Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2015

[dha]

The difference here is that TM is (with the Model S) attempting to spec 2 things, the kWh and range when we only care about the range. I mean, enthusiasts would want to know what their pack label is, for sure. But with the model X we see that the branding message will probably be about the range. So if they want 240/265 again, which makes sense, they will need to adjust their pack size. So that implies a Tesla Model X 81.25 and a Tesla Model X 101.67 to be a smart-alec and making up a number. Yes, they could round it as I did in the table but eventually the branding gets confusing.

Spec and branding are two separate issues. Customers know enough to research the range of the vehicle they're interested in. I just don't see anybody being confused by this.

 

[JRP3]

The difference here is that TM is (with the Model S) attempting to spec 2 things, the kWh and range when we only care about the range.
Car range is a critical, critical spec.

KWh not only conveys potential range, but also performance and supercharging speed.

 

[austinEV]

KWh not only conveys potential range, but also performance and supercharging speed.

Both of those are affected pretty weakly. We are talking about a car company specing it's cars based on the size of the fuel tank. Would you want to hear a BMW dealer say, this is the BMW 3 20 gallon, and this is the 30 Gallon? I would find that a strange thing to focus on. The reason TM did it is because they were so focused on battery constraint, that the amount of cells you were buying meant the world, in terms of spec and bragging rights (aka, how much money it costs). If we imagine a post-cell-scarcity world with multiple GF in 10 years or so focusing on "fuel tank" size won't make any sense. When it stops making sense is debatable.

 

[dha]

Both of those are affected pretty weakly. We are talking about a car company specing it's cars based on the size of the fuel tank. Would you want to hear a BMW dealer say, this is the BMW 3 20 gallon, and this is the 30 Gallon? I would find that a strange thing to focus on. The reason TM did it is because they were so focused on battery constraint, that the amount of cells you were buying meant the world, in terms of spec and bragging rights (aka, how much money it costs). If we imagine a post-cell-scarcity world with multiple GF in 10 years or so focusing on "fuel tank" size won't make any sense. When it stops making sense is debatable.

Again, you're conflating branding and technical specs and talking about them like they are synonymous. Model names of cars are completely arbitrary and people usually don't look to the model name for cues on the actual capability of the vehicle.

 

[JRP3]

Both of those are affected pretty weakly.

There is a thread around here where an 85 owner talks about what a dog the 60 loaner he drove was.

We are talking about a car company specing it's cars based on the size of the fuel tank.

Not true. A car with a 1 gallon gas tank would perform the same as the same car with a 20 gallon gas tank. Obviously not the case for an EV in relation to pack size. Pack size strongly influences performance.

 

[EldestOyster]

If you live where I do and drive over the hills that I do, you will get less range than others do. That's a data sample of 1, and it would be nuts to declare it as some kind of blanket truth. And I recall the LEAF guys in Arizona, Texas, and Florida, who could go 100 miles without thinking, and they thought the rest of us were all just inept. "Factors" have a lot to do with the results. Also please remember that the EPA's intent is for you to use their number to compare to other EPA numbers, rather than to predict your exact range.

And...

As 99% of us who own a Tesla should know by now, 99% of the time 300 miles is more than enough miles since we charge it every night at home. 400 mile or 500 mile tesla is irrational for 99% of people to buy now that superchargers are all over the place

Mild-mannered Moderator IS from Alaska, you should know......but he'll try to stay mild-mannered and revel in the thought that he's in the 1 percent, and not go all irrational on you....:tongue:

When the distances are large, you have to Just Take The Cessna :wink:

 

[austinEV]

I won't convince everyone clearly. I think it will be a mess when the Model X 85 is the small battery, but the big battery on the Model S. What is important is the relative "bigness" for that model. Is it the low end, cheap, slow, slow to charge selection, or the high-end, fast, fast to charge option? The numbers don't tell you automatically. This doesn't matter with 1 or 2 cars, but with 10 it matters a lot. The world won't end if they keep with the capacity numbers in the names. It's just not optimal to me.

 

[AudubonB]

Mild-mannered Mod here:

"Short-term" is a catch-all thread by its very nature, but since there is a specific site, it's probably best to take your charging + range discussion over to the "Battery & Charging site, so those who frequent that location can share their expertise.

Thanks to all

 

[ggr]

There is nothing wrong with Tesla continuing to name models after pack size. The market for these products is tech savvy. Luxury cars (BMW, MB) are commonly named after engine size and this doesn't seem to cause any problems. People shop for a 8GB iPhone vs a 16GB or 64GB and they understand the implications of the difference in storage for *that particular product* vs storage on an iPad or laptop.

Well, in the case of Mercedes, this hasn't been strictly true for quite a while. To give just one example, my old CLK63 had a 6.2 liter engine, but the new E63 that replaced it has a 5.5 liter engine. And most of the "550" series are 5 liter engines... they retired the 5.5 liter engine but wanted to make it look like they'd upgraded the range.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Mild-mannered Mod here:

"Short-term" is a catch-all thread by its very nature, but since there is a specific site, it's probably best to take your charging + range discussion over to the "Battery & Charging site, so those who frequent that location can share their expertise.

Thanks to all

I credit all the off topic talk to it being a slow day trading wise.

Volume was pretty low overall for TSLA at just over 2M shares traded. TSLA seemed to slightly track NASDAQ but actually ended up doing better at the close.

Again, we are left waiting. Waiting for Model X. It feels like 2012 all over again.

 

[ggr]

ANYONE TRYING TO AVOID THIS OT DISCUSSION, THIS IS STRICTLY AN OT RESPONSE TO FANGO's COMMENT ABOUT MY EARLIER POST.

And this is my strictly off-topic request to take the discussion elsewhere, as I think others have already asked. Or just stop.

 

[SteveG3]

And this is my strictly off-topic request to take the discussion elsewhere, as I think others have already asked. Or just stop.

Lols ggr, 1) it looks like Audobon took care of this a half hour before your post, and the topic stopped, 2) what do you think my motivation was earlier today for putting that bit you quoted at the start of my response to Fango? (that's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer it), 3) I get that OT posts are annoying. I'm sorry about that. Sometimes someone writes something OT as an aside within an on topic post, and someone finds it so contradictory to their view that they feel compelled to refute it, and someone else feels the same way about the new response and then there's a series of posts underway. That's actually what happened today. I don't think anyone had this discussion with the intent to irritate.

 

[TSLAopt]

I credit all the off topic talk to it being a slow day trading wise.

Volume was pretty low overall for TSLA at just over 2M shares traded. TSLA seemed to slightly track NASDAQ but actually ended up doing better at the close.

Again, we are left waiting. Waiting for Model X. It feels like 2012 all over again.

Yes, those were exciting times and so is now.

one share price factor I don't see being discussed often is how many model S/X consumers are in love with the product and technology so much that they buy some shares for long term holding. Tesla is doing ~1000 new deliveries each week, much of those to very high net worth people...

1)What percentage of those new weekly customers buy shares?

2)what is the Avg net worth of each new tesla customer?my guess is there is a very large standard deviation considering some are 1% but a few are .0001%ers.

3)how many shares on average does #1 buy that they intend to just stash away long term?


If there was a way to get the info above then it could be powerful info to gain more confidence in holding long long term. Even if we don't have the info, it's not 0, my conservative guesses would be:

1)10% (almost positive it's higher based on my own small sample of casual conversations I've struck up with random fellow model s owners I've run into over past two years)

2)5-10 million USD (this is because of the standard deviation of a few ultra wealthy .0001% ers who buy a model S)

3)500 shares


Taking the above very conservative guesses would = 50k shares of TSLA bought each week from these high net worth consumers who are essentially high net worth retail investors.

This constant accumulation helps the tide and over time will suffocate shorts as long as the long institutional investors don't start exiting at a faster avg pace than this retail tide swings.

Perhaps this tide will rise twice as fast when the X comes out. Any thoughts?

 

[doggusfluffy]

SpaceX picks Hyperloop test site; Texas A&M to host design competition

 

[ev-enthusiast]

Yes, those were exciting times and so is now.

one share price factor I don't see being discussed often is how many model S/X consumers are in love with the product and technology so much that they buy some shares for long term holding. Tesla is doing ~1000 new deliveries each week, much of those to very high net worth people...

1)What percentage of those new weekly customers buy shares?

2)what is the Avg net worth of each new tesla customer?my guess is there is a very large standard deviation considering some are 1% but a few are .0001%ers.

3)how many shares on average does #1 buy that they intend to just stash away long term?


If there was a way to get the info above then it could be powerful info to gain more confidence in holding long long term. Even if we don't have the info, it's not 0, my conservative guesses would be:

1)10% (almost positive it's higher based on my own small sample of casual conversations I've struck up with random fellow model s owners I've run into over past two years)

2)5-10 million USD (this is because of the standard deviation of a few ultra wealthy .0001% ers who buy a model S)

3)500 shares


Taking the above very conservative guesses would = 50k shares of TSLA bought each week from these high net worth consumers who are essentially high net worth retail investors.

This constant accumulation helps the tide and over time will suffocate shorts as long as the long institutional investors don't start exiting at a faster avg pace than this retail tide swings.

Perhaps this tide will rise twice as fast when the X comes out. Any thoughts?

Thanks for repeating this important factor for future long term SP movement.
I expect this factor to increase drastically with the ramp up of production (Model S and X) during H2 this year.
This is one of the reasons for me to not touch my core stock position as long as the amazing Tesla-story stays intact.
Please remember it is only about one year ago that we have seen first delivery in UK, currently gaining market share, customers and potential share holders there.
Tesla is currently still expanding globally, is it correct that Tesla is expanding Mexico this year?

 

[ev-enthusiast]

Dougherty & Co reiterated their buy rating and $355 price target for Tesla Motors.
(link)

 

[hobbes]

1)What percentage of those new weekly customers buy shares?

2)what is the Avg net worth of each new tesla customer?my guess is there is a very large standard deviation considering some are 1% but a few are .0001%ers.

3)how many shares on average does #1 buy that they intend to just stash away long term?


If there was a way to get the info above then it could be powerful info to gain more confidence in holding long long term. Even if we don't have the info, it's not 0, my conservative guesses would be:

1)10% (almost positive it's higher based on my own small sample of casual conversations I've struck up with random fellow model s owners I've run into over past two years)

2)5-10 million USD (this is because of the standard deviation of a few ultra wealthy .0001% ers who buy a model S)

3)500 shares

Nice analysis! For 2) there was a poll here: Model S Buyers - What's your net worth? - View Poll Results Put the numbers into a spreadsheet and got approx. 4m net worth on average, fits your guess pretty well. For 3) I would take some percentage of net worth. Say people have 10% of their net worth in shares and 1/10 of that in Tesla. For 4m $250 share price that would be 160 shares. 500 shares would be 125,000 or 3%. So we are in the same ballpark there, too.

 

[ggies07]

SpaceX picks Hyperloop test site; Texas A&M to host design competition

WHOOP! As an Aggie, I'm glad to see my school involved in the process.

 

[hummingbird]

Does anyone have a link to the video recording of JB Straubel's keynote yesterday?

(He gave a keynote at the 2015 EIA Energy Conference 2015 EIA Energy Conference )

 

[chickensevil]

http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-rat...am-jonas-on-tesla-were-serious-ev-bulls-again

Man, AJ is such a huge flip/flopper... At least one thing has remained consistent (for better or worse) and that is his PT. Any Morgan Stanley customers able to shed more light on what was in his latest report?