MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
That's a very elaborate hoax. Were they all Chinese scientists?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
That's a very elaborate hoax. Were they all Chinese scientists?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/30/cram...gineered-the-short-squeeze-of-a-lifetime.html
Hmm, wonder if it will have any effects on TSLA...
Hmm, wonder if it will have any effects on TSLA...
Did you mean 0.05 to 0.1 degrees? 1 degree seems like far to much of a change for a 1.5% change in CO2 production. As far as i have read in the news most models expect a maximum temp increase of 4-5 degrees from all global production - although I am certainly not an expert in the area.
But i agree, every little bit helps. I cant wait for the powerwall to reach full production as it is already cost effective for many Australians given our high cost of electricity. Regulations won't be the driving force when the economics work by themselves.
Gerardf
Active Member
Is that seriously the presentation Spiegel did ??
So.. This guy gets a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to present at a paid conference to an audience of successful investment professionals (who paid $7.500,-- to attend) about the subject he has been passionate to-an-unhealthy-degree on for the past 6 years..
And THAT is his presentation ?? It that from The Onion ?
For those who have not browsed through these slides yet, I will save you the time and possibly prevent you from sudden-death-by-boredom.
- Opening slide stating a well respected company is a zero.
- Referring to TSLA shareholders (must have been many in the room) as "Teslemmings" and "Teslarians"
- Making his point showing 152 (!) slides
- of which slide 8-46 showing website snapshots of other car makers
- Slide 49 - 63 showing website snapshots of other Battery makers
- Slide 66 - 106 showing website snapshots of other energy storage companies
- Slide 108- 125 showing website snapshots of other autonomous driving companies
- Slides 127 - 132 showing website snapshots of other EV charging initiatives
- Slides 133 - 136 : personal assumptions with no proof or even a reference
- Slides 137 - 149 : Yelling Elon Musk is a lying, misleading fraud.
- Building his case that Elon is a fraud by using Montana "anonymous-with-an-agenda" Skeptic and Paulo "GigaFactory-is-a Potemkin-Village" Santos as references to proof his point.
Slide 150 - 152 Finishing his presentation insulting SpaceX, a well respected and highly admired company that probably many in the room would be interested to invest in in an IPO. If only Elon would let them.
This is honestly by far the worst presentation I have EVER seen, and I have seen many, and given many.
I called Spiegel a clown in an early post.
I take that back, that was an undeserved insult, I apologize for that (to the clowns of course). Clowns are well respected professionals who know their public, do not repeat the same joke to the same public 130 times in one appearance.They give their audience a great time and do not try to bore their audience to death. Clowns are fun. Spiegel is.. no fun. He is simply sad.
If he communicated anything, it is that that the industry is confirming Elon's vision and that Tesla is out-innovating everybody and leading in several Trillion-$ industries.
Last edited:
RobStark
Well-Known Member
1) German auto manufactures are talking about one day building battery factories. VW Group CEO says it MAY be a good idea. Daimler Benz sold their itty bitty battery factory.
2) The German Car companies plus Ford have said they will build 400 stations in Europe for highway travel. WTF is Opel? They are the only "German" car company with an imminent vehicle capable of long distance travel and a member of CCS. Why not make a commitment to North America or Asia? Tesla has 755 stations world wide NOW. Almost double.
3) Mr Toyoda is leading 4 engineers in the newly created Toyota BEV Group.
What we have is compliance moves and TALK plus Press Releases.
I browsed through the so called presentation, well wow just wow, any 12 year old could do better, seriously. It is literally not possible to do a worse job than that. I would like to hear a firsthand opinion how he delivered the presentation and what the reaction of the audience was. To pay 7'500 USD and hear such a thing ?
It's like 'Watch out iPhone all those android phones are coming for ya!' news back in 2008.
All Your Bases
Member
The premise of the Spiegel presentation is easily refuted.
By somewhere 2017/2018 Tesla will own 30-50% of automotive cell/battery production. The Tesla cells will be better and have lower cost then the competition. This lead can be sustained for several years with Gigafactory 2, 3 ...
This implies that Tesla growth cannot be hurt by competing BEV's, no matter how many different models are thrown into the market.
The "eye" on the ball is not BEV competion, - it is taking chunks of market share from the very popular car segment of mid range luxury ICE cars, with model 3 and Y.
And this will hurt.
By somewhere 2017/2018 Tesla will own 30-50% of automotive cell/battery production. The Tesla cells will be better and have lower cost then the competition. This lead can be sustained for several years with Gigafactory 2, 3 ...
This implies that Tesla growth cannot be hurt by competing BEV's, no matter how many different models are thrown into the market.
The "eye" on the ball is not BEV competion, - it is taking chunks of market share from the very popular car segment of mid range luxury ICE cars, with model 3 and Y.
And this will hurt.
Gerardf
Active Member
He refers to that download on tilsonfunds.com in his tweets, so these are indeed the slides.
And he also has a video :
Don't think he will make it available to us, so we will miss out on his joke. (or maybe we didn't
)Its amusing that the CEO of Daimler Benz is wearing jeans and sneakers to look cool
And hip when presenting their electric car.
To overcome their uncool cars, they now wear jeans .
They are seriously threatened .
And hip when presenting their electric car.
To overcome their uncool cars, they now wear jeans .
They are seriously threatened .
LOL - it probably took 3 fashion consultants and board of directors approval to arrive at that outfit.
Well, the supply of Co is a pretty serious concern, much worse than Li. I doubt Mr Peterson has any large amounts lying about?
Wonder if it would be feasible to extract Co from the oceans? Over 40 years ago i heard about harvesting Mn "nodules" from the ocean floor, and practically every element is present in sea water. That would be a more peaceful alternative.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Trump once also signed such a letter: Trump asked for 'meaningful' climate change policy in 2009
Also:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Tesla Motors, Inc.'s Small Misses on Big Targets Set the Stage for Huge Growth -- The Motley Fool
Tesla Motors, Inc.'s Small Misses on Big Targets Set the Stage for Huge Growth
Here's why Tesla's vehicle production growth is faring better than you may think.
Daniel Sparks
Nov 30, 2016 at 6:31PM
One of the biggest criticisms against electric-car maker Tesla Motors' is the company's tendency to miss delivery targets. While the automaker is undoubtedly growing rapidly, Tesla has missed its initial guidance for vehicle deliveries for two years in a row -- and there's a chance Tesla could end up underperforming its initial annual target again this year.
However, considering just how ambitious Tesla's annual targets are, the automaker's ability to ramp up production isn't necessarily a weakness. This has been particularly evident recently, as Tesla is very close to hitting its initial 2016 delivery target, which represented management's most ambitious growth objective yet.
Missing targets
"[W]e plan to deliver 80,000 to 90,000 new Model S and Model X vehicles in 2016," Tesla said in its 2015 fourth-quarter shareholder letter. The target was aggressive; in 2015, Tesla delivered about 50,700 vehicles. Even the low end of this guidance, then, would require about a 58% jump in deliveries.
But Tesla lowered its full-year guidance after a slower-than-expected initial production ramp of its Model X SUV weighed on delivery growth in the company's first and second quarters. In a July 3 press release detailing the company's second-quarter deliveries, Tesla said it now expected full-year deliveries to be closer to 79,000.
Management similarly decided to reduce full-year guidance for vehicle deliveries in both 2014 and 2015.
In 2014, Tesla initially set out to deliver 35,000 vehicles. But worse-than-expected production growth led management to reduce guidance to "approximately 33,000" units in the third quarter of 2014. And actual deliveries for 2014 ended up at about 32,000.
In 2015, Tesla first targeted "approximately" 55,000 vehicles. But a delayed Model X launch prompted management to reduce guidance to 50,000 to 52,000 vehicles. By the end of the year, Tesla had delivered close to 51,000 vehicles.
These missed targets may have some investors growing wary of the company's guidance.
A weakness or a strength?
Given Tesla's reoccurring theme of falling short of annual guidance in recent years, it's easy to conclude that the company's outlook for vehicle deliveries can't be trusted. But some context shows why investors may want to overlook this apparent fault.
First, investors should realize that Tesla's misses were on big targets. A zoomed-out view of Tesla's production reveals staggering growth, making missed annual targets appear less pertinent to a criticism of the company's growth story. In 2013, Tesla delivered just over 20,000 vehicles. Today, Tesla is delivering vehicles at an annualized run rate of about 100,000 units.
Further, total deliveries in 2013, 2014, and 2015 are only about 5% lower than the total of each year's initial guidance during this period -- not bad for a company growing this fast.
Second, despite a slower-than-expected initial production ramp-up of its Model X during 2016, there's still a reasonable chance Tesla could meet its initial guidance range for the year. In order for full-year deliveries to come in at the bottom of Tesla's initial guidance range, fourth-quarter deliveries would only need to be about 5% higher than management's guidance for the quarter.
Viewing Tesla's impressive ramp in vehicle deliveries between 2013 and 2016, and considering Tesla has only slightly underachieved its own initial annual expectations during this timeframe, the company's ability to grow production and deliveries is probably better defined as a strength than a weakness.
Of course, if Tesla's fourth-quarter deliveries somehow come in lower than expected, this optimistic view of the electric car maker's ability to ramp up production may be worth revisiting.
Tesla's ability to increase production and deliveries today is more critical than ever as the company prepares to bring its much higher volume Model 3 to market next year. With the help of Model 3, Tesla is planning to increase annual production from an estimated 80,000 vehicles this year to 500,000 in 2018.
Tesla Motors, Inc.'s Small Misses on Big Targets Set the Stage for Huge Growth
Here's why Tesla's vehicle production growth is faring better than you may think.
Daniel Sparks
Nov 30, 2016 at 6:31PM
One of the biggest criticisms against electric-car maker Tesla Motors' is the company's tendency to miss delivery targets. While the automaker is undoubtedly growing rapidly, Tesla has missed its initial guidance for vehicle deliveries for two years in a row -- and there's a chance Tesla could end up underperforming its initial annual target again this year.
However, considering just how ambitious Tesla's annual targets are, the automaker's ability to ramp up production isn't necessarily a weakness. This has been particularly evident recently, as Tesla is very close to hitting its initial 2016 delivery target, which represented management's most ambitious growth objective yet.
Missing targets
"[W]e plan to deliver 80,000 to 90,000 new Model S and Model X vehicles in 2016," Tesla said in its 2015 fourth-quarter shareholder letter. The target was aggressive; in 2015, Tesla delivered about 50,700 vehicles. Even the low end of this guidance, then, would require about a 58% jump in deliveries.
But Tesla lowered its full-year guidance after a slower-than-expected initial production ramp of its Model X SUV weighed on delivery growth in the company's first and second quarters. In a July 3 press release detailing the company's second-quarter deliveries, Tesla said it now expected full-year deliveries to be closer to 79,000.
Management similarly decided to reduce full-year guidance for vehicle deliveries in both 2014 and 2015.
In 2014, Tesla initially set out to deliver 35,000 vehicles. But worse-than-expected production growth led management to reduce guidance to "approximately 33,000" units in the third quarter of 2014. And actual deliveries for 2014 ended up at about 32,000.
In 2015, Tesla first targeted "approximately" 55,000 vehicles. But a delayed Model X launch prompted management to reduce guidance to 50,000 to 52,000 vehicles. By the end of the year, Tesla had delivered close to 51,000 vehicles.
These missed targets may have some investors growing wary of the company's guidance.
A weakness or a strength?
Given Tesla's reoccurring theme of falling short of annual guidance in recent years, it's easy to conclude that the company's outlook for vehicle deliveries can't be trusted. But some context shows why investors may want to overlook this apparent fault.
First, investors should realize that Tesla's misses were on big targets. A zoomed-out view of Tesla's production reveals staggering growth, making missed annual targets appear less pertinent to a criticism of the company's growth story. In 2013, Tesla delivered just over 20,000 vehicles. Today, Tesla is delivering vehicles at an annualized run rate of about 100,000 units.
Further, total deliveries in 2013, 2014, and 2015 are only about 5% lower than the total of each year's initial guidance during this period -- not bad for a company growing this fast.
Second, despite a slower-than-expected initial production ramp-up of its Model X during 2016, there's still a reasonable chance Tesla could meet its initial guidance range for the year. In order for full-year deliveries to come in at the bottom of Tesla's initial guidance range, fourth-quarter deliveries would only need to be about 5% higher than management's guidance for the quarter.
Viewing Tesla's impressive ramp in vehicle deliveries between 2013 and 2016, and considering Tesla has only slightly underachieved its own initial annual expectations during this timeframe, the company's ability to grow production and deliveries is probably better defined as a strength than a weakness.
Of course, if Tesla's fourth-quarter deliveries somehow come in lower than expected, this optimistic view of the electric car maker's ability to ramp up production may be worth revisiting.
Tesla's ability to increase production and deliveries today is more critical than ever as the company prepares to bring its much higher volume Model 3 to market next year. With the help of Model 3, Tesla is planning to increase annual production from an estimated 80,000 vehicles this year to 500,000 in 2018.
Driver Dave
Member
It may happen by default as Tesla is making a superior product and becoming a superior brand with a system (drive and charge) that just works together seamlessly.
I view Tesla as having a very good chance of becoming the iPhone of cars. Maybe not majority share, but majority profits. Apple.
With the rest of the car companies becoming Android. Maybe the majority, but lower end, fighting for profits. Samsung. Google.
With definitely 1 or 2 of them, hanging on to the flip phones of cars (ICE) too long, and being bought, or fading away. Nokia, Blackberry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
