I have zero fear about FSD take rate, Tesla cant master hwy driving, they are many many many years away from FSD and by that time i dont see them with the current ownership structure that exists today (ie BK or some sort of asset purchase to satisfy creditors leaving equity holders with no negotiating power)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Near-future quarterly financial projections
- Thread starter luvb2b
- Start date
yes that’s what i thought.
i re-listened to shareholder meeting yesterday and @EinSV quoted that earlier.
“As far as the high 20s reference, on the Q1 call Elon estimated 25% margins in mid 2019 with a goal of high 20s by late 2019 — excerpt below:
Yes, exactly. That's why it was important to clarify what these things mean. Yes, Q4 is when we expect to be on or about 20%. Then by the middle of next year, 25% gross margin should be where we are. And then we'll also try to get to the high 20s by the end of next year. Edited Transcript of TSLA earnings conference call or presentation 2-May-18 9:30pm GMT
thanks
Where does Mazda get credits?
(FWIW I concur with the substance of your post--and I think Elon also recognizes the credits will not scale, hence his criticisms of CARB on conference calls.)
you are right, at one point he was asked about it directly in a "I thought previously you stated 25%" and his response was not exactly awe inspiring that 5% was not a big swing/change (it's massive obv).
i think he means they could just pay the CARB fee which is what sets the price (i think the carb fee is equal to 5k per credit if i remember right)
that doesn’t mean that consumers won’t purchase the option. they already do to some extent. i’d expect incremental rollout will draw more people to convert to FSD option even though we know it doesn’t mean you can sleep at the wheel
maybe, it's not a completely unreasonable stance or anything, i just do not agree with it.
Competitors still have the to option to pay the fine instead to 'hurt' Tesla
I 100% am not saying that is happening, im just clarifying the point made, i think, it's not my point
There are different standards for Mazda which is classified as an "Intermediate Volume" manufacturer vs GM "Large Volume" the requirements are lighter on them. Off the top of my head I do not know how many credits they have "banked". What I mean by banked is that they have purchased surplus credits in the past to satisfy requirements today and into the future. If they had "0" banked credits, then yes they would need to buy them today, but every manufacturer has credits stored up from years past. Toyota also owns a significant portion of Mazda so maybe they have some arrangement.
But that does not mean they would need to buy them from Tesla, they can still buy from other manufacturers. You have to look at the entire ZEV market and when supply explodes while demand remains fixed (regulations aren't changing, unless Trump and the new EPA scrap the whole program) well you know what that will do the price.
I doubt any manufacturer has ever paid $5000 for a ZEV credit. The penalty for not having the credits is $5000 per ICE car sold in a ZEV state (each car requires 1 credit). I would estimate the value of ZEV credits today based on discounts manufacturers are offering as around $600-$800 per credit. Several years ago when Tesla was pretty much the sole supplier and credits were much more limited due to lower production volume of S/X vs. 3, I bet they were selling those credits for $2500-$3000 a pop.
as far as TE margins.
if they get < $100kwh at cell level (they’re close)
and then to <$100kwh pack level
it’s hard to imagine that the TE storage margins won’t be = or better than car packs as projects increase.
em said (shrholder mtg) they reached 1gwh and they’re going to double the amount of deployment shortly. then for a number of years, each year’s total deployment will be greater than all previous years combined. even if you take half that projection it should have a significant impact on bottom line.
if they get < $100kwh at cell level (they’re close)
and then to <$100kwh pack level
it’s hard to imagine that the TE storage margins won’t be = or better than car packs as projects increase.
em said (shrholder mtg) they reached 1gwh and they’re going to double the amount of deployment shortly. then for a number of years, each year’s total deployment will be greater than all previous years combined. even if you take half that projection it should have a significant impact on bottom line.
QUOTE="Reality, post: 2881581, member: 75134"]...which means 20% margin on a 35 car is probably pretty unlikely unless that battery savings is much larger than we think.[/QUOTE]
When I glanced at the table: [JonP on Twitter], it looks like it might not include for the base case all the FSD hardware that is installed regardless of whether that option is ever selected by the car buyer
When I glanced at the table: [JonP on Twitter], it looks like it might not include for the base case all the FSD hardware that is installed regardless of whether that option is ever selected by the car buyer
Competitors still have the to option to pay the fine instead to 'hurt' Tesla
I 100% am not saying that is happening, im just clarifying the point made, i think, it's not my point
If the other manufacturers REALLY wanted to hurt Tesla they would buy 0 credits from Tesla over the next 6 months. There are plenty of credits to go around in the market for the next couple of years, so no penalty costs would even be incurred. That would really hurt Tesla as the 100% margins and instant cash flow from the credits are going to be needed for this Q3/Q4 profitability push. Do I think that will happen? No. The manufacturers WILL still purchase credits, but Tesla will not be getting a very good deal compared to what they were getting in the past.
what do you mean <100kw on the pack level? I am not denying the pack has significant cost associated with it and biggest costs for bigger packs, but im just curious where you are pulling the 100kwh on pack level from (not questioning, genuinely curious)?
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
I agree with you, and definitely think there is a non zero chance they don't buy from tesla at all and a very high % chance credits bought from Tesla will go for less per credit than other parts of the market. Bigger buyers know Tesla will take less.
Is this a table from munro or one he made? Seems from comment it is self made?
FirebirdAlpha
Member
It's made using the data in the Munro report.
I think the issue, however, is that his report just doesn't account for huge portions of cost. He sums up the variable costs included in the creation of the vehicle. Essentially, just raw materials + assembly labor estimates.
He's ignoring...
- QA / initial service costs
- Replacement / defective part costs
- Logistics / transportation costs
- Sales / inventory costs
- Warranty costs
More balanced analysis here: Munro Teardown Shows Tesla Model 3 Solidly Profitable [video] | Hacker News
I wonder if we can get this information from other automakers? What's the ratio of variable costs / MSRP for other automakers?
Last edited:
Best info here: Zero Emission Vehicle Credits
Mazda had zero balances in EV, 1.5x/llx, NEV+, TZEV credits at the end of August, 2017.
Links in the report explain the abbreviations.
