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

[JusRelax]

Tesla autopilot is pro-bunny :

Dealer of Happiness on Twitter

 

[InDaClub]

Washington state reinstates EV tax breaks - Motor Sport HQ

Washington state has reinstated tax breaks for electric and alternative-power vehicles and plans other incentives to spur demand, notably among the state’s low-income residents.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee this week signed four clean-energy bills, including HB 2042, designed to advance the adoption of green transportation across the state.

A spokeswoman for Inslee said HB 2042 revives the state tax incentive program for electric and other alternative-fuel vehicles and charging infrastructure. She said the sales tax incentives, which begin Aug. 1, will make EVs more accessible and affordable by providing a rebate of up to $2,500 on new EVs priced under $45,000 and up to $1,600 on used EVs under $30,000.

The state has a goal of putting 50,000 clean-fuel vehicles on roads by 2020.

 

[MarcusMaximus]

That was immediately misquoted. I'm sorry that I neither have nor can be bothered to track down a transcript. What Elon actually said was that there would be that many Teslas on the road capable of FSD. So it isn't so much an embellishment as a misquotation of what was actually said.

I think he also said something along the lines of “in the next year”, which seems to be conveniently shortened to “by next year”, shaving a few months off the deadline, such as it is

 

[Doggydogworld]

Meanwhile, the TSLAQ haterz on Twitter on ranting over and over about Elon guaranteeing a million autonomous cars by 2020. I don't recall exactly what he did say, but this sounds like a whole lot of embellishment. Anyone have transcript of what he exactly said during Autonomy Day?

That was immediately misquoted. I'm sorry that I neither have nor can be bothered to track down a transcript. What Elon actually said was that there would be that many Teslas on the road capable of FSD. So it isn't so much an embellishment as a misquotation of what was actually said.

According to TechCrunch, what Elon actually said was:

“From our standpoint, if you fast forward a year, maybe a year and three months, but next year for sure, we’ll have over a million robotaxis on the road,”

“The fleet wakes up with an over the air update; that’s all it takes.”
​

He said some variation of this a few times. He also said regulation would only allow Tesla Network to operate in some areas at first. As such some of those million cars will not be allowed to serve as robotaxis next year. But they'll all have the capability.

I can't imagine why the TSLAQ crowd expresses doubts

 

[KSilver2000]

Just to be clear, it's severely undervalued right now, all those things you listed could happen and we prob still won't be back to 325-350/share. The stock price is this low not because of Tesla's revenue, margins, etc....it's artificially being held low. Sure Q1 caused the share price to drop.....but the share priced should have been 400-450/share at that time and dropped to maybe 350/share based on the bad Q1. Tesla's valuation is a joke, it's been a joke since Model 3 ramped in Q3 2018.

I agree it’s artificially held down atm, but $400-$450? C’mon, heh....

 

[aubreymcfato]

Obviously this is reckless in the extreme, but it’s a good way to pass the time once AP is at L5 - I guess Teslas will have “curtains” as an option by then?

Couple filmed sex tape in DRIVERLESS Tesla while it cruised down motorway

Will it pump the stock, I wonder?

the headline "Model XXX", is pure genius tho :-D

 

[Maitri982]

Ok!!! Now look at Tesla Corp Twitter...that's the messages they need to be sending out. Unending Cutsie stuff fine for a bit but then becomes uninteresting. Mix some in when we don't expect it... Thats humor.

These new tweets describe why Tesla exists and why we should care.

 

[Tslynk67]

The market is nonsensical, we knew that from observing TSLA's behavior over the years

well one thing for sure, with all the trade bully-boy, sabre-rattling tactics ongoing, it's impossible to trade on real news.

 

[Tslynk67]

Maybe I've just not paid much attention in the past, but someone sure at Tesla seems to be on a twitter posting spree. And, no, I don't buy into the story that it is actually Musk. Its been quite the tweet storm.

...and there were two more showing when I posted, but I switched tabs and maybe a dozen were missing. An intern gone crazy?

Something changed a few days back - the frequency of Tweets suddenly picked up and they started getting very light-hearted, was a little too much. Now they gone the other ways and sent out a spam-stream of "Who are we and what are we doing" Tweets - which is great, but a bit overwhelming.

As someone suggested yesterday, they're trying out new stuff and will probably find a nice balance shortly.

I guess it's come out of the whole SEC thing - someone had the bright idea, or read it here first, that maybe Tesla were under utilising their account.

 

[Causalien]

Something changed a few days back - the frequency of Tweets suddenly picked up and they started getting very light-hearted, was a little too much. Now they gone the other ways and sent out a spam-stream of "Who are we and what are we doing" Tweets - which is great, but a bit overwhelming.

As someone suggested yesterday, they're trying out new stuff and will probably find a nice balance shortly.

I guess it's come out of the whole SEC thing - someone had the bright idea, or read it here first, that maybe Tesla were under utilising their account.

Finally some $$$ into marketing. Good progress.

 

[Tslynk67]

Finally some $$$ into marketing. Good progress.

Who knows, maybe they just asked for some volunteers to do some posting on an as-and-when basis, with some guidelines.

Probably 100's of suitable employees in Tesla that would love to do that, even in their spare time.

 

[mblakele]

Here's a relatively new pre-print study on the costs of running a robotaxi service. I think this is relevant to TSLA because it claims that operating costs could be much higher than Musk estimated at the recent Autonomy Day. If true that impacts investor expectations for the robotaxi business, and hence for TSLA.

Autonomous Vehicles and Public Health: High Cost or High Opportunity Cost?

Abstract:

Passenger vehicles are a major source of air pollution, exposure to which increases respiratory disease risk, amplifies life-threatening conditions and burdens the public purse. The negative externalities associated with these vehicles rise further when road accidents are considered. Almost all such accidents involving fatalities transpire when private users are in single vehicle incidents or collide with each other. Though autonomous vehicle technology can mitigate these effects, doing so demands cost competitiveness with conventionally driven vehicles. Here we show that absent consideration of opportunity costs, this prospect is unlikely owing to supply-demand matching inefficiencies and impracticable margin expectations. In a single ridership model, we find capacity utilization rates would need to improve by nearly 100% and margins lowered by 37% for autonomous vehicles to achieve cost parity with their conventionally driven counterparts. In a multiple ridership model, achieving cost parity requires a 30 percent increase in occupancy rates and a 75 percent increase were a stronger cost proposition offered to incentivize shared autonomous vehicle use over conventionally driven vehicles. We conclude that consideration of the opportunity costs of driving are integral to the widespread adoption of a technology that can dramatically improve public health outcomes.​

Note that Mr Nunes appears to be a professional analyst, not a pure academic as implied by the association with MIT. His web site offers services including expert witness testimony and workshops. Ms Hernandez appears to be with Securing America's Future Energy, where "multiple council members and co-chairs have interests in the oil industry or in industries heavily reliant on oil".

I haven't done more than a quick scan of the article, but it seems that the largest projected expense is remote supervision for safety purposes, estimated at 5-235 cents/mi on p22. The study also assumes a hybrid drivetrain not EV, but that only accounts for a handful of cents/mi.

 

[Leo9]

TSLA closed the day with an hammer like doji with long bottom stick. That's a nice candle after the recent pullback and should signal a change in the short term trend. TSLA should rebound strongly tomorrow together with the general market (lots of hammers and reversal candles at support levels).
... If Trump doesn't **** up.

 

[humbaba]

Here's a relatively new pre-print study on the costs of running a robotaxi service. I think this is relevant to TSLA because it claims that operating costs could be much higher than Musk estimated at the recent Autonomy Day. If true that impacts investor expectations for the robotaxi business, and hence for TSLA.

Autonomous Vehicles and Public Health: High Cost or High Opportunity Cost?

Abstract:

Passenger vehicles are a major source of air pollution, exposure to which increases respiratory disease risk, amplifies life-threatening conditions and burdens the public purse. The negative externalities associated with these vehicles rise further when road accidents are considered. Almost all such accidents involving fatalities transpire when private users are in single vehicle incidents or collide with each other. Though autonomous vehicle technology can mitigate these effects, doing so demands cost competitiveness with conventionally driven vehicles. Here we show that absent consideration of opportunity costs, this prospect is unlikely owing to supply-demand matching inefficiencies and impracticable margin expectations. In a single ridership model, we find capacity utilization rates would need to improve by nearly 100% and margins lowered by 37% for autonomous vehicles to achieve cost parity with their conventionally driven counterparts. In a multiple ridership model, achieving cost parity requires a 30 percent increase in occupancy rates and a 75 percent increase were a stronger cost proposition offered to incentivize shared autonomous vehicle use over conventionally driven vehicles. We conclude that consideration of the opportunity costs of driving are integral to the widespread adoption of a technology that can dramatically improve public health outcomes.​

Note that Mr Nunes appears to be a professional analyst, not a pure academic as implied by the association with MIT. His web site offers services including expert witness testimony and workshops. Ms Hernandez appears to be with Securing America's Future Energy, where "multiple council members and co-chairs have interests in the oil industry or in industries heavily reliant on oil".

I haven't done more than a quick scan of the article, but it seems that the largest projected expense is remote supervision for safety purposes, estimated at 5-235 cents/mi on p22. The study also assumes a hybrid drivetrain not EV, but that only accounts for a handful of cents/mi.

Maybe I'm just confused by the abstract, but he claims that AV requires a 37% better margin compared to "conventionally driven counterparts." Since the majority of operating cost is the driver that would be easy to achieve.

Whether or not Musk's particular estimates of cost are accurate, whether or not his utilization estimates are accurate, it is inherently cheaper to run a robotaxi than one with human drivers. Assuming, of course, you have FSD -- but without that it doesn't even make sense to talk about.

Whatever the estimate is for "remote supervision" -- which is rather making an assumption already -- it is necessarily going to be less than for putting a human behind the wheel of every vehicle.

In other words, profitability might not be what Musk was envisioning, but to say it would be less profitable than a non-robotaxi is nonsensical.

[edit: I would contend that "remote supervision" is a non-starter. If you are required to have that, then you don't have FSD. If you have regulatory approved FSD then you have regulatory approved FSD. Accidents will happen, but that's what insurance is for. And anyone wanting to waylay a robotaxi is going to have to contend with the a 360 video recording of what happened. Again, the only actual issue is having FSD -- the rest is really just details.]

[edit again: if the critic is aimed at Waymo... that would make sense. They don't have FSD and yet are pretending to offer a robotaxi service. They have higher upfront costs (LIDAR...) and even if they eliminate the safety driver will obviously rely on remote supervision. While that would be cheaper than a safety driver it is still a cost for not having real FSD and, combined with the expensive sensor suite, would require better margins to achieve ROI]

 

[JusRelax]

Ark Invest has a new paper posted on the effect of Autonomous Vehicles on Auto Insurers:

Auto Insurers Should Fear: Autonomous Driving Networks Are Near!

Definitely worth a read!

 

[EVMeister]

TSLA closed the day with an hammer like doji with long bottom stick.

Is that... An actual thing?!

 

[tinm]

Don't forget the $25K car, which Elon mentioned in the Q&A session at the 2018 AGM:

Musk Says Tesla Could Build a $25,000 Car in 'Three Years' If It Worked Very Hard

It's been dubbed the "Model 2" (for the 2 in 25K), and some observers think it may redefine the "hot hatch" segment, a huge segment of the youth market.

Cheers!

Bear in mind that way way way way wayyyy back on June 30, 2008 at a ceremony featuring then-Gov Schwarzenegger, Elon said that Tesla would build an under-$30000 car and that it would be out in no more than four years.

 

[TradingInvest]

Here's a relatively new pre-print study on the costs of running a robotaxi service. I think this is relevant to TSLA because it claims that operating costs could be much higher than Musk estimated at the recent Autonomy Day. If true that impacts investor expectations for the robotaxi business, and hence for TSLA.

Autonomous Vehicles and Public Health: High Cost or High Opportunity Cost?

Abstract:

Passenger vehicles are a major source of air pollution, exposure to which increases respiratory disease risk, amplifies life-threatening conditions and burdens the public purse. The negative externalities associated with these vehicles rise further when road accidents are considered. Almost all such accidents involving fatalities transpire when private users are in single vehicle incidents or collide with each other. Though autonomous vehicle technology can mitigate these effects, doing so demands cost competitiveness with conventionally driven vehicles. Here we show that absent consideration of opportunity costs, this prospect is unlikely owing to supply-demand matching inefficiencies and impracticable margin expectations. In a single ridership model, we find capacity utilization rates would need to improve by nearly 100% and margins lowered by 37% for autonomous vehicles to achieve cost parity with their conventionally driven counterparts. In a multiple ridership model, achieving cost parity requires a 30 percent increase in occupancy rates and a 75 percent increase were a stronger cost proposition offered to incentivize shared autonomous vehicle use over conventionally driven vehicles. We conclude that consideration of the opportunity costs of driving are integral to the widespread adoption of a technology that can dramatically improve public health outcomes.​

Note that Mr Nunes appears to be a professional analyst, not a pure academic as implied by the association with MIT. His web site offers services including expert witness testimony and workshops. Ms Hernandez appears to be with Securing America's Future Energy, where "multiple council members and co-chairs have interests in the oil industry or in industries heavily reliant on oil".

I haven't done more than a quick scan of the article, but it seems that the largest projected expense is remote supervision for safety purposes, estimated at 5-235 cents/mi on p22. The study also assumes a hybrid drivetrain not EV, but that only accounts for a handful of cents/mi.

I ignore this kind of "research". Whether she is ignorant or paid by someone, doesn't matter.

The future is autonomous EV, not hybrid or something else. Local pollution will be zero. In most cases energy will come from solar, not much pollution overall.

Assume safe/reliable FSD will be achieved down the road.

Vehicle cost 5 cents per mile. Solar energy cost 2 cents per mile. Add insurance, car wash, maintenance, Total about 9 cents per mile. Tesla estimates 50% of the drive will be empty, so total cost $0.18 per effective mile. In my calculation, once you reach scale, empty drive will be very little, maybe 30%, it should cost about $0.13 per effective mile.

 

[Carl Raymond]

Don't forget the $25K car, which Elon mentioned in the Q&A session at the 2018 AGM:

Musk Says Tesla Could Build a $25,000 Car in 'Three Years' If It Worked Very Hard

It's been dubbed the "Model 2" (for the 2 in 25K), and some observers think it may redefine the "hot hatch" segment, a huge segment of the youth market.

Cheers!

Not going to hold him to account on this if FSD comes to pass. TaaS dramatically reduces the cost of motoring. The only need for a Model 2 is where you might desire a smaller car e.g. on crowded streets. The cost of getting from A to B will already be insignificant for anybody with income i.e. in a position to consider buying a car.

 

[Leo9]

Is that... An actual thing?!

It’s beautiful, isn’t it?