years), where the follow-up new car sale (with its hefty mark-up) is also a guaranteed part of the deal.

Mind you, I am not saying Tesla should do what @TSLA Pilot suggests. I am not saying it would be the best for Tesla. I do not know. Maybe it would be, maybe it would not be. What I do know is, the suggestion is perfectly reasonable. I don't think we can dismiss the idea with any business 101. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea in its own right.

Its effectiveness and suitability, though, are debatable as ever.

Business, including pricing, is always a balancing act. Rarely is there one good strategy, let alone a universally good strategy.

If you want to talk in a theoretical world where anything is possible then, sure, your strategy will work. But talking in theories is not worth debate. Look up Alders Razor.

There is one final element that has not been addressed. the OP had a specific valuation of his car in mind. The initial point of the debate was that Tesla did not agree to that valuation. There is no accepted universal valuation service that everyone subscribes to. Thus, it will never actually be possible to execute on any of the above discussion, theoretical or not. In other words, just because the OP thinks his car is worth X does not make it so.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If you want to talk in a theoretical world where anything is possible then, sure, your strategy will work. But talking in theories is not worth debate. Look up Alders Razor.

Then there would be no point in discussing anything in Tesla's business because only Tesla is in a position to experiment with it. I do not think I would agree with that line of thinking.

This seems like a reasonable line of speculation and business thesis development - what pricing models work and with what results... I am just sticking to talking models, not Tesla. @TSLA Pilot did the latter.

There is one final element that has not been addressed. the OP had a specific valuation of his car in mind. The initial point of the debate was that Tesla did not agree to that valuation. There is no accepted universal valuation service that everyone subscribes to. Thus, it will never actually be possible to execute on any of the above discussion, theoretical or not. In other words, just because the OP thinks his car is worth X does not make it so.

It is quite true that even if Tesla overvalued their trade-in offers, some would not believe or know it. However, certainly it would not be impossible for Tesla to exceed their internal valuation/expected re-sale price for the trade-in.

Also, I think the concensus is Tesla currently is not doing that. Were they to do so over time, educated concensus amongst the community would likely follow as we'd see cars appearing for re-sale at less than Tesla paid us - then most would know...

Again it does not sound impossible to me. Just another pricing model.

 

[St Charles]

Then there would be no point in discussing anything in Tesla's business because only Tesla is in a position to experiment with it. I do not think I would agree with that line of thinking.

This seems like a reasonable line of speculation and business thesis development - what pricing models work and with what results... I am just sticking to talking models, not Tesla. @TSLA Pilot did the latter.

Again, if this business model actually worked then high volume car dealerships would already be doing it. The fact that they aren't is very strong evidence that this model does not work in the real world. "In theory" is a lame attempt to validate an argument.

It is quite true that even if Tesla overvalued their trade-in offers, some would not believe or know it. However, certainly it would not be impossible for Tesla to exceed their internal valuation/expected re-sale price for the trade-in.

Also, I think the concensus is Tesla currently is not doing that. Were they to do so over time, educated concensus amongst the community would likely follow as we'd see cars appearing for re-sale at less than Tesla paid us - then most would know...

Again it does not sound impossible to me. Just another pricing model.

No, we wouldn't know because that would require a standard for valuation. Since no such thing exists, there is no way to define the parameters.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Again, if this business model actually worked then high volume car dealerships would already be doing it. The fact that they aren't is very strong evidence that this model does not work in the real world. "In theory" is a lame attempt to validate an argument.

St. Charles,

Really? Your post is similar to others--just "OP is wrong; Tesla knows best" BS without any discussion of the facts we have before us.

What evidence could you possibly suggest that Telsa's CPO Model works? Let's list the areas where it appears rather broken instead:

1. Garbage search engine that has others (if they can be found by non-Teslaratis) like EV-CPO.com and others doing it for them.

2. Terrible trade in values that drive loyal customers to either sit on their cars, or to simply trade elsewhere so they can go to other brands.

3. Not a SINGLE FRIGGIN' picture of the actual car that's on offer.

4. Random "flushes" of inventory into the hands to internet used-car Mega stores at you-don't-want-to-know-how-low-prices.

It's a mess, by any measure, and we don't have access to the real numbers.

Tesla CPO Marketing is a TOOL TO INCREASE THE SALES OF NEW TESLAS. Yet Tesla Remarketing appears to be treated as some backwater run by interns from liberal arts colleges studying basket weaving and/or Martian Studies, and it shows.

As for your assertion that somehow, after all these years of production the assembly of new Teslas was held up by parts delays and the like is very, very hard to swallow. IF that had been the case, you'd have heard all about it on the conference call or in the letter; no such references were made.

Deliveries are likely down because we're approaching saturation of the original markets, hence the critical importance of attracting the truly faithful, like us, to step up any buy another one. (And this also explains why Tesla is expanding into ever more exotic and thin markets: Dubai, Russia, Portugal, Korea . . . let's just say they're trying hard, but missing the low-hanging fruit that's already written six-figure checks: their previous buyers!)

There's a whole 'nother barely tapped market for the CPO Teslas and it's long past time for Tesla to step up and get that market serviced because it helps sell new Teslas which is the name of the game.

Look, I love Tesla as much as the next guy, perhaps more given the number we've purchased, but I call out stupid when I see it. What we have here sure looks like "just plain stupid" and it needs fixing. I'm sorry that so many Tesla Fanbois feelings are hurt, but better to get this out in the open now, and address it sooner rather than later because these things don't get better with time.

In the interim, let's hear some better explanations as to why deliveries are down, things that might be plausible for a change perhaps?

 

[TSLA Pilot]

There is one final element that has not been addressed. the OP had a specific valuation of his car in mind. The initial point of the debate was that Tesla did not agree to that valuation. There is no accepted universal valuation service that everyone subscribes to. Thus, it will never actually be possible to execute on any of the above discussion, theoretical or not. In other words, just because the OP thinks his car is worth X does not make it so.

Again, your comment is of very limited relevance. I suggested, and will remind you again, that even if "my" P90DL trade in valuation was off from "true market value" by a full $20,000, does it matter if I'm buying a P100D for $162,000 with a GM of $40,000?!?

No, it doesn't.

What matters is the total profit made on the deal, with some intangible, long-term benefit attached to growing sales at a "growth stock" like TSLA, plus whatever ancillary profits are made over the life of the (service contracts, tires, maintenance, parts, etc.). It's all about selling new Teslas. Period.

I'm really warming up to the idea of staggered trade in values where customers are rewarded for buying a high-margin, highly-optioned model vs. a Model 3 or a strippo MS/MX. Sounds like a win-win to me.

It's just one of the dozen or so ideas it would be impressive to see Tesla experiment with, but instead we live with a lame search engine, no pictures of the actual CPO cars that are for sale, and a status quo which insults customers (and OA's as well), when they try to trade in a Tesla to Tesla. OA's hate it, and we all should if we care about Tesla. It's dumb and I hate it when otherwise smart people do dumb things.

Don't you?

p.s. By the way, if you were to park a base, no option, MS 60 next to a loaded P100D, and examine the nearly $100,000 spread between the two cars, I think you'd agree the GM on the P100D may even be more than $40,000 . . . . Can you see why the sale of new P100D's, and other high-margin cars, is so important to Tesla's future? It's what keeps the lights on and the stock price up. Saving the planet? That's just gravy.

 

[St Charles]

St. Charles,

Really? Your post is similar to others--just "OP is wrong; Tesla knows best" BS without any discussion of the facts we have before us.

What evidence could you possibly suggest that Telsa's CPO Model works? Let's list the areas where it appears rather broken instead:

1. Garbage search engine that has others (if they can be found by non-Teslaratis) like EV-CPO.com and others doing it for them.

2. Terrible trade in values that drive loyal customers to either sit on their cars, or to simply trade elsewhere so they can go to other brands.

3. Not a SINGLE FRIGGIN' picture of the actual car that's on offer.

4. Random "flushes" of inventory into the hands to internet used-car Mega stores at you-don't-want-to-know-how-low-prices.

It's a mess, by any measure, and we don't have access to the real numbers.

Tesla CPO Marketing is a TOOL TO INCREASE THE SALES OF NEW TESLAS. Yet Tesla Remarketing appears to be treated as some backwater run by interns from liberal arts colleges studying basket weaving and/or Martian Studies, and it shows.

As for your assertion that somehow, after all these years of production the assembly of new Teslas was held up by parts delays and the like is very, very hard to swallow. IF that had been the case, you'd have heard all about it on the conference call or in the letter; no such references were made.

Deliveries are likely down because we're approaching saturation of the original markets, hence the critical importance of attracting the truly faithful, like us, to step up any buy another one. (And this also explains why Tesla is expanding into ever more exotic and thin markets: Dubai, Russia, Portugal, Korea . . . let's just say they're trying hard, but missing the low-hanging fruit that's already written six-figure checks: their previous buyers!)

There's a whole 'nother barely tapped market for the CPO Teslas and it's long past time for Tesla to step up and get that market serviced because it helps sell new Teslas which is the name of the game.

Look, I love Tesla as much as the next guy, perhaps more given the number we've purchased, but I call out stupid when I see it. What we have here sure looks like "just plain stupid" and it needs fixing. I'm sorry that so many Tesla Fanbois feelings are hurt, but better to get this out in the open now, and address it sooner rather than later because these things don't get better with time.

In the interim, let's hear some better explanations as to why deliveries are down, things that might be plausible for a change perhaps?

So you have no evidence then...

Yeah, I thought so.

Furthermore, face it. you car isn't worth what you thought. So sorry. Time to get over it and move on. The only one who seems to be grumpy about this, is you.

 

[St Charles]

Again, your comment is of very limited relevance. I suggested, and will remind you again, that even if "my" P90DL trade in valuation was off from "true market value" by a full $20,000, does it matter if I'm buying a P100D for $162,000 with a GM of $40,000?!?

No, it doesn't.

What matters is the total profit made on the deal, with some intangible, long-term benefit attached to growing sales at a "growth stock" like TSLA, plus whatever ancillary profits are made over the life of the (service contracts, tires, maintenance, parts, etc.). It's all about selling new Teslas. Period.

I'm really warming up to the idea of staggered trade in values where customers are rewarded for buying a high-margin, highly-optioned model vs. a Model 3 or a strippo MS/MX. Sounds like a win-win to me.

It's just one of the dozen or so ideas it would be impressive to see Tesla experiment with, but instead we live with a lame search engine, no pictures of the actual CPO cars that are for sale, and a status quo which insults customers (and OA's as well), when they try to trade in a Tesla to Tesla. OA's hate it, and we all should if we care about Tesla. It's dumb and I hate it when otherwise smart people do dumb things.

Don't you?

p.s. By the way, if you were to park a base, no option, MS 60 next to a loaded P100D, and examine the nearly $100,000 spread between the two cars, I think you'd agree the GM on the P100D may even be more than $40,000 . . . . Can you see why the sale of new P100D's, and other high-margin cars, is so important to Tesla's future? It's what keeps the lights on and the stock price up. Saving the planet? That's just gravy.

Does it matter to Tesla? Yes, yes it does.

Look, your idea isn't unique, intuitive, or even very intelligent. It flat out does not work. Every dealership in America would do this if it were viable. Every. Single. One. In fact, most new car dealerships only deal with used cars because they have to in order to gain customers in the first place. Most offload trade in cars to shady shops down the street, keeping only the lookers on their lot. Not surprisingly, Tesla does the same thing. Welcome to the wonderful shady underbelly of the used car business. Most trade in vehicles aren't sold by the dealership where the trade in was made.

Could the CPO site be better? Sure. Is there some revolutionary, ingenious solution to get used Tesla's into the hands of used car buyers here? Not even a little bit.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Good Lord, how many times do I have to say this?

Deliveries down by 10 friggin' percent!

If you care about Tesla, this should wake you up and get you engaged as this suggests our 1st and 2nd growth derivatives may be heading in the wrong direction. Only Tesla knows for sure but other indicators suggest they may be worried too.

Don't take my word for it, just look at the table on Page 1:

http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...B-899D148F323D/TSLA_Update_Letter_2016_4Q.pdf

We have a long way to go before we can capture the huge M3 volumes we'll need, and selling more MS's and MX's NOW will help us cross that bridge. I've suggested a way to do this, such as not insulting current owners with low trade-in values.

This doesn't require advanced calculus or even basic algebra, but still appears waaaay too hard for you to understand. Why I keep trying to explain this incredibly basic concept to you is something I should look into, but I've distilled this down as much as I can in the posts directly above. (And in response I get replies that don't add up.)

Perhaps someone else can give it a try?

 

[carter_seattle]

does it matter if I'm buying a P100D for $162,000 with a GM of $40,000?!

It just occurred to me that we could replace 100% of your argument with essentially a critique of Tesla's "no haggle" fixed price policy. Using your logic, and imagining you're buying a new Tesla for the first time, Tesla should do whatever it takes to close the sale, including allowing you to haggle. Because, after all, $20k GM is better than $0 GM right?

 

[TSLA Pilot]

keeping only the lookers on their lot

Oh, really? So what are the "non-lookers" that Tesla has sold?

They started heavy MS production in 2013 so the oldest cars out there are under four years old, with a small number at five years old.

I think we may just have to agree to disagree because you're too much of a Tesla Fanbois to see that the emperor has no clothes here.

 

[St Charles]

I've suggested a way to do this, such as not insulting current owners with low trade-in values.?

There. Right there. See it? Sorry bro, you bought a luxury vehicle. That's how it goes.