-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Silver lining: a 235-240 SP really sets the bar low for the ER. I prefer it to a run up followed by a selloff.
Ulmo
Active Member
Totally agree. Dealer is totally against good vehicles. There's a built-in dealer disincentive to continue with the EV model since their entire business model depends on ICE sales and maintenance. This is also true with autonomous ICE, since the dealer would want the same failures in their ICE vehicles for all that maintenance. Essentially, dealers hate good cars; they'd rather sell crappy cars all day long. Buyers will naturally want the better cars. Dealers hate better car makers for this reason. The better car makers bypassing the dealers altogether? Automatic fight! Julian, now you've made it crystal clear to me why the dealers are so against Tesla. And why consumers naturally are for Tesla, because they should be. Simple logic.
Ulmo
Active Member
Re: Elon personally doing QC.
There's nothing worse than short term stock market traders telling a CEO he shouldn't make his company work really well (just because, you know, it might look a little bad).
I personally think the company would be better off if the CEO is more involved, not less. This view of aloof CEOs presiding over crappy declining off-shoring boring companies is wrong for our future and that of Tesla's future (in similar ways) for so many reasons. Just because we're (or at least some people are) used to that style doesn't mean it is the right style.
Yes. True. But, we knew where we were, so if it IS what is necessary, then let it happen, and it's a better thing than not doing it. But more than that, Tesla is a growing company, and just replaced a lot of their management, so some of that process will need hands-on top level management to get that all ticking well. From what I understand, a lot of the East Coast mentality came in this year, and we have a lot of West Coast workers and customers working in a West Coast environment, so automatically there's going to be a lot of, what's the right word .... process to happen, the types of "process" that would TAKE an Elon to fix. I saw this coming as soon as they switched up management around the turn of the year (December-January). So, the fact EM is doing what I thought he should do is a good thing from my point of view.
There's nothing worse than short term stock market traders telling a CEO he shouldn't make his company work really well (just because, you know, it might look a little bad).
I personally think the company would be better off if the CEO is more involved, not less. This view of aloof CEOs presiding over crappy declining off-shoring boring companies is wrong for our future and that of Tesla's future (in similar ways) for so many reasons. Just because we're (or at least some people are) used to that style doesn't mean it is the right style.
Last edited:
jesselivenomore
Member
Btw, if insideev is correct about the spike in Model S orders due to Model 3 awareness/refresh, that would directly contradict some analysts' view that Model 3 will have an Osborne effect. One of the reasons cited as UBS maintains its Sell rating today.
Tesla Motors, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) - UBS Maintains Sell On Tesla, Highlights Caution On FY Deliveries
Tesla Motors, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) - UBS Maintains Sell On Tesla, Highlights Caution On FY Deliveries
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Agree. All though I remain amazed by Elon's in depth knowledge of the products and production process I do worry about his micro management strategy. It's hard to tell from the outside how prevalent it is that he personally meddles/micro manages. But I can't help to think that it makes the company vulnerable.
I disagree. In the context of a one time "get out of jail free card" and in light of the prior "hubris" learned lesson, this action has the same analogy to me as the Pope washing the feet of his constituents.
What message does this bring? It says the CEO cares enough to maintain that the X is a much better SUV than the S is a sedan. It means that the problem is significant enough to warrant his attention, having just solved the problem on how to land a rocket on a postage stamp sized ship in rocky waters. By transitive property, no problem is too huge to remain unsolved if proven minds set their focus to tackle it.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I hope bearish analysts get told this is no unclear terms during the call. There is virtually no, or at least insignificant overlap between S/X and Model 3 target audience, especially considering one is available now and the other in (for most) over 2 years in to future, they're in very different price ranges and sizes.
But these guys (UBS) are mostly clueless, as evident for example by the fact that Evanson had to call in to correct them during that call, and last but not least by the fact that they have a sell rating (!) on TSLA (duh).
You can do a google trends search on key words "Model S", "Model X" and see people's interest in them doubled after the Model 3 reveal. Although the interest fell of a bit later, it's still a lot higher than it was before April. This is another data point that supports higher orders for their existing products (no effect on TE products though).
Musk was just referencing autonomous fleet. It does not require a different kind of vehicle in any physical sense. Although it is true to say that it is possible to strip a car of everything expensive that is driver centric, for example high acceleration performance, and just run pod cars. I think this is the Apple plan.
However without any doubt to my way of thinking, the optimum way to introduce and to fund the expansion of such a service is the Tesla Model 3 just the way it is.
Why:
* It's a recognizable car that is desirable to get into. No culture shock or weird factor.
* It's recognized to be a safe car to get into. No weird factor.
* The very broad cumulative customer real-world on-road experience with this exact car with exactly the sensors it will actually have and background-mode full autopilot on board means that this exact car will likely get approved. No legislative battle to introduce an untested AI/Vehicle combo to legislators with no real world customer mileage and safety stat comparisons.
*It's desirable to own as a personal car with the added benefit that it can join a fleet at the touch of a button. No weird downsides.
*The ability to push that button just turns the economics of car purchasing upside down. The car is a profit center, not a depreciating asset.
*The Tesla SuperCharger network (updated with snake autonomy & in large charging garages) and the Service Network are cost centers, not profit centers - aligned to servicing the fleet at least cost.
*Taking a percentage of autonomous mileage fees to cover hailing, scheduling and billing and to cover maintenance monitoring, service, valeting, energy and insurance will be just insanely profitable for Tesla. The capital cost of fleet financing is customer side, massively incentivized by the balance of mileage fees received from ride-share (just by hitting the share my car button on the app - which of course dedicated fleet owners will rarely if ever disengage).
*Uber has established the market value of a chauffeured mile at around the $2 mark. Model 3 will cost about $12 cents to operate, all in. So Tesla can undercut Uber by 50% and make an 833% gross margin to cover basically a call-center of fleet-service managers, the balance of lets say 500% net profit would remain available to split with its customers in a giant positive feedback loop.
BTW: The reason that they didn't show the "space ship" steering controls of the Model 3 on Part 1 unveil is because the real steering wheel will need to be able to disengage from the occupants completely to prevent false inputs from a completely dunk, distracted, unruly, suicidal, sleeping or juvenile front passenger wiping out himself or herself and the other riders. In other words disappear completely into the dash. This will be a car you can send out in the early hours to collect teenage kids from a house party and expect them and the car back in one piece - maybe you have to hit the accept emergency valeting fee button and deduct it from your kid's allowance in the morning - and you're done.
BTW2: Bringing seats in-house as a cost center is really important for Tesla and probably goes a long way to explain the extra floor space. When designing a 1 million mile EV the worst wear item that will limit service life will actually be the seats. It will take less than five years to rack up a million miles in non-stop fleet service and possibly less than three. It's the interior that will fall to bits first and Tesla does not want to be paying a third party for three or five sets of seats per vehicle lifetime with profits.
BTW3: This also explains why Musk is on about counting 20% - 50% of current Model 3 reservation holders as likely customers. He's not being conservative or worrying about delays or capital constraints to deliver or competition or anything of the sort. The Model 3 will IMO be cash only or to those that can arrange their own finance and exclude reservation holders that expect to be able to lease it. Two reasons for this. Lease financiers will go bust in the transition to autonomy as residual values of ICE vehicles fall off a cliff. Musk probably knows this. Secondly the entire business model of the Tesla Model 3 rests IMO on distributed capital financing - customer side. If you can only afford the marginal cost of leasing why buy a car when you can just hail one that belongs to someone that has the capital or credit score available to buy cars. There is no reason for Tesla to serve a lease market with the Model 3. Ride sharing an autonomous vehicle is a form of leasing.
Last edited:
Okay so UBS, one of the most bearish investment banks on TSLA, predicts an adjusted loss of 90 cents/share (vs the general consensus of roughly 58 cents).... Due to the fact it seems like delivery miss and that expected -.58/share loss is built into the current SP, would it be wise to exist TSLA positions ahead of ER and re-invest when the market overreacts to the greater than expected loss? Or is it possible the FUD/negativity will be overtaken by improved guidance, better than expected S orders, possible hint as to production ramp, giga news, and affirmation of pack costs (both vehicle and TE-related)? Looking for some guidance here, thank you!
To put it a bit bluntly, I guess the advice you seek is worth less than what you pay for it. You really should do you own analysis and take your own chances here. Sorry, my honest opinion.
And as always, please don't bet what you can't afford to lose. Risks are high - that's the other side of the coin you might win.
@tanner....You are asking the big question that no one 'knows' the answer.
Personally, I am confused enough to have hedged my long stock position with protective puts.....which means I probably make no money despite a move
In either direction!
Personally, I am confused enough to have hedged my long stock position with protective puts.....which means I probably make no money despite a move
In either direction!
@tanner....You are asking the big question that no one 'knows' the answer.
Personally, I am confused enough to have hedged my long stock position with protective puts.....which means I probably make no money despite a move
In either direction!
I am in this exact trade! For sentimental reasons I don't want to divest my stock, and have puts to cover it. So I am guaranteed a small loss.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Ulmo
Active Member
This belongs in "Future Car" forum. I wouldn't be mad if a moderator moved it there. Sorry. OTOH, if they mention it in the ER ...
I think the balance of the future car as a backdrop to the people passively sitting inside it, rather than machine that someone has to actively operate, is somewhere in between what Tesla and Apple is doing. Apple is looking at it like an iPhone, and Tesla is looking at it like a car. I look at it more like a virtual reality conference center, and a bedroom. It is an interior functional room (with full audiovisual computational communications on every surface/eye/ear transition, and with all the cushions and safety necessary to sit or sleep) that positions itself. It's not a glorified iPhone or a sports vest, like Apple and Tesla (respectively) look at it. It's somewhere in between, and more than, what those two have revealed, so far.
So, my conclusion is that neither Apple nor Tesla is spot-on for this market segment, but that BOTH of them will be within ear's shot of it, and basically figure out how to get there eventually. Tesla is WAY ahead in the actual motive part of it. I haven't seen any compelling software from Apple lately that suggests they are anywhere near the software side this would require, despite software being their "forte" (if anything, right now, their legacy is hindrance). Both have a long way to go to achieve this, and this is ripe for a home-garage effect takeover from any side, but Tesla is in a better position to snap up that garage software company (that has a redundant EV platform) than Apple is in snapping up a garage EV car maker (that has a non-redundant software platform that Apple will want to unwisely chuck). There would be so much not-invented-here at Apple the product would be buried (software vs software). Tesla has the problem that they aren't an attractive buyer for companies (look at how they treated George Hotz).
So, I think Tesla is way ahead, and has ample room to prove they can actually win in that realm (regardless of whoever else also wins along side them), or fail, for that matter. I haven't seen my vision clearly articulated by the engineers of either company, and this is precisely the sort of thing that would be shrouded in secrecy, so I wouldn't expect to. But my intuition is that it is not 100% in action. That's either extremely high future growth because they surprise the hell out of the market with great (heretofore secret) product, or just steady as she goes current view (nothing spectacularly secret, but can clearly get to any future market segment with deft execution).
I think the balance of the future car as a backdrop to the people passively sitting inside it, rather than machine that someone has to actively operate, is somewhere in between what Tesla and Apple is doing. Apple is looking at it like an iPhone, and Tesla is looking at it like a car. I look at it more like a virtual reality conference center, and a bedroom. It is an interior functional room (with full audiovisual computational communications on every surface/eye/ear transition, and with all the cushions and safety necessary to sit or sleep) that positions itself. It's not a glorified iPhone or a sports vest, like Apple and Tesla (respectively) look at it. It's somewhere in between, and more than, what those two have revealed, so far.
So, my conclusion is that neither Apple nor Tesla is spot-on for this market segment, but that BOTH of them will be within ear's shot of it, and basically figure out how to get there eventually. Tesla is WAY ahead in the actual motive part of it. I haven't seen any compelling software from Apple lately that suggests they are anywhere near the software side this would require, despite software being their "forte" (if anything, right now, their legacy is hindrance). Both have a long way to go to achieve this, and this is ripe for a home-garage effect takeover from any side, but Tesla is in a better position to snap up that garage software company (that has a redundant EV platform) than Apple is in snapping up a garage EV car maker (that has a non-redundant software platform that Apple will want to unwisely chuck). There would be so much not-invented-here at Apple the product would be buried (software vs software). Tesla has the problem that they aren't an attractive buyer for companies (look at how they treated George Hotz).
So, I think Tesla is way ahead, and has ample room to prove they can actually win in that realm (regardless of whoever else also wins along side them), or fail, for that matter. I haven't seen my vision clearly articulated by the engineers of either company, and this is precisely the sort of thing that would be shrouded in secrecy, so I wouldn't expect to. But my intuition is that it is not 100% in action. That's either extremely high future growth because they surprise the hell out of the market with great (heretofore secret) product, or just steady as she goes current view (nothing spectacularly secret, but can clearly get to any future market segment with deft execution).
Last edited:
Don't forget to by some bandages trying to catch those falling knifes. Been there, done that, no thank you.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
