Oh no! classy response... now I can't dislike you
Tell my wife, she hates my LFIC moments and has long-range elbows. (LFIC means like being hoisted by your petard in church.)
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Tell my wife, she hates my LFIC moments and has long-range elbows. (LFIC means like being hoisted by your petard in church.)
1. These puzzles of 45% growth wrt some undisclosed number are useless. As TSLA shareholders, you should demand the simple, actual number of Model S orders received and how many left in backlog. The question you should ask yourself is, why are these puzzles needed to convey a simple number?
2. Deposit amount: Besides what was mentioned above, some Model X buyers (like @umeshunni) have deposited full amount when they were promised an "imminent delivery". Needless to say, they are still to see their cars
2. Deposit amount: Besides what was mentioned above, some Model X buyers (like @umeshunni) have deposited full amount when they were promised an "imminent delivery". Needless to say, they are still to see their cars
1. These puzzles of 45% growth wrt some undisclosed number are useless. As TSLA shareholders, you should demand the simple, actual number of Model S orders received and how many left in backlog. The question you should ask yourself is, why are these puzzles needed to convey a simple number?
2. Deposit amount: Besides what was mentioned above, some Model X buyers (like @umeshunni) have deposited full amount when they were promised an "imminent delivery". Needless to say, they are still to see their cars
Or as a tesla skeptic you can look at actual Q over Q growth in vehicles produced and delivered to understand if your whole thesis that Tesla is making a car that no one wants is true or a massive exercise in self-delusion
jhm
Well-Known Member
I fail to get the point you are hinting at. Is this sarcastic? Or are you trying to make a serious point? If so, what is it?
It's a long debating and truth stands on my side. Also I'm glad more and more investors realize this fact. It's critical to understand the truth instead of blindly listening to Tesla when investing TSLA.
If Tesla had issues with scaling up production in the past 2.5 years from 600/week model S to 2000/week, 250% increase over 30 months. How can Tesla propose to essentially double/triple production rate from 80-90K in 2016 to 200-300K in 2017 (150%-250% increase over 12months), and to 500K in 2018 (500% increase over 24 months). The only answer is Tesla knows how to scale production but they didn't want to do it aggressively as it's constrained by demand. Ridiculously because Tesla claimed production constrained for extended long time and many many times, now wall street even discredit TSLA with bold M3 production ramp up plan thus SP sunk. So I bet Elon Musk regretted not to confess it was misleading information of production constrained and would rather like wall street to believe Tesla's capability of scaling production now.
If Tesla had issues with scaling up production in the past 2.5 years from 600/week model S to 2000/week, 250% increase over 30 months. How can Tesla propose to essentially double/triple production rate from 80-90K in 2016 to 200-300K in 2017 (150%-250% increase over 12months), and to 500K in 2018 (500% increase over 24 months). The only answer is Tesla knows how to scale production but they didn't want to do it aggressively as it's constrained by demand. Ridiculously because Tesla claimed production constrained for extended long time and many many times, now wall street even discredit TSLA with bold M3 production ramp up plan thus SP sunk. So I bet Elon Musk regretted not to confess it was misleading information of production constrained and would rather like wall street to believe Tesla's capability of scaling production now.
Last edited:
Among 20K Q2 production guidance and 750K/week model X production rate. How many model S will be produced in Q2? The simple math told me it's 20K -9K = 11K. So we'll see sequential negative QoQ growth of model S delivery from 17K --> 12K --> 11K. Or at best flat Q2/Q1. I doubt Tesla will continue to blame production anymore as it'll negatively affect the M3 ramp up plan.
1. These puzzles of 45% growth wrt some undisclosed number are useless. As TSLA shareholders, you should demand the simple, actual number of Model S orders received and how many left in backlog. The question you should ask yourself is, why are these puzzles needed to convey a simple number?
2. Deposit amount: Besides what was mentioned above, some Model X buyers (like @umeshunni) have deposited full amount when they were promised an "imminent delivery". Needless to say, they are still to see their cars
A genuine, no sarcasm intended question here. It's very obvious that you are not open to our logic and views, just as we are not open to yours. And clearly, we are all entitled to our own so called delusions, right or wrong. So, knowing fully well that all you'll get out of this is grief, why do you keep posting here? I mean, what is your end game? Are you hoping to save us from losing our hard earned money, or do you have some other gains to be had by successfully convincing us that our beliefs in Tesla story is incorrect? I'm certain that, by influencing us little retail investors, you won't get enough movement to have a meaningful impact on the stock price???
I guess we will have to wait and see. My money is literally on Tesla, not the trolls who endlessly question everything they do.
Bingo, you get it. It's very evident that model S demand is declining in EU. Soft demand in China with many incentives, most recent one is free upgrade from 70 to 75 model. There is no proof that model S demand is growing QoQ base in US from quarterly delivery number/guidance and insideEVs estimates. Only with knowing this, can it explain why SP bounding in a range for more than 2 years. The SP today is lower than SP more than 2 years ago and TSLA is -15% YTD with positive SPX YTD and very positive M3 launch.
@maoing, would you be able to go back to the first time you called demand constrained for us and let us know how deliveries have looked since that point in time? It would help validate your argument. If you want firm numbers from Tesla, give us your firm numbers. I am personally growing tired of the demand debate. It's inarguable that they could be doing more to stoke demand. They had a referral program in Q4 to help pull forward some demand due to MX delay, but this is now gone IIRC.
No one is saying demand is infinite. Tesla is scaling production as demand grows. So far, this has been at least 50% per year. Did demand grow at 100% per year? Probably not, but it doesn't matter. M3 reservation numbers should quell any concerns on demand.
This whole demand constraint argument is based in semantics anyway.
No one is saying demand is infinite. Tesla is scaling production as demand grows. So far, this has been at least 50% per year. Did demand grow at 100% per year? Probably not, but it doesn't matter. M3 reservation numbers should quell any concerns on demand.
This whole demand constraint argument is based in semantics anyway.
The idea that Elon just lies all the time about demand and manipulates the stock
Price Is repulsive, we are not on the same page. Maybe those are your innate traits
and you project them unto others with ease.
And then trying to decipher your mumbo jumbo demand calculations, that apparently
Prove nothing is a waste of energy.
You can fault Elon about over engineering the model X , and the negative
Consequences that has created that must be overcome, and maybe
About being too ambitious , but the guy is admirable and that's
Why we back him.
Price Is repulsive, we are not on the same page. Maybe those are your innate traits
and you project them unto others with ease.
And then trying to decipher your mumbo jumbo demand calculations, that apparently
Prove nothing is a waste of energy.
You can fault Elon about over engineering the model X , and the negative
Consequences that has created that must be overcome, and maybe
About being too ambitious , but the guy is admirable and that's
Why we back him.
My call for demand constrained theory started around May 2015 in Website wait times for delivery change thread. You can find my posts over there. 50% growth rate is an OK number for a so-called growth company, but definitely not a superb number. If demand is NOT an issue (not strong enough), we should had seen consistently quarterly/yearly guidance beat and SP is well north of 350-400 now.
I think you're assuming they will sustain the 750/week production rate for Model X during the entire Q2. But we know that they had some delays with production in Q2. Some reservation holders were told they weren't producing Xs for a few weeks. So, if they produce 20k cars in Q2 it's more likely the split will be 13k Model S and 7k Model X (ie., 9 weeks of sustained 750/week production for X) or maybe even 14k Model S and 6k Model X.
How are your reaching a conclusion that Model S demand in the EU is declining? Would like to hear your thoughts/evidence.
From Q1 shareholder letter, "
Q1 Model S net orders rose 45% compared to a year ago, and grew at a faster pace than last quarter. The more rapid pace of growth was driven by increased order growth in North America and Europe, and a more than 160% increase in orders from Asia compared to a year ago.
jhm
Well-Known Member
You are engaging in mental gymnastics. If you want to consider the carry over from 2014Q4 to 2015Q1, then you need to consider the carry from 2015Q1 into Q2. These likely net out to a small number compared to 2100 orders.
It's also backward logic to suggest that timing of offering the 70D says anything about the order queue. Tesla generally likes to introduce new features and products as early as they can. Of course they introduce new stuff to cultivate demand, but they do not wait until demand has whithered before introducing new stuff. So whatever point you are trying to make here, it's circumstancial. You are supplying the meaning you wish to see.
You do raise an interesting point about Tesla ramping up the Model 3 quickly. Obviously a lower price car addresses a much larger market. So absolutely this is part of an effort to cultivate demand. Indeed, Tesla is trying to cultivate so much demand for EVs that every automaker will build them and every driver will drive them. So that's an awful lot of demand that is presently not tapped. So if Tesla is able to pull off producing some 500k Model 3 by end of 2018, if that some sort of repudiation of what it's been doing for the last three years? No, I don't see that. The secret master plan is very clear about developing the capabilities needed to get to a Gen 3 vehicle. There are no short cuts, and Tesla is not yet capable of pulling off this feat. But it has been working very hard to gain this capability and to design the Model 3 in such a way that it is efficiently mass produced. The whole point of the constrained production thesis is that Tesla has lacked the capability to mass produce, but that it takes time to gain this. Moreover, ramping up production must be balanced with controlling costs and building for future models. Doubling production, but suffering a small GM, is no victory. Doubling production, but failing to plan for the next doubling of production of the next model, is short lived. So balancing all these things is absolutely essential to sustainable growth. What is basically wrong with the constraint demand hypothesis is that it basically dismisses all the work that must be done to develop production capability in a balanced manners and suggests that the company really ought to invest more in demand generation activities. This is a false path aimed simply to insult Tesla. The primary way that Tesla generates demand is by bring innovative products to market. So it is the innovation engine that is most critical, not the marketing deparent. The innovation engine needs equally powerful and flexible production capabilities. Bring innovation to the market is what it is all about.
Krugerrand
Meow
That is NOT the only answer, nor is it *the* answer. You've got to be either of low IQ, purposely obtuse, or new to Tesla to not know the answer.
Tesla has had to learn how to produce cars from scratch. Every single little aspect. They've had supplier issues partly but not solely due to not having access to the top auto industry suppliers (because they either weren't doing enough volume to garner their attention, or those suppliers were priced out of Tesla's price range, etc...), port strike issues, weather issues, new technology issues, hubris issues, and so on.
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
IMHO investors care about long term growth. Traders worry about QoQ growth.
If there are very few EU orders on the assembly line, they have negligible effect on the MX delivery lead time in US.
So again, the point that you brought up does not seem relevant to my conclusion that current situation with MX delivery lead time (4 to 6 weeks) compares favorably with MS situation 3 years ago (3 to 4 weeks lead time for US deliveries).
By profitable I meant that TE will have very high gross and net margins. The cash that TE contributes toward the FCF positive goal, of course, will also depend on the the volume of TE sales.
My take on the significance of expected TE margins could be found here and here.
As far as volume is concerned, Tesla revealed very little, but we know that with cell production starting in Q4 of 2016 they will have approximately one year worth of cell production that will be dedicated to TE alone. Given that the Phase 1 of GF1 is widely quoted to be 14% of the total build out, the annual rate of TE output by the end of the ramp should conservatively approach 5GWh.
We, of course, do not have an accurate picture of the shape of the ramp-up curve, but I would venture to say that TE can probably sell 2 to 3 GWh of storage in 2017. This could contribute $400M to $600M of FCF in 2017.
They seem to have started construction of the shell for Phase II, so if they can start production on Phase II by the start time of Production of Model 3, Phase I could continue to feed the TE sales, which based on above could possibly bring $470/kWh x 5M kWh = $2.35B revenue per year. This means that TE could generate $1B/year of FCF assuming that Phase I GF1 output is fully dedicated to TE.
The enormity of this potential currently flies under the radar. As far as I am concerned pricing this in will require doubling of whatever PT one assigns to automotive business alone.
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
Oh, that's a relief. You were starting to worry me.
It's old canard of FUD slingers to set ups false criteria. Gosh if this company were really at the top of their game, they should be selling at least X. But hey, they're not hitting X, so something must be really wrong. But the management of any company must balance many competiting issues and risks. So the FUD can easily set X a little beyond what is prudent. If the company hits X, it screws something else up, and the FUDster can fixate on that. Or the company will fail to hit X. Either way, the FUD spinner succeeds in detracting from the company.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
