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

Moderators' Choice: Posts of Particular Merit

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I may not be likely to repeat this post, but I'm feeling a bit generous right now.

From Gordon Johnson to many others whenever they've seen a company doing toooo well there has tended to be fraud, excessive optimism and hubris.
Thus the actual facts are simply not credible to "linear thinkers". They simply cannot believe what is there before their eyes.

Given the 'Alien Dreadnaught' and the very fact of a factory operating system it is not conceivable that this has not been done before.
Years alter and nobody else has been capable of reusable orbital class rocket boosters, fairings and so much else.
The impossibility for many people is that Tesla is the low cost producer, despite (because of) advanced technology.
We all understand this and find it to be our very good luck that we believed when we first invested in TSLA (whenever that was).
What we do not understand is the massive global investment that are being made obsolete by these developments.
From Boeing. Toyota, and GM to Magna, Exxon and all the rest Elon is threatening the world industrial processes.

The wisest among them think of Kodak, Kaiser or IBM, Compaq, Nokia and so on, but think somehow that Tesla and Elon are more like Enron than they are like
Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Steve Jobs or Igor Sikorsky. They were all considered lunatics, until they weren't. None of them actually invented the things they were famous for in reality, but all so transformed the things to something that made life more productive and easier, and all concentrated on producing these things at mass.

The real impediment is that this time Elon is solving problems most people haven't realized they have. To that extent none of those precedents are adequate to explain what is happening, Tesla and SpaceX are redefining things the world regarded as more or less mature. That is a crucial distinction.

Since today is a day of FOMO, it is well to remind ourselves what we all have NOT missed.

There is so much awful right now I, for one, want to be thankful for a few minutes at least. Not least because Space X and Tesla are helping Ukraine have a better chance of survival.
 
advertising and free speech philanthropy motive are not mutually exclusive in the this case as with other musk companies he does the right thing and it also makes money $$$ Tesla has a lot of advertising twitter, TMC , MSM financial news, You tube, etc they just don't pay for it .. i agree it may not be his primary motivation ...
THIS WILL BE RPEATED EVERY TIME THE WORD IS USED WRONGLY
ADVERTISING MUST BE PAID. IF NOT PAID IT IS NOT ADVERTSING.
"Promotion" is a part of marketing that encourages products to be purchased.
The easiest way to learn this is with the Five P's of marketing, taught in every respectable Marketing 101 class:
1651322827333.png

Why do I keep emphasizing these points? Why do I regularly repeat the basics?
Because most people actually don't know the subject. Here at TMC TSLA investors really need to understand these. These principles explain just why Tesla thrives with ZERO advertising.

John Wanamaker, a famous Philadelphia merchant of the early days of department stores said one fo the Marketing text's base phrases "I know I waste half my advertising. The problem is; I don't know which half"

Elon Musk mastered Marketing 101 and more advanced levels with PayPal and then Space X. He understood then that the most prized element of Promotion is found in 'message' and 'media'. There he discovered how to direct promotion through "word-of-mouth" a traditional wording that encompasses customer advocacy and social media influencers plus careful public opinion support.

Most of us are not attuned to haw marketing has changed within the last two decades. The people who are so attuned can generate support for widely divergent views, including extremist politics. The Eon Musk companies do that with such finesse that very few people realize how carefully it is all done. That is precisely why seemingly outrageous or odd statements arrive regularly. That is also why Tesla vehicles have all those toys and video games and rear screens on S and X.

This all is how Elon Musk companies are so incredibly efficient sales processes. Bizarrely that is how they all manage to be so exceedingly successful while ignoring much of what everyone knows is crucial, including less than optimal customer service. That last does not inhibit long wait lists for every major product from all Tesla vehicles to Stalink.

Giving away support to Ukraine command and control and natural disaster recovery is further enhanced by providing electrical grid stability services. Those things go far to avoid expensive and useless advertising budgets.

I dearly hope all this sinks in soon. It's all part of avoiding a dealer network and useless overhead.

I will happily recommend Marketing textbooks for anybody who wants them. I taught Marketing 101 with an older edition of this:
Marketing Management1967
 
You would think Tesla's PE ratio would be less affected by this craziness, primarily because:

1. Tesla has almost no company debt, so rising interest rates don't materially increase their cost of doing business.

2. Tesla is flush with cash, so no need to go to the market to get loans that would be affected by interest rates.

3. Tesla has high margins, helping pad their cash reserves and giving them a buffer to decrease prices on their products if need be while still bringing in a healthy profit.

4. Tesla has a long order book, so an economic downturn would have limited to no negative effects on their effective (realistically buildable) demand.

5. Tesla is early in a huge growth cycle.

6. Tesla's main product in general (EVs) are in high demand (whether Teslas or not), and they are not something that you can easily flip a switch on and double or triple output.

7. We are in the middle of a "petroleum crisis", with high oil costs, and Tesla's products break customers free from that--increasing demand.

8. Tesla's products are generally aimed at higher earners, who tend to be less affected by economic downturns.

9. The world is looking for alternatives to Russian oil, where Tesla can play a massive part.

Looking at all of this, you'd think Tesla would be a massive safe-haven for a lot of investors. It seems so obvious that Tesla won't be affected by a lot of what's going on compared to other companies. Yet TSLA is sold more quickly than other stuff.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The market is full of morons, and they continue to do moronic things.
 
Tesla Auto Business Summary (excluding ZEV Credits)
Auto RevAuto CoGSGross ProfitVehicle deliveriesAvg Rev per VehicleAvg CoGS per VehicleGross Profit per VehicleGross MarginOperating ExpensesOpEx as Percentage of Gross Profit
Q1 2018$2,685$2,196$48929980$ 89.6$ 73.2$ 16.318.2%$1,053215%
Q2 2018$3,304$2,667$63740740$ 81.1$ 65.5$ 15.619.3%$1,240195%
Q3 2018$6,047$4,525$1,52283500$ 72.4$ 54.2$ 18.225.2%$1,10773%
Q4 2018$6,322$4,786$1,53690700$ 69.7$ 52.8$ 16.924.3%$1,02967%
Q1 2019$3,508$2,973$53563019$ 55.7$ 47.2$ 8.515.3%$1,088203%
Q2 2019$5,265$4,360$90595356$ 55.2$ 45.7$ 9.517.2%$1,088120%
Q3 2019$5,219$4,131$1,08897186$ 53.7$ 42.5$ 11.220.8%$93085%
Q4 2019$6,235$4,934$1,301112095$ 55.6$ 44.0$ 11.620.9%$1,03279%
Q1 2020$4,778$3,821$95788496$ 54.0$ 43.2$ 10.820.0%$95199%
Q2 2020$4,751$3,862$88990891$ 52.3$ 42.5$ 9.818.7%$940106%
Q3 2020$7,214$5,506$1,708139593$ 51.7$ 39.4$ 12.223.7%$1,25473%
Q4 2020$8,913$7,070$1,843180667$ 49.3$ 39.1$ 10.220.7%$1,49181%
Q1 2021$8,484$6,617$1,867184877$ 45.9$ 35.8$ 10.122.0%$1,62187%
Q2 2021$9,852$7,307$2,545201304$ 48.9$ 36.3$ 12.625.8%$1,57262%
Q3 2021$11,778$8,384$3,394241391$ 48.8$ 34.7$ 14.128.8%$1,65649%
Q4 2021$15,653$11,085$4,568308650$ 50.7$ 35.9$ 14.829.2%$2,23449%
Q1 2022$16,182$11,322$4,860310048$ 52.2$ 36.5$ 15.730.0%$1,85738%

Taking a high level view of the performance since 2018, a few things are obvious.

1) Gross profit per car is headed towards $20k or more.
  • Peaked in 2018 around $17k when S&X were about half of sales and when Performance 3s were heavily prioritized during Production Hell
  • Fell to around $10k per car for 9 consecutive quarters
  • Steadily has risen since a year ago
  • Naïve linear extrapolation takes us to $20k by Q1 ‘23
    • I expect the trend to actually accelerate from here if per-car revenue starts reaching like $60k with cost staying around $35k, giving $25k gross profit, or more optimistically maybe $63k rev and $33k cost for $30k gross profit per car. Not likely sustainable long term, but excellent for next few years.
2) OpEx has not been rising much with mass production.
  • Note that recently most of the expense rise has come from Elon’s stock plan, expedited shipping, and increasingly ambitious R&D efforts not directly tied to car development, manufacturing and sales
3) Tesla has barely exceeded breakeven scale.
  • As of Q1, OpEx is still eating a very substantial 38% of auto gross profit. Therefore, net income will grow much faster than vehicle deliveries for the next few years as operating margin asymptotically approaches gross margin.
4) Almost all of the price increases remained lurking in the order backlog as of Q1 ‘22.
  • Average revenue per vehicle in Q1 ‘22 at $52.4k was unchanged from Q2 ‘20, which is the closest comparison quarter because of seasonality, similar amounts of S&X sales in mix, and COVID mayhem in Q1 ‘20.
  • 15-20% price increases remain, about half of which went into effect in late Aug thru early Nov and thus will probably hit in Q2. The rest came in March and will not hit until Q4 at the earliest.
5) Tesla is defying inflation.
  • The nominal US Producer Price Index has increased 15% (source) since the beginning of 2021.
  • Tesla’s average cost of goods sold per vehicle has been flat at $35-36k throughout that time period, even as high-cost S&X sales rose from almost nothing in Q1 & Q2 2021 to 14k+ in Q4 ‘21 and Q1 ‘22.
  • Tesla does have many long-term supply contracts that cause a lag before inflation hits them, but after 5 quarters we still haven’t seen CoGS increase. Inflation seems to have simply paused the trend of declining costs.
  • Primary factor has been producing more in Shanghai than Fremont
  • New factories once ramped will save $thousands per car on manufacturing, shipping and tariffs
Projections
If deliveries merely grow 60% annually in ‘22 and ‘23, we’ll have 2.4 million sold in ‘23.

At $20k gross profit per car we’d make $48B auto gross profit in ‘23. With $8B OpEx, 10% provisioned for income tax, and 1.2B shares outstanding, ‘23 earnings per share would be $30. This is my BEAR CASE. (Remember, this is excluding ZEV credits and counting Energy as zero. These might add another $1-4 to EPS.)

A reasonably bullish scenario would be delivery growth of 80% and $25k gross profit per car. Now we get ‘23 deliveries of 3 million cars and $50 EPS.

Upside even from there:
1) Tesla may raise prices even more, or close orders for lower variants, or require inclusion of nonstandard extras.
  • Hertz rentals and Vegas Loop generating millions of rest rides
  • “Competition” and Hertz paying for Tesla advertisements
  • Potentially sustained oil price above $100/barrel
  • Cybertruck blowing minds in America
  • Twitter driving even more social media engagement
  • European anti-Putin government and grassroots efforts to eliminate oil demand

2) Europe may have enough demand to sustain Model Y sales prices of $70k+ deep into 2023 even as Giga Berlin has begun dumping volume into that market.

3) FSD take rate and price may materially increase, especially with Beta rollout beyond USA and purported radical improvements with V11 (single stack).

4) Model Y production ramp at Austin/Berlin/Shanghai Part 2 may be legendary, considering that Model Y manufacturing is well understood now and we have heard of no substantial issues with the production processes. Also, Tesla has guided for supply constraints to ease around the end of ‘22
  • The high end of guidance from Elon for Berlin is 10k per week by end of Q4 ‘22. Austin would likely be faster. Call it 22k per week combined which is 1.14M annualized. Fremont could be at 0.6M annualized, which is its nominal capacity. Shanghai may grow 50% to 1.2M annualized. Total would be 3M annual production heading into ‘23, bumping ‘23 full-year projections to more like 3.5-4.5M, wow!!
5) Cybertruck and Semi profit margins and volume may surprise by mid-2023.

6) Tesla Energy might finally make money.

7) FSD may, finally, be safe enough for initial robotaxi rollout. Maybe🤞.
  • It seems the whole leadership team actually believes this is more likely than not. Elon has been saying it flat out, and Andrej took a long vacation. Project Vacation secured?
If any of these factors come into play, earnings per share could easily blow past $50 next year, and in the best case scenario could surpass $100.

Even a year ago I didn’t anticipate anything close to this. The whole business is just ludicrously strong. The Master Plan is all coming together at once.
 
Considering TSLA is now down 7-8X the macros, there's really no point in even entertaining that hypothetical 😅

Obviously when selling pressure/negative sentiment flips, it will rally hard. But there's no way around how it's traded for the past two weeks, severely underperforming day after day and to me, it's pretty clear that the stock is very vulnerable to a quick 20-25% drop if the macro's take another leg lower.

Wall St a crystal clear roadmap to how to trade TSLA for the next two weeks at least, if not the next month and a half. There's no real catalyst for the stock until news comes out that Shanghai is back to full production. Until then, it's open season for dropping the stock on any given day......or if the past two weeks are any indication......every day.

I would like to think that Thursday was in fact the bottom, but if you're on margin, you definitely cannot be confident in the stock given the Friday and today.

After hanging around here for a few years and doing my best to absorb the data, much of it conflicting while still being related, I see the current situation as a perfect storm for us HODLers.

Here's how it looks from this perch. TSLA volume since S&P inclusion has been dormant. It seems to me this is primarily due to HODLers (retail and institutional) severely limiting the number of real shares available to actually trade. This set of circumstances opens the door wide to synthetic share trading being able to create significant "synthetic" volatility in the stock price, as we have seen repeatedly over the past few months.

Add to this the fact that the FUD machine is still well oiled and running at a high rate of production, despite what appears to be a sea change, where many mainstream talking heads appear to be gravitating toward a neutral Tesla bias, if not up front speaking on Tesla's behalf and in defense of the company against FUD their news feeds are regurgitating at them.

Plus, and this is important, the annual general meeting coming up that is poised to have a landslide vote in favor of making available more shares (1T?) and a clear statement that a split is expected afterwards.

There are a lot of people sitting on the sidelines waiting, while more and more are learning about Tesla and Elon and finding they have been lied to. This will have people who for many reasons (falling SP, share too costly, still uncertain, etc.) are poised, waiting for their catalyst to enter the market and buy TSLA.

There will not be one catalyst, there could easily be several that converge upon a moment in the near future where they will rush in to buy because they have either:

  • Come to understand the fundamentals;
  • See a price that is in their comfort zone (20:1 stock dividend);
  • Seen the inevitable bottle-rocket fuse being lit as the SP begins its ascent from the launch pad;
  • and/or any of a number of other triggers (production numbers, new models coming online ahead of schedule, 4680 ramp, etc.)
Right now there is high anxiety I'm seeing among some in the TMC forum. Please, don't buy into the game where someone uses fear to manipulate your decision regarding the shares you hold.

The company is still rushing toward maintaining their 50% / year goal till the end of the decade, at least. (probably more like 80% per year in actuality)
The brouhaha over the Twitter is inconsequential, really. Has Elon ever done anything like that which didn't turn into yet another golden goose for CHOAM, er, I mean, the Musk family of companies?
Other than those who may have over-leveraged themselves, there is little to justify selling anytime soon. Unless you just don't like to see stock gains.

Don't worry, be happy.

The moment we are in is lot like having that spicy Mexican food plate for supper. This too shall pass. (Elon's recent emoji supports this.)

HODL 🚀🌝


🎆🎇
 

The Renewables Revolution

Why Mainstream Projections for Future Human Energy Consumption are Wrong by at Least an Order of Magnitude


***************************************************************************************************************************

Introduction: The Energy Situation
You and I are engaged in a perpetual war against entropy. The tyrannical Laws of Thermodynamics fundamentally guarantee the usefulness of concentrated controllable energy because it can do work for us by generating:
  • Concentrated heat
  • Mechanical force
  • Photon emission
  • Endothermic chemical reactions
  • Electromagnetic field changes
As it turns out, these impressive and physically irreplaceable capabilities are why we need continual energy supply to have a modern industrial civilization. The blog Wait but Why has a couple of fun and informative summary articles on energy for dummies and Tesla’s role in the future of energy.

Understanding Tesla Energy’s potential first requires understanding the total addressable market, and I’m not talking about the 180 petawatt-hours currently used by humans annually (link).

Around 1800, humanity began to transition from a traditional biomass energy economy (wood mainly) that had been in place for millions of years of hominid evolution. The new industrial sector of the economy used industrialized energy sources, starting originally with coal and water wheels used primarily in Great Britain initially and shortly after in Continental Europe and the United States and then later worldwide. A century later we added more sources to the mix: oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and finally nuclear. As the chart below clearly shows, the biomass energy market at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution was two orders of magnitude smaller than today's total market for post-industrial energy sources. On the one hand, world population is up 8x since 1800, so per capita energy consumption globally is up "only" about 13x. However, most of us would aspire that everyone on the planet can have a standard of living like the middle class in OECD countries.

Global average per capita power used in 1800 was ~200 watts, whereas in the developed countries today it's more like 4,000-10,000 watts. This has been a roughly 20x-40x increase in consumption per capita and there is plenty of appetite for more, as shown by data indicating that the most affluent consumers within developed nations tend to use far more energy than those with lesser means. This is also significantly understating the true energy cost of a typical OECD lifestyle, because much of the energy usage is occurring in countries with heavy manufacturing bases like China and India that sell primarily in OECD markets.

If we want a super prosperous future for humanity even just with today's energy usage patterns, then 10 billion people in 2050 will consume ~10 kW of power per capita which is 100 TW or about 5x what humanity consumes today.

Many environmentalists, including me, have found this fact alarming, because of the problems with our current energy mix and because of the inextricable links between per capita energy consumption and economic prosperity, human rights fulfillment, health, life expectancy, social harmony, and scientific progress. For decades it has seemed as though the Universe handed us a cruel choice between impending catastrophe from peak oil and ecological collapse or self-inflicted catastrophe from economic and agricultural collapse. Was modern industrial civilization doomed from the start to be a brief party before the inescapable reality of thermodynamics and finite fossil fuel reserves put us into a death spiral of energy shortages, famine, war and extreme weather events?

After years of anxious researching of this topic that led to me investing in TSLA originally, I have changed my mind entirely. That energy consumption curve is about to go vertical like we've never seen before, and surprisingly that’s good news not only for the economy and poverty, but also for the biosphere, world peace, and of course Tesla Energy's cash flow statement.

The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones, and the Oil Age will not end because we ran out of oil.

global-energy-substitution.png

Cost Collapsing & Doomed Legacy Energy “Assets”
Nuclear fission energy was famously hailed in 1954 by Lewis Strauss, then serving as the Chairman of The Atomic Energy Commission, for being on course to provide energy “too cheap to meter” in the near future. Infamously, Strauss’ prediction was wrong. The details of why are beyond the scope of this forum, but we've been here before with grandiose claims of energy abundance. Why is it different with the solar, wind and batteries (SWB) electric grid model?

At this point the main thing to recognize is that SWB electric generation, unlike the nascent nuclear industry in 1954, has decades of proven empirical cost decline trends with no slowdown in sight. While nuclear development has long been unfairly limited by social and political opposition by well-meaning but misinformed people, the time has passed for that because all legacy power plant architectures are headed straight for obsolescence in the 2020s. All of them, end of story. The SWB revolution is disrupting the entire category of thermal power stations, irrespective of the heat source being coal, natural gas, oil, atomic fission, atomic fusion, geothermal heat, herds of hamsters running on wheels, or magic Vibranium crystals gifted to us by Wakanda for $0. The old power plant model involves vaporizing water to crank a turbine to spin a dynamo to drive transformers for voltage step-up to transmit power long distances on high-voltage AC lines to power more transformers for voltage step-down before finally something useful happens with the energy. On average two thirds of the electric power generated at the dynamo is lost as waste (mostly resistive heating) en route to the end user.

Legacy power plants need to be big, centralized and far from population centers, necessitating this ridiculous electricity distribution apparatus. Solar PV panels in particular are notoriously scalable and emission free, so they can go on buildings or be built in medium size farms or in big farms that can be located close to the demand.

The old model is steadily losing economic competitiveness via exponential decay (reverse S-curve/negative logistic function), like all technologies being disrupted by a new paradigm. They will predictably flounder, attack SWB with media disinformation and FUD, whine and cry for government bailouts, possibly receive some degree of bailouts, and then fail anyway when they can't even achieve positive gross margins and their competition gets 10% cheaper every year.

Moreover, before long even functional coal/gas/nuclear/oil/geothermal plants with capital costs already paid for will start retiring earlier than TSLA hodlers. Why? Their operating costs will be more expensive than additional replacement SWB expansion, even if we continue the glorious time-honored tradition of refusing to pass laws to charge appropriate fees to operators of such plants for the unpriced negative externalities of their activities. It gets even worse for legacy plant operators when we add in the fact that localized solar and batteries generation will be cheaper in most populated areas than the mere operating costs of the big regional grids needed for legacy centralized power stations to be practical. All those towers, transmission wires, and substations ain’t cheap and the existing infrastructure is aging. RethinkX calls this price threshold “GOD parity” (Generation On Demand). Game over.

This is not theoretical, seeing as wave after wave of early coal plant shutdowns in the United States have already been happening for several years even during the Trump Administration when many EPA regulations on coal were relaxed, and gas plants are now facing an unstoppable battery onslaught. Tesla’s big splash into the South Australian energy market was a warning shot. The Hornsdale Battery Reserve wiped out the vast majority of the local Frequency Control Auxiliary Services market—previously ruled by a gas plant operator cartel—and it happened almost as soon as the switch was flipped on. Even in Texas, that great bastion of low regulation and unbridled free market capitalism, that place with a uniquely Wild West electricity bidding market in ERCOT, that place which happens to have an endowment of some of the world’s cheapest natural gas, is leading the USA in total SWB deployment. Tony Seba and the RethinkX team are correctly predicting the greatest stranded asset write off in the history of capitalism happening in the 2020s.

The writing is on the wall, or at least the writing is on this chart that you might want to print out and affix to your wall to gaze at for peace and serenity whenever you stare at your brokerage account feeling panic and dismay about a TSLA drop:

256CC10A-59A3-4E89-969A-523C70A515E7.jpeg


This empirical trend has been remarkably steady for 7 decades since the invention of the modern silicon photovoltaic cell in 1954 by researchers at Bell Labs, which was basically the Tesla of the 20th century. That's Wright's Law for you.

Similar trends have been seen for wind and batteries.

Wind hit the scene with competitive prices sooner than solar did by about 10 years. However, wind is much more exquisitely sensitive to local microclimate and to daily weather fluctuations, because the extractable power is roughly proportional to the wind speed cubed. 10 knots wind speed can provide about 8x more electricity than 5 knots wind speed. Wind also has more impact on landscape aesthetics, long distance plant reproduction, and bird migration patterns. Worst of all, compared to solar, wind has a much slower rate of cost decline and vastly less total available power globally by about 4 orders of magnitude. Still, it's good enough to help the cause and there's lots of wind out there in places like the North American Great Plains and the European North Sea.

Batteries are the dark horse coming to market the latest of the three. The first prototype lithium-ion cell was made by Stanley Whittingham in 1974, 20 years after the first solar PV cell. Exxon bought the technology IP and gave up on it, so modern Li-ion cells really didn't get going until John Goodenough and Akira Yoshino's work in the late 1980s presented a better design using cobalt oxide and carbon for the cathode and anode. Using these advances, Sony in 1991 began sales of the first practical Li-ion battery cell, kicking off development of an industry that led to Whittingham, Goodenough and Yoshino jointly winning a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The costs since then have been plummeting according to a Wright's Law relationship between volume and cost:

1653268716018.png

Source

Consider the technology and cost projections Tesla disclosed on Battery Day, and further consider that:

1) They were probably sandbagging​
2) They were probably withholding information and not revealing all their technology​
3) Two years is a LONG time for Tesla’s technology to progress​

I think it's safe to say that the cost decline trend is going to hurtle well past $100/kWh and could conceivably hit less than $50/kWh with known plausible technology development pathways.

Nonsensical Mainstream Forecasts
The UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2050 contain some excellent ideas that we might want to try. However, I disagree with important aspects of the energy goals. They are aiming for moderate increases in total energy consumption as the developing world industrializes and they focus a lot of attention on improving energy efficiency and consuming less energy in the rich world (good luck convincing average people to do that or vote for people who will force them to do it). I believe this is a severe projection error that is happening because the UN analysts are discounting the implications of the solar energy cost trend, either because of some judgment error on their own part or because the implications seem so outrageous to a casual observer that it's not politically viable to publish what they actually think.

If you look into forecasts from other major government and NGO think tanks, you get similar estimates, such as:
This ridiculously inaccurate BS is influencing opinions, influencing the economy and business planning, and influencing public policy. I don't normally like to throw shade at strangers, but this is dangerous incompetence that is increasing existential risk for humanity and it needs to be called out. Improperly influencing public sentiment, lawmaking and capital allocation from these positions of responsibility will indirectly kill millions of people and thrust tens or hundreds of millions more into years of extreme poverty they didn't need to suffer. This is morally unacceptable and I hope it's due to mere incompetence instead of malice. In any case, the outcome is the same and I am heavily voting with my capital that these forecasts are wrong.

Just look at some of these slides from organizations that Wall Street considers credible sources for energy projections. They are forecasting:
  • Linear growth of renewables for a quadrupling by 2050 to 25% of the global energy supply
  • Linear growth of the world economy
  • Stable global demand for coal
  • 40% growth of oil and gas demand by 2050
  • 30% EVs in the global fleet by 2050
  • Increasing global CO2 emissions
  • Declining energy intensity per $ of GDP of 30% by 2050
It needs to be said: These projections are pathetic. These analysts are getting 1st-year undergraduate level statistical analysis wrong. Solar, wind and battery growth trends have been for many decades following almost perfect and instantly recognizable exponential growth trends. If you plot it on a log scale it's almost a perfect line with a linear regression having R^2 of more than 0.9! How can these official reports be published where the long term historical growth trends aren't even shown and where they assume without any justification that the trend will suddenly switch from exponential to linear? If you're going to project a radical change in the growth trajectory then you had better tell the world why you think that instead of just riding off your credibility. That's how science is supposed to work! You have a hypothesis, then provide data and analysis to prove it.

It's no wonder the finance and consulting industries don't understand Tesla. They actually believe this nonsense.

1653505794249.png


1653505914629.png

1653506079688.png


1653504933656.png

Disruptive Technology Majorly Expands Markets
Disruptive technology expands markets, because of higher utility and/or lower costs. It is never a one-to-one substitution, but human psychology tends to make these market expansions and new use cases surprising to most people, including experts. If you haven't seen Tony Seba present on this you need to watch now. We humans often underestimate the collective cleverness of our species to find new ways to exploit resources.


In retrospect, the market for paper information storage and transmission in 1970 was, to say the least, an extremely poor indicator of the size of the future market for digital electronic information storage and transmission. Anyone predicting that computers would merely replace existing paper-based use cases would have been embarrassingly mistaken. And there were many such people, and they were indeed embarrassingly mistaken. Only those with imagination who reasoned from first principles had anything resembling accurate forecasts, and even they tended to majorly underestimate the trajectory of growth in bytes of information generated, stored and transmitted. If I could go back in time and tell Alan Turing that humanity in 2020 would have a worldwide web transferring 3 zettabytes of data annually between over a billion computers made from carefully organized sand, he would’ve probably fainted from shock. But here we are now when I have a handheld pocket computer that can hold 256 GB, which is the equivalent of 54 billion words of written English.

Likewise, the market for horse and buggy transport was an extremely poor indicator of the size of the future market for automobile transport. Same for other technology disruptions, including examples like:
  • Film photography --> Digital
  • Vinyl music storage --> Tape --> CD --> MP3
  • Hunting/gathering food --> Agriculture
  • Human-borne freight with hands and shoulders --> Human-borne freight with baskets & backpacks --> Wheeled freight pulled by humans --> Wheeled freight pulled by domesticated animals --> Wheeled freight hauled by automobiles
Every time something better and more efficient and cheaper comes along, we end up using it far more than the preceding technology generation, unless another subsequent technology disruption ends up eliminating the want/need altogether. The empirical evidence from not only recorded history of the last 8,000 years but indeed from millions of years of hominid evolution dating back to our stone tool technology disruptions indisputably shows that technological disruptions always tend to follow this pattern. This is fundamentally the main reason why GDP per capita improves over time. The fact that regulated market economies tend to promote such technological advancement is one of the primary reasons they produce more overall prosperity than other social systems, despite having some well documented downsides.

When illustrated this way, the point seems like common sense, but human psychology is not built to intuitively understand exponential growth and has a bias for assuming that life in the future will look similar to life today, because the future is intangible and requires imagination and because making bold predictions about the status quo changing comes with risk to social status.

This pattern is also predicted by basic economic theory: when technology improves the combined "total factor productivity" of land, labor and capital such that supply of a certain good or service has increased, the market clearing price decreases and the total quantity sold increases. The “price elasticity of demand” for a good/service measures how much the quantity demanded increases for a given decrease in market price (link). More formally, it’s the slope (1st derivative with respect to price) of the demand curve at any point. We can only speculate about what the true shape of the demand curve for energy looks like at the costs we're talking about, because it's uncharted territory with no readily available econometric data. However, we have some clues.

The inflation-adjusted price of energy has actually been increasing since WW2 with gradual exploitation of the easy fossil hydrocarbon reserves and the easy hydroelectric opportunities and with the rise in population and industrialization, but the quantity sold has still been growing. Another factor in demand has been the advances in other complementary technologies that have increased the economic utility per unit of energy consumed. So, what happens when the population still keeps rising and the rate of industrialization accelerates globally and technology continues to increase the utility per Joule consumed, while at the same time a new type of energy drastically increases supply?

Energy consumption patterns in such cities as Dubai, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi may provide a glimpse of what changes are coming. For instance, Dubai gets 90% of its freshwater supply from desalination of the Arabian Gulf and Dubai also has a 2000 square meter indoor ski resort/snow park at the Mall of the Emirates. Furthermore, perhaps we should keep watching what happens in major Middle Eastern cities they will be on the leading edge of the SWB revolution due to their strong sunshine and cheap land giving them the cheapest solar power of any big cities in the world.

So...why are professional analysts and organizations assuming that the SWB revolution will leave a market comparable to today's energy market? This contradicts all available evidence and theory about the dynamics of technology disruptions and specific potential use cases for cheap SWB energy. This is the same type of flawed thinking that Tony Seba’s team has shown to typically occur for any tech disruption, and it's unsurprisingly happening again.

As far as I can tell:

We are not headed for a net-zero carbon economy with moderate total energy consumption increases by (hopefully) 2050 if and only if governments and citizens cooperate in an unprecedented display of human trust, solidarity, and selfless cooperation.

I think we are headed for a carbon negative economy by 2050 because of SWB, even if we forecast with the most cynical possible assumptions about selfish profit-seeking and personal-quality-of-life-improving motives dominating behavior. I also think the transition to the new economy will increase energy consumption roughly similar to the 100x jump from our ancestors had in transitioning from biofuels to fossil fuels/hydro/nuclear.

The Sun continuously bestows 173 petawatts of power to Planet Earth’s crust and currently we use about 10,000x less power than this (4 orders of magnitude). Additionally, in outer space at Earth’s distance from the Sun, solar energy flux of 1.4 kW/m2 is waiting for us in practically unlimited quantities if we eventually want to reserve Earth’s precious surface area for other purposes, and can be beamed down to Earth’s surface with microwaves and captured with rectifying phased array antennas. Starship and off-Earth manufacturing may make this economical someday. With enough energy at a sufficiently affordable cost, there is practically no limit to the human economy in this solar system or any other solar system. Stars ☀️ are mind bogglingly powerful.

We are also not going to reduce our average energy intensity per unit of GDP in the process.

In developed economies, like the USA for example, the energy intensity of GDP (average joules per $ of GDP produced) has been slowly declining for decades, but I think the SWB revolution will lead to a monumental reversal of this trend. The steepest drop in energy intensity occurred during the 1970s energy shock, and energy prices have on average creeped up in the time since. With SWB power the price of energy falling will mean more energy is used for relatively low value applications compared to now, which implies that value produced per joule will drop. Although some individual energy use cases like computation and transportation will get more efficient per FLOP or per mile, this effect will be heavily outweighed by the growth of the market and by the development of new energy-intensive industrial capacity and infrastructure that exploits the delightfully cheap SWB energy of the future.

Moreover, this staggering increase in energy supply will help us actively fix the biosphere without crashing our economies, while delivering all the other benefits of SWB that the UN goals already include, like achieving a wide variety of social justice objectives, avoiding hazardous pollution, reducing radiation exposure from coal emissions, reducing root causes of warfare, etc. It will also eliminate our terrible dependency on oil and gas for chemical purposes while increasing the supply of said chemicals. The SWB revolution will be as profoundly disruptive as the Scientific Revolution and subsequent First Industrial Revolution.

What new potential is waiting to be unlocked by lower prices? Some have been discussed already by others and me, but the math is telling me that almost EVERYBODY is underestimating the magnitude of what’s coming.

Primary Chemical Production
We need chemicals. All kinds of them. Lots of them.

Too much of our chemical supply comes from oil and gas, but if there's one thing I know in my limited understanding of chemical engineering, it's that almost everything is negotiable if you’re willing to pay the price of fighting entropy by expending enough energy. Many chemical synthesis processes are known and fairly well researched but have been rightfully shelved because of their wasteful energy consumption. When energy suddenly explodes in abundance and affordability, that changes everything. We are about to enter a new era of brute force chemical synthesis driven by cheap SWB power.

Energy-intensive processes exist to synthesize all of the following primary chemicals using solar power and abundant material inputs including primarily air, water, salt (NaCl) and limestone (calcium carbonate CaCO3):
  • Methane
    • CH4
    • Sabatier Process
  • Ammonia
    • NH3
    • Haber-Bosch Process
  • Hydrogen
    • H2
    • Water electrolysis or Chloralkali Process
  • Hydroxide
    • OH-
    • Water electrolysis
  • Carbon monoxide
    • CO
    • Steam reforming of CH4 or High-temperature electrolysis of CO2
  • Lye / Sodium hydroxide
    • NaOH
    • Chloralkali Process
  • Chlorine
    • Cl2
    • Chloralkali Process
  • Ethanol
    • CH3CH2OH
    • Fermentation of sugar with yeast or new electrochemical process published in 2017
  • Sodium carbonate
    • Na2CO3
    • Obtainable by mining, but also can be synthesized with the Solvay Process
  • Quicklime
    • CaO
    • High-temperature calcination of limestone (CaCO3)
  • Ozone
    • O3
    • Coronal Discharge Method or Electrolysis of H2O
Out of all the chemicals on this list, only sodium hydroxide and ozone are currently mass-produced with electric power, with the rest directly relying on coal and natural gas as either feedstocks or heat sources.

With these basic building blocks and ultra-low cost of energy, almost any imaginable chemical can be synthesized. As a matter of fact, today’s chemical industry already makes extensive use of the chemicals in this list to knit together bigger molecules. I would encourage you to go explore Wikipedia for any of these chemicals to see the possibilities. These primary chemicals can also be used to synthesize a wide variety of derivative chemicals currently produced by cracking petroleum, because syngas of CO + H2 + steam can go through the Fischer-Tropsch process to form liquid hydrocarbons we typically get from oil. Other pathways exist too, and I'm not enough of an expert in this area to know which is best. However, I am fairly confident that cheap SWB energy and cheap H2 and CH4 will make it economically competitive to produce key chemicals like olefins, higher alkanes, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and aromatics.

I do not have the requisite expertise in chemical engineering to estimate how much of the cost is affected by energy compared to other factors, but the outlook is good especially as the hydrocarbon mining industry dwindles and loses economies of scale. Also, there may be ways to exploit cheap energy with tradeoffs that reduce these other costs.

It could get even crazier. If we get to a point where we can use machine learning models like AlphaFold to reliably design proteins in a reasonable timeframe and then use genetic engineering techniques like CRISPR to insert the corresponding gene sequences into microorganisms for precision fermentation, in principle we could theoretically make a practically unlimited supply of our own customized organic catalysts to unlock even more potential for a sustainable abundant chemicals industry. Among the benefits of customized enzymes would be lower cost, higher yield, improved energy efficiency, reduced undesirable byproducts, and higher throughput. This is a long shot because protein folding and enzyme behavior are extremely complicated to model computationally and even advanced AI may not be able to solve protein design in a practical computational budget. However, the known laws of physics don’t preclude the possibility and if it works it will literally catalyze the growth of the chemical synthesis industry even more than cheap SWB energy alone.

Methane and hydrogen synthesis from CO2 and H20 could by themselves drive a 10x or more bump in energy consumption because it requires splitting H20 and CO2 molecules which has very low thermodynamic efficiency since those molecules are extremely stable. As Terraform Industries founder Casey Handmer wrote in a whitepaper explaining the purpose of the startup and doing the physics calculations:

"Indeed, the quantity of electricity required to synthesize 100% of California’s natural gas demand exceeds grid consumption by more than 10:1. This means that synthetic fuel price parity will drive enormous increases in demand for solar power deployment, providing the demand necessary to keep the learning curve bending downwards."

Plus, this 10x estimate is probably understating the impact of increased consumption of methane and hydrogen driven by lower cost, again in line with the Law of Demand that predicts higher quantity demanded when price is lower.

Methane is just one of the many chemicals we need, and a huge variety of other chemicals can be derived from H2 and CH4. As far as I'm aware, we can in theory replace the main outputs of the entire petrochemical stack with air, sunshine, water, and common minerals at potentially lower cost. This matters.

Terraform Industries is a very early stage startup, and they have a competitor who also is surely aware of where solar prices are headed: SpaceX.


We already knew this though, because this method is the only possible means of in situ methane production for fuel of habitat and rockets on Mars. Elon said on the recent Everyday Astronaut interview with Tim Dodd that when Starship/Super Heavy is fully and rapidly reusable, the propellant expenses become most of the cost structure. Elon also said that the sole figure of merit for the rocket, booster, launch and manufacturing teams is to work together to reduce cost per ton to orbit. Obviously this means they will soon devote HEAVY, RELENTLESS attention and engineering prowess towards developing high throughput, low cost, environmentally friendly CO2 + H20 --> CH4 + O2 factories. What people are missing is that this also implies that SpaceX might expand to adjacent markets, which happens to include...all uses of oil and gas that can't be directly replaced with SWB power. Methane is methane. CH4 is a global commodity. There's nothing special about "rocket fuel" methane except perhaps higher purity. Ironically, the Musk Foundation may technically need to award the $100M X-Prize for carbon capture technology to SpaceX!

No one is likely to outcompete SpaceX in any market segment where they devote the majority of their engineering resources, and once full and rapid reusability is working, methane production will be the next target. I think only Terraform has a shot at beating SpaceX by getting a head start while SpaceX focuses on Starship/Super Heavy, but then again maybe they'll be acquired by SpaceX like Hibar, Grohmann and Maxwell were acquired by Tesla.

Yes, you read that right. SpaceX looks to be in the early stages of becoming the world's largest and most profitable hydrocarbon producer. Potentially in the long run SpaceX Hydrocarbons could make today's Saudi Aramco look tiny, because SpaceX will have even lower production and distribution costs than Saudi oil & gas, and there's vastly more available carbon in the atmosphere than in Saudi crustal oil & gas reserves. SpaceX will likely get even more bonus pricing power vs. mined hydrocarbons to the extent that governments provide carbon sequestration subsidies. This is probably 20 or 30 years away but it seems almost inevitable if you look at the historical track record of SpaceX and other Musk companies and the overarching goal to "maximize the probability that the future is good".

SpaceX will need to make green hydrogen in the process, so they'll also probably be the leader in that area too. Note that Elon has always said that H2 is a poor choice for energy storage, but he has never commented on its many critical applications in chemical production...

Just as Tesla used their experience and expertise with batteries to pivot into development of a whole new business unit (Tesla Energy), SpaceX will probably make a whole new business unit to leverage their hardcore engineering and manufacturing expertise in carbon sequestration / synthetic hydrocarbon production. SpaceX Energy would effectively become a synthetic oil and gas company that mines carbon from the atmosphere and hydrogen from the hydrosphere instead of getting both from the crust.

Note that SpaceX is conveniently headquartered in Texas, the undisputed leader of the hydrocarbon industry outside OPEC nations. Texas has a huge local supply of hydrocarbon processing engineers, organic chemists, technicians, and hydrocarbon finance and consulting specialists who are all going to be looking for new work pretty soon. Texas also has relatively minimal bureaucratic hurdles for permitting for chemical factory construction, many existing organic chemical factories, gas pipelines, gobs of wind and sunshine, and cheap land. Southeast Florida was another decent option for Starbase but they chose Texas and I believe a future plan for hydrocarbon synthesis was probably one of the undisclosed reasons in favor of Texas. Mordor gentrification is proceeding at a speed that will catch almost everyone off guard.

Transportation
This one probably needs little argument on this forum but the point is worth repeating.

Cheap autonomous EVs and cheap tunnels will reduce the cost of transportation by an order of magnitude in the long run while also increasing the utility of the transportation service provided by increasing convenience, reliability, speed, comfort/luxury, and relaxation and by freeing up people's attention from attending to the road.

Although this new system will substantially improve upon the energy consumption per passenger mile (or per shipping container mile) of today's transportation options, the increase in overall miles demanded will likely overwhelm the efficiency gains and increase the energy demands of transportation by an order of magnitude or maybe two. Consumers will commute longer distances, go out on trips more, take more faraway vacations, and order more deliveries. Businesses and other institutions will exploit the new technology in a similar manner.

Transportation currently accounts for about 20% of human energy use, so if transportation demand per capita increases by 10-100x and efficiency per passenger-mile improves by 3x, the net result is a 3-33x increase in human energy consumption from this factor alone. Then multiply this by bringing the other 80% of humanity to developed-world living conditions and the net change is 17-170x increase!

Hyperloop, long distance tunnels, Starship orbital transport, and/or EVTOL aircraft may also come about and provide similar benefits for long-distance transportation. I can promise you that the primary reasons I don't fly to Hawaii or visit my family more often are that I'd have to consume a bunch of oil, spend a bunch of money, and lose most of a day to travel. If those constraints were removed I'd do it probably monthly.

Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning
In order to save money or to help the environment (or in today’s world, to avoid funding Putin and Russia’s oligarchy) many homes and other buildings are kept at less than perfectly comfortable temperatures. In fact, I’ve been in several factories and warehouses and most of them didn’t have any climate control at all because of energy cost. If you’ve read this far, by now I’m sure you can see where this is going.

The HVAC market is going to explode, especially as extreme temperatures become more common and in particular as Europeans, Canadians and Russians start to install AC to cope with their increasingly uncomfortable summer heat.

As with cars, there will be some work to improve efficiency from heat pumps and radiant heat systems for example, but honestly I’m expecting the attitude to shift towards not caring because it isn’t worth the time and effort. Consider the average person’s relationship with electricity for low consumption devices. Turning off unused lights, computers and TVs was important 20 years ago, but these devices are an order of magnitude more efficient today so it’s arguably not even worth the time anymore unless you’re going on vacation.

Humans are organisms seeking to maintain homeostasis. Clever retail businesses have figured this out and used it as a trick to attract foot traffic. At Disney World it’s common to leave the front door of a shop or restaurant wide open in the middle of a Floridian summer because the cool air leaking out attracts customers like a porch lamp attracts moths. Energy consumption is the main reason why more places don’t do this already; it makes sense for Disney today because they have so much pedestrian traffic in front of the door and high average gross profit per customer entering the building.

The return on investment for building thermal insulation will be reduced, which will probably reduce the amount of insulation in the average building. A couple caveats include:
If designs using structurally insulated panels, like Boxabl walls with expanded polystyrene, end up becoming common, then the average thermal insulation level will increase.
Thermal insulation usually improves noise insulation so that may become the main driver for continuing the insulate buildings. However, if thermal insulation becomes less common then that will further drive up energy consumption for HVAC.

Even outdoor heating and cooling will increase. For example, outdoor heating lamps for restaurant and bar patios have a lifetime ownership cost dominated by the energy cost of usage. At least in Seattle, it is obvious that COVID majorly accelerated the move for extending restaurants/bars out onto the road where parking spaces used to be. Patrons and staff would prefer these tents be 72F/22C, all else being equal, and pedestrians passing by may appreciate the free relief from the weather. Imagine all the applications where people would want this: waiting lines at amusement parks, open air stadiums, festivals, etc.

This is a sector which will be especially impacted by economic growth in developing nations. India, for instance, is hot, but less than 10% of the 1.3 billion Indians currently have AC. Ouch. Here's some data on AC market penetration by nation. And if you haven't heard, India is getting hotter. They will install AC. As it turns out, developing nations tend to be closer to the Equator and have higher temperatures and are being disproportionately impacted by global warming. There's a similar story for most of South Asia, the Middle East, the entire continent of Africa, and most of the Americas south of the Rio Grande.

There is a bit of a natural limit to how much HVAC demand would likely increase, because we are mainly interested in keeping buildings comfortable, and there's only so many buildings. Heating and cooling currently accounts for a bit over half of global final energy consumption, and my rough guess is that energy used for HVAC will quadruple from today's levels in the mid-to-late 21st century, becoming in total about double today's total human energy consumption.

Information & Communications Technology
For the last century, there's been steady exponential growth of the energy efficiency of computers in terms of floating point operations per second per watt. The improvement rate has been an order of magnitude every 5 years, in accordance with Koomey's Law (link1 & link2).

Likewise, information transmission technology has been getting more efficient in terms of bytes transmitted per second per watt by around an order of magnitude every 5 years (see fig 3 in this study for an example from Finnish cell networks).

Despite this impressive rate of improvement, the total amount of energy consumed by Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has also been growing exponentially, to the point that this sector which barely existed 25 years ago now accounts for more than 10% of overall human electricity use and 2% of overall carbon emissions with the exponential growth likely to accelerate in the coming decades with continued growth in users, 5G, cloud services, HD video streaming, Internet of Things, and AI services.

This is extremely difficult to predict precisely because the trajectory is highly sensitive to assumptions about the trajectory of the overall ICT industry. However, it is very safe to predict than even in the lowest end scenarios the ICT sector will consume vastly more energy than it does today because the ICT industry is still just getting started in the grand scheme of things. Probably between 10x and 1000x by 2050, making it consume 0.2x to 20x more power than current human activities. I would guess 2x as a decent middle estimate.

Manufacturing & Construction
Energy costs constitute a substantial portion of the cost structure for many manufacturing industries, such as metallurgy and ceramics where energy can be 30% of the total cost.

This is really hard to estimate the impact of but it's safe to say that factories will find ways to use more energy. This would probably include selection of more energy-intensive materials, usage of higher performance machines that are less efficient, and using energy to squeeze out more product yield with less scrap material. Some of it will also just come from being able to sell more widgets by passing on the energy savings to the customer.

Construction is essentially outdoor manufacturing so it has similar economics.

Desalination & Pumping Water against Gravity
I posted about this recently.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately and I think the only viable plan is desalination on a tremendous scale.

We have more water on this planet than we could possibly use. The problem is that almost all of our H2O molecules are jumbled together with salt ions and other impurities in big pools located downhill from where we live.

The Sun’s energy has always solved this problem for us by generating evaporation, wind, clouds, rain and rivers. This has always been frustratingly inconsistent, unpredictable and unevenly distributed across Earth’s landmass. With climate change, desertification, deforestation, erosion and biodiversity loss these issues are getting significantly worse every year, and our food supply is currently dependent on unsustainable water draw rates. That’s very bad news.

Some very good news is that we can actively use the same solar energy to bypass the natural hydrological cycle to synthesize as much freshwater as we want and pump it to wherever we want and even put it in solid or gaseous form if we want. In principle, it’s physically possible to artificially refill all our lakes, rivers and streams with clean, 100% reliable water supply. With electricity we can remove the salt and other impurities and then pump the water uphill. The process is already pretty well established, with over 21,000 desalination plants in operation worldwide today, mostly concentrated in the Middle East where they have nearby saltwater, cheap oil and gas, and severe freshwater scarcity.

The problem with desalination and water transportation has always been the cost and environmental impact of the energy and pipeline requirements. A breakthrough in cheap sustainable energy and underground pipeline construction costs is needed. How else will we irrigate the Midwest when we’ve finishing sucking the Ogallala Aquifer dry? How else will East Africa survive when Lake Victoria is nothing more than a memory?

Solar energy is soon going to be cheaper per Joule, by an order of magnitude, than hydrocarbon fuels ever have been anywhere in the world. So the energy portion is already likely to be solved in a timely manner.

Underground aqueducts already exist. Mexico City, for instance, relies heavily on their pipeline infrastructure and they recently completed a 39-mile wastewater removal tunnel. Sadly, these subterranean aqueduct projects take years to complete, cost around $1 billion per mile and have insufficient flow rates to really make a dent in the overall global water crisis.

Can we fix that part? Suppose that Boring Company hits their technical goals for Prufrock and then follows that up with a MegaPrufrock variant with a 4-meter radius. It might cost 5x more per mile than regular Prufrock for a cost of about $25M per mile fully outfitted with pumps. With a 50 m^2 cross sectional area and a 20 m/s flow rate (we don’t care much about pump energy consumption in this future) it could transport 1000 m^3 of water per second.

For comparison, the discharge rate of the Amazon River is 200k m^3/s. If we wanted to deliver an equivalent flow of water, we could do it with just 200 of these aqueducts at a cost of just $5B per mile. No crazy technology involved, just big pipes with big internal propellers.

Building one such aqueduct from the Gulf of Mexico to Nebraska 1000 miles away would cost $25B. Nebraska today has about 1M irrigated acres of farmland. Our pipeline can deliver 1 acre-foot of irrigation (1200 m^3) every 1.2 seconds. Corn needs about 2 acre-feet per season.
1M acres * 2 feet irrigation * 1.2 sec/acre-ft / 86400 sec/day = 28 days of aqueduct flow to grow 1M acres of corn.​
Wow, that actually sounds feasible!

Lake Mead has a maximum capacity of 32 billion m^3. At our estimated 1000 m^3/s flow rate, Lake Mead could be completely filled from empty in one year with a single pipe. It’s 270 miles from the ocean. At $25M/mile the pipe would be $7B to construct.

I am fairly convinced by now that if Boring Co can actually hit their preposterous goals and Wright’s Law for solar development holds true for another decade or two, we can provide plenty of water for our own needs, directly fix our wildlife reserves and reverse desertification. Tesla would play a massive role in powering this infrastructure because they will be the leading energy company by the time any of this would happen.

I want to add some more hard numbers.

The theoretical minimum energy consumption of reverse osmosis filtration is about 1 kWh per cubic meter of water. Actual efficient reverse osmosis plants today typically achieve about 3 kWh/m^3 (link).

Generating an Amazon River worth of freshwater via desalination would require (220k m^3/s) * (3 kWh/m^3) = 660,000 kWh/s = 2.4 TW.

In the USA, freshwater consumption is approximately 280 billion gallons per day, which is 390 billion m^3/year or 12k m^3/s (link). In other words, we collectively use about 5% of an Amazon River. Producing all of this via desalination would require on the order of 130 GW or on the order of 1 PWh annually. If SWB power costs get down to $1/MWh, this would cost $1B annually in electricity expenses.

However, since we're imagining a future in which industries are exploiting low energy costs, so reverse osmosis would probably lose to multistage flash distillation, which in a design made to be simple and cheap at the expense of energy efficiency would consume more like 25 kWh/m^3. This would drive up the electricity need to more like 8 PWh per year which would cost more like $8B/year, but that's still a tiny amount of cost compared to the value to the US economy.

The theoretical minimum energy consumption of piping water one kilometer vertically is about 2.7 kWh/m3 for doing the work against gravity. In reality it might require 10x or 100x more because in most cases requiring lifting water 1 km above sea level will involve energy loss from imperfect propellers and fluid friction. I don't know how to estimate that. Roughly I would estimate 10 PWh for pumping required annually or around the same as the distillation energy consumption.

Total would be about 20 PWh.

This could scale easily another order of magnitude if it starts to become necessary to supplement our glaciers, rivers, streams and lakes with additional water to compensate for climate change impacts and actively fight desertification and wildfire risk. The US gets about 8 trillion m^3 of precipitation annually, which is 20x more than our freshwater consumption.

Indoor Farming
Conventional agriculture is in a crisis state on many fronts.
  • Poor soil health and erosion
  • Shifting climate and with it drought, flooding, storms, plant and livestock diseases, and more
  • Water shortages
  • Wildlife habitat encroachment
  • Pesticides, herbicides and fungicides
  • Gradually declining nutritional value and flavor
  • Waste from failed crops, slight product imperfections, transportation damage, spoilage
  • Lack of interest from rural youth to enter the business
  • Natural gas dependence for fertilizer synthesis
  • Fertilizer runoff and downstream problems like algal blooms
  • Oil dependence for machinery like tractors
  • Countryside landscapes rendered boring and ugly
  • Pollinator and insect population collapse
  • Long supply chains, especially during off season locally
Some of these problems can be solved directly by replacing fossil fuels with SWBs, but the overall system is still a slow-moving catastrophe that's getting worse every year.

Indoor farming, or controlled environment agriculture (CEA), has clear benefits for many of these problems.

  • Soil isn't even needed for some types of CEA and when it is required, the soil is easy to maintain in controlled conditions
  • Total weather protection
  • 90-99% water efficiency such that the primary way H20 molecules exit the facility is via the produce itself
  • High density per acre/hectare even when accounting for required solar panel area
  • Pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides generally aren't necessary because the environment is treated as a clean room which prevents intrusion of weeds and pathogens
  • Perfect growing conditions, high freshness at time of consumption, and ability to select different varieties of consumer favorites make nutrition and flavor much higher
  • Crops rarely if ever fail, produce is extremely consistent and marketable, less transportation needed as produce can be grown locally year round, and less time between harvest and consumption drastically cuts spoilage
  • Can be located in urban areas where many young people are interested in farming but can't find affordable land
  • Near zero fertilizer waste and negligible amounts escape facility into the environment, and as mentioned in the chemical synthesis section ammonia can be produced with solar and that can feed the fertilizer supply chain
  • Traditional farm machinery not even needed; all equipment in indoor farm will be electrical
  • Can give countryside back to wildlife or at least make pretty parks and communities for people who prefer rural living
  • Long supply chains generally unnecessary
Here is video interview of someone who farms citrus and pomegranate trees in a cheap greenhouse he made after retiring from a career at the Post Office. In Nebraska. All year, even when it hits -20F temperatures outside. His system is low tech and uses passive geothermal heating with a fan blowing air through a big tube loop buried underground. I would bet someone can improve on something this and scale it up. If nothing else, it's proof of concept that places like Montreal or Helsinki could potentially grow tropical crops locally 365 days a year. The question is cost.


Depending on who you ask, electricity costs are usually around 60% of the total cost structure for controlled environment agriculture. Energy cost is also embedded in the materials and construction for the building itself. Labor is another ~10-30% depending on the crop and the level of automation. Water input is usually 90-99% less than conventional agriculture and this advantage is growing over time as indoor farms improve efficiency while field agriculture is increasingly vulnerable to heat waves, periods of drought, deteriorating soil health, and long-term desertification which mitigates the benefits of innovation in conventional water management for farms. Human labor is not required by the laws of physics for growing and harvesting plants and being in a factory environment makes automation easier than traditional farms. In theory with sufficient automation much of the labor component of cost could be removed. That means that the whole cost structure for indoor farming may be poised to plummet in the next couple decades and it will need a lot of electricity.

Now what if the farms also have electric transport via long distance underground freight tunnels that maybe go 100+ mph and electric trucks for last mile delivery? The most energy-intensive crops could be grown in places like Arizona and North Africa and shipped out to less sunny places regionally for significantly less cost, better freshness, more resilience to weather disruptions to surface transport, and negligible environmental impact compared with refrigerated diesel trucks in use today. Plus, solar farms in hot arid deserts can help restore ecosystem health on land damaged by prior human activities by providing shade and concentrating rainwater. For the crops with the most energy intensity, this could be a winning strategy.

The biggest question for CEA in my opinion is whether it will be able to win in the really big markets like wheat, soy, corn, rice, sorghum, potatoes and yams. Thus far CEA is mainly competitive only for fruits, vegetables and cannabis.

It’s hard to estimate the total impact of CEA on future energy demand but I think it’s probably at least 200W/m^2 of continuous power for lighting and temperature control, so one hectare of total grow area would require at least 1 MW of electricity. For a sense of scale, 5 billion hectares are cultivated globally today.

Rough napkin math:
  • Assume CEA will have 10x more net productivity per hectare of cultivated area because of its conditions perfectly optimized for growth 24/7/365, no loss of crops to diesease/pests/weather, consistently perfect marketable produce, and lower post-harvest food waste
  • Assume human population will grow to 10 billion and malnutrition will be solved, increasing food consumption by 30% from today
CEA to replace all legacy plant growing would require 5B hectares * 1.3 * (1/10) = 650M hectares of grow area (note: not land area because farms will have like 10-1000 levels of plant shelves depending on the plant height and the factory size)

At 1 MW/hectare, this CEA industry would consume 650 TW of power, which is about 30x more power than humanity uses today, yet it would require only about 1.3B hectares of land for solar panels with 20% efficiency compared with 5B hectares currently cultivated. Also, unlike today’s monoculture row crop farms, solar farms can coexist with moderately healthy ecosystems with proper biodiversity. This is all very rough estimation but it suggests than CEA energy consumption could someday be at least an order of magnitude more than current human energy consumption.

Optimus
This is a wildcard but is straightforward to estimate.

What if the Bot actually works really well and there’s eventually an army of ten billion of them (wild guess of one bot per person) and each one consumes 5 kWh per day on average? That’s another 50 TWh of electricity needed daily or about 20 PWh (peta) per year, which is 10% of our current consumption.

If we have 10 bots per person it’d be 200 PWh per year which would by itself double human energy consumption.

100 bots per person --> 2000 PWh/yr --> 20x human energy consumption

Moonshot Possibilities Not Worth Writing About in Detail
  • Atomic recycling, usually via application of extreme heat (e.g. pyrometallurgy)
  • Oceanic trash cleanup
  • Antimatter synthesis
  • Asteroid mining for precious metals (assuming Starship works and hits targets for the other costs not related to fuel and assuming other technical challenges solved)
  • Other ideas yet to be invented or so obscure I don’t know about them
  • Green mining and refining with tunnel boring machines instead of open pit techniques and brute force separation of atoms, Get notes from boring co spreadsheet

Conclusion
There is almost no understanding yet about how many problems the SWB revolution will solve, how big the energy market will get, and the stupendous potential of Tesla Energy to be the biggest player in this new energy future.

Adding up the rough estimates in the preceding sections leads to a very rough prediction of 30x-200x of increase in energy demand from today's levels.

The profitability potential is reduced by the fact that margins on a low cost commodity product can’t be large because the unit revenue is low. Will the explosive volume growth outweigh this factor? It’s hard to guess in advance. Even if energy cost falls 10x, if the overall volume grows 100x, then the revenue will be up 10x. Considering the nature of a SWB grid and the importance of load scheduling, weather simulation and other software services, I could easily see Tesla turning Autobidder and its ancillary battery management software into a dominant global energy management platform like AWS is for cloud computing.

Tesla's skill with integration and smooth consumer product experiences, akin to Apple's consumer electronics ecosystem, may give them a sustainable competitive advantage in making fully integrated home energy systems including Solar Roof, Cars, Powerwall and HVAC. I see no one likely to catch them in the next 15 years minimum, and we know how fast they can scale production.

Do not sleep on Tesla Energy. It will be way bigger than car hardware if you look out to 2040 and beyond. While estimating with precision is difficult, I see potential for Tesla Energy to be a $10+ trillion business by itself.

This is not investment advice. The author is not a certified professional financial advisor. Make your own decisions.
 
Why FSD Regulatory FUD is Overblown

I’m not a lawyer but I have worked professionally with the Federal Aviation Regulations compliance for 6 years and I’ve read all of 49 USC 301 and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

There has been far too much speculation about FSD level 4 or 5 approval in the USA on both the bear and bull sides, but far too little first principles review of the actual law and structure of the United States Department of Transportation. Here’s my best effort to do so.


NHTSA
The National Highway Transportation and Safety Agency is a bureau within the United States Department of Transportation. NHTSA regulates motor vehicle safety in accordance with US Code Title 49 Subtitle B Chapter V.

49 § 30101
Purpose and Policy

The purpose of this chapter is to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Therefore it is necessary—
(1)

49 § 30111
Standards

(a)General Requirements.—
The Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe motor vehicle safety standards. Each standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety,and be stated in objective terms.

(b)Considerations and Consultation.—When prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter, the Secretary shall—
(1)
consider relevant available motor vehicle safety information;

(2)
consult with the agency established under the Act of August 20, 1958 (Public Law 85–684, 72 Stat. 635), and other appropriateState or interstate authorities (including legislative committees);

(3)
consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and

(4)
consider the extent to which the standard will carry out section 30101 of this title.

49 § 30102 (a) (9)

Definitions

motor vehicle safety

(9) “motor vehicle safety” means the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.

(underline emphasis mine)

49 § 30161

Judicial Review of Standards
(a)Filing and Venue.—
A person adversely affected by an order prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the court of appeals of the United States for the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business.
(e)Finality of Judgment and Supreme Court Review.—
A judgment of a court under this section is final and may be reviewed only by the Supreme Court

So, the explicit purpose of the law is to reduce traffic accidents, injuries and deaths and it provides for judicial review via a US Court of Appeals if a person (corporations are legal “persons”) is adversely affected by an order for a motor vehicle safety standard. The court will consider the purpose of the law and the demonstrated safety record will be what matters in court if Tesla has to litigate. If the data conclusively proves that allowing FSD level 4/5 will reduce traffic injuries, accidents and deaths, then in any reasonable court the NHTSA prohibition would be struck down as not serving a legitimate motor vehicle safety per the criteria listed in 30111, and so Tesla would be allowed to deploy. There is no realistic way in my opinion that NHTSA lawyers could successfully argue that their anti-FSD standard “protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents…and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident” if there’s clear evidence that it’s actually doing the exact opposite. The government can be slow but it’s not as poorly designed as many people think.

NHTSA could in theory delay Tesla’s rollout in the USA by making a ruling forcing Tesla to lose time appealing, but imagine them doing that and Canada does let Tesla have FSD level 4/5 a few months later. American voters would be furious. It seems extremely unlikely they would do that. The Secretary of Transportation is appointed by the President who has a strong vested interest in immediate sources of economic growth because that’s the biggest factor in popularity amongst voters. America being the first country in the world to roll out robotaxis using homegrown technology is an easy win for the President to give patriotic speeches and post on Twitter about American innovation, saving lives, driving the economy to new heights, saving the planet and making transportation more inclusive and equitable for everybody. It’s a political slam dunk. Americans generally do not like the USA being second place at something big like this, especially if we were winning until the Feds stopped us right in front of the finish line and let Canada beat us to the prize. (No offense to Canadians 🇺🇸❤️🇨🇦)

NTSB Does Not Regulate
Please try to remember the difference between NTSB and NHTSA the next time FUD is spewed by malicious actors.

NTSB is like a yappy little dog with all bark and no bite, although they do perform an important role in independent accident investigation, especially in aviation. However, NTSB makes plenty of recommendations that end up never being implemented.

That makes them a great source of FUD for Tesla bears to disseminate.

“BREAKING NEWS!!! National Transportation Safety Board Launches Probe into Tesla Autopilot Accident from 2016!! Tesla has had recalls for Autopilot and FSD Beta before, did you know that?! By the way, Elon Musk once called someone a pedo guy on Twitter, what a jerk.” Who cares?

NHTSA is the well-trained, disciplined guard dog who actually makes the rules at the dog park. Sometimes they have to cover their butts in ways that are unreasonable, like when they made Tesla change FSD Beta behavior to come to a full halt at every stop sign out of an extreme abundance of caution. However, as shown in the law citations earlier in this post, the Secretary of Transportation is legally required to approve only standards that reasonably advance motor vehicle safety. They have no authority to make arbitrary and capricious rules, especially ones targeted at a single company.

You haven’t heard much nonsensical pearl-clutching from NTSB about FSD Beta because there have been zero accidents to investigate. Expect them to make a big show of the investigation whenever the first one actually happens.

NHTSA Autonomous Driving Stance
As stated in my prior post, NHTSA has ordered, as per their legitimate authority, that all OEMs testing level 2 autonomous driving systems must report any accidents with a standardized form and process. One of NHTSA’s official purposes is to help with research and development of new safety technologies and to request reasonable reporting from companies about relevant safety data. Demanding data from Tesla, Waymo, Cruise and others is NHTSA doing their job and helping speed up industry progress while building public trust that they’re doing their due diligence.

NHTSA's stated position from the beginning has been that the arrival of autonomous driving systems will be enormously beneficial for American road safety and American society in general. In their own words:

"NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce the economic costs of roadway crashes through education, research, safety standards and enforcement activity. Advanced vehicle technologies hold the promise not only to change the way we drive but to save lives.

The continuing evolution of automotive technology aims to deliver even greater safety benefits than earlier technologies. One day, automated driving systems, which some refer to as automated vehicles, may be able to handle the whole task of driving when we don't want to or can't do it ourselves.

NHTSA demonstrates its dedication to saving lives on our nation's roads and highways through its approach to the safe development, testing and deployment of new and advanced vehicle technologies that have enormous potential for improving safety and mobility for all Americans."

American Autonomous Driving Regulations

A few of the motor vehicle safety standards are defined in Subpart II (STANDARDS & COMPLIANCE) but most of the rules approved by the Secretary of Transportation are in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in Part 571.

If you read the FMVSS (or even just look at the table of contents), you can see that the FMVSS does not currently have any rules for autonomous control software. The FVMSS does have many requirements that will be obsolete for autonomous vehicles, such as Std 101: Controls and Displays. NHTSA has been actively planning for this transition as described in this giant April 2020 report entitled FMVSS Considerations for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems: Volume 1 which extensively covered research recommendations on “identifying possible options to address unnecessary/unintended regulatory barriers for the compliance verification of Autonomous Driving System dedicated vehicles (ADS-DVs) that lack manually operated driving controls”. Note that this research began during the last Presidential administration and was completed and published during the current administration, which suggests bipartisan support.

All told, if NHTSA is doing anything nefarious with respect to Tesla, they’re doing a great job of hiding it from me because it looks like they’re genuinely trying to improve road safety and making all the right moves to support this from a public policy standpoint. In March they officially deleted the requirement for manual controls like steering wheels and pedals for autonomous cars.

In theory, Federal law leaves the opportunity for States to enact stricter safety regulations that exceed the FMVSS but none have done that. As a matter of fact, most states have already enacted laws explicitly authorizing autonomous vehicles and establishing rules.

As Elon said recently, a big reason the FSD program is so far ahead in the US and Canada—besides data volume and the fact that the AI team and company leaders all live in the US—is that things are legal in North America by default without needing explicit legal authorization, while the EU notably doesn’t operate like this.

Conclusion
I think that it’s clear that FSD rollout across America is not going to be stopped or significantly slowed down by regulatory holdup, because:
  1. Autonomous driving is literally already legal and NHTSA cleared robotaxi-style designs two months ago
  2. Accelerating the arrival has had clear bipartisan support for years from State and Federal leaders across the nation if you look at what’s actually happening within the executive and legislative branches instead of being distracted by headlines and mudslinging
I believe Elon has been correct all along in saying that regulators will just want to see clear data that FSD will enhance road safety.

There is a canyon between perception and reality on this issue, even among bulls who are informed about Tesla and FSD, and I hope this post can be a bridge across.
 
1654286339981.png


Am I the only one projecting gross profit per car to rise past $20k soon towards the mid-$20s?

This is a genuine question because when I post reasons for that expectation no one voices contradictions, but on the other hand I see respectable bulls publishing their own financial models with much lower numbers. If I have a bad projection I hope someone will propose the necessary corrections to the model.

Q1 2022
Gross automotive revenue:
$16.681 B​
Of which regulatory ZEV credits:
$0.679 B​

Gross automotive profit:
$5.539 B​

Vehicle deliveries:
310,048 vehicles​

Gross profit per delivery, average:
$5.539B / 310k = $17.9k/vehicle​

Adjusted to exclude ZEV credits:
$15.7k/veh​

Historical Trend
Gross profit per delivery in previous quarters (excluding ZEV credits to capture underlying trend better):

Gross Profit per VehicleGross Margin
Q1 2021$ 10.122.0%
Q2 2021$ 12.625.8%
Q3 2021$ 14.128.8%
Q4 2021$ 14.829.2%
Q1 2022$ 15.730.0%

Average QoQ improvement in $/veh:
$1.4k​
Revenue Forecast
Since last summer, prices across the entire S3XY lineup have increased about 15-20%. Barely any of this has hit the financials as of Q1 '22. In my post quoted below, I estimate $11k per vehicle in price increases still in the backlog.

Prices might increase even more.

Positive demand factors:
  • Oil is still $120/barrel
    • No relief in sight
    • Sanctions on Russian oil exports unlikely to relax
  • Other companies, both Lagacy Auto and hotshot EV startups, have not been delivering on their grandiose EV production forecasts from a few years ago
    • Customers left with scarce supply of alternatives to Teslas
    • ICEV supply also falling
  • EV advertising is increasing
    • Other companies increasingly need to advertise their EVs to convince customers to buy
    • Remember the 2022 Super Bowl effect when Tesla orders in America doubled overnight
  • Cybertruck deliveries will attract much attention and conversations with owners
    • Flashy, silent, triangular tank hard to ignore
    • So crazy that people will want to ask
    • When people talk to Tesla owners or get offered rides, many want to buy one
  • Las Vegas Loop will introduce millions of people per year to the Tesla vehicle experience
    • 43 million annual visitors
    • Will be faster, cheaper and more convenient than taxis and rental cars for travel between major destinations
    • Demographic is much broader and more diverse than typical demographic exposed to Teslas
  • Hertz
    • Tom Brady partnership and ads likely to continue
    • Rentals will continue to give lots of people extended trials of Teslas and Hertz's fleet is expanding
  • Starship likely to hit orbital flight soon
  • Starlink adding millions of satisfied users
  • Falcon 9 continuing to launch for NASA and private customers
    • Passenger trip around the Moon scheduled for 2023
  • FSD Beta is expanding user access and improving
  • If TSLA blows up, attention and positive sentiment on the stock may spill over to vehicle orders
  • Government support
    • USA might revive federal EV subsidy
    • European political desire to speed up move from oil & gas is intensifying
    • Climate change problems becoming increasingly obvious and urgent
  • Some people are pleased with Elon buying Twitter and fighting prominent Democrats, and they are gaining interest in EVs and Tesla
  • Optimus prototype in September might be really cool and go viral on internet
  • Supercharger network keeps filling out coverage
  • Roadster and Semi hopefully will be released in 2023
    • Hardcore smackdown on gasoline sports cars
    • Hardcore smackdown on diesel tractor-trailer freight
Negative demand factors
  • Elon was accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault
    • Bad image irrespective of credibility of allegations
    • In the unlikely event the allegations are proven true, obviously that would be very bad
  • Some people are displeased with Elon buying Twitter and fighting prominent Democrats, and they are losing interest in EVs and/or Tesla
  • Distrust and hatred of billionaires (as an entire category of people) is growing
  • Usual suspects have been ramping up FUD to 2018 levels, convincing many casual observers that Tesla supports racism, misogyny, etc, that Tesla is financially unstable, etc.
As Tesla Insurance grows and matures, it will add even more revenue per vehicle by 2024. Shifting mix away from Model 3 in favor of Y/S/X/CT will also have a big impact on revenue per vehicle, as detailed in the post quoted below.

Cost Forecast
Several concrete reasons to expect cost per vehicle, on an inflation-adjusted basis, to continue falling from today's levels:
  • 4680s and other Battery Day tech
    • 4680 cell manufacturing line
    • Cell-to-pack wiring
    • Structural pack
    • Cobalt deleted
  • Shipping + Import Tariff Savings
    • European Union has 10% tariff
    • Shipping across oceans or across North America is not cheap
  • One-piece die castings for front of Model Y bodies
  • New Berlin paint shop design
    • Probably will improve material wastage, first-pass quality & rework, and throughput
  • Better overall factory design for Berlin/Austin/Shanghai expansion
    • Costly Fremont production is being diluted
      • Retrofitted facility filled with compromises
      • California SF Bay Area location means high labor and transportation costs
When all of this is added up, I think we're looking at roughly $3-7k savings per car on S3XY models before factoring in expectations for macroeconomic effects of inflation and material costs like lithium, aluminum and nickel.

I attempt to estimate that effect in this post:

One extra note on inflation pressure — It’s unclear how much CoGS is being held down temporarily by the long-term supply contracts vs cost improvements. Likewise, it’s unclear how much of the price increases were driven by demand pressure.

Basic market economic theory says that price for a good can rise for three reasons:
1) More demand​
2) Less supply​
3) Currency inflation​
Our challenge here is that all three are occurring simultaneously and we’re trying to estimate the relative impact of each one.

On the earnings call, these were the remarks concerning inflation and further price hikes:

“Our per unit vehicle cost increased as well. Inflation, raw material prices, expedites and logistics costs continues to impact our cost structure.”

“Actually on the price increase front, I should mention that it may seem like maybe we’re being unreasonable about increasing the prices of our vehicles, given that we had record profitability this quarter. But the wait list for our vehicles is quite long. And some of the vehicles that people will order, the wait list extends into next year. So our prices of vehicles ordered now are really anticipating a supplier and logistics cost growth that we’re aware of and believe will happen over the next six to 12 months. So that’s why we have the price increases today, because a car order today will arrive in some cases a year from now. So we have a very long wait list. And we’re obviously not demand limited. We are production limited by … Very much production limited”

“So we’ve been experiencing increases in costs in general, but also raw materials for a number of quarters now. That pace picked up in Q1, so last quarter. And what we’re seeing for Q2 is slightly higher than that as well. And as indices move, it doesn’t impact us immediately or directly. In some cases we have contracts with suppliers. But then as those contracts expire, we have to renegotiate them so that there can be a lag.”

“In some cases, our contracts do directly reflect movement in commodity prices, raw material prices. But the timing in which that Tesla pays for that has a lag associated with it as well, based on the contract. And so to Elon’s point what we’re trying to do here, because it’s quite an unprecedented situation of raw material movement, and all of these various lags and uncertainty around renegotiating contracts is, we’re trying to anticipate where things will go. And make sure the pricing that we have put in place at the time that those raw material cost increases hit us, that they align.”

“So there were some inherent cost improvements, as I mentioned, but there’s also offsets that we’ve talked about previously in raw materials, commodities. Outbound logistics continues to remain a challenge despite a ton of efforts to increase capacity there and bring those costs down.”

“We absolutely want to make EVs as affordable as possible. It’s been very difficult, I mean I think inflation is at a 40 or 50 year high, and I think the official numbers actually understate the true magnitude of inflation. And that inflation appears to be likely to continue for at least the remainder of this year. When we’re talking to suppliers, the suppliers are under severe cost pressure, and in some cases, we’re seeing suppliers request 20 to 30% cost increases for parts from last year to the end of this year. So there’s a lot of cost pressure there. That’s why we raised our prices because when things were this uncertain with respect to inflation, but you know it’s high, and we’ve got orders that go out a year or more in some cases, then we have to anticipate those cost increases.”

“What’s keeping our costs down, at least in the short term, is that we have long term contracts with suppliers, but those long term contracts will obviously run out and then we’ll start to see potentially significant cost increases.”

“Well, we hope we don’t need to increase the pricing further. The current pricing is anticipating what we think is the probable growth in costs. And if that growth in cost does not materialize, we actually may slightly reduce prices. So we don’t currently anticipate making significant price increases, but obviously we don’t control the macroeconomic environment. If governments keep printing vast amounts of money, and if there are not significant increases in lithium extraction and refinement and the other raw materials such that everyone’s competing for a limited amount of raw materials, then obviously that will drive prices to high levels. So if you have a crystal ball that can tell us what the future’s going to be like, we’ll adjust accordingly, but the current prices are for a vehicle delivered in the future, like six to 12 months from now, so this is our best guess.”

It seems we’ve been getting mixed messaging from Tesla on inflation, cost and car prices. I think the most likely explanations are that either they’re communicating poorly or deliberately obfuscating to avoid revealing their advantages yet.

Zach and Elon repeatedly emphasized the impact of inflation on cost recently. The earning report slide deck does too. And there is definitely a lag in inflation reaching Tesla because of preexisting contracts. 15-20% broad inflation globally is nothing to ignore and Tesla can’t escape the macroeconomy.

On the other hand, they’ve provided equally strong messaging about demand strength, saying that:
  • they had been “caught off guard” by “a profound awakening to the desirability of EVs”
  • orders far exceed production growth to the point that CT/Semi/Roadster have been postponed multiple years
  • shutting down the order availability for some variants is under consideration
  • the Superbowl ad effect caused US orders to double overnight
  • Tesla will sell all they can make for the foreseeable future
And of course, then Russia invaded Ukraine. If interest doubled overnight from TV ads for Lightnings and Ioniqs during a single 4-hour media event, how about record oil prices and desire to stop funding and stop depending on a violent dictatorship? Google search trend data shows that all of the following reached all-time high interest worldwide in early March:
“electric vehicles”​
“EVs”​
“how much does it cost to charge an EV”​
“Tesla”​
“how much range does a Tesla have”​
“energy independence”​
And sure enough, in March Tesla broke a 4-month lull in price hikes to increase them like 7% across the board. Yet even two months later they are reiterating that wait times are still a problem. This timing doesn’t appear to indicate a reaction to inflation.

Austin and Berlin will probably hit volume production later this year and into Q1 ‘23 which will save significant cost on manufacturing, logistics and tariffs. They will account for around 35% of total deliveries in 2023 about $4-10k savings, especially from Berlin avoiding a $6-8k import tax on every car. With orders today being fulfilled 6-12 months from now, Tesla would certainly be anticipating those savings because they know their cost model and production ramp expectations better than anyone else. Shanghai’s continued expansion will also lower average costs by virtue of its lower cost structure than Fremont. So why is Tesla making it sound like their price hikes simply reflect anticipation of inflation 6-12 months from now? That sounds like a half-truth with the parts about demand and efficiency left unmentioned.

Conspicuously absent from all comments from Elon and Zach was any mention that Model S&X deliveries had increased by 3k units from Q4, which was almost a 1% swing in overall mix across the 310k total deliveries. S&X cost about $40k more to produce than 3&Y, so this mix shift would’ve had an impact of about $400 on average cost across all deliveries. The entire jump in average CoGS per vehicle was only $600 total, so the S&X mix shift alone probably accounted for the majority of it.

Margins
Even if inflation between now and 2023 will have been 25% across Tesla’s entire automotive cost structure, that would be a $9.1k increase per car from the $36.5k Q1 average cost. That’s actually not even realistic because Tesla’s factories are on a fixed depreciation and amortization schedule unaffected by inflation as far as I know. But let’s go with $9k to be safe.

Prices increases since October have been:
$9k for 3 RWD​
$8k for 3 LR/P​
$18k for Y SR (good luck even getting delivery though)​
$12k for Y LR​
$8k for Y P​
$10k for S LR​
$16k for S P​
$10k for X LR​
$19k for X P​

Mix will be mostly weighted towards Y and some 3. Maybe $1k of this hit already in Q1 numbers. It is clear that by 2023 when orders from March and beyond are being delivered, price increases will have impacted ASP by around $9k from Q1’s $52.4k to rise to $61.4k, but it doesn’t stop there. Model Y is priced about $7k more than a comparable Model 3 despite costing the same to produce. As mix shifts from approximately 3% S/X 47% 3 50% Y to 4% S/X 21% 3 75% Y, we’ll see an additional ~$2.3k price bonus, taking us to $63.7k expected.

This $11.3k combined price increase already is enough to exceed the $9k worst case scenario for inflation. But with the growth of Austin/Berlin at 35% of volume and $4-10k savings per car, we could easily see $1.4-3.5k overall downward pressure on cost from that. Also Shanghai is cheaper than Fremont by maybe 10% at least and with its growth, it would contribute an additional maybe $1k cost saving. Summing the inflation hit of $9k with the savings leads to estimated average 2023 cost increase of $6k to $42.5k. If inflation is more like 15% then the math works out to $39k. If the new factories do really well, net cost might not increase at all!

Even in the 25% inflation scenario gross profit per unit is $63.7-42.5=$21.2k and in the more realistic scenarios gross profit looks more like $25k. In an optimum case where the new factories drag cost down by $9k for each car they sell (25% efficiency gain) and inflation for Tesla is only 10% overall, cost will actually fall slightly to $36k and gross profit per car would be ~$28k! These cases would have gross margin of 33%, 39% and 44% respectively. Any additional price increases could bump it even higher, and none of this is counting ZEV credits.

Spread that across 3-4 million deliveries and we’re looking at a wild year.

Summary
When I stack up everything that is likely to impact the unit economics for our automotive business, the math tells me that between Q1 '21 and Q1 '24, gross profit per vehicle will be about 40% higher at $25k! The optimistic scenarios come out to like $30k per car especially if FSD progress accelerates with unified vector space/single stack/Dojo training.

Vehicle deliveries will roughly triple between now and then, given 8 quarters to ramp all the new factories.

1 million deliveries/quarter * $25k earnings * 4 quarters/year = $100B annualized automotive gross profit in 2024

Not advice, but please pick at the numbers.​
 
I apologize if this was addressed earlier, but any speculation on when this 3:1 split might happen? Early September maybe?
Like others have mentioned, the split will likely occur by August 31st. This is what they did for the last split and it was to benefit the employees most.

Attached are photos of the Tesla employee stock purchase program. Note these photos are of the older plan, but the recent plan should be about the same:
Screenshot_20220611-161751_Samsung Notes.jpg


Employees can purchase up to 15% of their gross pay

Screenshot_20220611-161759_Samsung Notes.jpg


The second of two offering periods ends August 31.

Screenshot_20220611-161817_Samsung Notes.jpg

The purchase price is 15% lower than the lowest price between the offer period (September 1st, and the purchase date (possibly Feb 26th).

By having the split in effect prior to Sept 1st employees will be able to invest the max amount of dollars up to the 15% gross pay cap under this plan.
 
Back to actual Tesla analysis…

Regarding the recent price hikes in the US—to what extent are they because of supply constraints or demand increases?

Google search trends are probably the single best measure of what the populace is actually thinking about. Google is of course the most popular search engine and it lets people ask questions privately without any social consequences. I do not have sociology studies to support this claim though, so there’s a chance this isn’t actually true, but it certainly aligns with my personal habits and what I’ve observed from everyone around me.

The trends show a large spike in American search interest for “electric cars” in June, almost as large as the spike in March on the week of Russo-Ukrainian war beginning.

EE4A0E00-A9B8-4D31-B094-8AC1A44EE7FF.jpeg


I won’t clutter this post with too many charts, but I see almost identical trends for most individual EV models across all brands I checked, including:
  • Tesla S3XY models
  • Cybertruck
  • Kia EV6
  • Audi E-Tron
  • Hyundai Kona EV
  • Hyundai Ioniq
  • Nissan Leaf
Notable exceptions: Porsche Taycan, Jaguar I-Pace, and Mercedes EQS interest seems to be unaffected by fuel prices, and the only spike for Volvo Polestar 2 was the week after the Superbowl. These are luxury vehicles selling mainly to customers who don’t care much about value per dollar, so that makes sense.

I left out Mach-E and Bolt because the trend for them is probably mixed up with the major recall news.

Searches for “Tesla” remain elevated compared to February and earlier, but not much of a recent spike. However I think this search is less informative about demand and curiosity because it’s related not only to the cars, but also the stock, Elon Musk, recalls, Nikola Tesla, Tesla coils, Tesla the rock band, and any other Tesla topics. The chart below is zoomed out to the last five years and it shows “Tesla” interest has very high variance, which means short term spikes are likely not statistically significant anyway, but the long-term trend shows general interest is double what it was in 2017.

AAF915B6-A8BA-4221-9C21-918B8893162B.jpeg


The big one is this: Unsurprisingly, we see a strong correlation between searches for “gas prices” and “electric cars”. Although gas prices have roughly 20x more interest in general, both search terms tend to follow each other’s relative movements.

116CFAD2-D69B-4A9D-8CCE-C97BAB41BEA5.jpeg


Relatedly, “how much does it cost to charge an electric car” is at triple the interest in the USA compare to last year’s baseline, and it’s slowly creeping back up after the explosion of interest in March. Interestingly, unlike other EV-related searches, this one is strongest in the middle of the country, with West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Kansas and Arkansas leading the charge. Conveniently, many of these states have high demand for pickup trucks and are pretty nearby to Austin.

E8F2EBAD-7E23-4EC7-81A2-8CB91F9F8023.jpeg

53ED111B-2B40-4465-87C1-2AB7A53DC4A0.jpeg


The dominant conclusion remains that a LOT of people became curious about electric cars when Mr. Putin decided to send troops across the border and fuel prices surged.

Remember when Zach Kirkhorn, a man who does not tend to publicly present himself as prone to hyperbole, commented this on an earnings call?

“The great thing that we're seeing in the space right now is there appears to just be quite a profound awakening of the desirability for electric vehicles. And I mean, to be totally frank, it's caught us a little bit off guard... folks want to buy an electric car and folks want to buy a Tesla right now. It's very exciting for us.”
This comment came in October! Interest has more than doubled since then with no sign of abating any time soon.

It’s clear that high gas prices, more than any other factor, are what drives people (or Americans at least) to initiate self-education about EVs, and from there they begin to learn about the other benefits. Twitter, FUD, politics, oil-funded smear campaigns, recession, and a bunch of other things demonstrably do not matter as much as frustration with sending money up in smoke at the pump every week. In a broader context, this also makes sense because American full-size truck and SUV sales have also historically been correlated strongly with current fuel prices since at least as far back as the 1970s Oil Crisis. Every single day that oil stays at $120/barrel is another day more folks are learning and correcting their own misconceptions and lack of awareness about how great EVs actually are. Once they learn, they remember and intent to purchase in the future is implanted in their minds.
 
Gas Prices Increase Tesla Demand Part 2

People mainly care about gas prices. When gas prices spike, they start researching EVs and many of them place orders for Teslas and force Tesla to raise prices again.

The chart below illustrates not only that the timing of price increases aligns with gas price spikes and with the related Google searches I showed a few days ago, but also that the largest Tesla price increases happened in March when the largest gas price increases occurred.

I challenge anyone who hypothesizes that Elon's politics, Twitter acquisition, etc. are negatively affecting demand substantially to bring forth actual data to demonstrate that. If you do not have any such data, please stop cluttering the thread with inflammatory and mod-prohibited opinions based on your feelings and anecdotal experiences. Remember, as Dr Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself. This is a place for science. Thank you.

Note: The vertical axis starts at $1.50/gallon, not $0. This is the EIA's chart, not mine. My red annotations indicate when US Tesla prices increased.


Gas Prices.png


Source link

1655822973686.png

Source: Rob Maurer, Tesla Daily (link)
 
I have no clue if that Reddit dude (or anyone else) is blowing steam up my ass. But I don't know if the Tesla people are (and honestly Duoma seems sorta like a charlatan to me). There's no "Sandy Munroe" in the Tesla influencer world with strong real AI credentials that can dive in deep. That's what makes it a black box for me and why I'm desperately trying to information seek in this area (even though we know it won't be needed for a $10 trillion+ Tesla valuation with cars + energy storage).

Always on the search for more info...

Keep joking by pointing out some of the personal commentary but when you look into substantive comments he makes it’s a lot more meaningful.

Okay I tried not to get involved but I feel like people are speaking on different wavelengths. I, as a mediocre machine learning scientist, mediocre TSLA investor, and mediocre meme generator have a well balanced analysis of how Tesla is positioned in the autonomy space.

Where your friend is right:

Your friend is right that camera-based depth perception takes a lot more processing power. Yes the voxel depth resolution output currently is likely worse than what Waymo / Cruise are getting from lidar. But these are nothing new and no one should be surprised by this. I've wrote about this years ago on TMC, like here


Maybe Tesla has already used up all of HW 3.0 processing & memory, this is hard to tell because of course they are going to use as much as possible before optimization (induced demand)

He is right that sensor fusion gives higher accuracy than individual sensors (more on this later).

I would agree that its quite unlikely that Tesla will be able get to to say 10x safer than humans with current hardware.

Where you friend is wrong:

Everything else, and every conclusion he makes from those observations above. He basically discounts any of the data Tesla collects because he doesn't think the camera resolution is sufficient to be worth anything. This is inane and myopic.





The Big Picture

Tesla is focused on developing a profitable approach to autonomy


Tesla is starting with a L2 assist system that will probably soon make the entire Tesla AI team cash flow positive. Oh and they'll be able to sell excellent upgraded passive safety features (all Tesla's produced from 2019 onward will be able to detect pedestrians / cyclists / running a red light/ into a curb etc... soon). Let's assume the path to L4/L5 robotaxi autonomy takes 5 years, well in the meantime Tesla is still making money off their development with the best in class driver assist features.

Meanwhile, Waymo / Cruise were essentially forced from the beginning to rely on sensor fusion w/ LIDAR / RADAR. Sure it's more accurate, but they had to chose it because they rely on VC funding. And you aren't getting the next round of funding if you can't demo clear progress. That means focusing on the easy way to get something working (lots of expensive sensors and focusing on limited geographical areas). And still no clear path to profitability.

If Tesla need to add sensors, improve cameras, or improve processing power, they can do that later. What, excactly have they lost in the meantime?

Whose path do you think is most stable in the current moment?


Tesla is focused on developing a scalable approach to autonomy

By starting out with trying to make FSD work almost everywhere, Tesla is forcing itself to make a scalable solution. There won't need to be as much "going back to the drawing board" as there might be at Waymo / Cruise etc who barely have gotten things to work outside of one city. Of course a downside of that is going to be performance of the general algorithm will be much worse at first. The data shows most of the disengagements are currently due to mapping issues. Tesla clearly hasn't finished whatever their generalized mapping solution is, but I'm confident they have the diverse data to figure it out. It's hilarious to think people believe Tesla has flatlined progress when even that one issue clearly has a path to improve.

Meanwhile Waymo has "solved" perception, but nary a peep about global deployment? If it was scalable, they would be touting their scaling prowless, demo in 50 cities and IPO for a trillion dollar valuation. Oh, not happening?


Tesla is doing the best compromise between what a data scientist and an accountant would do.

If you told the data scientist you had unlimited funds to solve FSD, he/she would load 100,000 cars with cameras / radars, lidars and have them driving around every area of the U.S. or world, collecting the data and working to develop a robust, scalable solution. But that's not cost effective, so no one is doing that. Tesla is chosing to collect more diverse data while competitors are focused on collecting less diverse, but better resolution data.

By developing a "cheap" perception engine (cameras + AI), Tesla is allowing their AI team to move on to focus on how to solve all the other problems in full-scale autonomy. Planning, prediction, whatever else. There is no need to wait for centimeter level depth & perception precision in order to work on all the other areas of the tech stack. This is where your friend is totally wrong. And any good data scientist knows you need a wealth of diverse data in order to make a complicated algorithm generalize well. That's something that Tesla has and competitors absolutely do not.

So Tesla is going what a good data scientist would do given a constraint on funding. And guess what? Say that the camera only stack isn't good enough in a few years for robotaxi level precision? Is Tesla farked? Um no, they can simply add high-res radar or lidar in a few years and fuse the data then.


TLDR Tesla is making a cheap, scalable, and profitable autonomy software that they can upgrade with better sensors and hardware in a few years if they need to.
 
That's certainly impressive but I think those figures are not the best to project compound future growth rates from for at least a couple of reasons:

1) Of those 25K cars in Q4 2017, only 10% were Model 3's while the remaining 90% were the much more complex to manufacture S&X. On one hand, this makes the compound growth rate of 3 and Y much higher, it is starting from a much smaller number, but compound growth rates from very small numbers are easier.
Growing from small numbers is easier, but that very process of growth is what has led Tesla to not suck at mass manufacturing anymore like they did in 2017. They actually know how to win this game now.

Also, many factors made the growth in 2017-2021 difficult for Tesla:
  • Introducing two new products (3&Y)
  • 10 weeks worth of factory shutdowns in 2020
  • Alarmingly low cash reserves and negative cash flow from operations 2017-2020
  • Perpetual FUD onslaught dragging on employee morale, as @farzyness has reported
  • Working primarily from Fremont alone in 2017-2019 and fighting the inefficiency of a retrofitted old facility with a crappy paint shop and suboptimal layout
  • Not having much clout and credibility with suppliers
  • Depending on Panasonic for battery cells and dealing with their apparent unwillingness to ramp aggressively enough at Giga Nevada
  • Severe supply chain disruptions from COVID (especially chips), Suez Canal blockage, and Russo-Ukrainian war that dropped production of entire rest of auto industry by 30%
In contrast, from now through 2024:
  • Most of the upcoming growth will be Ys and some 3s, not new products
  • It’s unlikely that all of Tesla’s factories will be deactivated for two months
  • Tesla has gobs of cash stockpiled and produces billions per quarter in cash flow from operations
  • FUD is not as effective as it used to be and most employees are aware that it’s not legitimate
  • Shanghai, Berlin and Austin will contribute almost all of the growth and these are new facilities optimized precisely for Tesla’s needs
  • Suppliers increasingly believe in Tesla’s aggressive growth plans and are more confident Tesla won’t go bankrupt and leave them high and dry
  • Tesla has multiple battery suppliers plus in-house cell production
  • COVID issues are subsiding, a bunch of new chip fabs are coming into production, and Russia doesn’t have the resources to continue fighting much longer
On the other hand, the growth rate comparison starts with a much higher mix of more expensive and more difficult cars to produce than it ends up with.
Model Y is already easier to produce than Model 3, and then it’ll get even easier with front casting, structural pack, wiring improvements, and the fancy new manufacturing lines. So in this respect, this growth phase will be similar to the Model 3 ramp because the growth is going to come from the most manufacturable car in the lineup.

Until Cybertruck starts contributing materially in 2024. Cybertrucks should be even easier to manufacture than Ys due to the lack of paint shop, stamping shop, and most of the body shop.
2) Quarterly results are lumpier and I haven't checked to see how this impacts the comparison.
Not much in this particular comparison because both quarters in question had nothing unusual happening.

Let's look at the compound growth rates of total automotive revenues and also gross automotive profits on an annual basis from 2017 to 2021:

Total Automotive revenue in millions:
2017: $9,641
2021: $47,232
CAGR: 48.8%

Automotive gross profit in millions:
2017: $2,222
2021: $13,606
CAGR: 57.3%

I think using dollars rather than unit volumes helps equalize for the trend of the mix to go from harder to produce models to easier to produce models. This 4-year period had relatively low inflation but it would be appropriate to back out a small amount to account for that.
Gross profit growth was slower than unit volume growth from 2017-2021 because gross profit per car was declining much of that time after starting at nearly 100% S&X mix to like 5% S&X and 95% 3&Y.

This trend has reversed. Gross profit per car grew in 2021 and all signs point towards it continuing to rise steadily through 2022-2024 except for maybe Q2 ‘22. Automotive gross profit will therefore have a higher CAGR than production for the next few years.

Revenue per vehicle has also increased between Q1 ‘21 and Q1 ‘22 and that too is likely to continue until 2023 or 2024 for several reasons:
  • Price increases are still waiting in the backlog
  • Model Y is growing share of mix
  • Models S&X still have some growth left
  • Cybertruck, Roadster and Semi are expensive and will start adding to volume in 2023 and 2024
  • Vegas Loop and the growing Hertz fleet are likely to stoke demand by putting millions of people into Tesla vehicles
  • When European customers no longer have to pay 10% import tariff, they will probably bid up the Model Y price by some portion of the savings
  • More FSD, EAP and insurance revenue per car
Thus, gross automotive revenue will probably grow with a bigger CAGR than vehicle production in the next few years.

All that said, Tesla is at the beginning of the curve of ramping the two most advanced factories to date so we can expect production growth rates to exceed the norm in the immediate future. In terms of long-term automotive only growth in general, I think the 50% or 50% plus a bit is a good target to use to come up with projections that are appropriately conservative. A lot could happen to make the growth rate slower while making the growth rate substantially higher would require everything to come together in ways that are increasingly unlikely as the growth target rises and also as production volumes increase into truly large numbers.
Overall for the next 10-15 years, 50% is probably a good conservative estimate for vehicle production growth.

However, for the next 3 years or so, 70-100% is more likely and that’s what Elon said to the crowd in October in Brandenburg:

“We’re growing by, I don’t know, 70, 80% a year on average, and maybe even faster than that in the future.”

Tesla finished 2021 at a rate of 1.25M cars annualized.

If by the end of 2022 Berlin hits the minimum target Elon provided in October of 5k units per week, and if Austin matches that, then they’d combine for 0.5M annualized. That’s slightly faster than Shanghai’s growth in its first three quarters.

Fremont will be ~0.6M by then, up from about 0.53M in Q2.

Shanghai should be at least 1.1M with moderate growth above current 0.85M rate due to:
  • Major production line upgrades in July
  • Phase 3 addition starting to ramp
  • Chip shortages relaxing
  • Ongoing continuous improvement like in 2020-2021
The total would be 0.5+0.6+1.1 = 2.2M annualized, which is 75% growth over the 2021 exit rate. Far more than 50%.

2023 would then see crazy growth at Berlin and Austin. They’ll probably leave 2023 at ~1.5M combined minimum, which is a little more than 60k per month each. This will have been 7 quarters into their production ramps. This is quite conservative because it’s equal to the progress Giga Shanghai made in its first 7 quarters, but Berlin and Austin:
  • are bigger factories
  • have better designs than 2020-2021 Shanghai
  • will make only current-generation Model Y (and some Cybertruck later) instead of Model 3
  • have the latest Tesla factory software and robotics programming
  • are in the USA and Germany where there’s less difficulty with culture and language barriers than with Shanghai
    • Germany is a Western country and 56% of Germans speak English
Maybe Shanghai only grows in 2023 from 1.1M to ~1.5M (36%) and Fremont conservatively stays at 0.6M with zero growth.

Then the 2023 exit rate would be 0.6+1.5+1.5= 3.6M for 64% growth over the 2022 2.2M estimate.

Tesla could probably surpass these numbers.

I think 50% annual growth between now and the end of 2024 would be very unlikely. Basically 50% growth would imply that Shanghai’s growth slows down considerably, and both Berlin and Austin grow significantly more slowly than Shanghai did. That’s just how the math works out. The biggest concern I have with this model is that raw materials or some other part of the supply chain will fail to keep up with the big numbers, or that 4680s will be harder to ramp up than Drew Baglino’s confidence indicates.

Perhaps profit growth could be stronger than 50% plus a little, but profit growth is more susceptible to vagaries of the economy than production growth is.
In addition to the comment above about gross profit growing with a bigger CAGR than deliveries for the next phase of expansion, consider that Tesla sells vehicles for less than the fair market clearing price. The cars are perpetually on a discount, and people compete on the margin for how long they’re willing to wait in line. This is why we say Tesla is production constrained, and largely why there’s such a small gap between prices of new and used Teslas.

While this strategy probably means missing the opportunity for extra profit in the short term, one benefit is that it provides safety margin for continuing to charge the same amount and sell the same quantity even in a macroeconomic downturn. In a temporary demand decline, the order backlog would get shorter but profit margins and sales volume could remain steady.

While I'm excited about the tremendous growth that's looking increasingly certain for automotive production and delivery, those numbers don't reflect the true potential once AI, robotics and especially energy are factored in. Investing in TSLA at the current price will be very lucrative in the not-too-distant future.

Cheers!
Indeed. Cheers!
 
Holy Toledo . . . .I Just Completed My First Pass at Q3 & Q4 . . . . .It's Going to Rain Money.
Despite the Austin/Berlin Money Furnaces, Tesla should deliver $4.2b FCF in Q3 and $5.0b in Q4.
I think this may shock everyone on Wall Street as Tesla's previous high was $2.8b in Q4 2021.
The huge jump is mainly driven by the 383,000 deliveries in Q3 and 455,000 in Q4. These deliveries would give Tesla 50% growth for the year over 2021.
I will continue to update my model as new information comes in.
For finance nerds, FCF details are here: FCF DETAILS

1659297608258.png
 
Simply - not interested in what the Chinese are doing beyond Tesla Shanghai.

I’ve literally said for years on this forum that all OEMs are dead (just a matter of time) but for the Chinese. The Chinese having mega presses or copying Tesla in a myriad of other ways doesn’t even get an eyebrow raise from me. I’m only concerned with Tesla and how they navigate obstacles and continue to move forward with particular attention to innovation, efficiencies and all that good stuff that’s gotten them to this point.

Incoming Zen; worry about yourself and what’s on your plate because that you control,...

I will not be paralyzed by would be fears and possibilities. There’s plenty of people already doing that. The Chinese won’t catch Tesla as long as Tesla continues to focus on their mission. You can’t beat that which you simply copy.
To all of us who support the Tesla mission it is quite relevant to have huge success from at least several participants for every part of global transition to sustainable energy.

Thus I, like Elon Musk, hope for others to succeed. Tesla is only as successful as is the global adoption of renewable energy and BEVs. He has been very clearly disappointed in slow and minimal adoption.

For that reason I hold that the rapid development and success of Chinese BEVs is a rare case of widespread industrial support to Tesla's aims.

We might even think of analogies. Was there ever a global transition that depended on only one company?
Cases from Singer, Colt, Ford, and so on, all were prime movers of new technologies, as is E. Musk.
None invented the things they perfected, although their roles were fundamental to wide adoption.
Thinking for the Tesla mission we should recall how important Elon has repeatedly emphasized how important wide adoption really is.

Bluntly, Tesla can only thrive when BEVs become popular as utility level storage has done, as utility level photovoltaics and wind power have become. Tesla is thriving in those too, but si not the single largest player in some fo it.

To imagine Tesla must command the total market or even the dominant share is to suggest the total market will not successfully compete. Should that dominance continue a decade from now Tesla will have been a failure, commanding a huge share of a small market.

Giving competitors access to Superchargers is only the first step. Tesla is also helping battery suppliers learn how to improve, by buying from all the good ones and helping them do better.

CATL and BYD are just the beginning also. It's instructive that Mr. Musk knows both and actively helps them. It serves Tesla narrow and long term goals at the same time. That SAIC and others help teach legacy OEMs how to produce BEVs is also serving the Tesla mission.

So, yes, the Chinese are important. They may well be the only significant participants to be learning what they need to learn to help the world transition to sustainable energy.

Most of us are ready to write off all the legacy OEMs. Directly, that is probably correct. However, several of the least likely are learning , reluctantly, from the Chinese.
One early obvious example was that only Chinese owned IDRA could muster the capital expense and time to build a 6000 tom press. Bühler, certainly the preferred vendor, refused. What happened? Bühler changed their outlook quickly and became deeply committed themselves. That may seem irrelevant. I don't think so. Soon even BMW will see they've missed the manufacturing revolution.

In my opinion, there are three impediments to widespread success. 1) Legacy OEM need to seriously feel pain beginning with Toyota and BMW. 2) Labor unions need to understand their options. 3) Governments need to become serious quickly. All three are strained now, whether their stakeholders can see it or not.

The realization will become acute once they all see that BEV building can be and is, cheaper than ICE.
With evolving battery technology, new better materials (i.e. cheaper and more effective), and gigantic presses all the pieces will be nearly complete. It's very, very close now. The final piece is one that Tesla now has, an effective 'factory operating system'. In my opinion that last piece will begin just as soon as Geico-Taikihsa:
begins to show how Tesla Grüneheide paint shop works.

Why doI say that is the final piece? Because that paint shop is essentially impossible to retrofit. It is also essentially impossible to sue without a complete factory OS. That also, by itself, can save more than 5% of total production cost, more than just the paint, because to make it work the entire production line needs to be optimized.

So, long-winded though it is, thus far it seems that all the orders for the two giant cost cutters, quality enhancers are from Tesla and Chinese OEM and suppliers. Nobody can try to do those at all without confidence that they can build a new factory with technologically competent human beings.

Now that the most important suppliers are already deeply committed we're not too far away from some revolutionary decisions by some of those traditional OEM's. The ones that don't will not survive the transition. Obviously that means quite a few failures.
 
Tesla Semi Financial Model
Hardcore Smackdown on Diesel Trucks


I haven't done a proper analysis on the Tesla Semi until today, and I was surprised how good the business case is. The economics of the Tesla Semi are so strong that it might be economically favorable to retire diesel tractor-trailers early to replace them with the Semi. The market for new Class 8 trucks (80k pound max gross vehicle weight) is likely going to grow as compelling electric trucks arrive on the market, due to lower cost, higher reliability, better environmental performance, and more. Products that are both better and cheaper sell more units in the marketplace, in accordance with the Law of Demand.

I see now, shortly before posting this, that @LYTRIDR posted Semi numbers (link) while I was working on this. It looks like we have similar estimates. The biggest difference is in fuel saving estimation, where LYTRIDR's model uses $5/gallon for diesel, which is today's cost, and 6 miles per gallon which is probably more accurate, while I use $4/gal to reflect the average over the last 15 years and 7 mpg to be more generous about today's most efficient diesel trucks. The other major difference is that my model includes a 7% weighted average cost of capital to account for the time-value of money.

The craziest part is that this only covers full-size Class 8 trucks. Tesla could leverage their technology advantage across all the other classes of smaller trucks as well. In the US, Class 8 trucks only make up a quarter of truck sales volume in the Class 3-8 range of heavy-duty trucks. Note: Classes 1 & 2 are for light-duty trucks like F-150 and F-250; Cybertruck will serve this segment.

1660242950862.png

(link)

Additionally, if Tesla may have a competitive advantage with respect to managing charging networks and predicting future energy costs in a future grid that's increasingly based on solar and wind, with real-time pricing and with reliance on responsive smart loads (such as BEV charging) that consume power when electricity is most abundant. Any advantage from Tesla's experience with the Supercharger network, Autobidder, Megapacks, etc would also help with the economics of the Semi. Anything that can save even $0.01/mile in trucking is a big competitive advantage. A truck with a 1 MWh battery is basically a Megapack on wheels, and therefore it can participate in the energy storage market as well as the freight market, depending on which is optimal at any given time. This could be especially useful at night when many of the trucks aren't carrying anything.

A typical semi trailer lasts around 800k miles before needed a major rebuild which is 8-10 years of typical usage. I think a Tesla Semi can probably last twice as long, but I have no way to estimate this precisely. I went with 1.5 million miles. The diesel trucks most ripe for early retirement will be the oldest ones with the highest maintenance, repair, and fuel costs and worst reliability.

This rough model indicates that a Tesla Semi purchase would break even after less than 5 years of ownership and deliver a 25% equivalent return on investment over a 15-year, 1.5M mile lifespan. This kind of return on investment is ridiculously high for an extremely competitive commodity market like freight trucking.

Autonomy will help the return on investment even more if it increases the annual utilization of the truck. Without needing to work around rest for a driver, an autonomous truck could probably double the number of miles driven per year. Because the cost savings are mostly in variable costs, the higher utilization rate means paying off the upfront truck costs sooner and hitting payday after only 1.3 years according to this model! That is a whopping 81% annualized return on investment for the early adopters. Eventually, competition would drive down freight prices until not much profit margin is left, but the early adopters would make a lot of money. Or maybe Tesla would just raise the price of the truck or the FSD license to make the waiting list shorter.

This model does not account for end-of-life disposal because I don't know how to model it. I expect a Tesla Semi has more value for material recycling than a diesel semi and lower costs for disassembly and hazardous waste disposal. This model also doesn't account for the opportunity cost of diesel reliability failures, time spent sitting at chargers, nor faster delivery times on routes with steep grades. However, by far the biggest factors are driver wage savings if autonomous, fuel savings, and maintenance savings.

Any diesel truck in service with a residual value less than the net present value of a Tesla Semi should be scrapped as soon as it can be replaced with the Tesla. By the math above, this will be almost all diesel tractors because $250k is a high hurdle to clear for remaining lifetime value.

Much of this analysis would apply for any battery-powered truck that can be sold for $200k with 2 kWh/mile energy consumption. However, I think Tesla has a serious advantage in meeting the necessary technical specs like range, payload capacity, and charging speed while keeping manufacturing costs low. Tesla also has the best crash avoidance software and can probably win on vehicle longevity, which has a big impact on the overall economics.

Unit Economics
1660256057955.png



Total Cost of Ownership Comparison - ROI vs. Diesel

With human driver:
1660255642698.png


With autonomous driving:
1660255663262.png



Spreadsheet: link

This was for America only
The US has some of the cheapest diesel in the world. In other major market, Europe especially, the energy cost differential between diesel vs. electricity is even greater.

edit: fixed error which caused underestimate in savings.
 

Attachments

  • 1660254059495.png
    1660254059495.png
    199.8 KB · Views: 55
  • 1660254180516.png
    1660254180516.png
    198.6 KB · Views: 53
  • 1660254217842.png
    1660254217842.png
    208.1 KB · Views: 54
  • 1660255620258.png
    1660255620258.png
    199.8 KB · Views: 48
Exactly the point! If Tesla is doing AI, bots; mfging and/or domestic, battery storage, solar, utilities - How in the world does anyone doing just EVs compete?

The innovation, the talent acquisition, the massive mfging efficiencies, the buying power from vendors, supply chain logistics domination - how is it possible for a ‘just doing a regular, run of the mill, EV’ company compete against that behemoth?

I’ve stopped to think about it in that context for a second or two and no matter how much benefit I give to other players - they only survive if they provide a compelling product Tesla does not AND do so at a profit.

Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Time is running out real fast for others to get established with non-competing products.

Indeed. I am quite confident that Elon Musk has given birth to a juggernaut of epic proportions that many still don't understand the trajectory of. We even have people right here on this thread that still view Tesla as a rather ordinary company who just happened to be at the right place at the right time and whose future can only be eroded by others when the "competition" gets back on their feet or Chinese makers come and clean up. I would say the totality of the evidence we have actually paints a compelling picture that is the opposite of that. I believe the evidence shows that Tesla will likely grow to dominate multiple industries they have barely even scratched the surface of, and it will be a rare company indeed that can effectively compete against them in a meaningful way. Not because Tesla uses their many advantages to squash them, but because they use their many advantages to simply walk away from them and leave them in the dust. This is good for consumers because it wins them over by offering more for less.

The ultimate size of Tesla is not something that can be predicted by looking at other companies who have excelled because there has never been another company like Tesla. Not even close. But we can perhaps gain a better understanding of the dynamics by studying past economic giants. That Tesla will grow to a juggernaut of epic proportions is not a given, but it is also not simply wishful thinking/dreaming. It's based upon all the tidbits I do know about how Tesla, as a corporation, thinks about things, how they attract talent, and how they apply themselves to the problem. What's to stop other companies from doing the same thing? Well, not a lot beyond lack of talent and lack of corporate culture that is conducive to out-performing. Those are two very high hurdles because corporate culture is not something you develop in a Powerpoint presentation, it's something you build and nurture over decades. And talent is something that tends to gravitate towards other talent and a strong leader who has demonstrated they know how to utilize that talent to good effect and for good purposes.

If Elon stays at the helm another decade, and he has said he has no intention of leaving, I would be surprised if Tesla does not become over 3 times as valuable as the next most valuable company in the world (and potentially, much more). That is where I see the trajectory that Tesla has already established headed. Those who doubt this might want to study the rarified history of illustrious businesses, the best of the best, there are only a small handful.

Surprisingly, I put General Motors in this list. GM is not now the company they once were. They were founded in 1908 as a holding company for Buick (founded in 1903) and others, like Oldsmobile, that would be added in subsequent years. By 1920 GM sold 12% of all cars in America. That was barely a thorn in the side of Henry Ford who owned 56% of the market! But, by 1954, GM outsold all other manufacturers combined. In 1954 they had 52% market share and a market cap/GDP ratio of the U.S. that has never since been matched. GM was America. GM was innovative. GM pioneered the development of the diesel locomotive that wiped out manufacturers of steam engines like the Pennsylvania Railroad who was so vertically integrated they manufactured their own steam locomotives until they were displaced by diesel. Many don't know that! GM was a hugely disruptive company before they sadly lost their way. It took GM 34 years to go from 12% market share to 52% market share, I think Tesla will cover that ground at least three times faster. Things happen more quickly now days because technology has transformed the way people learn, the way technology develops, and the way companies do business.

Truely great companies are exceedingly rare and don't come around very often, but, when they do, they tend to last at least 50 years, if not over 100. I think the evidence shows that Tesla is one of those companies and, quite possibly, the greatest of them all. Time will tell. It's not something that investors today want to miss out on.
 
To the extent that the efficient market hypothesis is true, a stock split would have no impact on a stock price. As far as I’m aware, most rigorous studies have found no consistent effect from stock splits.

However, there are some reasons to expect TSLA may be an exception.
  • TSLA is an outlier on the stock market in that it has an unprecedentedly colossal amount of options trading. As reported by the Financial Times in this article last November:
“The nominal trading value of Tesla options has averaged $241bn a day in recent weeks, according to Goldman Sachs. That compares with $138bn a day for Amazon, the second most active single-stock option market, and $112bn a day for the rest of the S&P 500 index combined.”​
In case you missed it: TSLA in the COVID/Robinhood/WallStreetBets/Meme Stock era has as much options trading as the entire rest of the S&P 500! The stock split is about to reduce the minimum price of calls and puts by a factor of 3. There’s a big difference in the number of investors interested in a $3000 contract than a $1000 contract, especially considering Tesla’s unusually high retail investment interest and even more exceptional interest from young investors (like teens and twenty-something’s) who barely have any money but collectively have a lot of money and risk appetite.​

  • There are probably enough believers in technical analysis and in the social psychology surrounding stock splits that the expectations of a stock split driving a bullish run could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially for a company like Tesla which has an unprecedentedly large and connected community surrounding the company and investing in it.

  • A non-negligible portion of the investor population does not understand the difference between a share price and market capitalization, especially amongst the aforementioned young novice investors. According to @farzyness, who says he taught casual lunchtime personal finance and investing classes while he was at Tesla, said he was surprised how many employees interested in maxing out their stock options didn’t know about these kind of investing fundamentals, and Tesla employees are now one of the biggest investor demographic groups for TSLA stock.

  • Human emotions at a primal level do not react the same way to a $900 share price vs a $300 price, even if the person consciously knows they should be looking at the price in the context of total shares outstanding and total earnings expectations. Few companies grow enough after IPO to get to the point that they have a share price around $1000, so Tesla is in rarified air here. I’m not sure that enough companies have gotten to this point to even have enough of a sample size for doing a historical study. Currently almost all of the top 100 large cap stocks have share prices below $400, with the majority between roughly $80-350 (link).

  • To the extent that transactions are actually lumpy batches in the underlying mechanics of trading on the stock exchange, increased trading liquidity from increased share count may increase volatility in general. TSLA already is unusually volatile for a large cap stock and has a lot of trading volume.

  • To the extent that Tesla’s unprecedentedly large options market is causing an unprecedentedly large amount of naked short selling by market makers, a split might force them to scramble to buy real shares, thus initiating a short squeeze and potentially a second-order effect of squeezing from delta and gamma hedging. If I remember correctly, @Artful Dodger wrote extensively about this hypothesis around the time of the last split. I’m not personally sure if this is a real effect but it’s at least plausible in my opinion.

  • TSLA is the most-watched stock on the market (and if I had to guess without hard data, most-watched in the 4 century history of joint-stock corporations) and the split generates increased attention which could increase volatility. Furthermore, if the audience for those articles/videos/radio discussions ends up being biased towards attracting new investment on the bull side, the share price would tend to rise. Most of the media attention seems to be neutral or positive on the stock split for TSLA, so it’s plausible that it would cause increased buying pressure.
 
Doesn't really work that way. There's been genuine buying volume throughout the 600's, 700's, 800's, and 900's. It's just Elon torpedo's the stock consistently. You also seem to ignore that despite all of us knowing the reason for Q2's QoQ drop from Q1, we all knew Wall St was going to use that an excuse to create a narrative of a "peak" in growth %, margins, earnings growth %, etc......like we all knew they would do that. And it still wouldn't have matter that much because the stock was trending back to 1,000 before Elon dumped more shares.

We're simply stuck in a waiting game for Tesla's TTM P/E and Foward P/E to come down enough that institutional investors will jump in despite the Elon factor. The wild card is the credit rating that could come at any time, but I think we can all agree Moody's/S&P are going to drag it out as long as possible. Probably won't do it until after Q4's earnings.
I don't think all of us know that Elon's behavior is the reason for Q2's QoQ drop from Q1. It may have been a factor, but it is by my math at least 6x less influential than the collapse of the overall stock market which seems to have been triggered primarily by the ramifications of the war in Ukraine, by interest rate increases, and by the terrible natural disasters we've had this year. All the following numbers use pre-split TSLA prices.

First of all, if we do the measurement from Apr 1st to Jun 1st, TSLA fell 32% and the NASDAQ Composite fell 16%.
TSLA's beta is about 2.​
2 * 16% = 32%​
Performance on par with beta.​

Here's a scatter plot showing daily pairs of TSLA price and NASDAQ price at market open, from the beginning of 2020 until today. Even in this naive comparison, TSLA and NASDAQ have a surprisingly linear relationship with R^2 of 0.773 which indicates a strong correlation. Amazingly, this correlation has appeared strong across TSLA prices ranging from less than $100 to more than $1200.

1661378903023.png


Taking the same chart but zooming in on March 15th through Jun 15th to include Q2 and a couple weeks before and after Q2, the correlation is stronger with R^2 of 0.862, as we would expect. On a shorter time horizon, less information specific to Tesla's performance and prospects will come out than over a multiyear time period, and so TSLA would be more likely to be influenced by other factors not relating directly to Tesla matters. In this case, TSLA explosively outperformed the NASDAQ in 2020 as the company hit a series of major milestones, including finally achieving sustainable positive cashflow, demonstrating mass production of good cars in Shanghai, finally getting added to the S&P 500, holding Battery Day, and showing impressive earnings growth, all of which generated alpha and drove the stock price higher. TSLA's long-term growth profile makes its macro correlation weaker over longer time periods.

1661379194319.png


Overall, the data says that around 80% of the variation in the TSLA price can be predicted simply by knowing the NASDAQ Index for the day in question.

For example, today the NASDAQ is at 12432. Using the linear regression shown in the chart below to model the relationship between TSLA and NASDAQ based on the data from Mar 15th to Jun 15th, the model predicts a current TSLA price of $829. The actual current TSLA price is $891. That's only a 7% prediction error even with zero other information included in the model!

Imagine I traveled back in time to Jun 15th and posted here with a poll asking for TSLA price predictions for Aug 24th, and imagine the only hint I provided was that the NASDAQ would be sitting at 12432. How many people would guess within 7% accuracy ($829-$953)? How much work would most guessers put into estimation while neglecting or downplaying the overwhelming importance of the NASDAQ data point?

A similar story even holds for daily price fluctuations, which have a lot more randomness involved. Here we can see TSLA's beta of 2 (the slope of the line) and a correlation coefficient of 0.435. That is, 43.5% of TSLA's daily variation since 2020 began was explainable by daily variation in the NASDAQ Composite. I would bet that random chaotic motion causes a great deal of the remaining 56.5% of the variation, but that I don't have data for testing that.

On 479 out of 658 trading days, which is 73%, TSLA and the NASDAQ moved in the same direction. On days of significant action during which the NASDAQ rose or fell by an absolute value of at least 1%, TSLA moved the same direction 86% of the time!

1661379738666.png


The correlation is significantly stronger if we exclude days where the NASDAQ moved less than 1.5% up or down, leaving behind only days where most likely some kind of big news came out that moved the overall markets. Now R-squared is 0.591!

1661387490316.png


On the other hand, for the less-than-1.5% days for the NASDAQ, it seems TSLA just tended to do whatever it wanted without regard for what the NASDAQ was doing. This could be due to many factors, including alleged manipulation by options market makers seeking Max Pain, or random chaotic variation, or TSLA having some consistent tendency to jump twice as high as the market on days with big moves, or something else I'm not thinking of.

1661387635745.png



Here's another way to look at it. The table below shows, for each $100 price range for TSLA, the minimum and average NASDAQ open in the last 365 days.

1661385028049.png


This table clearly shows how, if we want TSLA to get back to $1000 and beyond, we either need to wait for the NASDAQ to reach like 14000+ or wait for good Tesla news, understood well enough by the market to cause a reaction, for TSLA to start substantially outperforming its beta. Tesla has never opened above $1000 with the NASDAQ less than 13000, and these days the NASDAQ is less than 13000. I expect, if all else fails, the market will manage to somewhat comprehend the numbers for Q3 deliveries and financials and TSLA will go up, and then Q4 deliveries and financials will knock their socks off in January.

Conclusion
Elon Musk is single-handedly crushing TSLA and the entire stock market with his stock selling, antics and controversial Twitter acquisition bid. More complaining about this is definitely warranted, and the author recommends further research and posting about it outside of the designated threads.

This is not investment or financial advice.
 

Attachments

  • 1661379045105.png
    1661379045105.png
    97.7 KB · Views: 44
  • 1661379057060.png
    1661379057060.png
    85.3 KB · Views: 51
  • 1661379500248.png
    1661379500248.png
    111.5 KB · Views: 49
To be fair, I think many in this thread have felt that the spring was approaching it's absolute limit for 2 or 3 quarters now....only to still be waiting...
Two or three quarters is a flash in the pan to an investor with conviction. I would wait more than 2 or 3 years for TSLA to start appreciating again (as long as the fundamental reasons I bought the stock remain intact) but that's not going to be necessary. I can't say that as a fact, but I can say it with conviction. Conviction should never be blind; it should always be based on real things.

In 1997 I started buying QCOM with the conviction they held the keys to high-bandwidth cellular data. Cellular data was, at the time, slower than molasses and as expensive as caviar. People actually thought the common person didn't need high-bandwidth cellular data. I knew they wanted high bandwidth cellular data; they just didn't know it yet.

In 1998 QCOM went down, not up. It made no sense as Qualcomm was profitable and growing. So, I bought more. It got cheaper still! It was about 30-35% cheaper than the very low price I had already Identified as a bargain even though adoption of Qualcomm's technology was growing rapidly and proving its abilities in the real world with millions of users. I even sold highly appreciated MSFT stock that still had a bright future to buy more QCOM. It was our biggest position of just a handful, by far. Then we moved into our tiny uninsulated summer vacation cabin in the neighboring County, sold our real house (that we owned outright) and put 90% of the proceeds into more QCOM which showed no signs of life if all you looked at was the market price. In the spring of 1999 Ericsson settled out of court with Qualcomm and the stock quickly doubled. I watched with mild amusement as greedy people, not wanting to lose their unrealized profits, sold for two, three or four times what they had originally paid. They thought payday had finally come! Over the next 9 months QCOM continued to appreciate until it was worth 36 times the doldrums of 1998. Every $100,000 invested had turned into $3.6 million. I didn't sell a single share until the day before it peaked, the last trading day of 1999. This is what I had waited 3 years for, and it was worth the wait! Investing is not for the impatient or those quick to take profits. That said, I am not expecting TSLA to perform just like that! But the longer the price is held down, the more it will resemble a rocket ship again. If markets were not so spastic, TSLA would more closely resemble a locomotive of the kind that steam-rolls your way to great wealth. Instead, it goes in unpredictable and irrational fits and spurts that have little to do with the actual value of the company.

Always judge the value of a company by your own analysis, not the current share price or recent share price movements! That's how you lose. And remember that 2 or 3 quarters in the investment world is like 5 minutes to a day trader. Don't invest with impatience - that's not how you become wealthy Manipulators rely on other's impatience to finally get their way. And never sell a stock simply because it doubled or tripled quickly, only sell because it has become abundantly clear the future of the company is not bright enough to justify the price. Even then I would caution against selling too soon as momentum and market FOMO will typically push the price far higher than it has any right to be. If the company is as good as your analysis showed, it will likely be OK to hold through a multi-year period of doldrums if you get caught in the downdraft that stagnates for a multi-year period. Ideally, you would sell before such an event but it's almost always better to hold too long than to sell too early (unless the company has no substance or staying power).

I would argue that TSLA, as a long-term, core holding, is undervalued at more than triple the current price even if I assume FSD will never work. And that's an assumption I'm not willing to make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.