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 am not good at getting my thoughts across in text, but here is an email I received today from the Daily Stoic that explains how I like to think about other people’s behaviour…

“We live in a culture where people sit on the sidelines and pass a lot of strong judgments. We look at people we don’t know and decide whether they’re good or bad people. We look at complicated situations and difficult projects and cleanly label them successes or failures—despite having little understanding of what went on behind the scenes. We take an instance of behavior or a tiny interaction—the way someone talked to us at the grocery store or a decision that they made—and extrapolate out who that person is and what motivates them.

As we’ve talked about before, the result of these snap judgments is not just misery for us, but an overwhelmingly negative view of humanity and of the world. It’s no way to live. Which is why when you feel that urge to decide—as an outsider or an observer—that you know who someone is or what it means, you should stop yourself. Stop yourself and consider this prompt from Epictetus:

“Until you know their reasons, how do you know whether they have acted wrongly?”

What Epictetus is not saying is that you should sit there and try to think about why Hitler and Stalin murdered so many people. He’s not saying that right and wrong are relative and that truly awful things can be excused. He’s saying, in the vein of Socrates, that we need to take a minute and really think about what we don’t know in a situation. We need to consider that, with the exception of mental illness, (which is its own kind of reason), most people have a logic for their actions—and that logic is usually not to try to hurt you or anyone else. They are just doing the best they can.

David Foster Wallace speaks about this in his famous “This is Water”speech, after several allusions to his frustration with bad drivers:

It’s not impossible that some of these people in SUVs have been in horrible auto accidents in the past and now find driving so traumatic that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive; or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he’s trying to rush to the hospital, and he’s in a way bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am—it is actually I who am in his way. And so on.
You don’t know that someone acted wrongly or is an asshole or that they totally screwed a situation up, because you don’t know the full story. You don’t know their reasons or their side of things. And what do the Stoics tell us to do when we don’t have all the facts about something?

They tell us to suspend judgment.”
 
This is getting ridiculous: shorts drop TSLA premarket everyday on low volume and coordinated FUD, no one (including TSLA IR, BoD, etc) will defend TSLA. We’re getting shorted to oblivion here. I may start selling shares if the hemorrhaging doesn’t stop.

You must be a newbie investor - you're supposed to buy low and sell high, not the other way around!

I don't feel like we've been hemorrhaging (as you put it) this year. In fact, we are at about the same levels I started to feel uncomfortable about on the way up, at the end of 2020. I felt we were getting ahead of ourselves, but I was shouted down by the mo-mo crowd who wanted TSLA to keep going up. With two full years of growth under us I feel more than comfortable with TSLA's valuation because I think we are actually under-valued by 2X, maybe 3X, depending upon how you look at it. So, very limited downside now compared to the unwanted runup to over $400 (split adjusted).

I don't understand all the angst displayed here by inexperienced investors who appear to not understand the chaotic way markets work. In my view, I have watched the underlying value of my shares climb and strengthen for two solid years, even as the share price climbed for the sky and then retreated back to December 2020/January 2021 levels of two years ago. A couple of COVID shutdowns that didn't substantially setback the overall trajectory of the company much being the most notable exceptions. I see massively more production capacity than we had two years ago and strong demand for Tesla products at surprisingly high price points. I see a general acceptance in the industry that electrification is the way forward and the difficulty the rest of the industry is having in ramping EV production while controlling the cost to manufacture. That means Tesla will have to take on an outsized share of the mission.

Tesla is in a much stronger position than they were two years and production volume and sales are accelerating. While average sales prices (looking forward) might be slightly lower than they were two years ago, margins will be much higher. Tesla is growing into a cash printing machine almost as quickly as typical TSLA bulls expected two years ago. The mission is on track, the Supercharger Network is much bigger with a much further reach than it had 2 years ago, the Tesla Service Network is greatly expanded and Semi has started early deliveries with Cybertruck expected to come on-line next year.

This is pretty much everything I hoped for, and Tesla's execution has matched my rather lofty expectations even through two years of COVID that brought many businesses to their knees by breaking their supply chains. Tesla has proven to be amazingly resilient to these negative forces and challenges. So I see my shares as having a much higher intrinsic value than they did at the same price two years ago. And since I followed my own advice to avoid leverage and not to invest money I needed to live on, I'm more secure than ever in my financial future. That's because I focus on the intrinsic value of my shares and not the number that a spastic market applies to them. The market tries to fool and trip investors who try to time time the market or who become emotional over the share price.

Don't watch the share price, watch the company, even a person of below average intelligence can be "smarter" than the market. This was the same advice I gave when share prices were soaring (watch the company, not the share price). Investing is incredibly easy once you realize the share price is not a good proxy for the true value of your shares, at least not about 50% of the time. You have to trust your own analysis and avoid having to sell during periods when the market doesn't want to pay the correct amount for your shares or buy with money you may need to spend soon. And never kick yourself for past mistakes, always look forward and try not to make the same mistakes again.

Given the incredible growth of profits and sales, production capacity, worldwide demand, and the successful progression of the mission, it's really difficult for me to understand why some shareholders are so depressed. I can only conclude they don't have a clue about investing in high growth companies. The opportunity is rarely this good.
 
If I may, I'd like to put some focus back on the long-term view and I'm overdue for an annual update. Here's my previous updates for reference:

1. From 2020 comparing the market & TSLA to the Dot-com bust
I get the sentiment. I even agree with it in regards to certain companies and perhaps the EV and related space. Seeing companies with no product in market and 0 to virtually 0 revenue (NKLA, QS) commanding multi-billion dollar valuations is astronomically absurd.

However, those are the exception rather than the rule. The numbers just don't point to another dot-com bust. Here's a nice thorough write-up penned in Sept on why. No, This Isn't a Repeat of the Dot-Com Bubble – Of Dollars And Data

Here are some key takeaways from the article:

Note: I've also adjusted some of the numbers to show where we are now vs when this was written in Sept as well as added a few tidbits not in the article

1. Nasdaq 5-year performance:
95 - 2000: +456%​
2015-Current: +156%​
2. Sampling of biggest individual performers:
95-2000 (avg 11x - 40x)
Intel: +998%​
Cisco: +3,910%​
Oracle: +1,220%​
Microsoft: +1,600%​
2015-2020 (avg 2.5x - 6x)
Apple: +401%​
Amazon: +375%​
Netflix: +361%​
Facebook: +155%​
Zoom: +559%​
TSLA: +1,234% <---- Noteable exception I address at the end of the post​

3. P/E Ratios are still below the dot-com average: 44 vs 29-30ish

4. Yields (TINA - there is no other alternative)

Current average earnings yields (E/P) are:
Now: ~3-3.3% (1/29.5)​
Dot-com: ~2.2% (1/44)​

Meaning, investors expect about a 3-3.5% return for every dollar they put in a stock now vs 2% during the dot-com bust.

That doesn't seem like a big difference, but when compared against a MUCH safer investment, the 10 year treasury, there's a huge difference.

10-year US bonds:
Now: <1%​
Dot-com: ~6%​

In the dot-com bust, you were taking a risk on companies barely earning anything for a meager 2.2% yield versus a 6% virtually guaranteed return in bonds! Now, you're lucky to get 1% on bonds versus 3% or better in stocks. Needless to say, it's not crazy to hear folks saying Amazon and Apple are better than bonds for storing your dollars.

To sum it up

Yes, TSLA is absolutely a performance outlier. However, unlike in the dot-com bust, investors are being forced to stick their dollars somewhere and mega-cap tech in the world's largest TAMs (total addressable market) is one of the best places to do that.

TSLA is:
- credibly competing in the two largest TAMs and arguably leading technology driven disruption in both
- TSLA's technology and business model has already proven economical -- an important distinction when comparing against dot-com businesses that were not economical
- led by a truly once in a generation level leader in his prime with decades of experience
- incredibly resilient having survived two MASSIVE economic disasters, one of which was the largest seen since the great depression and early in TSLA's existence

I don't have a crystal ball, but I can tell you that this valuation isn't irrationally exuberant by any means.

2. One year later (2021)
Since it's been almost a year since this post, here's how things have changed:


Current Trailing 5-year perf
Oct 2016 - 2021: 177%

Current Trailing 5-year perf - Oct 2016 - 2021 (vs 2015-Dec 2020)
Apple: +385% (-16%)
Amazon: +295% (-80%)
Netflix: +517% (+156%)
Facebook: +154% (-1%)
Zoom: +309% (-250%)
TSLA: +1,915% (+681%)



Current is now ~34

View attachment 720333
https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio


Meaning, investors expect about a 3-3.5% 2.9-3% return for every dollar they put in a stock now vs 2% during the dot-com bust.


Current (Oct 2021) 10yr yield is roughly 1.6%


Has my conclusion changed in the last 10 months? No.


  1. Bond vs Avg equity yields are still attractive for investors
  2. Despite a large expansion of the money supply and huge supply shocks, valuations aren't going crazy across the board. Winners are being rewarded and losers are being punished generally.
    1. SPAC craze occured and is passing with many SPACS now being hammered (rightly)
    2. TSLA itself took a big breather this year after touching $900 down into the 500s
    3. Yes, there are still some valuations that are way too generous: NKLA, QS, LCID, Rivian's rumored IPO -- to name a few, but at least NKLA has been punished to somewhere at least kind of close to book value if you squint hard enough and see the big actors behind it

But what about TSLA's meteoric 5 year trailing +681% vs 2015-2020 performance?

Suffice it to say, TSLA is extremely unique. Led by a once in a generation (multiple generation?) leader, Elon, TSLA has accomplished feats not seen in decades and others never seen (SpaceX booster landings anyone?). However, the share price has not and still doesn't reflect the underlying growth of the company.

View attachment 720354

What mega cap stock is guiding for continuous 50%+ growth while posting operating margin beating AMZN (11% vs 7%) and gross margin likely surpassing 30% this quarter or next and a path to AAPL-like gross margin of 35%-45% within two years?

What would the historical chart look like in 2013 to now if the above was known then?

Here is where we are now:​

1. Nasdaq 5-year performance (trailing 5 year windows):


95 - 2000 (Dot-com): +456%

Dec 2015 - Dec 2020: +157%
Dec 2016 - Dec 2021: +190%
Dec 2017 - Dec 2022: +60%


2. Sampling of biggest individual performers from Dot-Com and initial Covid disruption:


95-2000 (avg 11x - 40x)
  • Intel: +998%
  • Cisco: +3,910%
  • Oracle: +1,220%
  • Microsoft: +1,600%

Dec 2015 - Dec 2020 (avg 2.5x - 6x)
  • Apple: +401%
  • Amazon: +375%
  • Netflix: +361%
  • Facebook: +155%
  • Zoom: +559% (measures from IPO in 2019)
  • TSLA: +1,234% (wow!)

Dec 2016 - 2021 (1.5x - 3x)
  • Apple: +148%
  • Amazon: +338%
  • Netflix: +339%
  • Facebook: +184%
  • Zoom: +222% (measures from IPO in 2019)
  • TSLA: +2,085% (holy cow!)

Dec 2017 - Dec 2022 (big spread! -34% all the way to +725%)
  • Apple: +226%
  • Amazon: +53%
  • Netflix: +63%
  • Facebook: -34% (ooof!)
  • Zoom: +16% (measures from IPO in 2019)
  • TSLA: +725% (wow!)


3. S&P 500 P/E


Dot-com: 44
Covid Peak: ~37
Current: 20.62

1670538901482.png
Source: S&P 500 PE Ratio


4. Yields


Current average earnings yields (E/P) are:
  • Dot-com: ~2.2% (1/44)
  • Dec 2020: ~3-3.3% (1/29.5)
  • Covid Peak: ~2.7-2.9% (1/37)
  • Now: ~4.7-5.2% (1/20)
Meaning, investors expect about a 4.7-5.2% return for every dollar they put in to S&P500 type equity now vs the 2% they expected during the dot-com bust and the 2.7-2.9% at the covid rally peak.

10-year US bonds:
  • Dot-com: ~6% (crazy! investors went nuts investing in 2% yield equity versus 6% risk free!!)
  • Covid Peak: ~1.5-1.7%ish (sensible, basically no return in bonds versus ~3% in equity -- TINA -- there is no alternative)
  • Now: 3.5-4% (likely going higher than 4%)

    1670538940326.png


Summary:


The one-two Fed punch of liquidity drying (fewer dollars needing to find a home) against an increasingly enticing risk-free return rate (I-bonds hit over 9% for individuals!) makes for a very different landscape for investors. Companies with weak to no earnings have gotten particularly punished.

As a whole, commodities prices have declined substantially from covid peaks. Supply chain shortages have eased significantly and surpluses have popped up in retail here and there. This and other factors have clearly sowed concern and pricing-in of some amount of recession on top of normal interest rate correction.

Much has been written about Elon and the leadership team at Tesla lately. Tesla continues to be an incredible outlier. We've seen a meteoric rise in valuation at just the right time as substantial earnings began to be produced.

It's clear that what was written in 2020 still applies:
TSLA is:
- credibly competing in the two largest TAMs and arguably leading technology driven disruption in both
- TSLA's technology and business model has already proven economical -- an important distinction when comparing against dot-com businesses that were not economical
- led by a truly once in a generation level leader in his prime with decades of experience
- incredibly resilient having survived two MASSIVE economic disasters, one of which was the largest seen since the great depression and early in TSLA's existence

And we can now add the following:
  • weathered and continued >50% growth during a historic pandemic supply chain disruption masterfully (remember the chip shortage? battery shortage? parts shortages?)
  • Took advantage of a monetary and fiscal stimulus environment to raise capital at premium valuations and ramped a gigafactory in China to a current run-rate over 1m vehicles while also building two new gigafactories
And now enjoys:
  • industry leading margins, earnings, growth
  • virtually no debt
  • ~$20b war chest of cash
There's so much more that could be added to those lists, but I'll leave it here. The future is bright.
 
So, Elon IS the Quizat Haderach?
It is all making sense to me now... 🤔

Would that mean that FUD is the Gom Jabbar?
(it certainly seems to generate a great deal of imaginary pain)
The analogy has limits, however appealing...
The pain is very, very real.
I recall from ancient studies (before Elon was born) that much physical disease has psychosomatic origin but still is actual physical disease.
Dealing in derivatives or even margin borrowing does have a quite precise physical analogue in that just like Spice, amphetamines, or crack cocaine, when first 'experimenting' the instant gratification is hugely addictive.
That addiction makes otherwise highly intelligent and well educated people to indulge more and more. Just like the physical addiction the intellectual addiction grows and becomes stronger.
That addiction makes people continue to indulge the addiction despite obvious and irrefutable evidence of the potentially catastrophic consequences.
If all these cases the most intellectually capable addicts generate complex and elegant 'proofs', some of which even result in Nobel Prizes. Especially for those and for highly capable physicians who succumb to drug addiction, they are fully aware of the risks they assume. They then generate elaborate justifications...after which they succumb to entirely self-destructive behavior.

It is very sad to read posts here and elsewhere. Very often people here self-report their dismay about their own errors, but many suggest doubling down on the very source of their dismay. That is addiction, to be frank.

Numerous times in the past years several people have repeatedly warned about this. Of those I personally know, we all once were 'only chipping'. Several of those studied statistical market and individual security prediction methods. at least two of unswore guided by one or more of those giants of Nobel fame.

No matter the tools, one basic problem never leaves. That is known as 'boundary conditions'. What is really means in plain language is that a model built on a given set of data is valid ONLY when actual use is within the identical characteristics as the sample data set.

Think about that, please. The future is never exactly like the past. Some changes are small, some large. Never, ever is everything the same. Any of us can make a large list of present events that represent discontinuous change. That means, to be precise, that consumer speculation in securities markets cannot be and will not be, long term successful, but...

As most of us already know the market manipulations and the of individual securities are fomented n large part by very large market makers and their allies. Those people are exactly analogous to drug dealers, EXACTLY.

Those of us who still imagine otherwise are begging for stock buybacks and other related pleas for somebody, anybody, to give them a 'fix'. Here we have otherwise rational people asking Tesla to join in the foolish effort to help 'get them well' not knowing nor caring that doing so will not work.

Worst of all those 'drug dealers' are now classified as 'investors' by the US SEC. Further, in past periods of great excess, almost the entire US securities industry was reorganized to make them self-regulating. The regulations designed to keep the Great Depression from happening again has been dismantled.

Now just think about how wise it is to attempt to outsmart 'the house' when 'the house' has no effective restrictions at all. Even where there seem to be limits, the enforcers are the perpetrators themselves. The 'Madoff Rule' is just a hint.

I know that the already addicted among us will not stop. They'll continue to have endless charts and graphs, plus copious raw data. All of that will describe the past, and allege that the past predicts the future. It does NOT. Knowing the past is incredibly valuable, only insofar as we can learn from history enough to avoid making the identical mistakes again.

I hope Tesla does not succumb to pressure and make share buybacks. If any of a dozen quite plausible events takes place Tesla will suddenly need huge amounts of cash. Wisely they have remembered what happened in 2013, 2016, 2018. What conceivable justification can there be to dissipate the very strength that supports all those high-risk, high-reward developments.

Throwing away financial strength will inhibit things like; octovalve, Gigacastings, Dojo, FSD, 4680, Cybertruck and so on. Each of those and many more to come can only happen successfully when can reserves are more than normally large and ambitions to continue innovation can be indulged without recourse to skeptical securities industry.

Some of you claim I'm anti-Elon anti-Tesla. The opposite is true. I want the success and innovation to continue unabated.

Note: For the record, at the moment my TSLA portfolio is up >800%. It would be even higher had I not bought so much more in 2020. I will not sell even one share.
 
Maybe a niave question, but how can Reuters continue this blatant manipulation and misinformation without consequence?
I do not think it overly naive, as it plays directly into answering one of the “What would I be promulgating were I to be sitting on Tesla’s BoD” questions with which I occupy a lot of my investment time.

Reuters, NYTimes, Bloomberg and all other responsible or heretofore responsible news organizations are accustomed to and, in my strongly deliberated opinion, justified in desiring, a corporation possessing a Public Relations department from which they can receive official information and to which they both can ask questions and request confirmation, clarification or denial of reports they have gathered from other sources. The more public a company - ie, a publicly-owned and -traded one being at the top of the spectrum - and the larger the company, the more essential and valuable such a department is.

I assert one of Mr Musk’s greatest and unforced blunders was to dismiss any nascent PR department Tesla may once have had. He either explicitly or at the least implicitly announced that he personally could function as PR. Of course, for now quite some years he compounded, in my opinion, what already was a terrible misjudgment by shifting essentially all public statements away from what traditionally are called Releases, or even the Tesla blog to which I refer below, toward tweets. I have had to sit on my hands for most of the past ten minutes to refrain from voicing my opinon about that platform; I will say nothing more than that shift coincided with my acknowledgeably tiresome mantra “I Hate Twitter.”

If we revisit the first large public relations problems with which Tesla had to contend - the ”Stalled out on Tesla’s Electric Highway” of February 8, 2013 by John Broder - Tesla responded. At least one response was on Feb 11 from Mr Musk’s Twitter account, and, although a cringing harbinger of what shortly would become that platform’s most infamous words “Fake News” (no, he did not use that specific combination, but it was close enough), it nevertheless was a useless denial of the article and its conclusions. HOWEVER, Tesla did follow up on Feb 19 with a cogent, appropriate rebuttal…BY Mr Musk, ON Tesla’s then active, useful and lamentably long-gone blog. It was effective, to an extent, in that other articles referring to range anxiety did use that communication in their own articles. That response, as well as others Mr Musk provided in those early years, demonstrated conclusively that he can write effectively; that he is not somehow limited by some much-broadcasted developmental impediment about which this thread, especially, has so lamentably often contained responses like "He is who he is. Deal with it."

Now and for many years prior, every responsible article or radio/television news story of importance regarding Tesla has contained a concluding line, almost invariable across each such article, that is - for Tesla and for each of us who cares deeply about the company - a 160dB long whistle blast across the bow of your yacht warning of impending danger: "Tesla did not respond when we reached out for clarification."

Are the news organizations nefarious in disseminating misinformation? Are they complicit with short-sellers? With high-frequency traders? With market makers? With their extant or possible or imaginary advertisers: other automotive companies, the petroleum industry, Wall St? It may or may not be so, but it almost does not matter. Were Tesla to be forthright in responding to news organizations' requests for information, there would be virtually no room for even a nefarious news service to manipulate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FSDtester#1
Has Tesla’s 2022 met our expectations?

I get the impression that some people think Tesla’s poor performance in 2022 is somehow the result of Musk’s behaviors or Musk selling. While it might have had some impact, 2022 was not a year full of good news and rose parades. Neither for Tesla, nor for the macro environment. Look back a year ago this time and think about what we expected.
  • 4680 production in Texas was going to be ramping up fast by now. This has not happened. Lots of equipment, very little if any output.
  • Model Y production in Texas and Berlin were going to be complete. We’re getting closer… but shy of the 5k/ week expectations at the moment.
  • Deliveries were supposed to be up at least 50%. We’re likely falling a bit short of that too. COVID shutdown in April and slower than expected factory ramps more or less skewed this target.
  • The 4680 Model Y from Texas was going to be the wonder car with huge range, huge weight savings, and massive cost reductions. Seems like the promised battery chemistry updates didn’t come through and we’re still looking at energy density comparable to 2170s. Since the 4680 production is still struggling, cost savings are questionable at the moment too.
  • Cybertruck was supposed to be launched…. Yes, this was still on the table for 2022 a year ago.
  • While FSD Beta “Full Release” is out, Robotaxi and it’s promises are still seemingly at least another couple years out, nor does it appear likely FSD is in a state where it’ll drive revenue in a huge way soon.
This is on top of fed increasing rates, literal war, huge energy crisis in Europe, Chinese economic and political instability.

While I still think Tesla is an A+ company, 2022 was clearly a C- sort of year And coming into 2022, we were priced for an A+ year and lets be honest, most of us expected it. If 2023 is a C- sort of year, it’s likely we’re not going to see any big positive swings in the SP regardless of Musk’s “antics” or lack of antics.

People need to own the fact that for Tesla, this hasn’t been an outstanding year even if you remove all of the Musk related news from the picture. We were priced for perfection…. We knew Tesla was priced for perfection. Tesla did fine…. But they were not up to the level of performance we or the investing world expected.

When people claim Musk is responsible for the current state of Tesla stock, they are ignoring dozens of other things which contributed to what has been a less than stellar year for Tesla. I have no idea what the impact of Twitter and Musk’s sales have had on the SP over the past year, but the current rut is largely driven by missed expectations. If Musk was selling shares on the back of the 1.6-1.7m deliveries which most here expected, it would be a non-event. Likewise, if we were eyeballing the Cybertruck order forms and Tesla was taking deliveries. Or even if the 4680 was flying out the door at Texas… just that would be huge.

I’m certainly underwater far more than most here and I’ve lost too much to admit to my wife in short term options. But I’m not nearly as worried about Musk‘s stock sales as I am about these other more fundamental things.
 
Why Analyst Projections of $7 FY2022 Earnings are Ridiculous
Profits will be flooding in this year.

Deliveries are rising. Selling prices are rising while cost is falling. Operating expenses are barely budging.

Hertz/Tom Brady exposure. FSD Beta improvements & Dojo. New factory hype. Tightening ICE emissions regulations. Cybertruck mania. Profound awakening to the desirability of EVs.

We are living in the golden goose scenario already. Back when Tesla was "structurally unprofitable" bulls always looked at the gross margins of 30% and thought wow just wait until this company hits scale!

We're at scale now, and the gross margins here are better than expected.

BearBaseBull
Deliveries1.5M1.7M2.0M
Avg Price$57k$60k$63k
Gross Margin31%34%37%
Operating Expenses$9B$8B$7B
EBIT$18B$27B$39B

This is not investment or financial advice, just my thoughts.
Thanks @Ogre for bringing this up. Here’s a review.

$7 EPS projections by Wall Street were in fact ridiculously wrong. That’s $2.33 post-split, but actual earnings have been $2.89 in just the first three quarters with probably at least $4.20 for the whole year. So despite the many unexpected major setbacks, EPS is still going to be about double what Wall Street analysts projected.

Deliveries
With deliveries tracking for approximately 1.35M this year, obviously my delivery estimate even for the bear case was a bit too high. If I remember correctly that was meant to be a 10th percentile case.

Main unanticipated reasons for the miss:
  • Continued COVID Zero lunacy in China that in January I expected would not happen again
  • Invasion of Ukraine
  • Two extra months of government delays at Berlin in Q1
  • Neglecting inventory buildup as a natural consequence of larger production volume
As @Artful Dodger pointed out here, we lost roughly 200k production from Shanghai from COVID Zero ramifications.

As for Berlin, it’s doing about 3.3k per week now. With addition of a third shift imminent, approximately 5k per week will come next month, or around 22k, and maybe a few extra thousand the month after that. Thus, the delay earlier this year probably cost us about 55-60k from Berlin by pushing back the ramp schedule.

Then the invasion of Ukraine caused all kinds of disruptions to the supply chain that probably cost a whole bunch more production, but it’s hard to estimate how much. We do know that severe supply shortages resulted in major production decreases for some of the other major automakers, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this cost Tesla about another 100k. For example, up through October, VW Group’s year-to-date global deliveries were down 10.6% vs 2021 (source). Toyota is cutting production as well and idling factories. The industry as a whole is selling as many as last year and much less than 2019.

Without these unanticipated setbacks, 2022 deliveries would’ve been approximately 1.6-1.7M, as expected.

I also didn’t think of the fact that inventory would naturally tend to rise in rough proportion to production rates. Even if inventory stayed at about one week of sales, we’re selling like 20k more cars per week than at the end of last year. I failed to account for this in January. Oops.

Finally, I had expected Berlin and Texas to ramp somewhat faster than they actually have. Thus far they’re going slower than Shanghai did and are slightly behind the 5k/week target for the end of year that Elon had guided for earlier this year. This was a minor impact though of about 20k units because the overall numbers are still small.

Revenue Per Vehicle
The YTD average is $55.2k per car as of Q3 (including ZEV credits). Q4 should drag this up to around $55.6k, per my current estimates.

My January estimates were too high mainly due to:
  • Guessing wrong on how quickly all the price hikes would actually come into effect
  • Predicting that high-priced initial Cybertruck deliveries would begin this year
  • Strong $USD from crazy forex moves
  • Underestimating how much of Shanghai’s growth would come from SR variants with LFP packs
I still think we’ll hit the projected numbers but it’ll take until next year. I believe now that my timing was off by a couple quarters. For reference, right now I’m estimating $56.5k avg rev per veh for Q4 and slightly more than $60k by Q2/Q3 2023.

I have no expertise in forex stuff and left that out of my model and still am doing so. Normally this doesn’t make much of a difference but 2022 had some extraordinary forex action thanks mostly to the Fed hawkishness and with simultaneous recessions in Europe and China that the USA was mostly spared from. Tesla said this caused a $250M impact in Q3 alone. This probably has affected overall 2022 avg revenue per car by like $400 thus far.

Gross Margin
Too low mainly as a consequence of some of the same reasons listed above.

Lower than expected revenue per car feeds straight into GM obviously. This caused the majority of the error.

Government disruption to Shanghai not only hurt margins at Shanghai, but also dragged down global average margin because of Shanghai being the most profitable factory for 2022.

Cost of goods per car was roughly as I modeled in January after factoring out Shanghai shutdown, so this wasn’t the issue.

Operating Expenses
On track to come in at about $7B, for better leverage than expected.

Bottom Line
  • Wall Street was embarrassingly wrong again
  • Great things happened within Tesla mostly as predicted
  • An exceptionally bad series of external misfortunes from macroeconomy, war and government failings dragged down results
  • Price increases came as expected but laggier than expected due to long backlog
  • Progress on earnings and delivery growth is about one or two quarters delayed
 
The rest of tech is still in a funk .... Elon's sales pushed this stock down below many technical levels and did much damage to it's chart. I'm not a chartist, I simply by and hold but there are plenty of people who watch these charts and buy/sell accordingly.

This pain is self-inflicted and will take a while for use to shake ..... if you have calls or margin, I wish you luck.
This is a troubling post for me to read. First, because TSLA is actually plotting a pattern on its chart that is in no way unique to oversold stocks/indexes during a market meltdown as we have seen this before and we are seeing it on other stocks right now. And secondly, because the bottom of the 2008/2009 meltdown of the DJI left the exact same pattern........one that was clear enough that I had called the bottom before-hand and acted accordingly.........and yet I did not act accordingly with my TSLA shares this time because I let all the 'noise' of life get in the way despite looking for a similar opportunity over the last decade. It should have been clear that we would be trading here, and I missed it. I will take the 'stoic' road as @Queeg500 often reminds us to do. It was MY fault that I didn't sell enough shares to put some more money on the sidelines when TSLA was grossly over-priced. It was MY fault that I didn't sell some shares on the way down when the rest of life was too noisy for me to pay closer attention, and when I thought TSLA as an ETF would outperform other stocks in a meltdown even though it doesn't pay a dividend. I will not be too proud to say Chicken Genius and others were right, and I was wrong. And I will also say that @TrendTrader007 is looking at some very relative data and sharing it with the rest of the board. And I won't point a finger at Elon and blame him for the actions I didn't take. And I certainly won't point a finger at Elon and blame him for a full market meltdown following a laundry list of items that are all individually bad for the market, and that were all put in the pot together at the same time with the flames on high........to include a 2 year global disruption of EVERYTHING at a time when the Market was massively inflated with the value of hindsight, an over-extended period of almost 0% interest followed by massive & rapid rate hikes, the largest transition of global energy sources, power, and wealth the world has ever seen. And of course the inevitable stagnation resulting from the end of 30+ years of US military involvement in the Middle East which had ramped to a $2+ Trillion per year expenditure for the last several administrations (think post-Vietnam on steroids here). No..............of course I am not going to point a finger at Elon for that.

Here is the chart for the DJI for the 2008/2009 crash:
1671554551181.png


Here is TSLA today:
1671554805349.png

And we might have just a little ways to go yet. But IF history repeats itself, that will be a quick dip, and TSLA should pop its head back above 200 again fairly quickly too.

For comparison, here is Amazon:
1671555190995.png

As you can see, AMZN followed a similar pattern and it has already hit a point that would otherwise look like it could only be a random point on the chart until you compared it to the 2007/2008 DJI drop

And here is Netflix:
1671555303591.png

Interestingly, NFLX go hit harder and faster than Amazon or Tesla, and it hit its support back in June. But it got beat down in exactly the same way.

I don't want to muddy the waters of this post with my thoughts on how and why there is so much noise around Elon at the moment and how BIG that fight really is (save that for a separate post that is long overdue). I just want to get this out there to show that TSLA is not in any way trading in an unprecedented manner, and that several other BIG stocks are trading in exactly the same way..........without any involvement in Twitter, or any claims that their Boards should be acting in a different manner, etc. It is under circumstances like these that we should all be paying closer attention to the source of some of the noise that caused us to miss some massive opportunities............you know, like doubling the amount of shares you own. And it is during times like these that we need to make those examinations void of Cognitive Dissonance to the best of our abilities. For instance........I have long enjoyed Ross Gerber. Yet, if I had been pouring through all of my old trading notes instead of watching Ross drink Teslaquilla on YouTube while telling the World we should be buying TSLA all the way through the stock price slide because he had it all figured out, I would be in a much better position now. So what does that say about Ross' character that he is now pointing a finger at Elon and the TSLA board instead of looking at the other 3 fingers pointing back at himself. We all make mistakes. But how much we improve going forward is dependent upon how much reflection we have on ALL of the surrounding events, and on our ability to have some accountability for the things that were in our power to notice and to change.

I predict this post will become extremely relevant at the end of another 10-12 year cycle.

1671556411622.png
 
Looking at earnings call transcripts it looks like they use both 50% YoY and 50% average. However, the Q4 2019, Q1 2021 and latest guidance is clear that it is long term average growth.

Q3 2022 earnings call

"As we look ahead, our plans show that we're on track for the 50% annual growth in production this year"
"On the delivery side, we do expect to be just under 50% growth due to an increase in the cars in transit at the end of the year, as noted, just above"
"But as I said earlier, we are extremely confident of a great Q4, and we anticipate continuing to grow our vehicle production sales deliveries by -- on average 50% a year as far into the future as we can see."
"We -- to the best of our knowledge, we believe that Tesla will continue to grow deliveries and revenue production at a 50% or greater compound annual growth rate. It might occasionally be a year that is a little less, and then some years would be maybe a little more or a lot more. In some of our out-year planning, we see potential annual growth rates that are in excess of 50%."

Q2 2022 earnings call

"And finally, despite losing more builds in Q3 than expected, we're still pushing to reach 50% growth this year"
Replies to a question about long term growth, indicate they are working on removing roadblocks to 50% growth

Q1 2022 earning call

"We continue to drive towards further strengthening of our financials in the second half of the year, and believe our 50% or above growth rate remains achievable for the year."
"So as Zach said, we remain confident of a 50% growth in vehicle production in 2022 versus ’21. I think we actually have a reasonable shot at a 60% increase over last year." - COVID put a stop to that
"But we’re growing very rapidly year over year. And remain confident of exceeding 50% annual growth for the foreseeable future for basically several of the next years."

Q4 2021 earnings call

"Nonetheless, we do expect significant growth in 2022 over 2021, you know, comfortably above 50% growth in 2022."
"We continue to drive for vehicle volume growth at or above 50%, as Elon mentioned, and our plans show that this is actually achievable with just our Fremont and Shanghai factories."


Q3 2021 earnings call

"As we look forward, we are clearly quite a bit ahead of the pacing required to achieve our target annual growth rate of 50% this year."
"You know, our goal as a company here is to grow on an average pace of 50% per year. And so you can extrapolate that out."
"Over the last 12 months, we've done about 430,000 cars of production. And based upon everything that we know in the factory, where the bottlenecks are, what the potential is, we're targeting to increase that another 50%."
"We're going to grow as quickly as is feasibly possible with an eye toward a 50% annual growth rate."


Q2 2021 earnings call

"Yeah, given concerns over cell's bottlenecking growth, our target is to grow the cell supply ahead of the 50% year-on-year growth targets of the vehicle business"


Q1 2021 earnings call

"As we look forward, our plans remain unchanged for long-term growth of 50% annually, and we believe we're on track to exceed that this year as we guided to last quarter."


Q4 2020 earnings call

"We continue to expect a long-term volume CAGR of 50%, of which we may materially exceed this in 2021."
"We are entering a series of long-term agreements with preferred suppliers to ensure that not only you're going to have enough quantity to support the growth, 50% CAGR as Zach mentioned earlier, but also good pricing with appropriate sharing of the risk."
"I mean, that said, we do think that we can maintain a growth rate in excess of 50% per year for many years to come. And at least, I'd like to -- yes, at least, look forward to many -- for many years to come. I think this year, we may track to a fair bit about 50%, but we don't want to commit to that, but at least that's what it would appear, and the same again next year. It appears to be meaningfully above 50%."


Q3 2020 earnings call

"Yes. I mean I think the tricky thing with trying to predict things midway through an exponential is that if things are doubling every year or even just growing 50%, then if you shift one — plus/minus one year, it has a huge effect on the number. So — and it sounds like, wow, you either massively exceeded or massively undershot. But it's — actually, what's going on is a giant S-curve."


Q2 & Q1 earnings calls - 50% not mentioned

Q4 209 earnings call

"Yeah. I think a few years ago, I said I -- yes, I think on our [Indecipherable] a few years ago, I said in my estimate, for us is that, Tesla would grow at an average compound annual rate -- average rate of in excess of 50%. I still hold to that belief."
 
Will 3 LR be reintroduced under the 55k price cap?
I expect we'll get some sort of clarification in the near term. There's some speculation on the Highland Model 3 variant being introduced in Q1 with a lower cost. Which would mean Tesla China would essentially only be selling it in China for Q1 while they continue to export Model Y.
When the ability to order the 3 LR was removed from the site, Elon gave the explanation of "Too much demand." I think we all saw through that, as clearly the Y had the most demand. A plausible explanation was something to do with tax credit positioning. But I really don't see why they would have to stop taking orders just to handle the introduction of the credit. That leaves the only (imo) actual explanation other than a refresh is they just wanted to direct demand to the model Y which is more profitable. But even that doesn't make much sense given at the time backlogs were 4+ months across the board.

So here is what I've gathered:
  1. Partially camouflaged Model 3s were been spotted in Early December. I checked, Model Y test cars started appearing ~2 months before initial deliveries, the refreshed Model S 3-4 months before deliveries.
  2. Tesla removed the ability to order Model 3 LR in August, at the time the ETA for delivery was slipping into 2023. Note that Standard Range/P were not slipping into 2023.
  3. Tesla has been making changes at the Fremont factory related to model 3, with the code name highland referenced as early as 6 months ago.
  4. A new radar is set to be unveiled in a product in January, according to a letter from Tesla to the FTC (This could be nothing specific to a model 3, but still curious timing)
  5. Tesla CN implying part of the stories about the shutdown at Shanghai were not accurate. Given the shutdown seems to have taken place exactly as the articles indicated, the denial must have been about subtle differences in the reason for the shutdown. Maybe prepping model 3 lines?
  6. Last year Elon commented that Model 3 will go rear casting, they just need Austin/Berlin ramped up first. Well we're close, and arguably the cost savings from that would be quite valuable now.
Where there is smoke, there is fire. This seems like sufficient smoke to me... who knows though. I'm very curious to see how the pricing structure is updated as we go into 2023, specifically the Model 3.
 
Let's call it for what is was: a big miss on deliveries. Still pretty decent results for a difficult year.

Deliveries
2012: 2.7K
2013: 22.5K (+733.3%)
2014: 31.7K (+40.9%)
2015: 50.6K (+59.6%)
2016: 76.2K (+50.6%)
2017: 101.3K (+32.9%)
2018: 245.2K (+142.1%)
2019: 367.5K (+49.9%)
2020: 499.6K (+36%)
2021: 936.2K (+87.4%)
2022: 1.31 Million (+39.9%)

Imo what matters is not so much the results in a noisy world, what matters is what kind of company Tesla is. The same thing that got them from 2012 to 2022 will be the same thing that takes them from 2022 to 2030 unless something has changed. So what have we learned about Tesla this year?

It was a very challenging year and they didn't crumble, in fact they kept a pretty decent pace. That indicates that they handle difficult times well. They made money while growing, paid of debts, did long term investments(dojo, cathode, lithium refinery), new product development(bot) etc, imo that's pretty damn solid.

They were too optimistic about FSD timeline again, maybe they are just too optimistic about FSD, optimus etc. So maybe we should move those timelines forward in our estimates. Still they made solid gains and got real products into real customers hand. They stepped into the ring and let the audience see their weaknesses. That cannot be said for the competition who just showed some clips of them practicing. They get real useful feedback about their weaknesses and they iterate quick. This seems like a good fighter to bet on. Like you should bet on the lion over a gorilla or a bear in fight.

How is competition doing? Except for BYD, some startups and some low cost brands pretty much everyone is struggling and they are nowhere near Tesla's growth. Some even see large declines. A pattern that will likely repeat a few more times until something changes.

Growth for 2023 should be a solid ~50% also, while they will have to work on preparing that ~50% for 2024 and 2025. They have done this many times before, they know how to do this so it shouldn't be to hard for them...

So overall I see 2022 confirming Tesla's trajectory and very little to indicate that something has changed.
 
Demand Concerns are Shortsighted - Zoom Out

The Model 3 and Y account for 95% of Tesla’s delivery volume these days. As far as most customers are concerned, the 3&Y are essentially the exact same car design with two slightly different options for size and shape. Indeed, when revealed in 2019 the Model Y was basically sold as “Here’s a bigger Model 3 that has 75% of the parts in common.” The differentiation was so minimal that in 2019 after the reveal most pundits thought that the Y would barely generate any additional demand because it was nothing new or special. 3&Y have exactly identical interiors, software, stereo systems and so on. A untrained eye can't even to tell the difference in the exteriors on sight unless the vehicles were parked right next to each other so the height difference is more obvious. Most customers deciding between the two models really are just deciding on whether the Y’s extra cargo capacity and higher roof justify the price premium.

Tesla just built 420k cars in the 3/Y platform in a single quarter, or almost 1.7M annualized. Berlin and Texas have “>250,000” per year nameplate production capacity. If they combine for 600k Ys per year production rate by the end of 2023, the 3/Y will be at a total annualized run rate of 2.3M.

This success is unprecedented, to say the least.

The Toyota Corolla’s best year ever was 2015 with 1.34M units sold, which still today stands as the all-time world record for most units sold of any vehicle model in a single year. The 3/Y family just nearly matched this record in 2022 with a combined 1.30M units made and 1.25M delivered, and without Shanghai shutdowns the Corolla’s record would have been surpassed. In 2023, the Y by itself will come close to the Corolla's 2015 record, and might actually beat it if production ramps go well; if not, in 2024 for sure. Even after adjusting for inflation, the Y is priced more than double the average Corolla price in 2015.

Tesla is achieving this with ~30% gross margins for 3/Y that no one else can come close to. At the latest factories with the latest tech reducing cost, Ys will be earning 40-50% margins for a while until prices come down. Tesla could eventually push drastically more volume of 3s and Ys by reducing prices further as costs improve and as margins are gradually leaned out. This has actually been the plan the entire time.

What is Tesla not doing thus far for accomplishing this with 3/Y:
  • Paying for advertising
  • Offering many customization options
    • 5 paint colors in most markets (7 in Europe)
    • 2 interior colors
    • 2 wheel styles
    • No typical bonus options like heads up displays or heated steering wheels
  • Refreshing the cosmetic styling of 3/Y since launch 5 years ago
  • Switching the paint colors available
  • Offering the standard-range Y and long-range 3 anymore

So, the Model Y is by far the most economically successful vehicle model ever, and it’s not even close. The 3&Y put together as one very closely related family are even more dominant. The numbers don’t lie.

Thus, Tesla has a viable path to selling millions 3/Y cars each year at 20% gross margin or better.

Tesla crushed the high-end luxury market with the S&X. Then they crushed the medium-luxury mid-sized sedan and crossover SUV markets with 3&Y. They appear poised to crush the pickup truck and large SUV market with Cybertruck. Yet Tesla is still not even touching most of the overall vehicle market. For example, they don't sell any economy cars in any segment, nor any boxy crossovers like the RAV-4, coupes, vans, minivans, small hatchbacks, small sedans, or commercial trucks (except for a handful of full-sized semis). There’s an order of magnitude more opportunity out there for Tesla to claim. This is why the demand will probably be there for the goal of 20M units sold per year even without autonomous driving ever working out.

Will Tesla’s success extend to other vehicle shapes and sizes, or to cheaper cars with less luxury? I think all signs point towards a resounding “Yes”. The same reasons why 3/Y is so successful will apply equally to other segments. For example:
  • Software, user experience, FSD/autopilot
  • Efficient manufacturing methods
  • Front and rear gigacastings
  • Battery management systems
  • Thermal management systems (octovalve, heat pump, super manifold, amazing software and hardware integration)
  • Motors
  • Structural battery pack
  • Safety
  • Fancy, beautiful paint coming from Berlin and soon to a gigafactory near you
  • Glass roofs
  • Dealership-free, haggle-free purchasing + Low inventory and high cash turnover rate
  • Supercharger network
  • 4680s for long-range variants
  • EV market mindshare
  • Tesla and Elon Musk accounts on Twitter generating tens of millions of impressions effortlessly and for $0
And so on. Tesla has an extensible, flexible platform for software, hardware, manufacturing and marketing that’s almost entirely independent of the shape, size and luxuriousness of the vehicle cabin. Competitors do not have the above list of advantages and might never catch up. Designing vehicles for different segments is a relatively routine and straightforward endeavor, and Franz Von Holzhausen has a stellar track record of leading design teams to make car artwork that millions of people love, not only during his career at Tesla but also at other companies like Mazda.

All of this is happening in the macro environment of humanity’s dawning awareness of the value of EVs and of the severe dangers, both geopolitical and environmental, of continued fossil fuel dependence. EV demand continues its unabated exponential growth and governments policies around the world are tilting the balance ever more in favor of EVs over ICEVs every year. That’s good news for the world’s largest and best producer of EVs.

Vegas Loop is then the dark horse. It is effectively a factory that mass produces first impressions of Tesla vehicles for people who are in an entertainment wonderland intentionally and expertly engineered to put them in the mood for openness to new experiences and for craving novelty and stimulation. This is exactly the psychological state you want potential customers to be in when introducing them to a new product they might be otherwise disinterested in or skeptical of. They need to have their mental guard down and be curious enough to, for example, ask the driver about the car while riding in it. Furthermore, at some point when the Teslas drive people autonomously through the tunnels as robotaxis, the experience is going to blow people’s minds. They’ll post about it on social media, tell everybody about it as a highlight of their trip when they get home, and probably remember it for the rest of their lives. If we look out to 2024 or however long it takes to get robotaxis going in this simplified, secured, closed-loop system, we must bear in mind that millions of people will have this robotaxi ride be their first ever experience in a Tesla. Most people remember losing their EV virginity but this is going to be a whole new level of astonishment and delight for the next wave of converts. All of this this is still deeply underappreciated by the market. The Vegas Loop is small now, but in a few years it will sprawl out across the entire heart of Las Vegas, the entertainment capitol of the Western Hemisphere with 42 million visitors per year and a strong long term tourism growth trend. Miami-Fort Lauderdale is close behind for both tourism and getting their own Loop. Construction and daily operation of existing segments is occurring right now and people keep forgetting about it, even TSLA investors who follow Tesla stuff daily. This project doesn’t generate daily news but it does generate thousands of first rides daily for people who have never even sat in any EV before.

Demand for 3/Y will experience short-term fluctuations, and Tesla may offer temporary discounts for end-of-quarter inventory clearance or to build good will, but the trajectory over the long term is incredibly favorable. Myopic focus on quarterly results and Elon’s politics causes investors, especially institutional folks who control most of the float, to miss the bigger picture.
 
From my point of view, it is often easier to make the best product cheaper, than it is to make the cheapest product better.

I expect Tesla to have the best products from a combined hardware and software point of view, where possible,

And from there, I expect Tesla to ramp production volumes,, and make the product cheaper.

Always being the cheapest product and capturing all of the market is impossible, others may be prepared to subsidise products, and sell them for a loss.

Another good aim is always making a profit on the product, except for the early stages of a production ramp.

So the key questions I want Yes answers to are:-
  • Does Tesla have the best product in this category?
  • Is the product improving?
  • Are they ramping production volumes?
  • Are they lowering costs?
  • Does the product make money?
  • Do they have sensible plans for additional products, including cheaper products?
  • Do they have a pipeline of product innovations ready for adoption?
The only product I give a definite No at this stage is the Solar Roof, I'm hoping that will eventually come good.

If all of the answers are Yes above, I'm unconcerned about a cheaper product taking some market share, because the chances are Tesla still stands a good chance of gaining sufficient market share.

When the price gap is sufficiently narrow, most people want the best product, not the cheapest product.
So the best product doesn't need to be the cheapest.
 
I wanted to give some perspective to the sentiment about "collapsing demand". I got inspired to do this when I happened to look at my 2021 MY purchase order and noticed that you can still specify the exact same configuration, which I did and used as a basis for this exercise. Tesla doesn't report Y production separately, but since Y is their biggest seller and my configuration is kind of middle of the road, I think this comparison works as an extrapolation to total Tesla car sales.

As usual in micro economics, demand curves are asymptotes of the price axis at 0 volume and asymptotes of the volume axis at total saturation, which I set to 67 million (=2021 global auto sales), meaning the demand curves here approach $0 at the saturation, outside of the chart. The supply curves are not needed since we are only using one point of each, but I threw them in there for fun. They are asymptotic with the marginal production cost and a number just above production at each time, since the factories were mostly maxed out and expanding at maximum rate.

Now to the point. If you follow the March 2021 price to its intersection with the January 2023 demand curve, you will see that demand is up 408% over those 22 months.



1673442466137.png
 
Well we were at 28% in Q3 I think. You just need to do some quick math to know it'll be much lower than that.


I think i mentioned in some previous posts. Berlin and Austin opened up last year, over the last 3 quarters with their ramping, commodity prices, a few price rises, an increase of 40% volume production, we only saw auto gross margin fluctuate by single % points. I'm talking like 3-5%. Do we seriously believe we will see it go up 15% due to economies of scale? I mean lets be real here guys.
It’s not just economies of scale.

Q3 was a tough quarter. Margins were affected by:
  • New factories ramping
  • Shanghai shutdowns
  • Strong US$ movements
  • Peaking COGS, according to Tesla
  • Lower than average ZEV credits
Tesla said automotive margin for Shanghai and Fremont alone with Berlin and Texas excluded was 30%. This means the new factories materially dragged on margins. In 2023 the opposite should be true: these new factories should increase average margins. They’ll have very strong production efficiency thanks to improvements such as front gigacastings, 4680s, new battery pack design, and the structural pack with its tremendous efficiency benefits for buildup of cabin assemblies on top of it.

Tesla has also guided for serious commodity cost deflation to take effect around right now. This had apparently pushed costs up by several thousand dollars per car. If this is reversing now, then that offsets a serious chunk of the price cuts.

Logistics costs also will be massively lower.
  • Ending the wave and doing smooth deliveries
  • More EU-sold Ys avoiding 10% import tariff
  • Lower freight prices in general
  • Shorter average transport distance thanks to having four factories instead of two
  • Reduced expedite costs from stabilized supply chains
The new prices are still generally a bit higher than in early 2021 and gross margins were a solid 22% then (not including ZEV credits). This was also with no S&X, much less Chinese production, much lower FSD prices, and much less Y in the mix. See snip from Tesla Daily’s US price table below. Also note that the variants that decreased in price since then are the performance and plaid, which will tend to drive more customers to upgrade and thus might actually benefit overall average margins.
  • Base M3 +$6k
  • M3P -$1k
  • MYLR +$3k
  • MYP -$3k
  • MSLR +$15k
  • MSP -$5k
  • MXLR +$20k
  • MXP No change

1673590830598.png


It’s unclear how much of the higher prices ever even hit the deliveries. There was a backlog for a very long time and ASP I’m Q3 was only $53.5k, up only $4.7k from Q3 ‘21. Some of this was because of the forex wildness I’m Q3, but the price hikes had been much higher than $4.7k and also mix had shifted away from M3 and Tesla was recognizing much more FSD and insurance revenue per car compared to Q3 ‘21.

Operating leverage is also kicking in. OpEx has not really been increasing significantly, but in the first three quarters of 2022 it ate up 40% of Tesla’s gross profit. Gross profit growth will drag up net margins.

The IRA battery subsidies will add about $3k per car eligible and about 1/3 of Tesla’s global sales will be eligible, so that’s an average boost of $1k per car.

Energy is also likely to earn billions in ‘23 if Lathrop can ramp as hoped and the margins are 30%+ as many people have estimated recently,

There remains the strong possibility that profit per car will actually increase in ‘23, depending on how all these factors stack up. We have direct visibility into list prices, but little to no visibility into factors like cost projections, mix, and FSD take rate. It’s easy to give excessive weight to known information and discount unknown parameters but they all matter. It appears that every major factor other than reduced prices favors increased profit per car this year, but with these humongous price cuts it’s difficult to say how it all nets out. I recommend that we avoid jumping to conclusions about margin and free cash flow collapse. I think all we can say with certainty is that margin expectations for ‘23 should now be lower than they were before this happened and that Tesla’s ability to grow sales volume 50-100% YoY is no longer in any reasonable doubt.
 
People focusing on margins, which is knee-jerk reaction... should be recognizing that Tesla just launched predatory pricing in the EV market.. long run, this will crush other EV and ICE manufacturers.. short term discussion is transient

I agree, except the term "predatory pricing" implies a predatory intent. The only prey here are the IRA incentives that were in direct opposition to Musk's stated preferences. Tesla would be foolish to not hunt those incentives down after they were approved anyway. If the other manufacturers who were in favor of IRA incentives feel preyed upon, it is only because their applicable products are inferior and uncompetitive, just as they were before IRA that they helped write. That's on them.

This is not about predatory behavior. What it is doing is exposing the fact that legacy auto was not as good at making cars as we were told. American auto making has not been leading the economy forward for many decades. On the contrary, the inefficient auto industry has been a drag on the American economy for decades as autos have sucked a huge percentage of American resources into the black hole of car payments, insurance, and monthly gasoline bills, sending the money to incompetent auto manufacturers, advertising agencies, and oil producing nations, leaving behind a wake of toxic exhaust causing death, higher healthcare expenses and expensive global warming. They repeatedly told us American car buyers did not want EV's, glorified golf carts, that EV's were impractical, too slow, too cramped, and too expensive. We knew they were lying to us but many of us didn't know how terribly inefficient and incompetent they were, even at making gas cars, until Tesla showed us what an efficient and modern auto company looked like. When an unsubsidized EV is more competitive than a gas car, well, that's your first clue that legacy manufacturers are incompetent, even at making ICE cars.

The very tenents of capitalism that America holds so dear, namely, productivity, efficiency, competitiveness and profitability, the things that cause capitalism to serve humanity so well, that make it the best economic system known, and the only system not known to lead to massive poverty and suffering, those very tenents of capitalism we hold dear, require manufacturers to be efficient, to match the performance of other manufacturers, like Tesla, or get out of the way.

Legacy auto fooled us for decades by telling us how good they were at making cars efficiently, at bringing value to new car buyers, and most of us were none the wiser because their size, scale and dominance prevented anyone else from showing us what was possible, how much better big auto could provide for our transportation needs without bleeding us dry, while pushing up healthcare and insurance expenses while sending huge amounts of money to people who don't have our best interests in mind. Big auto and big oil were like two peas in a pod. Big oil suggested that big auto should make bigger, less efficient cars and they would work their magic with congress to get EPA exemptions for heavy vehicles. Because they are bigger, right? Big oil and big auto were unstoppable in America, no one wanted to say "no" to them, they even spent our money on expensive advertising campaigns to make us think that being wasteful was what made us free Americans, but the American consumer has been paying the price for this corruption of our system called capitalism. Crony capitalism is a greedy bastardization of everything that makes capitalism serve our needs so well to begin with. It's not capitalism, it's crony capitalism. That's like "clean coal", a term invented by crony capitalism.

Half of the decay in American cities is directly attributable to this.

Tesla has, in the last several years, finally made it clear to big auto where they have gone wrong, how terribly inefficient thy are at making cars, gas or electric. Big auto has seen they are losing control of their destiny. This has caused big auto to write a bill named IRA and telling congress to pass it for them. Essentially, they have told big oil that it was fun while the marriage lasted but it was an unsustainable relationship from the get-go and, as you know, the pages of the IRA are essentially the divorce papers, but don't worry, we will remain on friendly terms and still make as many big, heavy, inefficient vehicles as possible, for as long as possible, but now we have a chance at a new life. We might not make it, but we have to try.

Sorry about the long rant but calling Tesla's price cuts in response to the IRA, written by legacy auto and rubber-stamped by congress, "predatory pricing" is the height of irony. I know you had no ill intent, and I love and fully support that the price cuts will have the same effect as a predatory competitor willing to drive their own margins in the ground to harm a competitor, but the price cuts are not predatory, because they lack predatory intent. And Tesla's margins will remain strong. "Predatory pricing" is a term with a well-defined meaning, and that meaning does not apply here, not even a little bit.

Predatory pricing is illegal under anti-trust laws and is an entirely different thing than what you see here.
 
I watch this source because I trust it ( I am a cynical SOB), and it is at a level where it is more science-based but not over my head, and I find the presenter oddly-attractive.
And if you really want to fill in a few gaps in your Hydrogen as a fuel knowledge base well, here ya go. The sources seem above reproach.


TLDR: The most up to date science regarding Hydrogen as a fuel is negative on all levels except if Nuclear energy is used to create it.

SabbaticalMod: Emplaced here so that all can have on hand good material with which to rebut those who call for Hydrogen-based transport.
 
As the Tesla & Elon FUD escalated throughout 2022 to Biblical levels we have not seen before, I have entertained the idea of a post with the hope of opening up dialog on TMC regarding the concept of ‘Elon vs a very specific Goliath hiding behind a cloak of Good’. But there was never a catalyst to suggest the source wasn’t simply the same-old, same-old – despite the Goliath in this fight appearing to have been growing in both scope and size. And perhaps more troubling has been that Elon’s actions through 2022 seem to convey that he has recognized this as well, and that he was in need of more ammunition if he and Tesla were to come out on top.

Since I began following TMC in 2013 there has always been the very understandable finger-pointing at the Fossil Fuel Industries, Legacy Auto Mfg’s, Grid Operators, and of course Wall Street as the sources of Tesla & Elon FUD. And I have not seen a compelling argument on TMC that it was otherwise. However, during one of the very brief moments in the last couple years where the entire US did not seem to be held captive under a mass campaign of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt through every mainstream media source simultaneously, we were introduced to yet another strange and unexpected nuance. That was the moment when we listened closely to the dialog from Washington DC surrounding the inevitable US and Global transition to EV’s and Renewable Energy, and we learned that this Administration was refusing to acknowledge Tesla’s World-leading contributions in this arena………and that they were literally struggling to not even mention the word ‘Tesla’ publicly in every single speech and interview from every leadership position on their flow chart – even while crowning Mary Barra and GM as the Golden Goose. Thus it could have only been a strategy that had been discussed internally to be so coordinated. But why?

This was perhaps too easy to shake off at first, with the plausible connections of the Administration and the UAW. Maybe they were trying to support a small segment of their voters…? That was a good explanation for a single data point. In hindsight the Administration actually seemed a bit relieved that the ‘news’ sources from the other side of the aisle helped push that UAW connection argument (assuming there really still are two sides of the aisle in the US). But it felt like there was a growing pile of data points suggesting that Elon & Tesla were fighting a battle that had become more and more coordinated against them. And here was the part I am still struggling with: if the Administration had made solving the Climate Crisis their Absolute Highest Priority during their campaign, wouldn’t they be willing to buck the UAW to save the world? Doesn’t make sense, does it? But if the highest power in the land, and arguably the highest power in the World was now ready to throw the most efficient and most effective sustainable energy and transportation company in the World under the bus while claiming their greatest ambition was to make the world’s energy and transportation more sustainable through a transition to renewable energy, then we were either living in an alternate reality to be witnessing any of this, or perhaps there was another influencer on these policies.

I have to wonder if Elon’s post from early this morning was intended to cast a larger net on the discussion of the Force(s) that could be trying to put the brakes on Tesla’s explosive growth and ownership of the overall Sustainability marketplace – a source we haven’t looked at too deeply on TMC before. It seems odd that he chose to respond to that particular tweet. And his response is unusually non-descriptive:

View attachment 888647

I do personally find this interesting, particularly from the longer view. For instance, the NUMMI plant was purchased in 2010 by Tesla with funding support from the Administration elected in 2008. So here we learn that at the time that Elon and Tesla received their loan for the creation of the Tesla factory at NUMMI that Elon had already been courted as a person capable of helping move the World closer to the goals of the World Economic Forum. But it appears Elon had other priorities on his mind, such as SpaceX and Tesla. But why wouldn’t the WEF have been a good association at that time to help advance those interests?

I remember viewing many of the short videos released by the WEF around the 2008-2010 timeframe with interest. At that time, I was very focused on finding ways to reduce energy consumption and transition towards more sustainable energy sources on a large number of State and Federal projects across the Columbia River Basin. And I found those videos interesting and occasionally helpful. In fact, that original WEF media campaign probably helped influence my first purchase of TSLA shares in 2013, whether I knew it or not. Like the WEF and many here on TMC, I too saw the potential for Elon & Tesla to help create a more sustainable future, and I invested accordingly. So if Elon & Tesla were moving in the desired direction of the WEF’s publicly stated goals at a time when the fossil fuel industry and Legacy Auto seemed so deeply entrenched in path towards a much Warmer future, why wouldn’t Elon jump at the chance?

But perhaps here is where I can see a potential for the ‘rub’ between Elon & the WEF that prevented a partnership. Tesla has moved at the rate that only a First Principles approach could have allowed it. And that approach required Tesla to abandon everything from the Old Paradigm that was not supportive of Elon/Tesla’s vision of the MOST rapid transition towards Sustainability possible. And this transition by Tesla happened SO quickly that they may very well have disrupted the WEF’s Strategic Master Plan – a plan which surely would have utilized as much of the existing Paradigm wherever possible to help transition towards the New Paradigm. While that path might take longer, it ‘could’ have been viewed by early planners as using less resources to accomplish stated goals. And it would allow much of the Old Paradigm to be the New Paradigm to minimize Political disruptions along the way. Fair enough. And that is why I mentioned 'putting the brakes on Tesla' instead of perhaps 'destroying Tesla', as the end game is still somewhat aligned - at least from the perspective of Sustainable Energy and Transport anyways.

And if we continue to explore this theory that a divergence of interest could have resulted from Elon and Tesla’s ability to move quicker than everyone else, and move in a more Sustainable direction than everyone else with fewer moves because they were coming from a First Principles approach, wouldn’t we end up in a similar place as we are now, where many of the 2008-2010 timeline tools available to the WEF to help a planned transition are at risk of being little more than stranded assets if the WEF’s strategic master plan allowed for a methodical transition to sustainability. I would expect so, since Tesla and Elon have left a path of disrupted and stranded assets in their wake. Could it be a possibility that the WEF looked to Elon to help them with their Sustainability mission and Elon found that mission was too overly-pragmatic? And that Elon simply saw the path to Sustainability could happen sooner? And that he felt that the Ultimate Priority was ensuring that transition happened as quickly as possible, since he considered the current modes of transportation and of energy creation to be “running the most dangerous experiment in history right now, which is to see how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere... can handle before there is an environmental catastrophe.”

And yet here we are today, with much of the disruption of the Old Paradigm by Tesla already behind us, and with all the Kings horses and all the Kings men trying to hold those Humpty Dumpty’s in power long enough to survive the transition that even Tony Seba told us has been well underway for many years. And we are at this moment experiencing almost ALL of the mainstream media sources absolutely, completely ‘hush’ regarding Tesla’s Lathrop plant and their Monumental opportunity to disrupt the entire Grid through the deployment of their Megapacks, Powerwalls, Solar Roofs, and the VPP with a disruption that will ultimately create a MUCH more secure Distributed Grid.

This transition point in time is fricking Yuuge, and it seems so closely aligned with some of those very early videos produced by the WEF that it is mind-blowing that Sustainability Leaders aren’t dancing in the streets at this watershed moment. And yet they aren’t. Instead we are still getting Bill Gates Hydrogen plans shoved down our throats by mainstream media instead. You know, Hydrogen – the ‘next’ bridge-fuel. Just like Natural Gas was to be. And perhaps up to 95% of our Hydrogen will initially come from that Natural Gas ‘boom’ (pun intended) that began under the Bush-Cheney administration and has continued until the Levelized Cost of Energy very fittingly ‘Levelized’ Natural Gas. And what organization is Mr. Gates closely associated with?

Recall that there was a lot of discussion on TMC regarding Tesla’s decision for its first overseas plant to be in China – and not all of it favorable. But ultimately – and perhaps by design – the China Gigafactory might have been just out of reach of too many other influences. And it was built fast. And it came on line fast. And it started contributing to Tesla’s bottom line WAY faster than anyone in the mainstream media ever expected. A record 168 working days from permits to a finished plant. And for that very reason Tesla and TSLA are still here to talk about. Was the China decision made in-part for reasons none of us were aware of? There were many folks here and analysts on TV calling for Tesla to choose Germany first. In hindsight wouldn’t that have been a complete failure given all the efforts to slow, and to even stop that project along the way? We can still only speculate who was behind those efforts to slow the plant. But with hindsight maybe its worth wondering if there a reason that Elon prioritized China over Germany? Had Elon chosen Germany over China for the first overseas plant, today’s TSLA share price - a share price that has fallen >60% - might be considered an all-time high - IF the company was even still alive. Many here on TMC speculated that German Legacy Auto could have potentially contributed to those construction delays. We do know Elon is not one to be bullied, and he took the fight to Germany with the next Gigafactory location. And from the examination of Elon’s tweet today, Germany is also the backyard of the WEF. And he did so with a war chest of Capital from the China plant, and he did so while eventually being able to sell Chinese-made Tesla’s in Germany as perhaps the final attack that smoothed the transition to Tesla’s ramping of production in Germany. And ‘IF’ Elon is tweeting today about a divergence in Mission direction with the WEF, then perhaps we should not be surprised that Tesla has probably picked Mexico over Canada for the next Gigafactory, given that many political leaders of Canada - including Trudeau himself have been specifically mentioned by the WEF as being closely aligned with their goals. And it wasn't that long ago that Elon and Trudeau were at odds on Twitter IIRC. No, Elon will not be bullied. And the success of the German Gigafactory in the backyard of the WEF and of VW/BMW/and Mercedes would be the ultimate ‘Up Yours’ if ever such an award were to be given in such a hypothetical fight. But even though Elon & Tesla ultimately won that battle, why on earth would they ever want to repeat it if their goal is to rapidly advance Sustainability. Go to Mexico and just ‘get ‘er done’.

In light of Elon’s tweet it would be helpful to hear the WEF speak out in support of Tesla and all they have accomplished towards the original WEF mission of Sustainability. And for similar reasons it would be very helpful to hear this Administration acknowledge Tesla for having done so as well. It would ultimately help to accelerate that Mission of Sustainability that both the WEF and this Administration appear to share. And it would help bring an end to the running of that ‘most dangerous experiment’ much sooner. That would also eliminate any need to consider broader reasons why Elon has had to take the fight to a larger stage through Twitter and through the ownership of Twitter. Such a motivation would certainly help explain Elon’s actions, and perhaps even his decisions to justify the otherwise unworldly expenses necessary to support those actions…..if it were in the name of continuing the absolute fastest path to Sustainability possible, regardless of however large the Goliath was in his path. All speculation & opinion of a long-time observer that is mystified at seeing such parallel Sustainability Universes appear to collide.
Last month I posted some general observations of the relationship between Elon & the World Economic Forum, and of his relationship with those influenced by the WEF organization since the inception of Tesla. I did this because that relationship seems to have morphed over time. It seems to have transitioned from one where Elon was once recruited by the WEF and may have even had some early support establishing/growing Tesla because of the alignment of goals towards reducing fossil fuel consumption...to a relationship in more recent times where Elon & Tesla may have grown too fast to fit 'the plan', and/or he may be considered a bit too rogue at this point for the WEF.

Anyone thinking that this discussion is completely irrelevant of TSLA stock price movement should think again. This matters. I bring this up because the WEF is meeting in Davos. It is a meeting of Global members to discuss the path forward for the Globe. Elon is not there. He consciously made the decision to not be a part of that group long ago. And now, over the past few days, he has responded to many comments about the WEF on Twitter that do suggest that Elon has a vision for the Globe that is not necessarily aligned with the WEF's vision. We should pay attention to this IMO.



What happens in Davos likely effects where future GF's are built and what kind of support Tesla gets in countries whose leaders are WEF members. And there is the potential that this may even effect the stock price very directly, as decisions are made regarding the development of metrics for investing in companies, such as ESG scorecards. And we all know what Elon's opinion is of ESG scoring, particularly after Tesla did not score as high as well as fossil fuel companies:

1674070122745.png


As a TSLA Long, this is very important to me. Tesla is more effective and efficient at every single phase of EV storage solutions than almost every other entity on the planet. And they have become very vertically integrated in an effort to add stability to that efficiency. And Tesla has matured to a level that would justify support from absolutely any-and-all global leadership concerned with Climate Change to act in a very direct manner to further support Tesla in any way possible given that the Tesla Machine is the most efficient use of limited resources on Earth, and that Tesla can use those resources in a manner that minimizes the Carbon Footprint and the Global Impact of the manufacturing and delivery process of a more sustainable future while reducing the arrival time at that very important goal. However that is not what we are witnessing. In fact, we appear to be seeing just the opposite, as we witnessed with the IRA and with the EV Summit, etc, Tesla falling out of favor at home under this administration. Everyone here is also well aware of Bill Gates' Short position on Tesla that doesn't seem to be aligned in any way with the desire of the WEF to reduce fossil fuel consumption. And now a fairly direct discussion by Elon of these goals, to include a poll that can be voted on by all people with access to the internet, worldwide. This last move is likely frowned upon by the WEF, as they have been rather quiet in the news, relatively speaking, at least up until now.

Does the WEF or does Elon have a global vision that is more inclusive and more desirable? And where does Tesla fit in that vision? And is the Tesla Juggernaut able to defend itself from these maturing global pressures going forward? I am anxious to hear the opinions of others on this topic. Much appreciated!
 
  • Love
Reactions: UltradoomY
Last month I posted some general observations of the relationship between Elon & the World Economic Forum, and of his relationship with those influenced by the WEF organization since the inception of Tesla. I did this because that relationship seems to have morphed over time. It seems to have transitioned from one where Elon was once recruited by the WEF and may have even had some early support establishing/growing Tesla because of the alignment of goals towards reducing fossil fuel consumption...to a relationship in more recent times where Elon & Tesla may have grown too fast to fit 'the plan', and/or he may be considered a bit too rogue at this point for the WEF.

Anyone thinking that this discussion is completely irrelevant of TSLA stock price movement should think again. This matters. I bring this up because the WEF is meeting in Davos. It is a meeting of Global members to discuss the path forward for the Globe. Elon is not there. He consciously made the decision to not be a part of that group long ago. And now, over the past few days, he has responded to many comments about the WEF on Twitter that do suggest that Elon has a vision for the Globe that is not necessarily aligned with the WEF's vision. We should pay attention to this IMO.



What happens in Davos likely effects where future GF's are built and what kind of support Tesla gets in countries whose leaders are WEF members. And there is the potential that this may even effect the stock price very directly, as decisions are made regarding the development of metrics for investing in companies, such as ESG scorecards. And we all know what Elon's opinion is of ESG scoring, particularly after Tesla did not score as high as well as fossil fuel companies:

View attachment 897127

As a TSLA Long, this is very important to me. Tesla is more effective and efficient at every single phase of EV storage solutions than almost every other entity on the planet. And they have become very vertically integrated in an effort to add stability to that efficiency. And Tesla has matured to a level that would justify support from absolutely any-and-all global leadership concerned with Climate Change to act in a very direct manner to further support Tesla in any way possible given that the Tesla Machine is the most efficient use of limited resources on Earth, and that Tesla can use those resources in a manner that minimizes the Carbon Footprint and the Global Impact of the manufacturing and delivery process of a more sustainable future while reducing the arrival time at that very important goal. However that is not what we are witnessing. In fact, we appear to be seeing just the opposite, as we witnessed with the IRA and with the EV Summit, etc, Tesla falling out of favor at home under this administration. Everyone here is also well aware of Bill Gates' Short position on Tesla that doesn't seem to be aligned in any way with the desire of the WEF to reduce fossil fuel consumption. And now a fairly direct discussion by Elon of these goals, to include a poll that can be voted on by all people with access to the internet, worldwide. This last move is likely frowned upon by the WEF, as they have been rather quiet in the news, relatively speaking, at least up until now.

Does the WEF or does Elon have a global vision that is more inclusive and more desirable? And where does Tesla fit in that vision? And is the Tesla Juggernaut able to defend itself from these maturing global pressures going forward? I am anxious to hear the opinions of others on this topic. Much appreciated!

Another excellent post. People who missed your previous post, perhaps because it was posted on the day before Christmas, should go back and read it carefully. This is the kind of thing successful investors think about, not about how the share price will be temporarily impacted by the CEO selling 10 or 20 million shares into the open market.

To answer the questions at the bottom of your post, Elon, not the WEF, has the most pragmatic and desirable global vision because it is not compromised by existing power structures. The world is in this oil induced mess precisely because it supported the power structures that arose out of Standard Oil's breakup in 1911 into 34 companies. People are sick of the old power structure that has been robbing them blind and are ready to embrace a future with clean and abundant energy.

My opinion is that Tesla fits centrally into that global vision and they are able to defend themselves from competing global pressures going forward for three reasons:

1) Elon has made clear what his mission is and that mission is aligned with not only all of Tesla's actions, but also the stated missions of the world's governments. Standard Oil's mission was to make as much money as possible and exclude competitors whenever possible. It didn't align with anyone else's goals. This meant it was relatively easy for the powers to be to justify their actions and gain popular support.

2) Elon is not going into this blindly. He knows he up against the world's richest people who will ruthlessly defend their position in the world. But he also knows that the existing legal frameworks of free nations exist to provide a legal framework that defines what people can and cannot do to others and he will use those legal systems to challenge any major unjust actions against Tesla that could prevent Tesla's continuing success at carrying out their mission. These legal systems are not accustomed to taking orders from the wealthy that designed them to protect their business interests. The system is actually set up to protect profitable businesses, and that is ingrained throughout the legal system. This is why Elon has assembled a top-notch legal team and Elon is very good at picking the right people to carry out his initiatives.

3) The WEP and similar organizations cannot move at "Elon speed" and they use committees to come to consensus. That means they are not as smart as Elon. Elon will outmaneuver and outsmart them, just as he did by holding off on price increases until the Treasury Department released their administrative rulings on the IRA on the last day of 2022. Now he has turned their own rules against the incumbents and given the people low pricing on the future of personal transportation. And everyone needs transportation, it just matters what the experience is like and how much it costs.

Of course, none of this is certain, and I don't like the additional risk imposed by those who want to slow down energy disruption so they can maintain their place in the world order, but these are the same people who have been pickpocketing consumers for years and they already have the people on the verge of mass rebellion. So bad actors need to move cautiously with their eye on not offending too many people. My money is on Elon for the reasons stated. I think he is just far enough ahead of them that they are not nimble enough to outflank him.
 
So I've been thinking alot lately about the price cuts in relation to the rest of the auto industry. And I've come to a couple obvious conclusions regardless of propulsion technology.

1. I think there has been a coordinated effort over the last 6-12 months to keep MSRP's high. Legacy Auto aren't necessarily sitting in a room fixing prices but specifically the asian (Toyota, Kia, Hyundai) and US (GM and Ford) etc are building higher end trims with more options that are artificially supply constrained to keep the perception and values higher. There is a Youtube Channel I watch Religiously (Savagegeese) and today one of the main reviewers discussed the conundrum in the market. One of the prime problems is the enthusiast market that Toyota, Subaru, Honda served has been decimated because supply is so low of entry level "fun" cars. The brands then use influencers on social media to blast out how great these are, but then there is no supply making people upset......I digress. The youth market has been a massive buyer of these cars because they were affordable performance. Those people cannot/will not afford a 40-50K tuner car.

2. Tesla is/was part of the Luxury space and has recently ruined this market for Lexus, and the German brands. But now that they've dropped prices they're TAM more than tripled overnight into the non luxury market. Assuming Tesla can provide supply at this cost it just thew a massive wrench into this non verbal agreement I believe in #1 to inflate prices and keep supply low. I believe the rest of the auto market assumed everyone was in the same boat. so MSRP goes up, supply goes down, and margins replace volume. This only works when everyone is on board. The moment someone breaks ranks with a product massively in demand, you now are in deep sh$t.

3. I probably shouldn't spend time writing about the long term implications, but the EV market is now in tatters for 12-24 months (for everyone else!) I believe Tesla is going to not only bolster their 60% market share in NA, they are going to make EV's so money losing that some brands will rethink electrification all together and just accept ICE/Hybrid as their only route. moving on.... I cannot speak to the European/Asian consumer, but I think so long as Tesla doesnt go back to 6+ months lead time, they are going to ruin the traditional market much faster now. If you look at ICE prices Chrysler already said uncle and have discounted pickups, Hybrids, SUV's, and anything not a traditional Jeep wrangler to pre pandemic pricing. This is the canary in the coal mine. I am not positive that even dropping prices, adding incentives, and captive financing is enough to keep people in the fold. People are so mad from point #1 that they will move on to the new way of buying much faster. People desperately want the 50K chevy blazer, but they won't be able to buy it till 2025 if ever. This was GM's plan all along. Low volume, high margin, and hope electrification takes more than a decade. Ford has so many problems with recalls and quality that even if they are able to sell EV's with any margin their warranty costs will eat them alive. The main take away from the Munro live tear down of the Lightning and Mach E, is that when that thing breaks there will only be a handful of places that have the skill to fix it and Ford needs to hope these make it to beyond warranty territory.

4. Are we sure there are still supply chain challenges? I think this is a remarkably convenient crutch for legacy to hobble on for anything but cell supply. So many things look like genius moves by Tesla in having largely interchangeable parts between low, medium and high volume products. Tesla doesnt need to manage parts for 25 different EV's and 15 different cell configurations, worry about SKU's, 3rd part manufacturing, etc. For the life of me I cannot figure out how supply chain is a challenge when cargo containers into the port of LA are at the lowest price/volume since 2018. That TSMC and the other chip makers are all guiding towards lower margins, etc. This leads me to believe that my #1 point...is the point. Now that Tesla messed that up, they are all going to scramble and start going towards volume at the worst possible time....entering a recession.

I dont know that Tesla stock will move back to 400 in the next year or two, but I do know that when all this shakes out...we can look back at this moment as Tesla calling its damn shot and the other team(s) laughing on the mound. I have been pumped for this earnings call for months, but now I am brushing this off as the appetizer till the world sees Q1/Q2 results and defecates themselves in disbelief. This will be when anger moves to disbelief, then onto acceptance that the game is almost over.

This one really got away from me....Jeez.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.