Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2015

[Causalien]

I'm not sure there are any grounds for a monopoly. Tesla has created no barrier to entry, and has even open sourced all related patents. Both Nissan and BMW claim to have fast charging networks of their own. Any competitor could deploy their own using identicle technology. If anything, Tesla has created an environment where no monopoly is plausible. The real difficulty is that no competitor wants to give away free charging to its customers, but that's the standard Tesla has set.

Yeah, not sure = "Let's sue and try" usually. I am thinking Microsoft = TSLA and IE = Superchargers type of situation here. Or that McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit.

 

[jhm]

It's a chicken-or-egg problem for other manufacturers, to be sure. Who would build fast chargers without knowing what demand will be for their EV? And who would buy an EV from a manufacturer that has no ability for long distance travel?

Tesla should take their name and logo off of all superchargers and put on something like 'Electric Vehicle Supercharger', then have OEMs pay a fee to have their vehicle be compatible.

I think a better strategy is to set up a vendor fleet of superchargers and vendors would license a turnkey system with Tesla compatibility. For example, a company like Flying J could deploy pay per charge Superchargers at their travel stations. They get to make a few dollars on the charge and generate sales at their stores and restaurants. For Tesla owners this would be just as fast as a Tesla Supercharger. The chargers would also be flexible enough to charge at top rate pretty much any EV on the road.

 

[ev-enthusiast]

Anybody betting on a small positive push by breaching the 200DMA ($233.4) today?
Some day traders could join a small short covering party.
SP already up a bit in Europe.
RSI and MACD rising could be a bullish sign.
Next resistance near 244?

 

[jhm]

Here's an easy solution:

One basic problem with a government mandated solution like this is that service stations will have little incentive to do more than minimal compliance. So don't expect cutting edge technology to be deployed, and don't expect the chargers to be well maintained. I have difficulty understanding why gas stations should be obligated to provide this service. Any retail business with a parking lot could provide the same service and may have stronger motivation to encourage the customer to shop while they charge. By contrast most service stations do not have an abundance of parking spaces and afford quite minimal shopping or dinning amenities. So the opportunity would better go to any retailer with ample parking than to a gasoline retailer.

 

[madodel]

I think a better strategy is to set up a vendor fleet of superchargers and vendors would license a turnkey system with Tesla compatibility. For example, a company like Flying J could deploy pay per charge Superchargers at their travel stations. They get to make a few dollars on the charge and generate sales at their stores and restaurants. For Tesla owners this would be just as fast as a Tesla Supercharger. The chargers would also be flexible enough to charge at top rate pretty much any EV on the road.

Any retailers should be clamoring for this. Unlike gas, EV charging means people have a half hour or more to come in their store.

 

[jhm]

Any retailers should be clamoring for this. Unlike gas, EV charging means people have a half hour or more to come in their store.

Exactly, unfortunately Tesla seems to have a strategic blind spot to this opportunity. They have pushed out destination charging mostly to hotels, but have not provided a vendor option that is suitable for a retailer. It's one thing for a pricey hotel to provide a free low power charge to a guest. It's quite another thing for a supermarket to offer a high power (> 100 kW) charge to frequent shoppers. There are very different economics at work. So Tesla needs to get out ahead of this and develop solutions that make business sense for different kinds of retailers.

I should probably stop posting any more on this on the shortterm thread.

 

[Drax7]

Yeah, not sure = "Let's sue and try" usually. I am thinking Microsoft = TSLA and IE = Superchargers type of situation here. Or that McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit.

Not a chance in my view, governments sue monopolistic practices , there are billions of electrical
outlets, and no monopolistic profits on Teslas books.

 

[JRP3]

Tesla should take their name and logo off of all superchargers and put on something like 'Electric Vehicle Supercharger', then have OEMs pay a fee to have their vehicle be compatible.

And give up all that free advertising? No. OEM's can pay to use the Tesla branded SC network.

 

[gene]

Or that McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit.

So few people understand the McDonald's lawsuit. The woman who was burned with cofee only asked for $20,000, her medical costs. The judge gave her 7 million dollars as a punishment to McDonalds as McDonalds purposefully calculated the occasional coffee burn was cheaper than outfitting all the drive-through windows with required coffee coolers. It was a fine thrown at McDonalds.

 

[ggies07]

I don't know about you guys, but I saw lots of tv commercials for natural gas and from Exxon as "energy for the future" and focusing on "family matters" over the holidays. Did not like it one bit, it's time for Tesla to get at least one commercial out there. Maybe they will finally do one for Tesla Energy once the battery packages start coming together....

 

[Discoducky]

So few people understand the McDonald's lawsuit. The woman who was burned with cofee only asked for $20,000, her medical costs. The judge gave her 7 million dollars as a punishment to McDonalds as McDonalds purposefully calculated the occasional coffee burn was cheaper than outfitting all the drive-through windows with required coffee coolers. It was a fine thrown at McDonalds.

Yikes, this thread has gone off topic, should be carved off into the main supercharger thread...

I would love to see a car that could supercharge come out from a competitor and a well thought out strategy to accommodate the distributed load of the new fleet. Thinking of how it would affect TSLA; well, I could see it moving the stock quite a bit if it were say the Bolt and GM announced a 5 minute 50% charge (max time connected) as well as Tesla announcing that they will be tripling superchargers throughout North America focusing on areas where Bolt sales will be strongest. A deal like this could add a significant % to TSLA.

 

[Buddyroe]

Exactly, unfortunately Tesla seems to have a strategic blind spot to this opportunity. They have pushed out destination charging mostly to hotels, but have not provided a vendor option that is suitable for a retailer. It's one thing for a pricey hotel to provide a free low power charge to a guest. It's quite another thing for a supermarket to offer a high power (> 100 kW) charge to frequent shoppers. There are very different economics at work. So Tesla needs to get out ahead of this and develop solutions that make business sense for different kinds of retailers.

I should probably stop posting any more on this on the shortterm thread.

Yea, I have been preaching this strategy since the beginning. I thoroughly believe that EVs will not receive mainstream acceptance until people don't have to think SO much about WHERE/WHEN to charge - just like ICE cars. If chain gas stations like Sheetz, Flying J, Pilot, etc, had their own branded super chargers (2 per station would be good to start), it would allow Tesla owners to basically charge "at will". Imagine knowing that there is a supercharger about every 25 miles or less. It would be much closer to ICE cars at that point - just basically stop when it's convenient to you. Got to use the restroom? - get a 5-10 minute charge while you stop. It would also allow you to take the route of your choosing.

Some will say the draw back will be having to pay for the charge. But, I really think most Tesla owners would rather pay $15-25 for a full charge (or portion thereof) than to be restricted to a route that has a supercharger and also be forced to stop at THAT supercharger. Financially, for the gas stations, it would be lucrative also. Not only can they make money on the charge, but many of these bigger stations now have attached restaurants. So, it's easy business for those places.

This is the route for Tesla to move closer to a mainstream following. Why this isn't already done, I really don't understand. Tesla will NEVER be able to build enough SC stations to meet serious demand (ie, 500k cars per year) - not at the snail pace they're currently building them. They'd be much better off to simply give the charging stalls to gas station chains and let them cover the cost of installing them. I think the coverage would spread MUCH faster.

 

[Fallenone]

Actually I think it would be better when Powerpack becomes widespread and big shopping malls are adopting them. Because the destination chargers are really not that fast. After some malls got their Powerpacks then one day Tesla calls them and say: hey we can turn your Powerpack into superchargers to attract more buyers, wanna join?

Yea, I have been preaching this strategy since the beginning. I thoroughly believe that EVs will not receive mainstream acceptance until people don't have to think SO much about WHERE/WHEN to charge - just like ICE cars. If chain gas stations like Sheetz, Flying J, Pilot, etc, had their own branded super chargers (2 per station would be good to start), it would allow Tesla owners to basically charge "at will". Imagine knowing that there is a supercharger about every 25 miles or less. It would be much closer to ICE cars at that point - just basically stop when it's convenient to you. Got to use the restroom? - get a 5-10 minute charge while you stop. It would also allow you to take the route of your choosing.

Some will say the draw back will be having to pay for the charge. But, I really think most Tesla owners would rather pay $15-25 for a full charge (or portion thereof) than to be restricted to a route that has a supercharger and also be forced to stop at THAT supercharger. Financially, for the gas stations, it would be lucrative also. Not only can they make money on the charge, but many of these bigger stations now have attached restaurants. So, it's easy business for those places.

This is the route for Tesla to move closer to a mainstream following. Why this isn't already done, I really don't understand. Tesla will NEVER be able to build enough SC stations to meet serious demand (ie, 500k cars per year) - not at the snail pace they're currently building them. They'd be much better off to simply give the charging stalls to gas station chains and let them cover the cost of installing them. I think the coverage would spread MUCH faster.

 

[techmaven]

This is the route for Tesla to move closer to a mainstream following. Why this isn't already done, I really don't understand. Tesla will NEVER be able to build enough SC stations to meet serious demand (ie, 500k cars per year) - not at the snail pace they're currently building them. They'd be much better off to simply give the charging stalls to gas station chains and let them cover the cost of installing them. I think the coverage would spread MUCH faster.

Ah, no.

Tesla will build enough stations because the vast majority of the energy transfer is done at or near home at night. The secondary location for charging is at work, preferably off solar. This is the only way to have sustainable and cost effective EV adoption. DC fast charging stations have to be kept to an absolute minimum unless we are so awash with renewable energy that we can waste it in this way - at which point de-salination efforts should still come first. It is nearly impossible from a capital investment perspective to use DC fast charging as a primary means to drive EV adoption. It is a safety net, an enabler for the few times the vast majority of the public drives more than 2 hours. Now, we do need a lot more destination charging which is the right way to force adoption. Tesla's destination charging program is something that really shouldn't be necessary at all and was clearly not part of the original thesis. It's something that Tesla probably felt they had to do with what they had on hand (HPWC) since hotels and the like haven't been very good at building out AC J1772 charging infrastructure. The next closest AC EVSE that can offer 80 amps is a Clipper Creek unit that costs over $2k. Ideally, BEV adoption should have forced the issue through natural demand for J1772 destination charging at many hotels/motels/B&B's in the U.S. at a higher rate that what happened. Europe/Asia have their own dynamics which is separate.

As for how this affects the stock, there is a perception at the moment amongst bears that there is some sort of competition looming that is bad for Tesla. That they can't build enough charging stations and others easily compete with charging networks. That is completely silly, but it is based on the idea that there are only a few headstrong brainwashed idiots that are willing to be EV adopters, so the addressable market is very limited. As a result, any entrant in the market will be taking marketshare within this small addressable market. Up until now, Tesla has had a monopoly on long distance capable BEVs, and thus when new entrants come in, obviously Tesla will lose that monopoly. Plus, in their minds, the only reason to own a Tesla is because they have the only long distance capable BEV and once the large automakers decide to offer competing products, Tesla would be crushed because Tesla obviously can't build decent cars. This is silly, but the whole Model X launch delay feeds into this, affecting the perception Tesla's capabilities and prospects. Now, another few entrants into the long range BEV market should help cause the natural demand for destination J1772 charging to increase. Up until now, only Tesla's could even make the trip to any number of overnight stay locations. This dynamic should end up *helping* Tesla, as a more robust destination charging infrastructure benefits all EVs, but especially Tesla since Tesla only sells EVs.

 

[Fallenone]

Having over 90% of the electricity charged at home is one thing. Not being able to perform long-distance traveling (waiting in line for more than 30 min for a supercharger or something similar also counts) is another thing. Both can be true. And not eliminating the later in my opinion will severely impact the adoption of EV.

Ah, no.

Tesla will build enough stations because the vast majority of the energy transfer is done at or near home at night. The secondary location for charging is at work, preferably off solar. This is the only way to have sustainable and cost effective EV adoption. DC fast charging stations have to be kept to an absolute minimum unless we are so awash with renewable energy that we can waste it in this way - at which point de-salination efforts should still come first. It is nearly impossible from a capital investment perspective to use DC fast charging as a primary means to drive EV adoption. It is a safety net, an enabler for the few times the vast majority of the public drives more than 2 hours. Now, we do need a lot more destination charging which is the right way to force adoption. Tesla's destination charging program is something that really shouldn't be necessary at all and was clearly not part of the original thesis. It's something that Tesla probably felt they had to do with what they had on hand (HPWC) since hotels and the like haven't been very good at building out AC J1772 charging infrastructure. The next closest AC EVSE that can offer 80 amps is a Clipper Creek unit that costs over $2k. Ideally, BEV adoption should have forced the issue through natural demand for J1772 destination charging at many hotels/motels/B&B's in the U.S. at a higher rate that what happened. Europe/Asia have their own dynamics which is separate.

As for how this affects the stock, there is a perception at the moment amongst bears that there is some sort of competition looming that is bad for Tesla. That they can't build enough charging stations and others easily compete with charging networks. That is completely silly, but it is based on the idea that there are only a few headstrong brainwashed idiots that are willing to be EV adopters, so the addressable market is very limited. As a result, any entrant in the market will be taking marketshare within this small addressable market. Up until now, Tesla has had a monopoly on long distance capable BEVs, and thus when new entrants come in, obviously Tesla will lose that monopoly. Plus, in their minds, the only reason to own a Tesla is because they have the only long distance capable BEV and once the large automakers decide to offer competing products, Tesla would be crushed because Tesla obviously can't build decent cars. This is silly, but the whole Model X launch delay feeds into this, affecting the perception Tesla's capabilities and prospects. Now, another few entrants into the long range BEV market should help cause the natural demand for destination J1772 charging to increase. Up until now, only Tesla's could even make the trip to any number of overnight stay locations. This dynamic should end up *helping* Tesla, as a more robust destination charging infrastructure benefits all EVs, but especially Tesla since Tesla only sells EVs.

 

[techmaven]

Having over 90% of the electricity charged at home is one thing. Not being able to perform long-distance traveling (waiting in line for more than 30 min for a supercharger or something similar also counts) is another thing. Both can be true. And not eliminating the later in my opinion will severely impact the adoption of EV.

Not eliminating the other... just drawing down the scope of the DC fast charging network such that is is possible to accomplish with roughly 5% of Tesla's capex spending. I suspect that once the Model X revenue taps open up combined with a lull with the current expansion of the Fremont factory, the Supercharger spending taps will be cranked back up.

Also, another note... gas stations, almost universally, are terrible places to charge.

 

[Papafox]

Not eliminating the other... just drawing down the scope of the DC fast charging network such that is is possible to accomplish with roughly 5% of Tesla's capex spending. I suspect that once the Model X revenue taps open up combined with a lull with the current expansion of the Fremont factory, the Supercharger spending taps will be cranked back up.

Also, another note... gas stations, almost universally, are terrible places to charge.

After touring all 50 states this past summer in a 70D, I saw that most supercharger stations are grossly underutilized. Thus, tremendous growth is possible without much infrastructure costs. The exceptions are places such as California, where Tesla traffic is rather high.

Also, the type of non-supercharger charging that I see the most demand for is dining locations on north-south routes where the supercharger network is somewhat deficient and a helper charge is needed to make it to the next supercharger. Here's a great place to stop for a charge on a north or southbound routing through British Columbia: the Kicking Horse Cafe, which offers free J1772 charging.

 

[BriansTesla]

Also, another note... gas stations, almost universally, are terrible places to charge.

I agree they are terrible in the US. In the future they could be better.

Italian rest stop.

Future rest stop. (Hold the biodiesel)

 

[techmaven]

I agree they are terrible in the US. In the future they could be better.

[...]

Future rest stop. (Hold the biodiesel)

View attachment 102795

Very cool looking. However, at some point, that rest stop would essentially be indistinguishable from a mall if you remove the gas/diesel part.

 

[hobbes]

Looks like in the absence of price movements this thread goes off topic .
So let´s discuss that absence - does anyone have an idea who is interested
in keeping stock price flat at $230? Doesn´t seem like just a coincidence.