-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
8k is a ridiculous price. They should take a page from MB E Class. Their "self-driving" tech Premier 3 Package (the only way to get all the driver-assistance features) costs $11250. Not quite apples to apples as the package includes a bunch of other stuff included either base or as part of other options for Tesla, but it is the only way to get all the "self-driving" tech. Why oh why is Tesla charging so little for their tech. They had the same problem with Autopilot. It was head and shoulders above everyone else, and significantly cheaper than most competitors driver assistance packages. Oh, wait, this is a great strategy to hit the other automakers where it hurts, in their high margin vehicles loaded with overpriced options (while simultaneously inflating their own margins).
I expect enhanced autopilot will have a high take rate (it will be active soon), and that the price of this option will provide really nice margins more than covering all of the included sensors/gpu, etc. Full self driving will simply be extra margin, as the enhanced ap price will easily cover the sensor price.
I don't think the 8k price is that important. What is important is the data these sensors will generate. That is the valuable component. Every car will have these sensors, and every car will contribute to the extremely valuable data collection effort. Even if the owner chooses to not activate Enhanced Autopilot, or full self-driving, Tesla still gets valuable data.
I expect enhanced autopilot will have a high take rate (it will be active soon), and that the price of this option will provide really nice margins more than covering all of the included sensors/gpu, etc. Full self driving will simply be extra margin, as the enhanced ap price will easily cover the sensor price.
I don't think the 8k price is that important. What is important is the data these sensors will generate. That is the valuable component. Every car will have these sensors, and every car will contribute to the extremely valuable data collection effort. Even if the owner chooses to not activate Enhanced Autopilot, or full self-driving, Tesla still gets valuable data.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Making big profits and reinvesting those big profits into more GF and AF is the best way to transition the world to sustainable transportation and decarbonize the global economy.
Shower thoughts:
Q: Where is Tesla going to get the service center capacity to serve all the model 3's?
A: Cars can drive themselves to the service center at night, get fixed, and drive back before the break of dawn
Super efficient service centers.
(not really. The time when they will need a lot of service will be before the level 5 capability but fun to think about)
Also I have fantasies of getting in my car Friday afternoon and sleeping between superchargers and waking up in Colorado This would displace a lot of air travel...
Here is how I think of the AP 2 rollout:
Phase 1: ADAS again. "Autopilot classic". lane and distance keeping and accident aversion. Driver keeps their hands on the wheel and pays attention. Dec 2016 or maybe Jan. Needs to be fast please. People will misuse this and die. Statistically safe.
Phase 2: (name to be determined. Please, Tesla, call it "advanced driver assistance feature blah" not "autonomous" anything). Autopilot plus auto navigation. Driver needs to have hands on wheel and pay attention. System will have bugs and f*** up periodically. People will misuse this and die. mid 2017? Statistically safe.
Phase 3: Autopilot plus auto navigation after X months and Y miles of fleet learning. Basically just phase 2 without "Beta". will require drivers at the wheel for legal reasons. Early 2018. Someone dies due to a corner case. Statistically very safe now.
Phase 4: Now the system works really well but regulations hold it back in most jurisdictions. A few allow driverless applications with restrictions. Late 2018.
Phase 5: widespread driverless adoption, with some jurisdictions holding back. 2019. This is just 3 years away... But this is when the "tesla network" might make some money.
On UBER valuation:
Everyone seems to be making the case that TSLA should get some UBER valuation now. I agree, but I think the most common reason isn't right. The END GAME might well be no-driver cars providing service but that will be many years off. I don't care how ready the HW/SW is there will be a hefty headwind legally and socially. But as early as maybe next year, human drivers can sit at the wheel and auto-chauffeur people around. Basically its UBER but the driver has it super easy, and the car is guaranteed to be nice. In other words Tesla can start making inroads on the UBER turf long before level 5 is available.
(I am not a self-driving Bear. The most valueable thing is allowing drivers to space out instead of driving, and that will be relatively easy to do and basically legal right now.)
Q: Where is Tesla going to get the service center capacity to serve all the model 3's?
A: Cars can drive themselves to the service center at night, get fixed, and drive back before the break of dawn
Super efficient service centers.(not really. The time when they will need a lot of service will be before the level 5 capability but fun to think about)
Also I have fantasies of getting in my car Friday afternoon and sleeping between superchargers and waking up in Colorado
This would displace a lot of air travel...Here is how I think of the AP 2 rollout:
Phase 1: ADAS again. "Autopilot classic". lane and distance keeping and accident aversion. Driver keeps their hands on the wheel and pays attention. Dec 2016 or maybe Jan. Needs to be fast please. People will misuse this and die. Statistically safe.
Phase 2: (name to be determined. Please, Tesla, call it "advanced driver assistance feature blah" not "autonomous" anything). Autopilot plus auto navigation. Driver needs to have hands on wheel and pay attention. System will have bugs and f*** up periodically. People will misuse this and die. mid 2017? Statistically safe.
Phase 3: Autopilot plus auto navigation after X months and Y miles of fleet learning. Basically just phase 2 without "Beta". will require drivers at the wheel for legal reasons. Early 2018. Someone dies due to a corner case. Statistically very safe now.
Phase 4: Now the system works really well but regulations hold it back in most jurisdictions. A few allow driverless applications with restrictions. Late 2018.
Phase 5: widespread driverless adoption, with some jurisdictions holding back. 2019. This is just 3 years away... But this is when the "tesla network" might make some money.
On UBER valuation:
Everyone seems to be making the case that TSLA should get some UBER valuation now. I agree, but I think the most common reason isn't right. The END GAME might well be no-driver cars providing service but that will be many years off. I don't care how ready the HW/SW is there will be a hefty headwind legally and socially. But as early as maybe next year, human drivers can sit at the wheel and auto-chauffeur people around. Basically its UBER but the driver has it super easy, and the car is guaranteed to be nice. In other words Tesla can start making inroads on the UBER turf long before level 5 is available.
(I am not a self-driving Bear. The most valueable thing is allowing drivers to space out instead of driving, and that will be relatively easy to do and basically legal right now.)
I'm wondering how insurance companies will react to the development of driver-less tech. Auto insurance is a big part of their business. I suspect they would fight the trend as hard as dealerships but may be more effectively since they are much more organized as a few big firms instead of small highly localized firms.Shower thoughts:
Q: Where is Tesla going to get the service center capacity to serve all the model 3's?
A: Cars can drive themselves to the service center at night, get fixed, and drive back before the break of dawn
(not really. The time when they will need a lot of service will be before the level 5 capability but fun to think about)
Also I have fantasies of getting in my car Friday afternoon and sleeping between superchargers and waking up in Colorado
Here is how I think of the AP 2 rollout:
Phase 1: ADAS again. "Autopilot classic". lane and distance keeping and accident aversion. Driver keeps their hands on the wheel and pays attention. Dec 2016 or maybe Jan. Needs to be fast please. People will misuse this and die. Statistically safe.
Phase 2: (name to be determined. Please, Tesla, call it "advanced driver assistance feature blah" not "autonomous" anything). Autopilot plus auto navigation. Driver needs to have hands on wheel and pay attention. System will have bugs and f*** up periodically. People will misuse this and die. mid 2017? Statistically safe.
Phase 3: Autopilot plus auto navigation after X months and Y miles of fleet learning. Basically just phase 2 without "Beta". will require drivers at the wheel for legal reasons. Early 2018. Someone dies due to a corner case. Statistically very safe now.
Phase 4: Now the system works really well but regulations hold it back in most jurisdictions. A few allow driverless applications with restrictions. Late 2018.
Phase 5: widespread driverless adoption, with some jurisdictions holding back. 2019. This is just 3 years away... But this is when the "tesla network" might make some money.
On UBER valuation:
Everyone seems to be making the case that TSLA should get some UBER valuation now. I agree, but I think the most common reason isn't right. The END GAME might well be no-driver cars providing service but that will be many years off. I don't care how ready the HW/SW is there will be a hefty headwind legally and socially. But as early as maybe next year, human drivers can sit at the wheel and auto-chauffeur people around. Basically its UBER but the driver has it super easy, and the car is guaranteed to be nice. In other words Tesla can start making inroads on the UBER turf long before level 5 is available.
(I am not a self-driving Bear. The most valueable thing is allowing drivers to space out instead of driving, and that will be relatively easy to do and basically legal right now.)
If you read any science fiction, especially Larry Niven, in the near and slightly distant future, -->ALL<-- vehicles are self driving
folks who drive vehicles are regarded as crazy, rich hobbiests best kept away from the sane folks.
technology is catching up, finally
(these concepts have been around for decades)
It's so maddening to see people going to extremes isn't it. To one end people saying this never gonna work and Elon is throwing money to the sink, To the other some cheer as if Tesla already has self driving in the bag and money is rolling in right now.
I don't know why they would mind! Fewer claims with people anchored in their old insurance rates--> higher profits. An efficient marketplace would drive premiums down but profit would always be there.
I think at first rates for people doing autonomy might be higher until the market adjusts. I think auto insurance will always be a thing, just maybe $20/month in a world where almost everyone was autonomous. I feel ok that market forces will make it all fine.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Or you could just pay the Tesla Network per mile to drive you in your own Model 3 home when you are drunk.
Yes, I was thinking on the revenue side not the profit side. I guess a lot of their workforce might cease to exist but the profit could still be there.
They call the phases:
- Phase 1: Autopilot Convenience Features (to come back soon, maybe December.)
- Phase 2: Enhanced Autopilot (To be phased in feature by feature with updates every 2-3 months.)
- Final phase: Full Self-Driving Car (When it is ready and approved.)
KPMG has a white paper from about a year ago.
fewer wrecks,
insurance companies shrinking 60%
turnover of fleet to autonomous, etc
https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam...surance-in-the-era-of-autonomous-vehicles.pdf
Those are the broad outlines.. however, I believe the final phase actually looks like a series of expansion of use cases and areas where autopilot is allowed to be used in full autonomous mode. Maybe at first some highway corridors would allow full autonomous. Maybe some parking lots. Certainly on private property. Full blown autonomy in all cases might take quite a while, depending on the technology, the public perception, and regulators.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Other options on the car, I agree in general (Ludicrous is the other option, strictly because of it's appeal, and the way it will separate cars with Ludicrous, from cars without).
However, Autonomous mode has the ability to transform a depreciating consumer purchase, into a money producing asset. One which can generate positive cash flow for its owner. In this case, Tesla shouldn't price the autonomous driving option based on the car or the consumer market that otherwise applies - Tesla should instead price the autonomous driving option based on the economic utility it create for the buyer.
Look at it this way - if an autonomous Model 3 is eventually able to generate $50/day net of electricity, 20 days a month, then that's $1000/month of income and $12k/year. My immediate reaction is that's ridiculously cheap, but another way to look at it is your Model 3 can carry a $1000/month monthly payment and be free to own (not counting your own electricity, maintenance, and insurance costs).
So yes, I agree that all of the other options are likely to be way more affordable. But I'm in the camp that the $8k autonomous driving option for S/X is going to also be $8k for Model 3.
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
Why are you guys playing with money you can't afford to lose? This will lead to bad decisions. I'm a huge bull but it may be time for you to exit. It could take time to rally hard.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I agree 100%. Jayjs20 has been on my ignore list for quite some time but when I read your post I had to click on "Show ignored content" in order to see what you were replying to.
Jsyjs20: please do your self a favor and sell your TSLA or stay strong and long. What you're doing now seems to me like pathological gambling.
Why there is no "short and hold"
I had a long walk this afternoon, and was thinking about "buy and hold", and why shorts are so active. It all comes down to the fact that they have so much more to lose. Now, intellectually I knew this already. The disclaimers all stress that your losses as a short are theoretically unlimited. However I didn't have a real, visceral, understanding of what you might consider to be "normal" losses for shorting versus "longing".
Here is my thought experiment. New Fangled Startup Co (NFSC on NASDAQ) is currently trading at $30 per share. Alice holds 100 shares. Bob borrows them to short sell, and here I'm going to ignore completely that he has to pay interest to someone to borrow them, since he thinks he's going to make a killing in the next few weeks. (Also he has to pay any dividend that gets issued, but NFSC doesn't pay dividends yet.) Christine buys those shares. Bob received $3000 from Christine, and Christine now has perfectly good NFSC shares, even down to voting rights. Bob, despite having the cash, has an obligation to buy back those 100 shares at some future time, but that doesn't worry him because he's going to make a killing at the next ER in a few weeks. Note that both Alice and Christine have shares of some value, and don't have any kind of deadline associated, so even if the price goes down, they can be relatively relaxed about it. They don't incur the actual loss until they sell, and they don't have to sell (at least not because the stock price moves).
NFSC releases their new Auto-fangle product, and look to be on track for a good ER. Indeed the ER comes around and they make a surprise profit, and the stock goes up to $40 (a 33% increase, rounded). Great! Alice is very happy, her stock went up 33%. Same for Christine. But wait, this is the same stock, the value of 100 shares went up by $1000, for two people, that is $2000, at the same time as the market cap adjusted value of the shares only went up $1000. Where does the other $1000 come from? Of course, Bob lost it. Bob still has his $3000, but also has the obligation to buy stock that will now cost him $4000, and he will have to realize that loss at some future time, not very far in the future. In fact, it's not even under his control when he will have to do that, since Alice might decide to pocket her profit by selling her shares at any time, and Bob (or someone else) has to buy the shares NOW, well, within 3 days anyway. At some time soon, Bob has to come up with $4000, but he only got $3000 in the first place. Suppose he closes his position now, he ends up having lost $1000, that came from somewhere. What percentage of his investment is that?
Here's Bob's dilemma: relative to the $3000 that appeared out of nowhere, that loss is 33%. No surprise there. But we don't know how much he started with. Suppose he started with $2000 in his account. His broker lets him do that, since the total in his account after the short sale is $5000, with a concomitant obligation to buy $3000 worth of margin-worthy stock; same net value of $2000. After NFSC stock goes up to $40, though, the situation has changed. Now the net value of his account is only $1000, and he has that obligation, and now the margin value of the stock he has to buy isn't covered by his net account value. So he gets a margin call at the worst possible time, and has lost half of his account value. It isn't under his control any more.
In the meantime, Bob isn't alone, lots of other suck... err, people, were in the same position of having to buy NFSC stock on the open market. So while the deal is unwinding, the price goes up another $10, to $50. Bob's account is now empty, and his broker isn't returning any calls...
Alice and Christine are smiling, thinking how lucky they were to have held on to make 67% on their investment. It's a startup, and they are dreaming of a ten-bagger. Think about what happens to Bob and the other shorts if that happens.
I had a long walk this afternoon, and was thinking about "buy and hold", and why shorts are so active. It all comes down to the fact that they have so much more to lose. Now, intellectually I knew this already. The disclaimers all stress that your losses as a short are theoretically unlimited. However I didn't have a real, visceral, understanding of what you might consider to be "normal" losses for shorting versus "longing"
.Here is my thought experiment. New Fangled Startup Co (NFSC on NASDAQ) is currently trading at $30 per share. Alice holds 100 shares. Bob borrows them to short sell, and here I'm going to ignore completely that he has to pay interest to someone to borrow them, since he thinks he's going to make a killing in the next few weeks. (Also he has to pay any dividend that gets issued, but NFSC doesn't pay dividends yet.) Christine buys those shares. Bob received $3000 from Christine, and Christine now has perfectly good NFSC shares, even down to voting rights. Bob, despite having the cash, has an obligation to buy back those 100 shares at some future time, but that doesn't worry him because he's going to make a killing at the next ER in a few weeks. Note that both Alice and Christine have shares of some value, and don't have any kind of deadline associated, so even if the price goes down, they can be relatively relaxed about it. They don't incur the actual loss until they sell, and they don't have to sell (at least not because the stock price moves).
NFSC releases their new Auto-fangle product, and look to be on track for a good ER. Indeed the ER comes around and they make a surprise profit, and the stock goes up to $40 (a 33% increase, rounded). Great! Alice is very happy, her stock went up 33%. Same for Christine. But wait, this is the same stock, the value of 100 shares went up by $1000, for two people, that is $2000, at the same time as the market cap adjusted value of the shares only went up $1000. Where does the other $1000 come from? Of course, Bob lost it. Bob still has his $3000, but also has the obligation to buy stock that will now cost him $4000, and he will have to realize that loss at some future time, not very far in the future. In fact, it's not even under his control when he will have to do that, since Alice might decide to pocket her profit by selling her shares at any time, and Bob (or someone else) has to buy the shares NOW, well, within 3 days anyway. At some time soon, Bob has to come up with $4000, but he only got $3000 in the first place. Suppose he closes his position now, he ends up having lost $1000, that came from somewhere. What percentage of his investment is that?
Here's Bob's dilemma: relative to the $3000 that appeared out of nowhere, that loss is 33%. No surprise there. But we don't know how much he started with. Suppose he started with $2000 in his account. His broker lets him do that, since the total in his account after the short sale is $5000, with a concomitant obligation to buy $3000 worth of margin-worthy stock; same net value of $2000. After NFSC stock goes up to $40, though, the situation has changed. Now the net value of his account is only $1000, and he has that obligation, and now the margin value of the stock he has to buy isn't covered by his net account value. So he gets a margin call at the worst possible time, and has lost half of his account value. It isn't under his control any more.
In the meantime, Bob isn't alone, lots of other suck... err, people, were in the same position of having to buy NFSC stock on the open market. So while the deal is unwinding, the price goes up another $10, to $50. Bob's account is now empty, and his broker isn't returning any calls...
Alice and Christine are smiling, thinking how lucky they were to have held on to make 67% on their investment. It's a startup, and they are dreaming of a ten-bagger. Think about what happens to Bob and the other shorts if that happens.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Why there is no "short and hold"
I had a long walk this afternoon, and was thinking about "buy and hold", and why shorts are so active. It all comes down to the fact that they have so much more to lose. Now, intellectually I knew this already. The disclaimers all stress that your losses as a short are theoretically unlimited. However I didn't have a real, visceral, understanding of what you might consider to be "normal" losses for shorting versus "longing"
Here is my thought experiment. New Fangled Startup Co (NFSC on NASDAQ) is currently trading at $30 per share. Alice holds 100 shares. Bob borrows them to short sell, and here I'm going to ignore completely that he has to pay interest to someone to borrow them, since he thinks he's going to make a killing in the next few weeks. (Also he has to pay any dividend that gets issued, but NFSC doesn't pay dividends yet.) Christine buys those shares. Bob received $3000 from Christine, and Christine now has perfectly good NFSC shares, even down to voting rights. Bob, despite having the cash, has an obligation to buy back those 100 shares at some future time, but that doesn't worry him because he's going to make a killing at the next ER in a few weeks. Note that both Alice and Christine have shares of some value, and don't have any kind of deadline associated, so even if the price goes down, they can be relatively relaxed about it. They don't incur the actual loss until they sell, and they don't have to sell (at least not because the stock price moves).
NFSC releases their new Auto-fangle product, and look to be on track for a good ER. Indeed the ER comes around and they make a surprise profit, and the stock goes up to $40 (a 33% increase, rounded). Great! Alice is very happy, her stock went up 33%. Same for Christine. But wait, this is the same stock, the value of 100 shares went up by $1000, for two people, that is $2000, at the same time as the market cap adjusted value of the shares only went up $1000. Where does the other $1000 come from? Of course, Bob lost it. Bob still has his $3000, but also has the obligation to buy stock that will now cost him $4000, and he will have to realize that loss at some future time, not very far in the future. In fact, it's not even under his control when he will have to do that, since Alice might decide to pocket her profit by selling her shares at any time, and Bob (or someone else) has to buy the shares NOW, well, within 3 days anyway. At some time soon, Bob has to come up with $4000, but he only got $3000 in the first place. Suppose he closes his position now, he ends up having lost $1000, that came from somewhere. What percentage of his investment is that?
Here's Bob's dilemma: relative to the $3000 that appeared out of nowhere, that loss is 33%. No surprise there. But we don't know how much he started with. Suppose he started with $2000 in his account. His broker lets him do that, since the total in his account after the short sale is $5000, with a concomitant obligation to buy $3000 worth of margin-worthy stock; same net value of $2000. After NFSC stock goes up to $40, though, the situation has changed. Now the net value of his account is only $1000, and he has that obligation, and now the margin value of the stock he has to buy isn't covered by his net account value. So he gets a margin call at the worst possible time, and has lost half of his account value. It isn't under his control any more.
In the meantime, Bob isn't alone, lots of other suck... err, people, were in the same position of having to buy NFSC stock on the open market. So while the deal is unwinding, the price goes up another $10, to $50. Bob's account is now empty, and his broker isn't returning any calls...
Alice and Christine are smiling, thinking how lucky they were to have held on to make 67% on their investment. It's a startup, and they are dreaming of a ten-bagger. Think about what happens to Bob and the other shorts if that happens.
The 10-bagger part has already happened with TSLA from between the IPO and now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
