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

[Artful Dodger]

He suspects that they may be using a depopulated version of the long range pack for only the plus model as a temporary solution until they can fully ramp up the newly designed standard range pack for all versions.

Bizzaro world. Elon said they would wait until the SR is profitable. But instead, we imagine some other scenario to justify the conclusion.

Magical thinking run amok around here.

EDIT:

Tesla did the 1st production run of 500 units on the SR, not the SR+ version. That shoots down the theory the SR+ is an interim pack made available only until the SR is ready.

SR is real now. SR+ doesn't need to be a depopulated anything.

So the next step in magical thinking is "Oh, it must be the SR that's a depopulated LR". Oh no, wait! "The SR is a software limited SR+ which is a actually a double-depopulated LR. Yeah, that's it."

SMDH.

 

[Cosmacelf]

It's not loading. TMC must be down again

You either missed the joke or are making a joke. Hard to tell which.

 

[lklundin]

OT : The ironic part is she claimed that to get some street cred. The songs she said she was listening to when smoking pot didn't come out for a few years after she claimed to have smoked pot.

As Stephen Colbert commented:

Now Kamala Harris is even blamed (by Fox & Friends) for misremembering what music she heard when she was stoned on weed...

 

[adiggs]

Not according to the shorts.

It all depends on the story of the moment - you know that!

 

[Zaxxon]

Tesla is a company with a viable balance sheet

Well that's a refreshing change from the WSJ.

 

[CorneliusXX]

You either missed the joke or are making a joke. Hard to tell which.

I probably shouldn't own up to either

 

[Swampgator]

P100D was released August 2016. I know Elon said they wouldn't go past 100kWh, but at 7% a year, they could have at least a 110kWh pack, right?

I think most folks misunderstand Elons reasoning here:
If they can improve energy density per kg by 7% per year, that means a 100 kWH pack next year will weight less than this year. Not 7% less because the pack is made of more than just cells, but some amount less. In a couple more years that rate compounds, and a 100kwH pack might weight 10% less total (cells and pack) than 2 years earlier.
If you lighten the vehicle, it has more range as a knock on effect. Also other components may be lightened accordingly (suspension , etc) So 100kWH may be all that S ever needs, if in a few years it weights 300-500 pounds less that today. That same 100KWH may give you a range of 360-375 miles in 2-3 years.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Wot, WSJ actually printed the words, "Tesla is a company with a viable balance sheet"?

Wonders will never cease.

It's a misprint. They meant to say "Tesla is a company with a volatile balance sheet." Heads will roll for sure. lol

Dan

 

[scaesare]

The Y is 1-2 yrs out. Tesla averages 7% increase in bty energy density per year. It's not going to be a problem.

This is not your father's Oldsmobile.

Cheers!

Whilst JB has once alluded to a 7% annual improvement in batteries (I'm not sure he even specified energy density), that' hasn't een the curve for Tesla's packs. The original packs from 2012 were 85's The biggest now are 100kWh, but the majority of that increase is due to physically repackaging thing to cram 16% additional cells in there.

If there had been a 7% energy density increase YoY, plus the additional cells, we'd have ~160kW packs at this point.

Now the cost has probably gone down at least that much each year for Tesla... and that may be one of the facets of improvement JB was alluding to.

 

[Sudre]

I think this is almost guaranteed to happen, it’s just a matter of when. Would be very surprised if Chargepoint hasn’t been bugging hotel chains for a while to install chargers. But Chargepoint is fairly pricey. And all Teslas have mobile evses, so they could just install nema 14-50 plugs on 40A breakers and be done with it. Cheap.

I would agree except currently when a hotel chain asks about what to install for their customers the car industry and charging industry who want lots of money says CCSJ1772chademoblah blah blah and it cost $1xxxx to install. In reality all the hotel chain needs is......

 

[davecolene0606]

Landlords to Tesla: You’re Still on the Hook for Your Store Leases

The WSJ has made the brilliant observation that no, landlords don't let you just walk away from leases. I haven't read it all because I won't pay for WSJ and I'm sure it's full of garbage, but here's an actual estimate of what this will cost. There's four ways out of a commercial lease:

1) lease expires soon
2) lease has an exit clause
3) make a deal with the landlord
4) sublet

I'm guessing between these four possibilities they'll end up paying on average 8 months per lease
I'm guessing the leases average $20,000/ month

So if they close 100 stores immediately they would take a charge of $16M.

Elon said a limited number of closings and a number of conversions to galleries/service centers. Example would be the West Palm store which started life exclusively as a service center and added a store, this will just return to the service center ruction. Just up I95 is the Palm each Gardens mall store and my expectation is that this store will stay for least the balance of the lease as a gallery whereas the downtown Miami store may have shorter balance on its lease and subject to sooner closing. Suffice to say that stores with the least foot traffic and least cost to close (shorter balance on or end of lease) are the prime candidates for closure while high traffic ones remain as galleries and some convert to service centers exclusively.

In their usual fuddy myopic view, WSJ doesn't feel it is in their interest to add ANY nuance to their reporting.

Fire Away!

 

[Tslynk67]

It's a misprint. They meant to say "Tesla is a company with a volatile balance sheet." Heads will roll for sure. lol

Dan

The shorts will claim "Tesla is a company with a pliable balance sheet."

 

[scaesare]

It doesn't surprise me they are in essence leveraging the Model 3 motors in both...

(replying to my own post...tsk tsk.. bad form)

I should say I actually was surprised when I initially heard the semi was gonna use Model 3 motors... seemed weird to not design something purpose-built for such a significant application or to at least use the most powerful motor in your inventory (Model S performance motors).

However, the more I thought about it, and saw some of the driveline details, realizing we are talking 4 motors capable of delivering 1,000+ HP in one of the most efficient designs yet seen (and utilizing differing reduction gears on each axle). I appreciate how clever that was to kick start the design while minimizing engineering up front and taking advantage of the vast economies of scale that making parts for the 3 entails.

Thus, I'm now not surprised they may be doing something similar for the pickup.

 

[printf42]

Yes, that too, particularly lease terminations.

Landlords to Tesla: You’re Still on the Hook for Your Store Leases

"Only a month ago, Tesla signed a new lease at Santa Monica Place in California that goes through 2025. As recently as last month, Tesla was negotiating and signing leases, according to executives at Taubman and Macerich.

Retail tenants generally can't break their leases without penalty unless...​

​

That Santa Monica store has high foot traffic and high exposure to tourists.
I still remember that’s where I sit in a Tesla for the first time, many many years ago.
So I think that one would stay, and that’s why they signed long lease on it.

 

[lascavarian]

Thus, I'm now not surprised they may be doing something similar for the pickup

And maybe a Sprinter Van!

 

[Big Blue 1011]

IIRC from George Blankenship's presentation at TMC Connect 2016, there are serious surcharges from the landlords on sales generated from specific mall spaces. (Apple had the same issue.)

Simple: no more sales, no more surcharges. So the cost cut can be more that we all think.
And landlords have a larger incentive to try and re-lease the spaces.

Not likely. Mall leases commonly have provisions for minimum rent vs percentage of sales. The greater the sales, the more rent that is due (what Blankenship refers to as "surcharges"). But mall leases also usually contain provisions establishing mandatory hours of operation and prohibitions on "going dark". The penalties are Draconian. Suffice it to say that the leases are designed to discourage such behavior, so "no more sales" would likely mean more, rather than less rent that would be due.

Of course, sophisticated parties are free to negotiate whatever terms make sense to them at the time, so the devil would be in the details of each lease. But as far as I can tell, Tesla positioned itself in upscale malls and high end retail locations (at least in the Boston metro area),. I would be very surprised if those leases are not landlord-friendly.

As to landlord incentive, in Massachusetts, there is no duty to mitigate in event of a breach of a commercial lease. Landlords are likely to do so anyway as a matter of good business practice, but nothing requires them to fill a space vacated by a deep pocketed tenant over another space in which there is no backstop. In addition, there is often a significant lag in time due to marketing period, lease negotiations, buildout and grace period, so the damages are likely to be quite high under almost any scenario.

This is why I am surprised at the decision to close so many stores so abruptly. I trust that the bean counters did their homework in advance of the decision, but it just seems rushed to me. Just my opinion. Not necessarily fact.

 

[Nocturnal]

"Tesla won't 'ever report another profitable quarter,' former hedge-fund manager Whitney Tilson says (TSLA)"
Tilson closed his fund in September 2017 after underperformance.

His latest comments come just days after he called for Tesla's stock to plunge below $100 this year.

Tesla won't 'ever report another profitable quarter,' former hedge-fund manager Whitney Tilson says (TSLA) | Markets Insider
LOL. Somebody is just trolling for clicks from the shorties. Totally listen to a guy that underperformed vs a monkey throwing darts at the stock charts.

 

[DurandalAI]

Whilst JB has once alluded to a 7% annual improvement in batteries (I'm not sure he even specified energy density), that' hasn't een the curve for Tesla's packs. The original packs from 2012 were 85's The biggest now are 100kWh, but the majority of that increase is due to physically repackaging thing to cram 16% additional cells in there.

If there had been a 7% energy density increase YoY, plus the additional cells, we'd have ~160kW packs at this point.

Now the cost has probably gone down at least that much each year for Tesla... and that may be one of the facets of improvement JB was alluding to.

What you're talking about is a more direct version of what I was alluding to in my post regarding the 7%, and why we haven't seen anything larger than a 100kWh pack. If anything the improved chemistries would either be to increase the buffer by silently moving up beyond 100kWh to increase battery life, or reducing the cell count to improve range.

As a comparison, my 2012 Leaf that was branded as 24kWh with a usable capacity of around 22kWh, with the 30kWh version in the same dimensions 4 years later, and the 40kWh version again in the same dimensions... Tesla likely could release a 110kWh pack, but I doubt they will bother until they have a refresh of the S & X lines. (Which, a mild refresh allowing v3 Supercharging wouldn't surprise me to be announced along with the Model Y unveil.)

 

[mongo]

I would agree except currently when a hotel chain asks about what to install for their customers the car industry and charging industry who want lots of money says CCSJ1772chademoblah blah blah and it cost $1xxxx to install. In reality all the hotel chain needs is......View attachment 384230

That is iffy. A normal GCFI trip point is 6 milliamps versus the GFCI built into electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) which are set at 20 milliamps. The higher level is needed due to EMI/EMC protection/ parasitic capacitance in the electric vehicle charger. Due to this, you can have nuisance tripping charging with a normal GFCI protected outlet. (damp can also be a factor).

 

[Cosmacelf]

Whilst JB has once alluded to a 7% annual improvement in batteries (I'm not sure he even specified energy density), that' hasn't een the curve for Tesla's packs. The original packs from 2012 were 85's The biggest now are 100kWh, but the majority of that increase is due to physically repackaging thing to cram 16% additional cells in there.

If there had been a 7% energy density increase YoY, plus the additional cells, we'd have ~160kW packs at this point.

Now the cost has probably gone down at least that much each year for Tesla... and that may be one of the facets of improvement JB was alluding to.

Yes indeed. People think there is only one metric for batteries which is energy density. But in fact there are dozens of parameters that can and have been improving. At the end of the day, Tesla mostly cares about cost. If Tesla suddenly got a more energy dense cell at the same cost, they would most likely use it to reduce price not increase range.