I know at least more than 20 personally that want a Tesla but are waiting because of FUD. Some that think Elon is "Clown" and not stable to run the company.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
I know at least more than 20 personally that want a Tesla but are waiting because of FUD. Some that think Elon is "Clown" and not stable to run the company.
Carl Raymond
Active Member
Which is different to saying it has affected sales. It can only affect sales if it’s possible to make an extra car, which for model 3, such a situation is yet to arise.
It was a good dream (I have my best right before I wake up... I think I do at least).Of course! We'll have charger trucks that drop one of those clever military filling hoses that you tailgate and connect to so you can charge on the fly, not only without having to stop, but all while saving even MORE power through platooning!
What exactly you were drinking BEFORE you had your coffee at 1:33 PM EST?
Actually it was more along the lines of an advanced summon, but having the car back up into a supercharger that has a nozzle which lowers (or extends) out and plugs in to an outlet behind the license plate. Could all be done automatically like the LEM attaching to the Command Module. Be a lot easier than a snake cable and nozzle.
How many MS were sold on a much lower ASP? How many 3s in China are not sold? Yes, you can repeat thousand times, because you are selectively blind to the facts.
Panasonic was a problem at a time. But why tesla did not push them harder? Because the order rate was not increased on the pace if FUD has not delayed people's purchase decision.
All new cars from all brand are eventually sold, if you ignore how low the fire sale price. Even the bankrupted grocery stores sold all their merchandise, maybe 10 cents on the dollar. Your conclusion that the sales are not affected by FUD without consideration of the ASP is at least against my limited knowledge of economic rules.
Panasonic was a problem at a time. But why tesla did not push them harder? Because the order rate was not increased on the pace if FUD has not delayed people's purchase decision.
All new cars from all brand are eventually sold, if you ignore how low the fire sale price. Even the bankrupted grocery stores sold all their merchandise, maybe 10 cents on the dollar. Your conclusion that the sales are not affected by FUD without consideration of the ASP is at least against my limited knowledge of economic rules.
Last edited:
It made me wonder if he didn't have her confused with Lynette Lopez. I could definitely see her hooking people up with TSLAQ or a GoFundMe account.
Tesla has chronically overvalued "previously owned" Tesla models, not just for those accepted as trade-ins and marketed as CPOs, but also for the contract amounts used in resale/residual value guarantees and direct lease monthly payment computations. The magnitude of the over-valuations is generally reflected in the quarterly inventory write-downs on the Cash Flow statements (most, but not all, of which is used vehicles in Finished Goods and charged to Services & Other COGS.) The higher trade-in values helps Auto Sales GM% but also contributes to the disturbingly high negative GM% in Services & Other --albeit with a lag of multiple quarters.
As the Volvo stealership anecdote illustrates, used cars are a significant profit center for ICE dealership franchises. Tesla lacks skilled appraisers of trade-ins and eschews minor rehabilitation of non-Tesla vehicles so those profits are ceded to third-parties.
"
Consistent with Q4 2016, about 26% of Q1 deliveries were subject to lease accounting as we retained some residual risk on these transactions. When we do retain residual risk through a Resale Value Guarantee (RVG) or a direct lease, our vehicles are holding value better than estimated. Thus, we expect we will re-acquire less than half of these cars, and when we do, we normally break even on re-selling them.
SEC Filing | Tesla, Inc.
Some of that was retrospectively adjusted with the adoption of new FASB lease accounting guidance adopted in 2018.
Last edited:
Too late - big oil has already made a long term impact. Climate change is affected by *when* the emissions are curbed, not just whether they are eventually curbed. FUD from fossil fuel and related industries have slowed down carbon emissions progress by years, probably decades, which means EV sales have already been impacted.
If the USA was more EV friendly, adoption would be higher, and policies align towards the true cost of vehicle emissions like Norway. People would be encouraged to buy EVs with "good enough" range as you said. Tesla could reduce the battery size a bit, make more cars and sales.
If FUD had no impact on slowing progress, companies or organizations would not invest in FUD. They fund it because it works, just like tobacco companies slowed down anti-smoking legislation which resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths. History repeats.
Antares Nebula
Active Member
This may be all true, but the Tesla case is different in one very important way. The industries (and nations) being threatened by Tesla are much more bigger and powerful: global oil interests (large US oil companies, countries that heavily depend on oil, like Saudi Arabi and Russia to name only a few), big auto (US and German-- significant portion of German economy is dependent on autos), and finally big media (since Tesla does not advertise, and the fact that auto ads make up a signif portion of media ad revenue).
Big OIl, Big Auto, and Big Media.
You are taking about trillions of dollars and the lifeblood of many large and powerful companies AND countries. If there was ever a need for a conspiracy theory, here you go. Tesla and its investors should not underestimate this threat.
Last edited:
Introducing higher price trims at first is just Tesla’s way of doing business regardless of how much demand there is (though there will always be some level of demand when a new model is sold).
Going along with your reasoning, when Tesla got rid of the lower priced, standard range S/X, or lowers prices of 3’s across the board? What does that mean? Demand for S/X is increasing and 3 is decreasing?
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
As you correctly point out, FUD has not affected demand (at least not demand as measured by sales). But only because sales are not constrained by demand, they are constrained by supply. However, if production grows quickly, FUD could absolutely have an effect on demand.
I would actually argue that FUD has already affected demand, it's just that demand is strong enough that it hasn't impacted sales (yet).
I know a whole bunch of otherwise smart educated people who would never by a Tesla because they have been convinced they are built cheaply, their batteries will crap out in 5-6 years, they are unsafe, the company can never make a profit so will not be there to support the vehicle or the warranty, etc, etc, etc. It's really up to those who have first-hand knowledge and experience to speak out and let people know that the product is actually very solid, demand outstrips supply and that Tesla is not likely going bankrupt in the foreseeable future.
You sound like you have zero experience working for a large foreign company doing business in China. Even a simple read online will tell you otherwise. Foreign companies don’t have guts to go up against the Chinese government. The govt has even taken down websites and suspended operations of foreign companies that make the tiniest of mistakes in misrepresenting Chinese culture, history, or government, until an apology is accepted.
Markets are bigger in China, and foreign companies are the ones to lose by not selling their products and services there. And, although, other Asian countries now have cheaper labor in certain industries, you still need China to manufacture. Imagine how much loss in sales of everyday goods will be if only domestically made options are available.
Last edited:
And for Tesla to man up and try some traditional marketing and advertising.
Carl Raymond
Active Member
Trillions, versus an inhabitable planet. I hope big oil love their children too...
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
What you are saying can only be true if Tesla has overly generous trade-in allowances. But there are plenty of threads right here that attest to the fact that Tesla is generally a bit low on trade-in allowances but sometimes matches what other wholesale buyers are willing to offer.
As to selling the cars at auction, that is not possible. These are industry auctions, Tesla does not set the price, the highest bidder does. While there are some car enthusiasts at these auctions (that have become qualified bidders) the vast majority of cars sales are to dealerships and used car lot owners. Tesla has nothing to do with how much they sell each car for, the high bidder determines the price. Minor rehabilitation is not cost-effective for sellers, this is what the buyers do for a living (spiffing the car up).
It's true that Tesla lets third-party sellers make a profit on the cars they accept as trade-ins and that's exactly what Tesla should be doing. the profits are not large and Tesla is not in the used car business (nor should they be).
EVNow
Well-Known Member
We should always look at demand vs price and production.
If orders at current price > production, increase price. If orders at current price < production, lower price.
Production can be current or planned production.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
It affects sales.
Say, if many people wants a Model 3 due to positive FOMO. The deposit will rise and preorders will also rise. This gives TESLA several options even if they are production constrained. 1. They can raise the unit price of all models. Blame it on inflation, blame it on trade war whatever. Find a positive karma excuse but raise the price. 2. They can go to their suppliers like Panasonic and tell them to STFU and increase your production because here is the 10 year backlog that suddenly appeared because you guys are slacking off. 3. The deposits are an indirect loan to TSLA. Increases cash buffer. Everyone drops $1 in a tsla deposit and you get 7 bil $$$ cash buffer.
"China's answer to Nasdaq set to begin trading
Trading begins Monday on a new Nasdaq-style technology board in Shanghai [...]
Twenty-five stocks will debut on the Shanghai Stocks Exchange's Sci-Tech Innovation Board -- dubbed the STAR Market -- in which listing and trading rules have been eased to help channel funding to start-ups. [...]"
China's answer to Nasdaq set to begin trading
Trading begins Monday on a new Nasdaq-style technology board in Shanghai [...]
Twenty-five stocks will debut on the Shanghai Stocks Exchange's Sci-Tech Innovation Board -- dubbed the STAR Market -- in which listing and trading rules have been eased to help channel funding to start-ups. [...]"
China's answer to Nasdaq set to begin trading
I don’t think that’s entirely true.
You’re right that Tesla’s trade-in, and lease residual, values are horrendous. They’re so low that the delta between what price Tesla turns those used cars around and what it cost them is huge. Their margins on used car sales are no joke. If production of new cars is production constrained, they still make really good money selling used.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
