Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

No way tesla will miss 80K target

They already built 80K cars by the end of Nov
 
  • Like
Reactions: madodel and EnzoXYZ
Here is Spiegel's presentation. No longer worried. He had nothing new in there. I thought his presentation would be way better than this based on Tilson's comments yesterday http://www.tilsonfunds.com/TSLA-Spiegel-RH16.pdf
Thank you, Calgary Arsenal. I'm continuing to draw parallels with the tactics Mark Spiegel is using here, and the tactics being used by the Public Utilities (or the Big Oil companies) in their war against renewables. What Mark does in his presentation follows the same template.

1. Cast doubt on the technology - Windpower kills birds! Solar panels do not create local jobs. Long term reliability non-existent
2. Question the Integrity of the person/group - in some cases, intimidation tactics (see NatGeo - Years of Living Dangerously, Before the Flood)
3. Destabilize the viability of the company by portraying as a money loser - e.g., Solyndra scare, reliance on subsidies, repeat the mantra ad infinitum
4. Stick to the Status quo - they've been with you all this time, don't turn your back on them, they'll get you there too, er...somehow.
5. Fund the naysayers, spread the message deep into the heart of influential listeners - lobbyists, conferences, CNBC appearances, Social Media
6. Minimal to No contribution to the Public Good - Climate change is a hoax, Destroys existing jobs
 
That's a very elaborate hoax. Were they all Chinese scientists?
Most of the emoticons say that this post was funny. I hope it was tongue-in-cheek, but am honestly not sure. Anyway, the letter is real, and the scientists are not (mostly) Chinese.
Edit: apologies, it took me a while to get the actual joke.
 
Last edited:
Unlikely, in my opinion. Spiegel and his a few million dollars "hedge fund" (possibly mainly his own and relatives'/friends' money) have long been short Tesla. He began providing negative comments about Tesla at Seeking Alpha on the day of Tesla's IPO in 2010. For years he has been relentlessly tweeting against Tesla and Elon. It appears to be a huge obsession for him. Since he's short Tesla shares, perhaps greatly so, it may be understandable that he seeks to find outlets where his voice can be amplified. He's been good at that. Apparently some in the news media and those organizing conferences simply assume that his hedge fund credential carries some weight.
Possible. But he may have found/convinced an influential group/individual with deep pockets later on? As they say, birds of the same feather....

I've only followed TSLA recently so do not know the FUDster's history. Has Mark always been prominent in CNBC since 2010 or only lately? I read in previous discussion that it takes a substantial amount of money to be featured there. Also, the RobinHood conference does have varying prices of admission. Does the ratio of his AUM to the price of admission justify this expense for him?
 
Te MS: His filing suggest $4.8M and 18 investors. I don't know the truth of that. Can any one trigger an audit?
I'm more than a tiny bit perplexed/surprised
3-4 yrs back or so, trading comments with Logical Thought/Mark Spiegal on SA, he told me/implied I needed to be an "accredited investor" to be ' 'invited to join' and somehow the figure $5 million was tossed about :( , then it was $1 million :) (minimum) yeah!! (reel in sucker) having met folks whom wanted to "relieve me of my money in a genteel fashion" i declined. (3 card monty anyone?)
now it looks like an average of ~1/4 million / "investor/naif"
{back to lurk mode}
 
Admission to the Robin Hood conference was $7500. Every single speaker was a very big name .. and Mark Spiegel. Very suspicious.

Add to this the extremely odd notion that you would invite someone to make a presentation the entirety of which is an attack on one company - a company whose mission is to reduce C02 emissions (odd choice of company to bring in someone to attack), yet also a company that happens to be disrupting some very large, entrenched, threatened industries with very deep pockets. Very suspicious indeed.

If I had paid $7500 and got Mark Spiegel I would be wanting an explanation for why this happened.
Except that the deep pockets really do not care about the content, typically they just would want to get the message across, no matter how ridiculous the content. Heck, if Elon could be bought, they'd be willing to pay him just to do nothing, or maybe play video games 24x7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EnzoXYZ
Then they fight you

I have to say this has been a rather unbalanced expedition through the list. The ignore and laugh part seemed relatively short, but this whole fight scene is sure taking a long time. I'm all for the 'never give up' mantra, but at least be fighting for something good/noble/virtuous/bigger than yourself et al... otherwise you just look like a hungry dog with a bone ignoring the bowl full of food right in front of your face.
 
Wow, he really has nothing. Really no discussion of the financials in a meaningful way. I would have thought a Wall Street person would have a much more meaningful discussion on opex, capex, upcoming cash needs, etc. Or discussion on the battery costs, the amount of production capacity, the platform development costs, and so forth. This was a basically a poorly done vaporware news aggregation.


"The new Chevy Bolt– available now-- has the same interior passenger space as a Tesla Model S, and it’s $30,000 cheaper than the least expensive Tesla and has 20 more miles of range"

(Inaccuracies highlighted in bold)
  • Not available now.
  • Seats less people (a lot less)
  • It's not 30000 cheaper, Bolt's price, as equipped, will be 43k
  • It has less highway speed range
  • And of course should not be even compared to.

and that's just one sentence from the presentation...

I still think the safer entry point will be end of January, but this presentation is probably indicating bottom for TSLA.
 
Last edited:
(Inaccuracies highlighted in bold)
  • Not available now.
  • Seats less people (a lot less)
  • It's not 30000 cheaper, Bolt's price, as equipped, will be 43k
  • It has less highway speed range
  • And of course should not be even compared to.

and that's just one sentence from the presentation...

I still think the safer entry point will be in end of January, but this presentation is probably indicating bottom for TSLA.
+ no Superchargers
+ looks like a small toaster
 
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.

That only makes sense if that's Teslas goal. Considering they have spent years working for a cheap mass market car that's not their goal.

The tesla network on the other hand could possibly turn them into google of public transportation. It would only take 100,000 full time self driving model 3s to effectively have better service coverage than uber (as uber drivers only drive as much as a person can work).

Add semis and mini-buses and private car ownership could easily become a luxury thing in 5 years. No need to buy cars, second hand car market crashes, and if you can get a brand spankin new ICE car at 20% original cost because it was pre-owned for a year why would you buy a new car at full price.

The future of transportation really is a. First past the post race for autonomnomy. Even if other companies get there shortly after, are you going to download two self driving rideshare apps or stick with the big famous one you are familiar with? As long as tesla keeps enough cars available it's pretty much a solid win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobsJester
Is that seriously the presentation Spiegel did ??
<snip>

Okay, so...a room for of legends. Did they believe him? Did they get up and walk out? Did they applaud him? How do we know the legends understood that was a bad presentation and proved exactly the opposite of what Spiegel was saying? Bob Lutz is a legend in his industry. Mike Tyson is a legend in his industry. Kanye West is a legend in his industry.

There are a lot of people on Spiegel's side of the aisle. A LOT. Are we sure the legends are on our side?
 
I just posted this chart at thecontrarianinvestor forum which I visit once in a while as a glutton for punishment. But here is how the war against renewables is faring:
p6_OM2hIJvnSilKEAsHww943JG91sATCT-bKYRkySsC8YHwsPnJFPhfmGyeQvC57nhHYjBF6RBRtszGMdFnDrtC7tMfQKn7zbfdYkgRRMpmaFuEe6oOdgTaIKDprTeQ_LBP9ifS-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.