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

[neroden]

Please, everyone, don't get too worked up over my extremely half-assed estimate -- I was just saying it would take a long time to go from 100% new car sales electric to 100% car registrations electric.

I agree that the *miles driven* will switch much faster: everyone with multiple cars will drive the electric cars preferentially, and the people who drive the most will be the first to switch to electric cars. Oil consumption should start to crater well before 100% of new cars are electric.

 

[M3Rider]

I'll go one farther: Within the next two years the stores will be closed and sales will be limited to fleet operators who will use the cars on the Tesla network. Elon has already stopped selling to people after their leases expire. He tried to shut down the stores already so there is doubt as to them fitting into the long term plan. We'll need every car we can build on the network.

Elon said to follow battery production and autonomy to track the progress of the company. He didn't say follow new vehicle roll out. The semi is a great product but it isn't autonomous.

The non-autonomous electric car market is going to be an overcrowded mosh pit with cars selling way below cost in a few years. Better to be in the supply constrained robotaxi business. True, it's not as much fun just being a robotaxi company, but it's ten times more profitable and better meets the goal of reducing carbon emissions.

It all depends on FSD. No FSD, no robotaxi and we build out the platform as planned. An indication that I'm right would be that the truck doesn't get announced. I put it at 50/50.

You don't understand just one thing - Tesla is not in it for the money. A fair assumption to make about any other company, but not Tesla.
Read up on their mission first, then talk. Also, Tesla attempts to deliver on prior promises if they have an ability to do that without killing the company in the process.

 

[Captkerosene]

Let me take a crack at this.
The mission statement tells you all you need to know.
Sure IF robotaxi take off the owner's will have a winner on their hands.
BUT the mission is sustainable transportation...that is a lot more than robotaxi's.

The reason for the mission is NOT to make some people rich...but to STOP putting poison in the air.

A lot of that poison comes from trucks and so the semi WILL be made.

You can build 10 robotaxis to 1 semi with our limited supply of batteries. Each robotaxi takes 5 ice cars out of production. So, (10x5) 50 ice cars driving around and the damage to the environment producing and disposing of those cars to build one semi truck. Doesn't seem like a good deal for the environment.

Now, add in the profit the robotaxis will make ... call it 1 million taxis at 10k each or 10 billion dollars ... you can build two gigafactories making another million robotaxis per year. Or, you could build 100k semis making 10k each and you only make 1 billion to invest in new factories. 10X slower. A fast ramp up will require a huge amount of money.

One last point, many companies will be able to make electric semis. They're coming whether Tesla makes them or not.

 

[EVNow]

It all depends on FSD. No FSD, no robotaxi and we build out the platform as planned. An indication that I'm right would be that the truck doesn't get announced. I put it at 50/50.

Not sure why this got a lot of dislikes.

We know Tesla can change their plans quickly. (see. profits going forward to cash flow). So, if FSD becomes a reality they are going to reassess what is best for the mission and Tesla.

Clearly increasing the # of AVs is best for the mission (much larger number of EV miles means more missions stopped) and for the bottomline. Now, I'm sure they will want to produce autonomous Semis too - but initially when battery production is constrained it makes sense to make 3/Y type vehicles to employ on the network. Semis will come once they get set on AVs in the areas that allow AVs.

BTW, more AVs (in any area that allows it) also means more AV miles that can be used to open up new areas.

One more thing. Once FSD is real Tesla will have zero problem raising enormous amount of capital overnight very cheap. So no point trying to make new products to sell to consumers to get some cash.

Let me take a crack at this.
The mission statement tells you all you need to know.
Sure IF robotaxi take off the owner's will have a winner on their hands.
BUT the mission is sustainable transportation...that is a lot more than robotaxi's.

The reason for the mission is NOT to make some people rich...but to STOP putting poison in the air.

A lot of that poison comes from trucks and so the semi WILL be made.

But the question is - will 10 robotaxis running 24/7 STOP putting more poison in the air or 1 Semi ? I've not done the calculation, but replacing a 7/8 mpg Semi seems to be not as good as replacing 10 (or more) 25 mpg ubers.​

 

[PeterJA]

An indication that I'm right would be that the truck doesn't get announced.

If I'm wrong, which I often am, I want to know. And, I want to know why I'm wrong. So, maybe you could point out the flaw in my logic.

I already did.

Why can't the truck be a robotaxi? For fans of Blake Shelton and Blade Runner.

 

[mrmage]

Not sure why this got a lot of dislikes.

We know Tesla can change their plans quickly. (see. profits going forward to cash flow). So, if FSD becomes a reality they are going to reassess what is best for the mission and Tesla.

Clearly increasing the # of AVs is best for the mission (much larger number of EV miles means more missions stopped) and for the bottomline. Now, I'm sure they will want to produce autonomous Semis too - but initially when battery production is constrained it makes sense to make 3/Y type vehicles to employ on the network. Semis will come once they get set on AVs in the areas that allow AVs.

BTW, more AVs (in any area that allows it) also means more AV miles that can be used to open up new areas.

One more thing. Once FSD is real Tesla will have zero problem raising enormous amount of capital overnight very cheap. So no point trying to make new products to sell to consumers to get some cash.

But the question is - will 10 robotaxis running 24/7 STOP putting more poison in the air or 1 Semi ? I've not done the calculation, but replacing a 7/8 mpg Semi seems to be not as good as replacing 10 (or more) 25 mpg ubers.​

I think the down votes are from saying there's a 50/50 chance of not having a semi.

Semis contribute nearly 28% of vehicle greenhouse emissions despite being a much smaller percentage of total vehicles.

Getting ICE semis off the road is a priority regardless of FSD robo-anything, which will probably take longer than anyone would like.

 

[EVNow]

I think the down votes are from saying there's a 50/50 chance of not having a semi.

Semis contribute nearly 28% of vehicle greenhouse emissions despite being a much smaller percentage of total vehicles.

Getting ICE semis off the road is a priority regardless of FSD robo-anything, which will probably take longer than anyone would like.

That 28% is not that useful a metric in this regard. After all Tesla can't make enough Semis to replace all of them at once.

I'd be happy to say Semis should be the priority if someone shows making Semi removes more emissions in 5 years than making robotaxis. Take into account how much cash robotaxis can generate and how many more batteries can be produced because of that etc.

 

[Joe F]

I put it at 100% you being completely wrong.

Why so low?

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Not sure why this got a lot of dislikes.

We know Tesla can change their plans quickly. (see. profits going forward to cash flow). So, if FSD becomes a reality they are going to reassess what is best for the mission and Tesla.

Clearly increasing the # of AVs is best for the mission (much larger number of EV miles means more missions stopped) and for the bottomline. Now, I'm sure they will want to produce autonomous Semis too - but initially when battery production is constrained it makes sense to make 3/Y type vehicles to employ on the network. Semis will come once they get set on AVs in the areas that allow AVs.

BTW, more AVs (in any area that allows it) also means more AV miles that can be used to open up new areas.

One more thing. Once FSD is real Tesla will have zero problem raising enormous amount of capital overnight very cheap. So no point trying to make new products to sell to consumers to get some cash.

But the question is - will 10 robotaxis running 24/7 STOP putting more poison in the air or 1 Semi ? I've not done the calculation, but replacing a 7/8 mpg Semi seems to be not as good as replacing 10 (or more) 25 mpg ubers.​

At some point, you've run out of Uber/lyfts drivers (Google search says 2 million Uber and 1.4 million lyfts providing 7.5 rides per driver daily) to replace, but have left a whole fleet of semi's still on the road. There is no battery trade off, semi's need to be built regardless of the robotaxis economics.

 

[M3Rider]

Not sure why this got a lot of dislikes.

We know Tesla can change their plans quickly. (see. profits going forward to cash flow). So, if FSD becomes a reality they are going to reassess what is best for the mission and Tesla.

Clearly increasing the # of AVs is best for the mission (much larger number of EV miles means more missions stopped) and for the bottomline. Now, I'm sure they will want to produce autonomous Semis too - but initially when battery production is constrained it makes sense to make 3/Y type vehicles to employ on the network. Semis will come once they get set on AVs in the areas that allow AVs.

BTW, more AVs (in any area that allows it) also means more AV miles that can be used to open up new areas.

One more thing. Once FSD is real Tesla will have zero problem raising enormous amount of capital overnight very cheap. So no point trying to make new products to sell to consumers to get some cash.

But the question is - will 10 robotaxis running 24/7 STOP putting more poison in the air or 1 Semi ? I've not done the calculation, but replacing a 7/8 mpg Semi seems to be not as good as replacing 10 (or more) 25 mpg ubers.​

My thoughts.

# of AVs is different from AV profit. EM said that the the plan is to have the current owners to become part of TN and only add Tesla operated AVs in those areas lacking supply, i.e. max profit is not a driver here (even though they still get ~30% cut from all owners). This will be a limited time opportunity - either you make some TN money in the first 10 years of FSD or once the production ramps up, Tesla will fill in the void and then it won't be so lucrative.
# of AVs does not suffer much if many owners choose to participate(esp. SRs), therefore mission is ok.

Rate of transition for segments other than sedans still matters. Truck owners(such as those who rammed @teslaownersSV yesterday) won't buy a sedan or use robotaxi to save money. They need to be shown that EV trucks are better and their trucks suck. Same with SUV/CUV. Transition needs to be kicked into a high gear.

Semi transition should be easier, as those people only care about cost per mile and have zero loyalty to brands. It's not just mpg, since diesel contains more poison causing cancer etc.- fine particulate matter (PM). And it's not just EV that other brands can provide, it's also speed of charging and AV functionality.

I think Tesla will be pushing on all fronts rather than limit itself to robotaxis. MXWL should enable this soon.

FSD by Tesla estimates is 2 years away(first approvals), but even with their optimistic statement most approvals will take longer, so likely not less than 3 years. They will have EU GF4 humming in 2 years. Then they grow 50%/year w/o much FSD income for another couple of years(just because FSD is not approved to operate in most areas), then FSD income is not that critical as they'll have enough volume to raise cash as needed.

As EM said, throwing more money at it does not always increase speed of growth past certain point. So, they may have enough cash w/o going 100% robotaxis to do what they want at the max speed feasible.

 

[Jo-]

Do you have small kids and drive an X yourself?

We have one, a P90DL X. I love it for around town. Take the little ones around, go grocery shopping, play dates, etc. Its fine.

But, long distance vacations with the family for 7+ days? Not our first choice.
It’s just enough space for a family of 4 with the car seats, luggage, cooler, strollers, etc. First time we did the Disney/Lego/SD Zoo trip with it, my brother and sister in law had to fly because not enough room in the X. So, in subsequent years, we took a minivan down whenever there were more than 4 of us. Fits everyone and everything, and more. More legroom and shoulder room for everyone, too. Not too bad gas mileage given the amount of hauling it does on those trips as well.

OT: Happy to take this elsewhere, but yes...and the X doesn’t address the minivan market. It’s 2-3x more expensive than an Odyssey, driven en masse and affordable to many. The minivan market is yet to be addressed by anything electric except the Chrysler Pacifica (and I don’t want one).

 

[Solar Aussie]

I can’t go one further because it’s against forum rules.

I’m sure Elon has a future road map that many would be uncomfortable with in 2019 as it involves some mental jumps into a future transport/people location network. An era when transportation and communication become true bedfellows - a world which is barely recognisable today and needs people of the old order to in some ways be subsumed by a complex new order which goes back to first principals as all good mathematical understanding does. 1984 was maybe a guidance to these changes and politics will resist

 

[Off Shore]

The semi is a great product but it isn't autonomous.

Of course it is.

 

[Krugerrand]

I forget the Elon quote but it was something like "you'd be a fool to buy any other car than a Tesla FSD." Or "they'll be worth 200k each.' The more foolish thing to do would be for us to produce cars that don't fit into the robotaxi business; to be a seller of that car. The most foolish thing to do is to sell our 200K (value) car for 40K so that our customer can compete with us.

I know my writing style is cryptic, often misunderstood and usually irritating. I'm happy to say what people often don't want to hear. I post because I want to learn from others. If I'm wrong, which I often am, I want to know. And, I want to know why I'm wrong. So, maybe you could point out the flaw in my logic.

It has nothing to do with your writing style, personality or the like. You’re just wrong.

You’re wrong because you’ve made the assumption everybody wants the same thing. They don’t. For example, I actually love to drive most of the time, it’s quite unlikely (like pretty good odds never) I’d taxi out my vehicle because other people in it when I’m not - um...no, not even a little bit appealing to me, and I don’t actually care enough about money to want to monetize my car.

I also have always owned multiple vehicles for various purposes - like at the same time; ie. an efficient sedan, a pickup, a minivan/cuv, a classic car etc... I have a 3 now, already put down a deposit for a Y and will be grabbing a cyberpunk-blade runner pickup. I’d have the S and/or X now if they suited me/my life, they don’t. I am not alone.

You’re wrong because you made the assumption that the semi, pickup, roadster and future vehicles won’t have FSD. They will. Tesla has already talked about platooning semis. They’ll do it. No doubt.

You’re wrong because you’re wrong. Tesla WILL build the semi and other vehicles. You want to quote Elon, then quote all of Elon. Like how he’s said Tesla has the most exciting up and coming product line of any company in the world.

 

[mrmage]

That 28% is not that useful a metric in this regard. After all Tesla can't make enough Semis to replace all of them at once.

I'd be happy to say Semis should be the priority if someone shows making Semi removes more emissions in 5 years than making robotaxis. Take into account how much cash robotaxis can generate and how many more batteries can be produced because of that etc.

Using the same argument , you cannot say that robo-taxies should be a priority without showing that they’ll remove more emissions sooner. I think everyone agrees that finishing the semi has low technological risk at this point, whereas no one knows if robo-taxis will be available on a wide scale within 5 years.

That aside, if 6+ wheel trucks constitute 3% of vehicles and account for 28% of emissions, thats a strong case for EV trucks, autonomy or not. I don’t think those numbers are wildly off.

Trucks also have better ROI for businesses which means faster adoption. Arguably, commercial trucks are better suited for autonomy, because their routes are more predictable.

Btw, I said semis should be a priority, not the only priority.

 

[NicoV]

In the case of cars, since the average age of cars on the road is 12 years, if this stays true, then after we reach 100% new car sales electric, it'll still be 12 more years before
*half* of the cars on the road are electric. Retirements of old cars might accelerate, but you get the picture.


Yeah, 90% of new car sales by 2030 -- displacing the old fleet will take at *least* another 10 years, possibly longer unfortunately.

‘Number of miles driven electric’ is a much more important metric than ‘number of EVs on the road’. In my experience, the newer cars do a lot more miles than the older cars. People keep their old cars because they’r cheap to keep, and use them for things they don’t want to use their newer cars for, e.g. hauling dirty stuff, or letting their kids use it.
The point is that the decarbonisation of driving will go a lot faster than the decarbonisation of the installed base of vehicles.

Note also (this may not be true for the USA) that (at least in Belgium/Europe) even though it is cheap to keep an old car, it is not free due to road taxes and insurance. With more and more countries basing road taxes based the car’s emissions, that’s an an incentive for not keeping old cars on the road.

I had an interesting chat with my Toyota dealer. He agreed to buy back my 19 year old Toyota Corolla. He said that that car was too modern to export to Africa and that there was only a small market for it in Eastern Europe, and that even that market is declining fast. I had the impression that in the future, Western Europe will be less and less able to get rid of their old cars by exporting them to Africa and Eastern Europe, and that we will have to junk our cars instead.

 

[NicoV]

I'm not sure how those rules are in the US, but in Norway minimum insurance with minimum miles which is 5000km or so is fairly cheap. In Norway a car barely used costs you around $500/year to be able to drive it legally. If that car does something which is unusuall to find in rental cars or you just like a beater car that you don't have to care about whatever you throw in the back I can easily see that being worth $500. If you are driving less than 1000km you don't really care about gas milage either.
Where we are seeing the biggest change in EV useage now is the professional sector, tradesmen and contractors. They usually drive panelvans here, not pickups, and for those tradesmen operating around the cities, cars like this one seems to be catching on.

So in the not to distant future you will see almost only EVs on the road in the cities but there might actually just be 30% of the car population being EVs. Because in every garage there is a classic car, or not so classic but usefull car waiting for it's blue moon when it can see the sun

I’m catching up with the thread and see you’re making the same argument as I did. In Belgium, my old Corolla would cost me at least 700 euro to keep it on the road legally. Mostly due to the high road taxes for old poluting diesels.

 

[EVNow]

FSD by Tesla estimates is 2 years away(first approvals), but even with their optimistic statement most approvals will take longer, so likely not less than 3 years. They will have EU GF4 humming in 2 years. Then they grow 50%/year w/o much FSD income for another couple of years(just because FSD is not approved to operate in most areas), then FSD income is not that critical as they'll have enough volume to raise cash as needed.

Florida has already approved. But Tesla will take a few more years - so we are only talking hypotheticals here.

 

[Stars aligned]

Troy Teslike posted 5,978 bn as Tesla automobile revenue estimate in Q2 19. in Q3 18 it was 6,099 bn and 311mn earnings.

Anyone thinks the missing approx 250mn for an S&P inclusion can be reached?

Edit: Link Troy Teslike‏ @TroyTeslike

 

[printf42]

OT:
Another Gear-head YouTuber turning Electric:

Starts at 13:25

FYI, this is a channel full of Bugatti, McLaren, Ferrari, RR, etc.

Tesla needs to get the Roadster and the Cyberpunk Pickup truck out of the door quickly, doesn't need to be in large quantity, just enough to flood YouTube, please...