Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[Thumper]

Looks like some bears are waking up to Solar potential. http://www.stockhouse.com/news/pres...treet-s-biggest-solar-bear-to-change-his-mind

 

[techmaven]

Baking 625,000 cars a year into the valuation of a company that only produces 80,000 a year is still pretty generous on their account. I actually think they have been very generous overall in their assessment, and the downgrade could of been a lot harsher.

625,000 cars in 2025 is generous for a company that right now is 100,000 annual build capacity of very complex vehicles?

BTW, the $152 part is merely a weighted average of the scenarios. And they add $32 for the Tesla Energy part. TE by 2025 is likely 50% by Tesla's account, maybe more.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

As a quick footnote to the discussion yesterday regarding 1M vehicles in 2020 being supposedly baked into the SP note the "Base case" -- weighted 45 percent -- assumes only 625K vehicles sold in 2025. That's just absurd but it's a critical component of their ridiculously low valuation.

Spot on.

 

[ajax]

The new GS price target is BS. The new analyst changed very little in the the report, and basically reduced his price target based on no financial metric other than increased risk presented by the merger and his unfounded belief that the Model 3 will be delayed.

Found this on StockTwits.

Interestingly, the analyst appears to allegedly believe that Tesla Energy is not worth much and sales will remain stagnant forever.

I have no idea where the $185 number comes from.

View attachment 197685

I'm not a finance guy, but from their 2025 "Elon as Henry Ford" scenario (ignoring Tesla Energy) I get: 178,030,000,000 * 0.132 * 39.9 * 201 / 29,470,000,000 = $6,395 per share. Their "Future value per share" of $1,152 would imply a dilution of about 21% per year for the next 9 years. That makes no sense, right? Am I missing something?

 

[TMSE]

As a quick footnote to the discussion yesterday regarding 1M vehicles in 2020 being supposedly baked into the SP note the "Base case" -- weighted 45 percent -- assumes only 625K vehicles sold in 2025. That's just absurd but it's a critical component of their ridiculously low valuation.

In addition, the discount rate that he is applying to get present value is 25%/20% (high/low growth rate)! Why on earth would anyone apply such a ridiculously high rate? The probabilities assigned (12:12:12:45:20) already take care of Tesla specific risk. He should have applied standard equity discount rate of about 6.5% instead. He is incorrectly applying Tesla specific risks in both the places.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Speaking of Tesla Energy. Was someone from Tesla speaking today during the Keynote at ESNA 2016? The Twitter page for ESNA 2016 mentions someone from Tesla was one of the Keynote Speakers today, but it isn't mentioned on the agenda.

The list of Keynote Speakers mentions Mateo Jaramillo (Vice President of Products and Programs for Tesla’s stationary energy storage program), but I don't see his name on today's agenda.

 

[EinSV]

Baking 625,000 cars a year into the valuation of a company that only produces 80,000 a year is still pretty generous on their account. I actually think they have been very generous overall in their assessment, and the downgrade could of been a lot harsher.

I appreciate your sharing this. Obviously I disagree with it but I believe you have plenty of company, including Goldman.

And that is exactly why I think Tesla is such an incredible opportunity:

• A full 65% of Goldman's valuation is based on sales of 625K vehicles or less in 2025.
• They reduced predicted margins from about 15% to 9-13%
• They give little weight to TE.

This demonstrates the huge upside there is to Tesla. And it doesn't require anywhere close to the bullish assumptions that some on the forum (me, for example) make.

 

[EinSV]

In addition, the discount rate that he is applying to get present value is 25%/20% (high/low growth rate)! Why on earth would anyone apply such a ridiculously high rate? The probabilities assigned (12:12:12:45:20) already take care of Tesla specific risk. He should have applied standard equity discount rate of about 6.5% instead. He is incorrectly applying Tesla specific risks in both the places.

Wow. Up from 15/20 percent they used in 2014 -- already very high -- even though the company is now more mature.

 

[GoTslaGo]

Quanergy Names Patrick Archambault as Director of Strategic Financial Planning

Guess he left GS. Interesting how this announcement is today.

 

[aznt1217]

Quanergy Names Patrick Archambault as Director of Strategic Financial Planning

Guess he left GS. Interesting how this announcement is today.

Seriously... -_-

 

[GoTslaGo]

Seriously... -_-

Yes! But Quanergy is involved with LIDAR! Sounds like he's voting with his feet like Andrea James... Wonder if he's buying TSLA now too...

I would link a quote, but can't seem to to it today.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Quanergy Names Patrick Archambault as Director of Strategic Financial Planning

Guess he left GS. Interesting how this announcement is today.

Interesting. Very clear case of BS. The same day some BS analyst with a horrible reputation releases a report about Tesla, the prior analyst whose research made sense leaves GS?

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Bump. This happened today, and has not been mentioned by anyone. Nancy Pfund was at this conference.

Speaking of Tesla Energy. Was someone from Tesla speaking today during the Keynote at ESNA 2016? The Twitter page for ESNA 2016 mentions someone from Tesla was one of the Keynote Speakers today, but it isn't mentioned on the agenda.

The list of Keynote Speakers mentions Mateo Jaramillo (Vice President of Products and Programs for Tesla’s stationary energy storage program), but I don't see his name on today's agenda.

 

[Tenable]

Very confident Tesla pre announces EPS. Tomorrow or next week is the question. Any guesses?

Care to make a wager? ;-)

Note: I'm willing to bet primarily because I want an emotional hedge. I hope you're right, if so, I'll happily take a picture of something silly while I profit. If I continue to lose truckloads of money via options, I'd like to see you bald, eating a sock or some such thing to ease the blow. No pressure.

 

[nienco2]

As a quick footnote to the discussion yesterday regarding 1M vehicles in 2020 being supposedly baked into the SP note the "Base case" -- weighted 45 percent -- assumes only 625K vehicles sold in 2025. That's just absurd but it's a critical component of their ridiculously low valuation.

Wow! something we can all agree on. "The new GS price target is BS."

So they can fill a spreadsheet with nonsense numbers 9 years out, but have a price target for just 6 months out that varies by 25% in just 5 months. What's the margin of error on that call? Lucky they sold half their position earlier this year in spite of that "chinese wall".

 

[esk8mw]

I appreciate your sharing this. Obviously I disagree with it but I believe you have plenty of company, including Goldman.

And that is exactly why I think Tesla is such an incredible opportunity:

• A full 65% of Goldman's valuation is based on sales of 625K vehicles or less in 2025.
• They reduced predicted margins from about 15% to 9-13%
• They give little weight to TE.

This demonstrates the huge upside there is to Tesla. And it doesn't require anywhere close to the bullish assumptions that some on the forum (me, for example) make.

Exactly. Those expecting no SP movement when the 3 is on time, 500k deliveries in 2018, etc. are just wrong. Success is not even remotely priced in - the market has priced in a substantial chance of failure.

 

[larmor]

More TE contracts (please ignore if all ready posted):
"Recently Tesla secured two more projects in California. Firstly there was One Maritime Park in San Francisco, a building operated by Morgan Stanley Real Estate. This will use Tesla Powerpacks in a 500KW/1000KWh system targeted to reduce peak energy demand by 20%. Secondly there are several projects on the drawing board for Cal State University. The first of these, at Cal State Long Beach, is described as a 1MW battery system."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4010569-tesla-set-ride-worldwide-wave-energy-storage-business

 

[ev-enthusiast]

Does anybody remember how many days after quarter end Jerome Gullien made the delivery beat announcement quite some time ago?
In case all of Q3 was as successful as the delivery record might suggest and financial results reflect this, I simply can not imagine EM waiting till Q3ER to share the good financial news. In case there is some good news to share EM usually gives a hint at the good news coming.

 

[ev-enthusiast]

BTW max pain still sitting at $210.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

More TE contracts:

And more potential biz on the "other end" of the continent.
From Utility Dive:

If Massachusetts acts on recommendations in the recently released report from the state’s Department of Energy Resources (DOER), the state could have a mandate for 600 MW of energy storage by July of next year.
The DOER is in the process of forming a stakeholder group to discuss the details of what a storage mandate would look like, with a year-end 2016 target date for setting out its recommendations. If a mandate is approved, it would be put in place by July 12, 2017 with a target date of 2020.

One of the areas identified in the report as ripe for savings is peak shaving. Peak demand in the region, according to the ISO-New England’s State of the Grid 2016 report, is growing at a 1.5% annual rate.
According to the State of Charge report, between 2013 and 2015 on average the top 1% most expensive hours accounted for 8%, or $680 million, of Massachusetts ratepayers’ annual spending on electricity, and the top 10% of hours accounted for 40% of annual electricity spending, or more than $3 billion.
The conventional utility model “sizes all grid infrastructure to the highest peak demand, resulting in system inefficiencies and high costs,” the report argues, but new advanced storage technologies can optimize grid assets deferring investments and making better use of resources.
The report also touts pairing solar power with behind-the-meter energy storage for its potential cost savings, for both system owners and ratepayers. That policy is picked up in the state’s recently proposed revision of its solar power incentives.