Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[FluxCap]

Vlad -- I think you might be on to something with the share recalls, but I would certainly not bank on it. I'm long some slightly OTM, medium term calls for partly technical (TA) reasons, and partly because my personal FUD-meter was screaming buy. When everyone is poems and high-fives around here, that's when I think about selling.

I don't know why this thread has become a discussion of the merits of a hypothetical, low-volume GM econobox based on one GM press release, but then I don't really know what this thread is for anymore, so I suppose I'll just share my visceral opinion of the Bolt, too:

The Bolt is not an attempt to transition General Motors to electric car manufacturing. It is a compromise car meant as a PR stunt, a ZEV credit diversion, and/or to harm Tesla. It will reduce, not increase, public acceptance of EV's and once again disprove the viability of BEV's by making a $15k unsafe, uncomfortable, inconvenient Chevy Sonic into a $35k PR stunt with some crappy, expensive battery tech and bizarre touch-screen nonsense bolted on, with mostly outsourced software and hardware design that cannot be fixed with an OTA update.

GM is still actively spending millions lobbying against EV's at the Federal and State level. They are literally walking the halls of the US Department of Transportation working to harm Tesla, because Tesla remains an existential threat to their business. This is not a company that *wants* to make EV's. They are doing it because it benefits them to *appear* committed while simultaneously damaging the case for EV's and harming a direct threat disruptor, Tesla.

I respect DaveT and others who disagree with me on this, but I'm of a mindset that the Bolt is 50% intentionally crappy, and 50% "Detroit is too embarassed to admit it's the best they can do without firing thousands of union ICE plant workers and pissing off loan shark / service scam dealerships." Until I see battery factory investment in the billions, Level 3 charging infrastructure, and an actual commitment to stop making vastly inferior ICE engines, it's just a diversion.

Now, the Germans? I think they get it, and are methodically and deliberately taking their time to eventually turn their giant companies into solid BEV makers. They see what's coming, and they know Tesla isn't going anywhere regardless of the SCTY deal or rockets blowing up or anything else: 400,000 people (and climbing) are SO DESPERATE for a product they have never seen they handed the company a grand to get in line. Why? Because Elon, JB and the entire team working at Tesla have earned their trust and proven they can shake the pillars of industry and make the best automobile ever made in the Model S. And it is that.

The best car. Ever. Period.

Don't forget that, people.

Your fellow Model 3 reservation holders haven't, and when we are all swooshing around in our Model 3's, the whole world will understand.

Until then, morons like Chanos can push the stock around, and it's a dicey game to play short-term. But every time the stock has dropped below $200, people with patience to wait until Model 3 production go bargain shopping, and up it climbs again. Whether you think this time will be different is your personal call.

 

[neroden]

I have no special insight into this. The tweet from your source made me do a double-take because I too had noticed that the 3mm shares supposedly recalled today was roughly equivalent to today's total trading volume! It really sounds too good to be true, but assuming the source is reliable and our collective understanding of recall dynamics is accurate, shorts are in for a world of doo-doo this week.

Unfortunately, maybe this means *all* the buying pressure is from short-sellers covering their position (maybe that's 3 million of the shares purchased today) and all the longs are completely tapped out. Just to play devil's advocate.

 

[neroden]

Well we just know that there were 3mm shares recalled today. It is very likely that there were also sizable chunks of shares recalled last Friday and yesterday, so pressure got to be pretty high already. Volume since last Wednesday was pretty stable at about 3.5mm shares per day. If I would be asked to guess, majority of recalled shorts did not cover yet. If this is true, we should see significant SP move in the second half of the week. Do not forget that 100.5mm shares are held by Institutions, 31mm - by Elon. This pretty much eliminates about 132mm shares form the pool of shares available for covering the recalled short positions. I am not an expert, but this set up into the second half of the week looks pretty ominous.

Well, GS has been selling, so that's one institution who might provide shares. But anyway, your thesis still makes sense... the thing is, this will mean failures-to-deliver on Friday or Monday, which is gonna be obnoxious for everyone.

 

[Papafox]

Will the merger of tesla and solar city then provide further immense downward pressure on the SP prior to the q3 result release ? If this is so we've got another negative pressure and the end result taking into the eventual upward pressure prior to q3 may not be so favorable
Would hope that in view of the extremely low RSI and large short percentage any eventual short squeeze unleash would be pronounced enough to negate all the current losses to take the SP up beyond the 220s

Here's a tentative timetable:
Oct 1-3 (maybe a day or two later because of weekend): Tesla announces Q3 deliveries
Early Nov: Tesla holds 3Q ER

Since the mailing of ballots can't begin until some time after the record date of week beginning Sept 19, and several weeks need to be given for the ballots to reach shareholders and be returned, we can safely assume that by the time the vote results are known, the 3Q delivery numbers will have been known for a while. Thus, you should see a rise in the stock price (SP) as October nears and you should see further rise in the SP if the results of deliveries significantly beat expectations. As noted days ago, when Tesla achieved profitability in 2013, it said so well before the quarterly earnings report, and so we could possibly see very substantial appreciation of SP prior to the release of results on the merger vote.

Once recalled shares are made available again for short-selling, can we expect to see a drop in the SP? It depends upon whether there are not enough shares to short at that moment to satisfy demand for short shares. If we see brokerages such as Fidelity sitting on hundreds of thousands of shares available for shorting, making more available won't change the stock trading one bit. On the other hand, if we see zero shares available to short at the time new shares can be released for shorting, you can pretty much bet that demand for short shares will have a negative effect upon the SP. Demand for short shares is affected by expectations of whether TSLA is going to go up or down, and if Tesla bats one out of the ballpark in Q3, don't expect the shorts to be piling on.Bottom line: keep an eye on availability of short shares, because this tells us something important about demand for short shares and ultimately about whether the availability of more shares to short will change the equation and affect the SP.

 

[techmaven]

Moving the focus out a bit from Bolt vs. Model III, this is an excellent analysis of Samsung/GM pouch battery tech vs. Panasonic/Tesla cell tech....Sam Korus from ARK Invest has some thoughtful Tesla pieces dating back a few years, including a projection of 1.0 million Tesla's sold in 2020 before Elon moved up the goal of 500k to 2018. He may have been the impetus for Bloomberg New Energy to work on the 2022/2023 peak oil piece.

Battery System Showdown: Is Tesla about to be overpowered?

The problem with deconstruction this article isn't so much individual facts, but a slew of incorrect approaches and missing parts that just lead... no where.

Let's see.. first, it wasn't possible to build the Model S in 2012 with the pouch cells available at the time. The specific energy was the primary issue, not the cost. The cost issues also didn't help, but it would have been difficult to deal with thermal runaway on NCA chemistry in a pouch format (it isn't usually available in that format) for an vehicle. The chemistries deemed safe enough for pouch format cells had too little specific energy to make a long distance BEV. The weight would have been around 2,000 pounds for the pack instead of 1,200. Much like why the BYD e6 with LiFePO4 chemistry is a non-starter outside of China and a few fleet sales.

Then the whole cost curve thing, which the article sources the GM announced cell pricing. It was probably also implicitly referencing various "battery experts" that have been wrong over and over again since 2009. There is likely no firm first principles reason why the pouch format is cheaper than the cylindrical format, and certainly not in highly automated manufacturing at large scale. Again, based on the ex-Chevy Volt chief engineer's estimate that $145/kWh cell price translates to a $210/kWh pack price, and then a rep from Tesla stating that Tesla's current pack price is under $190/kWh, the premise that pouch prices will be cheaper than cylindrical in 2017 is completely wrong. Plus, that is before the Gigafactory comes online, which is supposed to drop prices further.

The article goes back and erroneously talks about the specific energy advantage of cylindrical cells. That's nonsense. The format is not the issue. It's the cell chemistry and cell construction that brings about the specific energy advantage. The format is only an issue in that the relatively highly volatile NCA chemistry that Tesla is using causes pack level thermal runaway and overall thermal design issues for pouch and prismatic cells. Plus, the cost has been and continues to be higher with pouch and prismatic cells.

I'm not sure I even want to unpack the mess of the next paragraph that talks about battery system efficiency. Maybe the author was talking about power electronics. That's not actually part of the battery pack, or battery system. It's part of the powertrain, sure. No reference to the Idaho National Labs data that has actual powertrain and battery pack efficiency metrics.

I feel like the woman in that commercial that states, "that's not how it works... that's not how any of this works!"

 

[Novice]

Here's a tentative timetable:
Oct 1-3 (maybe a day or two later because of weekend): Tesla announces Q3 deliveries
Early Nov: Tesla holds 3Q ER

Since the mailing of ballots can't begin until some time after the record date of week beginning Sept 19, and several weeks need to be given for the ballots to reach shareholders and be returned, we can safely assume that by the time the vote results are known, the 3Q delivery numbers will have been known for a while. Thus, you should see a rise in the stock price (SP) as October nears and you should see further rise in the SP if the results of deliveries significantly beat expectations. As noted days ago, when Tesla achieved profitability in 2013, it said so well before the quarterly earnings report, and so we could possibly see very substantial appreciation of SP prior to the release of results on the merger vote.

Once recalled shares are made available again for short-selling, can we expect to see a drop in the SP? It depends upon whether there are not enough shares to short at that moment to satisfy demand for short shares. If we see brokerages such as Fidelity sitting on hundreds of thousands of shares available for shorting, making more available won't change the stock trading one bit. On the other hand, if we see zero shares available to short at the time new shares can be released for shorting, you can pretty much bet that demand for short shares will have a negative effect upon the SP. Demand for short shares is affected by expectations of whether TSLA is going to go up or down, and if Tesla bats one out of the ballpark in Q3, don't expect the shorts to be piling on.Bottom line: keep an eye on availability of short shares, because this tells us something important about demand for short shares and ultimately about whether the availability of more shares to short will change the equation and affect the SP.

Thank you for the detailed analysis. Will keep a close lookout in the days to come and your analysis as well. Much appreciated.

 

[davecolene0606]

The problem with deconstruction this article isn't so much individual facts, but a slew of incorrect approaches and missing parts that just lead... no where.

Let's see.. first, it wasn't possible to build the Model S in 2012 with the pouch cells available at the time. The specific energy was the primary issue, not the cost. The cost issues also didn't help, but it would have been difficult to deal with thermal runaway on NCA chemistry in a pouch format (it isn't usually available in that format) for an vehicle. The chemistries deemed safe enough for pouch format cells had too little specific energy to make a long distance BEV. The weight would have been around 2,000 pounds for the pack instead of 1,200. Much like why the BYD e6 with LiFePO4 chemistry is a non-starter outside of China and a few fleet sales.

Then the whole cost curve thing, which the article sources the GM announced cell pricing. It was probably also implicitly referencing various "battery experts" that have been wrong over and over again since 2009. There is likely no firm first principles reason why the pouch format is cheaper than the cylindrical format, and certainly not in highly automated manufacturing at large scale. Again, based on the ex-Chevy Volt chief engineer's estimate that $145/kWh cell price translates to a $210/kWh pack price, and then a rep from Tesla stating that Tesla's current pack price is under $190/kWh, the premise that pouch prices will be cheaper than cylindrical in 2017 is completely wrong. Plus, that is before the Gigafactory comes online, which is supposed to drop prices further.

The article goes back and erroneously talks about the specific energy advantage of cylindrical cells. That's nonsense. The format is not the issue. It's the cell chemistry and cell construction that brings about the specific energy advantage. The format is only an issue in that the relatively highly volatile NCA chemistry that Tesla is using causes pack level thermal runaway and overall thermal design issues for pouch and prismatic cells. Plus, the cost has been and continues to be higher with pouch and prismatic cells.

I'm not sure I even want to unpack the mess of the next paragraph that talks about battery system efficiency. Maybe the author was talking about power electronics. That's not actually part of the battery pack, or battery system. It's part of the powertrain, sure. No reference to the Idaho National Labs data that has actual powertrain and battery pack efficiency metrics.

I feel like the woman in that commercial that states, "that's not how it works... that's not how any of this works!"

You Sir, are spot on here. When.. Have we seen the big 3 make wise long term decisions? I recollect the last time there was a dip in fuel costs they all dumped efficiency for SUVS and "light trucks", got killed went bankrupt (yea not Ford,but close) got bailed out and bang, doing the same song and dance whilst doing a smoke and mirrors routine using LG chem tech (EV1 was aerovironment) in an uninspiring package in small numbers. Not takin the bait!

 

[techmaven]

If you go look at non-EV sites, like Jalopnik or Arstechnica or other places, people are still struggling with the basic idea of driving electric. It's quite sad actually - the education effort is just beginning. That's one of the reasons I show my car at Cars and Coffee to run across people that otherwise wouldn't run across an electric car.

The Bolt will make more people understand driving electric. That's a win.

To the Tesla bears who think the Bolt is some sort of Tesla killer (or more accurately, hope that it is), the issue is that GM has ordered up something like 25k to 30k in the initial production year and likely somewhere around 50k is the limit (3 GWh) where they would be taking up almost 50% of all of LG Chem's cell supply. I suspect GM wants to see the reception of the Bolt, some serious sales numbers before deciding on the next major step in increasing production.

As a result, by the end of 2017, it might actually be that the Model 3 has more sales than the Bolt, even if serious production on the Model 3 isn't until October. And to those that think that Tesla will delay the Model 3 somehow, and that it would be a bad thing for Tesla, think of this:

The Gigafactory is expected to have first cell production in 2016. If they ramp from 0 to 100,000 Model 3 capacity for the year, using a 60 kWh capacity estimate for the average mix of battery pack size, then they are planning on making at least 6 GWh of cells. If they know the Model 3 isn't shipping in 2017, that's 6 GWh of cells that they would order up as stationary storage. Given that their pack costs using Panasonic's cells from Osaka is under $190/kWh, and that they are selling stationary storage at over $400/kWh, that's a lot of gross margin on 6,000,000 kWh. That's $600 million in gross profit if they only charge about $275/kWh. I submit that they might be far more profitable if they ship only stationary storage in 2017 than shipping the Model 3. Of course, I expect that they will be trying to ramp that first phase of the Gigafactory to 20 GWh, not merely 6.

Further, they're spending $1.26 billion equipment for the Fremont factory:

Tesla applied for a $106 million tax break on $1.26 billion expansion of Fremont Factory for the Model 3

They are not going to be able to be late with the Model 3, and late being making a significant quantity in 2017. Sure, initial production validation units probably won't make the July 2017 date, so the October is likely for initial production. They cannot be all that late with the Model 3 given the capex spend and other parts and pieces getting put in place. The Model X is not instructive because they could just ship more Model S in the meantime. The 3 is a different animal as far as that is concerned.

 

[neroden]

B) Not a lot buyers for 2017 and 2018 electric cars that don't live anywhere near a SC.\

The SC network is for improved long distance traveling. That is a definite benefit for Tesla that GM and others lack but not sure why people are concerned about buyers being near a SC.

Acronyms are dangerous. "SERVICE CENTER", not "SUPERCHARGER". People who don't live near a service center will be deterred from buying a Model 3. This is proven fact.

 

[BobSk]

Vlad -- I think you might be on to something with the share recalls, but I would certainly not bank on it. I'm long some slightly OTM, medium term calls for partly technical (TA) reasons, and partly because my personal FUD-meter was screaming buy. When everyone is poems and high-fives around here, that's when I think about selling.

I don't know why this thread has become a discussion of the merits of a hypothetical, low-volume GM econobox based on one GM press release, but then I don't really know what this thread is for anymore, so I suppose I'll just share my visceral opinion of the Bolt, too:

The Bolt is not an attempt to transition General Motors to electric car manufacturing. It is a compromise car meant as a PR stunt, a ZEV credit diversion, and/or to harm Tesla. It will reduce, not increase, public acceptance of EV's and once again disprove the viability of BEV's by making a $15k unsafe, uncomfortable, inconvenient Chevy Sonic into a $35k PR stunt with some crappy, expensive battery tech and bizarre touch-screen nonsense bolted on, with mostly outsourced software and hardware design that cannot be fixed with an OTA update.

GM is still actively spending millions lobbying against EV's at the Federal and State level. They are literally walking the halls of the US Department of Transportation working to harm Tesla, because Tesla remains an existential threat to their business. This is not a company that *wants* to make EV's. They are doing it because it benefits them to *appear* committed while simultaneously damaging the case for EV's and harming a direct threat disruptor, Tesla.

I respect DaveT and others who disagree with me on this, but I'm of a mindset that the Bolt is 50% intentionally crappy, and 50% "Detroit is too embarassed to admit it's the best they can do without firing thousands of union ICE plant workers and pissing off loan shark / service scam dealerships." Until I see battery factory investment in the billions, Level 3 charging infrastructure, and an actual commitment to stop making vastly inferior ICE engines, it's just a diversion.

Now, the Germans? I think they get it, and are methodically and deliberately taking their time to eventually turn their giant companies into solid BEV makers. They see what's coming, and they know Tesla isn't going anywhere regardless of the SCTY deal or rockets blowing up or anything else: 400,000 people (and climbing) are SO DESPERATE for a product they have never seen they handed the company a grand to get in line. Why? Because Elon, JB and the entire team working at Tesla have earned their trust and proven they can shake the pillars of industry and make the best automobile ever made in the Model S. And it is that.

The best car. Ever. Period.

Don't forget that, people.

Your fellow Model 3 reservation holders haven't, and when we are all swooshing around in our Model 3's, the whole world will understand.

Until then, morons like Chanos can push the stock around, and it's a dicey game to play short-term. But every time the stock has dropped below $200, people with patience to wait until Model 3 production go bargain shopping, and up it climbs again. Whether you think this time will be different is your personal call.

Wow, you said exactly what I wanted to say. I keep adding shares, no margin. I will see what Chanos can do about it.

 

[roblab]

1)

3) Tesla's are not for everyone; for example, I would not recommend one for my mom. Lots of people A)like GM as a brand B) Do not live near a SC C) Would only buy a car after test driving.
4) Most Bolts will likely be second or third cars.

 

[sdtslafan]

Can anyone help me to understand where Chanos gets that SCTY + TSLA will burn 1B per quarter and that TSLA will go bankrupt?

Of course, I don't really believe, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

 

[vgrinshpun]

GM is still actively spending millions lobbying against EV's at the Federal and State level. They are literally walking the halls of the US Department of Transportation working to harm Tesla, because Tesla remains an existential threat to their business. This is not a company that *wants* to make EV's. They are doing it because it benefits them to *appear* committed while simultaneously damaging the case for EV's and harming a direct threat disruptor, Tesla.

Wait!
Just wait...

I heard that they are ... on the same team?

 

[roblab]

1)

3) Tesla's are not for everyone; for example, I would not recommend one for my mom. Lots of people A)like GM as a brand B) Do not live near a SC C) Would only buy a car after test driving.

?? Why would you need to live near a supercharger?? They are for long distance travel. When on a trip, they are where you need them. The one I use is 230 miles from my home. I charge in my garage. I can charge in my neighbor's garage. I can also charge at RV parks, at stores, at motels. People charge at work, at airports, and yes, at superchargers, but 120+ kWh superchargers are not a necessity. No other electric (ie. GM) uses them! Before superchargers, I took a 5000 mile trip to Canada, and found that there is basically electricity, everywhere.

 

[bhuwan]

?? Why would you need to live near a supercharger?? They are for long distance travel. When on a trip, they are where you need them. The one I use is 230 miles from my home. I charge in my garage. I can charge in my neighbor's garage. I can also charge at RV parks, at stores, at motels. People charge at work, at airports, and yes, at superchargers, but 120+ kWh superchargers are not a necessity. No other electric (ie. GM) uses them! Before superchargers, I took a 5000 mile trip to Canada, and found that there is basically electricity, everywhere.

Service Center = SC

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

Don't get too excited. It might be a while before electric car can outrun a fast ICE one on anything much longer than a quarter mile run. There's a reason Tesla isn't claiming any Ring lap records or even close to that. Not that it matters for most buyers.

Well, BMW M4 isn't capable of running around racetrack either (anymore). Too much power, too much weight, too little brakes. It's like retired football player that never slow down eating, and added 80 lb. There's still a lot of muscle, but lots of fat too.
Not that it matters, perception sells.

 

[madodel]

Acronyms are dangerous. "SERVICE CENTER", not "SUPERCHARGER". People who don't live near a service center will be deterred from buying a Model 3. This is proven fact.

OK that I understand. I don't have a Service Center near me but wish I did. Closest is 70 miles away in NJ. Hopefully they build one closer, since there is a Maserati dealer about a 40 minutes away so if they build one they will sell more for sure, but PA is one of those corrupt states with legal limits on what Tesla can do so not sure how many Service Centers they can have despite it being a large area state. Currently in all of PA there is one Service Center.

 

[dalalsid]

The Idea that the Bolt is a EV Sonic and a 15G car is ridiculous.

The Bolt is the same size, shape and platform as the Buick Encore that sells for between 24 and 33 G's. GM moved 70 thousand of those in the US and 160,000 globally last year. The Bolt has more room than the Encore, goes 0-60 in almost half the time, has some tech the Encore lacks, and doesn't use gas.
At least from the photos and prototype, the Bolt seems much closer quality wise to the Encore and from first drives show it being way more fun to drive.

The Porsche Cayenne Turbo shares the basic same platform as a VW Touareg; Is the Cayenne just a $40G car with a turbo?

The Porsche badge on it is worth something as is the buick badge. Maybe the bolt should have been a Cadillac or buick instead to be priced as such.

 

[SteveG3]

with all the discussion of the Bolt, and competition, I just want to repost something from 6/3/2014 after Elon first suggested Tesla would release all of their patents. there's a thing or two I see modestly differently today, but the fundamental point is as probable to me today as it was in 2014:

"Since about the Detroit Auto Show I've had some confidence that Tesla is approaching what you might call "escape velocity" in terms of competition from other automakers. By this I mean, if they execute Gen III as they've described, it will simply be a better value proposition than an ICE vehicle for about half the automarket (~$25K vehicles and up), and in a handful of years will be a better value proposition for basically all price points. At that point it is not about Tesla quality vehicles from Tesla and any other EV entrants competing with each other, but rather, Tesla and anyone else making such high quality EVS, together accelerating the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs.

Think about the old joke, "How fast do you need to be if a bear shows up while you are camping in the woods? Faster than at least one of your friends." Our friends are all the ICE cars, once EVs are plainly a better value proposition than ICE vehicles, Tesla only has to run faster than the competition from ICE vehicles. How long will our slowest friend be an ICE? Decades...

As Elon mentioned today, there will be a 100 million vehicle global automarket in 2020. We know based on current lithium ion Gigafactory cost projections that would mean $1 trillion in battery investment to turn all production from ICE to EVs. At it's best, perhaps Tesla could get production up to 3 million vehicles in the early-mid 2020s. If half the market would choose an EV if available, what do we as Tesla shareholders have to lose if Elon opens the patents up? Toyota has about $40 billion in cash. All the global automakers have maybe 20% of the trillion needed to build infrastructure to convert to EVs. If it's battery technology it will take decades to build the infrastructure for it. It's possible there's some alternative technology that would only take a very small fraction of that trillion dollars to build manufacturing infrastructure for... but I don't know of such a technology, let alone one within a decade of reaching the market. Any infrastructure that will on the scale of a trillion dollars to build up, or $300 billion for that matter, will take decades to be installed.

Elon may have decided the issue is not a risk of other automakers taking sales from Tesla, but rather how does he finally convince the other automakers to produce compelling EVs. If the world is ready for 40 million EVs of Tesla quality in 2020, his worry is getting the other guys to build Gigafactories, not whether Tesla will sell all of it's 1-5 million into 40 million in demand.

Perhaps this idea is not airtight, but it may be the case that once Elon successfully pilots Tesla to a mass market car obviously better than ICE, he can in good faith serve his fiduciary responsibility to us shareholders, and allow very cheap, even free access to the battery IP to serve the mission he's repeatedly stated, accelerating the advent of sustainable transportation."

2014 Annual Shareholders Meeting

 

[vgrinshpun]

Deep into the last part of the Electrek's transcript of the Autopilot call (kudos to @FredLambert) there was an exchange that highlights one more time just how far ahead in Autopilot technology Tesla is:

Jordan Golson -The Verge

And then one last question: How long as this sort of radar primary thing has been in development? Is that something you have been doing in the past couple months since the fatal accident or is this been the primary thing all along?

Elon Musk – Tesla CEO

It’s something that I wanted to do for a while. Probably since late last year, but I was always told that it wasn’t possible, you can’t do it, it’s not gonna work, nobody else has made it work, software is too hard, sensor is not good enough, but I really pushed hard on questioning all those assumptions last 3 or 4 months. Like there got to be a way to make this work and now we believe that there is.

It’s a very hard problem. No one else can solve this. And (no) one could without having all their cars connected and fleet learning. It’s not possible.

EDIT: Try doing this using outsourcing, or partnerships, like others are trying...
NOT going to work. Meanwhile, the fleet learning IMO is an exponential improvement thing: enter it one year later than a competitor (read Tesla) and you might NEVER be able to catch up.