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

[lascavarian]

Interesting, CNBC obviously trolling/begging EM to come on by inviting ex Autonation CEO to trash him. Autonation sales down particularly in CA. These auto dealers are going to be left in the cold.

 

[BoringUsername]

Open: $19,00
End of 2010: $30,14 (+59%)
End of 2011: $29,50 (-2%)
End of 2012: $97,76 (+231%)
End of 2013: $207,77 (+113%)
End of 2014: $250,80 (+25%)
End of 2015: $223,23 (-11%)
End of 2016: $341,01 (+53%)
End of 2017: $284,73 (-17%)
End of 2018: $298,23 (+5%)

May want to double check your numbers. The stock closed 2012 in the $30s

 

[Fact Checking]

So, below average reliability means it's a poor appliance and shouldn't be recommended to their audience, even if it is fun to drive.

Note that Tesla didn't just get a top "fun to drive" score from the same audience, Tesla got a top "would I recommend this product to others?" score, which recommendation already includes any penalties due to any fit-and-finish problems ...

In fact even CR themselves admit that there's few if any problems with the Model 3 power train and other main components, which is what matters to long term reliability, not panel gaps.

I.e. commingling fit-and-finish issues into "reliability" is misleading, and recommending less safe and less satisfying ICE cars which are objectively less reliable over the long run due to thousands of parts many of which are heated up to hundreds of degrees every day in a chemically very corrosive environment, over that of the safest, most satisfying EV car that CR subscribers recommended despite fit-and-finish problems is a truly absurd outcome.

 

[KarenRei]

May want to double check your numbers. The stock closed 2012 in the $30s

Was using the Yahoo graph set to 1 year increments and looking at the "close" price. Perhaps it wasn't reporting what I thought it was. But regardless, the general point stands: Tesla is, and always has been, very noisy.

 

[Reciprocity]

CR doesn't trust manufactures own claims and they shouldn't because they are likely biased. OEMs are also incentivized to just plain lie.

Two years ago Tesla said FWD issues were largely fixed and that those problems were on early cars. FWD issues are still being seen on CR surveys on 2018 models and Model X ranks second worst in reliability largely because of it.

Any potential buyer can see the numbers for themselves.

Highest owner satisfaction combined with reliability problems that require servicing and servicing that can be problematic.

Do you want a clean super fun car with cutting edge tech that is also the safest ever built but has some reliability problems?

My answer is Yes. My eldest sister only considers buying Hondas and Toyotas because reliability/dependability is #1 factor for her and those are the brands that have earned California baby boomer's trust.

I trust that CR is being honest with their assessment. It's nieve to think they don't understand what knocking model 3 will get them way more press than just leaving model 3 as recommended. That being stated, I think they are being honest in their assessment of old data.

One problem with CR recommendations is that it assumes all buyers are the same and buyers have infinite choices. The fact is model 3 buyers are different than Subaru buyers and kia buyers. For example, model 3 buyers value the environment and sex appeal and performance more than reliability. The later goes for many more expensive brands like Porsche.

What they fail to capture is recommendations could be tuned by persona. They could implement this behind the scenes and recommend cars that are not the most reliable, but also won't kill society with deadly gasses for example.

In short, they are not Consumer Reliability (CR), they are Consumer Reports and they make recommendations on more than reliability than many other factors that leads to more happiness and breathing. I believe they had a report that model 3 owners were the happiest with their vehicle? It's hard not to see the flaw in their recommendation system.

Indeed reliability is important and Tesla is undoubtedly focused on improving warranty costs and owner satisfaction. But recommendations shouldn't only be focused on the myopic categories and lump everyone into the same bucket is going to bad for their long term value as a consumer advocate.

Edit: to add to this slightly. Reliability here really means that you need to take your car in for service. It also ignore that service comes to while at work it also ignores that most don't even go to a "service" station to refuel the car. If I've had 10 issues 8 where fixed in my driveway while I worked from home. I did stop at a gas station though for some free air for my tires when it got cold. Totally unreliable right?

 

[Intl Professor]

5th gen tech - we are doomed!

I'm not a stylist, but that vehicle is ugly. Am I wrong? What's this preoccupation with grills? Do real men have to wear cod pieces?

 

[Krugerrand]

Thoughts on the whole CR thing:

• Tying recommendation to a minimum of average reliability, regardless of owner satisfaction, is a fair methodology, IMO. Consumer Reports has an audience that looks at a car like they do a washing machine - a pure appliance. So, below average reliability means it's a poor appliance and shouldn't be recommended to their audience, even if it is fun to drive. I mean, look at Ferrari - their cars are known for hideous unreliability and extreme maintenance costs, yet many of their owners are completely satisfied, because it becomes "worth it" to the owner when it is running.
• The lack of authentication of ownership, OTOH, is concerning. I wonder if CR will start seeing an uptick in "whompy wheels" on the Model 3, or something equally asinine.
• Sampling bias, as others have pointed out, is a potential issue as well, even if there isn't ballot box stuffing.
  
• The methodology of determining reliability is broken. Paint defects that don't go down to the metal (and therefore do not cause corrosion issues), and panel gaps that don't admit water, are not reliability issues - they're quality issues, but they do not affect the utility of the vehicle, and should be very heavily deweighted (in addition to the powertrain weighting that's done). Touchscreen crashing and glass cracking, however, do count as reliability issues in my mind.
• I don't blame CR for not taking Tesla at their word that the issues are fixed, however. Wait until the data reflects otherwise.
• The timing and especially the methodology and presentation of the release is, however, rather suspicious. I don't think they're misrepresenting data - for the time period that they have data for, the problems they bring up were actual problems. And, that'll clear up soon. But, how they presented the story, and how they seeded it with other outlets? That's clickbait at best, and as others have pointed out, almost certainly tipped off stock manipulators.

Here’s the thing, Tesla’s aren’t appliances. And while for many the main purpose of a vehicle is getting them from point A to B, safe and reliably (I fit in that category for the most part), a Tesla changes how one looks at a car. It changes one’s view about driving. It changes one’s life for the better. Yes. It does. Anyone who says otherwise isn’t being honest. And more importantly, every single additional Tesla on the road is one step closer to changing humanity’s future. And *that* deserves better treatment than CR is affording via their outdated system.

What’s going to happen when FSD starts being implemented? How is CR going to adjust to that huge change? Keep right on thinking in the same archaic way?

If people are viewing Tesla’s like other vehicles, as appliances, then that is wrong-ways and needs to change and CR should be doing something about changing that perception, not encouraging it.

@Fact Checking made the most poignant point, CR needs to change and improve their scoring/testing if only to remain relevant, but more importantly to be truly accurate, just as much as Tesla needs to continue to improve in their areas of weakness.

If you’re going to hold Tesla’s feet to the fire, you’d better be holding CR’s feet to that same fire or you’re a hypocrite. Never mind that it’s entirely unacceptable for CR to be leaking recommendation changes to a select group. For that alone they can kiss my pooper.

 

[pnungesser]

I trust that CR is being honest with their assessment. It's nieve to think they don't understand what knocking model 3 will get them way more press than just leaving model 3 as recommended. That being stated, I think they are being honest in their assessment of old data.

One problem with CR recommendations is that it assumes all buyers are the same and buyers have infinite choices. The fact is model 3 buyers are different than Subaru buyers and kia buyers. For example, model 3 buyers value the environment and sex appeal and performance more than reliability. The later goes for many more expensive brands like Porsche.

What they fail to capture is recommendations could be tuned by persona. They could implement this behind the scenes and recommend cars that are not the most reliable, but also won't kill society with deadly gasses for example.

In short, they are not Consumer Reliability (CR), they are Consumer Reports and they make recommendations on more than reliability than many other factors that leads to more happiness and breathing. I believe they had a report that model 3 owners were the happiest with their vehicle? It's hard not to see the flaw in their recommendation system.

Indeed reliability is important and Tesla is undoubtedly focused on improving warranty costs and owner satisfaction. But recommendations shouldn't only be focused on the myopic categories and lump everyone into the same bucket is going to bad for their long term value as a consumer advocate.

CR has also alway considered safety a primary concern. I don't think they weighed that high enough.

 

[scaesare]

5th gen tech - we are doomed!

Seeing as how BMW is making rectally-extracted proclamations, I'll make one of my own:

Anyone naming their product "i-anything" will henceforth fail to dominate their market. That naming convention jumped the shark years ago.

 

[Hogfighter]

Seeing how BMW is making rectally-extracted proclamations, I'll make one of my own:

Anyone naming their product "i-anything" will henceforth fail to dominate their market. That naming convention jumped the shark years ago.

I agree...the whole iX3 name is confusing as heck. Electric? Hybrid? Do I plug it in, or not? Gas, or Diesel?

 

[Krugerrand]

CR has also alway considered safety a primary concern. I don't think they weighed that high enough.

By the very fact they don’t recommend the highest safety scoring vehicle of all time because of some cosmetic issues, seems to contradict any illusion of safety being a primary concern. Don’t you think?!

 

[KarenRei]

Seeing how BMW is making rectally-extracted proclamations, I'll make one of my own:

Anyone naming their product "i-anything" will henceforth fail to dominate their market. That naming convention jumped the shark years ago.

What about the Volkswagen E-Bulli ID. BUZZ? Don't forget the period in the name after "ID"!

 

[scaesare]

And a third in April, which will carry a ton of payloads...

Several tons, actually...

 

[shlokavica22]

As EVs scale up, not only will battery cells become cheaper, so will ICE manufacturing scale down, and it won't be pretty to ICE margins.

That part is clear for pretty much everyone with deep knowledge of EVs. The question here is about demand.

Will the general public buy PHEVs (we know there is no enough supply of batteries for EVs), or will they simply decide to keep their existing vehicle for a few more years (I'm not talking about people that HAVE to buy new car like right now)?

So the danger (for BMW and the rest) is that certain critical mass of people do decide to postpone their purchase of new vehicle. That will lead to forced price cuts (for new cars), leading to price cuts for second hand vehicles, leading to even more people deciding not to jump on the "pseudo EV" train (realizing the EVs are the real deal). It's simply an avalanche that one started, there is no going back, no pause, no time for change in strategy. They will be simply wiped.

 

[scaesare]

What about the Volkswagen E-Bulli ID. BUZZ? Don't forget the period in the name after "ID"!

That just looks like somebody made a cut & paste error and accidentally pasted a database schema table header name in the "Product Name" field.

 

[scaesare]

every rocket is white and freshly painted after being burned on reentry.

Well, not any more... but not to detract from your point: I think that's by design as well... while it does save on refurbishment labor, I think they want to also demonstrate these are reliable workhorses.

 

[Curt Renz]

Wall Street Journal - 12 minutes ago: First Tesla Model 3s Zoom Into China, Outracing Tariff Threat

 

[bhtooefr]

Here’s the thing, Tesla’s aren’t appliances. And while for many the main purpose of a vehicle is getting them from point A to B, safe and reliably (I fit in that category for the most part), a Tesla changes how one looks at a car. It changes one’s view about driving. It changes one’s life for the better. Yes. It does. Anyone who says otherwise isn’t being honest. And more importantly, every single additional Tesla on the road is one step closer to changing humanity’s future. And *that* deserves better treatment than CR is affording via their outdated system.

I won't deny that Teslas encourage enthusiasm in their owners in a way that Camrys et al. really do not. Having driven a Model 3 LRD, and having come at things from a direction of automotive enthusiasm before, I completely get it.

However, the Consumer Reports reader is one that would be incensed by their car being in the shop, even if it's the best thing since sliced bread. So, for problems that affect the functionality of the car, yeah, it's still an important factor.

What’s going to happen when FSD starts being implemented? How is CR going to adjust to that huge change? Keep right on thinking in the same archaic way?

If people are viewing Tesla’s like other vehicles, as appliances, then that is wrong-ways and needs to change and CR should be doing something about changing that perception, not encouraging it.

While I personally am skeptical about FSD, if it happens and works as advertised, CR should adapt their methodology to include its added utility. I suspect that FSD is one of the most appealing features of a Tesla to the CR appliance buyer, as it allows them to treat the car even more like an appliance than their Camry lets them.

@Fact Checking made the most poignant point, CR needs to change and improve their scoring/testing if only to remain relevant, but more importantly to be truly accurate, just as much as Tesla needs to continue to improve in their areas of weakness.

If you’re going to hold Tesla’s feet to the fire, you’d better be holding CR’s feet to that same fire or you’re a hypocrite. Never mind that it’s entirely unacceptable for CR to be leaking recommendation changes to a select group. For that alone they can kiss my pooper.

Fully agreed here. Their methodology is broken by including cosmetic quality issues - ones that do not impair the functionality or durability of the car at all (if there's paint defects down to the metal, that affects durability and therefore reliability, but otherwise, no) - in a reliability score, and I said that. Additionally, I mentioned the lack of authentication of ownership, which is even more concerning, as well as the leaking and clickbaity behavior around this release.

Oh, and Tesla's said they've fixed these problems, and given the specific problems CR reported, they are actually ones that Tesla has fixed AFAIK. So, the CR reliability data should recover, unless there's malicious data being generated, and I'd hope CR would restore the recommendation to the model.

 

[Krugerrand]

That part is clear for pretty much everyone with deep knowledge of EVs. The question here is about demand.

Will the general public buy PHEVs (we know there is no enough supply of batteries for EVs), or will they simply decide to keep their existing vehicle for a few more years (I'm not talking about people that HAVE to buy new car like right now)?

So the danger (for BMW and the rest) is that certain critical mass of people do decide to postpone their purchase of new vehicle. That will lead to forced price cuts (for new cars), leading to price cuts for second hand vehicles, leading to even more people deciding not to jump on the "pseudo EV" train (realizing the EVs are the real deal). It's simply an avalanche that one started, there is no going back, no pause, no time for change in strategy. They will be simply wiped.

Like the same certain critical mass of people who delayed purchasing a new car during the last recession?

Yeah. Somebody is in trouble, big time.

 

[lascavarian]

Will the general public buy PHEVs (we know there is no enough supply of batteries for EVs), or will they simply decide to keep their existing vehicle for a few more years (I'm not talking about people that HAVE to buy new car like immediately)?

PHEVs are the worst of all worlds - most expensive, most complex, MOST EXPENSIVE PRODUCTION, most complex to service for the dealers, heavy, slow, short range, full of flammable liquid plus batteries etc. They are great as a used vehicle to bridge to a full EV while saving some money but not a good deal as a new vehicle IMO.