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

[GatorMeat]

On the last call Elon said the next gen car will begin production mid- 2025 with volume production 2026.

I think Elon said end of 2025 to start, with qualifiers.
Ron Baron, who gets inside info we don't get, went on CNBC in Nov 2023 and said 12-18 months.

 

[EQC_]

I understand it didn't 'cost' Tesla $56B, but it doesn't look good even if net cost to Tesla is a few billion. The stock has lost $700B. And nobody 'sees' what they are paid. Taxes are always involved.
On the other hand I don't want to see the attorney's get paid either and overall feel the judge's ruling has hurt shareholders. Not sure what is best for shareholders going forward. In a perfect world, there would be a quick reversal of the judgment.

I fully understand your point. Just a couple more thoughts. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your stance or trying to sway you...just trying to figure out the basic facts.

1) For Elon's compensation package, doesn't he actually pay Tesla? Maybe there's a work-around, but I thought he effectively gains options and has to give Tesla "cash" and then receives the discounted shares. I wouldn't even know where to figure out how to find the right figures to do the math, but I *think* that even if the company also owes the government some payroll taxes, I think Elon's effective payment to Tesla is larger. If I remember correctly, as each tranch became "likely" to pay out, Tesla already noted it as an obligation in their finances anyway, so even the "book-keeping" end of things already has it accounted for. OF COURSE, there is also the dilution of everybody else's shares....and that is a meaningful cost to shareholders.

2) Regarding the lawers: I also don't want to see them get even one cent for their dishonest work in cooperation with some guy that held 9 shares. But, *IF* they get a pay-out, I hope it comes with strings similar to Elon's -- if anything, the Lawyers should just get the right to purchase options, so they'll have to pay Tesla some discounted rate for shares...and have a number of years that they'll have to hold the shares too. For example, if the lawyers are to gain 4 billion dollars worth of shares, they'll have to pay Tesla 1 billion dollars to do it....and then hold the shares for 5 years before they can think about selling.

 

[uscbucsfan]

How about ALL cars get FSD. ALL new cars going forward pay $50/mo mandatory subscription for updating and maintenance. We make it up by bundling the cost of FSD in with the original purchase price. We're giving people the option of not taking FSD ... which is a mistake. Do car companies give consumers the option to delete antilock brakes? Airbags? Seat belts?

1. They won't be able to force a $50 month sub.
2. Most car manufacturers still offer models without adaptive cruise control.
3. FSD isn't to the point where it's a safety feature in itself. FSD + an alert supervisor is, but go look at the threads where people tried it during the trial. There are many who were shocked about how many times the car did an extremely dangerous maneuver and the response was, "you are still responsible for driving", from most of the seasoned testers.

There may be a point where supervised FSD is included, but Tesla wants to increase revenue. They can't make a subscription mandatory. So it's either include it or charge for it.

 

[SOULPEDL]

How about ALL cars get FSD. ALL new cars going forward pay $50/mo mandatory subscription for updating and maintenance. We make it up by bundling the cost of FSD in with the original purchase price. We're giving people the option of not taking FSD ... which is a mistake. Do car companies give consumers the option to delete antilock brakes? Airbags? Seat belts?

Easy Cap'n... FSD is scary at first. Forcing it on them would backfire. Let them "stick their own arm" when ready. Also recalling the seat belt story I read here - Fords were deemed unsafe was the conclusion by many in those times.

I believe the safety benefits of their ADAS system is the same as FSD; no loss of safety as they both improve together being one in the same AI.

 

[EVMeister]

New Model 3 Performance review by Marques Brownlee:

 

[Captkerosene]

Then there those like Uncle Leo, who intends to cut off his nose to spite his face by both buying lots more shares while voting against paying Elon for the work he has already done.

He's been bitter ever since he went all "Ross Gerber" on Elon back in 2022.

Just to play devil's advocate here: Billionaires don't like their CEOs involving themselves in distractions that cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. Tit for Tat, you cost me, I cost you ... now how does it feel?

 

[Ellec]

1. They won't be able to force a $50 month sub.
2. Most car manufacturers still offer models without adaptive cruise control.
3. FSD isn't to the point where it's a safety feature in itself. FSD + an alert supervisor is, but go look at the threads where people tried it during the trial. There are many who were shocked about how many times the car did an extremely dangerous maneuver and the response was, "you are still responsible for driving", from most of the seasoned testers.

There may be a point where supervised FSD is included, but Tesla wants to increase revenue. They can't make a subscription mandatory. So it's either include it or charge for it.

I agree it's not something that can be forced now, but when FSD is solved, not purchasing it with the car would be like buying an iPhone without any cell/mobile plan.

 

[GatorMeat]

Troy should stick to collating numbers. Way out of his lane here.

Troy is dead on right about 4680 production. This is why Model 3 doesn't get the EV Tax Credit. Also why the battery head is gone (likely).

 

[uscbucsfan]

I agree it's not something that can be forced now, but when FSD is solved, not purchasing it with the car would be like buying an iPhone without any cell/mobile plan.

That's a bad comparison, because it can drive without it. It would be like having a computer without anti-virus software.

 

[Ellec]

That's a bad comparison, because it can drive without it. It would be like having a computer without anti-virus software.

You can use the iPhone without a plan though, calculator, camera etc. But adding the connectivity makes it more compelling. I don't think FSD is all about safety (anti virus analogy) though, it's opens a lot more doors than that, i.e. attention can be focused elsewhere for the duration of the trip, entertainment, socialising, taking pictures of scenery, making money via RT etc.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Elon completely leaving out the real reason. His losing bet on 4680 is why Tesla doesn't have enough US battery supply. They had two years to prepare for the EV tax credit qualifiers. That is why Model 3 doesn't qualify.

You seem to forgotten that Treasury / IRS never finalized the battery requirement rules until March of 2023 (even though Congress required them to produce the rules by the end of December 2022). Then they changed the rules afterwards, to include the foreign materials sourcing requirement. This is what is making the model 3 battery cells ineligible.

And it smacks of having been done deliberately, on a politically motivated basis. Recently Jeep plug in hybrids with 30 miles of range are getting the full $7,500 credit while Tesla Model 3s the most made in America sedan received nothing. And it's union-based.

 

[uscbucsfan]

You can use the iPhone without a plan though, calculator, camera etc. But adding the connectivity makes it more compelling. I don't think FSD is all about safety (anti virus analogy) though, it's opens a lot more doors than that.

Still a bad analogy. It's not really a phone without cell connection.

We shall see about the doors it opens. It's still up in the air if FSD Supervised will be a different product than actual FSD.

 

[GatorMeat]

I fully understand your point. Just a couple more thoughts. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your stance or trying to sway you...just trying to figure out the basic facts.

1) For Elon's compensation package, doesn't he actually pay Tesla? Maybe there's a work-around, but I thought he effectively gains options and has to give Tesla "cash" and then receives the discounted shares. I wouldn't even know where to figure out how to find the right figures to do the math, but I *think* that even if the company also owes the government some payroll taxes, I think Elon's effective payment to Tesla is larger. If I remember correctly, as each tranch became "likely" to pay out, Tesla already noted it as an obligation in their finances anyway, so even the "book-keeping" end of things already has it accounted for. OF COURSE, there is also the dilution of everybody else's shares....and that is a meaningful cost to shareholders.

2) Regarding the lawers: I also don't want to see them get even one cent for their dishonest work in cooperation with some guy that held 9 shares. But, *IF* they get a pay-out, I hope it comes with strings similar to Elon's -- if anything, the Lawyers should just get the right to purchase options, so they'll have to pay Tesla some discounted rate for shares...and have a number of years that they'll have to hold the shares too. For example, if the lawyers are to gain 4 billion dollars worth of shares, they'll have to pay Tesla 1 billion dollars to do it....and then hold the shares for 5 years before they can think about selling.

I'm not an attorney, but to give those attorneys billions in stock puts shareholders back at the same spot that the attorneys said put shareholders in an unfair position. I don't want those attorneys to get any stock and no more than hourly comp if they get anything at all.
Honestly wish the BOD just held off on doing anything but filing an appeal and at minimum they should have asked Kimbal not to run for re-election to the BOD.

 

[Ellec]

Still a bad analogy. It's not really a phone without cell connection.

We shall see about the doors it opens. It's still up in the air if FSD Supervised will be a different product than actual FSD.

I know it's not literally a phone without a connection, it's an analogy, the point is that no one would buy a Tesla and not buy the FSD (Im talking about actual FSD not supervised) the same as no one would buy a phone without a connection.

 

[GatorMeat]

You seem to forgotten that Treasury / IRS never finalized the battery requirement rules until March of 2023 (even though Congress required them to produce the rules by the end of December 2022). Then they changed the rules afterwards, to include the foreign materials sourcing requirement. This is what is making the model 3 battery cells ineligible.

And it smacks of having been done deliberately, on a politically motivated basis. Recently Jeep plug in hybrids with 30 miles of range are getting the full $7,500 credit while Tesla Model 3s the most made in America sedan received nothing. And it's union-based.

I believe the US sourcing rules were originally included with the bill and they were actually loosened for 2023, not strengthened for 2024. They all knew that was temporary and they did have time to plan.
I also agree that PHEVs getting credit is absolute rubbish

 

[uscbucsfan]

I know it's not literally a phone without a connection, it's analogy, the point is that no one would buy a Tesla and not buy the FSD (Im talking about actual FSD not supervised) the same as no one would buy a phone without a connection.

There are plenty that "just want to drive" or don't trust software to drive their car.

There are people who claim they didn't use FSD during their free trial. It was free...

I don't agree with your statement.

 

[GatorMeat]

There are plenty that "just want to drive" or don't trust software to drive their car.

There are people who claim they didn't use FSD during their free trial. It was free...

I don't agree with your statement.

I look at every Tesla I pass and just shrug when I see them (all) using the steering wheel. I guess FSD isn't that popular, even when free?!

 

[Captkerosene]

I agree it's not something that can be forced now, but when FSD is solved, not purchasing it with the car would be like buying an iPhone without any cell/mobile plan.

Maybe in a year or two. People seem to think it's zero cost for Tesla to provide ADAS and FSD. We've already spent like 10B on this and are spending Billions more each year. It will be expensive to maintain the systems and improve performance. I'm not a fan of collecting a check once and having a thirty year obligation to update FSD.

 

[Drumheller]

I look at every Tesla I pass and just shrug when I see them (all) using the steering wheel. I guess FSD isn't that popular, even when free?!

Hands are required on the steering wheel when FSD is active.

 

[2daMoon]

Just for a little laugh for everyone before earnings

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782778202714488928

Today Ross is thinking in terms of quarters.

Soon he may be thinking in terms of nickels and dimes.