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.
So in the initial form (but I'm really just guessing here), I'd imagine something like this:
  • Tesla Network could self-insure and the customer EULA could act as a binding contract to make the driver liable for damages that they cause. They'd display it prominently, there might even be a short voice message before the driver can operate the car, and voice recognition would require the driver to answer "yes, I agree", and maybe sign their name on the screen or something. They'd be required to have a valid driver's license, and they have to be legally able to drive at that moment. (True for 90%+ Americans.)
  • Tesla Network might also require binding arbitration process before having to sue a customer for material damages. This usually makes it much cheaper and more reliable to recover small claims (which most traffic accidents really are).
  • "Always On Sentry Mode" recordings would offer robust evidence that regular insurance companies almost never have - so even during a major accident or major damage they'd have objective evidence from several cameras, plus telemetry and an internal camera recording. This is why I think they rolled out Sentry Mode so quickly.
  • Owners could be offered various convenience features, such as a new "loaner" car the moment there's a customer-induced accident with the car. I.e. it won't stop generating revenue just because a customer crashed the car.
So I think they can reduce their actual liabilities and legal costs immensely via these technological measures, plus they'd observe it during the prototype phase to see how much of an actual problem it is. The key observation is that video and audio evidence is both a powerful deterrent against abuse, and excellent evidence in any dispute resolution process.

Tesla also being a car company gives them unparalleled degrees of freedom to make this both profitable and convenient.

The concept of the customer being the safety driver seemed strange until I thought of it as an on-demand rental car. Drivers are accustomed to responsibility for rental cars, and the companies sell 'insurance'. A problem is the lack of familiarity with driving a Tesla by most potential customers. Also Tesla would need approval for level 5 with no driver to get the car to and from the customer. This might be years away. I wonder if customers frustrated with the slow movement would be able to turn it off and drive it themselves.
 
I have read a rumor that Tesla licensed their nn accelerator to Samsung.

I think Tesla is licensing some IP from Samsung used in its FSD computer. There is also a good chance Samsung is manufacturing Tesla’s NN chip at its Austin factory. Austin is also where much of Tesla’s AP hardware team is based.

The chip is designed specifically for Tesla’s software and can’t be used generically by other companies. There is also far more value in keeping its self driving technology and network in house rather than sharing the profits with other companies.
 
Baird lowered PT from $465 to $400. Maintains outperform.

Here are the biggest analyst calls of the day: Qualcomm, Tesla, Chipotle, Tiffany & more

“Reiterate Outperform rating and lowering price target to $400. Q1 deliveries were not sufficient to improve negative sentiment and investors will likely focus on Q1 cash balance, which might disappoint following the convert repayment and working capital headwinds. While we are recalibrating our expectations, we continue to expect shares will outperform over time as TSLAintroduces innovative products, increases profitability, and generates free cash flow. ”
 
Reading this you almost feel sorry for Einhorn: Yahoo, David Einhorn Goes Mano a Mano With Elon Musk.

1.1% average return for the last ten years for Greenlight. Ouch.

But the years since haven’t been as kind. Even after accounting for Einhorn’s prescient Lehman bet, Greenlight has returned just 1.1 percent a year from 2007 to 2018, lagging the HFRI index by 1.8 percentage points a year and the S&P 500 by 6 percentage points. The fund was also down 34 percent in 2018, its worst year on record.

Ever the incurable performance chasers, investors are fleeing the fund. Greenlight’s assets dipped below $3 billion this year, down from $12 billion five years ago. Suffice it to say, now would be a bad time to lose a high-profile battle with Musk.
 
I checked the Realtesla sub on Reddit to see what this was about.
Why sell at this low price?

Edit: I'm not interested in spreading FUD. Just to make sure I always check with both bulls and bears ;)

Because you want a boat or a new house?
Because no financial adviser would advise to have all of your money in a single stock?

This is normal behavior for every almost executive in every industry. Stock is a large portion of their pay. If you need money, you sell stock. If you follow a proper investment plan, you sell stock. For many of them, the sales will be automatic.
 
Yes, I agree, and I think Tesla should advertise to take control of the narrative. They cannot rely on social media alone because the signal to noise ratio is being polluted by a bunch of FUD, likely front run by "public relations" aka paid bashing firms. Also this won't be a popular comment with some of you, but Musk's behavior has turned off some potential buyers. (AKA "normies")

Most people have very little real info about EVs and Teslas and what they think they know is FUD. They certainly don't realize how much more advanced Tesla's tech is. For Tesla owners, it would be crazy to cross shop the Nissan Leaf at the same price point, yet I have read posts recently (on arstechnica in the comments) where people are doing just that and deciding on the leaf, because they are "concerned about the future of the company"

Here's my 30 second ad recommendation:

1. A women wakes up and pre-heats her Model 3 from the phone app, then shares a set of directions with her car from her appointment.
2. As she leaves the house it starts raining, so she uses advanced summon to bring her car to her front door.
3. In her car now she drives to the on ramp, where she engages NOA.
4. The car merges into traffic, overtakes a slower car and cut to it taking her exit and handing back control.
5. As the commercial ends we see the The Model 3, X and S on the road driving, then a large Tesla logo appears on the screen along with the text: Order or schedule a test drive on tesla.com/go

They should test this, perhaps in a regional market, and track it's effectiveness so they can decide if they are getting their money worth. For instance if they spend $5M on an advertising spot, and in that region they get $100M in new orders traceable to the ad campaign, then it was a good use of resources. This is how companies make decisions about investing in advertising campaigns.

This has changed my mind regarding advertising.

I have been opposed to the traditional car ad, which tries to create brand-value on the sub-conscious level with nothing else distinguishing one brand from the other.

So I agree that a Tesla ad that actually describes how far ahead Tesla technology is from the rest would be worth its cost.
 
Remember how critical is the machine that makes the machine! I thought I'd summarize a few points from the impact report that indicate some great manufacturing process engineering breakthroughs that all lead to great cost savings being achieved by Tesla:

  • In our Fremont Factory, the installation of LED lighting, as well as efficiency improvements to manufacturing systems such as compressed air, castings, injection molding, water test booth and cooling towers, combined with a new energy-efficient paint shop, have resulted in over 10 GWhs of energy savings over the last 5 years. As a result of many improvements, the energy usage at the Fremont Factory per vehicle manufactured has decreased by 19%
    compared to 2016.
  • Installed batteries reduce peak electric charges at Fremont and Lathrop
  • Gigafactory 1’s current lighting power density is 0.45 watts per sq ft, which is 65% less than the American Society of
    Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
    lighting design allowance of 1.3 watts per sq ft for a manufacturing
    facility. In the course of 30 days, the facility’s lighting system can save
    144 MWhs of energy.
  • Balers enable us to generate recycling revenue from cardboard and to turn loose films and bubble wrap into recyclable commodities. Styrofoam densifiers convert a small room’s worth of foam into a dense brick of hard plastic the size of a briefcase. This 50:1 densification ratio converts a commodity we previously had to pay to get rid of into a revenue-generating recyclable.
  • Throughout the Fremont Factory, water use per vehicle manufactured dropped by 9% from 2016 to 2017.
  • Battery recycling
  • Located in Sparks, Nevada, the facility is being built in phases so that Tesla and our partners can manufacture inside the finished sections as we continue to expand. This phased approach allows us to learn and continuously improve our construction and operational techniques as we drive down the cost of battery production. As with many of our manufacturing processes, Tesla applies first-principles thinking to achieve efficiencies across all areas of Gigafactory 1, translating into lower operating costs.
  • While challenging to achieve from a design perspective due to manufacturing processes that require high levels of energy or heat (like high-temperature ovens), Tesla engineered thermal systems to maximize heat recovery resulting in significant energy efficiency gains compared to standard industrial designs. This included using heat pumps to upgrade low-temperature waste heat from manufacturing, thus reducing the energy used to heat the facility by over 80% compared to traditional electric heaters and is expected to save over 16K MWh in the winter season.
  • The facility also has a heat exchanger system to recover more than 60% of the heat from the exhaust of industrial ovens.
  • Several battery manufacturing areas throughout the facility require very low levels of humidity during production (<300 ppmm), and creating dry air for these areas can be costly and require a lot of energy. Because Gigafactory 1 is located in the high desert of Nevada, Tesla was able to turn to nature itself and pull in outside air that starts with much less moisture. Tesla also configured its compressors and dehumidifier to take the heat rejected by the compressor to supply over 50% of the heat required to be dehumidified. The facility’s unique system dramatically reduces the energy and cost required to produce dry air compared to manufacturing facilities located in more humid regions.
  • Re Chilled Water Plant: This improved design is expected to reduce the factory’s chilled water electrical consumption by as much as 40% and water consumption up to 60%, pushing Gigafactory 1 toward its net-zero emissions goals.
  • Tesla designed our own dedicated solvent refining process to convert waste solvent back into reusable solvent in a closed-loop fashion. This solvent refining system was constructed onsite and has been operating since the end of 2017, demonstrating a greater than 95% conversion of waste solvent.
  • The implementation of this closedloop steam-water vapor compression heat pump system resulted in an approximately 85% reduction in energy consumption when compared to a standard system.