I believe there is also a question of where they can better hire the necessary workers, and whether they will have any trouble with getting permits to raise emissions from Calfornia (more cars = more emissions -- they'll need paint shop expansion for sure)
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
I believe there is also a question of where they can better hire the necessary workers, and whether they will have any trouble with getting permits to raise emissions from Calfornia (more cars = more emissions -- they'll need paint shop expansion for sure)
Just 2 weeks away from a Tesla and it's like a new toy all over.
Not sure if mentioned, but those spikes AH and 2 days ago tell me there is some automation trained on $TSLA and a few of them fired off but then realized a false start and pulled out. Must be tremendous pressures to move this and not get left behind. Skiddish to me.
One of these days, Alice...
Not sure if mentioned, but those spikes AH and 2 days ago tell me there is some automation trained on $TSLA and a few of them fired off but then realized a false start and pulled out. Must be tremendous pressures to move this and not get left behind. Skiddish to me.
One of these days, Alice...
@neroden I’ve seen you mention Tesla’s current system being level 2 a few time recently. I'm curious: have you read the SAE doc that defines the levels? From my reading, the most recent update would seem to be level 3 when in Navigate on Autopilot. It accomplishes the entire dynamic driving task within its defined domain(permitted freeways), and warns the driver at least a few seconds before falling back to them in all conditions I’ve seen(for rain/sharp curves, it’ll actually fall back to the standard Autopilot lane keeping, which would qualify as level 4 features). There could, I suppose, be faults the system could encounter where it’ll immediately fall back to the driver, but I’m not aware of any being reported in its domain.
Of course, in its current state, I’m not sure it would be a particularly good level 3 system, but it seems to me that it meets the qualifications and there’s no requirement around quality that I can see.
Of course, in its current state, I’m not sure it would be a particularly good level 3 system, but it seems to me that it meets the qualifications and there’s no requirement around quality that I can see.
Not sure why there are disagrees here. Financially it was certainly terrible!
To answer the "But how...?" - insurance companies make their profits by placing their premiums in other investments - e.g., the stock market. The best mind I ever encountered in the insurance company belittled the other firms in the property & casualty industry by relying on this tactic; he claimed that the only way to stay healthy in the long run was to keep the combined ration below 100%. HIS firm was the only one able to do so, decade after decade - through the end of the last millennium. In order not to derail this thread, I'll not mention who that was, 'tho some of you may know or divine the answer. It is not Buffett.
Also, "overhead" is taken into account in the combined ratio; needn't be looked for elsewhere.
If @Pras "70%" number is indeed the norm these days, then either (1) marketing must really take a bite (I doubt this); or (2) premiums are waaaaay higher than they should be (that's possible); or (3) these are data from some insurance sector other than the P&C. Remember I have been out of the investment world for a quarter-century so some of what I write is hysterical. As well as historical.
Penultimately, as @tivoboy (I think) mentioned, Tesla Insurance would be sloughing off some of the risk to Munich Re or Swiss Re or General Re. but I've no good answer as to how Tesla will maneuver the differing Insurance Regulatory Agencies of the 50 states....except that neither Mr Musk nor anyone else said that this product will be available in the USofA, correct?
And finally, as far as the "some states require catholicism amongst insurees - like drunks, repeat offenders &c (don't recall who wrote this)..." - if this is true, how does a behemoth like USAA exist? USAA is set up to insure officers of the various branches of the US military and their families. The rationale behind their famously low premiums has been that this pool is a more responsible set of drivers than the population as a whole. Has something changed since this Rip Van Winkle nodded off? (Wouldn't surprise me.....). If it is still the case, then I think we can view the Tesla Insurance model as being very, very similar to that of USAA. But on steroids.
electrichapp
Member
There's disagrees because that's how things roll here.
Somehow folks here will find a way to spin this earnings as something good.
Who knows but I’m having a difficult time seeing Elon & the SEC coming to terms on this in their own accord.
My take on the Q1 ER:
Numbers were pretty bad but outlooks feels decent and credible. Got to hand it to the shorts, they were correct on a few things such as profitable every quarter going forward, falling demand and Tesla pulling tricks to explain bad numbers. They are still incorrect on Elon being a fraud, Tesla drawing dead on SDC being 18/19 last in comparison, not having any battery tech advantage and demand being dead etc.
As I argued before I think it was a mistake to focus so much on saturating US demand before tax credit expired. Would have been wiser to increase Model 3 awareness in Europe instead and maximize P3D demand and prepare delivery channels.
I assume HW3 in production will lower costs and high FSD take rate will be very profitable, imo they should really try to get this out in Q2.
My biggest worry is that Model Y/Semi will be cell constrained for a long while. Given low levels of capital now and already struggling with cell production increase likely due to labor shortages in Reno, I worry that GF1 expansion will be slower than I expected a few days.
Still long, but I expect it might be many more quarters until the debate about who was right is settled...
Numbers were pretty bad but outlooks feels decent and credible. Got to hand it to the shorts, they were correct on a few things such as profitable every quarter going forward, falling demand and Tesla pulling tricks to explain bad numbers. They are still incorrect on Elon being a fraud, Tesla drawing dead on SDC being 18/19 last in comparison, not having any battery tech advantage and demand being dead etc.
As I argued before I think it was a mistake to focus so much on saturating US demand before tax credit expired. Would have been wiser to increase Model 3 awareness in Europe instead and maximize P3D demand and prepare delivery channels.
I assume HW3 in production will lower costs and high FSD take rate will be very profitable, imo they should really try to get this out in Q2.
My biggest worry is that Model Y/Semi will be cell constrained for a long while. Given low levels of capital now and already struggling with cell production increase likely due to labor shortages in Reno, I worry that GF1 expansion will be slower than I expected a few days.
Still long, but I expect it might be many more quarters until the debate about who was right is settled...
Looking over the last 5 years, the SP always increases substantially after April/May into June-August. Hopefully we get back over 340 sometime in the next 3 months.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
And it didn't change the way Elon led Tesla.
Nor will Ford investment change the way RJ leads Rivian, even if Ford gets a board seat or two.
RJ told GM to F off, because they wanted to constrain Rivians freedom of action. Or so the press has said. RJ would have told Ford to F off too if they made similar demands. Rivian doesn't "need" Ford's money, although helpful, while Elon certainly did need Daimler's money.
It’s in both of their interests to work it out. And they already have the key to effectively interact while trying to reach a settlement. They know exactly what pants to wear...
In all seriousness, I saw a post (can’t find it) saying they thought it might take a couple months or more. They essentially need to rewrite the whole agreement. It sounded reasonable.
Also, Elon had a pretty packed schedule the last few days.
Another delay to me sounds like the most probable outcome.
Pras
Member
Disagree. Just the swing between in transit cars for Q3-Q4 vs. Q4-19Q2 quarters explain some of gaap loss increase.
In q3 end there were 14k I’m transit cars.
In q4 3k
In Q1-19 10k.
So a swing of (10-3) - (3-14) = 18k cars in transit between Q4 vs Q1-19. Assuming ASP of $60k and gross margin on 20%. This comes to reduction operating profit of $216M. (Please correct me if I am missing something here).
Then there is capex associated with shanghai giga and one time accounting for buy back reserve and restructure. Basically, my point is that these three aspect will reduce the loss numbers compared to Q4 to -$200m range. This I totally attribute to lower production of S and X (by 10k or so..)
My point. Yes it was a bad quarter but if they deliver 90k cars in the next they should be in better position.
Mike Smith
Active Member
Quite confirming that Tesla is really production constrained. Good
I will sell some of mine right now for 349
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
