-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Munro Teardown Shows Model 3 Profitable With 30%+ Margins
- Thread starter Singuy
- Start date
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I thought we went over this ? A Prius in Colorado beat a LEAF on CO2 4 years ago, and the LEAF was not even close when it came to NOx and SOx if the EV was grid charged.
In case there is any doubt, I am a crazy Tesla advocate; I just like to keep my facts in order.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
SageBrush
Here's a copy of the map from the 2015 study I'm talking about (based on 2014 data), that shows benefits (in green) converted to suggested per vehicle EV subsidies (and obviously informed where the subsidies didn't make sense in local terms w/o going to GHG costs):
The benefits at county level are different, as the benefits are highly correlated with population density. I've not seen anyone run the data again, with now electicicy production composition and the somewhat improved efficacy of the EV fleet, although the later is probably going to be offset by the improving efficiency of the ICE fleet over the last 10 years.
EDIT: I'll note that by these calculations the $2500 EV rebate in CA actually lowballs the value provided! On the other hand I think CO's is higher, right? So a little on the rich side.
Here's a copy of the map from the 2015 study I'm talking about (based on 2014 data), that shows benefits (in green) converted to suggested per vehicle EV subsidies (and obviously informed where the subsidies didn't make sense in local terms w/o going to GHG costs):
The benefits at county level are different, as the benefits are highly correlated with population density. I've not seen anyone run the data again, with now electicicy production composition and the somewhat improved efficacy of the EV fleet, although the later is probably going to be offset by the improving efficiency of the ICE fleet over the last 10 years.
EDIT: I'll note that by these calculations the $2500 EV rebate in CA actually lowballs the value provided! On the other hand I think CO's is higher, right? So a little on the rich side.
Last edited:
I don’t believe anyone in this thread has done that.
Saying that an EV run off your own solar panels is better than one run off the grid, or an EV run off the grid is better than the typical gas car is hardly stating “your EV has no environmental consequences”.
Dr. J
Active Member
Getting better all the time.
And: "Tesla is aiming to achieve close to zero usage of cobalt in the near future," a Tesla spokesperson told TheStreet.
Tesla Hopes to Use 'Close to Zero' Cobalt for Its Batteries in the Near Future
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I'm too lazy to parse that map, so I offer instead the UCS map based on 2016 eGRid:
If memory serves (maybe), the larger Colorado region in 2014 for a LEAF on the averaged grid was equivalent to the CO2 emissions of a 38 mpg ICE. Are any other laggard regions making progress anywhere near the rate of Colorado ?
ℬête Noire
Active Member
You can't draw a straight line like that. For the same reason that CO etc. had better particulate numbers than Eastward in 2014. Coal power in the West generally has a much lower % mix of the lower grade lignite coal, which is "dirtier" in the ways that matter for not-GHG pollution. Thus the non-GHG pollution tends to drop much faster than GHG emissions in the East. The lignite coal as tends to be the least economically feasible because you have to pull so much of it out of the ground, because it burns poorly, and doesn't have alternative market to rely on for coking for steel.
Munro not available for follow up shows on Autoline because he is having some dispute -- possibly a lawsuit of threats of one.
BREAKING: Munro Sued For Tesla Model 3 Teardown
The commentator says that he is being sued, but there don't seem to any record of any lawuit filed -- could be just a nasty letter from someone's lawyer.
BREAKING: Munro Sued For Tesla Model 3 Teardown
The commentator says that he is being sued, but there don't seem to any record of any lawuit filed -- could be just a nasty letter from someone's lawyer.
Last edited:
They project the profitability based on reasonable assumptions based on their own expertise and experience.
More importantly, now it appears that they are being sued or threatened because of their work. My guess is shorts want to keep them quiet -- and it is working.
I think it might be UBS who tried to use the report to support their negative analysis and then were annoyed when he came out with an overall strongly positive analysis.
Possibly they were still digesting their version of the report and then he goes on Youtube and says Model 3 is profitable and uses rocket science and light years ahead of everyone and UBS is seriously frustrated in their ability to negative spin their use of the Munro report. Tesla Model 3 is 'military-grade tech years ahead of peers' but still expected to lose money
Possibly they were still digesting their version of the report and then he goes on Youtube and says Model 3 is profitable and uses rocket science and light years ahead of everyone and UBS is seriously frustrated in their ability to negative spin their use of the Munro report. Tesla Model 3 is 'military-grade tech years ahead of peers' but still expected to lose money
I think you're right and if so that would surprise me that a company could stop another (Munro in this case) from publishing their report before the threatening company can publish their report. What?!! BTW didn't UBS use the phrase "military-grade tech" in their report which I believe Munro came out first with that description? If UBS is doing this to gain some advantage or leverage over the Model 3 story, I would have no respect for them and find this legal bullying technique very disturbing. Regardless of Munro's final report, Munro should be able to publish their results when it's ready. I'm not investment savvy on these company reports so what would UBS if they are the party to this have to gain or lose over UBS' report getting out second?
Here's a bit more on the Munro situation from this morning's Teslarati article.
Tesla Model 3 analysis triggers legal woes for teardown expert Sandy Munro
Last edited:
Did a bit more research, and found this article in Institutional Investor dated 12/05/17 about UBS's 39-analyst Evidence Lab doing a teardown of the Bolt, assisted by automotive specialist Munro & Associates, being the basis of UBS's most popular research report in 2017. Likely they paid Munro & Associates to assist with the Model 3 teardown as well. Who knows what rights Munro had under an agreement to publish their own results based on the teardown paid for by their client. Interesting. My husband thought it might be something like a client relationship.
How UBS Tore Down a Car — and Rebuilt Its Research Practice
While Munro said they saw the Model 3 being profitable and more so than they thought, they also came to a different conclusion about the possible profitability of the $35K model a bit down the road. With Tesla constantly improving things, I don't think anyone can say for sure what the $35K model's profitability will be. We don't know if it will have a glass roof or metal roof for example, different sound system (likely), etc. and we know it will come with a lower capacity battery. Seemed like UBS in their latest report chose to focus on the quality of very early production cars and what they feel will be a profit losing base model. So yeah, used the report to focus on their analysts' negative view of the car. I do hope that when the base model is in full production, UBS' analysts will be proven wrong. Wonder if Sandy Munro will get to speak after UBS' report is now out.
How UBS Tore Down a Car — and Rebuilt Its Research Practice
While Munro said they saw the Model 3 being profitable and more so than they thought, they also came to a different conclusion about the possible profitability of the $35K model a bit down the road. With Tesla constantly improving things, I don't think anyone can say for sure what the $35K model's profitability will be. We don't know if it will have a glass roof or metal roof for example, different sound system (likely), etc. and we know it will come with a lower capacity battery. Seemed like UBS in their latest report chose to focus on the quality of very early production cars and what they feel will be a profit losing base model. So yeah, used the report to focus on their analysts' negative view of the car. I do hope that when the base model is in full production, UBS' analysts will be proven wrong. Wonder if Sandy Munro will get to speak after UBS' report is now out.
Last edited:
I guess maybe Munro & Associates is now allowed to talk. Saw this response in today's Jalopnik from Munro on whether they think the $35K base model will be profitable.
https://jalopnik.com/teslas-35-000-model-3-will-lose-money-for-the-automake-1828566684
https://jalopnik.com/teslas-35-000-model-3-will-lose-money-for-the-automake-1828566684
Really, they didn't say anything of note in that article.
But they did say one thing: That how can you estimate the cost of the $35k Model 3 when you have no idea what is going to be included. So yeah, if UBS thought the $35k Model 3 was going to be the same as the current $49k Model 3 just with a smaller battery they might be making an incorrect assumption.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Munro already gave his estimate for gross margin on the $35K version of, IIRC, 18%. Setting aside that that has a higher "guess" factor to it, for reasons listed above; That means it'll probably not be a net money maker for Tesla by itself, given their highly vertical, direct to customer business model leading them to to carry higher sales overhead. Probably break even, plus or minus. However every AEP option is gravy and customer conversion rates on that option are so far very high.
