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.
Marketshare does not matter, production and deliveries matter. If Tesla sells 20 million EV's per year and everyone else combined sells 200 million then Tesla only has a 9% marketshare, BUT they would still be selling 20 million cars per year!

Marketshare goes down as more EV models enter the market, that's just math and not a big deal.
I fail to understand this logic (that Tesla's % of EVs is not important). If we are all assuming that the EV market will gradually overtake/become the entire auto market, % of EV marketshare eventually approaches equality with total auto marketshare.

On the flip side, currently Tesla's model lineup skews very narrow and toward higher end of market, so difficult to predict where things are headed until they have a broader array of options which corresponds to what total auto market looks like.
 
Thank you. I also remember either reading it or from watching a video, but now I can't find it. If someone happens to get that link, please post here - Thank you

CEO Straubel admits that Redwood Materials isn't yet profitable, but "the actual operations of recycling these batteries" is.
 
I fail to understand this logic (that Tesla's % of EVs is not important). If we are all assuming that the EV market will gradually overtake/become the entire auto market, % of EV marketshare eventually approaches equality with total auto marketshare.

Where do you find the marketshare number on Tesla's earnings reports? Hint: it's not there. Maybe it's just me, but I've always valued companies and stocks on their financial fundamentals, not "outside" metrics. Looking at marketshare is like only looking at China Tesla sales while ignoring worldwide sales: it's only giving you a small part of the picture which isn't overall very useful.

IMHO of course, obviously others here disagree with me. And that's fine. :cool:
 
You're assuming a zero sum game.

If Tesla were to drop 18650s and someone else started using them, that use reduces Tesla's % of total cell usage, but doesn't impact Tesla's production plans.

Someone else using Crapium (tm) cells does not impact Tesla beyond raw mineral demand (in which case, expand to all global Li, Ni, Co, ... usage). Only in the case where Tesla's cell supplier allocates supply preferentially to a competitor is there a potential hit to their plans.

Also, percentage growth is easier when starting with a small number.
The % terms in the tables I showed are not % growth rates, they are % market shares.

I also have the 2018 numbers in my data, so to further reinforce the point here are the growth rates vs prior year as well. As you can see since 2019 the other manufacturers have accelerated. From a TSLA shareholder perspective we don't much mind which particular manufacturers and whether they are legacy or Chinese new-entrants. I agree that the issue of profitability for many of them is relevant, and so too that the issue of technology choices is (pouch, ouch). However the underlying point is that competition isn't coming tomorrow - it is actually here today.

If Tesla is still serious about hitting 20m/yr by 2030 it will need to up its game.

1677507759792.png
 
I totally agree with your general scepticism regarding robotaxi before 2030. I definitely think Elons dream of everyone giving up car ownership for a flawless robotaxi servcie instead is not going to happen without major improvements to both the sensor suite and FSD computer.

But I do disagree that there will be any fast-follow.

If we agree that the path to true robotaxi is with a machine-learning large-dataset model, then there simply is NOBODY even approaching the level of data collection in the real world that tesla have, and continue to accumulate. The big auto firms are paying lipservice to self-driving but not even equipping their vehicles with the sensors and connections required to collect the data (even assuming they had any staff trained to work with it).

It will be a decade, minimum, between a large rival equipping its fleet with a sensor suite and OTT collection back to a central location, and them actually achieving robotaxi, even assuming infinite budget and compute.

The elephant in the room is the possibility that robotaxi is achieved by some AI breakthrough not dependent on large-0data collection, but that seems to get less likely each year. And even then, I suspect elon & Tesla would realize this before anybody else.

Because I see zero risk of fast follow, I see FSD as nothing but upside, with only a slight risk of refund liability if FSD cannot be delivered soon.

ring-fenced LIDAR based mapping silliness like waymo/cruise is an unscalable joke that can be easily ignored imho.
Tesla's cumulative fleet was 3.7m at end 2022 and will be aoprox 5.7m at end 2023. By 2030 the ~94m/yr global sales will be largely all-BEV and as we know it is much easier to instrument & equip BEVs with the relevant sensor set than in ICE.

The implication is that any manufacturer in the near-to-pre-2030 period who takes the trouble to put cameras/etc in their BEVs and accumulate 2-3 years worth of data will very rapidly pass the necessary data acquisition threshold to feed a machine-learning dataset that is sufficient (if one knows what one is doing) to generate an equivalent outcome to today's Tesla FSD-beta. By my count that means the top 20-manufacturers in the world (or their suppliers) will be potentially above that critical data threshold for today's FSD-beta. And that is before taking into account synthetic data which is also evolving rapidly.

Of course we don't yet know what is the final critical data threshold, or whether there are any further key steps to overcome (personally I wonder if semantic understanding needs to be fused into the solution, and sematics are stronger skillsets for some competitors than for Tesla). But if it is only a data problem then the point is that a lot of competitors can quite reasonably acquire it fairly rapidly at the necessary time, provided they are sensible enough to make sufficient provision in their designs.

Adddressing the "know-what-to-do" aspect is much easier for a follower than for the first. Knowledge is not an exclusive good. Nor are the toolsets and the back-end learning platforms. The importance of these technologies is so great that they will be exploited - nation-states/etc will force that even if individual companies demur. So I expect at least one in China and at least one other in Europe.

I'm very aware that the first viable competitor may not be an automotive OEM. Indeed in many ways I think it more likely that it will not be an OEM unless they get a new understanding of what is important. But in technology like this competition will come. And once it arrives pricing power will rapidly diminish. If Tesla can retain a 2-3 year advantage at that point they will be doing extremely well imho.

I'm very bullish for autonomy as being important to the long term growth of Tesla beyond automotive; and for being important to Tesla's defence of a high GM% in automotive in the short & medium term. But I don't think it is a forever bullet, nothing is. As for RT that does not seem attractive to me, and I am very dubious about that.
 
I fail to understand this logic (that Tesla's % of EVs is not important). If we are all assuming that the EV market will gradually overtake/become the entire auto market, % of EV marketshare eventually approaches equality with total auto marketshare.

On the flip side, currently Tesla's model lineup skews very narrow and toward higher end of market, so difficult to predict where things are headed until they have a broader array of options which corresponds to what total auto market looks like.
What’s apples share of the phone mkt?
 
But wouldn’t 10M robotaxi eat away at sales of other tesla models? Part of the idea of robotaxi was to replace the need for more cars

No, it wouldn't. The target audience for Robotaxi is people who can not otherwise afford a car. The lost sales will come from used ICE sales, which now are burdened with high insurance and maintenance costs, as well as being smelly. A buck a mile to start for Robotaxi, with lot's of headroom to cut cost. Uber/Lyft should be quaking, Hertz is the new fleet manager of the future.
 
No, it wouldn't. The target audience for Robotaxi is people who can not otherwise afford a car. The lost sales will come from used ICE sales, which now are burdened with high insurance and maintenance costs, as well as being smelly. A buck a mile to start for Robotaxi, with lot's of headroom to cut cost. Uber/Lyft should be quaking, Hertz is the new fleet manager of the future.
I think the overlap is relatively small as well, at least for the next 10-20 years. People in cities, those going out for the evening, younger or older people, the rest of us will mostly still buy our own vehicles for various reasons.
 
No, it wouldn't. The target audience for Robotaxi is people who can not otherwise afford a car. The lost sales will come from used ICE sales, which now are burdened with high insurance and maintenance costs, as well as being smelly. A buck a mile to start for Robotaxi, with lot's of headroom to cut cost. Uber/Lyft should be quaking, Hertz is the new fleet manager of the future
Gotta take a disagree on this one.

"It is estimated that 83% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas, up from 64% in 1950. By 2050, 89% of the U.S. population and 68% of the world population is projected to live in urban areas."


That's not to say they won't also own private vehicles, but may opt to leave them at home for daily transit.

I predict San Francisco will be the first metropolis to ban non-automated private vehicles from city streets. Can't wait!
 
The most comprehensive description of Teslas superior automotive position. 👍
With all that information, the only thing I noticed, was they reference Teslas early mover advantage, included patents. Since Tesla encourages people to use their patents, it doesn’t provide them any advantage, but it does say they want to advance the world to sustainable transportation.👏
 
The % terms in the tables I showed are not % growth rates, they are % market shares.

I also have the 2018 numbers in my data, so to further reinforce the point here are the growth rates vs prior year as well. As you can see since 2019 the other manufacturers have accelerated. From a TSLA shareholder perspective we don't much mind which particular manufacturers and whether they are legacy or Chinese new-entrants. I agree that the issue of profitability for many of them is relevant, and so too that the issue of technology choices is (pouch, ouch). However the underlying point is that competition isn't coming tomorrow - it is actually here today.

If Tesla is still serious about hitting 20m/yr by 2030 it will need to up its game.

View attachment 911928
Not sure if this was already mentioned, but Tesla's market share pits their high end products against ALL EVs, correct? Impressive by itself today, but wouldn't the Highlander blow these figures out of the water?

(Edit: Ninja'd by @Artful Dodger earlier. What I get for skipping pages...)
 
Last edited:
Go Canada! Lot's of Gov't buying TSLA in Q4.

This is interesting, they're diversified with NIO - in case market share shifts? Or until the Highlander shows up, we'll see.

"Tesla isn’t the only EV automaker the CPP is interested in. During the fourth quarter the fund also purchased an additional 2.2 million American depositary receipts (ADR) in NIO, bringing its stake in the Chinese EV automaker to nearly 22.3 million ADRs."

 
Apple’s share of the touch screen smartphone market was 100% in 2007 and has steadily declined since. Similar to Teslas share of the EV market…
Hmmm ...... it would be nice if it were so .... In many ways 2019 was the high point and that is even more obvious when one looks at the corresponding volumes in cell take :

%BEV

1677511278042.png


%EV
1677511361626.png


The irony is that my base case assumes Tesla turns the trend around, hence the 2023 number in the base case.

But equally, that is not the trend that the factual data is demonstrating.