Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[tinm]

That is old over analyzed news, happened back in April. Were you in hibernation?

Sorry, first I heard of it. If it was mentioned in the Short Term TSLA Price thread, it's no wonder I missed it. If you blink, an entire page of new posts can whiz by...

 

[Curt Renz]

If the goal is SCOTUS case by mid 2017 (which is never a good goal, as they have total discretion over whether to grant cert), they should have filed suit in 2013-14.

Thank you for raising that point. Scalia was still on the bench in 2013-14. The company was also production constrained and did not really need stores in all states. It was also planning to start producing 500,000 cars a year in 2020, rather than the more recently stated goal of 2018. The huge number of Model 3 reservations changed the calculation. I suspect that a suit of broad national consequence against a state involving a core constitutional issue may be more likely to receive priority from the court.

 

[Thumper]

We're Going To Change The World Says Mercedes Exec - Gas 2

Referring back to an article from a couple of days ago, I don't think this got enough attention. I looks like recognition by Mercedes that the game is over. Schenk concedes that gas engines are only good for the short term to finance their transition to BEV (and maybe H2). This looks like complete capitulation. If markets recognize this, it could go either way. Shorts will say the competition will kill Tesla but really it just validates BEVs as the future.

The internal combustion engine is still a big part of Mercedes’ plans, however. “The internal combustion engines are earning the money we need for the transformation,” Schenk says. “The planet will turn into an electric planet. We don’t know how fast the transformation is coming.”

 

[MitchJi]

We're Going To Change The World Says Mercedes Exec - Gas 2

Referring back to an article from a couple of days ago, I don't think this got enough attention. I looks like recognition by Mercedes that the game is over. Schenk concedes that gas engines are only good for the short term to finance their transition to BEV (and maybe H2). This looks like complete capitulation. If markets recognize this, it could go either way. Shorts will say the competition will kill Tesla but really it just validates BEVs as the future.

The internal combustion engine is still a big part of Mercedes’ plans, however. “The internal combustion engines are earning the money we need for the transformation,” Schenk says. “The planet will turn into an electric planet. We don’t know how fast the transformation is coming.”

Discussed this Saturday (I thought it was more meaningful than the consensus):
Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

The person who thought that the 300 mile range with a five minute recharge was a fuel cell was correct. I thought that was ludicrous (I still think it's ludicrous). Not to mention the proliferation of 48 volt mild hybrids. Going all-in with taking hype to new heights:
Mercedes Will Have A Plug-In Fuel Cell SUV In 2017 - Gas 2

When it comes to powertrains of the future, Mercedes cannot be accused of putting all its eggs in one basket. It says 48 volt mild hybrid systems,will proliferate across its enter model line up in coming years. It is rushing to get plug-in hybrid cars on the market as soon as possible and says it will have a long range electric SUV on offer by 2019.

Now comes word that Mercedes will bring a new kind of car to market next year — a plug-in fuel cell SUV that can be powered by a battery or a hydrogen fuel cell. Based on the GLC model, it will have a range of about 300 miles before it needs to be recharged and/or refueled. Range on battery power alone is said to be 30 miles. The car is part of the $10.67 billion investment green technology Mercedes plans to make through the end of 2017.

“Daimler sees several different drive technologies co-existing in the future,” says Thomas Weber, head of development for Mercedes. “We have a broad portfolio of vehicles from compact cars to heavy trucks that require us to think holistically.”

Ludicrously lame!

Thanks you Elon and the Tesla team! The world needs you.

 

[CButterK]

I agree that things do sound positive. The X example was a bad choice because the "boom" and "bust" production cycles were/are far more dramatic, although they could easily disrupt production again if another part shortage or recall pops up.

Operating from my shaky recollection of Tesla history, I think they claimed to hit 1000/wk production in Dec 2014 or Jan 2015 with a plan to ramp to 2k by year end, yet deliveries averaged under 1000/wk until Q4. There's lots of good reasons for this (filling the pipeline, downtime for factory upgrades etc) but they're also reasons that still exist now, so people shouldn't be too quick to expect big delivery numbers.

I'm optimistic on 2016 production, but the situation now is that they are claiming 2000/wk with a goal of 2500 by year end. Considering how Tesla's ramps usually come very late in the target period and I think clean execution of this plan probably looks like average production of 2100/wk for the 2nd half of the year. If we put deliveries at 93% (typical) of that (because of travel lag, showroom cars etc) then we've got 54,600 cars built in the second half with 51k deliveries. Combined with 14800 from Q1 and a generous 18k for Q2 then that's 84k for 2016. This would be great and I don't see any likely scenario's where they could do much better.

I see a bit higher number than that...

Q1: 14.8K delivered. What was stated by Tesla: exiting Q1 run rate = >1600/wk, & >2000/wk as of "few weeks ago". So,
Q2: (1600x5wks)+(2000x7wks)=22K produced, and @ 85% rate(Guidance 20K produce/17K deliver), 18.7K delivered?
Q3: 2100x12 (non linear ramp up to 2500/wk) = 25.2K produced, @90% rate(pipeline already filled from Q2), 22.7K delivered?
Q4: (2200x7)+(2300x4)+(2400x4)+(2500x1)=36.7K produced, @90% rate, 33K delivered?

So, total 89.2K delivered for 2016, would be my guess, being conservative with ramp up to 2500/wk by last week of 2016. Keep in mind, they only need to average 2800/week in 2017 to get to the 50% growth(135K delivered) YoY they projected. And that number includes any Model 3 delivered in 2017. At this run rate, Tesla will hit 200K units delivered in USA(49% allocation) to trigger the Fed Credit phase out within Q4/17. Since Tesla also stated that they will maximize the Fed Credit over Revenue, I suspect they'll try to deliver #200K in US as close to Oct/1/17 to maximize. And they will likely do this with some number of Model 3 deliveries starting in Sept/17 to narrow the trigger window to Beginning of Oct/17, considering Elon's desire to deliver 100K-200K Model 3 within 2017.

 

[eloder]

I did end up exiting my short/medium term positions at 224-ish today, lowering my exposure until after the Brexit vote. I'm comfortable losing out on some profit if a Remain is voted in, but I really do have qualms about lingering financial consequences from Brexit impacting macro (even if Tesla specific impact is negligible).

Surprisingly, the market did not skyrocket after my exit as it likes to do on occasion

Unfortunately I think the recent terror attack may be fresh in people's minds with the brexit vote, I imagine this will start to dominate macro sentiment on the basis of the uncertainty alone.

Are there any price points others are looking at for cost averaging if brexit and macro take a sharp negative turn for TSLA?

 

[dandurston]

I see a bit higher number than that...

Q1: 14.8K delivered. What was stated by Tesla: exiting Q1 run rate = >1600/wk, & >2000/wk as of "few weeks ago". So,
Q2: (1600x5wks)+(2000x7wks)=22K produced, and @ 85% rate(Guidance 20K produce/17K deliver), 18.7K delivered?
Q3: 2100x12 (non linear ramp up to 2500/wk) = 25.2K produced, @90% rate(pipeline already filled from Q2), 22.7K delivered?
Q4: (2200x7)+(2300x4)+(2400x4)+(2500x1)=36.7K produced, @90% rate, 33K delivered?

So, total 89.2K delivered for 2016, would be my guess

Well you've got 16 weeks in Q4 which seems unlikely

 

[CButterK]

Well you've got 16 weeks in Q4 which seems unlikely

Oops. Somehow copied over wrong calculation and went with it. will correct the original post shortly. Sorry.

Edit: can't edit original post. the Q3 numbers & Q4 numbers should be changed, but overall delivery prediction is still close to 90K units for me.

 

[MitchJi]

I did end up exiting my short/medium term positions at 224-ish today, lowering my exposure until after the Brexit vote. I'm comfortable losing out on some profit if a Remain is voted in, but I really do have qualms about lingering financial consequences from Brexit impacting macro (even if Tesla specific impact is negligible).

I've got a few short term options. Ideally I'd like to unload them long before the Brexit vote, by but If necessary I'm hoping for a boost from the IV just before the Brexit vote.

 

[techmaven]

It sounds like the limitations you mentioned are due the SC's, rather than the cells.

No, definitely it's the cells. But not sure why the 85's were more c-rate limited than the 60's.

 

[CALGARYARSENAL]

The fact Apple has lost its excitement factor is more important for Tesla than Brexit.

 

[Irishjugg]

The fact Apple has lost its excitement factor is more important for Tesla than Brexit.

I'm not sure that's correct. What's your thesis on this?

 

[CALGARYARSENAL]

Bought am dip at 219.50.

 

[CALGARYARSENAL]

I'm not sure that's correct. What's your thesis on this?

Brexit will end up a non event. Apple cash will flow to innovators.

 

[tanner]

Still unclear on why we keep going down. So frustrating.

 

[gene]

Still unclear on why we keep going down. So frustrating.

You'd think with the 2,000 per week news that we'd be up substantially.

 

[farzyness]

I think this set up is fantastic for Q2. This gives long a great opportunity to accumulate before the following:

- # of cars delivered in Q2 (reported before 7/5)
- Cash flow positive in Q2 (either reported during ER or at the same time as # of cars delivered)
- Model X NIHTSA safety results

 

[Curt Renz]

Still unclear on why we keep going down. So frustrating.

Tesla appears to have been pulled back by the macro-market that's been receding this morning. However, Tesla is holding up better than the market averages and much better than Ford, General Motors and especially Fiat Chrysler.

 

[tanner]

You'd think with the 2,000 per week news that we'd be up substantially.

What I've learned is that positive news almost never helps, whereas negative news kills SP

 

[tanner]

Tesla appears to have been pulled back by the macro-market that's been receding this morning. However, Tesla is holding up better than the market averages and much better than Ford, General Motors and especially Fiat Chrysler.

I just don't get it though, as Gene pointed out, 2k/week confirmed. That should be huge.