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

Status
Not open for further replies.

JBRR

Member
Dec 13, 2015
960
19,399
UK
... As numerous claims by Tesla sales persons in the past regarding a plethora of things.

Point in case:

Blame me for failing to communicate a simple piece of information - not the poor sales person.
I'm sure she told me something that made sense and I failed in passing it on correctly.

Focus on the data point and forgive my (lack) of communication skills :)
 

Gerasimental

Member
Dec 10, 2014
833
804
EU

We were always below Tesla’s vehicle delivery targets of 500k by 2018 and 1mm by 2020, but after speaking with industry contacts and reconsidering our model, we are tempering our delivery forecast to account for a slower Model 3 ramp. Our new delivery forecast for 2017/18/19/20 is 91k/180k/325k/525k versus 109k/315k/420k/620k prior, respectively.

So had they previously been predicting 20% more deliveries in 2020 than Tesla had predicted themselves? Funny that they thought 500k was low-balling it, but then say even that is undoable when the target rises to 1m.
 

Svetlin

Member
Oct 1, 2012
169
696
United States
... forecasting a long up-leg from here through Sharholders Meeting May 31st (positive M3 progress reassurance and difinitive resolution of Model X as a concern as opposed to an asset). Then Gigafactory Unveil (anticipating positive recognition of Tesla Energy as an additional business unit that is not fully priced in). Then through Q2 ER which offers a combination of strong sales and strong cash flows (incorporating current raise) alongside a trough in spending for strong net positive results and guidance.

Can you please clarify if you are forecasting up from here to Q2 ER or up from here to May 31st only? Do you think this is the best buying opportunity between now and August? What's your updated price target for July/August?

Thanks
 

Bgarret

Model 3 ownin' Michigan scofflaw
Supporting Member
May 10, 2013
1,175
3,891
Michigan
Its more then just a price cut most of you guys fixate on.

RBC Capital Markets analyst Joseph Spak and team argue that “execution risk is elevated” for Tesla Motors (TSLA), and cut their earnings estimates accordingly. They explain why:


We are updating our model for 1) the equity raise and share countand 2) a more tempered Model 3 ramp than prior upon further reflection of the challenging target laid out by the company. As a result, our 2017 EPS estimate goes to $1.30 from $2.65, 2018 to $3.05 from $5.50, and 2020 to $12.15 from $13.95. Our price target goes to $242.

We were always below Tesla’s vehicle delivery targets of 500k by 2018 and 1mm by 2020, but after speaking with industry contacts and reconsidering our model, we are tempering our delivery forecast to account for a slower Model 3 ramp. Our new delivery forecast for 2017/18/19/20 is 91k/180k/325k/525k versus 109k/315k/420k/620k prior, respectively. We are all for setting aggressive internal and supplier goals, but as an investor, we believe these targets should be moderated. In reality, installing the new equipment/lines takes time and then even if Tesla has learned from their Model S/X launches, there is a ramp and the scale of Model 3 is significantly larger. In the interim, the Tesla story is about manufacturing, and execution risk is elevated. For the investor with long-term horizons the ramp is less of a concern. For others, expect a choppy ride with sentiment a large driving factor.


Tesla Motors: Execution Risk Rising
Which models for essentially 0% growth in 2017 vs 2016 guidance of 80-90k, so either Model S/X demand goes down or it stays the same and there are zero Model III deliveries in 2017. I love strawman analyses that begin with "I will start with an incredibly pessimistic initial data point and then grow reasonably from there, Tesla has a habit of missing deadlines." Tesla also has a habit of growing 50% YOY....but RBC wants us assume that Tesla will take a year off from that metric, rather than accelerating it as they have publically stated.

Why would RBC make that assumption? A. Because we are analysts, and therefore smarter than Elon Musk - ask Adam Jonas or any art/music/film critic. B. Because we talked to some ICE suppliers and Bob Lutz. Anything short of a 5yr production cycle is doomed. Where is the impossible to build prototype that can be shown off at auto shows? c. Where are the focus groups around range anxiety and the advertising to make people want electric cars? And as for autonomous cars....no one wants those either.

Tesla has so far shown they can build a car that not only the consumer doesn't even know they want yet, but which the critics use strawman arguments to refute their appeal even in the face of the Model S success and the Model III reservations. The RBC analysts are saying - believe me, not your lyin' eyes.
 

sundaymorning

Active Member
Jul 26, 2013
3,465
18,636
Orange County
Its more then just a price cut most of you guys fixate on.

RBC Capital Markets analyst Joseph Spak and team argue that “execution risk is elevated” for Tesla Motors (TSLA), and cut their earnings estimates accordingly. They explain why:


We are updating our model for 1) the equity raise and share countand 2) a more tempered Model 3 ramp than prior upon further reflection of the challenging target laid out by the company. As a result, our 2017 EPS estimate goes to $1.30 from $2.65, 2018 to $3.05 from $5.50, and 2020 to $12.15 from $13.95. Our price target goes to $242.

We were always below Tesla’s vehicle delivery targets of 500k by 2018 and 1mm by 2020, but after speaking with industry contacts and reconsidering our model, we are tempering our delivery forecast to account for a slower Model 3 ramp. Our new delivery forecast for 2017/18/19/20 is 91k/180k/325k/525k versus 109k/315k/420k/620k prior, respectively. We are all for setting aggressive internal and supplier goals, but as an investor, we believe these targets should be moderated. In reality, installing the new equipment/lines takes time and then even if Tesla has learned from their Model S/X launches, there is a ramp and the scale of Model 3 is significantly larger. In the interim, the Tesla story is about manufacturing, and execution risk is elevated. For the investor with long-term horizons the ramp is less of a concern. For others, expect a choppy ride with sentiment a large driving factor.


Tesla Motors: Execution Risk Rising

Most investors are happy to take the 500k execution risk in 2018, so what if they achieve this in 2018.5?

There are risks in every business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: everman

9837264723849

Member
Aug 24, 2014
994
4,364
France
Have you all heard about this? Makes having your own source of energy (solar panels + batteries + electric car) all that much more appealing.

French Oil Refinery Strikes Spread as Fuel Shortages Worsen

The situation should deteriorate in the coming days. The strike (and shutdowns) will spread to other sectors including electric utilities, public transport, freight, airports, ports and construction.

Every few minutes, people tweet about switching to EVs.

Screen Shot 2016-05-25 at 17.26.08.png
 

skljsd329832

Banned
May 21, 2016
86
309
ev-volumes.com
Well, that statement makes no sense at all. The chemistry doesn't matter once the electrons leave the battery :)

Just FYI. While improved aerodynamics of a facelift Model S are most likely responsible for improved Wh/Mille figures it is not senseless to look at the battery for efficiency improvements in the range of 6.5%.

A battery is not a fuel tank. Instead it is a member of the electrical circuit that goes through the motor and inverter.

(It can also be switched to being a member of the charging circuit with the charger and the source.)

The internal resistance of the battery effectively determines how much of the drivetrain energy stored in the battery is expressed as heat in the battery pack as a percentage of the total energy used to drive the car. It is not at all impossible for Tesla to find 6.5% additional drive train (and charging) efficiencies (or figures in this kind of range) by developing a battery pack with a lowered internal resistance. The heat loss in a battery is classically I squared R. I = Amps R = Ohms of resistance. In real life thermostatic controls and cell balancing play a role too and Ohmic resistance does not really tell the whole story which is why IR is typically measured as an Impedence at a certain frequency (typically 1KHz). However the frequency that actually matters is related to the demands of the Inverter. A poorly designed drive inverter will typically use the battery as a smoothing capacitor which is a terrible idea for efficiency and cycle life. The closer the demand is to unmodulated DC the better.

Internal resistance of a battery has two key components. Electrical Conductivity (or conversely Ohmic resistance) of the sum of metal current collectors (Alu and nickel foil plates), internal welds (of foils to cell terminals) and infra-pack connections - which in the case of Tesla double as cell-level fuses and therefore must in this design have an appreciable resistance to function (otherwise they would not melt and disconnect an overloaded cell). The second component is Ionic Conductivity - because if the Ions don't flow freely enough in the chemical part of the circuit neither can the electrons in the electrical circuit. Ionic Conductivity is chiefly what gives rise to capacitance and Impedence effects due to the relatively massive nature of a Lithium Ion when compared with an Electron. Ions can come out of an intercolated graphite matrix and accumulate at the separator "ready to go" - (hence initial spark when shorting a battery - or Tesla Launch acceleration for that matter) and and also effectively express effects similar to inertia and momentum. So indeed improvements at the chemistry (and cell separator) level that deliver improved Ionic Conductivity will increase Wh/mile efficiency of the overall vehicle all other things being equal - and not just drive train efficiency but also end to end efficiency including charge efficiency.

Reduced internal resistance is also a natural feature of larger Amp-Hour capacity battery packs of the same Voltage (note not directly proportional to Wh capacity which can change in the opposite direction with Voltage with cell resistance multiplied in series rather than divided in parallel).
 

Causalien

Prime 8 ball Oracle
Nov 19, 2012
3,772
14,165
Pothead's Republic of Canukstan (PRC)
Owners on danish tesla forum have some kind of competition going on who can achieve lowest wh/km numbers.
Good ressource for finding real world numbers:

Avg. Wh/km Challenge 2016!
Google translate should make it readable.

"
1. quarter 2016
winner, under 5000 km. = Lannister (229 wh/km)
winner, 5-10.000 km. = Gronhund (196 wh/km)

winner, over 10.000 km. = Kristian70K (236 wh/km)
"


I hope Tesla is monitoring the way they drive and where they are. The AI could drive like this in the future.
 

Vitold

Active Member
Aug 10, 2015
1,688
1,950
NM
Yes, I already read it earlier... Blah blah blah

Here's a quiz for us Bulls...

Does raising $1.5B in cash increase or decrease risk? Mic drop...

It's close to neither. Tesla had a lot of money before and spent it on falcon wing doors and non-folding middle row. Hiring Audi exec is a first step, assembling manufacturing team second and lining up suppliers third. Once those steps are done we can talk about decrease in risk.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: dakh and WarpedOne

MitchJi

Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Jun 1, 2015
3,989
9,173
Marin County, CA
It's close to neither. Tesla had a lot of money before and spent it on falcon wing doors and non-folding middle row. Hiring Audi exec is a first step, assembling manufacturing team second and lining up suppliers third. Once those steps are done we can talk about decrease in risk.
I believe we could talk about decreased execution risk when Elon said, during the last CC that Tesla is hell bent on becoming the best manufacturing company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lessmog and EinSV

RobStark

Well-Known Member
Jul 2, 2013
10,755
56,880
Los Angeles, USA
It's close to neither. Tesla had a lot of money before and spent it on falcon wing doors and non-folding middle row. Hiring Audi exec is a first step, assembling manufacturing team second and lining up suppliers third. Once those steps are done we can talk about decrease in risk.

No, having all the capital they need for the next 12-18 months decreases risk.

And FWD, Monopost Middle Row Seats, and 5 Star safety in all categories Rock.

And they didn't spend all of "a lot of money" on above.

At the same time they spent money on the rest of Model X development, Model 3 development, Gigafactory, New 500k unit Paint Shop, New Facilities around Fremont, expand Supercharger,Service Center, and Store/Gallery footprint.
 

austinEV

Supporting Member
Supporting Member
May 16, 2013
3,231
7,384
Austin
Just FYI. While improved aerodynamics of a facelift Model S are most likely responsible for improved Wh/Mille figures it is not senseless to look at the battery for efficiency improvements in the range of 6.5%.

A battery is not a fuel tank. Instead it is a member of the electrical circuit that goes through the motor and inverter.

(It can also be switched to being a member of the charging circuit with the charger and the source.)

The internal resistance of the battery effectively determines how much of the drivetrain energy stored in the battery is expressed as heat in the battery pack as a percentage of the total energy used to drive the car. It is not at all impossible for Tesla to find 6.5% additional drive train (and charging) efficiencies (or figures in this kind of range) by developing a battery pack with a lowered internal resistance. The heat loss in a battery is classically I squared R. I = Amps R = Ohms of resistance. In real life thermostatic controls and cell balancing play a role too and Ohmic resistance does not really tell the whole story which is why IR is typically measured as an Impedence at a certain frequency (typically 1KHz). However the frequency that actually matters is related to the demands of the Inverter. A poorly designed drive inverter will typically use the battery as a smoothing capacitor which is a terrible idea for efficiency and cycle life. The closer the demand is to unmodulated DC the better.

Internal resistance of a battery has two key components. Electrical Conductivity (or conversely Ohmic resistance) of the sum of metal current collectors (Alu and nickel foil plates), internal welds (of foils to cell terminals) and infra-pack connections - which in the case of Tesla double as cell-level fuses and therefore must in this design have an appreciable resistance to function (otherwise they would not melt and disconnect an overloaded cell). The second component is Ionic Conductivity - because if the Ions don't flow freely enough in the chemical part of the circuit neither can the electrons in the electrical circuit. Ionic Conductivity is chiefly what gives rise to capacitance and Impedence effects due to the relatively massive nature of a Lithium Ion when compared with an Electron. Ions can come out of an intercolated graphite matrix and accumulate at the separator "ready to go" - (hence initial spark when shorting a battery - or Tesla Launch acceleration for that matter) and and also effectively express effects similar to inertia and momentum. So indeed improvements at the chemistry (and cell separator) level that deliver improved Ionic Conductivity will increase Wh/mile efficiency of the overall vehicle all other things being equal - and not just drive train efficiency but also end to end efficiency including charge efficiency.

Reduced internal resistance is also a natural feature of larger Amp-Hour capacity battery packs of the same Voltage (note not directly proportional to Wh capacity which can change in the opposite direction with Voltage with cell resistance multiplied in series rather than divided in parallel).

I really doubt there is a smoothing capacitor between the battery pack and the drive inverter. That would be a HUGE cap, and I don't even think there is a technology for that kind of supercap that is not actually a chemical battery with modified characteristics. If there was such a parallel plate capacitor that could hold enough charge for even a modest start, that would probably be better energy storage than the Panasonic cells.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Intl Professor
Status
Not open for further replies.

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top