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

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
His loan from the biggest banks that participated in the cap raise is $507 million. I doubt he has any sizeable loans with any other banks. Why would the collateral be 10 times the loan size??

Elon Musk owes $507 million to banks helping Tesla raise capital - Reuters
Not sure about the $5b, but given the wrong-way risk between the probability of Elon defaulting being highly correlated with Tesla stocks dropping, the bank will ask for much higher collateral. That is why it would be better if Elon could pledge spacex shares as well to get comfortable. Hopefully after starlink, he improves his position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Esme Es Mejor
I've now lost all confidence in you as a source of information.

I am honestly confused as well. What inconsistency are you perceiving? I think I have always said

1) his collateral was $4.45B end of year, and it makes sense it went up towards $5B
2) we don't know the size of the loan (his debt) that this collateral covers
3) we don't know how much of his SpaceX worth he can use to post as collateral in lieu of TSLA shares

Sort of like someone who got into TSLA on the ground floor before it increased at least 10x (recently) or >6x(currently). Looking at Elon's loan size based on collateral size based on the value of the stock at the high water mark vs when the line of credit was established is *sugardy sugar*.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but I don't see the sugardy *sugar*? Can you re-word?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: MP3Mike
Let’s put it this way. I bought into TSLA in 2013 around $180 when they were barely able to make 20,000 Model S’s a year.

Fast forward today with 400,000 Model S,X and 3 a year, supercharging network, Tesla energy, Gigafactory 1-3, Tesla Semi, Model Y, roadster, pickup, etc.

There is no way Tesla should be valued the same as 2013. This is Big Oil’s last chance to try and kill Tesla before it gets to the point of no return. Some would argue that we have already reached the point of no return but vested interest have not excepted that yet.
In 2013 they were a company showing up the industry with a ground breaking car that delivered to promises. Over the next 6 years, where might that take them? The car barely improved considering the steep progress in the BEV space. Management has been consistently missing nearly all guidances. Taking on debt, diluting stock, booking losses.
What's left today is a mid size car maker with very little variety in offering, barely taking into account what customers actually want in a next car, in stead telling them what they should want and do away with. Revolutionary robot lines underperform by 50% relative to guidance, after double the time taken. Obvious mismanagement, horrible communications policies getting them headline fines. Chairman has to step down over false information to the public. Next Model (Y) doesn't bring anything new, unclear why it could no be launched along the sedan back in 2017 as real car brands do. Energy side vastly restricted, can't take orders due to immens underperformance in cell production.
Communications focus on the wrong things, getting them in trouble when they unsurprisingly fail to deliver.
After Model 3 ramp-up which seems like it will never go past 60-70% despite more lines dedicated to it, the growth has gone. S and X have been so overpriced due to Model 3 existing, sales have dropped, forcing prices to be reduced. And reduced. And reduced. Really they had the tech to make a big upgrade in 2017, but offer a small one in 2019.
Guidance of profits turned into huge losses for unclear reasons in 19Q1. No big cell limitation, pipeline didn't cost that must in profits really. CFO steps down again. Awkward FSD presentations, company seems to bet everything on it and even Tesla engineers seem extremely skeptical it can actually be done. Hardware is (again) supposed to be FSD ready but it can't see fire trucks or semi trucks when they get in the way. People die and Tesla doesn't respond with action, just skewed statistics.

Right now, Tesla is a mid sized car maker that doesn't get to side projects, generated big losses, dilutes stock, adds debt and doesn't look to make a single of many guidances any time soon. The combination of growth that's capped for a good while next to no end of losses in sight, warrants a fraction of the revenue multiple in 2013.

2013: spectacular startup that shows a different future
2019: lacklustre car maker with too many side projects can't make the cars they promised and now seem to lack demand as well

The products are still industry leading, by a good bit, in the way they care for at least. Other brands do do a lot of thing much better.
Imagine Apple introduced their iPhones, but made about half of them over a longer period of time, booking substatial losses. Imagine how that would have affected their SP. Samsung and the like would have clubbered them with volume, service, price, profit, everything, years ahead of schedule. Short on resourced to develop products, would there even have been an iPhone 10?

Tesla right now is the company that could and should have been. Since until recently demand exceeded supply, not easy to explain how they manage to arrive at the situation before us to day. At least not if you're a devoted fan of the man, the vision, the brand, the company.

The 2013 share price was as usual with startups, overhyped.
In 2019, the SP is deflating as the revenue multiple heads towards sub-1 levels.

We may not like it, but I think it's not exactly uncalled for. Promises need to be maded true once in a while. Just a good product can be the death of any company that can't make the most of it.
 
If I recall correctly Tesla uses 1,000 miles = 400kWh. So 5,000 miles = 20,000 kWh. If you watch the Bjorn videos you would see that they don't come off one-to-one. (I think he gets ~1.6 km for each km of credit in his Model 3.)
The number was just an example, sorry I didn't make that clear. I get four miles for every kWh.
 
Screen Shot 2019-05-22 at 7.23.30 AM.png


⛴ Morten Grove on Twitter
 
.

~ 2013, Jonas was the one who had the $450 price target ..
And that seemed fair probably. Model S set standards Tesla has not been able to meet since. There has been progress, but only relative to Model S, not to how the company operates and achieves their targets. If you don't achieve a target, that has a huge impact on your fair valuation. The growth curve looking forward the SP is based off is ever flattening. And the condition for it are ever worse. From self funding to taking on debt and issuing stock in almost no time at all. From profitable hereonward to loss making for the foreseeable future.
These things are on the management team more than on anything else, and they've not really changed despite all the goings and comings.
A SP easily halves a few times over what Tesla has gone through these 6 years. I have an opinion as to what has gone wrong, but it's not a popular one on here. And many will have other and even more refined opinions.

Main result of all this: by 2019 and by 2025 and by 2030, Tesla has less market share and less turnover and less profit than we would have reasonably expected in 2013. Even though the competition is taking its sweet time, Tesla doesn't convert that into more domination.
Even Titanic was new and shiny and promising until the very last second. I have an opinion on that one as well which I think most people without deep economic and geopolitical knowledge will not appreciate.
 
This is actually really dangerous thinking because if they fall well short of Elon's 90k guidance and take a steep loss in Q2 it's entirely Elon's own fault for saying these things. It's also very dangerous thinking for investors because Elon over-promising and under-delivering is a meme at this point.

I think it was actually Zack that guided this figure, no? I might be wrong (as per usual), but that's what I recall.
 
I am honestly confused as well. What inconsistency are you perceiving? I think I have always said

1) his collateral was $4.45B end of year, and it makes sense it went up towards $5B
2) we don't know the size of the loan (his debt) that this collateral covers
3) we don't know how much of his SpaceX worth he can use to post as collateral in lieu of TSLA shares



Maybe I am misunderstanding you here, but I don't see the sugardy *sugar*? Can you re-word?

  1. That doesn't make sense because it implies his loan was at the limit of his collateral. You then restate your assumption (increase to 5 billion) based on an assumption (at the limit) as fact.
  2. Others have point of the loan amount, and if we don't know the ratio, how can you make any of the claims in item #1?
  3. Again, showing the basis of #1 is shaky.
*surgarty sugar* is claiming a previous assumption based on an assumption with no data as fact:
You stated, as fact
We know he needs to post at least $5B collateral.
based on your hypothesis:
It's not impossible the required collateral today approaches $5B.
based on your assumptions:
Since then he had to fund his lifestyle, capitalize the interest on this loan, pay mortgages on significant real estate, take part in the TSLA raise and maybe also invest in some of his other ventures (SpaceX, Boring).
starting from a questionable base:
We know from the proxy statement that on December 31 2018, Elon had pledged 13 million TSLA shares or $4.45B at that time.
Stock price in December was in the 300s, using the high water mark for the required size of collateral is not a valid premise, unless you also assume Elon keeps the loan pegged at the maximum which would imply he has already been margin called.
 
Hey, I look at it this way. If the price can hang on around $200 for another week, I'll able to go all in with the rest of my drying powder (waiting for the funds to clear). So, for now, I'm ok with where it is. I know, that's entirely selfish of me. Come to think of it though, isn't that sort of the nature of Wall Street anyway? Happy investing my friends. May all your money by multiplied 100 fold! (Unless your short Tesla. Then I hope you die by fire...slowly.) lol!

Dan
 
Last edited:
I think it was actually Zack that guided this figure, no? I might be wrong (as per usual), but that's what I recall.
The 90-100 was called out in the earnings letter:
With the recently announced product improvements on Model S and Model X, as well as continued expansion of Model 3 globally, we
expect our order rate to continue to increase throughout the year as our production levels increase. We believe we will deliver between
90,000 and 100,000 vehicles in Q2. Although it is possible to deliver a higher number of vehicles, we believe it is important to begin
unwinding the "wave" approach to vehicle deliveries, where overseas cars have been made in the first half of the quarter and North
American cars have been made in the second half. This puts extreme stress on Tesla, negatively affects our working capital needs and
adds to our cost structure.

And referenced in the Q1 call per Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) Q1 2019 Earnings Call Transcript -- The Motley Fool:
Pierre Ferragu -- New Street Research -- Analyst
And my follow-up was really on Q2 like with 90,000 to 100,000 units you are getting back to fairly nice volumes and I am surprised you don't -- you just still expect a loss. So maybe if you could take us through where we will see in Q2 pain points compared to Q4 and Q3 where you had a profit for similar volumes? How much of the loss in 2Q will be one-off cost, how much is the price points coming down in the mix and how much is related to pricing and other things?
Daniel V. Galves -- Wolfe Research -- Analyst
That's really helpful. And the follow-up is, I know order questions have been asked before, but let me put it this way. So, the -- I imagine that S and X orders need to have a couple of days to pick up after the upgrades. But on Model 3, whatever your assumption is within the 90,000 to 100,000 Q2 deliveries, whatever that assumption is for Model 3, does your current order flow support that, or do you need something kind of positive to happen over the course of the quarter to get there?