-
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
VICKI SALVADOR @VickiSalvador 15m15 minutes ago
Replying to @TriTexan @UpUpUp24223983
And by the way I was not retained And I have been advised by my attorney not to discuss the terms of my separation from Tesla until this case settles
Yes, the side full of loading docks would suggest that, but isn’t it too big to be just for storage? And what do they need to store anyway? They wouldn’t build a building to store inventory cars, battery backs and motors are stored at Giga and other big parts are made at Fremont so they don’t need to store them.
Hopefully they'll get to a point of constant cycling EU/China/NA production and get away from the quarterly spikes to smaller more frequent spikes for each region, to smooth out delivery needs. If they have to staff up for peak Model 3 deliveries but each location in EU/China/NA is only busy 1/3 of the time, that will not be helpful. Smoothing out delivery pace so that it's less spikey will allow for smaller staffing on a constant basis rather than having to constantly bring people in and then lay them off or paying people to do nothing for weeks on end. The influx every week or two as another ship arrives in port, can be smoothed out by buffering the cars and delivering just fast enough to catch up before the next ship arrives, and the individual delivery center lots likely have enough space to spread out the influx.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Krugerrand
Meow
Don’t think you meant to reply to me. I’m not the one screaming about manipulation. I’ve been holding since 2012, so I’m in the money in a big way regardless. Our anthonyj, though...
Selling less Model S and X also improves the availability of parts for repairs. If they keep on producing bumpers and door handles at the same rate but assemble 20,000 less Model S and X this year then they can send 40,000 front and rear bumpers to body shops waiting for them. Those bumpers probably have a nice margin. And they can ship 80,000 door handles, of which there currently is a shortage because the manufacturer cannot produce enough.
Interesting that she's got an attourney involved. I wonder if her lack of retention was ... more nuanced... than being simply "redundant" / "surplus".
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
mekberg
Member
To be honest I'm surprised she wasn't fired long ago due to her Twitter postings. If I were to pull the same sugar I would be gone in a heartbeat.
For anyone who has done any kind of product line management, the announcements today are unsurprising. Given a fixed opex envelope, the right thing to is shift resources to the growth areas, which in this case are the Model 3 and the Model Y. Simply, a dollar invested in Model 3 and Model Y likely has a higher NPV than the same dollar invested in Model S/X, which seems to be approaching a natural ceiling anyway.
Driver Dave
Member
I think it is pretty obvious that tweeting about your company's internal workings is never a good idea.
They need to store spare parts for repairs whether it be collisions, break-ins, weather related damage, etc. And ideally it should be separate from the logistics path for production of vehicles. Teslas are notorious for taking a long time to get parts, in part because there's not really much of a supply of spare parts on hand, pretty much everything is earmarked for production of vehicles. So they need to start overproducing by a small amount (or perhaps a large amount, I'm looking at you rear quarter glass...) and storing the overproduction for replacement purposes at a separate facility so that they don't take up valuable space at the factory but can be easily shipped to where they need to go when needed. They don't really have the space for the necessary spare inventory at either GF1 or Fremont - all that space is too valuable and should be used for production lines or storing parts going soon into vehicles.
Edit: I should add that eventually they should have more distribution warehouses to avoid long wait times for shipping. Maybe half a dozen across NA, another half a dozen for EU? Can probably get away with just a few in China for now as the wealth (and thus owners) are concentrated geographically into a few regions rather than spread out across the entire country. Ideally common parts would be kept on hand in each city (though this can be done w/o a warehouse by just storing them at service centers and having the warehouse replenish them), less common ones should ideally not take more than 1-2 days to ship via truck (air freight would be too expensive).
Last edited:
anthonyj
Stonks
mekberg
Member
There was probably a decent severance package for these employees.
BOBTHEJOCKEY
Member
Stock is dropping because they are actually reducing the time it takes to make the Models S and X. Really dumb.
I keep thinking that the profit margins on the Model S/X are high, so I have to imagine that pretty soon Tesla is going to make an announcement regarding new variants of the Model S/X.
I mean, Tesla is growing (on an annual basis) so there is no sense in scaling back on a profitable product.
Yes, they could use the Fremont factory floor space and paint shop capacity, but it is not clear to me that this would increase their profits. On the contrary, if Tesla is trying to bring cheaper versions of the Model 3 to market, then it helps them to be able to continue reaping profits on the existing, stable Model S/X sales.
So let's see what the (nearer) future brings.
If you added each time Tamberrino did say 'sell' you actually made quite a good average entry price....
Almost every "sell" recommendation is at a local low, that's either f*****g stupid or incredibly dishonest, or both...
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Yes - but I'd have thought they would talk to her and ask her to cut the specifics.
May be they did - but she wouldn't listen.
Well, sure, but it does overlap the low end of the Model S and I would guess Tesla would rather steer sedan buyers towards a more profitable Model 3P than the less profitable Model S 75D. The same logic would hold for overlap between the Model X and the Model Y.
The initial intent of the smaller pack iterations (40, 60, 70, 75) was to increase EV affordability. With the introduction of the Model 3 and Model Y, Tesla has a different way to do that now. IMO, it gives them the freedom to move the Model S and Model X into true halo car territory, which is important for those to models to be able to successfully battle the imminent offerings from the legacy manufacturers.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
