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

Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Price to Sales of 8 is very high for a large company. Most are closer to 5 or less.


This is fun. :love:

2014 (actual): Revenue $3.2B, Market Value = $25.6B @ 8x @ 125M = $205
2015 (guidance): R = $5.6B; MV = $42B @ 7.5x @ YE2015 = $336
2017 (@50%): R = $12.6B; MV = $82B @ 6.5x = $656
2020 (@40%): R = $34.6B; MV = $173B @ 5x = $1384

2014 (actual): Revenue $3.2B, Market Value = $25.6B @ 8x @ 125M = $205
2015 (guidance): R = $5.6B; MV = $39B @ 7x @ YE2015 = $313
2017 (@40%): R = $11B; MV = $55B @ 5x = $440
2020 (@40%): R = $30B; MV = $150B @ 5x = $1200

2025 (@30%): R = $111; MV = $444B @ 4x = $3552
2025 (@35%): R = $135; MV = $607B @ 4.5x = $4860


Apple 2/11/15 = $700B = $5600
 
Last edited:
Apple 2/11/15 = $700B = $5600

Apple would be $5600/share if there were only 125million share, as Tesla has. Instead Apple has 5.82billion share, therefore the estimate comes out to about $126 (today's price). So, yeah, this calculation still seems to work... keeping in mind dmunjal's message: "Most are closer to 5 or less."

If Tesla can perform as they are stating, then I don't see any reason why 2025 wouldn't see a $3000+ price for it's 125million shares (assuming no dillution).
 
Apple would be $5600/share if there were only 125million share, as Tesla has. Instead Apple has 5.82billion share, therefore the estimate comes out to about $126 (today's price). So, yeah, this calculation still seems to work... keeping in mind dmunjal's message: "Most are closer to 5 or less."

If Tesla can perform as they are stating, then I don't see any reason why 2025 wouldn't see a $3000+ price for it's 125million shares (assuming no dillution).

At some point, you have to look at gross margins. Apple is at about 45% and Tesla is about 30%. I would discount another 33% to the calculation and maybe another 25% to dilution. It takes stock to attract the best and brightest employees.
 
Metal Lease

All the talk about Musk's secret weapon has raised lots of ideas around leasing batteries. I want to share a related idea that exposes some pretty fundamental economic issues around advancing batteries. So we like this particular kind of lease or not it is at least a way to think more deeply about the value of batteries and sustainable growth.

So here's the idea of a metal lease. Suppose that an 85kWh pack has presently about $5000 in recoverable metal. That is if you were to recycle the battery and sell the metals you could recover about $5000. (This is about $60 per kWh. If someone has a better estimate please let me know.) In a metal lease, the lessee buys the car at a reduced price and has unlimited use of the battery, but agrees to pay a quartery payments until the battery is returned to the lessor for disposal. In essence, the lessee is merely renting the recyclable material and has an aggreed upon plan for recycling the battery. To put some hypothetical numbers to this suppose that the lessee recieves a $5000 reduction in the purchase price of th car for entering into this agreement. Morever, the quarterly payment is $50. This amounts to a $5000 perpetual bond with 4% coupon with the recoverable metals as the principle. The value this creates for the lessee is a lower front end cost of car (and on a $35k Model 3 $5k reduction could be a big deal) and peace of mind that they can walk away from an old battery anytime and know that it is properly repurposed or recycled. Beyond facilitating a sale, Tesla, the lessor gets two assets: a cash flow which can also be securitized for capital and the recovable metals. This metal asset is particularly interesting. As an EM maker, Tesla is short the metals needed to make batteries. This exposes Tesla to commodity price inflation. However, the metal component of the lease makes Tesla long on the very metals it needs for production. So the metal lease is a natural inflation hedge. Should competition in the EV market ever take off to such an extent that shortage of key metal drive up prices such a natural hedge may offer strategic value. The lease also exposes Tesla to credit risk, but this risk can be shed through securitization. One risk that is quite limited in this set up is the physical condition of the battery. If the battery is returned with residual useful life as a battery it can be reused or repurposed. If the useful life is completely spent, then it can be recycled and the full residual value of the lease is recovered. Only in extreme cases will recovery value be lost.

Now lets decompose the value of the battery itself. Suppose a price of $200/kWh, or $17,000 for the whole pack. Suppose gross margin is about 30% or $5000. So the cost of the battery is $12,000. The recovery value of $5000, and this leaves a non-durable cost of $7000. This non-durable portion includes the costs of manufacturing and nonrecoverable materials. For the most part, Tesla wants to squeeze every las cent of non-durable cost from the manufacturing process. The metal lease also creates a financial incentive to minimize the use of unrecoverable materials or figure out ways to make them more recoverable. This is smart both financially and environmentally. When we think about the Gigafactory eliminating about 30% of the cost this takes the total price from $17,000 to $12,000 and total cost from $12,000 to $8,400. But it does not really change the recoverabe value, still $5,000. So the nondurable cost is sharply squeezed from $7,000 to $2,400. So under the metal lease what the car buyer actually consumes is $2400 nondurabl plus $3600 profit to Tesla, $6000 altogether. This is less than $71/kWh consumed. Additionally the customer makes a modest $200 per year payment for the lease. In ten years this is a combined cost of $8000, or $94/kWh, to the customer. This actually looks quite affordable from a consumption point of view. Remember that the full price is $12,000, or about $141/kWh. We are able to squeeze out another third of this total cost to the customer through the mechanism of the metal lease, while Tesla hedges itself against commodity inflation.

But now lets take this one step further to see the impact of advancing technology. Let's assume that through technology density continues to double every decade. Suppose a customer buys a car and returns the battery in ten years. It gets recycled. Because density has doubled in this time, the recovered metal is now sufficient to produce two new batteries of the same energy capacity. The nonrecoverable materials have to be sourced new, but the recoverable materials are covered. So it matters quite a bit in the longrun how much of the battery can be recovered because that portion can double the supply of batteries every ten years. This supports a sustainable annual growth rate of 7.2%. However, let's suppose that 90% of certain materials can be recovered. Then upon recycling in ten years there are materials to make 2*0.90 = 1.8 times the capacity. This is an annualized sustainable growth rate of 6.0%. Longterm economic growth rates are likely to be around 3% or 4%. Thus, a 90% recovery rate coupled with decenial doubling is enough to satisfy perpetual growth in demand with a fixed amount of recyclable materials. In fact, if just 67% is recoverable, this is enough to sustain 3% annual growth in perpetuity. Additionally, note that if the usable life can be extended beyond 10 years, this will also enhance the sustainable growth rate.

Sustainable growth rates are well off into the future. In the present moment Tesla is attempting to grow at 50% rate. This is well above any sustainable rate, so new materials must be sourced from the earth or other markets. It is important nonetheless to have sustainability in sight. I think something like a metal lease can help an EV maker do the right things that lead most swiftly to sustainability. The metal value of the lease not only hedges inflation, but it also motivates the right level of R&D and business development to extract the greatest value out of used batteries. It is also beneficial that there are clear pathways to assure that batteries are recovered. Customers might not always realize that their old batteries contain highly valuable recoverable materials. This lead consumers not to value EV fully when buying a new one and not to secure that value when disposing of an old one. The quarterly payments on a metal lease remind the lessee that they are merely renting a portion of the earth but for a short time.
 
Interesting, but a few problems. 1. I didn't see any account of recycling costs/materials recovery/purification. 2. Packs should have useful capacity well beyond 10 years, maybe 20 years for stationary storage. 3. New technologies 10-20 years from now may not use any nickel and/or cobalt, the two most valuable metals in the current pack.
 
Interesting, but a few problems. 1. I didn't see any account of recycling costs/materials recovery/purification. 2. Packs should have useful capacity well beyond 10 years, maybe 20 years for stationary storage. 3. New technologies 10-20 years from now may not use any nickel and/or cobalt, the two most valuable metals in the current pack.

1) Right, I glossed over that. I think of recovery value as net of the costs of recycling.

2) Actually, I am talking about a perpetual lease. The ten year mark was only for illustration. So the car owner can use it just as long as they want to. Once a battery is returned, Tesla goes through a triage to determine whether it can be reused, refurbished, repurposed or simply recycled. So any residual life in the battery is an added benefit to Tesla. This creates an incentive for Tesla to build packs that have residual value well in excess of recovery value.

Another interesting issue arises with long life batteries: is there a time frame within which it becomes more economical to recycle a useful battery simply because higher density technology would make better use of the recoverable materials? This is the question of obsolescence. Suppose you have a twenty year old battery with half its original capacity. Roughly, you could recycle it and get 8 times the current capacity. That would likely overcome the manufacturing costs of doing so. This is one of the reasons why the metal lease must have a lease payment to it. The lease payment makes sure that lessees do not sit idly on old technology. Waiting twenty years to replace your battery means you may be paying 4 times as much as you need to each quarter and only getting half the benefit. So as manufactures squeeze out more nondurable cost, it becomes increasingly economical to recycle and upgrade.

3) I wanted to avoid the complexity of a changing mix of metals. If the proportion of a particular metal goes up over time, then more of it may be required from the market until a sufficient volume is in circulation for recycling. If the proportion of a certain metal declines, then any surplus is sold back into the market. Metals that drop from chemistries because they are expensive will certainly hold their value. So trading surplus cobalt or nickel for a cheaper metal is financially beneficial to Tesla. In terms of a financial hedge, a metal lease should be robust to new technology as one always has the option of using older technology if it proves more economical to do so.

One other note, my comments about sustainable growth rates only matter once EVs have replaced all the ICEVs that they ever will. So we are looking ahead some 40 years or so. Pretty much as long ad EVs have ICE to replace, they will need to source metal markets for new material.

Additionally, we probably should expand this discussion to include all other large stationary and nonstationary battery packs. The metal lease idea works just as well for other battery pack markets.
 
Jhm: it's really difficult to see any apparent flaws in your concept apart from of course a huge disruption in energy storage technology or something like a full-on explosion of nanotechnological manufacturing (but that would change so many other things deeply too). Great thoughts!
 
Jhm: it's really difficult to see any apparent flaws in your concept apart from of course a huge disruption in energy storage technology or something like a full-on explosion of nanotechnological manufacturing (but that would change so many other things deeply too). Great thoughts!
Thanks. I would say one thing that works against this is the nuisance of having to make the quarterly payments and issues around selling the car. In fact, I proposed quarterly payments because monthly would be really small. If Tesla had other subscription services, it coule be rolled together. For example, the tech option ($4500) is now required to get autopilot upgrades. If they were to separate out the autopilot software, they could sell it on a subscription basis, say $200/yr, and reduce the tech package to $2500. There is even the possibility of offering Supercharger access on subscription, say another $200/year. Taken together these 3 items could whack $9000 off the purchase price for a monthly payment of $50. For most people that's comparable to gas money they'll save. Applied to the Model 3, this gets you into the driver's seat for as little as $26,000.

Morgan Stanley analysts say that software is about 10% of the value of a car these days but will become 60% of the value. Certainly Tesla is way out on that curve. But if this trend is true, we ought to see subscription pricing enter the auto market. Since Tesla obviates the need for gas money and have services worth paying for, they ought to lead on subscription pricing. It may even be reasonable to call the metal lease, simply a "battery subscription."

So if software is say 30% of the value of a Model S, remote servicing (TBA) 6%, battery metal 5%, Supercharger access 5%, and wireless access 5%, then as much as 50% of the value of the car could be sold on subscription basis. This could get you into a Model S 60 for $35,000 with a $300 monthly subscription. This may be a bit extreme on the subscription side. Something like $47,000 purchase plus $200 montly subscription may be more attractive. In any case, subscription pricing could remove substantial sticker shock and provide Tesla with a solid revenue stream which can be capialized as needed.
 
All these chatter about Apple and GM entering Tesla's turf is getting me excited for Gen3. In the past I've always felt that Gen3 will be late, however, due to the recent chatter, I believe Tesla will feel the urgency to bring Gen3 to market on time.. After all, GM is talking about the Bolt being 2 years away. The arms race is officially on!
 
All these chatter about Apple and GM entering Tesla's turf is getting me excited for Gen3. In the past I've always felt that Gen3 will be late, however, due to the recent chatter, I believe Tesla will feel the urgency to bring Gen3 to market on time.. After all, GM is talking about the Bolt being 2 years away. The arms race is officially on!

I agree that Tesla plans to get the Model 3 out on time. Elon gave a 2nd half of 2017 forecast during the Q4ER. Recent statements that the initial Model 3 was going to be less ambitious also confirms a need to get the car done in a timely fashion. On the other hand, Elon doesn't like to turn a car loose until it is just right. Let's see how this one plays out. If the gigafactory starts producing cells and batteries in 2016, it's likely going to need Model 3 towards the end of 2017 as a destination for some of those batteries.
 
All these chatter about Apple and GM entering Tesla's turf is getting me excited for Gen3. In the past I've always felt that Gen3 will be late, however, due to the recent chatter, I believe Tesla will feel the urgency to bring Gen3 to market on time.. After all, GM is talking about the Bolt being 2 years away. The arms race is officially on!
As work was windig down on the X, the design was locked and Beta production began, i believe most of Teslaís engineers shifted focus to Model 3. Surely, there is a different set of engineers woking on minor tweaks for high volume production, but the core team must be all about 3 now.

So with that in mind, and 2,5 years to go before the launch of Model 3, i see no reason why Tesla's team of engineers would not be able to meet that deadline. Remember, the S was their first car from scratch, first time they had to scale production too and the X had that falcon wing, dual motor AWD electric and 3 row seat design that required lot of groundbraking work. Model 3 should be lot less complex compared to that.

The only real cloud on the horizon would be a delay in the gigafactory, but as of now, construction is slightly ahead of schedule and they are progressing well in securing large quantities of raw materials (as per the Q4 cc).
 
If you can sell over 50k vehicles for an average $100k sticker price, you've got to feel fairly confident about the order book for a vehicle starting in the mid 30's.

50k over 3 years @ 100k+.

I don't know. That's not convincing me yet. I think the demographic for the two are very different. Assuming Gen IiI buyers are mostly city dwellers. The China situation might be a testbed for Gen IiI adoption in my opinion.

A while ago I asked about city charging for Gen IiI buyers and the answer was that the supply will not be able to meet the demand enough from just the customers with a house that we won't have to worry about city folks for another 2 years. Well, now that we are promising 500k a year and China situation proves that it can affect the price, I think we need to revisit this. How do we test the demand? When do we need to test it?
 
50k over 3 years @ 100k+.

I don't know. That's not convincing me yet. I think the demographic for the two are very different. Assuming Gen IiI buyers are mostly city dwellers. The China situation might be a testbed for Gen IiI adoption in my opinion.

A while ago I asked about city charging for Gen IiI buyers and the answer was that the supply will not be able to meet the demand enough from just the customers with a house that we won't have to worry about city folks for another 2 years. Well, now that we are promising 500k a year and China situation proves that it can affect the price, I think we need to revisit this. How do we test the demand? When do we need to test it?

Causalien, the train's already left the station. By raising $2bn for the Gigafactory Tesla's pretty much bet the company that there's a giant future in an affordable electric car. There again, that's been the core belief underpinning the company since it was founded. If autos are inevitably shifting to electric the long-term demand for a $35k electric car isn't 500k it is many millions.

How do you test whether autos are inevitably shifting to electric? You can't in any traditional sense. You can't send a survey, any more than Steve Jobs could or would have surveyed customers to see if they wanted a new type of cell phone with a screen you could control with your fingers. Sometimes it's about vision and conviction, two things that Elon Musk has a very convincing track record on. Every one of us who's driven a model S knows that there's a visceral feeling you get from the car that says loud and clear: this is the inevitable future of cars. Forget trying to meaningfully test the market. Just do what it takes to drop the costs (starting w the gigafactory) so that the car can be built.

There are products that are simple extensions of what people already have. And there are products that are revolutionary. The latter can't be properly market tested. But if you've driven a model S and you believe the economics story Elon and his team have woven around ongoing battery tech improvements and the incredible system-design scale of the gigafactory, you can still get pretty certain about the potential here. And that's why this forum and this opportunity are exciting. We all have a sure glimpse of the future that is not yet shared by many.
 
Causalien, the train's already left the station. By raising $2bn for the Gigafactory Tesla's pretty much bet the company that there's a giant future in an affordable electric car. There again, that's been the core belief underpinning the company since it was founded. If autos are inevitably shifting to electric the long-term demand for a $35k electric car isn't 500k it is many millions.

How do you test whether autos are inevitably shifting to electric? You can't in any traditional sense. You can't send a survey, any more than Steve Jobs could or would have surveyed customers to see if they wanted a new type of cell phone with a screen you could control with your fingers. Sometimes it's about vision and conviction, two things that Elon Musk has a very convincing track record on. Every one of us who's driven a model S knows that there's a visceral feeling you get from the car that says loud and clear: this is the inevitable future of cars. Forget trying to meaningfully test the market. Just do what it takes to drop the costs (starting w the gigafactory) so that the car can be built.

There are products that are simple extensions of what people already have. And there are products that are revolutionary. The latter can't be properly market tested. But if you've driven a model S and you believe the economics story Elon and his team have woven around ongoing battery tech improvements and the incredible system-design scale of the gigafactory, you can still get pretty certain about the potential here. And that's why this forum and this opportunity are exciting. We all have a sure glimpse of the future that is not yet shared by many.

Yeah, unfortunately, I will stop investing in TSLA the day I get my car because by then I will be biased. I already violated my investing principals and let the Norwegians gave me a test in their Model S. Anyway, my spidey sense is worried about this right now.

But this topic probably won't come up till 2016. If I can think of it, some paid journalist is already thinking up the new headlines.
 
Blind Faith Price Targets

Sometimes super simple models can get you fairly reasonable results. I'd like to share a price model so simple it may just make you laugh, but let's see if it doesn't lead to something sensible.

I call this the blind faith model. At the recent CC, Musk provided us with a back of the envelope estimate of market cap, $700B by 2025. So let's take it as a matter of blind faith that the stock price will reach $5500 by the end of 2025. After all, Elon said it, and that's good enough for me. So if the stock price grows exponentially from here to there, where does that put the price in 1 year, 2/19/2016?

So let's take the last close price of 211.75 on 2/19/2015. 12/31/2025 is 10.86 years away. So the market is currently discounting Musk's estimate by 33.96%. To see this note that (5500/211.71)^(1/10.86) = 1.3496. This is an example of what finance quants call "calibration". It's a matter of fitting model parameters to market prices, something which fundamental analysts almost never do. But truly it is the market that determines the discount rate, and analysts are foolish to think they know better how the market values future earnings from any source. So given the last price, we obtain a 2/19/2016 BFPT of 285.73. Note 211×1.3496^1 = 5500÷1.3496^(10.86 - 1) = 285.73. We remark that this PT is remarkably close to the consensus of analyst, and we can do the math on our smart phones in a fraction of the time!

What if we look back to some recent low prices to see how low BFPT can go for the same target date of 2/19/2016. On 1/20/2015, the market closed at 191.93. Calibrating to this, we get a discount of 35.87%, which leads to a BFPT of 267.43 = 5500÷1.3587^(10.86-1). This turns out to be the lowest BFPT in the last 252 trading days. So this is a conservative PT. Now if you were to buy at 211.71, this would imply a conservative growth rate of 26.32% in one year. Thus the current price still has attractive upside to it for a one-year investment.

Finally, we can calculate BFPT values based on the last 252 trading days as a reference distribution. We can report any statistic of the distribution we may like such as max, median, average and last.
Last.... 285.73
Min..... 267.43
Median 346.41
Mean... 346.81
Max..... 424.39

You would want to sell if the price got to 425 over the next 12 month, but buying at current prices looks attractive. See what a little blind faith can do.