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.
DB just laid out for us not too long ago how far behind the other big auto makers are when it comes to EV technology. It'll take a huge investment of capital and time to reproduce what Tesla has achieved with the Model S platform.
Maybe not. Tesla's main advantage is it's pack density, and cost. However that pack density is around 150wh/kg, the BMW i3 is around 96wh/kg for comparison. That's a large difference but if one of the OEM's gets a cell chemistry that closes that gap somewhat it cuts into Tesla's advantage.
Imagine what would happen to valuation calculations if tomorrow Toyota said, "We've entered into an agreement with Tesla to build the next generation of trucks on a Tesla designed/supplied power train." Or what if Subaru wanted that Model X style AWD system. It wasn't too long ago that many people believed that the only way Tesla was going to survive was by supplying drivetrains and battery packs to other manufacturers. But, for some reason that revenue stream has completely dropped of the radar.

I think the chances of seeing "Tesla Inside" models has only increased in the last several quarters. If I look at 2017 and see not just GenIII, but also at least one big power train client...the valuation doesn't look bad at all. In fact, it looks cheap.
If Tesla has concerns about sourcing enough cells for it's vehicles how can they also source enough cells to build packs for others?
 
Maybe not. Tesla's main advantage is it's pack density, and cost. However that pack density is around 150wh/kg, the BMW i3 is around 96wh/kg for comparison. That's a large difference but if one of the OEM's gets a cell chemistry that closes that gap somewhat it cuts into Tesla's advantage.

A new chemistry that has as good or better density than the 18650 cells AND is cost competitive with them? Yes, Tesla is several years ahead whether the competition chooses to use a new chemistry or chooses to try to replicate Tesla's strategy.

If Tesla has concerns about sourcing enough cells for it's vehicles how can they also source enough cells to build packs for others?

Clearly that is a problem that is going to need to be solved with or without a drive train client. How much easier is it to get Panasonic to build a new factory to support one of Toyota's models vs. Tesla's Gen III. I think it gets easier to add more capacity when it isn't being built for just one customer, especially if some of those other customers are big, safe, automakers.
 
Clearly that is a problem that is going to need to be solved with or without a drive train client. How much easier is it to get Panasonic to build a new factory to support one of Toyota's models vs. Tesla's Gen III. I think it gets easier to add more capacity when it isn't being built for just one customer, especially if some of those other customers are big, safe, automakers.

+100
 
The case for a $20-30b current TSLA valuation

So, everyone is groaning about the TSLA's valuation being too high. Honestly, I can't blame them. At this point it escapes any kind of reasonable fundamental analysis. That doesn't mean it can't go higher, of course it can. We just can't make the numbers work out to justify the stock price. Even looking pretty far forward into the future and allowing for really good margins the math just doesn't work.

Actually I think a case for a current valuation of $20-30b for TSLA can be made without looking 5+ years out.

Let's take 2015 and let's project 40k Model S and 20k Model X. I'd say those are decent projections considering Model S will likely sell 32-36k in 2014 IMO (demand is higher but production capacity is limited, but by 2015 production capacity should be greatly increased.).

Let's do an ASP (average selling price) of $90k per vehicle (I think this is reasonable because Model X will be slightly higher cost with 4x4 options).

2015 Revenue: $5.4 billion (this is not including any ZEV credits, etc)
Gross Margin: $1.62 billion (assuming 30% since the Elon Musk ceo incentive plan calls for 4 consecutive quarters of 30% gross margin and this needs to be reached prior to Gen III to have a realistic shot at it)
Net Profit: $810 million (assuming half of gross margin. Even if this number is lower than 1/2 gross margin because of large genIII capex expenses amortized, then that's fine because it will just raise the P/E investors will give because GenIII is imminent.)

So, in 2015, what kind of P/E multiple will investors give considering the company is growing very fast (probably $2b in 2013, $3.4b in 2014, $5.4b in 2015). I'd say investors will give at least a 50 P/E, and I think that's very conservative. With GenIII imminent I could see investors give a 100 P/E or more at that time. But let's take the more conservative 50 P/E for now.

2015 Market cap: $40.5 billion (50 P/E X $810m 2015 profit)

So now we need to apply a discount because we're purchasing TSLA stock today and there's some uncertainty in reaching those 2015 numbers and we need a decent investment return. So, let's apply a 40% discount (now this is arbitrary and really depends on how bullish you are on the stock). But I'll say 40% discount because Gen III is still looming in 2015 and provides a huge upside if successful.

Presently justified market cap: $24.3 billion ($40.5 billion 2015 market cap - 40% discount)

In terms of stock price, that's approximately $200/share (almost 120m outstanding x 200/share = $24 billion).

So, with TSLA at $155 right now, I think there could be a case that it's still undervalued (this is my current investment hypothesis, and the reason why I'm not selling anything right now).

Now, if Tesla reveals a Gen III prototype and the Gen III vehicle becomes increasingly more believable, I think it's likely that the P/E multiples that investors are willing to give for TSLA will increase, thus justifying an even higher stock price.

Side note: A lot of people are saying that you can't value TSLA because it's a speculative/momentum stock, but I tend to disagree. I think you need to make a solid case for valuation of any stock you own, or how else I'm not sure how else you know you're making a long-term good investment (other than if you're just going with the current momentum/swing in which case you need to exit before that changes).

Another side note: Just to clarify, I'm not saying the stock is going to jump to $200+ right away or that it's not going to go down from here. Short-term movements are extremely difficult to predict (even long-term ones are too). I also think people need to see either 25% gross margin or close to it (from autos, not ZEVs) to really start believing in the profit-making potential of the 2015 (and beyond) Tesla Motors.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TPRICE
Actually I think a case for a current valuation of $20-30b for TSLA can be made without looking 5+ years out.

Let's take 2015 and let's project 40k Model S and 20k Model X. I'd say those are decent projections considering Model S will likely sell 32-36k in 2014 IMO (demand is higher but production capacity is limited, but by 2015 production capacity should be greatly increased.).

Let's do an ASP (average selling price) of $90k per vehicle (I think this is reasonable because Model X will be slightly higher cost with 4x4 options).

2015 Revenue: $5.4 billion (this is not including any ZEV credits, etc)
Gross Margin: $1.62 billion (assuming 30% since the Elon Musk ceo incentive plan calls for 4 consecutive quarters of 30% gross margin and this needs to be reached prior to Gen III to have a realistic shot at it)
Net Profit: $810 million (assuming half of gross margin. Even if this number is lower than 1/2 gross margin because of large genIII capex expenses amortized, then that's fine because it will just raise the P/E investors will give because GenIII is imminent.)

So, in 2015, what kind of P/E multiple will investors give considering the company is growing very fast (probably $2b in 2013, $3.4b in 2014, $5.4b in 2015). I'd say investors will give at least a 50 P/E, and I think that's very conservative. With GenIII imminent I could see investors give a 100 P/E or more at that time. But let's take the more conservative 50 P/E for now.

2015 Market cap: $40.5 billion (50 P/E X $810m 2015 profit)

So now we need to apply a discount because we're purchasing TSLA stock today and there's some uncertainty in reaching those 2015 numbers and we need a decent investment return. So, let's apply a 40% discount (now this is arbitrary and really depends on how bullish you are on the stock). But I'll say 40% discount because Gen III is still looming in 2015 and provides a huge upside if successful.

Presently justified market cap: $24.3 billion ($40.5 billion 2015 market cap - 40% discount)

In terms of stock price, that's approximately $200/share (almost 120m outstanding x 200/share = $24 billion).

So, with TSLA at $155 right now, I think there could be a case that it's still undervalued (this is my current investment hypothesis, and the reason why I'm not selling anything right now).

Now, if Tesla reveals a Gen III prototype and the Gen III vehicle becomes increasingly more believable, I think it's likely that the P/E multiples that investors are willing to give for TSLA will increase, thus justifying an even higher stock price.

Side note: A lot of people are saying that you can't value TSLA because it's a speculative/momentum stock, but I tend to disagree. I think you need to make a solid case for valuation of any stock you own, or how else I'm not sure how else you know you're making a long-term good investment (other than if you're just going with the current momentum/swing in which case you need to exit before that changes).

Nice analysis. I am thinking along similar lines.
 
not uncommon for asian companies to build new factories to support future industry growth. its really the story of the transfer of the FAB industry from silicon valley to asia in the 80s. Panasonic doesn't (and probably won't) build a factory to support a single automaker, what they probably will do is their own demand forecasts, make a bet on if cars will be electric or not in 10 years, and then build to a % of future expected capacity. The orders will come later and they have the balance sheet to build now. Also common strategy in biologics (non chemical drug) manufacturing where plants run in excess of $1B to build and take 4-6 years to become operational. If they can get 50% commitments before plant start up then business model is working great (remember - they are usually built so that day 1 production is not 100%).

take a look
Samsung BioLogics







A new chemistry that has as good or better density than the 18650 cells AND is cost competitive with them? Yes, Tesla is several years ahead whether the competition chooses to use a new chemistry or chooses to try to replicate Tesla's strategy.



Clearly that is a problem that is going to need to be solved with or without a drive train client. How much easier is it to get Panasonic to build a new factory to support one of Toyota's models vs. Tesla's Gen III. I think it gets easier to add more capacity when it isn't being built for just one customer, especially if some of those other customers are big, safe, automakers.
 
I think a P/E of 50 is not "conservative" given how constrained their growth is. It is not a internet company, they can't just double the number of servers to handle more demand. Investors pay for growth rate, and Tesla just can't grow fast enough to justify a CRM or AMZN or NFLX type P/E. I'd use something more like 25 for "conservative".

That said, I don't disagree with most of your analysis. I'm also not intending to sell any of my common shares. I'm just pointing out that there's a revenue stream that everyone forgot about. I think there is a significant possibility that Tesla is able to tap that revenue stream in the future (pre-Gen III) and if you include that in your valuations, then the current stock price looks cheap.

- - - Updated - - -

not uncommon for asian companies to build new factories to support future industry growth. its really the story of the transfer of the FAB industry from silicon valley to asia in the 80s. Panasonic doesn't (and probably won't) build a factory to support a single automaker, what they probably will do is their own demand forecasts, make a bet on if cars will be electric or not in 10 years, and then build to a % of future expected capacity. The orders will come later and they have the balance sheet to build now. Also common strategy in biologics (non chemical drug) manufacturing where plants run in excess of $1B to build and take 4-6 years to become operational. If they can get 50% commitments before plant start up then business model is working great (remember - they are usually built so that day 1 production is not 100%).

take a look
Samsung BioLogics

Okay, but who else uses 18650 cells in their car batteries? There is little chance anyone is going to try it without Tesla's help, they are too far behind to start from scratch going down that path.
 
not uncommon for asian companies to build new factories to support future industry growth. its really the story of the transfer of the FAB industry from silicon valley to asia in the 80s. Panasonic doesn't (and probably won't) build a factory to support a single automaker, what they probably will do is their own demand forecasts, make a bet on if cars will be electric or not in 10 years, and then build to a % of future expected capacity. The orders will come later and they have the balance sheet to build now.

I agree. The only missing link is that whether EV = 18650. Even if cars are electric in 10 years, Tesla may still be the only customer for 18650. So it would be good for Tesla (for the long run) if someone else also bet on that format.
 
I'm just pointing out that there's a revenue stream that everyone forgot about. I think there is a significant possibility that Tesla is able to tap that revenue stream in the future (pre-Gen III) and if you include that in your valuations, then the current stock price looks cheap.

Totally understood. I just have been hearing from so many other places how you can't justify TSLA's current stock price if you look just a few years out, and I wanted to share how that's not necessarily the case.

I think a P/E of 50 is not "conservative" given how constrained their growth is. It is not a internet company, they can't just double the number of servers to handle more demand. Investors pay for growth rate, and Tesla just can't grow fast enough to justify a CRM or AMZN or NFLX type P/E. I'd use something more like 25 for "conservative".

Actually, if you analyze other stocks and revenue growth you'd be surprised at how "conservative" a 50 P/E is for a company that's growing as fast as TSLA will be in 2015. So, in 2015 (looking back) you'll have revenue $2b in 2013, 3.4b in 2014 (70% annual rev growth), $5.4 in 2015 (59% annual rev growth). Again, for a company growing over 50% in annual revenue in one of the largest markets on earth, conservatively investors will give 50 P/E (but probably much, much higher).

You mentioned NFLX, let's look at their annual growth rate and P/E.

NFLX - 2.16b in 2010, $3.2 in 2011 (48% annual rev growth), $3.6b in 2012 (12.5% annual rev growth), $4.34b in 2013 est. (20% annual rev growth), $5.08 in 2014 (17% growth rate).

So for about 20% annual growth rate (current and future), what kind of P/E do investors give NFLX? Currently 300+ P/E. Just one of many reasons I'm not fond of NFLX.

If you run the numbers for CRM and AMZN, you'll see TSLA's revenues are growing and will grow much faster the next few years as well.
 
Last edited:
A new chemistry that has as good or better density than the 18650 cells AND is cost competitive with them? Yes, Tesla is several years ahead whether the competition chooses to use a new chemistry or chooses to try to replicate Tesla's strategy.
Yes, new chemistry that has higher density & costs less. Usually they go hand in hand. Let us assume Envia's 400w/kg battery becomes commercialized and available in EVs by 2017. What happens to Tesla's moat in that case ? Then you have Nissan's NMC that will be coming online in 2015 or so.

Toyotas of the world have figured out how to build reliable cars in large volumes and make money. It takes time to get there for a new manufacturer.
 
Yup, and an Envia type density is not even necessary. Today Tesla is using 250wh/kg cells, that end up with a pack density of 150wh/kg. A non CoO2 containing chemistry comes along, like one of the LiSi or LiS flavors, even if only around 250-300wh/kg levels, but without the need for such extensive cell support and only drops to 200-250wh/kg at the pack level. Easier assembly and fewer components needed to coddle the cells, plus less expensive cell materials, i.e. no Ni or Co, and Si and S are cheap. For example Oxis already hit 300wh/kg two years ago and are targeting 600wh/kg by Gen3 time: http://www.oxisenergy.com/html/technology.html
 
Some meanderings on long-term stuff...

No-one is anywhere near close to Tesla. If another manufacturer simply tries to become competitive by starting off where Tesla did, they'll never catch up. Sure, the electric motor and inverter stuff in the Model S is neat, but it's achievable by others; it's the battery that is the key advantage. The car manufacturers who have looked into this have seen how hard it's going to be to get to where Tesla is now. The public is going to start learning about it over the next few years, and just as a "hemi" is understood by most people to be a thing that improves engine power, the vagiaries of electric car motors and batteries will become learned, known and appreciated by more and more non-experts. This will help to solidify Tesla's lead and brand value.

Let's consider some other situations that could cause trouble for Tesla in the long run. They're mostly about the battery; how about:


1) in a future scenario where still no-one else is making electric cars, Tesla can't get enough batteries from Panasonic+Samsung to supply all the cars they want to make.
2) in a future scenario where lots of other manufacturers are all clamoring to make electric cars... Tesla can't get enough batteries, they're just lost in the shuffle of big companies - some of which are willing to pay more
3) Another large entity buys Panasonic, purely for their battery-making capabilities. They initially supply Tesla but that cuts off over time.
4) Some sort of international trade war erupts which, for whatever random reason, stops Tesla from importing enough batteries from outside the USA.
5) Tesla tries to open its own battery factory - right here in the USA!!! But can't import enough raw battery materials to make it useful in the fight against competition.
6) prices of the raw commodity materials for batteries start to get manipulated due to increased demand for batteries - more than there ever was in the laptop computing era - and Tesla has no special powers to compete against the other car manufacturers.

I assumed none of the materials in the Tesla battery pack are "rare earth" because I simply don't know the composition. But if any of them are - and this continues to be important as battery chemical technologies change - then Tesla could be in a world of hurt and subject to the whims of non-US governments (who even now work to guard their rare earth commodities), or see world mineral prices ebb and flow over time with announcements about yearly production targets. (Perhaps this wouldn't be a factor for Chinese buyers of Tesla cars, since they live in a country where there are a lot of rare earth elements) Consider a trade war that would threaten the production of EV batteries! Oil producers and gasoline-lovers would love that :|

Who would buy Panasonic? The market cap is about $20billion. They haven't been doing that well recently due to the decline of their electronics businesses (even though they make the best TVs). Their stock fell to about $5, a low of at least 35years, in December 2012 (though, interestingly, it has roughly doubled since that point, somewhat in tandem with the fortunes of Tesla Motors). Had another firm bought Panasonic in December 2012 when the market cap was $10billion, things could be very different for Tesla.
The first thought about who might buy the company based on this thread and this forum would be car companies... but hardly anyone is looking that far ahead, which has been a lucky break for Tesla. If BMW, Porsche or Ford were able to buy the company, including its battery IPs, they could ride on the coat-tails of Tesla for a while and produce batteries for them (Panasonic already produces batteries for Ford too). Eventually when things got critical for their own electric car programs, they could cut Tesla off.
Other target companies might be the conventional electronics companies... like Matsushita, Samsung etc.. Each of these companies all have heavy industry divisions which could continue the battery stuff easily. They may also bring some nationalist loyalties to their local car manufacturing companies, which could spell trouble for Tesla.
My final mental meandering on this would be Apple, Inc. - who
do a ton of electronics manufacturing, and it has long been rumoured wanted to produce a car. If they purchased Panasonic and/or tried to acquire Tesla, it would use up only a small fraction of their $175billion cashpile. (yes I know about Elon saying he will never sell... this is just meanderings)

Anyhow, I think Panasonic's independent status is of great value to Tesla, and in case Panasonic does not grow stronger, Tesla needs to build up some redundancy to mitigate the effects of an acquisition. Occam's Razor principle here indicates Tesla building their own battery factory would help with this.

It's interesting to note that Panasonic's stock started rising in December 2012 and there was a blip in April, after Tesla posted a profit. There is tons of potential upside in Panasonic, and one can only expect them to make more and more batteries... it might be a good derivative stock play!

 
Articles like this have me a little worried about the long term return on my investment....

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/08/15/why-im-thinking-about-shorting-tesla/

Anyone who tries to figure out the margin on a gen 3 $35k Tesla using Volt doesn't know what he is talking about. The problem with all these "analysts/writers" is that they have little idea what EV market is like (or will look like). They all woke up just months ago and realized there are actually some EVs being sold ...