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

[JRP3]

I disagree only because we know that cell to pack is already being done by CATL with prismatic and BYD with Blade.

I don't think CATL cell to pack is necessarily a structural pack, it just removes modules.

 

[CorneliusXX]

I disagree only because we know that cell to pack is already being done by CATL with prismatic and BYD with Blade. There si no inherent reason that Tesla would adopt cylindrical 4680 in preference to those, especially when Cybertruck, Semi, Model Y, more Model Y and others can and will use high nickel for Performance and other such applications. Battery day showed us.

Obviously they might produce any new chemistry in 4680 form factor. High volume, though, does not give evidence of that.

Are the CATL and BYD packs structural? Or just module-less? If not structural then Tesla would need to make different vehicle "glider" (for lack of a better term) structures for each vehicle variant depending on the type of pack.

I don't know if Tesla LFP cells will be cylindrical, prismatic or pouch - however there would need to be substantial additional cell manufacturing development done if the cell changes. It's difficult to tell where Tesla would come out ahead - a higher density LFP pack using prismatic/pouch but with higher R&D costs, or lower density pack using existing cell manufacturing methods.

I'm assuming that existing vehicle manufacturing lines can handle both structural and non-structural pack gliders as Berlin and Austin appear to have been established with that contingency in mind - However if that is not the case then there may also be additional line development costs required.

 

[JRP3]

Are the CATL and BYD packs structural?

BYD claims to be, I don't think CATL is at this point.

 

[CorneliusXX]

BYD claims to be, I don't think CATL is at this point.

Thanks. I guess we also wouldn't know if BYD structural specs meet Tesla's requirements for structural in terms of handling vehicle loads.

 

[Boomer19]

As I recall from a quarter century ago, Qualcomm was valued for the profitable side of its business (chips, network infrastructure, handsets and royalties) and essentially zero value was assigned to the fledging wireless carrier that was launched by QCOM to stimulate competition. Qualcomm never intended to be a wireless carrier, I think they launched Leap Wireless, much like Tesla is launching auto insurance, to help CDMA break into the market at a time that most wireless carriers had huge investments in a dead-end technology, TDMA, and the value of their capital investments was threatened by the spread-spectrum technology that is now the basis of digital standards in various flavors worldwide.

In 1998, the competitor FUD ran thick and heavy in the media and was also propagated by brokerages that had helped TDMA companies capitalize and, as a result, even today many people don't understand that wireless carriers worldwide use a spread spectrum technology that is the result of CDMA winning the wireless war. Because even as it was being re-branded (in a slightly changed form) as "GSM" or "Wideband GSM", and people were told this was not Qualcomm's technology even though it was CDMA technology at its heart. Qualcomm let them do this as long as they paid the going royalty rate and did not legally dispute that it was essentially Qualcomm's technology with different parameters to ensure it was not compatible.

Leap Wireless probably did cause the stock to drop about $1/share on the day of the spin-off. It was too long ago to remember the exact amount but it was no more than one quarter the value Leap started trading at and QCOM had probably run up a bit in anticipation of getting the Leap shares. Investors got one share of Leap for every four shares of QCOM they held. QCOM was my biggest holding at the time so I got a lot of Leap shares which I sold off after they ran up. Leap eventually ended up failing or being bought out for pennies due to huge barriers to entry and the difficulty of competing with much larger carriers in the wireless market. There is a thing called "network effect" which is that your customers are buying into coverage and they want it to work everywhere. A small carrier can only offer regional coverage without network sharing agreements, it costs billions to cover a continent. But Leap didn't go under until long after the new shares had their speculative run up, I don't recall exactly, three to six times the original valuation.

The principle at play here that is relevant to a possible Ford spin-off is that Farley is essentially saying that people are not valuing Ford highly enough because they are not including enough value for the potential of their EV business. What he doesn't seem to consider is the EV business is not in addition to their legacy business, it's instead of ICE sales. That's different than in a traditional spin-off where the spun-off business doesn't compete with the existing business as was the case with Leap Wireless. Leap Wireless became a customer of Qualcomm's infrastructure and chip businesses, not a competitor.

I also don't agree with the premise that Ford's EV business is not being valued enough, given the price F stock is trading at. I believe Ford stock is trading much higher, perhaps triple the price it would be trading at if they didn't have the potential to succeed in EV's. I suppose if one was of the belief that Ford EV's would so hugely successful that Ford EV's would even apply huge competitive pressure to Tesla sales, then that person could argue that the value of Ford's EV business is not being fully valued within F shares. But I don't think there are too many members of this forum that believe Ford will be able to compete on value with Tesla due to Tesla's superior corporate efficiency and continuing innovations in manufacturing that are already demonstrating a huge lead in manufacturing efficiency.

So, I think Farley is just trying to get people to value F stock even higher by dangling the carrot of a possible EV spin-off in front of investors noses so corporate insiders can divest themselves at more lucrative prices before Ford stock is in the gutter. It could also delay the amount of time Ford shares take to find the gutter with this potential carrot hanging there. So, don't expect this potential spin-off to be resolved shortly - I think it will be the perpetual "carrot" designed to support Ford share price until the time it is realized that Ford's EV business is even less profitable than their ICE business (due in part to competitive pressures in the EV market like TSLA's efficiency). If it was actually feasible to spin-off Ford's EV business, that would only hasten the transparency of the poor economics of Ford's EV business. Currently the economic details are hiding behind the opaque curtain of ICE profits.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the SEC to step-in to protect F shareholders by reminding Farley that a spin-off of their EV business is structurally very much more problematic than he is disclosing due to many factors including dealership franchise agreements, pension obligations and the fact that a spun-off EV business would be a direct competitor to Ford's ICE business.

interesting on the qcom/leap issue. thank you.

and as far as the prospect of F “unlocking value” scenario, it’s not like ebay -> paypal, altria -> Kraft, or maybe not even a lockheed -> leidos, for that matter.

good call on the carrot play-out scenario. seems like just another marketing ploy to keep Fords stock sticky while they attempt to figure their ‘stuff’ out.

F stock went up a few percent on the “news”, but pretty much came right back down. although we know the market can do stupid things. so i also would not be surprised to see stay, or continue up from here, over the next couple years while the rubes get sucked in as the whales exit. sad.

 

[jbcarioca]

I don't think CATL cell to pack is necessarily a structural pack, it just removes modules.

It is not necessarily structural. I am looking for the source that stated that the CATL plant adjacent to the Tesla Shanghai factory was preparing to deploy structural packs. CATL does supply complete packs to several manufacturers, but not the Tesla structural ones, obviously. Nor have been the ones supplied previously for Model 3 and Model Y in Shanghai. I have not yet found the source, which I recall was from CATL itself.

 

[t153]

How long has MSM been a "free" color? I haven't seen it posted before...View attachment 771941

In the US it happened sometime in November of 2021.

 

[jbcarioca]

We also have a very business-friendly and technologically forward thinking economic environment, and the world's best PISA science scores which promise a highly skilled future workforce.

I just wish Tesla hadn't stopped its EU expansion just shy of the Baltics, we really need official Tesla representation here to help us move towards vehicle electrification, which is sadly lagging here. Even though VW made a big push here with their ID models last year, the Model 3 was still the most popular electric car. Only a few dozen in total, but it shows that the market is hungry for them here if only it were easier to get them.

Below are 2021 stats for electric vehicles and all combined in Estonia.

View attachment 771990

View attachment 771989

https://twitter.com/x/status/1493627354786246657

Not to mention being one of my favorite places on the planet!

 

[CorneliusXX]

It appears that LG's fires aren't just limited to vehicles. Moss landing has had a significant number of meltdowns in stationary storage. The article is a little unclear as to whether it is the cell or the pack that is causing issues.

The Largest Lithium-Ion Battery in the World Keeps Melting

Note that LG isn't even mentioned in the article. I had to google the supplier for this project. I doubt Tesla would receive the same courtesy.

 

[jkirkwood001]

If it's a holiday today in both US and Canada, why am I back on my computer Monday morning checking TMC and staring at a static Yahoo TSLA ticker...?

Oh yeah?? What's YOUR excuse?

 

[Dangerous Fish]

It appears that LG's fires aren't just limited to vehicles. Moss landing has had a significant number of meltdowns in stationary storage. The article is a little unclear as to whether it is the cell or the pack that is causing issues.

The Largest Lithium-Ion Battery in the World Keeps Melting

Note that LG isn't even mentioned in the article. I had to google the supplier for this project. I doubt Tesla would receive the same courtesy.

Photo caption: "TESLA MEGAPACK BATTERIES AT THE ELKHORN BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM NEXT TO THE VISTRA MOSS LANDING NATURAL GAS FIRED POWER PLANT IN MOSS LANDING, CALIFORNIA, U.S. GETTY IMAGES"

 

[scaesare]

It appears that LG's fires aren't just limited to vehicles. Moss landing has had a significant number of meltdowns in stationary storage. The article is a little unclear as to whether it is the cell or the pack that is causing issues.

The Largest Lithium-Ion Battery in the World Keeps Melting

Note that LG isn't even mentioned in the article. I had to google the supplier for this project. I doubt Tesla would receive the same courtesy.

Yet interestingly, despite being Tesla Megapacks that isn't even mentioned in the article.. just the picture caption.

ON EDIT: Sniped by @Dangerous Fish !

 

[scaesare]

I thought it was quite interesting last Tuesday when I helped my friends pick up their Model 3 SR. The website still says 267 mile range, but their screen indicates 274 mile range. They charged the other night, and it was 273 in the morning, so their LFP pack is better than promised. That would be fantastic if they can keep improving LFP like that. It now has more range than my 2018 Model 3 Mid-Range.

I wonder if LFP loses a few percentage points of range initially like the NCA chemistry cells do.

My 2013 S indicated ~275 miles when new... after a couple of weeks it leveled out at ~265...

 

[Singuy]

If it's a holiday today in both US and Canada, why am I back on my computer Monday morning checking TMC and staring at a static Yahoo TSLA ticker...?

Oh yeah?? What's YOUR excuse?

If you want to stare at the ticker, enjoy this one.

NASDAQ 100 E-Mini | Index Futures | Markets Insider

NASDAQ 100 E-Mini Today: Get all information on the NASDAQ 100 E-Mini including historical chart and constituents.

markets.businessinsider.com

 

[ninpb]

Why Tesla and GM want to be big in a new kind of car insurance business
GM following Tesla, using it's OnStar data to provide driver habits based insurance this year.

On Star Insurance: we can save you a lot because of your safe driving habits but your premium is 500 a month because unfortunately your EV of choice likes to catch on fire.

 

[mongo]

It appears that LG's fires aren't just limited to vehicles. Moss landing has had a significant number of meltdowns in stationary storage. The article is a little unclear as to whether it is the cell or the pack that is causing issues.

The Largest Lithium-Ion Battery in the World Keeps Melting

Note that LG isn't even mentioned in the article. I had to google the supplier for this project. I doubt Tesla would receive the same courtesy.

That doesn't seem fair to blame LG in this situation.The article states both meltdowns were likely due to water from leaks in the fire suppression system which armed due to smoke from non-cell sources.

The energy generation company said in a release issued months after the September meltdown that the facility’s fire management software detected low levels of smoke in one area of the facility due to a "failed bearing in an air handling unit," the company wrote, which armed the heat suppression system that, due to "failures of a small number of couplings on flexible hoses and pipes, sprayed water directly on a number of battery racks, causing some to overheat. This created more smoke, which generated more water, and so on.

In its statement regarding the latest meltdown, Vistra Energy said there are early indications that the September incident repeated itself. "There is early evidence that water hoses leaked and that some batteries shorted, creating smoke in the building, similar to what we observed with the September incident at our 300-MW Phase I facility next door," the release states.

 

[Mengy]

Harley Davidson- the world's most efficient machines at converting gasoline into noise, without the side effect of horsepower!

This is true, I've owned seven of them in my lifetime. Now I ride a Goldwing DCT and it's much more efficient at converting gas into horsepower. Plus it pulls like a Tesla!

 

[MikeAtkinson]

BYD claims to be, I don't think CATL is at this point.

For a battery pack to be structural it needs to be designed with the vehicle. This is because the vehicle static and dynamic loads are carried by the battery, the detailed design of the battery. Also for Teslas, the battery is integrated into heat management.

While BYD can design structural batteries for their own vehicles, they would have to build a battery to Tesla specs for it to be structural for Tesla cars.

 

[Christine69420]

A Norwegian customer got a phone from Tesla informing him that he would not get a Berlin made LR TMY until late next year.
Tesla Berlin would only deliver Performance models this year - and only black and white ones until some time this summer.
And he would not get his car for the price on the original order.

I believe some customers have asked Tesla to postpone delivery until they could get cars made in Giga Berlin.
If they accept cars from Giga Shanghai they can get their cars much sooner.

 

[BrownOuttaSpec]

CATL has officially started building a $440 million factory next to Tesla Giga Shanghai. The project with a total area of about 350,000 square meters will be completed and put into operation within a year.

CATL Officially Starts Building $440 Million Factory Next to Tesla Giga Shanghai

CATL has officially started building a $440 million factory next to the Tesla Giga Shanghai. The project with a total area of about 350,000 square meters will be completed and put into operation within a year.

www.tesmanian.com

"The project will focus on research and development of battery technology including low energy consumption, long-range power battery system architecture, and low-temperature environment to solve the problems of new energy vehicle users including mileage anxiety, said Qu Tao, CATL's chairman assistant. Although Tesla's name does not appear in the press release, all indications are that it will be primarily focused on the production and supply of batteries for Tesla."