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.
Another price target cut by Morgan Stanley:

Could Negative Tesla Market Sentiment Affect the Business Itself? Price Target to $240

We expect the 45% YoY decline in 1Q Model S+X volume will largely continue throughout 2019, impacting mix, margin and cash flow. We mark to market our forecasts following disappointing 1Q deliveries and lower our target to $240. Reiterate Equal-weight.

Key changes to our earnings forecast:

Delivery volume. We have cut our total company full year 2019 delivery forecast to 344k units vs. 362k units previously. We are now below the low end of Tesla’s 360k to 400k range. Over 100% of our delivery reduction is from Model S and X, which we now expect to average 14,800/quarter through the remainder of the year. Our FY Model 3 forecast rises slightly to 287,500.

Revenues. Our 2019 total company revenue forecast falls 7.5% on the delivery revision, exacerbated by mix degradation from Model S and X declines. Our revised auto revenue forecast calls for a 3% YoY decline in both 3Q19 and 4Q19 revenue.

Automotive gross margin. We have revised our 1Q19 US GAAP auto gross margin forecast to 18.4% from 22.3% previously. Going forward, we forecast US GAAP auto gross margin to improve to 20.9% in 2Q, 21.9% in 3Q and 22.2% in 4Q. For the full year, our 2019 GAAP auto gross margin has been revised down 150bps to 21.1%. Our FY forecast includes slightly more than $400mm of ZEV (zero emission vehicle) credit revenue, which is worth 140bps of margin.

EPS. FY19 US GAAP EPS revised to negative $6.55 from negative $3.59 previously. Our 2020 EPS forecast falls to $0.21 from $2.64 previously. Our 2025 EPS forecast falls to $14.78 from $15.88 previously.

Cash flow. Our forecast for 1Q19 free cash flow has been revised to negative $1.1bn vs. negative $935mm previously. For 2Q19, we forecast just under $200mm negative FCF. For the full year, we forecast Tesla consumes $1.3bn of free cash flow before ABL borrowing actions.

Gross liquidity. We forecast Tesla ended 1Q19 with just under $2bn in cash. Our forecast includes $200mm of borrowing from their warehouse line. Given our FCF forecast and estimates for new borrowing, we estimate Tesla gross cash bottoms in 2Q19 at just under $1.9bn

(...)

Key changes to the narrative:

Can negative sentiment around the stock begin to impact the actual business? We are increasingly concerned about the impact that investor concerns over Tesla’s financial strength and forward looking liquidity position could potentially have on employee morale, customer perceptions and standing with key stakeholders and suppliers.

If and how Tesla may have access to capital is a top theme in discussions with investors. We continue to model a $2.5bn equity raise in 3Q19, which remains unchanged following the 1Q sales update. Even bulls we speak with are in support of the company raising equity capital sufficient in amount to quell questions about its potential financing needs.

Reiterate Equal-weight. The fundamental narrative around Tesla appears more clouded than we have seen in several years. Signs of weakening demand have raised long-standing questions about the company’s ability to fund itself as an independent company.
 
Folks, remember this? (See attachment):

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION February 25, 2019
ORDER GRANTING CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Tesla, Inc.


FIAT deal was also on the 25th, right? Bears are complaining that this deal is material enough to file an 8k and are complaining that Tesla did not. A bullish poster on SA pointed out the confidential SEC filing, which I guess the bears missed.

But I don't understand why Tesla would want to keep it concealed. What would be the competitive advantage?

FCA NDA?
 
Minor point: chip is 10x the processing power, but there are two for redundancy.

Firstly, do we know it for a fact that they are using two chips for redundancy? Another approach would be to build redundancy and fail-over into the chip itself, which would increase the gate count and power consumption by far less than the +100% of a dual chip solution.

Secondly, Elon said 20x speed lately, which I'm interpreting as the actual effective performance increase.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: VValleyEV and AndyH
upload_2019-4-7_23-52-46.png
 
Very temporarily emerging from my (only partly) self-induced vacation exile from TMC (Yay Kauai!) to throw out the following for group contemplation:

As I understand it, FCA was presented with three choices
  • Do nothing, and in 2021 (date correct?) be presented with a €2 bn fine from the EC for failing emissions targets
  • Clean up its act, and by 2021 possess a fleet of vehicles which meet the targets
  • Pool with a (yikes!) more responsible competitor in such a fashion as the targets are met
I’m pretty sure the above neither is controversial nor has been stated in this forum as anything other than above, although I remain a bit confused about what has or will occur in 2019 vs 2021....but nor does that distinction seem to be important,

However, to the extent the above is an accurate description of the situation, it appears to provide some very clever carrot/stick cajoling by Brussels. “Unless we clean up our act, we’re going to have to enrich a competitor who already is doing the Right Thing” must have been the thoughts of FCA management. “It’s going to cost 2 bn to pay the fine...call up the engineers...Engineers: How much to Do the Right Thing by 2021? What! 12 bn? Okay, scratch #2 off the 3 alternatives (a purely made-up # on my part). So now we just have to negotiate with...Tesla...to pay them something less than $2bn.”

Under this scenario, the recalcitrant companies not only have to fork over a lot, but it is funds that enrich a company that is, after a fashion, already eating its lunch. What better way could Brussels have devised to light a fire under their lollygagging butt?

Second point: has anyone yet been able to understand the relationship between the 2021 date and the current year? None of the posts to present - I believe I’ve read them all - seem to clarify that.


Back in Vacation-Lurk mode.
 
You have to understand that once your rich, the mindset can be different for some. If you already have millions or tens of millions, you would never put that all in one place. Tesla will likely succeed, but there is no guarantee. Once you made it, so to say, the smart thing is to diversify. Why stress? Also we don't know why some of these folks are cashing in. As they say, insiders sell stocks/options for many reasons (tax, upcoming purchases, diversification, etc.), but they buy only for one. I really wouldn't read too much into these options sales. Many of the top executives, including Elon and JB still hold significant shares/options.

I can relate to that as much as to how the dragon gets all its gold. :)
 
I'm sure more details will be disclosed, but until then let's attempt to read between the lines and speculate about the sum:
  • The exact wording in the FT was:
    • "Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has agreed to pay Tesla hundreds of millions of euros so the electric carmaker’s vehicles are counted in its fleet in order to avoid large fines for breaking tough new EU emissions rules."
    • "Analysts at Jefferies forecast FCA could face fines in excess of €2bn in 2021 when the new targets become law. "
  • The Financial Times is owned by "The Nikkei" Japanese business media giant with opaque ownership - Japanese old money I suspect?
  • The source of the story was FCA. To FCA this is probably a negative story, and they'd want to break it slowly, with a drip-drip of details.
  • Tesla is probably under NDA until they must file financials. No big motivation for them to leak.
  • "Hundreds of millions of euros" is 200m-900m. "Hundreds of" technically includes 200-999m, but above 500m the "more than half a billion" would be more appropriate.
  • FCA's motivation is probably to downplay the figures: this is an extra cost. If it was only 200m then I'd expect them to leak that. If it was say 300m then they could say 'low hundreds of".
  • FCA probably has no motivation to exaggerate the sum.
  • Hence my guess: 400-600m euros, which is $450m-$670m.
  • Less or more is possible as well, but I'd be surprised if it was below 300m: FCA would leak it immediately, plus it's too low compared to the looming 2 billion euros fine per year.
The big question: why keep this secret? It would come out in Tesla financials anyway.

Speculation only. Not advice. Might have to eat crow. :D

Assuming the min of 200m for 2019, this number would arguably have to be be spread over 4 quarters as that appears to be the length of the initial contract and performance of the agreement would happen throughout the year rather than at a point in time. So we could see as little as 50m a quarter show up in the financial statements. It will probably be higher than this but 50m isn't enough to move the SP today.
 
It's Monday, which means it's time for some good news!

London's Ultra Low Emission Zone launches today. The charge is due on a per day basis if you drive an older ICE vehicle in central London.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/

Charge:
£12.50 for cars and vans: diesel pre-2015, petrol (gasoline) pre-2006.
£100 for buses and lorries (semi truck in US-speak).

This is on top of the £11.50 per day weekday congestion charge, from which EV/PHEVs are also exempt.

In October 2021 the zone is due to massively expand, to take in what could be reasonably described as most of London. The great thing about this scheme of course is that once in place, it's straightforward technology and politics to squeeze the definitions of who has to pay, as well as ratcheting up the fee.

upload_2019-4-8_15-21-8.png



Now for the bit where I say that Tesla really must do better with its marketing. Here is the official website that the government scheme takes you to, if you click that you want to adopt the low emissions lifestyle:
Find your electric car with our Car Selector - Go Ultra Low

Spot the odd one out. We have testimonials, pricing and specs, and "book a test drive" links for Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Nissan, Audi, Renault, VW, annnnnd..... that's it.

And it's things like this that really annoy me about Tesla. Still no date for Right Hand Drive Model 3 and no footprint whatsoever in the official advertising for this scheme. They could have capitalized on the substantial press coverage of the launch of this scheme in London to have sold a literal ship load(s) of vehicles. There's a big wide world outside of the San Francisco Bay area and Tesla is going to have sell a lot of vehicles there if it's to hit the more excitable forum members' valuations.

Now I'm not saying that Tesla needs to be buying ad-space for a 2-minute trailer before the next Avengers movie. But would it really kill them to do a time limited bill-board campaign on half a dozen key trunk routes into this zone? "No!" I hear you say. "Tesla doesn't waste money on advertising! Such a campaign would cost HUNDREDS of pounds! And they're production constrained!"

To which I say, "Uh huh".
 
I'm sure more details will be disclosed, but until then let's attempt to read between the lines and speculate about the sum:
  • The exact wording in the FT was:
    • "Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has agreed to pay Tesla hundreds of millions of euros so the electric carmaker’s vehicles are counted in its fleet in order to avoid large fines for breaking tough new EU emissions rules.
  • Tesla is probably under NDA until they must file financials. No big motivation for them to leak..
The big question: why keep this secret? It would come out in Tesla financials anyway.
Speculation only. Not advice. Might have to eat crow.

Firstly, for the sake of my portfolio, I hope I will need to eat crow and not you - alas, we have had quite a few situations where my portfolio suffered... :confused:

Second: I'm confused about this whole FCA thing: FCA only need this in 2020 if I understand correctly (happy to be corrected on this one).
So why pool today and only for 2019?
Or is a pool today a way to ensure a pool in 2020 when it will start to hurt?

Third: I really hope the money comes in. I hope it is significant. But I suspect it will only be significant in 2020 and following years.

Fourth: For the sake of "better PR" I would love this money to be the icing on the cake rather than a repeat of Q3 2016 where Tesla made profit due to ZEV-Credits.

Lastly thanks @Singer3000 for this:

Elon Musk, Thurs 28th Feb on call to media for launch of Standard Range Model 3:
“Given that there is a lot happening in Q1, and we are taking a lot of one time charges, there are a lot of challenges getting cars to China and Europe, we do not expect to be profitable. We do think that profitability in Q2 is likely,”.

The above statement was after the FCA deal on 25 Feb.

I think we all are best served if we don't hope for miracles that would suddenly yank Tesla into $420 territory. Tesla will get there. Quicker than most shorts anticipate. But I don't think that the FCA deal today is big enough to get us there (and let's not inspire analysts to fabricate another miss either).
 
Last edited:
surprising Chanos tweet :
WallStCynic
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific American | Great read on $XOM’s #CultureOfDeception (I guess I won’t be getting my check from Big Oil this month)



Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
Perhaps chanos has finally realised which way the wind is blowing and thinks there's a better chance of blowing up some oil companies through the courts than going after "crazy uncle Elon and his wacky cars".

Chanos is an arsehole but he's not a complete idiot. Had Tesla been founded by anyone else but Elon, chanos could well have succeeded in taking the company down.
 
Assuming the min of 200m for 2019, this number would arguably have to be be spread over 4 quarters as that appears to be the length of the initial contract and performance of the agreement would happen throughout the year rather than at a point in time. So we could see as little as 50m a quarter show up in the financial statements. It will probably be higher than this but 50m isn't enough to move the SP today.

Tesla, Inc. Common Stock Real Time Stock Quotes
$280.00 +5.04 1.83%
*Real-Time - data as of 04:45 EDT 4/8/2019
 
Last edited:
Elon Musk, Thurs 28th Feb on call to media for launch of Standard Range Model 3:
“Given that there is a lot happening in Q1, and we are taking a lot of one time charges, there are a lot of challenges getting cars to China and Europe, we do not expect to be profitable. We do think that profitability in Q2 is likely,”.

This was probably superceded by the updated guidance given a month later, in the Q1 P&D report:

Tesla Q1 2019 Vehicle Production & Deliveries | Tesla, Inc.

"Because of the lower than expected delivery volumes and several pricing adjustments, we expect Q1 net income to be negatively impacted."​

Note how it doesn't guide for a loss (yet).

Of course a valid way to read this would be that based on Q1 deliveries the losses will be even deeper than Elon expected on February 28. :D

Another detail is that the February 28 "we do not expect to be profitable" statement was already made with knowledge of the February 25 deal with FCA.
 
Last edited:
Firstly: I'm confused about this whole FCA thing: FCA only need this in 2020 if I understand correctly (happy to be corrected on this one).
So why pool today and only for 2019?
Or is a pool today a way to ensure a pool in 2020 when it will start to hurt?

My assumption is that the measurement of emissions starts this year already - hence the pooling agreements of various manufacturers.

The fines will start in 2021, but the emissions started accumulating this year.

The pooling agreements had a hard deadline until March 22 - if FCA wanted to improve their 2019 numbers they had to get into a pool.

At least that's my understanding - can anyone perhaps cite the EU rules outlining this?
 
Patrick McGee‏Verified account @PatrickMcGee_


Jefferies on the @Tesla @fiat open pooling arrangement: "We assume that compensation to Tesla could be in excess of $500m relating to 2020 and 2021 each with payments possibly starting earlier (2019) to spread costs".

Patrick McGee‏Verified account @PatrickMcGee_


Evercore ISI on why Fiat needs the arrangement with Tesla: @fcagroup will need to reduce emissions to ~89g/km in order to comply with targets. Assuming this ~30g/km gap and applying €95 fine for noncompliance, the potential fine at current levels could be in the region of ~€3Bn

Minor Threat‏ @MinorThreat2017 14h14 hours ago


Dear Patrick, do I understand correctly that the "hundreds of millions of euros" payment to Tesla is your estimate based on what penalties FCA faces after 2020? Thanks.

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes


Patrick McGee‏Verified account @PatrickMcGee_


Replying to @MinorThreat2017 @EnerTuition and
No, it comes from people familiar with the deal.
 
Perhaps chanos has finally realised which way the wind is blowing and thinks there's a better chance of blowing up some oil companies through the courts than going after "crazy uncle Elon and his wacky cars".

Chanos is an arsehole but he's not a complete idiot. Had Tesla been founded by anyone else but Elon, chanos could well have succeeded in taking the company down.

Lol, a tad late, wot? The Scientific American article was "By Shannon Hall on October 26, 2015".

Oh, BTW, Exxon knew well berfore 1975 as well (that's just when they started their coverup). Frank Capra produced the film "Unchained Goddess" (54:40) in 1958. So the science was well established over 60 yrs ago. Here's a short clip from that film:


#ExxonKnew Then they skated. Thanks again, SEC:

SEC Drops Probe of Exxon’s Climate-Change Disclosures - WSJ, Aug 3, 2018

But the ICE is melting...
 
Last edited:
Spot the odd one out. We have testimonials, pricing and specs, and "book a test drive" links for Kia, Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Nissan, Audi, Renault, VW, annnnnd..... that's it.

Does Tesla have any infuence over that webpage, or could it be captured by the incumbents like so many other areas of incentives are under regulatory capture? Could someone inquire why Tesla isn't on that page?
 
This was probably superceded by the updated guidance given a month later, in the Q1 P&D report:

Tesla Q1 2019 Vehicle Production & Deliveries | Tesla, Inc.

"Because of the lower than expected delivery volumes and several pricing adjustments, we expect Q1 net income to be negatively impacted."​

Note how it doesn't guide for a loss yet.

To be honest, I think this is bending the narrative in an superbullish way.

If you think of it in production numbers, it means FCA will pay the same amount of more/less one week M3 production?