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

[LN1_Casey]

I don't think it goes against the mission because once there is a fully autonomous electric car, people wouldn't want to own cars and would just use the ride-sharing service. This would reduce emissions per person.

I very strongly disagree. Certain people would be fine with it. Others would vehemently not. It's the similar concept as people who have roommates. There are a lot of benefits for having some, especially in large cities, but a large portion of the populous (particularly Americans) would rather survive off pre-packaged ramen most days of the month and a tiny studio than have to share, especially if the person you're sharing with isn't a romantic partner who you'd otherwise have an emotional attachment to.

Now, there will be some who do, and will live happily for it. But to say it'd be the majority? Eh... not so much.

 

[jerry33]

Most people, certainly older folks, want their own car. The population as a whole isn't yet ready for ride-sharing.

When we lived in Vancouver, Denise never needed a car because transit actually worked for her. Where we are now transit is broken so she has to have a car. (90 minutes by bus to go less than ten miles to work each way). A real alternative would be welcome. Uber doesn't work because they don't always show up. If FSD is reliable then that would be a great alternative.

 

[RiverCard]

BTW., I suspect an interesting topic for the "Battery Investor Day" will be whether Tesla is going to keep the cylindrical form factor or might switch to prismatic cells - which are cheaper/faster to manufacture and have higher volumetric density.

I think the default assumption should be that they are going to stay with the 21,700 format, but the probability that they might use something else is higher than 0% - because if Tesla starts making their own cells the industry standard compatibility and outside supplier arguments become much less important, and the overall complexity and cost of raw materials to battery modules, with the physical properties of the final product, becomes the key parameter.

Another advantage that prismatic cells might have over cylindrical cells is protection against a worst-case runaway thermal cycle within the casing. For critical applications such as EV-airplanes or EV-ships, where passengers cannot simply disembark in case of a fire, and where the capital value of the vehicle is too high to allow a runaway fire within the battery pack in case of worst-case cell failure, the (much) lower mass fraction of protective casing mass versus battery content mass might be a critical factor.

Note that the non-invasive migration of their vehicle platforms to prismatic cells might be possible because they use less volume - so the changes to the battery pack would not impact the rest of the vehicle.

This might also explain the delay of the Tesla Semi, beyond their cell supply constraints: if they are certain about prismatic cells then they'd not want to roll out the Semi based on a cylindrical form factor.

Prismatics may also mean it's easier to separate the packaging materials in order to recover the constituent metals for purification and eventual reuse.

 

[hitchhiker]

I very strongly disagree. Certain people would be fine with it. Others would vehemently not.

Wouldn't that just lead to a smoother ramp-up, so that they don't have to deploy all robo-taxis as exactly the same time? ...much like Tesla appealing to the enthusiast and techie at first meant that they could get away with producing 5 figures of cars, then 6 figures of cars, then 7 figures of cars rather and expanding one market at a time rather than having to produce millions per year right out of the gate.

 

[powertoold]

Most people, certainly older folks, want their own car. The population as a whole isn't yet ready for ride-sharing.

Same thing I thought when on-screen keyboards were first introduced. Not the same kind of analogy, but you get my drift.

I'd agree with you regarding rural areas, but in any decently sized city, people would rather just use a transportation service. Most don't right now because it's not reliable, too much of a hassle, or too expensive.

 

[NateB]

I don't believe what Elon says and I don't think the markets do either. Today's SP is all about the poor macro and low volume. That being said, $TSLA is doing well against the Nasdaq.

As to the "limited time to buy a Tesla", this doesn't jive with me at all and seems to go against the Mission, also the idea of selling them for $200k all of a sudden, doesn't make sense.

As said up-thread, there's a huge %age of the population that want their own car and don't want to lend it out, that's a fact which will likely not change while they're alive. Maybe for younger generations, born into the new mobility world, it's OK, but not for everyone.

So Tesla need to make as many cars as they can with as low a price as it feasible whilst maintaining good margins for future expansion.

IMO, etc.

I don't believe that Tesla will start making any serious profits from "robocars" soon (maybe in 5 years?). Hardware for enhanced autopilot was all in place in 2016. It took Tesla 2.5 years to get that working at "feature complete" level. But, once they do get it working, I think that a shift away from customer sales is DEFINITELY right for the mission.

One of the big value propositions of autonomous cars is the higher utilization rates. If Tesla sells 40,000 miles a year of autonomous rides from a model 3, it is much better than selling to an individual who would drive 10,000 miles per year. Cheap electric robotaxis could greatly accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel-based transportation, when measured in miles rather than cars. I personally can't justify a Tesla right now since I drive few miles per year (current car was $2000 second hand), but I would happily sell my car and buy Tesla rides if they were $1 per mile or less, especially if I could sit in the driver's seat and take control when I wanted.

 

[Chocochip]

Once they achieve FSD (Level 5 autonomy) and the legislation is in place to allow them to run it, is there anything stopping Tesla from selling their vehicles at the current price with Enhanced Autopilot (reliable Level 3-4) for the "drivers" -- which is a very large proportion of the population -- and charging something like $30k for the upgrade to FSD?

 

[Sparky4life]

Adam Jonas has found a new narrative (took him a week to come up with this one): record Q2 is pull-in from what would have normally been H2 sales

Is Adam Jonas in denial that EVs are inevitable, or is he in denial that Tesla makes the best EVs? Seems like his hatred for Elon Musk is emotionally clouding his judgement. Yoda said it best, "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

 

[Sparky4life]

The beauty of this logic is that it can be used every quarter to explain why he was wrong: Demand from the future.

He's not wrong. The future is pissed that so many of us are still driving ICE.

 

[samk579]

Once they achieve FSD (Level 5 autonomy) and the legislation is in place to allow them to run it, is there anything stopping Tesla from selling their vehicles at the current price with Enhanced Autopilot (reliable Level 3-4) for the "drivers" -- which is a very large proportion of the population -- and charging something like $30k for the upgrade to FSD?

People just won't buy them.
It's just simple supply and demand curve.

Using your example of $30k, on a 3 year car ownership cycle, that's ~$800 a month.
Consumer will think "Is $800 a month worth it for me?" or "Do I put $800 into mortgage or other entertainment?"
The math might be off/wrong but the same principal applies.

I think Tesla would rather OWN the FSD market and flood the world with Tesla cars. This will destroy other car companies quite fast.
Elon needs to grind through this phrase.

 

[sparcs]

Once they achieve FSD (Level 5 autonomy) and the legislation is in place to allow them to run it, is there anything stopping Tesla from selling their vehicles at the current price with Enhanced Autopilot (reliable Level 3-4) for the "drivers" -- which is a very large proportion of the population -- and charging something like $30k for the upgrade to FSD?

In a production limited environment, it would make sense to raise the base price of the vehicle to some degree right along with FSD package price. Then use that money to build more factories.

It's all theoretical anyways. Tesla has a long way to go before all this could even happen.

 

[JusRelax]

Once they achieve FSD (Level 5 autonomy) and the legislation is in place to allow them to run it, is there anything stopping Tesla from selling their vehicles at the current price with Enhanced Autopilot (reliable Level 3-4) for the "drivers" -- which is a very large proportion of the population -- and charging something like $30k for the upgrade to FSD?

Unfortunately, I believe this would not be in Tesla's best interest for the following reasons:

1. A personal car without FSD will be used for about 10-15k miles/yr. A Robotaxi would be used for at least 80k-120k miles/yr. This would go against their mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable transport.
2. Less profits selling a car w/ enhanced autopilot compared to a robotaxi with FSD, or Tesla just keeping the car and using it on the Tesla network themselves. Less profits for Tesla means less profits to manufacture more cars quicker, which would go against their mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable transport.

 

[Chenkers]

Once they achieve FSD (Level 5 autonomy) and the legislation is in place to allow them to run it, is there anything stopping Tesla from selling their vehicles at the current price with Enhanced Autopilot (reliable Level 3-4) for the "drivers" -- which is a very large proportion of the population -- and charging something like $30k for the upgrade to FSD?

I prefer the model where the cars cost similar to what they do now in order to drive the widest transition away from ICE. Then have a higher price to upgrade to FSD like you suggest. If I was Tesla I would then charge a high subscription price to join the Tesla Network and take a more significant part of the revenue. This way you capture the robotaxi market but also continue to drive the wider transition from ICE. Assuming there aren't any future supply limitations allowing them to do both.

 

[Curt Renz]

I don't believe that Tesla will start making any serious profits from "robocars" soon (maybe in 5 years?). Hardware for enhanced autopilot was all in place in 2016. It took Tesla 2.5 years to get that working at "feature complete" level. But, once they do get it working, I think that a shift away from customer sales is DEFINITELY right for the mission.

One of the big value propositions of autonomous cars is the higher utilization rates. If Tesla sells 40,000 miles a year of autonomous rides from a model 3, it is much better than selling to an individual who would drive 10,000 miles per year. Cheap electric robotaxis could greatly accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel-based transportation, when measured in miles rather than cars. I personally can't justify a Tesla right now since I drive few miles per year (current car was $2000 second hand), but I would happily sell my car and buy Tesla rides if they were $1 per mile or less, especially if I could sit in the driver's seat and take control when I wanted.

ARK Invest will conduct its monthly webinar tomorrow at 1:30 pm EDT. Tesla is the overall top holding in their ETFs. It is usually discussed in either their main presentations or the Q&A portion during which we can submit questions.

Registration: https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/7119127061193927937?__hssc=84851910.7.1562598486635&__hstc=84851910.744419facd9b8a14f357aa4e584ee85b.1562598486635.1562598486635.1562598486635.1&__hsfp=4061745694&hsCtaTracking=3a654769-03e1-45b3-8ab8-531436197539|2100d6d6-5b8e-4a4f-9284-80050a7c220e

 

[Nocturnal]

Unfortunately, I believe this would not be in Tesla's best interest for the following reasons:

1. A personal car without FSD will be used for about 10-15k miles/yr. A Robotaxi would be used for at least 80k-120k miles/yr. This would go against their mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable transport.
2. Less profits selling a car w/ enhanced autopilot compared to a robotaxi with FSD, or Tesla just keeping the car and using it on the Tesla network themselves. Less profits for Tesla means less profits to manufacture more cars quicker, which would go against their mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable transport.

Yes, this is the part that confuses me about the Robotaxi network. People often disagree, but I've not had a real counter argument.

Until the robotaxi market is saturated, why sell me an SR when you could add it to the network instead? Sure capital is an issue, but if they have Robotaxis up and running Wall Street will give them a blank check. The only way this makes sense is if the Tesla co share of Robotaxi revenue is high enough that letting you manage the car and giving them a cut is roughly equivalent to what they would make in house when managing their own fleet.

Once they achieve FSD (Level 5 autonomy) and the legislation is in place to allow them to run it, is there anything stopping Tesla from selling their vehicles at the current price with Enhanced Autopilot (reliable Level 3-4) for the "drivers" -- which is a very large proportion of the population -- and charging something like $30k for the upgrade to FSD?

Not at all, and I would not be surprised if that is what happens. ​

 

[Tslynk67]

Same thing I thought when on-screen keyboards were first introduced. Not the same kind of analogy, but you get my drift.

I'd agree with you regarding rural areas, but in any decently sized city, people would rather just use a transportation service. Most don't right now because it's not reliable, too much of a hassle, or too expensive.

Everyone's mileage may vary, of course, but people are territorial and many want their own thing. I have friends that don't own their own cycles, never mind cars, they rent scooters, bikes and cars as-and-when they need them, but they're an exception, 95% people I know - and this is in a capital city with very good public transport and sharing services - want their own transport.

So yeah, will work for some, not for others, in any case, Elon's reasoning is nonsense at this juncture in time.

 

[M3Rider]

Perhaps, but Rivian’s charging solution/infrastructure plan is what?

They twitted @Elon about SC sharing, he never saw it(he said he sees ~5% of tweets) - he said couple of times since that as far as he knows, nobody reached out about sharing SCs.

 

[Pezpunk]

Unfortunately, I believe this would not be in Tesla's best interest for the following reasons:

1. A personal car without FSD will be used for about 10-15k miles/yr. A Robotaxi would be used for at least 80k-120k miles/yr. This would go against their mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable transport.

i don't understand this argument. These same miles would still be driven, either by a robo Tesla or by a (most likely ICE) competitor. Total demand for taxi services is not a variable directly affected by whether or not Tesla enters that market. Switching taxis to electric power absolutely supports Tesla's mission of accelerating the transition to sustainable transport.

 

[NakedLong]

Fully Charge talk with Benchmark and Bernstein.

• Total of all currently proposed battery factories will lead to 28 million EVs per year by 2028.

*25 million

I find the debate about when the transition will occur will be interesting. Most people here I have interacted with are not appreciating the scale of mining and battery production which needs to occur for the entire market to be driving EVs. I very much would support Tesla/TBC getting into the mining industry to vertically integrate this core component of sustainable energy.

From the video they predict only about 25% production market share by 2028 for EVs (assuming about 100 million production/year then). And with the average lifespan of ICE cars being 12 years, the market saturation will reach 25% around 2040. I have read people predicting 90% market share by 2030. Locally I would agree in small markets like Norway and other progressive rich countries, but globally this estimate of 78 giga-style battery factories by 2028 producing enough for only 25m EVs should be factored into any estimates.

Here are the numbers:

Tesla Gigafactory current output: 24 (gigawatt-hours per year) (0.34%)
Total current output from all factories: 300 (4.2%)
Output to reach 25 million EVs with 78 large scale battery factories by 2028: 1872 (27%)
Total output for all motor vehicles to be EVs: 7000 (100%)

 

[JusRelax]

Yes, this is the part that confuses me about the Robotaxi network. People often disagree, but I've not had a real counter argument.

Until the robotaxi market is saturated, why sell me an SR when you could add it to the network instead? Sure capital is an issue, but if they have Robotaxis up and running Wall Street will give them a blank check. The only way this makes sense is if the Tesla co share of Robotaxi revenue is high enough that letting you manage the car and giving them a cut is roughly equivalent to what they would make in house when managing their own fleet.

Not at all, and I would not be surprised if that is what happens. ​

I actually foresee that Tesla will somehow make FSD much more accessible for those with the hardware that have not purchased FSD, ala something like the following:

Allow these non-FSD enabled teslas to join the tesla network, but only get X% (much less than when you have already purchased FSD) of profit revenue from Tesla Network. FSD is only enabled when on the tesla network, but not during personal driving. The other Y% of what would normally be their profit margin goes towards a bank which accumulates to eventually pay for FSD for that car.