Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Insideevs Tesla October US sales should be released tomorrow morning. It should give TSLA a boost given all the recent kooky talk about declining US sales.

There were 7 ships loaded on October for overseas deliveries and one in the end on September. Not many cars produced for US. maybe 11-13k M3-s. Ignore US deliveries per given month, US Q4 will be very strong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thekiwi
I'm thinking the SE due to labor cost and availability. Same reason many auto manufacturers have built plants in that region.

The problem with Reno is not just the size of the city, but that the region is largely void of people. New factories in the western world are now usually built in semi-rural areas but in regions with significant population. The high desert of Nevada does not support agriculture so there are not many reasons for people to settle the region in significant numbers.

Normal Illinois is 1/5 the size of Reno but I doubt Rivian will have problems staffing manufacturing employees.

Usually it's population that migrates to jobs, not jobs to population:

fredgraph.png

Nevada population growth is much faster than the U.S. average: ~60k new residents per year, and working age population is expanding as well, by about 40k/year. This is why the Rust Belt is depopulating and Nevada/California/Texas is growing.

GF1 will be fine I think.
 
Last edited:
I'm so excited to own a Plaid S...

I've been lusting after a Space X Roadster for a long time, but always with lingering hypothetical-regret about its only being a 2-seater.

I'm not a rich man (yet), but thankfully have become a disciplined and focussed one.
If I can only buy one Tesla in the next couple years, I'll be EXTREMELY STOKED to have a Plaid S. So seriously awesome...

Yeah, I had my heart set on a new Roadster too, but might have 2nd thoughts over a Plaid S. Wait and see, I'm not in a rush for that, need to get the wife's MY sorted first and my kids off to university, or somewhere so I can offload my MX.
 
It looks like Tesla has increased LR AWD range from 310 miles to 322 miles on new Model 3s. Guess we will soon see if old cars get a software upgrade too.

Indeed:

upload_2019-11-1_12-28-51.png

Also note how estimated U.S. delivery time has increased to 5-8 weeks for SR+ and AWD versions of the Model 3, 6-8 weeks for the Performance Model 3.
 
And there is the whole issue with Elon Musk. Would he remain CEO or not? That is perhaps the most thorniest issue. He would likely demand to be made CEO of Apple (or the combined company), which I think would actually be good
I cannot see Tim and Elon working together for more than about ten minutes before the blood starts to flow.
 
Usually it's population that migrates to jobs, not jobs to population:

fredgraph.png

Nevada population growth is much faster than the U.S. average: ~60k new residents per year, and working age population is expanding as well, by about 40k/year. This is why the Rust Belt is depopulating and Nevada/California/Texas is growing.

GF1 will be fine I think.



Have you been to Reno? The population of Las Vegas metro is over 2 million and over 400 miles away. I don't see why Tesla can't methodically grow the current operation in Sparks. But they probably can't grow the energy operation and also take a big jump in employment for auto. Musk seems to agree with me or he would not be talking about building housing. East of the Mississippi he won't be building housing.

Europeans selected the lowest cost manufacturing sites in the U.S., despite the west coast being a huge market. Tesla didn't select Fremont based on location. Sparks followed as reasonably close to Fremont but with lower costs compared to Norcal. Reno is much closer to Fremont than it is to the population center of Nevada.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: abasile and AZRI11
The Polestar 2 that is equivalent to "Performance" will start at $63k then there is an upgraded drivetrain package equivalent to "Ludicrous" will be an extra ~$5k.

The base Polestar 2 will be about ~$43k and come with a hatchback. It will likely have less space and not a third row but the hatch makes it closer to $39k Model Y.
Interesting, and I did point out my source was wikipedia (not very reliable). But I used it because I didn't see anything else. Could just be my search failed me. Do you have a source for the $43k base price?

[edit: found the $63k is estimated US price for the launch edition, but final prices have not been determined. The pricing seems more solid than the Taycan as they have taken pre-orders in some regions so less likely to increase, but it certainly could in the US. But that doesn't say anything about future pricing or a $43k version. Polestar reveals prices for its Polestar 2 electric car - electrive.com]

[edit2: here we go, but this is a really soft number. They "expect" prices to fall to £35,000 after 12 months (right now that is ~$45k US). Sounds like they are expecting to make it up in volume (reducing production cost) which I wouldn't count on. It will probably happen, but it might take longer than 12 months even if it does. Polestar 2 revealed: specs, price and on-sale date]

[edit3: that last site gave £54,900 for the performance version which is currently ~$71k, the non-performance was £49,900 which is currently ~$64.5k so the ~$63k base price would not be for the performance version.]
 
Last edited:
The news floating around FCA potentially interested in buying Tesla skateboard powertrain is interesting. It doesn’t make sense for Tesla unless Tesla charges very high premium. I would assume that the margin on Tesla cars in powertrain vs software driven features are very different and it would instead make sense for Tesla to sell autopilot tech than hardware. Also in autopilot it would makes sense to only sell less-than-FSD like capability.


Just my thought.
 
This is called "delta hedging", and that's plausible, except that this is not what is happening, and this can be proven via market statistics: both short term and long term expiries have been bid up, with open interest increasing on most series, and with more volume on calls than on puts.

For example here's how the open interest of tomorrow's options expiry has developed over the past couple of days, on the most popular strike price ($330):


Open interest only increased after earnings, with a very minor pullback yesterday. In most other options series we can see similar trends - and new calls purchased outnumber puts.

By your logic the TSLA share price should have increased monotonically after earnings, not decreased.

Ok, I take that back, I now agree with @EVNow that there's measurable shorting via the options market - here's the total open interest volume of the last 24 hours, for today's options expiry (2019 November 1):

Code:
                expiry: November 1
                Options Open Interest
                  
                    PUTs        CALLs
2019/Oct/31:     114,695       88,944
2019/Nov/01:     122,729       92,154
      delta:      +8,034       +3,210

So in the past 24 hours there were 2.5x more puts purchased than calls.

The imbalance between puts and calls is now ~30k contracts, or 3 million shares-equivalent.

Note that the big risk to shorts will be on November 15, when 340k PUT contracts will expire, mostly worthless:

Code:
 PUT $010:    750                     ,   CALL $010:      0                    
 PUT $020:  1,240                     ,   CALL $020:      0                    
 PUT $030:    785                     ,   CALL $030:      0                    
 PUT $040:  5,723 ##                  ,   CALL $040:     31                    
 PUT $050: 83,673 ###################+,   CALL $050:    134                    
 PUT $060:  2,120                     ,   CALL $060:      6                    
 PUT $070:  2,659 #                   ,   CALL $070:      0                    
 PUT $080:  4,096 #                   ,   CALL $080:      0                    
 PUT $090:  2,223                     ,   CALL $090:      0                    
 PUT $100: 12,355 ####                ,   CALL $100:      5                    
 PUT $110:  2,697 #                   ,   CALL $110:      5                    
 PUT $120:  1,306                     ,   CALL $120:      1                    
 PUT $130:  8,307 ##                  ,   CALL $130:     14                    
 PUT $140:  1,589                     ,   CALL $140:      7                    
 PUT $150:  9,918 ###                 ,   CALL $150:     32                    
 PUT $160:  4,064 #                   ,   CALL $160:     70                    
 PUT $170:  2,755 #                   ,   CALL $170:    121                    
 PUT $180:  7,618 ##                  ,   CALL $180:    283                    
 PUT $190:  9,225 ###                 ,   CALL $190:  1,210                    
 PUT $200: 18,967 ######              ,   CALL $200:  4,375 #                  
 PUT $210: 13,784 ####                ,   CALL $210:    772                    
 PUT $220: 27,102 #########           ,   CALL $220:  5,985 ##                
 PUT $230: 14,905 #####               ,   CALL $230: 14,756 #####              
 PUT $240: 32,930 ###########         ,   CALL $240:  5,271 #                  
 PUT $250: 14,808 #####               ,   CALL $250: 12,327 ####              
 PUT $260:  9,853 ###                 ,   CALL $260:  9,880 ###                
 PUT $270:  4,210 #                   ,   CALL $270:  5,906 ##                
 PUT $280:  7,351 ##                  ,   CALL $280: 13,143 ####              
 PUT $290:  5,544 ##                  ,   CALL $290:  3,116 #                  
 PUT $300: 12,853 ####                ,   CALL $300:  5,913 ##                
 PUT $310:  6,617 ##                  ,   CALL $310:  4,161 #                  
 PUT $320:  5,015 #                   ,   CALL $320:  4,193 #                  
 PUT $330:  3,019 #                   ,   CALL $330:  4,150 #                  
 PUT $340:    663                     ,   CALL $340:  3,671 #                  
 PUT $350:    143                     ,   CALL $350:  3,249 #                  
 PUT $360:     45                     ,   CALL $360:  1,990                    
 PUT $370:     12                     ,   CALL $370:  1,552                    
 PUT $380:     21                     ,   CALL $380:  2,134                    
 PUT $390:      4                     ,   CALL $390:    819                    
 PUT $400:    140                     ,   CALL $400:  2,017                    
 PUT $410:      1                     ,   CALL $410:    608                    
 PUT $420:      2                     ,   CALL $420:  1,079                    
 PUT $430:      0                     ,   CALL $430:  1,158                    
 PUT $440:      0                     ,   CALL $440:  1,659                    
 PUT $450:      0                     ,   CALL $450:    489                    
 PUT $460:      0                     ,   CALL $460:    189                    
 PUT $470:      0                     ,   CALL $470:    716                    
 PUT $480:      0                     ,   CALL $480:    703                    
 PUT $490:      0                     ,   CALL $490:    275                    
 PUT $500:      0                     ,   CALL $500:    889                    
2019/Nov/15:  PUTs:   341,092 ; CALLs:   119,064

That's going to hurt.
 
Given FCA chose to comment at all, i think it is likely they have at least discussed a EV Powertrain supply deal with Tesla. Perhaps they bought credits for 2019-2021 and then laid out initial plans to start buying EV Powertrains from Tesla instead in 2022. This would give Tesla time to ramp up battery and powertrain production.

I think a deal like this would be very positive for Tesla. Increased economies of scale can reduce capex and production costs for their own products.
I'm sure Tesla are confident in maintaining enough cost and technology lead even if they supply competitors with EV Powertrains. Tesla will have 1) A price advantage equal to their EV Powertrain gross profit. 2) Dealership vertical integration and online sales cost advantage. 3) Non EV-Powertrain innovation advantage. 4) Autonomous features and possibly Robotaxi advantage. 5) Entertainment and OS software advantage. 6) Safety advantage (structural design for safety). 7) Car durability advantage (more than just the powertrain designed for 1 million miles, plus they probably won't sell 1 million mile battery chemistry anyway). 8) Ability for rapid and continuous improvement of the car design, production process or software with its agile development processes.

The hardest bit of any deal would be to convince any potential customer that Tesla will not just cut supply and prioritise internal production whenever it meets any supply/production bottlenecks.

Remember @KarenRei had a tip that Tesla had an agreement with one of the Big 3 for supplying the drive train for a pickup. Hmm... o_Oo_Oo_O
 
The powerwall and solar combo is a strong one. I got sent a link to this article in a British newspaper (with an US Edition) about a mansion for sale near San Fransisco:

The mansion that will never run out of power: Sprawling California home with two Tesla Powerwalls, electric car chargers and views of San Francisco Bay goes on the market for $9MILLION - and it won't ever be hit by PG&E outages

According to Tesla, Powerwalls can detect an outage, disconnect the home from the grid and automatically restore power to a residence without interruption, working for seven days or more at a time, depending on the size of the home.

Mansion that will never run out of power with two Tesla Powerwalls goes on the market for $9 million | Daily Mail Online
 
The writer used worked on Google's car team, editorial on Tesla's autopilot price increase.

Elon Musk Warns Tesla “Full Self Driving” Goes Up Tomorrow. Do The Numbers Make Sense?

"It will be interesting to see how drivers react to such functionality. I’ve heard at least one report of a beta tester enjoying it, but there will be many who will find it frightening to do the job of a robocar safety driver with the vehicle making much more dramatic motions, and coming upon much more complex situations, including pedestrians, bicycles and children on the streets. In my own experience, even testing the red light detection has been a harrowing experience. You approach the light, or other such situations wondering, “is it going to see it?” “Do I need to intervene now?” You are torn between taking over and trying to find out if it would have figured it out, and that’s not relaxing. It may make the most sense being used on uncrowded streets, without vulnerable road users, but turned off in complex situations. Tesla’s current instructions tell drivers to turn off Autopilot in places like construction zones, though they frequently do not. It seems likely Tesla’s instructions on this product will also advise not using it in complex places."

"The full $7,000 or more price includes a hoped-for future value of a car that can do “real, true, actual full self-driving,” which is to say it can operate with no driver at all, and even join the Robotaxi fleet Tesla has promised and make big dollars for the owner. My recommendation, however, is that if that is going to happen, you take your $7,000 and buy Tesla shares or options. I suspect that if Tesla actually delivers on that well before anybody else, you will make more than enough on those shares to pay for any price increase. Of course, if they don’t deliver, you might not do so well with the investment."
 
  • Funny
Reactions: humbaba