Umm, England?
-
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
dc_h
Active Member
I think it was 2 factors, the biggest being getting the global supply chain started. That probably shifted 10,000 cars to Q2. The second factor was the rush to maximize US deliveries and get the full $7500 tax credit. That probably shifted demand from Q1 2019 to Q4 2018. Neither of those issues affect Tesla in Q1 2020 and we have tailwind from new MIC Model 3, and headwind of losing about one week of Q1 production from Fremont. My Troy estimate is 93,000 deliveries, but I think this may be optimistic. I do think that over 90,000 deliveries will be very close to break even for profits, depending on how much inventory is on hand. I'd guess inventory will be up at least 10,000 cars (production over deliveries) for the quarter and a significant chance of 15,000 or more.
I would guess that Tesla will shift a second Model 3 line to the Y by the time the plant is fully reopened. That will allow Fremont deliveries to decline, but ASP to increase. Improved pricing power and growing MIC Model 3 deliveries could allow Tesla to break even in Q2 or better. I would also expect VW, Ford, GM, BMW and Mercedes to post horrible results for Q1 and Q2 and losses will be disastrous, even if we bounce back by Q3, they will all be hamstrunqg and forced to cut back R&D & new development. In the meantime, Tesla will have doubled Shangha and on track to start phase 2 in Q4/Q1 MIC Model Y, Berlin GF will be on track for phase 1 MIG Model Y and likely an Austin plant starting up to build the Cyber truck. Assuming we're not all doomed by this virus and we bounce back in the second half of the year, I don't see how Tesla leaves 2020 at less then a 750,000 production rate.
I've been a worrier about C19 since January and still think Q2 could go in any direction. If the Bay area stabilizes and Elon can ramp up ventilators and get some enhanced safety protocols in place, I think the plant should be running at 50-100% of capacity by mid April. I think the ventilators are obviously critical and give him some negotiating power and credibility as a required service. I'd like to see if they can use the seat factory to make some PPE materials as well, or make a high quality glass face shield that can be reused. Face shields can extend the life of face masks and provide eye protection that can be a higher contagion vector point than the nose and mouth (for getting infected, not giving infection).
I read that VW is losing about 2 billion a week. Wonder how much the rest of the industry is losing, versus Tesla, which can cut back much faster.
Well, tomorrow is already next quarter, so that one car does not improve numbers for Q1. If many others are upgraded, that might move the needle a bit
Well exactly - that is my point.
He might be the first in Europe for all I know. But he will not be the last. I'm not into the details around FSD finances - but finally upgrading us old European FSD buyers could perhaps enable Tesla to move some FSD money around in Q2?And if not - they will get my $$$ when it's my turn so that I can exchange the old MCU1 for a MCU2. I assume my $$$ include some profit.
Donald J. Trump on Twitter
"My proposal to the politically correct Automobile Companies would lower the average price of a car to consumers by more than $3500, while at the same time making the cars substantially safer. Engines would run smoother. Positive impact on the environment! Foolish executives!"
Politically correct Automobile Company... What is that exactly?
"My proposal to the politically correct Automobile Companies would lower the average price of a car to consumers by more than $3500, while at the same time making the cars substantially safer. Engines would run smoother. Positive impact on the environment! Foolish executives!"
Politically correct Automobile Company... What is that exactly?
The point being, 60% short selling volume does not mean 60% of shares sold were shorted. Or that 60% of sales were at the bid. It means 60% of the volume of shares in blocks had at least one short transaction in them. If the blocks are 10 transactions (of all equal size), that gives a range of 6%-60% actual short activity.
Krugerrand
Meow
Ameliorate
Member
Was just looking into this. I dislike it. I doubt it will effect Tesla much but the OEM's will be allowed to cling to dear life for a bit longer.....
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100V26H.pdf
A few excerpts and I bolded some below:
"Manufacturer Impacts
Reduced regulatory costs and burdens.
Increased new vehicle sales.
•$252.6 billion reduction in regulatory costs through MY 2029.
•1 million additional new vehicle sales through MY 2029.
•Reduction from 56% to 3% in the percentage of hybrid vehicles needed to comply in MY 2030.
•37.0 mpg projected overall industry average required fuel economy in MYs 2021-2026, compared to 46.7 mpg projected requirement in MY 2025 under standards issued in 2012
2- 3% increase in daily fuel consumption
About 0.5 million barrels per day increase in fuel consumption
rest of info here - The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Proposed Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 | US EPA
The entire sentence makes no sense. OI at work.
LN1_Casey
Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus
Summarized version is,
"Do better for less OEMs!"
Basically, be cheaper than an EV, but with the EV performance and positive impact on the environment. You know, the impossible.
Ameliorate
Member
It sounds more like the summary is "I'm going to reduce regulatory costs and you don't have to make hybrids anymore, would be cool if you passed some of the savings (252 Billion) to the customers" :/
The summarized version is actually: “Car companies don’t actually want me to roll back pollution standards which will benefit my fossil fuel donors and friends in Russia and Saudi Arabia and damage the Earth!”
Which gonna be funny to watch when nothing changes for Trump because automakers still have to abide by California's rule since California's economy practically dictates the regulations for the country because it's so large.
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
Trump will go after California in the courts.
Ameliorate
Member
Good luck
California will fight it and draw out the case longer than Trumps presidency...even if Trump were to get re-electedEdit: When other states joini n the court case against Trump, it'll add even more years to the court case
Last edited:
"Trumps" EPA can issue all the proposals they want......but it's incredibly difficult to change existing terms that had already been agreed upon and California's gonna fight it to the bitter end and will likely win.....or at the least hold it up in court until Trump is out of office
Last edited:
powertoold
Active Member
I'm no lawyer, but I think CA's CAA waiver was already granted in 2009, and the CAA doesn't have a clause for waiver revocation. This is likely the legal basis for CA continuing with its stricter standards. Other states have less legal protection since they don't have waivers.
j6Lpi429@3j
Closed
In the long run, companies designing cars purely for the US market are likely to die out anyway. Why design cars that can only be sold in the US, when every other company is designing cars for the global market?
Its like passing a law saying companies are allowed to continue making typewriters. Cute sure, but totally and utterly irrelevant in 2020.
Its like passing a law saying companies are allowed to continue making typewriters. Cute sure, but totally and utterly irrelevant in 2020.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
