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.
Had a discussion with a couple of TMC friends last night. Here are my summary thoughts:

Short-Term: Q4 ER and 2017 Guidance

I expect Q4 delivery numbers and ER to be positive

Market wrote off a very good Q3 ER as one time gimmickry. Seeing an equally positive Q4 ER will force Mr.Market to accept that TSLA has made a turning point in terms of cashflows and business model sustainability. Loss/car type BS will be permanently destroyed.

I also believe Musk staying true to his spirit will throw in some very positive 2017 guidance. Don’t know how much market will believe and which elements. But overall I think Musk will provide enough ammo for analysts to revise their ratings/price-targets upwards.

Risks: InsideEv numbers are a bit bothersome. In all likely hood InsideEvs numbers are somehow missing something. I believe no one knows how they estimate their numbers and if there are any holes in their model.

Conclusion: Wouldn’t bet on this until after Jan 2/3 delivery numbers. But if deliveries meet expectations of 25K or more, I expect a very good rally going into ER and after.

Medium Term: AP 2.0, Tesla Energy

1) Very positive due to EAP/FSD development

Market, or for that matter ‘society’ in general, is severely underestimating Tesla’s position/strength in autonomous driving development. I read many articles and presentations on the virtues or economic impact of self-driving cars. In all these places numerous companies get mentioned but Tesla doesn’t get mentioned even once, even as a pitiful contestant.

This is really bizarre. I believe this is a symptom of a bigger problem - Musk losing a lot of credibility lately.

As close followers we know better than that. Yes, Musk overplays things. But we know what Musk is very capable of achieving (solving really hard engineering/technical problems) vs not really capable of achieving (delivering on announced timelines).

Overall, I expect EAP/FSD features will be more or less rolled out as expected in this timeline by schoneluct. I believe the feature rollouts with occasional demo videos as predicted by Fred, will totally shock the world.

Achieving full FSD, ahead of everyone else, with a sizable head-start is worth 10s or even 100s of billions in valuation. This is very severely underestimated.

2) There is a chance that Tesla Energy will finally takeoff as gigafactory comes online.

However it is not clear that the sales/distribution channels are properly established. A few BNEF reports that I saw seem to suggest that the sales/distribution infrastructure even in the most promising markets like in Australia is very weak to non-existent.

So TE is a bit of a puzzler. Hopefully Q4 ER with 2017 guidance will shed some light into it.

However given that Mr.Market acts as though TE doesn’t even exist, I believe TE acts as a hidden small (relative to AP 2.0 impact) call option.

In a nutshell, TE can’t hurt but has potential to help a bit.

Longer-Term: Model-3

I presented my case many number of times. I don’t believe Model-3 will start customer (non-employee, non-musk-tesla-family-and-friends) deliveries in 2017. Probably not even in early 2018.

Delivering on promised timelines is something Tesla/Musk struggle a lot with. This will be no exception. Especially given the enormity of the project I expect even bigger delays than normal - to get things ‘right’ - as opposed to rushing out the product with sub-par quality or on a sub-par manufacturing line.

However I do NOT believe this has risk to the stock-price. 1) Because of the above catalysts 2) Market's expectation of model-3 timeline already accounts for all the possible delay. So it will not be a “disappointment”, because there is no expectation in the first place. In other words, it’s already priced in.

Price-Target: $300+ by early 2018. Of course barring any big macro winds and/or force majeure events. This is merely my personal opinion. Not investment advice. Please do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Medium Term: AP 2.0, Tesla Energy

1) Very positive due to EAP/FSD development

Market, or for that matter ‘society’ in general, is severely underestimating Tesla’s position/strength in autonomous driving development. I read many articles and presentations on the virtues or economic impact of self-driving cars. In all these places numerous companies get mentioned but Tesla doesn’t get mentioned even once, even as a pitiful contestant.

This is really bizarre. I believe this is a symptom of a bigger problem - Musk losing a lot of credibility lately.

As close followers we know better than that. Yes, Musk overplays things. But we know what Musk is very capable of achieving (solving really hard engineering/technical problems) vs not really capable of achieving (delivering on announced timelines).

Overall, I expect EAP/FSD features will be more or less rolled out as expected in this timeline by schoneluct. I believe the feature rollouts with occasional demo videos as predicted by Fred, will totally shock the world.

Achieving full FSD, ahead of everyone else, with a sizable head-start is worth 10s or even 100s of billions in valuation. This is very severely underestimated.
.

Overthinking this? The reason Tesla is not getting airplay for its AD lead and may I even say MOAT for the next couple of years is simple: In addition to being despised by the Oil Industry, the general Fossil Fuel Industry including most utilities and the Car Industry including all the powerful Stealerships in individual states, Tesla has over the past year become a very easy target for relentless attack by, you guessed it, the Media Industry.

The reason the Media hates Tesla is simple: Tesla does not pay them. Every other company mention pays them in big piles on a regular basis.

It is always all about the money. An Ad-Free car company? Destroy it if you can. Stuff like that is contagious...
 
It is always all about the money. An Ad-Free car company? Destroy it if you can. Stuff like that is contagious...

I wouldn't state this as harsh and direct. I try to never ascribe malicious intent if other simple explanations are good enough. For Tesla I think we have a giant huge case of "Never expect a man to understand something if his paycheck depends on him not understanding". That's true for the car industry, big oil, the stealerships, the media etc.

So I don't think we need think this is an all-coordinated and integrated attack but simply a large amount of people whose existence is going to be disrupted, if the model "Tesla" succeeds...

EDIT: I like TSLA this morning so far...
 
Here is a question that might have something to do with TESLA future revenue: is it possible for currently Model S/X to upgrade to larger battery after 10 years? Say, 10 years later, 130 kwh battery is only $20000, and my 10 year old 75D can upgrade to 130D? Any rumors of that?
Eventually they'll make make pack upgrades available. They did that for the roadster. The problem with the roadster pack upgrade was the cost, due mostly to the fact that they needed to build the packs by hand. They announced that they were not making a profit on those packs.

With the MS-MX I believe that the prices to upgrade the packs will be much less for these reasons:
1. Battery pack costs are going to fall drastically when Tesla starts producing cells and packs at the GF. They'll continue to fall after that.

2. The cost of materials will be less when they start recycling packs at the GF. I believe that they'll pass some of those savings on to their customers.

So I believe that within ten years you'll be able to replace an 85 kWh pack with a larger pack, probably at least 150 kWh, for $50-75 per kWh.
 
Also in news today ...

Two top Faraday Future executives just resigned

Marco Mattiacci, chief brand and commercial officer, and Joerg Sommer, vice president for product marketing and growth, have left the company.

Oof. I wanted them to succeed so badly, but at every turn it seemed like they were embracing hype over substance. Blowing over a billion on a factory - why not buy a used one at discount like Tesla?

I wonder when they'll totally fold. Maybe their CES reveal will reverse their fortunes and pull some investors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
  • Informative
Reactions: SwTslaGrl
Good news, another SolarCity cash-equity sale got announced today.

Sammons Renewable Energy Leads $241 Million Solar Cash Equity Transaction with SolarCity | Business Wire

Somehow neither Tesla nor SolarCity made a press release or did an sec filing on this, yet.

The cash-equity sales are good as they bring in cash to the firm in bulk. But unfortunately they announced the transaction amount ( $241m) but not the MWs that went into it. So we can't say if this is a good deal or a bad deal and ultimately if the underlying projects are profitable to SolarCity/Tesla or not.

Overtime, SolarCity has become ever more secretive in their dealings. I don't consider it to be a good sign. At this point, all we can hope for is SolarCity to not hurt Tesla. It's ok if they don't bring in any shareholder value in the near to mid term. Just don't deplete Tesla's cash. I'm cautiously optimistic given the expected scrutiny by Jason Wheeler and Musk.
 
Oof. I wanted them to succeed so badly, but at every turn it seemed like they were embracing hype over substance. Blowing over a billion on a factory - why not buy a used one at discount like Tesla?

I wonder when they'll totally fold. Maybe their CES reveal will reverse their fortunes and pull some investors.
I'm guessing these guys are leaving because they're realizing that their options are likely worthless anyhow if China isn't going to keep the $ flowing.
 
Good news, another SolarCity cash-equity sale got announced today.

Sammons Renewable Energy Leads $241 Million Solar Cash Equity Transaction with SolarCity | Business Wire

Somehow neither Tesla nor SolarCity made a press release or did an sec filing on this, yet.

The cash-equity sales are good as they bring in cash to the firm in bulk. But unfortunately they announced the transaction amount ( $241m) but not the MWs that went into it. So we can't say if this is a good deal or a bad deal and ultimately if the underlying projects are profitable to SolarCity/Tesla or not.

It's not 100% clear but this looks like monetization of *existing* PPAs/leases. This is continuing to sell off the backlog of old self-financed stuff. Good.

SolarCity had put itself into an odd position. They had a lot of solar installs which, if paid in cash, should have been small paper profits (though we can't tell how much due to the craziness of GAAP, which is being changed next year). However, SolarCity got in WAY over its head on financing. They were taking out short-term borrowings to finance 20-year payment streams. And their spread was narrowing (the spread was also unpublished). Banks do this all the time but they have access to the Federal Reserve, which SolarCity did not. SolarCity was at risk of a bank run!

The monetization transactions remove the bank-run risk. The buyer buys the payment streams for cash delivered now, and Tesla can use the cash to pay off the short-term borrowings. (Or keep the borrowings to use for something else, i.e. Model 3 buildout, if that seems suitable.)

The best way to look at these is as generators of cash flow. I'm assuming they're basically sold at breakeven, i.e. the cash received covers the cost of initial construction, warranty repairs, and so on. If they're slightly profitable, that's gravy. If they make very slight losses, that's OK too. It amounts to nothing compared to the elimination of the bank-run risk.


Overtime, SolarCity has become ever more secretive in their dealings. I don't consider it to be a good sign.
So has Tesla.

At this point, all we can hope for is SolarCity to not hurt Tesla. It's ok if they don't bring in any shareholder value in the near to mid term. Just don't deplete Tesla's cash.
SolarCity is currently a cash-generation machine, and will be until the old PPAs and leases are all monetized. This is accomplished by monetizing the old PPAs and leases. They avoid depleting cash the way they used to deplete cash by only making new PPAs or leases when the monetization is *pre-funded* by a bank consortium, and they appear to be following this policy now (though it's a bit hard to tell).

People have been wondering where Elon will get the financing to build out Model 3 while refinancing various expiring bonds. The merger with SolarCity followed by the monetization transactions is actually a piece of financial wizardry. SolarCity did need a bailout because it was about to suffer a *bank run*, but Musk saw that the stock market was vastly undervaluing the future income streams -- so he merged the company cheaply, and is now selling off those future income streams for their actual value. This process alone might be profitable for TSLA stockholders (i.e. monetization of future income streams may exceed dilution costs from merger), but it will most certainly supply him with much-needed cash flow at this critical time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.