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.
IMO this means there is room for the Model S to fall more, if and when a 2170-based battery option is introduced... or there is room for a more expensive Model 3 - if and when they introduce a more outrageous performance option. Remember Model S?

It is interesting to wonder what they could do to boost Model 3. When I went through that process, it made me appreciate how much they have ALREADY done to max Model 3 out quickly. They really got to P3D pretty fast, and the cars are pretty well equipped.

I didn't come up with any great ideas, but here's some:
  • Tech Upgrade with faster MCU and high data-rate browser / hotspot
  • Powered trunk opening
  • Fancier upholstery (Real Corinthian Polymers)
  • Premium paint color (not great for production rate, probably offline)
  • Reduced nerfing (0.1-0.2 second reduction in 0-60)
  • Offroad package
  • Track package
  • SpaceX fan package (special white and black paint, SpaceX logo badging, graphics on screen, ambient lighting (turns color during hard acceleration?), Easter Egg videos of every launch/landing, automatic calendar entries for launches, and a white driving jumpsuit that looks like the new space suit... kinda)
 
I am curious as to the true cost savings of PUP vs. non-PUP. When Tesla cuts out PUP, how much will they truly save? I get the feeling it's $4000 margin, $1000 cost.

This seems to be a big issue in getting to $35 k.

Tesla better hope they can get to that point profitably or else its embarrassing, and could end up like this:

Tesla $35k SR:

Black Only.

Options:

Mobile charger, $500
Passenger's seat, $1000
Tablet, $1500


It's funny how Tesla haters want to claim being the "rational" beings out there. While all their claim is downright comedy.
 
shortsville.png
 
In short: Tesla lowered the price because they can and because they want to sell many cars in North America in March for a profitable Q1. Lowered cost means gross margin will still be great.

Long version:
  • Per Disqus Profile - carsonight, the Model 3 SR pack is already being made... Probably pre-production only though.
  • Elon tweeted that the design of the Model 3 pack should not be copied by others because it's too complex
  • In the Q2 earnings call, Elon said that probably in Q1 (2019) they'll reach volume production of a new module design that's lighter, better and cheaper
  • Cost of production is lowered each week
  • Referral program had to be ended because lower ASP Model 3 SR making it too costly compared to high ASP 3/S/X
  • Ending the referral program reduced the cost of production for MR and LR/P3D so prices could be reduced with same gross margin as Q3/Q4
  • I assume gross margin is actually lower in Europe than North America because of cost of shipping and opportunity cost due to long shipping times
  • Tesla will probably try to sell many cars as possible in North America in March, so that fewer cars are on the water near the end of Q1, to make Q1 profitable
  • Other manufacturers reduce prices as well, they just don't announce it - rather they hand out rebates
  • The demand for the LR AWD and P3D is indeed not unlimited - just like the demand for BMW M3 and BMW 340i is not unlimited. It is a sign of strength that Tesla sold the Model 3 with such a high ASP so far, it is not a sign of a failure.
 
Yes, wording can vary.
Normally when referring to "Gross Margin" or "Margin" they refer to direct revenue for vehicle sales less direct expenses which normally include marginal SG&A but not depreciation or amortization. As a general rule TSLA will report slightly higher Gross Margin than competitors because their sales revenue is retail, but will have slower income recognition for the same reason, and slightly higher SG&A, again because of direct sales.

Nearly all analysts fail to understand the implications of the direct sales model, consequently not understanding what WIP and inventory mean for TSLA vs all others.

Either way GM of >20% is an enviable place, ordinarily reached by only highly prized low volume manufacturers such as Ferrari and Porsche, both of which have many parts and other technology from corporate partners/parents which reduce all costs including capex. Almost unheard of vertical integration at TSLA also causes higher capex and higher GM, when at stable volumes. Obviously TSLA growth rates are also unprecedented, so tend to overstate current expenses and capex both. To the extent of Superchargers, stores, service vehicles etc being put in service faster than they would be in a steady state GM also is reduced on a current basis.

All the moving parts cannot easily be reconciled to any steady state because there is no way to know what a steady state would be for them. The gigantic unheralded story (by both bulls and bears) is that the combination of OTA updates, growing reliance on mobile service and fault anticipation plus rapidly improving manufacturing and design are yielding a virtuous cycle that is yielding increasing GM's in all TSLA products. Their accounting conventions are, IMHO, mostly understating their progress. At the present time we can estimate some of these items but there is not enough data or experience to do so accurately.

Overall in the US, roughly a third of MSRP goes to support dealer distribution systems. What is TSLA total distribution costs on a comparative basis? Truthfully we do not know. We do know advertising costs are nearly zero for TSLA vs ~7-10% for competitors. Nearly all of that goes to increased GM's for TSLA.
Well thought out analysis that most people, myself included, don't really take into consideration. It's going to be several years before Tesla is in a steady state, as it should be with a rapidly growing company. The difficulty most analysts have is the only things they have with which to compare Tesla are relatively steady state. This may change as the large OEM's start really investing in BEV's and the infrastructure required to make them successful.
 
You are seriously quoting this administration's EPA chief ? They are pro-pollution and anti-environment. They don't even try to hide it !

The administration is on record saying they don't believe in AGW and they want to support bringing back coal (among other things).

But with the '20 primary about to start, the future is bright for all "green" industries.
I don't disagree, that's what I was saying too - this administration does not help EVs, especially with talks about removing $7.5k fed tax credit.
That's why we're behind China, Norway, etc.
 
Nothing wrong with moving down the price - demand curve per se - but if you claim you are production constrained it doesn't fit. If I claim there's enough people to buy 5000/week of $50k + Model 3, why would I drop the price and lose 5 million bucks a week of profit?

I think they are doing this proactively in anticipation of the long term demand.

We have all seen the problem caused when Tesla trying to lower the price of the performance model last year.

We know it is critical for Tesla's mission to bring affordable EVs to the market. So Tesla will continue to lower their prices. Doing this without pissing off current owners is difficult. They are using this opportunity of diminishing tax credit to lower their prices without angering current owner and affecting resale value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lessmog
I am curious as to the true cost savings of PUP vs. non-PUP. When Tesla cuts out PUP, how much will they truly save? I get the feeling it's $4000 margin, $1000 cost.

This seems to be a big issue in getting to $35 k.

Tesla better hope they can get to that point profitably or else its embarrassing, and could end up like this:

Tesla $35k SR:

Black Only.

Options:

Mobile charger, $500
Passenger's seat, $1000
Tablet, $1500
Your application to my Ignore List has been Approved.

I simply do not have time to scroll past all the off-topic stuff (some of which is interesting to read) AND this sort of distraction.
 
I can't believe that after wading through half a dozen pages, nobody has mentioned the obvious about the price cut (which I should reiterate, was for US/Canada, *not* EU/China).

Let's pick Germany as an EU country for comparison.

Model 3 LR AWD: €55400 = $63125, / (1,19 VAT + 0,1 tariffs) = $48934, minus (large) international shipping costs

Now, the US before the cut:

Model 3 LR AWD: $51000, minus (small) domestic shipping costs

And the US after the cut:

Model 3 LR AWD: $49900, minus (small) domestic shipping costs

Got that? Even after the price cut, Tesla earns significantly more money on its domestic sales than its international sales. It wants to sell more at home. A US/Canadian price cut says not a bloody thing about EU and China demand.

So what's the argument - Tesla can't sustain 5+k/wk in just the US and Canada with no non-pup SR? Well no freaking duh. Who was arguing that they ever would? That said, the closer they get to non-PUP SR, the larger the percentage of their sales they'll move in the US and Canada, and thus the less international shipping and tariffs they have to pay to sell their production.

In Germany, Tesla will get 2000 Euro less for every car. That is part of the incentive, 2000 Euro from Tesla, 2000 Euro from the government. And Tesla can't game the system by simply increasing the price by 2000 Euros... It must be the lowest in the EU minus the 2000 Euros.

So even after the price drop, the gross margin on the Model 3 is still much better in the US than in Europe.
 

"estimated $34,850 after savings"​

Note that the Model 3 $35k price was announced in early 2016. Cumulative inflation since then was about 5.95%, which means that today's $34,850 were $32,895 back in early 2016.

The full $42,900 price today was around $40,494 in early 2016.

Furthermore disposable income of U.S. consumers rose faster than inflation in that time period, plus population in the 18+ consumer age bracket grew by about ~8 million people - so even a $42.9k car is significantly more affordable to a larger number of U.S. consumers than in early 2016.

Tesla is getting very close to the $35k target, while they are maintaining 20% profit margins, which is pretty impressive.
 
Last edited:
I love poking holes in lame swiss cheese arguments.

Sounds like fun. Can I play?

I am curious as to the true cost savings of PUP vs. non-PUP. When Tesla cuts out PUP, how much will they truly save? I get the feeling it's $4000 margin, $1000 cost.

This seems to be a big issue in getting to $35 k.

Tesla better hope they can get to that point profitably or else its embarrassing, and could end up like this:

Yep, pretty cheesy all right.
 
I saw several posts suggesting selling the Model 3 MR as SR with software limited pack.

The new battery module which is "lighter, better and cheaper" is already being made I think - carsonight has said something like it - and Elon also guided production of the new pack in Q1 2019.

I believe we'll see the Model 3 SR for sale soon. It's just not finished yet.
 
BS. You don't need to reduce the price now. You can delay that and achieve the same result. Because if they are still production limited, those people will be waiting to buy an EV either way.
Your argument depends entirely on Tesla wanting to maximize short term profit. But:
a) Their overriding goal is to speed the transition away from fossil fuel. Making the car cheaper increases its penetration and with viral recommendations speeds this goal, and
b) similarly, as their production increases, it makes it possible for them to continue to be production constrained in a bigger market. In other words, increasing long term profit. There's plenty of evidence that they're in this for the long game.

And, as others have mentioned:
c) the transition is happening, now, finally, so they are moving the goalposts for the competition both to get the others to produce better/cheaper cars, and for Tesla to keep more market share.

You are thinking tactics, they are thinking strategy.
 
Yep, pretty cheesy all right.

Yeah, when reading the troll's "concerns" about demand just remember what Elon said during the Q4 conference call when the question of Model 3 demand was raised:

David Tamberrino:

"So like orders above, I think I've seen like 20,000 order levels for Europe and single-digit thousands for China is better than that, Elon?"
Elon Musk:

"Yes, absolutely. The - I mean, we're not even really trying [to increase demand], I should point out. I guess it's - we - our factory is like, right now, only making cars for China and Europe. That's all it's doing for - with respect to Model 3. And our whole focus is, okay, how do we get those cars made, get them on a ship as fast as possible, get the ship as fast as possible to Zeebrugge in Belgium then get them over to Drammen in Norway and get those cars to customers as fast as possible. We get them to China as fast as possible."​

([to increase demand] caption added by me.)​

This question was asked on January 30, when the European Model 3 tracker was at about ~15k orders, and Elon's answer suggests that total orders are well north of 20k for Europe, that they've got all upcoming supply covered to the extent that they aren't even thinking about generating more demand for the Model 3...

Anyone questioning Model 3 demand should ask the probing question of why Tesla is still not offering right-hand-drive versions of the Model 3 for the U.K./Australia/etc., which could be a few more ten thousand units of sales per year. The Model 3's interior was specifically designed to make RHD configurations much simpler to manufacture - yet they are not doing it.

Concern trolls arriving every time Tesla is dropping prices was a reliable feature of the past 12 months and should be expected stock bashing behavior in the future as well.