Shortsville times:
Elon Musk, CEO of an underground drilling company, leaves LA hours before 6.4 magnitude earthquake.
-
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
Elon Musk, CEO of an underground drilling company, leaves LA hours before 6.4 magnitude earthquake.
@RobStark
't'was as close as I could get to show my utter contempt of the "orange idiot", as politely as possible, eh
so i instead changed it to "funny" (not funny haha, but "funny weirdly differant")
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Tesla Energy is low margins IMO primarily because volume is not high enough yet to dominate fixed costs. With higher GF1 cell output volume of Storage output might have increased in Q2.
SP was mostly sideways during the last 10+ quarters, and stock comp issuance is probably spread out as employees get hired/promoted, so I'd not expect correlation.
While stock comp gets budgeted based on $ amount, actual awards are fixed number of shares, plus vesting schedule is typically several quarters, and the expense is incurred partly at excercise time.
This means that consistently low SP during Q2 might have dropped stock comp from ~$200m to ~$150m.
Low confidence guess only though.
I believe most rental car companies only keep their cars for 5 years max, so they don't care. When fully autonomous cars are actually *working*, they'll buy them.
Last edited:
Trump was inspired by France's Bastille Day
Yeah and that's also frickin' ridiculous...
Harvard presidents have long maintained that the University’s endowment is not an appropriate tool for enacting social change. It’s a line former University President Drew G. Faust used repeatedly to justify not divesting from fossil fuel companies when campus activists demanded she do just that.
Bloody hell, it's not about "enacting social change", it's about survival!
Idiots!!!
OT
Don't give money to colleges which squander the endowment. Frankly, at any college which is still "invested" in fossil fuel companies, the Trustees should be removed for mismanagement of the endowment, and sued to recover endowment losses out of their personal pockets. But in most states only the state Attorney General has standing to do that, and they're doing other things.
It would be worth it IMO for the Massachusetts Attorney General to sue Harvard's "President and Fellows" over this and force them to return the money which was lost in dud fossil fuel "investments", as well as other money-losing schemes. (Harvard's endowment has performed *extremely* poorly, with *extremely* high extraction of endowment wealth to management fees, in the post-2008 period.) But it won't happen.
Yeah. I've been telling people this for years. My own alma mater is run by idiots who won't divest, too. Gave them a 14-page fully citationed paper on the topic, they still have fossil fuel investments.
Don't give money to colleges which squander the endowment. Frankly, at any college which is still "invested" in fossil fuel companies, the Trustees should be removed for mismanagement of the endowment, and sued to recover endowment losses out of their personal pockets. But in most states only the state Attorney General has standing to do that, and they're doing other things.
It would be worth it IMO for the Massachusetts Attorney General to sue Harvard's "President and Fellows" over this and force them to return the money which was lost in dud fossil fuel "investments", as well as other money-losing schemes. (Harvard's endowment has performed *extremely* poorly, with *extremely* high extraction of endowment wealth to management fees, in the post-2008 period.) But it won't happen.
Stars aligned
Member
Good observation. Luckily there are other indicators too.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Possible - but difficult to estimate changes with confidence.
There are some other items that can actually swing quite a bit.
- Net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests and redeemable noncontrolling : Varied between -75M & +70M last 5 quarters. That's a whopping ~150M difference.
- Restructuring costs : Varied between 5M & 103M last 5 quarters. No big changes announced in Q2, but some of the Q1 changes might have happened in Q2.
- Non-Lease Margin (est) : Small changes in this can make big differences. 1% change (from 19% to 20%) means ~50M in profit.
- ASP 3 (est) : Every 1K change in ASP of Model 3 means about ~15M in profit.
A little OT, but also a little on-topic. Many of us here frequently say that the public perception is improving for Tesla, and especially that kids understand the future. Well, I was part of a 14-Tesla caravan in a Denver parade today, and this was borne out.
- At least 3 groups of kids chanted 'TESLA TESLA TESLA' as I drove past, my Falcon doors ajar.
- At least 4 people yelled out for 'Christmas mode' or 'celebration mode'.
- Two kids asked if they could get in and ride.
- Lots of cheering.
Captkerosene
Member
SunCatcher
Member
Norway, once again, shows how to do it:
Norway's $1tn wealth fund to divest from oil and gas exploration
This is a super interesting article for long term investors. One thing I noticed in the historical S-curve adoption is that over time the rate of adoption is higher. Older technologies used to take 50-70 years to go from 10% to 90%. Now you can expect them to take about 20 years.
In one of Clean Technica's charts they show it happening in about 10 years, which I don't think is possible given the constraints on battery production. It takes additional time to set up mines/battery plants/auto plants. Building a car is much harder than building an iPhone, and cars are more expensive and less essential than many of the other technologies on the chart.
I think 15-25 years is appropriate for EVs (to go from 10% market share in 2023 to 90% in 2043), which means that by about 2033 half the market will be EVs. Probably there will even be a hard cutoff where ICEs are banned around 2040 in many countries.
Mod: edited typo EV to ICE in last sentence above. --ggr.
Last edited by a moderator:
One confusion here is that technology adoption S curves are typically measured in total market penetration - for EVs this would be equivalent to EVs as a % of the total car fleet. EV adoption is typically talked about as a % of annual production. New technology reaches 90%+ of annual production far quicker than it reaches 90%+ total market penetration.
I'm still confident in EVs reaching 90%+ of new car sales somewhere between 2025 and 2030 driven by simple consumer demand for a far superior and cheaper product. However, traditional auto companies, the media and many politicians are doing all they can to slow this down.
I assume you meant ICE?
EVNow
Well-Known Member
They should do a chart based on expected life of the item. Avg feature phone lasted 2 to 3 years and cost <~$100. TV about 5 years and costed ~1k. Car lasts ~7 years and costs ~35k.
Yeah I wasn't clear about market share vs production share, but I the chart I was talking about was market share from the Clean Technica article.
But now that you point it out about production vs market share, I guess that is going to slow down the market share reaching 90% by 10 years (over production share) because of the longevity of cars compared to things like iPhones and TVs. My estimate was not accounting for this delay. I read cars last on average 10-12 years, so I guess this means the market share will trail the production share by about 10 years. The historical ramp up of market share for cars went from 10% in 1915 to 90% in 1985 - 70 years. Perhaps this slow uptake was partially due to the longevity of cars. I think I will revise my market share hand waving estimate as follows:
To get to 10% production share I will just take Clean Technica's guess of 2023, and then add 10 years to it to say 10% market share of EVs by 2033. Then add 20 more years to reach 90% market share (by 2053). I still think that ICE's might get banned long before 90% though. Many countries are talking about 2030 to 2040 bans, but I suspect it will slip to after 2040 in most western countries, and I expect many of the ICE cars will simply be shipped to developing countries like Japan does with its cars older than 5 years.
Given my guesses, an EV production share of 90% by 2030 really doesn't seem practical to me. My guess puts EV production share at only 50% by 2033, because I assume it takes 20 years to go from 10-90%. Your guess would imply you think it will take only 7 years to go from 10-90%, but given the cell phone took 10+ years, I doubt EVs will be faster than cell phones, especially considering that it took Tesla 5 years to build a single Gigafactory, and that there are considerable lead times in opening up mines required for producing raw materials for batteries.
Anyway, even if we disagree by about 15 years, we do agree on the outcome
Last edited:
A million thanks, good points made, but why the male version of the little Theranos-scammer girl's voice? It's so off the charts nerdy I can't share on Facebook when I point out the sublime patriotism of buying an American made Tesla.
I hope someone makes a shorter version I can show my friends.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Note that while the longevity of a product usually slows down adoption, for cars there's another effect: most customers can delay the purchase of a new car by 2-3 years just fine. So even if EV supply won't be able to keep up with demand, demand for ICE cars will drop significantly, which will increase the percentage of new EVs sold - which will further increase the visible speed of adoption.
Ironically, the demographic group that is forced to buy a new car are young people who starting families, are buying a home, etc. - and those will dominantly prefer EVs.
To me this looks like a potential 'perfect storm' of faster EV adoption than many expect.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
