Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2015

[SteveG3]

Chicken, that's the point. I wasn't explicit when I wrote real world speed, but by that I meant 75 mph. I regularly drive up and down between NC and NY, and for large bulks of the drive I go 75 mph, which to my eye is right about the average of what the other drivers around me are doing. My memory of that tool on the website (which went away a month or two ago), was that going 65 mph to 70 mph was about a 25 mile range penalty. 70 mph was the top speed, so I did a rough extrapolation that another 5 mph to 75 mph would drop another 25 miles in range (I'm sure there are people here who would know if that's fair, or over or underestimating the range loss at the slightly higher speed).

I've done the mental math many times, that by Tesla's own website, even an 85D with 19" tires at it's highway estimate, 295 miles, would drop about 50 miles for speed, for substantial parts of the year 30-50 miles for climate control, and often another 20-30 miles for winds and elevation (I'm concerned I'm being conservative about this). Taking this down another 20% for keeping SuperCharging to 80% at many stops has had me longing for a 350 mile highway rating Model S, so I'll have the capacity for 210 miles, still a bit shy of 3 hours of drive time, after I SuperCharge patiently to 90% any month of the year. I would genuinely be happy to find out my theoretical estimates are missing some real world realities, and I'll do better when I get a new S or X daily driver in about six months.

 

[chickensevil]

Yeah, I don't understand why this would be new news......most of us knew this. This headline makes it seem like it's something new, so obviously the analysts don't follow the company close enough.

which is why I love these forums. Do you know how many people never watched that symposium from 2013? If they had, the grid storage wouldn't be a surprise either (especially the demand piece of it, since he was saying two years ago that grid storage is MUCH bigger than anyone realizes.) I still don't really feel like people are appreciating the grid storage even after the official product announcement as evidenced by Elon highlighting this during the shareholders meeting that people didn't get it. So even getting in now, you are ahead of most people on Grid storage, and if you paid attention 2 years ago, you would have really been in early, all of which was well discussed on the forums.

I get the feeling that the Model 3 is shaping up much the same way. Tesla/Elon/JB have leaked enough little tidbits that I won't likely be at all surprised by what finally get shown in 2016. Excited? Heck yeah! Surprised? nope. I anticipate them doing a double reveal in Q1/2016 of both the sedan and CUV at the same time (which had been speculated on for a while). I do like seeing it brought up in the news now and then though since it is a nice gentle reminder that something special is coming next year

 

[chickensevil]

In other news it seems like there is a real attempt to break us into the positive for the day while we keep getting fought back down. We will see if anything prevails here or not. There was a crazy high volume spike for all of 2 minutes which blew us up to 251.28 and then quickly dropped back down and then slowly trying to fight to go positive. Something good must have happened that no one is talking about...

 

[CALGARYARSENAL]

INCREDIBLY BULLISH COMEBACK. Even Jim Cramer would be impressed.

 

[chickensevil]

And while I don't have access to the underlying real time trades hitting the market, I am going to guess that it was a single person/entity initiating a 50k+ shares purchase right at that point... Who does something like that? That is big enough that I would think they would spread it out over at least a few minutes worth of trades to avoid spiking the price. Someone REALLY wanted some Tesla @250~ a share.

 

[MartinAustin]

INCREDIBLY BULLISH COMEBACK. Even Jim Cramer would be impressed.

Indeed. We are finally green for the day, and beating the NASDAQ by half a percent.

When a god-like hand picks up all these range posts and deposits them somewhere else, I will go there and participate.

 

[Crowded Mind]

Indeed. We are finally green for the day, and beating the NASDAQ by half a percent.

When a god-like hand picks up all these range posts and deposits them somewhere else, I will go there and participate.

Agreed...

 

[chickensevil]

http://www.streetinsider.com/Credit...gainst+Missteps,+Inefficiencies/10651306.html

So this is all I could find, I wonder if this caused the spike?

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said that it has affirmed its unsolicited 'B-' corporate credit rating on Tesla Motors Inc. (Nasdaq: TSLA). The outlook remains stable.

At least we didn't drop in rating, and this is in spite of Tesla taking out a decently large line of credit.

Edit: It isn't a very long article so I'll just paste it all here:

At the same time, we affirmed our unsolicited 'B-' issue-level ratings on the company's $920 million 0.25% unsecured convertible notes due 2019, $1.38 billion 1.25% unsecured convertible notes due 2021, and $660 million unsecured convertible notes due 2018. The unsolicited '4' recovery ratings are unchanged, indicating our expectation for average recovery (30%-50%; lower end of the range) for the noteholders in the event of a payment default.
"Tesla's free operating cash flow (FOCF) will likely remain meaningfully negative in 2015, in our view," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Nishit Madlani. "However, with the company's recent announcement of a new $500 million asset-based credit line, we believe that Tesla's liquidity cushion over the next 12 months should offer better protection against any potential execution missteps or inefficiencies (related to production and supply-chain management) associated with the upcoming launch of its Model X crossover vehicle," said Mr. Madlani. In our opinion, the company could still tap additional sources of liquidity over the next 12 months to fund its ongoing growth investments.
The stable outlook reflects our view that Tesla will continue to improve its gross margins and that the company's global vehicle deliveries will increase significantly, year-over-year, in 2015.
We could lower our rating on the company if it appears unlikely that it will be able to improve its liquidity position to fund its capital intensive operations over the next 12 months. A downgrade may also occur if significant execution issues or cost overruns related to the company's launch of its Model X later this year materialize, combined with the ongoing expansion of development on the Model S. A downgrade could also occur if the projected long-term demand for Tesla's vehicles falls meaningfully below our estimates, leading to overcapacity, or if the company's FOCF will likely remain significantly negative for the foreseeable future, causing its liquidity to weaken.
Though unlikely over the next 12 months, we could raise the rating if we see higher demand for Tesla's products, the company's operational cost reductions leads to a credible pathway for positive FOCF (a FOCF-to-debt ratio approaching 5%), its leverage falls well below 6.5x, and its liquidity position improves. We would also need to believe that the company's improved market position is sustainable.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

At the meeting today, JB said Tesla expects to have 1 million Tesla on the road by 2020. Using some basic math, and assuming Tesla can accomplish what it expects to accomplish, we can reasonably say that analysts are underestimating what Tesla will sell in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Also, this figure doesn't include sales of the Powerwall or Powerpack.

 

[SteveG3]

There's a bunch of headlines on Yahoo Finance's TSLA quote about the Model 3 platform having a CUV in addition to a sedan (Reuters, MarketWatch, Wall Street Journal). While we all heard about this from JB and Elon in 2013, perhaps it's being treated as news by some market participants. Moreover, if the articles are correct, JB repeatedly mentioned today that they are working on cars to follow the Model 3. I thought a truck was next. Hopefully there will be a video from this talk posted so we can directly see what was said.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

There's a bunch of headlines on Yahoo Finance's TSLA quote about the Model 3 platform having a CUV in addition to a sedan. While we all heard about this from JB and Elon in 2013, perhaps it's being treated as news by some market participants. Moreover, if the articles are correct, JB repeatedly mentioned today that they are working on cars to follow the Model 3. I thought a truck was next. Hopefully there will be a video from this talk posted so we can directly see what was said.

Here is the link you are referring to.
Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) Envisions Selling Around 500K Units: Long Term

 

[chickensevil]

JB said Tesla expects to have 1 million Tesla on the road by 2020. Using some basic math, and assuming Tesla can accomplish what it expects to accomplish, we can reasonably say that analysts are underestimating what Tesla will sell in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Just a simple 50% growth would look like this:

55k -> 82.5k -> 123.75k -> 185.63k -> 278.44k -> 417.66k (2020)

That means they should break 1M in the middle of 2020 and end the year well above 1M. If analysts aren't following Elon's guidance of "averaging 50% growth y/y for the foreseeable future" then that is their own fault for not listening.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Just a simple 50% growth would look like this:

55k -> 82.5k -> 123.75k -> 185.63k -> 278.44k -> 417.66k (2020)

That means they should break 1M in the middle of 2020 and end the year well above 1M. If analysts aren't following Elon's guidance of "averaging 50% growth y/y for the foreseeable future" then that is their own fault for not listening.

Lol. I think Fortune piggybacked off my comment. Look at their most recent article.

 

[Johan]

Just a simple 50% growth would look like this:

55k -> 82.5k -> 123.75k -> 185.63k -> 278.44k -> 417.66k (2020)

That means they should break 1M in the middle of 2020 and end the year well above 1M. If analysts aren't following Elon's guidance of "averaging 50% growth y/y for the foreseeable future" then that is their own fault for not listening.

Yeah. This is super simple arithmetic and Elton says it all the time, again and again, directly and clearly. So far Tesla has grown just like has predicted. So the basic investment question becomes: Do you believe in Elton to do what he says he will do or do you bet against him? If you are betting he will follow through just use the numbers and the "50% avg. growth rate" statement and calculate what you think the stock will be worth in 2020 or 2025 - you'll likely find it's often lower than it should and here's where you buy. This is basically what jhm is saying with his "blind faith price target".

 

[SteveG3]

Here is the link you are referring to.
Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA) Envisions Selling Around 500K Units: Long Term

appreciate the link d.o.k. I don't remember it though... I heard Elon say this on Bloomberg around the same time though. Upthread someone referenced JB having said it in 2013 as well.

 

[Johan]

Lol. I think Fortune piggybacked off my comment. Look at their most recent article.

The surely did. Financial journalist with too few pieces this week? Want some inspiration, someone to do the job for you? About a company that is in the searchlight (=any article about this company will receive large amounts of clicks just from the subject)? Simple: TSLA, go to TMC, browse the investment forum for 10 minutes, you basically got your article, takes you 1 hour to write it... no research required.

 

[techmaven]

Well, drat. I was hoping for a much bigger sale on TSLA with misunderstandings of the credit line and the potential Grexit worries.

 

[FANGO]

If this were a thread appropriate for range discussions, I would take issue with this baloney, but since it's the TSLA stock price thread, I'll leave it as-is.

If you want to take issue with it then you can bring it up to the EPA, because that's what the number comes from (unless you think tesla is lying, of course, in which case they will be in big trouble). I feel like they probably have a fair grasp of how auto efficiency works.

The number is literally average efficiency. It is literally real world. This is a fact, not my opinion. If you are below that, then you are below average, by definition.

- - - Updated - - -

Not everyone lives in California.

Correct, they live in an average of the USA. And in an average of the USA, rated range = real world range, because that's literally what it is. Thanks for agreeing.

By the way, note that the NEDC rates the S at 312 miles. And Europe has plenty of places that aren't California. But I guess Europe is fantasyland as well? Or maybe the EPA is, if anything, a bit *conservative* in their numbers, when compared to other rating agencies out there? Besides, if Bjorn can get 258 miles in mountains and snow at -6ºC, I'm very much uninterested in hearing about people's inability to drive their cars in a reasonable manner when necessary. The problem very much seems like it exists between the seat and the pedals.

Norwegian Tesla Model S driver goes 233 cold miles on a charge - (there was 41km left in the batteries when he stopped).

- - - Updated - - -

Just a simple 50% growth would look like this:

55k -> 82.5k -> 123.75k -> 185.63k -> 278.44k -> 417.66k (2020)

That means they should break 1M in the middle of 2020 and end the year well above 1M. If analysts aren't following Elon's guidance of "averaging 50% growth y/y for the foreseeable future" then that is their own fault for not listening.

Personally I think we'll end up a bit under 50% growth long term (*"long term" in Tesla time = like the next 7 years or so, heh), and I think analysts are thinking even more conservatively than I am. I think the percentage will drop a bit every year, give or take. Not that that changes my bet any, I'm still all in.

 

[austinEV]

Not to keep the discussion going but I wanted to add my opinion on the range. 200-210 miles range would be a turn off to me, it's the reason I never considered the S60. Why did they get rid of the 60? Because the order numbers were very low. You can call it Psychology and that 200 miles is plenty but it will turn people off. I think matching at least the 70D range is what they need to do.

I bet TM regrets naming their cars after the energy storage spec. The elegant answer is to make Model X 70 and 85 "class" vehicles that match the Model S range (by quietly having more storage capacity, and pricing accordingly). But it will be super confusing to make X85D's that are actually 92kWh (or whatever). So if the Model X are "big and medium" packs like the model S, they can keep the rated range the same, or the kWh, but not both. So which will they move? It would have been more future proof to give them names or something.

 

[jhm]

UBS lays out “dream solar scenario: 50% of global generation by 2050 : Renew Economy

USB anticipates a generator glut by 2020 as I have warned here. The headlines distract from the crisis brewing. Note this buried paragraph:

Solar, by 2020, will be the cheapest form of "new build." Profit margins for thermal electricity (coal and nuclear) will drop to zero. Indeed, it says availability-subsidies will be needed to avoid mass scale closures.

In other words, USB anticipates a massive government bail out of thermal electric generators. Apparently, USB sees a role for natural gas because they seem to underestimate battery storage. They see the price of batteries declining 75% over the next decade, but do not see this leading to mass defections.

What they miss is that batteries will absolutely destroy any market for gas peaking plants. The levelized cost from such plants is in the range of 18 to 23 c/kWh. At the current price of Powerpacks, the levelized cost of storage is in range of 6 to 9 c/kWh, and by 2020 this could drop below 4 c/kWh. Even at current prices, the combination of Powerpacks with wind or solar could deprive gas peaking plants any market over 18 c/kWh. So their is very little hope for profitability with for fossil generators and their fuels.

Their Dream scenario of 50% solar penetration is a deceptive nightmare. This rate of growth is a mere 13.3% per year over the next 35 years. The growth of solar over the last decade has been about 50%. At that rate, solar will get to their dream scenario is just 11 years. So if the dream comes a few decades sooner than 2050, this could be a real nightmare for all utility generators, fossil fuels and their investors. Good luck.