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

[Krugerrand]

Seems the NA demand is gone. They have Approx. 7000 in inventory. That could last for some time.

"This is a strong indication that demand in the U.S. for both the mid-range and long-range Model 3 versions has largely been exhausted, and the company is still working through the estimated ~6.8k of unsold Model 3 inventory,"

Seems you’re not too bright.

 

[avoigt]

24m24 minutes ago
Ihor Dusaniwsky Retweeted ValueAnalyst

Seeing $TSLA short selling today, but most of the short selling is being offset with buy to covers ... on a net basis probably not more than a few hundred thousand shares net shorting.


ValueAnalyst‏ @ValueAnalyst1
Replying to @incentives101
Don't be so sure. I'm seeing indications that $TSLAQ is shorting into this rise, which I believe, means that they will be squeezed. Maybe @ihors3 can confirm or deny?

Ihor Dusaniwsky on Twitter

5h5 hours ago
100% sure we'll see a drop in short interest in the coming weeks. $TSLAQ story is not sustainable now. their rants now will be out of anger of being wrong, but they won't maintain their positions, because although they're not very smart no one is that stupid

 

[KarenRei]

From the pictures of the connectors it seems like Tesla has made their own cables. Obviously they have been doing ~300 amps without liquid cooled cables, so I see no reason their CCS cables would be any less capable than their current Type 2 cables on the Superchargers.

You can do any current you want without watercooling if you use a thick enough cable But the CCS connector is only designed for 200A. They could of course modify it for more without interfering with the ability to connect to standardized vehicles, akin to how (on the other end) the European Tesla connector is a Type-2 socket that's been modified to be able to take DC powers.

 

[Krugerrand]

After going through the transcript and then catching up on the many insightful contributions to this thread, about the only significant nugget I came up with that has not been discussed is the China build out beyond 2019.

"...we're only just talking about Phase 1 here. Phase 1 is about 10% of what we think the Gigafactory will ultimately be. So it's a major, major, major deal."

If Phase 1 is 10% of the build out and equals 3000 cars week, then at full build out how many cars a week do we think China GF could produce? Of course some this future phases might include things like in house cell production not just more cars. Point is the long term China GF picture is a "... major, major, major deal." not just the 3k a week by the end of 2019 most people are focussed on.

Model 3 and Y first off. Possible other vehicles and what about doing stationary battery storage there too to service that part of the planet?

 

[Rarity]

As someone on Twitter pointed out, Tesla's IPO was in 2010, so the AMZN cross-over happens not after close to 9 years, but after close to 7 years...

It's probably best to compare Tesla and Amazon based on the amount of time in operations. Here is that comparison. Tesla crossed over Amazon in year 10 of operations (2016 for Tesla).

Valuation

I don't know of any company of Tesla's size that has increased revenue 82.5% in a year. Ever. And having gone through it, I doubt Tesla wishes to do so ever again.

 

[humbaba]

If the Semi were manufactured in California, purchasers for use outside of California would not have to pay sales tax under the proposed bill. Would amount to a savings that would make the economics more attractive. That is, if I'm reading the bill correctly. Ultimately a drop in the bucket for potential customers though, just thought it was interesting.

I wonder who's sponsoring.

Ah, apparently I didn't read closely enough. Thanks for the clarification!

manufactured or remanufactured in this state is purchased for use without this state and is delivered by the manufacturer, remanufacturer, or dealer to the purchaser within this state,

So the applicability for a law in California is that the sale is within California (both buyer and manufacturer), but being sold for use outside of CA. Not sure I really see a need, which suggests that the bill sponsor (or a friend of the sponsor) has a business that would benefit. But then again, I'm just cynical

 

[MP3Mike]

You can do any current you want without watercooling if you use a thick enough cable But the CCS connector is only designed for 200A. They could of course modify it for more without interfering with the ability to connect to standardized vehicles, akin to how (on the other end) the European Tesla connector is a Type-2 socket that's been modified to be able to take DC powers.

But what makes you think they are using "the CCS connector"? (There isn't just one, and it is very obvious that Tesla is not using an off-the-shelf connector.)

I think there is 0.01% chance that Tesla would be using a inlet port that only meets the CCS1 current standard. They would want to take advantage of whatever speed they can get out of any CCS charging station. And again there is no way they would make it charge slower at their Superchargers than the S&X can through the existing custom Type 2 connector/inlet.

 

[lklundin]

From the pictures of the connectors it seems like Tesla has made their own cables. Obviously they have been doing ~300 amps without liquid cooled cables, so I see no reason their CCS cables would be any less capable than their current Type 2 cables on the Superchargers.

The Model 3 can supercharge at (close to) 120kW. With a battery voltage of 350V, somewhere inside the car there should be a current greater than 300A (namely 120kW/350V, i.e. close to 340A). The Model 3's cabling is in fact rated for 525A.

Does the Supercharger cable deliver power at 400V, also when a Model 3 is charging?

Because if not, then the Supercharger (cable) is delivering power at closer to 340A.

 

[Pezpunk]

seeing headlines that say "Demand Worries Investors".

Sorry, I absolutely do not believe any actual investors are worried about demand. I believe short-sellers and historically bearish analysts are "worried" about demand.

 

[2virgule5]

A couple of ways I believe:

• Tesla won't be making some key components, such as the drive train, in China.
• They'll be keeping their cell making R&D results in Nevada as well.
• As China's economy matures, so might its legal system.
• But most importantly, they'll compete the "Tesla way": not by building a patent portfolio, but by being a fast moving target.

I would add the all important ‘Software’ piece to the list. Not only what’s it the car but also what propels the robots & automated lines, and obviously EAP/FSD.

 

[gora321]

Not to bad for 1st month of a quarter

 

[AudubonB]

Cherry Wine said↑
If the Semi were manufactured in California, purchasers for use outside of California would not have to pay sales tax under the proposed bill. Would amount to a savings that would make the economics more attractive. That is, if I'm reading the bill correctly. Ultimately a drop in the bucket for potential customers though, just thought it was interesting.

I wonder who's sponsoring.

Ah, apparently I didn't read closely enough. Thanks for the clarification!


So the applicability for a law in California is that the sale is within California (both buyer and manufacturer), but being sold for use outside of CA. Not sure I really see a need, which suggests that the bill sponsor (or a friend of the sponsor) has a business that would benefit. But then again, I'm just cynical

I have a different read of this -

and first, in earlier post, where querier KarenRei is confused: the overall reason this can be a big deal is that at present, unlike most other US states, California grabs sales tax from every new car sold in-state, with no redress for those coming from another state.

Anyway, a hopeful way to look at this is that it could be the nose of the tax break camel poking under the Sacramento tent: if this larger-vehicle-only tax break bill passes, then down the road it could be used as a rationale for extending it to regular passenger vehicles. Nice!

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

Just some thoughts from the earnings report and call.

Seems like they're going to reveal V3 Superchargers at the Model Y reveal in March. I know in his youtube video, Gali said he thinks they're gonna push the Model Y reveal to coincide with the Pickup reveal but I can't see that happening. It would actually hurt the Tesla hype train be revealing too much at one time - V3 chargers, Model Y, Pickup, plus anything else they want to show. I want them to spread out the good news over the course of 2019. Plus nothing should overshadow the Model Y reveal....it will be Tesla's most important vehicle. I hope they do Model Y/V3 Charger in March, Pickup in Summer along with Semi/Roadster update or possible Model S/X refresh. Sorry I don't buy the no 2170 battery comment. I mean what do you expect them to say? They would kill the sales of S/X right now if they did that. The fact that they said we don't comment on future projects means there is something coming. Even if they did keep the same batteries, as some mentioned, updating the motor/drivetrain would be big along with interior(possibly exterior) update as well.

Guidance for 2019 sales....I think they're being smart and low balling it. Elon almost/kinda screwed it up though lol. He couldn't help himself to add in a comment about how he think they're do a much more. It should become pretty clear that that they're lowballing after Q2 delivery numbers or if they give Q2 guidance on Q1 earnings. I also think they realize how much cheaper it's going to be to make the Model 3 in China and that's a big reason why they halted further increase in production beyond 7k/week at Freemont. I don't know if I believe they'll be at 3k week at China by end of Q4, I'd be happy with 1.5-2k/week....making 9k/week total by end of year.

Overall I'm hoping this quarter everything quiets down. The last month in terms of news and surprises has been a lot to take in and wild stock swings. I do expect some swings and downward pressure on Monday with InsideEV numbers and again when they do Feb numbers at beginning of March. Kinda wish Tesla would have reinforced over and over again in that most simple fashion US deliveries will be down for Jan/Feb due to all production going overseas. I know they mentioned in and talked about it....but with the media coverage how it is on Tesla, they need to hammer that point over and over again.

Hoping that a calm in the stock and news about the company during Q1 will set a ground floor around 300-320/share base as a liftoff starting with Model Y reveal in March, delivery number surprise for Q1 of 85-90k vehicles(closer to 95-100k production, followed by a stabilizing mixture of NA and overseas deliveries and production for 3/S/X(which I think will be around 100k in Q2, 110 Q3, 120k in Q4), V3 charging reveal, followed by Pickup reveal, followed by Giga 3 opening ceremony(just starting initial production of like 500/week), followed by Model S/X refresh and/or Semi/Roadster updates, followed by FSD demo's(just demo's, I seriously doubt they get approval for much by end of the year), followed by initial Giga 3 volume production of 1.5-2k/week by Dec 2019.

That's a very steady amount of news, hype, and progress. I didn't speak much about TE since they only guided towards a doubling of revenue but Elon sounded optimistic it could be more. One of the big issues with 2018 was that if really felt like Tesla was zero'd in on efficiencies with Model 3 and ramping.....which is great for the company but there's been a big gap of hype/news. They could only give hints of like Semi might have more range, roadster special package and spec might possibly have something like this, V3 is coming but we can't talk about it, etc...2019 is finally the year where a bunch of that stuff is finally going to be show off I think the Y reveal, pickup reveal, V3 charging, S/X refresh, FSD demos will reinforce how far ahead they are.

 

[wipster]

... when it's 120 degrees in Az.

And -20°F in Chicago...

 

[Cherry Wine]

Ah, apparently I didn't read closely enough. Thanks for the clarification!


So the applicability for a law in California is that the sale is within California (both buyer and manufacturer), but being sold for use outside of CA. Not sure I really see a need, which suggests that the bill sponsor (or a friend of the sponsor) has a business that would benefit. But then again, I'm just cynical

Cynical? I say realistic. ;-) At any rate, that's why I thought Tesla might be involved -- but I hadn't given thought to the Semi being manufactured in NV.

 

[sundaymorning]

Why are so many folks surprised that Tesla can get full ramp so quickly? Comparing to other car company’s still doesn’t make sense.

I could be wrong, but don’t most other car companies build a new factory to add a new model to the lineup, so a lot of that time is spent tweaking the line to get the new model right.

Tesla is making the same exact car just in a different geographic location. So common sense to me is that they know already everything that needs to be ordered and setup, but now can do it so much more quickly because they already have the kinks worked out. China will just be a setup and go situation with improvements to the lessons learned already.

Tesla having so few models to pick from gives them this major advantage IMO.

Robotics coding was half the battle, they won’t need another hackathon like last year that took months to scale.

 

[mrdoubleb]

A couple of ways I believe:

• Tesla won't be making some key components, such as the drive train, in China.
• They'll be keeping their cell making R&D results in Nevada as well.
• As China's economy matures, so might its legal system.
• But most importantly, they'll compete the "Tesla way": not by building a patent portfolio, but by being a fast moving target.

And also, they don't have to do a JV. Sure, I imagine there will be plenty of proper spies among those employees, but it's not the same as having to have a 51 percent local partner who has complete access to all your documentation.

 

[Fact Checking]

Firstly, thanks for reading the $TSLAQ swamp, so that we didn't have to!

- A few pointing to Accounts Receivable not going down after the lengthy explanation in Q3 of why it was higher in Q3 due to ending quarter on a Weekend.

Accounts receivable did go down - but it's still at over $900m, which bodes well for Q1 cash flow. (Not sure the TSLAQ folks wanted to highlight that aspect though.)

- A few pointing to 2019 Capex spending that was lower than forecast 2019 Capex (and instead of pointing to efficiencies, stating that they couldn’t afford the Capex they wanted because they don’t have the cash and had to manage Capex down to match only what was available)

That's simply false:

• Tesla's capex guidance for 2019 is more than 10% higher than the total 2018 capex (which included a brutal cycle of Model 3 related capex payments),
• Tesla is not obligated to disclose their discretionary capex spending plans: if they are making more cash during 2019 (which looks highly likely if we extrapolate Q3 and Q4 cash flow), then I'm sure they won't let it sit in the bank.
• The advantage of not guiding too high capex for 2019 is that they don't have to reduce guidance during the year, should they decide to spend less on capex in some area.

- Another couple citing Q4 interest income based on yada, yada benchmark shows their actual cash position to be shockingly low

That's simply false too: both the Q3 and Q4 cash interest income shows average cash levels during the quarter that are expected, a few hundred million dollars draw-down during the first half of the quarter, and a re-increase near the end as the end-of-the-quarter push is generating cash.

 

[Antonio Wooman]

Goldman Sachs estimated slight drop in revenue in 2019 vs 18Q4

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="Goldman Sachs (@GoldmanSachs) | Twitter">@GoldmanSachs</a> Tamberrino&#39;s latest negative <a href="News about $TSLA on Twitter">$TSLA</a> report is out. His rev estimates are batshit, underpants-on-head, crazy:<br> <br>$26.8B (2019) <br>$28.1B (2020) <br>$31.2B (2021) <br><br>Predicting <a href="News about $TSLA on Twitter">$TSLA</a> revenues will DECREASE in 2019 and 2020 v. Q4 2018 run rate ($29B) is beyond absurd</p>&mdash; Not_an_Analyst (@facts_tesla) <a href="Not_an_Analyst on Twitter">January 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Antonio Wooman]

$26.8B (2019)
$28.1B (2020)
$31.2B (2021)