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.
Well there has been a lot of answers already. I have had this discussion in the past. Sedans are going the way of the dodo. I disagree with most of the answers. The best are there would be too much demand! Really, when was the last time a company did not build something as there would be too much demand? Isn’t that the whole Tesla mission? To be frank, I feel they just didn’t think about it. When the plan was hatched in 2006 or so, sedans were still more popular, especially in fair weather states. At the time the plan was roaster....model s...then 3. Then the plan is set in motion...and they did not anticipate the relatively rapid pendulum swing from sedan to cuv/ suv.

View attachment 373611
Really? You really think that Tesla didn't think about it? I find it very hard to believe that a company that has managed to completely disrupt not one, but at least 3 different industries didn't bother to think about what was the best way to go in regards to which model to release when. They made the decision that they felt put the company in the right place at the right time to continue on their stated path to expedite the world's transition to renewable energy. They felt that releasing the Model 3 first better suited the companies ability (logistically and financially) to continue on that road. By the way, it certainly appears to be working out for them.

It's a good thing when you have people willing to wait for years potentially (I waited 2 1/2 years for my Model 3) for your product. If you don't like the platform Tesla is offering now then wait another year and you will have more choices. People are notoriously bad when it comes to patience. That is why I named my car Patience. It's the one thing the car has taught me! I have never been so glad to wait so long for something in my life. Patience...they're coming soon.

Dan
 
I believe another source of the miss was the China land purchase in December, which they characterized the following way:

"Our capital expenditures were $325 million in Q4. Because our acquisition of land in China is a 50-year lease from the Chinese government, our payment of $141 million for it is excluded from capex and reflected in operating cash flow. Capital expenditures, including our China land acquisition payment, were at $2.24 billion in 2018."​

I.e., if I'm interpreting this correctly, this $141m would have directly increased opex and decreased profits, instead of being capitalized and depreciated in small installments? (Shout-out to @ReflexFunds and @brian45011 .)

Land is never depreciated. The excerpt you quoted may be an awkward way of stating that: had the site acquisition been an outright purchase rather than a long term ground lease, CapEx for 2018 would have been $2.24 billion rather than the $2.10 billion shown in the SH letter. The obligation to repay the $141 MM may appear on the Balance Sheet as part of "Other Long Term Liabilities" which were $2.56 billion at 3Q18 and increased to $2.71 billion at 4Q18. The reference to "operating cash flow" probably means that periodic installments to repay the ground lease acquisition debt will appear on the Income Statement going forward (i.e. the $141 MM was not a one-time detriment to the current period's profits.)
 
Can smarter people than me confirm this?


8h8 hours ago
Since you’re short, I feel obligated to let you know that Tesla could lose $450M this quarter and all they have to do is earn $1 GAAP profit in Q2 and they’re in the S&P 500. They already guided break even this quarter, so, best of luck, I guess.

Alter Viggo on Twitter


Yep, going a strict application of last quarter should be GAAP positive and sum of previous 4 should be GAAP positive. Then if Q1 '19 is less negative than Q3 '18, Q4 '18, Q2 '19 combined and Q2 '19 is on the plus side, they are good.

Note that the S&P people would still need to put TSLA in, the rules are eligibility guides, not guarantees (otherwise it would be the S&P 500ish give or take, Big 10 anyone?).
See also:
Shall TSLA be added to S&P500? (out of main)
 
Last edited:
Something must be going on here. I am guessing Elon wants to bargain with Nevada state: Money, housing, infrastructure?

Elon has said they'll need more workers thus need more housing in/ near Sparks and that Tesla is working on creating pre-built housing units.

The equipment itself doesn't care where it gets installed, so the location final selection timing is dependent on if it gets placed on existing construction or if they need to build/ buy a new factory.
 
If someone especially here in Austria is interested:
I have reserved my Model 3 on the first day possible.
Got an automated SMS from Tesla two days before christmas to order. I did.
Just now I got a call from Tesla. He asked if all my data in the order are correct?
And: My Performance M3 will be delivered mid to end of february!!
(I was – pessimistic – expecting it late March.)
Yippie! ;-)
 
Last edited:
Can smarter people than me confirm this?
Since you’re short, I feel obligated to let you know that Tesla could lose $450M this quarter and all they have to do is earn $1 GAAP profit in Q2 and they’re in the S&P 500. They already guided break even this quarter, so, best of luck, I guess.
The S&P 500 entry hurdle is cumulatively profitable over the most recent 4 quarters so:
Net Income has been:
3Q18 $311.5 MM
4Q18 $139.5 MM or $451 for 2H18

So as long as any GAAP loss in 1H19 is less than the $451 million, Tesla will have met the technical requirements of that criterion. Entry is still the committee's decision.
 
Greg3.png

Greg Wester on Twitter
 
Well there has been a lot of answers already. I have had this discussion in the past. Sedans are going the way of the dodo. I disagree with most of the answers.

I disagree strongly, that's a very U.S. centric view - while SUV sales have indeed been increasing in the U.S., where roads are generally wider, gas prices are much lower and high earners tend to have their own garage space, in Europe it's not such a strong trend, both large SUVs and mid-size SUVs are still only a tiny percentage of the market:

European sales 2017 Premium Large SUV segment - carsalesbase.com

"Sales of premium large SUVs in Europe declined in 2017 after three consecutive years of explosive growth during which 100.000 annual sales were added. A lack of new products may be responsible for the slowdown which caused sales to slip 6% to 270.000 units, or 1,7% of the overall European car market, down from 1,9% in 2016."

European sales 2017 Premium Midsized and Compact SUV segments - carsalesbase.com

Sales of midsized premium SUVs in Europe continue to boom with a fourth consecutive year of double digit growth, of which the last three years showed at least 20% growth. In 2017, the segment grew by 21% to a record 492.500 sales, or 3,2% of the overall European car market, up from 2,7% in 2016.​

So yes, even in Europe SUVs are a nice growth segment, especially when gas prices are not super high - but the real money comes from sedans and compact cars.

Oil prices are another factor: SUV sales tend to go down when gas prices go up sharply - a larger car has worse fuel economy.

So IMO it was the right decision to start with the sedan form factor:
  • it's easier to sell in Europe and other regions with old cities and dense urban traffic,
  • but it's also cheaper to make and thus easier to scale up to larger manufacturing output.
Even in the EV space, with 50% of Tesla's market being the U.S., there's no clear shift of SUV vs. sedan, if we look at Tesla's recent sales of S vs. X there's no real shift in demand, the last 4 quarters were 50%/50%:

Code:
  2017/Q3 14,065 11,865
  2017/Q4 15,200 13,120
  2018/Q1 11,730 10,070
  2018/Q2 10,930 11,370
  2018/Q3 14,470 13,190
  2018/Q4 13,500 14,050

In 3 quarters there were more S sales than X sales, and in 3 quarters there were more X sales than S sales, with the total unit count favoring the S a bit more, which is also an effect of its slightly lower entry price (S starts at $85k, X at $88k, 3.5% more expensive).

The shift towards SUVs in the U.S. is:
  • in part due to consumer preference (a larger, taller car is more practical),
  • in part due to more road and parking space,
  • in part due to lower oil prices and improving ICE car fuel economy reducing the 'pain at the pump' factor,
  • in part due to lackluster sedan offerings on the domestic U.S. market.
While it's no doubt SUVs will become more popular as EVs drastically improve fuel economy, my guess is that the 50-50% equilibrium shown by Model S/X sales is probably the natural preference of customers globally, all other things equal. Sedan sales are no way going to zero - as the Model 3 has shown it already.

In fact as Tesla walks down the price ladder consumers tend to become more price sensitive, and the fundamental cost difference between SUVs and sedans will shift demand more towards sedans as we go to $35k cars and below.
 
Last edited:
In January 2019, during the first 9 days where the Model 3 has been officially approved for the German BEV incentive, 911 Model 3 have been applied for, an average of 101 /day Model 3 Long-Range Dual Motor AWD: 748 Model 3 Performance Dual Motor AWD: 163

Cautions this is just applications and not orders.

Assuming that this 9 days would be representative & we have to recognize most Germans do not know yet that you can apply for the incentive once you did a firm order but before you even paid for the car, an average of 36,946 M 3s would be sold in the 1st year in
Germany alone

http://www.bafa.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Energie/emob_zwischenbilanz.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=39 …
 
In the UK where I live the model X isn't just a big car, its like a bus. There is NO WAY it is practical on many of the roads I drive down. In fact my model S is annoyingly wide, long and inconvenient. People in the US vastly underestimate how many European, and especially UK customers will be waiting for the model 3. When your road layout is still based on a single medieval horse and cart width, you do NOT want to buy an SUV, and so much of Europe is like that.
 
Media illusion hurts my brain.
Bob.png

Bob Gotchall on Twitter

The biggest fool is not the one who does not know how to read but the one who thinks everything he reads is true.
by Ivo Andrić (Nobel price 1961)

When you attack ICE industry-one of the big media sponsor you are in war with media.
When you attack OIL industry-one of the big media sponsor you are in war with media.
When you attack UTILITY-one of the big media sponsor you are in war with media.
When you attack SPACE industry-you are messing with biggest guys.
When you attack Wall street by making a mess in their investments-you are in war with media owners.
...
This is a moment when I realise that we are in the middle of a propaganda war.
 
Last edited:
It’s likely to be one or more of the solar tax partnerships.
Also: "Income attributable to non-controlling interests impacted our income statement negatively by $71 million in Q4. The asset backed securitization (ABS) of auto leases completed in Q4 resulted in a change of ownership structure of those leased vehicles. This required a non-cash charge of $54 million attributable to non-controlling interests"
 
  • Like
Reactions: CorneliusXX
I am wondering about Elon's statement about possibly buying cells from Japan for GF3. Is anyone producing 2170 cells in Japan currently? If not, might this possibly imply that Panasonic would stop production of 18650s on their line there and switch to 2170 production? (this would likely require S/X to also be switched to 2170 before that could happen, obviously). At the rate Panasonic is adding new cell lines there could be enough capacity by the end of the year to switch the S/X to sourcing 2170s from GF1, which allow Panasonic to change out the cell lines in Japan to make 2170s to ship to GF3. This would shorten the shipping distances required for both products and thus presumably lower costs (GF1 to Fremont for S/X and Japan to GF3 for China Model 3 SR, versus GF1 to GF3 for China Model 3 SR and Japan to Fremont for S/X).

Of course, he might be just throwing ambiguity out there to keep the suppliers in check.

I know that @KarenRei disapproves of 18,650 vs. 21,700 discussions, but my take is the following:
  • There's been persistent and credible seeming speculation that Panasonic's 18,650 lines in their Japanese factories could be converted over to the 21,700 cell format: a large percentage of equipment is cell format agnostic, and most of the format specific machines apparently can 'just about' accommodate the 21,700 format.
  • It seems unlikely in the extreme to me that Panasonic would build 35 GWh/year 21,700 capacity without having a good forward plan for the 18,650 equipment - especially that 'closing factories and firing employees' is a social taboo in Japan.
  • Panasonic's 18,650 manufacturing capacity in Japan is about 8 GWh/year.
  • The Shanghai Gigafactory will only make Standard Range Model 3's.
  • The Standard Range Model 3 will come with a ~50-55 kWh battery, which means 8 GWh/year supply is enough for 2800-3100 Model 3's at Shanghai.
  • The targeted capacity of the Shanghai factory happens to be 3000 cars/week, matching the available cell supply in Japan very well ...
So I believe the conclusion is obvious: if Panasonic's Japan 18,650 output could be reconfigured to make 21,700 cells in a relatively low capex fashion, then that could form the basis for the initial Model 3 production in China. There would be no tariffs, and Japan->China transportation costs are lower as well as Japan->U.S. or U.S.->China.

But, obviously, this is probably under negotiation, and Panasonic would have to commit to this plan - and I bet Tesla wants a price reduction as well - they could after all probably buy cells on the Chinese market as well.

All of this is speculation only of course.
 
Last edited:
BTW., did you guys catch the following detail Elon dropped on the earnings call: in the update letter Tesla guided for a doubling of Tesla Energy deployed capacity in 2019, from 1 GWh to 2 GWh - insane growth.

But then Elon added something along the lines of: "but our internal projections suggest a tripling of deployed capacity to 3 GWh in 2019, depending on how well the contracts are executed" - or something like that.

Just to put this in perspective: storage revenue was about $550m in 2018 (solar was around $1b), which means that a doubling-tripling of storage means an increase of $550m-$1b in revenue in 2019.

There's also the question of Solar Roof ramp-up in the spring and summer, how much Tesla can grow that.

Energy Generation and Storage Gross Margin declined from 17.2% in 3Q18 to 11.5% in 4Q18. It's difficult to discern how much OpEx should be allocated to that business segment, but unlike autos where Tesla has the luxury EV segment pretty much to itself, there have been other established domestic and international players in stationary storage and ,especially, solar. It's likely there is on-going R&D expense in figuring out how to reduce the cost of installing and connecting solar tiles--all instances of installations so far appear to have been on relatively low pitch, simple shed type roofs, and there have been reports in the Buffalo News that Panasonic has been selling solar cells manufactured at GF-2 to competing solar companies.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Fact Checking