Even with flawless execution over the next 7 or 8 years, I think it is unlikely that Tesla can achieve more than 500 to 700 under its current plan.
Lets run a thought experiment where everything goes as we hope. They produce and sell the Model X and S at 50K to 80K per year. They produce the Model E at 500K per year. Maybe they produce a new Roadster. I'm no maven at the technicals, but my sense is that as Tesla starts to go mainstream, the valuation multiplier drops back from awesome growth stock toward great company stock. Under even this rosy scenario, Tesla's revenue may continue up, but I tend to think the stock price will likely taper or stall.
I left AAPL at about 305 and switched my investment to TSLA because I believed Apple's ability to double (yet again) was weak. Break-neck growth is just hard to sustain.
In order for the stock to move to 1000 or beyond, Tesla would have to flawlessly execute AND do something else (IMHO). What could that be?
Share your thoughts. Here is my daydream/speculation based on a EM comment in an interview released yesterday.
As the premiere consumer of batteries, Tesla gets to see the latest developments by startups/researchers. Elon has said that all existing battery production could, at best, support a few hundred vehicles per year. Tesla should take advantage of recent share prices and raise funds to set up a factory to mass produce a better battery cell.
Supporting arguments
1) Tesla has to encourage battery production anyway, to meet existing objectives
2) Tesla would lock up supply of the most critical component of its products (like what Apple has done for flash ram)
3) Tesla would gain some control over cell pricing.
4) Buying large quantities from another company is leaving money on the table.
5) This would become a barrier to entry of competitors, unless they buy from Tesla.
6) Currently all Tesla innovation has to be shared with Panasonic (or Samsung), which would likely end up in competitors products.
7) This looks like a technical challenge. And Elon and Tesla have some chops in that area.
Arguments against
1) Tesla might invest in the wrong tech
2) Tesla can't pit one supplier against another. SolarCity suggests EM is happy to take advantage of component suppliers who undercut each other. (Although there is little competition for supply now, as demand is so high)
3) It might become a distraction (how many balls can EM keep in the air?)
Lets run a thought experiment where everything goes as we hope. They produce and sell the Model X and S at 50K to 80K per year. They produce the Model E at 500K per year. Maybe they produce a new Roadster. I'm no maven at the technicals, but my sense is that as Tesla starts to go mainstream, the valuation multiplier drops back from awesome growth stock toward great company stock. Under even this rosy scenario, Tesla's revenue may continue up, but I tend to think the stock price will likely taper or stall.
I left AAPL at about 305 and switched my investment to TSLA because I believed Apple's ability to double (yet again) was weak. Break-neck growth is just hard to sustain.
In order for the stock to move to 1000 or beyond, Tesla would have to flawlessly execute AND do something else (IMHO). What could that be?
Share your thoughts. Here is my daydream/speculation based on a EM comment in an interview released yesterday.
As the premiere consumer of batteries, Tesla gets to see the latest developments by startups/researchers. Elon has said that all existing battery production could, at best, support a few hundred vehicles per year. Tesla should take advantage of recent share prices and raise funds to set up a factory to mass produce a better battery cell.
Supporting arguments
1) Tesla has to encourage battery production anyway, to meet existing objectives
2) Tesla would lock up supply of the most critical component of its products (like what Apple has done for flash ram)
3) Tesla would gain some control over cell pricing.
4) Buying large quantities from another company is leaving money on the table.
5) This would become a barrier to entry of competitors, unless they buy from Tesla.
6) Currently all Tesla innovation has to be shared with Panasonic (or Samsung), which would likely end up in competitors products.
7) This looks like a technical challenge. And Elon and Tesla have some chops in that area.
Arguments against
1) Tesla might invest in the wrong tech
2) Tesla can't pit one supplier against another. SolarCity suggests EM is happy to take advantage of component suppliers who undercut each other. (Although there is little competition for supply now, as demand is so high)
3) It might become a distraction (how many balls can EM keep in the air?)
Last edited: