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.
Numbers are out:

P: 237k
D: 241k

0F2BEDFE-E6DA-4606-8E83-0B8563F9F571.gif
P
 
What will the bailout package look like this time? Can the administration bailout the ICE business and have any credibility on climate action? Just doling out $12.5k on union-made EVs will not solve this hot mess.
It is just sad to read this and I should make a reaction video, but will rage post here instead

What GM says -"General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) dealers delivered 446,997 vehicles in the U.S. in the third quarter of 2021, down 218,195 units from a year ago as a result of semiconductor supply chain disruptions and historically low inventories"

What is most likely happening - The GM lineup is unattractive at current prices due to lower value compared to used vehicles. The chip shortage is only due to GM's inability to innovate at appropriate engineering levels required to be agile enough to overcome these supply chain issues, which are pretty massive, but nonetheless, it can be solved better by companies who know how to do appropriate levels of engineering.

What GM says - "...with most of the impact occurring during the third quarter."

What is most likely happening - Demand usually increases in Q4 vs Q3 seasonally and they hope they can recover demand at prices which allow them to remain solvent. Too much debt, not enough free cash flow, not enough operating margin, not able to make debt payments, not able to make payroll, @jhm hot mess.

What GM says - "GM’s financial outlook is still expected to be within the calendar year guidance range previously provided as the company continues to develop solutions to mitigate the impacts of the semiconductor shortage and Chevrolet Bolt EV recall."

What is actually happening - GM is forcing LG, under contract, to design and implement ECOs which fully mitigate issues seen in the field which have resulted in the recall of every, EVERY, yes every Bolt made. LG does the engineering, implementation and manages production of their, yes their, drivetrain. My prediction is that GM and LG both knew about these issues prior to releasing these vehicles to be salable and an eventual whistleblower will come forward with appropriate documentation. Why? The issue is so easily reproducible, ubiquitous and so severe from an engineering perspective.

What GM says - "GM has been agile and decisive in managing COVID-related impacts..."

What is most likely happening - They are doing the least they possibly can to implement solutions to mitigate impacts. They know Biden will bail them out and they know the writing is on the wall (aka hot mess). If they *were* being agile, they would have hired engineers to combat the chip shortage; full stop. I see no evidence of hiring FW engineers or board designers. But I doubt they even know those disciplines. But all you have to do is look on LinkedIn to see how many Tesla employs.

What GM says - The rest is how great their ICE business is doing (spin) and how they will eventually make EVs

What is actually happening - Demand is falling for their legacy products which cannot be made a profit due to lack of innovation at the engineering level. No amount of marketing can overcome this inevitable conclusion. Their EVs are nothing but a 1st party badge on a 3rd party drivetrain. It is NOT engineering innovation. Sandy demonstrates this on every teardown he does. And even though he doesn't have the personell to teardown to the FW, BIOS or low level SW/Service/API stack it is obvious to me there has been ZERO innovation at those levels. Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you legacy ICE designed BEV.
 
While there is opinion against plug-in hybrids on this board, if included in the scheme (and recent rumors are they won’t be), they could make a meaningful impact on mpg across the national fleet. Even if they’re only marginally cleaner than ICE vehicles, seems like the reduction in gasoline usage could be positive. Volt owners have usually made an effort to maximize electric miles = gasoline mpg, so it seems like people choosing plug-in over standard hybrids would as well, otherwise why pay the premium?

We have experience with tax incentives for plug-in hybrids in The Netherlands and that wasn't a good experience, that's for sure.
Because of these incentives in 2013 a lot of people bought the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV here as a lease car.
The greatest part of that Mitsubishi production at the time went to The Netherlands.
Most owners appeared to drive them largely pure on gas, because they thought that was easier (and their employer paid for the gas anyway).
They only bought them for the tax incentive, not because they were in any way motivated to drive electrically.
Maybe now the circumstances differ a little, but still: no, incentives for plug-in hybrids are a very bad idea.
 
237,823 Production
241,300 Deliveries

Wow - very close to my estimates.

1633189250556.png


 

...
What GM says -"General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) dealers delivered 446,997 vehicles in the U.S. in the third quarter of 2021, down 218,195 units from a year ago as a result of semiconductor supply chain disruptions and historically low inventories"

So Tesla delivered over 50% of the vehicles GM did in Q3. That compares to 21% a year ago.

At this rate of growth (Tesla) and decline (GM), Tesla would deliver 50% more cars than GM in Q3 2022. I don't think GM will lose another 50% sales next year, but that's the trend. Just sayin'...

Numbers are out:

P: 237k
D: 241k

View attachment 716995P
 
Numbers are out:

P: 237k
D: 241k

View attachment 716995P

3/Y production was pretty much exactly where I expected it to be. I was up to 245k for deliveries but looks like I overestimated Model S production throughout the quarter by about 3k
 
237,823 Production
241,300 Deliveries

Wow - very close to my estimates.

View attachment 717073

So, are you thinking we will see EPS over $2.00?
 
Updated my numbers with 238k produced in q3. That's a 15.5% increase from q2. Q2 saw a 14% increase from q1. Using q2's increase to be conservative I'm estimating q4 production to increase by 14% to 271.3k for a 2021 total production around 895.3k.

For q3 and q4 I increased revenue estimates to account for more model Y and S sales. Using an average rev of $58,889 (I lump total revenue together) I come up with a 2021 est revenue of $52.7B.

At 20x price to sales ratio I estimate a market cap of $1.054T and a share price of $1,065.

Using price to sales between 18 and 30 (both p/s ratios were hit this year) to get a share price range I estimate $958-$1,597.
 
Last edited:



So Tesla delivered over 50% of the vehicles GM did in Q3. That compares to 21% a year ago.

At this rate of growth (Tesla) and decline (GM), Tesla would deliver 50% more cars than GM in Q3 2022. I don't think GM will lose another 50% sales next year, but that's the trend. Just sayin'...

Tesla's Q3 2021 revenues will probably be at about +/- half of GM and Ford's levels... (~$14.5b vs ~$30b)

Sometime 2023 Tesla will probably overtake them in revenue and become the largest US automaker. :cool:
 
The crux of the issue is battery supply of course.

Since we have data on the volt let's compare there. 18.4 kWh battery.

That's 4-5x less capacity than most "long range" EVs from legacy today.

Since we don't have enough for replace all ICE--- would we rather replace 4-5 ICE with 4-5 Hybrids (that from the volt #s drive 2/3rds of their miles on battery)... or replace 1 ICE with 1 EV and leave the other 3-4 cars ICE because there's not enough pure EVs?

From a simple "put less overall pollution into the air starting right now" perspective hybrid wins on the math.

But the question is far more complex, because encouraging a compromise solution, the futon of cars if you will, means there's less rush and less incentive to SOLVE that battery supply issue and get rid of ICE entirely.
The real problem is placing four new cars with gas engine onto the road that runs for ten more years polluting. Instead of one this year that never will and another next year and so on. And it appears there is a slow down of buying new gas cars already so it isn’t that necessarily this means 1 new bev and three new fully gas cars will be the result
 
So, are you thinking we will see EPS over $2.00?

Compared to my model, the lower Model S sales (and slightly higher lease rate) changed my EPS down one penny.
Instead of $2.01 non-GAAP EPS, my model now shows $2.00.
But I will update my model over the next couple of weeks and publish my EPS estimates before Earnings Day.
The $2.00 may go up as I have been conservative on pricing and margins in my current model.
 
Compared to my model, the lower Model S sales (and slightly higher lease rate) changed my EPS down one penny.
Instead of $2.01 non-GAAP EPS, my model now shows $2.00.
But I will update my model over the next couple of weeks and publish my EPS estimates before Earnings Day.
The $2.00 may go up as I have been conservative on pricing and margins in my current model.
Perhaps the Tesla Energy business will be a contributor this quarter also. There were several large projects that completed in the quarter, although they do not disclose enough to let us accurately forecast financial impact. Has anybody managed to find solid inferences for this business? I have not found it, just announcements of projects contracted or service entry of some Megapack projects.

In any event it seems entirely logical to surpass 900,000 vehicles delivered in Q4, maybe more depending on when Berlin and Austin begin to scale. From a margin perspective the commencement of Model X deliveries will be a large boost, and those seem likely to happen within the next few weeks, assuming that appearance of quite a few Model X at Fremont is grounds for a plausible inference.
My personal view is that we will have quite good basis for estimates by the end of this month.
 
Last edited by a moderator: