-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Gerasimental
Member
Has anyone considered that all these autopilot accidents the bears so presciently predicted are contributing a lot to this SP action?
Agreed. While there are some legit concerns ( X ramp ) at this time, I do not think that one of them is the AP.
Gerasimental
Member
Sorry I guess it wasn't clear but I was just joking that the big bear doom and gloom scenario du jour tends not to materialise and is usually all but forgotten within a few months.
That said I have my concerns about the current situation too and am monitoring developments more closely than I usually do.
That said I have my concerns about the current situation too and am monitoring developments more closely than I usually do.
jhm
Well-Known Member
This is the right way to look at this.
Anyone who wishes to speak of demand constraint with any degree of credibility needs to frame that constraint as market share. Tell me what current market share the Model S commands of the global lluxury sedan segment, and explain to us why another point of market share cannot be won.
Let's stop this silliness about demand as if it is some absolute number. That's not how market saturation works. The competition is for market share, and a compelling product in any segment has the potential to draw more sales into that segment. So the Model S has the potential to grow both the luxury sedan segment while taking more share.
Now if you wish to name some market share as the ultimate share of the Model S, you also need to consider the possibility of new EV entrants into that segment. As long as competitor have yet to secure a compelling EV of their own within that segment, there is no need to think that the Model S is at ultimate share.
Since the media spend a lot of time comparing Tesla's valuation to legacy automakers, maybe we'll get a benefit this morning for once out of GM's good quarter.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/03/gm-r...adline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=103349844
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/03/gm-r...adline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=103349844
Buddyroe
Active Member
I don't know - only a known troll/hater/short would have sold boldly used the word "presciently" seriously. Anyone else would have to be obviously being sarcastic. In other words, "precisely" is such a strong and bold statement, it would have to be about something that was either obviously true, or obviously untrue (and thus sarcastic).
Then again, I have mocked the haters' predictions (Model S won't sell, cars will catch fire constantly, AP will kill people, etc) so much that I knew right off what he was saying - it was something I could see myself saying so I probably had an advantage.
He probably should have added this one after the statement:
ev-enthusiast
Active Member
Tesla demand falling of a cliff:
Wait, that is cause only Europe sales are mentioned
On a side note, what the hell is going on at Nissan Motors:
Customers Left Frustrated as 2016 Nissan LEAF Electric Car Deliveries Halted in Europe Due to Telematics System Error | Transport Evolved
Side note 2:
Tesla Motors on hiring spree in Australia as sales are picking up speed.
Side note 3:
Tesla Motors already taking market share from the traditional car manufacturers in comparable market segments to Model S:
Wait, that is cause only Europe sales are mentioned
On a side note, what the hell is going on at Nissan Motors:
Customers Left Frustrated as 2016 Nissan LEAF Electric Car Deliveries Halted in Europe Due to Telematics System Error | Transport Evolved
Side note 2:
Tesla Motors on hiring spree in Australia as sales are picking up speed.
Side note 3:
Tesla Motors already taking market share from the traditional car manufacturers in comparable market segments to Model S:
Last edited:
Very impressive gains the in luxury market.
Against very well established brands.
Now need for model X to get going.
Your comment "I couldn't disagree more" is ironic considering the fact that you clearly don't. We are one degree apart on this not 180 degrees.
What you have described is what it feels like to be in the situation I have described from a bird's eye view. The contribution I have sought to make is a birds eye view. I have maintained throughout that we can expect severe volatility until a clear picture emerges that rebuts the concerns you have expressed and dismantles the shorts that are reliant upon those concerns.
The extra piece that I have added is that it is possible to determine that these concerns are unfounded and WILL be debunked as the view becomes clear. Therein lies the information advantage.
Maybe I should say out loud something that I have assumed is obvious. I am not ignorant of the fact that quite a few people here have leveraged loss making positions on paper at risk of being cemented into actual losses. I don't. My highest purchase is $207, un-leveraged, which is safely below Musk's highest of $242. That does not mean that I am unsympathetic, I just think it would add no value or additional insight to the discussion to contribute to hand-wringing. Yes the stock price fell a lot. The interesting bit, IMO, is how to take advantage of it. Musk figured it out, now what about the retail longs?
Musk is not in the business of serving traders. If I want to trade TSLA then I need three pieces of information with a very high degree of certainty. 1. What is going to happen and by when. 2. What a critical mass of other traders is gambling/worrying is going to happen in that time frame but they're dead wrong. 3. Is Tesla's proving the gamblers/worriers dead wrong going to be devastating to those that are wrong. Get all three of those right and by all means trade. IMO it isn't obligatory to trade in short intervals all the time, sometimes timescales need to be stretched to encompass predictable events to bracket a compelling investment thesis. The longest of them as a back stop - accumulating alongside Musk - is just fine. That way he's quite reliably working for you and not against you.
The most damaging thing that you said in your comment is to take a Musk-eye view of SpaceX. The concept of a failed Falcon 1 experimental launch pushing back SpaceX revenues. I would put it to you that this is an incredibly dangerous circular argument. What SpaceX revenues were pushed back? There is only the SpaceX revenues that there is. Same with the Model S, the Model X and the Model 3. All you are looking at here is a profound visionary that sees the future as a done deal and is working backwards from the future to the present. This is a necessary component of making the revenues that actually happen but to suggest the stock market is composed primarily of profound visionaries as opposed to a nebulous admixture of short-termist hopefuls and skeptics is palpably untrue.
Morgan Stanley right now wants us to believe that they believe it will take until 2025 for Tesla to put out 500,000 vehicles in a year and to deliver less than half of that number (240,000) in 2020. This is a pretty good estimate in my view of stock market underestimation of the business. By this estimate, MS is willing to acknowledge somewhere between 12.5% and 50% of Tesla's most probable 2020 performance in cars alone and less than 5% of the Tesla Energy business for a short term PT of $333. This is how far behind Musk's vision the stock market is on a good day. There is no amount of assumed push back attributable to nebulous short term hand wringing over Model X that can be applied to Musk's conservative view of 500K vehicles in 2020 and 3:1 revenue contribution from Tesla Energy with three giant vehicle factories and necessarily three giant National Gigafactories that will get you back to a PT of $333. If you entered Musk's assumptions into Morgan Stanley's analysis you would be discounting these nebulous short-term worries from a PT of $900+.
In my view it is well worth bringing this up in the discussion of the short term precisely because of the way long term perceptions and mispereceptions swing short term sentiment. Right now from a bird's eye view any TSLA long that is not burnt to death by now has the whip hand. I think it's important to realize this and act accordingly. We are at max negative sentiment running headlong into good news. This is the exact equal and opposite of max hubris at an ATH.
Gerasimental
Member
I don't know - only a known troll/hater/short would have sold boldly used the word "presciently" seriously. Anyone else would have to be obviously being sarcastic. In other words, "precisely" is such a strong and bold statement, it would have to be about something that was either obviously true, or obviously untrue (and thus sarcastic).
Then again, I have mocked the haters' predictions (Model S won't sell, cars will catch fire constantly, AP will kill people, etc) so much that I knew right off what he was saying - it was something I could see myself saying so I probably had an advantage.
He probably should have added this one after the statement:
Thanks for all your suggestions. I will endeavour to make wiser use of the arsenal of little yellow faces at my disposal in order to more accurately convey the tone of my posts. Uh...:wink:
Buddyroe, just want to mention that I'm right there with you regarding SpC rollout. I check it every day and no amount of rationalising and explaining away can hide that there has been a sharp change since beginning of 2016.
I do not know which of the possible reasons I consider most likely, but there is some reason for this. It is not completely business as usual.
Does anyone remember around what date the 2015/2016 supercharger maps got added to the website?
Last edited:
ludicrousspeed
Member
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/694802955170553861
Elon: "Must be a super slow news day if denying service to a super rude customer gets this much attention."
He would really get a kick out of the whole belief behind Tesla only revealing pictures/sketches on the Model 3 in March instead of an actual prototype on-stage.
Elon: "Must be a super slow news day if denying service to a super rude customer gets this much attention."
He would really get a kick out of the whole belief behind Tesla only revealing pictures/sketches on the Model 3 in March instead of an actual prototype on-stage.
1. There have been two announced changes in technology. A liquid cooled cable that is thinner and more flexible and permits higher current. Stated intent to implement automatic snake charging at Super Charger stations*.
*note, this is not just useful for full autonomy, it is useful immediately for alleviating Supercharger congestion by permitting cars to clear charging bays and re-park themselves after a set amount of charge is accumulated instead of waiting for however long it takes for people to finish shopping/lunch and drive away manually. Super Charger stations are private land and this can happen right now, i.e. as soon as snake charging is installed, this would improve both the economics of Super Charging and the user experience by permitting precise coordination with advanced OTA network knowledge of when a Super Charger bay that you are traveling towards will become free to use. Drive up, watch the previous car autonomously pull out of your designated bay, drive in.
2. The company "feels" like it is refocusing on a period of deliberately impressing the stock market prior to a big push on Model 3 production capacity roll out. A tactical pause of cash outflow on Super Charger installations may be a component of turning in some insane Q1 figures.
Last edited:
Gerasimental
Member
As I said I am aware of the various possible explanations, I just don't want to place a bet or even hazard a guess at which it is. If you forced me to I'd say it's the former (new tech available, want to minimise retrofitting - this is more in line with the company philosophy IMO). That said, I've not had the time to do any calculation on how much SG&A/Cashflow would be saved by slowing SpC so I can't judge the likelihood that it's being done for impressive Q1 numbers.
Hello. Long-time follower of this page, first time poster so apologies if I do stuff wrong.
Ev-enthusiast, could you please provide a little more insight into the background and sources of the data in this table? Makes it look like Tesla are selling more MS than BMW are 6&7 or Audi A7&8 combined. Is this somewhere specific? I don't understand the numbers. Tesla made more than 26k MS sales last year. Similary Mercedes made over 100k S class sales in 2014.
ludicrousspeed
Member
Welcome to the forum, the chart is from this link: Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) Model S is Crushing Premium Car Market.
It only accounts for United States luxury sedan car sales.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
