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

[Artful Dodger]

As Bob Marley famously said "don't worry, be happy".

Yeah, that was Bobby McFerrin. Bob Marley said "No woman, no buy..."

Cheers!

 

[AudubonB]

And as Audie Bakewell said

”No TSLA, no post.”

 

[wipster]

I apologize if this has already been posted but I found it hilarious...

https://link.medium.com/WBIuWqwRSfb

 

[Curt Renz]

CNBC - half hour ago:

 

[Mokuzai]

Well I guess I'll be helping out with the energy numbers for Q2. My Solar Roof is scheduled to start install on May 10th!

 

[M|S|M MYP]

Imagine if the markets were green today....oh wait...then $TSLA would be red

 

[Curt Renz]

~~~THE DISCUSSION RE THE WOODLANDS CRASH is once again being jibberjabbered about here in the kind of ways that appropriately got it axed before. Just because it’s important DOES NOT MEAN that all postings of it belong here.

They do not.

This is the Investor sector. Keep it thus.

A lot of you have got me feeling as though I should adopt that despicable sig-line of Bladerskb to use here. That would be a great shame. Stop tempting me.~~~

I understand, Audie, but respectfully tend to disagree. IMO, misunderstanding and possible mal-informed reporting of the Texas crash has kept a lid on the price of TSLA shares, despite good deliveries, earnings and analysts recommendations. Fresh revelations related to facts associated with the crash really should be considered news that's possibly affecting the TSLA share price, not to mention the willingness of consumers to buy Tesla cars.

 

[StealthP3D]

I took a rare (second time in 4 or so years) peek into Electrek and was at least a small bit heartened to read some commentators also raising questions regarding the physical impossibility of this CGI dream.

With the amount of money they are raising from pre-orders and the amount they intend to sell these shells for, I have no doubt they can deliver something like the CGI render and maybe even make money doing it. But then people will figure out it's not really a functional camper in the way they imagined, that there is not enough interior space for it to be useful as envisioned. And then there will be no more buyers and the whole thing will fold.

Some people are claiming fraud, I say it looks more like stupidity on a massive scale. I hope no one here put a deposit down!

 

[ABCTG]

For all the talk of what's fair, and how much people are willing to pay for FSD, I would say that there are a tremendous amount of people who would be willing to pay a high premium for FSD.

What does true Full Self Driving offer? It relieves the passenger of any liability, which in the US is very important, and very valuable.

In Southern California, there is an endless parade of expensive vehicles on the freeway, that have drivers who would love to be able to fully focus on their work/business while sitting in traffic on the 405.

Less wealthy families could choose to have FSD on one vehicle, which they can send to pick up grandma, and shuttle people to work and school.

Maybe FSD becomes a commodity that Google or Apple gives away for "free" so they can continue to have eyeballs focused on what they are offering.

But in the meantime I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people who will be more than happy to pay ~$3600 a year for true FSD.

 

[Knightshade]

For all the talk of what's fair, and how much people are willing to pay for FSD, I would say that there are a tremendous amount of people who would be willing to pay a high premium for FSD.

What does true Full Self Driving offer? It relieves the passenger of any liability, which in the US is very important, and very valuable.

In Southern California, there is an endless parade of expensive vehicles on the freeway, that have drivers who would love to be able to fully focus on their work/business while sitting in traffic on the 405.

Less wealthy families could choose to have FSD on one vehicle, which they can send to pick up grandma, and shuttle people to work and school.

Maybe FSD becomes a commodity that Google or Apple gives away for "free" so they can continue to have eyeballs focused on what they are offering.

But in the meantime I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people who will be more than happy to pay ~$3600 a year for true FSD.

There's almost no (reasonable) limit to what a car maker with L5 (or even very lightly restricted L4) FSD could charge.

But the current product is not that. And the subscription product is very clearly also not that at time of launch (if it genuinely launches in the next month or two).

So what a theoretical final version is worth is very very different from what the version that is actually for sale currently is worth.

 

[ZeApelido]

NOI!! Not true.
Virtually all securitization are structured so as to appear to be non-recourse under applicable accounting rules. The rules are arcane and highly complex. My favorite text for the subject is:

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/lu/Documents/financial-services/us-aers-securitization-accounting-011914-final.pdf

The SEC issued a proposed rule to change disclosures and structuring practices in February:

https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2010/33-9117.pdf

Because all this becomes incredibly detailed and obscure for auto dealers and manufacturers it is dangerous to make most generalizations.
Most, but not all.
Securitizations for all auto loans and finance leases have provisions for the sponsor to substitute collateral in the event of specified deficiencies in specific assets.

In simple US English manufacturers have to over collateralize their borrowings to ensure that the lenders/buyers are protected. In short, they're effectively over-collateralized to substitute for actual accounting recourse. Zero question, though, the lenders/buyers of these securities are well-protected against losses.

For our purposes it's NOT correct to say non-recourse, because were any manufacturer sponsoring a securitization actually produce a credit loss to an investor on any given issue they would quickly discover they would suddenly have a very hard time issuing a new one.

For accuracy and precision one should ready the FASB's and/or devote a few hours to understand the Deloitte presentations.

FWIW, Tesla paid a large premium for it's first issuances but actual performance has been stellar with negligible need for collateral substations so Tesla paper now is highly prized. So, too, the giant issues tend to divide their paper classes so the worst stuff offered by the traditional issuers (GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, the former Chrysler etc all in the category) are placed in separate classes. The "get 'em done" class is common for all of those and is treated very cautiously since they have default rates sometimes as high as 20% or more. Tesla does not have that class at all. Rest assured that class has clear requirements for seasoning and for collateral.

Finally, anybody who thinks Ford quit selling sedans in the US because of direct cost of sales rather misses the point. Mass market, read 'Cheap', sedans in the US have really dismal demographics and consequent high default rates. High defaults on Lons translate quickly to reduce OEM yield precisely because the loans effectively end out being subsidized (the industry term is 'subvened').

That is why auto manufacturers mostly ignore the low end in the US. They also try hard to structure deals so they can avoid most consumer disclosures. That, however, is off topic for Tesla because Tesla does not imploy deceptive business practices. because they do not have dealers Tesla really cannot rip people off with impunity claiming they are not involved. Just their financing entities are doing that.

I don't really understand what you said, but I trust you!

 

[ByeByeJohnny]

For all the talk of what's fair, and how much people are willing to pay for FSD, I would say that there are a tremendous amount of people who would be willing to pay a high premium for FSD.

What does true Full Self Driving offer? It relieves the passenger of any liability, which in the US is very important, and very valuable.

In Southern California, there is an endless parade of expensive vehicles on the freeway, that have drivers who would love to be able to fully focus on their work/business while sitting in traffic on the 405.

Less wealthy families could choose to have FSD on one vehicle, which they can send to pick up grandma, and shuttle people to work and school.

Maybe FSD becomes a commodity that Google or Apple gives away for "free" so they can continue to have eyeballs focused on what they are offering.

But in the meantime I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of people who will be more than happy to pay ~$3600 a year for true FSD.

By charging the highest price you can get in parts of California, and some other areas, you will price yourself out of almost every other market.

I refuse to believe it's Elons goal to get 10% of Tesla drivers to pay a very hig amount and the other 90% saying no way. Rather I think he wants to get 90% to find it at least within a price range that they could consider. That means leaving some money on the table from the California folks but so be it.

 

[mongo]

Where is the "TSLA" in that reply?

apply the rules evenly if you want respect as a moderator

right here:

mistranslation

 

[Unpilot]

Is 704 a number you tea readers find important?

 

[Singuy]

Got the same deal. Difference being I don’t care how much anyone else pays moving forward, but you clearly do. It’s imperative to you that the monthly subscription amount makes you feel like your deal continues to be a deal. Just exactly how long do you need to feel good about your purchase price? Additionally, you think everyone feels the same as you. They don’t. A handful of people stomped their feet and got a short-lived window of discount opportunity because Elon Musk hates to disappoint anyone. Well-played, yet still not an admirable human trait in my books.

1. Never once did I complain about a cheap new subscription will make me personally angry(no idea why you keep insisting that the cheap new subscription fees or any price changes from Tesla affects me personally). I am only arguing in the perspective of the company's image.

2. I bring up the high possibility of public outcry due to historical data.

3. Due to Elon's constant promise of buying FSD today is the best value and the subscription would be a bad value, people will consider a bait and switch if he flip flops on this.

The root of the public outcry will be because of #3. Please understand this point and move on. You need to separate how you feel about me and what I am trying to say.

 

[Singuy]

Is 704 a number you tea readers find important?

Closing above 702 today is very important

 

[Unpilot]

Closing above 702 today is very important

How so?

 

[22522]

Is this true?

"None of this is to say that Tesla can't be successful in a world where it faces more competition. But turning a profit is is going to get harder with each passing year."

1 Question Tesla Investors Need to Ask Themselves | The Motley Fool

The next few years are going to be interesting for the electric-car company.

www.fool.com

State of the art factories in all major markets with product standardization a factor of 3 times better than most competitors, lower cost distribution that scales better, no mixed signals from the distribution network...

it seems like turning a profit would be easier with each passing year if your architecture scales at fundamentally lower cost.

 

[Krugerrand]

You're talking about attributes of human society in sustainable abundance. Asking for that kind of behavior at scale during peak scarcity is an exercise in futility. We gotta work within the current landscape to bring about the next one.

I think Elon's got *sugar* under control and will make a nearly optimal decision. When he charges a lot for something it's because that's what's best for the Master Plan, that's gonna be the case a lot.

I don’t disagree. I was simply pointing out what’s happening in hopes that people become aware. Once self aware, only then can they make a change if so inclined. I obviously doubt they will.

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

Is this true?

"None of this is to say that Tesla can't be successful in a world where it faces more competition. But turning a profit is is going to get harder with each passing year."

1 Question Tesla Investors Need to Ask Themselves | The Motley Fool

The next few years are going to be interesting for the electric-car company.

www.fool.com

State of the art factories in all major markets with product standardization a factor of 3 times better than most competitors, lower cost distribution that scales better, no mixed signals from the distribution network...

it seems like turning a profit would be easier with each passing year if your architecture scales at fundamentally lower cost.

Tesla's earnings every quarter for the past year and half says otherwise. Profits are increasing exponentially higher than their sales/revenue growth rate.

Back out Elon's pay package which starting hitting earnings dramatically in Q3 2020 and the profit story is very clear.

If you see anyone and I mean anyone, using GAAP profits for Tesla and NOT mentioning Elon's pay package, how much it increased in terms of a hit to earnings starting in Q3, and the fact that there's only 677 million left......then you know they have a pretty clear agenda