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

[Thekiwi]

has anyone mentioned Model S/X approved for sale in China, and new Model S spotted yesterday in country?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579689565656580096

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579667604289257473

 

[WattsHappening]

has anyone mentioned Model S/X approved for sale in China, and new Model S spotted yesterday in country?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579689565656580096

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579667604289257473

I'm not sure the stock price can take any more good Tesla news.

 

[insaneoctane]

.....
Has that much really changed since April?

TSLA was at a split adjusted $342 in April?

 

[Todd Burch]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579675027276169216

I don’t get why Gary’s being so obtuse here.

First, there was a typhoon that interrupted production AND deliveries for about 2 days near the end of the quarter. That easily accounts for several thousand cars. Might even account for the entire “shortfall”.

Second, Giga Shanghai is serving many other additional markets now, many of which have opened recently—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.

Third, we had what, another *20k* cars that left port just a few days before the quarter. That means Shanghai missed a delivery number of something like 20,000 MORE than actually delivered by a matter of perhaps a week.

Fourth, we haven’t yet seen any price drops in China.

Fifth, Tesla paid employees 3x overtime to keep production up at start of Q4.

Sixth, rumors of a price drop swirled around before the end of the quarter, which Tesla China directly and firmly denied.

And wait, now because Tesla has different deliveries than Gary and Troy predicted, there’s suddenly a problem? Troy and analysts are routinely off by several percent or more every quarter.

When analysts massively underestimate Tesla performance, we haven’t seen 15% moves to the upside lately, why the double standard?

Remember Q1 results, when Tesla massively beat expectations but DROPPED something like 10% afterward? What a bunch of horse hockey.

Those things combined point to missing BLOWOUT numbers by just a few days, and partly due to a force majeure event (typhoon). I see absolutely *nothing* pointing to any significant demand weakness in China. And even if there were, there is plenty of demand in nearby Asian countries to absorb any difference.

If Gary’s fund supposedly has a large stake in TSLA and he can’t see that, he’s either incredibly dense, or that tells me his fund has temporarily sold TSLA.

Above all this, Shanghai serves more than just China. It doesn’t matter AT ALL where they get sold, as long as they get sold. In fact, margins (even including shipping) might even be HIGHER selling elsewhere depending on foreign exhange rates and pricing in other countries.

G’damn, Wall Street is dense.

 

[unk45]

I assume you are referring to this article?

A Tesla executive laid out the company's next 5 years at an invite-only conference

Electric vehicle architecture is so different that there's potential for a third revolution in automotive manufacturing, the Tesla exec said.

www.businessinsider.com

When asked about the possibility of Tesla making a cheaper EV, Viecha said that the company eventually wants a more affordable vehicle on the road. If a company wants to be a high-volume automaker, it needs a broad portfolio, and Tesla needs a cheaper offering before its company-operated robotaxi service comes out, he explained.

From this I do not read that they will share the platform.

Regarding his comments, I assume you refer to:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1569694551895592962

Here again I don't think he makes any claim for or against the order of Robotaxi and cheaper car, just that he didn't say anything about the date. Imo this does not confirm not before 2024, it just says that he was misquoted regarding 2024. Would not interpret this in any other way than that BI are not trustworthy.

I think Robotaxi will be a lot bigger than cheaper Tesla, so don't think they will share the platform.

Imo Tesla should make a tiny car. Like the Smart car they showed for Daimler a long time ago, but this time done right. No center console and have the seats next to each other. Two seats only... Hatchback, tiny frunk. The new LFP from CATL. No options other than color and FSD(start with delivering FSD models until they run out of demand). A bit fugly is okay. Something like this one:

View attachment 862480

That segment has plentiful options now. Fiat 500, Chery iCar, Honda e, Citroën Ami, Microlino, Renault Twizy etc and endless small truck options. They mostly aren’t in the US but they’re
Very popular in places that have dense central cities. Why would Tesla need or desire to enter that segment?

 

[Artful Dodger]

Has that much really changed since April?

Two things have changed:

1. the IRA has decreased Tesla's materials costs, and
2. the IRA introduces a 1% tax on share buybacks after Dec 31, 2022

Therefore, Tesla must now decide if a one-time share buyback is helpful in Q4.

Futher, the SEC has proposed a new rule (not yet in effect) which would require companies to do daily reporting of any share buybacks, rather than include them in their quarterly filings as is required now.

I'm not sure how this affects TSLA goign forward, but I am sure shortzes will find a way to make it a problem.

 

[JSML]

I assume you are referring to this article?

A Tesla executive laid out the company's next 5 years at an invite-only conference

Electric vehicle architecture is so different that there's potential for a third revolution in automotive manufacturing, the Tesla exec said.

www.businessinsider.com

When asked about the possibility of Tesla making a cheaper EV, Viecha said that the company eventually wants a more affordable vehicle on the road. If a company wants to be a high-volume automaker, it needs a broad portfolio, and Tesla needs a cheaper offering before its company-operated robotaxi service comes out, he explained.

From this I do not read that they will share the platform.

Regarding his comments, I assume you refer to:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1569694551895592962

Here again I don't think he makes any claim for or against the order of Robotaxi and cheaper car, just that he didn't say anything about the date. Imo this does not confirm not before 2024, it just says that he was misquoted regarding 2024. Would not interpret this in any other way than that BI are not trustworthy.

I think Robotaxi will be a lot bigger than cheaper Tesla, so don't think they will share the platform.

Imo Tesla should make a tiny car. Like the Smart car they showed for Daimler a long time ago, but this time done right. No center console and have the seats next to each other. Two seats only... Hatchback, tiny frunk. The new LFP from CATL. No options other than color and FSD(start with delivering FSD models until they run out of demand). A bit fugly is okay. Something like this one:

View attachment 862480

It’s out there somewhere on the internet. He referred to X and S as the first generation platform. Then 3 and Y as the second generation platform. The he said they’re working on the third generation platform that would be used for the robotaxi and the more economical EV.

 

[JSML]

It’s out there somewhere on the internet. He referred to X and S as the first generation platform. Then 3 and Y as the second generation platform. The he said they’re working on the third generation platform that would be used for the robotaxi and the more economical EV.

I stand corrected. He never said that the new economical EV would be on robotaxi platform. Just follow up interpretations by YouTubers and analysts. It would make sense though since he termed it a platform, meaning other models would be built on it.

 

[ZachF]

Um. There’s this thing about moving big objects. Take a small ship, like a destroyer. Chug it through the ocean at 20 knots. Measure the fuel used per nautical mile and figure the cost. Divide by the weight of the ship and you get the cost per mile-ton. Destroyers are 6000 tons or so. Call this ratio, “A”.

Do the same for an aircraft carrier massing 66000 tons, moving at the same speed. Call this ratio, “B”. It turns out that A is a heck of a lot larger than B. Which is why cargo ships tend to be huge: it’s cheaper to ship things in big vessels than small ones, even if the big guys use more fuel.

It also turns out that the highest possible speed for a displacement hull is bigger for large vessels than small ones. Which is why a nuke aircraft carrier can win a race with a destroyer. A little counterintuitive, that.

This turns out to be true for any mode of transport going through a turbulent medium. Ships, airplanes, and road vehicles. Which is Why Semis, I guess. And the critical ratio is both the range at full load and the cost per mile-ton of cargo.

Kind of obvious, I guess. But I haven’t heard it mentioned.

It’s called the square-cube law.

 

[heltok]

I stand corrected. He never said that the new economical EV would be on robotaxi platform. Just follow up interpretations by YouTubers and analysts. It would make sense though since he termed it a platform, meaning other models would be built on it.

My guess is that Robotaxi and Cybervan will share a platform. Both are used for shipping stuff all day long, one for shipping people comfortable, one for shipping stuff. Both need very high reliability and serviceability, both will share the cost over many miles so it's okay if they cost a bit more to purchase.

 

[Mengy]

I don’t get why Gary’s being so obtuse here.

First, there was a typhoon that interrupted production AND deliveries for about 2 days near the end of the quarter. That easily accounts for several thousand cars. Might even account for the entire “shortfall”.

Second, Giga Shanghai is serving many other additional markets now, many of which have opened recently—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.

Third, we had what, another *20k* cars that left port just a few days before the quarter. That means Shanghai missed a delivery number of something like 20,000 MORE than actually delivered by a matter of perhaps a week.

Fourth, we haven’t yet seen any price drops in China.

Fifth, Tesla paid employees 3x overtime to keep production up at start of Q4.

Sixth, rumors of a price drop swirled around before the end of the quarter, which Tesla China directly and firmly denied.

And wait, now because Tesla has different deliveries than Gary and Troy predicted, there’s suddenly a problem? Troy and analysts are routinely off by several percent or more every quarter.

When analysts massively underestimate Tesla performance, we haven’t seen 15% moves to the upside lately, why the double standard?

Remember Q1 results, when Tesla massively beat expectations but DROPPED something like 10% afterward? What a bunch of horse hockey.

Those things combined point to missing BLOWOUT numbers by just a few days, and partly due to a force majeure event (typhoon). I see absolutely *nothing* pointing to any significant demand weakness in China. And even if there were, there is plenty of demand in nearby Asian countries to absorb any difference.

If Gary’s fund supposedly has a large stake in TSLA and he can’t see that, he’s either incredibly dense, or that tells me his fund has temporarily sold TSLA.

Above all this, Shanghai serves more than just China. It doesn’t matter AT ALL where they get sold, as long as they get sold. In fact, margins (even including shipping) might even be HIGHER selling elsewhere depending on foreign exhange rates and pricing in other countries.

G’damn, Wall Street is dense.

I think a lot of professional analysts simply hate being wrong, it hurts their ego, thus whenever something contradicts what they predicted they run around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to justify their predictions while punishing the stock which dared to make them look incorrect.

In my opinion, emotions should never be a part of investing, yet many analysts seem to be driven by emotions. It is strange to me....

 

[15Peter20]

Cybertruck and Semi are two different vehicles.

You got a disagree! LoL.

 

[Artful Dodger]

To say Tesla is "content to occupy the higher end" isn't really fully observant of what has come before the situation we're at today.

Indeed, Tesla management has stated this clearly and consistently on quarterly earnings calls. Demand for Models 3 & Y has far exceeded any of Tesla's internal projections. They are simply unable to produce enough of these (higher priced) cars to meet the actual demand for them.

That is why Elon said that "2022 is all about increasing production", at that's why the Model Y has been prioritized in Berlin and Austin, and a 2nd GA line for Model Y has been added in Shanghai (Q4 2021), and now upgraded both Model 3 & Y Production lines in Shanghai in Q3 2023.

When Tesla is FINALLY able to produce enough 3/Y to meet the demand, then it makes sense for Tesla to take the next step on the product ladder, which will be a smaller car. Intermixed with this, is the Robotaxi platform, which I expect to hear about during the Q3 Earnings Call next week.

Disingenuous Analysts like Bernstein's Toni Fibbernacci push thesis like "Tesla's order backlog in China is the best indicator of demand". This is FALSE. The best indictor of demand is sales, which are up 50% YoY. Tesla increased MiC production by 50% and now is able to deliver orders faster? No kidding? (you get paid 4 dis?)

Laughably, Fibberman's "sector underperform rating" implies that other Chinese automakers are doing better. The exact opposite has happened in the past year, with Tesla far out-pacing them in sales. But Fib-bouy expects this to magically turn around because "?? no reason given??". All that his $150 PT does is tell us how much money Bernstein has lost shorting TSLA. What a transparent buffoon.

Then we get fickle and opportunist fund manglers like gblack who are perfectly willing to jawbone down the SP on "demand concerns" while they are accumulating privately, at the expense of the retail audience that ingests his obvious errors in analysis. Purposeful deceit.

This happens every quarter. Remind me what the "concern" was in Q2? Q3?

TL;dr Wall St. is a cesspool. They just call it Tuesday.

 

[KMCC]

Possible. I'm still eyeing up car dealerships as perfect staging locations for robotaxis as well but that's a bit farther out.

Shopping malls are ready now!

 

[Silent Ludicrosy]

Apparently GM is getting into the stationary storage business. Hopefully they have their battery fires figured out. Can’t just tell customers to “park it outside” like the Bolt.

 

[MABMAB]

I don’t get why Gary’s being so obtuse here.

First, there was a typhoon that interrupted production AND deliveries for about 2 days near the end of the quarter. That easily accounts for several thousand cars. Might even account for the entire “shortfall”.

Second, Giga Shanghai is serving many other additional markets now, many of which have opened recently—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.

Third, we had what, another *20k* cars that left port just a few days before the quarter. That means Shanghai missed a delivery number of something like 20,000 MORE than actually delivered by a matter of perhaps a week.

Fourth, we haven’t yet seen any price drops in China.

Fifth, Tesla paid employees 3x overtime to keep production up at start of Q4.

Sixth, rumors of a price drop swirled around before the end of the quarter, which Tesla China directly and firmly denied.

And wait, now because Tesla has different deliveries than Gary and Troy predicted, there’s suddenly a problem? Troy and analysts are routinely off by several percent or more every quarter.

When analysts massively underestimate Tesla performance, we haven’t seen 15% moves to the upside lately, why the double standard?

Remember Q1 results, when Tesla massively beat expectations but DROPPED something like 10% afterward? What a bunch of horse hockey.

Those things combined point to missing BLOWOUT numbers by just a few days, and partly due to a force majeure event (typhoon). I see absolutely *nothing* pointing to any significant demand weakness in China. And even if there were, there is plenty of demand in nearby Asian countries to absorb any difference.

If Gary’s fund supposedly has a large stake in TSLA and he can’t see that, he’s either incredibly dense, or that tells me his fund has temporarily sold TSLA.

Above all this, Shanghai serves more than just China. It doesn’t matter AT ALL where they get sold, as long as they get sold. In fact, margins (even including shipping) might even be HIGHER selling elsewhere depending on foreign exhange rates and pricing in other countries.

G’damn, Wall Street is dense.

And this post tells me you do not follow Gary and perhaps should refrain from commenting.
He bought more TSLA this week.

 

[Nocturnal]

Apparently GM is getting into the stationary storage business. Hopefully they have their battery fires figured out. Can’t just tell customers to “park it outside” like the Bolt.

Tiny battery supply, spread out over how many dozens of promised EV models and now battery storage?

They really want to keep the SP up by duping investors. I wonder how long they can play musical shares?

"We're getting into the entire ecosystem of energy management," GM executive Travis Hester said in an interview.

"Our competition in this space on the (automaker) side is really only Tesla, which is a strong energy management company," added Hester, who heads EV Growth Operations. "There are a lot of analogies you can draw with Tesla." (please see us as a Tesla competitor plz)

 

[2daMoon]

Borrowing funds for non-productive use at high and rising interest rates.

Did you watch the video referenced before disagreeing?

The rising interest rates and unlikely benefit of using a loan was apparent to me and is what prompted me to question this in the first place. Granted, I could have been more clear, as the question is rooted in having watched the SMR episode to have all the pieces of the puzzle.

This was being spelled out in the video as a possible strategy when SMR was reporting on Merz' response. Sometimes I don't understand why some accounting tactics would be a useful strategy. I raised the question to see if someone with more knowledge might have an answer.

Your disagree indicated to me that you think I do understand the strategy I have questioned? I assure you that I don't.

Are you saying that the fact that S&P is suddenly singing the Tesla song with the right lyrics, and, raising the credit rating to investment grade wasn't due to them becoming educated on the subject and it wouldn't somehow benefit S&P to do so?

Would it benefit S&P in some way for Tesla to borrow to fund a buy back?

Would this be in any way to Tesla's advantage? If so, please explain.

 

[jkirkwood001]

I wanted to give everyone an update on solar / energy. I am in a unique position where we got solar installed in 2020 and then proceeded to move 2 blocks to the other side of our neighborhood (needed more space) and get solar installed again. So I have seen first hand the improvements Tesla has made in ~2 years with the energy side of the business.

In the first house, we had 3 powerwall v1's installed. It took them an entire full day to do the install of the power walls and get everything setup (2 electricians). For the solar panels on the roof, we had 3 separate clusters installed totaling about ~42 panels. They were 320w panels, cutting edge at the time. The team was a team of 4 and it took 3 full days.

In the second house, we had 2 gen 2 powerwalls installed and it took them ~4 hours including waiting ~30 minutes for our utility provider to show up so they could open the box (exact same 2 electricians ). We had 60 410w panels installed (bringing us 100% off the grind) installed in 2 days. With that being said, they started at 8 and slowed down around 1pm and just sort of messed around the rest of the day. They could have 100% finished the job in one day. The crew was double the size, but they were way more efficent and organized.

Additionally, our utility provider does not let us push energy back to the grid until they finish the interconnection process which takes about ~2 months between all the inspections. At the old house, Tesla showed us how to turn our system off (it still pushed back to the grid when it was on) so we had to be careful with it. The new system is 100% self contained and controlled by software, so the system has been on since they left. It automatically clips energy production when the powerwalls are full. They figured out how to stick it to the utility providers with software. Additionally, I had a quality assurance person reach out to me for the 2nd install to come by and double check all the work to make sure it was done up to their standards.

All in all, I dont see how this cant be bullish. They are clearly ramping and optimizing the energy side of the house.

Nice to hear @strago13 , good anecdote.

But I have to say, the fact that Tesla solar panels and Powerwalls are still only available in USA AFAIK means they are still a long way from ramping up a commodity offering globally, as they have done with auto. Let's hope!

I would also like to go 100% clean energy here in Ontario, but can't yet with Tesla.

 

[Nocturnal]

This was being spelled out as a possible strategy in the video by SMR reporting on Merz. Sometimes I don't understand why some accounting tactics would be a useful strategy. I raised the question to see if someone with more knowledge might have an answer.

B-schools teach people that adding debt increases enterprise value, assuming it's relatively low vs assets etc. It's a bit of an accounting trick but WS would be perfectly happy to see Tesla take some debt to buy back shares.