Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
OMG! What a great idea! Forgo some eventual profits 10 years down the road for some not bad financing terms now. Still, wouldn't Tesla be able to borrow more cheaply than these Solarcity bonds? Iirc, the last one was at 6.5% interest...
I'm not at all sure about that. Tesla hasn't issued long-term bonds yet other than convertibles, and there's a sense in which convertibles are really expensive (dilution).

Look at corporate bond rates: it depends very much on how Moody's, S&P, and Finch rate your bond. If Tesla got a BBB rating, they might be able to get 4.4%, but if Tesla got a CCC rating, they'd be paying 20%.
 
I have not read everything, but it all seems assumptions (again) and estimations.
At this site there was already a manuf. plant for 500k cars, and Tesla is know to use relatively eco- friendly paint.
That's true - but did TSLA inherit NUMMI's Title V permits, or did it have to get its own? If the latter, I could see that earlier permits might not have allowed for 500k cars.
 
"Since when was nearly half a billion dollars per quarter considered nothing but symbolism?" -- of GROSS MARGIN

and the answer is: when you're asking for $5b in a year from equity markets.

and to put it into perspective... Ford made $40 billion in 2Q16 with $5b in "operating margin"... like I said... it's a strange question... but $400m in gross margin does not contribute in any way to building a car.

so yes... they are demonstrating their ability to grow their factory... but I consider that purely symbolic.
This is ridiculous. Profit is profit. $400 million is money in the bank; it allows Tesla to borrow less money or issue less stock. It's good for investors. If you don't see that, you *really* need to get out of the stock market.

Warren Buffett says he still haggles over every five cents in a business deal. There's a reason for that.
 
Seems like stuff that happens at an amateur company
If you didn't know that Tesla was doing "amateur hour" antics, you weren't paying attention. As you should know, they're violating copyrights left right and center and piling up legal liability for it, and it's just utterly *stupid*, since it doesn't cost money to comply with the copyright licenses. This is beyond amateurish.

I'm still long TSLA because it seems like they can screw up spectacularly and still have a huge competitive advantage. My bull thesis is related to the *lack of real competition*, which has been ongoing to a jawdropping degree for a very long time.
 
SP going down at the SAME moment that article is published ?
Come on, Dialy Kan Ban does not have so many readers. That smells. Or better, seems orchestrated.

Maybe some more experienced here can comment.

Could be Mercedes showing SUV prototype at Paris Auto Show, with talk of many more models "soon." The market still doesn't understand that eventually all cars will be electric, and that Mercedes will not push Tesla out of the market. Tesla is here to stay, and will have a significant presence in the future market.
 
When shorts are coming to this board and signing up to spam every other post with hyperbolic negativity, and the TSLA / SCTY short is the most crowded and expensive me-too trade I can remember, the recipe for a massive rubber band melt-up is in place. They are frightened of their portfolios being decimated with blinding speed that makes them unable to unwind their short positions at all.

I don't think we will be at all-time-highs anytime soon, but I do think those who hold significant short positions all the way down here in the low 200's will be seriously hurt, and soon.
Well said!
 
I admit I was speed reading through this but it seems well formulated.
tl;dr
  • Air quality permits for the recently-upgraded paint shop at Tesla’s Fremont plant limit the electric automaker’s production capacity to less than half of its targeted rate of 500,000 vehicles per year
  • Tesla says it plans a second expansion of the Fremont paint shop, but has not yet applied for the necessary emissions permit or even put the equipment from its first expansion phase into use.
  • If any future expansion or upgrade increases the Fremont plant’s net emissions by more than 6.5% over currently-permitted levels, Tesla’s paint shop will be required to comply with the extremely stringent Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) standard.
  • These regulatory conditions present a serious challenge to the volume goals and production ramp forecast Tesla has publicly set for Model 3
Would love input from someone who has the technical proficiency to understand and judge the merit of this article.

It's not wrong per se, but given Elon's heavy environmental focus, I would bet they've figured out how to lower the emissions from the paint shop, so I doubt it's going to be a serious issue.

Expect a big press release about LOWEST EMISSIONS AUTO PAINT SHOP!!!

There are several bad assumptions.
(1) The limit on production during the switch-over period indeed limits Tesla to 219K cars per year. But he makes assumptions about how long the switch-over period is. Tesla could complete the switch-over period tomorrow, and the cars/hour limit would disappear.
(2) He computes the "overall" or long-term limit by looking at the maxmium VOC allowed per gallon and the maximum VOC emissions allowed total. But this is wrong. Tesla, as an environmentally conscious company, will be trying to make the VOC per gallon *much lower* than the allowed maximum, which will allow them to make more cars within the total-VOC limit.
(3) The fact that there are no existing "best practice" LAER methods is actually *good* for Tesla. If they do anything even slightly better than BACT, it qualifies as LAER *automatically*. And they're going to do so. Replacing gas-fired ovens with electrically powered heating is an obvious move (for the same reason why Tesla is using electricity for all process heat at the Gigafactory). So this is going to make the permitting *easier* not harder.
(4) when Tesla starts trumpeting LOWEST EMISSIONS AUTO PAINT SHOP EVER!!!, the BAAQMD will probably fall all over itself to expedite the permitting process

Consider one example he listed: replacing thermal oxidizers with regenerative thermal oxidizers. Given Tesla's heavy focus on energy efficiency and environmental consciousness, surely they're just going to do this anyway period, regardless of regulations.
 
Last edited:

There are a slew of assumptions in this article, from the VOC's emitted per gallon, the number of gallons per vehicle, to when some of the construction and startup has happened. Until one goes through all those assumptions, the conclusion is not trustworthy. It might, however, drive Tesla to disclose a bit more information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gerardf
Dreams of Silevo body material replacing need for paint.

Also, don't forget, California has been at the forefront of low VOC regulation. The VOCs in paint have plummeted in the last decade every couple of years. I've been buying paint at Home Depot that whole time, and it is indeed breathgiving how much progress they've made. I wonder if there's any progress still yet to be unearthed.

And finally, if none of that comes to pass, then policy innovation due to the environmental benefit of Tesla in general can be done.
 
Tesla's using Linux and WebKit (they're quite open about this). Look up the copyright licenses for them. Now tell me whether Tesla's complying (they aren't).
Ehhhh. Kind of. You're talking about LGPL and BSD licensed software, which are both pretty permissive licenses. Provided they haven't modified the kernel software, and have only added their own closed-source user software on top, that doesn't violate Linux's license. Fine print somewhere in the manual or a help menu satisfies most of the requirements. WebKit's is a bit more of a problem, but also not really a big deal.

There are so many Linux-derived products out there that don't properly satisfy the license requirements its not funny.
 
Yet another autopilot crash story is out: Tesla 'on autopilot' crashes on German Autobahn

Some very depressing comments on that article!

There's very little detail in the article. What's missing: 1) Was this 7.1 or 8.0 hardware? 2) The purpose of keeping one's hands on the wheel is to take over if a threat is seen. Why didn't the driver turn the wheel to prevent the accident? 3) How fast was the vehicle going and did the process of changing lanes coupled with the speed, exceed the design limits of that particular release of autopilot if the lane change took place on a curve? If 8.0 is indeed significantly better than 7.1 at avoiding some of these corner-case situations, we may see a significant improvement in safety as 8.0 use becomes widespread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turing and TMSE
Diving into this Daily Kanban report, there are a few big issues straight up and I'm hoping we can crowd source some of this.

1) There was a non-compliant thermal oxidizer, A1002, that was spewing too much NOx. Tesla self reported this in 11/2014, and the schedule for remediation has the installation of new equipment by 1/2016.

2) That timing co-incides with the installation of the new paint shop... Daily Kanban points to the Authority to Construct Permit Application that was approved on July 9, 2015 as information that shows that Tesla was constructing the "North Paint Shop" while decommissioning the "South Paint Shop." There's a 1 year startup period, for which Tesla was limited to 25 vehicles per hour.

3) This is where the Daily Kanban goes off the rails. We know they are using the new paint shop. They have to be in order to hit the volumes they are hitting now. The Daily Kanban doesn't find a Start-Up Notification, nor a subsequent permit to operate. And so they conclude that the construction hasn't yet exited the startup year.

Here's where you come in... can anyone confirm the switch over to the North Paint Shop? I'm thinking it was Q1 2016, and the one year startup has already finished.

4) Then the next part is really suspect. There is a limit to the amount of VOC per gallon and an estimate to the amount of paint in gallons per vehicle. Daily Kanban uses the maximum permitted VOC per gallon in their calculations. This is where people can mislead, this is where Mr. John Petersen would make his mark since they know that most people don't bother with research or analysis. Anything lower than that amount of VOC per gallon changes their calculations, and possibly dramatically.

Here's where someone with more knowledge on the amount of VOC per gallon in automotive painting can help.

5) Daily Kanban makes the assumption that the amount of paint per vehicle is the same as the rest of the industry. They make the argument that while Tesla doesn't make full size SUVs, pickups, Tesla also doesn't make compact and subcompact cars. Then they show this nice scatter plot of gallons of applied solids and annual auto production from 1998/1999, making the assumption that things haven't changed much since then:

EPAgacunits.jpg


Note that for their claimed 244,584 gac/year, they then conclude that the amount of vehicles that Tesla can produce a year is 200,000. But if you look at that plot, at the 250,000 gallons of applied solids, the annual auto production range is 175,000 to 250,000. There are quite a few at right around 250,000.

Then the assumption on the amount of paint per vehicle really doesn't hold up. There is a lot of glass on Tesla's vehicles. The amount of paint used per Tesla Model S and X is likely far lower than industry average, as the vast majority of Model S's have pano roofs and the Model X has the biggest glass windscreen ever put into a production vehicle. The X itself isn't nearly as big as the big SUVs, much less the mini-vans and the amount of paint in a pick-up. The big automakers make a lot of SUVs and pickups. Their error level here is likely significant.

There's a slew of assumptions here, and many of them specifically against Tesla.

Eisenmann constructed a state of the art paint shop for Tesla. Hard to use very old data and permit limit VOC's to make estimates. Eisenmann themselves said it was capable of 500,000 vehicles. How that is measured, we don't know. The Model 3, however, also has a lot of glass on top. The amount of paint is likely low for its size.

Musk did make some comments about the paint shop, and the two phased expansion of the shop. I believe the North Paint Shop is in full operation and more expansion is yet to come, but it would be nice to hear from the rest of you with more specifics.

Given their error levels, I can easily see 300,000 as the limit right now. And 300,000 limit in 2017 is, well, not a problem for Tesla. That's, say, 150,000 Model 3's and 150,000 S+X, or whatever breakdown you want to make. And clearly, Tesla is still working on expansion to the full 500,000 mark in 2018 as the North Paint Shop upgrade isn't finished.
 
There's very little detail in the article. What's missing: 1) Was this 7.1 or 8.0 hardware? 2) The purpose of keeping one's hands on the wheel is to take over if a threat is seen. Why didn't the driver turn the wheel to prevent the accident? 3) How fast was the vehicle going and did the process of changing lanes coupled with the speed, exceed the design limits of that particular release of autopilot if the lane change took place on a curve? If 8.0 is indeed significantly better than 7.1 at avoiding some of these corner-case situations, we may see a significant improvement in safety as 8.0 use becomes widespread.

Suspect it's the 7.1; no one outside of US has reported getting 8.0 yet.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hogfighter
Status
Not open for further replies.