The biggest Vin # issue was August and Sept of 2014 with the factory shuttered for two weeks (late July), the Vin # rate climed to 10k+ that quarter with the verbal 7200 produced (CFO on the Q&A call was only "print" of production number). The dropped Vins occurred when the offer of the D model occurred in October and Q3 Vins got abandoned.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
The biggest Vin # issue was August and Sept of 2014 with the factory shuttered for two weeks (late July), the Vin # rate climed to 10k+ that quarter with the verbal 7200 produced (CFO on the Q&A call was only "print" of production number). The dropped Vins occurred when the offer of the D model occurred in October and Q3 Vins got abandoned.
My estimate is slightly higher than your 19k, but not by much. I am expecting "something" to come up because doing 30k in Q4 while orders in the USA are still saying September for S and X right now is concerning. 5-seat MX is not due to produce until later in Q4. That something may be a supplier-blame issue leading to guidance adjustment.
Doing near 20k cars in a quarter is commendable. But everyone acting like it is going to keep going up "forever" (before M3 is avail) is concerning for those who are living simply through hope. Knitting in the MX to the MS production and delivering on 3-years of reservations (which then convert to orders at a lower volume to reservations) only really happened in volume from Q1 through present. These are limited-market cars and there is emotional support so you do see guys getting their 2nd and 3rd car in three years. That is less likely to grow in the real-world at scale. This is why MS60 and MX60 were created to entice M3 orders early (as they stated on the Q2 ER Q&A call). Not just because people wanted a cheaper car - but to offer a cheaper car to entice sales as well. The 2013 lease turn-ins are filling the CPO channel and may offer those looking for a deal something other than a production-line new unit at sticker-price.
Last edited:
Where are they going to get shares, particularly before the merger vote? And if they do, how many are willing to pay 16% interest for the privilege? To put this number in perspective, I am a strong believer in the Tesla's future, but if somebody made me an offer to lend money at 16% so I can invest them in TSLA, I would think that they are crazy, because I am not.
Just for the record, do you really think that deliveries of MS and MX in 2017 will not exceed 80K (20K per quarter)?
As I have understood, short interest rates vary. All shorts 26+M currently are paying whatever current rate from their brokerage.
more things in the popular press that should help slightly upward pressure
Why is everyone into Tesla lately? - Quora
(and as an aside, for collectors, why you may want to buy plastic models of ICE engines for your grandkids for how veicles used to be powered )
Why is everyone into Tesla lately? - Quora
(and as an aside, for collectors, why you may want to buy plastic models of ICE engines for your grandkids for how veicles used to be powered )
What a hairball mess , a Rube Goldberg contraption is simplermore things in the popular press that should help slightly upward pressure
Why is everyone into Tesla lately? - Quora
(and as an aside, for collectors, why you may want to buy plastic models of ICE engines for your grandkids for how veicles used to be powered )
Last edited:
There is a difference between short sellers stuck paying 16% or higher (this is the current Fidelity rate which historically has been among the lowest) because they do not want to cover their position at loss, which required may be 5% when they opened it and somebody entering the position at 16%, with no likelihood of this percentage going down to sane levels before the acquisition vote.
Regardless of the above, big institutional holders will need shares to vote on the acquisition. There were no shares available to short at Fidelity as of yesterday, and because of the institutional holders trying to vote their shares, availability of shares to short them will not be there, particularly as we get closer to the vote.
BTW, couple of days ago I called Fidelity Trading Desk and asked about the acquisition vote and what Fidelity is planning to do to vote the shares that they lent. The response I got, after rep. put me on a prolonged hold to consult with the proper internal resources, that Fidelity will be securing the shares on the exchange to vote them. This is generic answer indicating that they do have procedure to get shares to vote them (this does not support low voting turnout theory, Brexit syndrome if you will). This also could mean that person consulting the rep. is not aware that locating shares on the exchange in the quantities necessary will be impossible without the recall, because in my estimation just 5 largest institutional holders (Fidelity, Baillie Gifford, Price T.Rowe, Vanguard and Bank of Montreal) will likely need to "locate" more than 22M shares, wich amounts to about 40% of all shares held by retail investors.
Incidentally, the form 13F data for Q2 are trickling in, and these largest holders were increasing their positions, including Fidelity (they mentioned by 9%), Baillie Gifford (by 9.54%, or 1.14M shares), Vanguard (by 13.4%, or 0.58M shares), Bank of Montreal (by 6.8%, or 0.31M shares).
Last edited:
ev-enthusiast
Active Member
I was looking at the 2016 competition thread here on TMC. I guessed something like 65700 for 2016. However, I think now it will be more like 69750 after seeing the model X profile. The wildcards are how many people choose a CPO over buying new. And how well the inventory car lay-out goes and how many they can sell "actively" through the end of year. Look at the deltas though. Denmark is "not happening" as it did in 2015. China is also a very wild card. The USA is the prime market now, making up what appears to be 50-60% overall sales. That is not the growth "guidance" given in prior years. I can only trust the data and the profile of production plus add in the spice of the random acts done in the past when things were not looking good. "Reveal the D" basically saved the company (early DWD model S while sorting out the MX fiasco) and add in Insane and Ludicrous modes on top of that to add flavor and texture to the offerings. Now, lower priced, downmarket is happening to entice new orders. The only reason to do this is to try to meet the annual guidance, if possible. Can you imagine where things would be if they did not do these other recent things like "pulling forward the 500,000 build plan" and other "exciting" acts like the parties to get Model 3 reservations in prior to selling stock? Very complex game going on.
Last edited:
Well, seems that you are not willing to answer the question. Let's drain all the color. The fact is that there WILL BE steady stream of new variants and technology upgrades, at least one coming before the year end, so you might as well bake these into your projections, for foreseeable future.
So, do you really think they will not be able to exceed 80k delivered MS and MX in 2017?
Say what you will about it, and I'm glad we are almost done with ICE engines, but damn, that's an impressive machine.
Based on the data everyone is discussing and VINs and such I think it really depends on AP 2.0 timing. If level 3.5+ with no hardware changes rewired to get to 4/5 happens late this year as some project then I think 80k will be a breeze. However, it does seem like without opening new markets or adding new products, production is outpacing current orders.
I do think and have anecdotal evidence that some of this is attributable to the Osborne effect as people wait on AP update vehicles. The X issues being well publicised, along with some people just not liking the design of it appear to have hampered demand for the X. I think it's below Tesla's expectations by 100-300 per week. Maybe that will improve.
Either way, guidance seems like a tough ask and I don't find short squeezes very likely any time Don (unless the share recall theory pans out)
In 2017? 80K seems like a possible problem if you only look at S&X due to the Model 3 and other factors. All eyes are on the Model 3. If Tesla stumbles financially, those wealthy folks who buy the S and X will want to "save face".
If they come up with other new options for S and X it is more of the same. Plus, the post election cycle may or may not find new changes to state and federal laws, other international rebate/incentive changes and of course a widening spread of new EVs on the market.
I was asking about 2017 (twice, now three times)? Do you really mean to say that they are capped at 70K yearly run, and will not deliver more than 70K in 2017?
Answer updated above (I tried to edit it as fast as I could).
The headwind to that combo is that MX "take rate" is not established and doesn't seem to have the demand that was "guided to" in the past. We do know that Musk said he thought the Model X would sell more than the Model S, which doesn't seem to be happening (earlier reservations never had the same scale and now we don't see huge line-ups for MX new-orders either). By new orders I mean fresh, incoming "named customers" placing reservations and confirming 7 days later.
Yes, when a new geography starts up for sure. However the geographies that started up for the S since were not very large and didn't influence the numbers in any meaningfull way. VINs since have been assigned in a very predictable way to estimate an upper bound on deliveries. Even the surge in 2015Q4 was predicted by VIN deliveries.
It is possible the X will show the same movement this quarter (many European VINs were assigned last quarter but not build/delivered). That's also why I am watching X deliveries in Europe like a hawk. But even so, compared with Q3 2013, the possible surprise European X may deliver is relatively a lot smaller then back in 2013.
Last edited:
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
I predict a rather large move one way or the other. Tesla's price action too boring for hedge funds. Gotta stir it up a bit.
In order to hit 80,000 this year, there needs to be a significant increase in the MX new order rate. The VIN assignment rate looks good right now, about 750 per week. But 2/3 of those are from older reservations, and that pool is nearly tapped out. And we now have learned that the VIN rate also includes cars built for inventory sales.
In other words, the sustainable rate appears to be about 1000 MS and 250 MX per week. Maybe the China market will finally blossom.
In other words, the sustainable rate appears to be about 1000 MS and 250 MX per week. Maybe the China market will finally blossom.
Update: estimated annual interest rate to borrow for shorting at Fidelity went up to 16.5% (from 16% yesterday), 0 shares available to borrow.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
