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

[shootformoon]

The very easy fix for unpopularity of this gas tax is, redistributing the revenue by some kind of UBI so it can't be spun as taxing the poor.

The most immediate and simple way to tax based on pollution / fuel consumption would be to increase taxes on gas. Unlike a one-time sales tax (least related) or yearly (not much better but at least not limited to initial buyer), it incentivises to reduce consumption by increasing the variable part of TCO.
Except for being unpopular among voters, is there any other downside that I'm not seeing?

 

[Swampgator]

All of you guys asking/wondering about increasing gas taxes or ICE taxes are wasting your time. There is no need for any of this. Tesla has shown that BEV is superior to ICE. Period. The transition will happen quickly. The fact that legacy ICE OEMS cannot participate in the transition only slows it a little bit. It allows TSLA to gain more of the market. New players like Rivian, Lucid, etc will be incentivized to ramp quickly. Legacy players are truly screwed. Not one of them, including the whole VW group, can build a BEV that competes and wins against Tesla's offerings today. They are spending tons of money for zero ROI. They are saddled with billions in ICE assets that are essentially worthless. Their lack of vertical integration means they will never win the autonomy race. They will all fail and need government bailouts to even survive.
It's like worrying about the best way to tax/fine the transition to cars from horse and buggy at the beginning of the 20th century. What would we do to help Henry Ford gain market share to get all of those pooping horses off our streets.
Nothing was needed to do, because the car proved superior tech to the horse and buggy. Same thing is already here today. Tesla (2019)= Ford (1919)

The buggy makers did not transition to cars. New players stepped in but by the time they arrived Ford already owned the market. Same think will happen with Tesla if they can ramp quickly. Biggest constraint is still batteries I think at the Battery Investor day we are going to see some big plans and ideas laid out that will scare the crap out of legacy OEMs and further solidify Tesla's lead in this transition.

 

[larmor]

All of you guys asking/wondering about increasing gas taxes or ICE taxes are wasting your time. There is no need for any of this. Tesla has shown that BEV is superior to ICE. Period. The transition will happen quickly. The fact that legacy ICE OEMS cannot participate in the transition only slows it a little bit. It allows TSLA to gain more of the market. New players like Rivian, Lucid, etc will be incentivized to ramp quickly. Legacy players are truly screwed. Not one of them, including the whole VW group, can build a BEV that competes and wins against Tesla's offerings today. They are spending tons of money for zero ROI. They are saddled with billions in ICE assets that are essentially worthless. Their lack of vertical integration means they will never win the autonomy race. They will all fail and need government bailouts to even survive.
It's like worrying about the best way to tax/fine the transition to cars from horse and buggy at the beginning of the 20th century. What would we do to help Henry Ford gain market share to get all of those pooping horses off our streets.
Nothing was needed to do, because the car proved superior tech to the horse and buggy. Same thing is already here today. Tesla (2019)= Ford (1919)

The buggy makers did not transition to cars. New players stepped in but by the time they arrived Ford already owned the market. Same think will happen with Tesla if they can ramp quickly. Biggest constraint is still batteries I think at the Battery Investor day we are going to see some big plans and ideas laid out that will scare the crap out of legacy OEMs and further solidify Tesla's lead in this transition.

Agreed... The transition to EVs is here, and many new players will come to market soon. The bellwether sign will be what are volumes of EVs and number of new EV auto manufacturers in China. China's upper middle class is large and growing, and they will need cars. Their demand and size will dwarf most current auto markets.

Battery investor day is going to be really interesting. I still find it curious that they first intro'd a super slick roadster with 620 miles range, including super slick cD and insane performance numbers and now the cybertruck, comparatively speaking-- heavier and not as aerodynamically efficient, including huge tires and large ground clearance.... Model S, not designed as a sports car, handily trouncing Porsche's offering on the 'ring, Porsche with decades of race experience and knowledge.... Is this all from a double stack battery pack? Are they increasing the volume of cars, with presumed double the battery production, or this there something new coming up? Better range, faster acceleration (for a truck!!??) and lower than would be expected price (for the cybertruck)... Something is going on, and just like many R&D for aerospace companies, tesla must have a skunk works....

 

[jerry33]

You mean like in US parking lots ?

Definitely driving rules would need to be changed for places like China & India. May be they will need to get to AI deciding how to drive rather than procedural code.

I believe the rules are fine, it's the behaviour that has to change, which is far harder. Think about how even heavy enforcement and fines over the last several decades hasn't stopped people from not using seat belts. I find that many of my passengers don't just immediately fasten their seat belts, they typically have to hear the chime.

 

[jerry33]

You sure you didn't accidentally copy & paste above paragraph from The Onion?

Someone has to write articles for The Onion. I just never thought it was Daimler-Benz.

 

[madodel]

I wish it's like US parking lot. Remember, I drive daily in the U.S and deal with parking lots almost on a daily basis. I don't drive in China because I know I will not succeed. Never yield, always cut people off, always squeeze into any open space, doesn't matter if you go the wrong way, doesn't matter who has the right of way, doesn't matter if there's a baby stroller in front of you..just keep going. If the lady doesn't move the carriage out of your way then it's her problem..because you honked.

It's actually pretty easy to solve, just have a Tesla not stop and keep going. People/cars need to stop for the Tesla. Write that rule in and you are golden. Might hit a few people or bicycles but that's just standard practice.

Sounds like the perfect place for a Tesla Cyber Truck.

 

[scaesare]

Best case translation: the rigidity of the car relies on the load transfer via the engine and transmission mount points.

1) Which also means that they ignore that the rigid structure they are trying to emulate for duplicating crash "worthiness" behavior is the very one that EV's can eliminate to improve crash worthiness!

B) Steel tubes of the same rigidity and as the engine and transmission? I think they mis-spelled: "We've included a huge amount of dead weight."

III) And "they mostly enclose fresh air rather than pistons and gears". I forgot to add: and apparently a large amount of dead space as well.


Heck, if I didn't know better, I'd say they were trying to tank their range numbers...

 

[jerry33]

The most immediate and simple way to tax based on pollution / fuel consumption would be to increase taxes on gas. Unlike a one-time sales tax (least related) or yearly (not much better but at least not limited to initial buyer), it incentivises to reduce consumption by increasing the variable part of TCO.
Except for being unpopular among voters, is there any other downside that I'm not seeing?

In the U.S., with some states have 20% or more of the populations below the poverty line and in most areas a moribund public transportation system, raising the gas tax penalizes low income families. There's almost zero possibility of low income families purchasing any electric car in the near future.

 

[Beltsbear]

1) Which also means that they ignore that the rigid structure they are trying to emulate for duplicating crash "worthiness" behavior is the very one that EV's can eliminate to improve crash worthiness!

B) Steel tubes of the same rigidity and as the engine and transmission? I think they mis-spelled: "We've included a huge amount of dead weight."

III) And "they mostly enclose fresh air rather than pistons and gears". I forgot to add: and apparently a large amount of dead space as well.


Heck, if I didn't know better, I'd say they were trying to tank their range numbers...

Also the opposite of “the best part is no part”

 

[jerry33]

I still find it curious that they first intro'd a super slick roadster with 620 miles range, including super slick cD and insane performance numbers and now the cybertruck, comparatively speaking-- heavier and not as aerodynamically efficient, including huge tires and large ground clearance....

It's been shown the Cybertruck is actually quite aerodynamically efficient (even without "for a truck" tacked on the end of the sentence).

 

[kbM3]

The below is the from Elon’s master plan blog, does it mean Giga Shanghai is version 1, Giga Europe is Version 2 and even cheaper than v1?

What really matters to accelerate a sustainable future is being able to scale up production volume as quickly as possible. That is why Tesla engineering has transitioned to focus heavily on designing the machine that makes the machine -- turning the factory itself into a product. A first principles physics analysis of automotive production suggests that somewhere between a 5 to 10 fold improvement is achievable by version 3 on a roughly 2 year iteration cycle. The first Model 3 factory machine should be thought of as version 0.5, with version 1.0 probably in 2018.

​

That would be the strict reading of it. But GF4 is going up so quickly after GF3 that I don’t expect radical changes to the model Y line. Of course they’re always tinkering and innovating So who knows what they’ve got going. Musk described GF3 as the template for future growth.

One of the articles about GF3 stated that Tesla was hiring engineers in China who would be involved with developing advanced manufacturing methods and new vehicles. This to me is pretty interesting on both counts. Elon did say earlier this year that they would make a car that was cheaper than the model 3. Maybe China is the first market for such a vehicle?

Most important thing to Tesla's success alongside FSD and Battery Supply Chain imo.

I want a Manufacturing Investor Day so bad! I've submitted a question through say.com past 2 quarters to try to ask if they can do Manufacturing Investor Day after Battery & Powertrain Investor Day, but it didn't get nearly enough upvotes

My take on Alien Dreadnought is that they have somewhat pivoted since Master Plan Part Deux

Rather than GF3 being V1.0 and GF4 being v2.0, Tesla will do it in phases.

E.g. (me making up a hypothetical working plan):

GF3 & GF4 Phase1 will both be v1.0

GF1 Phase 2 will expand with v2.0, close to Tesla brain trust and Elon.

Phase 2 will be replicated to GF3&GF4 ( which I guess would also keep phase 1 going).

Repeat with Phase 3.

After all 3 GFs have v1.0, v2.0, v3.0 all operating in parallel, maybe they then begin replacing v1.0 at each with v4.0 (for example).

So no GF ever becomes totally obsolete, just a phase within the factory..

That’s why Tesla’s initial plans seems so conservative at GF3&4, and why GF1 expansion has halted (plus Tesla’s own cell production)..

 

[Navin]

My take on Alien Dreadnought is that they have somewhat pivoted since Master Plan Part Deux

Rather than GF3 being V1.0 and GF4 being v2.0, Tesla will do it in phases.

E.g. (me making up a hypothetical working plan):

GF3 & GF4 Phase1 will both be v1.0

GF1 Phase 2 will expand with v2.0, close to Tesla brain trust and Elon.

Phase 2 will be replicated to GF3&GF4 ( which I guess would also keep phase 1 going).

Repeat with Phase 3.

After all 3 GFs have v1.0, v2.0, v3.0 all operating in parallel, maybe they then begin replacing v1.0 at each with v4.0 (for example).

So no GF ever becomes totally obsolete, just a phase within the factory..

That’s why Tesla’s initial plans seems so conservative at GF3&4, and why GF1 expansion has halted (plus Tesla’s own cell production)..

Possible. Could also add a twist that battery production (due to learnings from Panasonic and recent Acquistions of experts) may be built at a higher level of autonomy from the get go.

 

[chiller]

Seems like the cybertruck is quite viral.
Reddit just added a site wide "award" one can buy for threads / comments:

 

[elasalle]

 

[kbM3]

Elon stated that Tesla Energy is becoming a distributed global utility.

Does anyone know what that means? Their current plan seems to be just to sell stuff to the energy providers and energy consumers, and that does not qualify as being a utility company, which owns/operates/or is responsible for energy generation and distribution.

I can get my head around Tesla beginning to own their own energy generation (although they currently do not), but I don’t see how they can handle the distribution aspect. Can they purchase bandwidth on the power lines, make their own power lines, replace the need for power lines altogether?

I’m very confused. Is Elon being hyperbolic or are there moves going on behind the scenes to completely replace local utility companies with Tesla utility service?

 

[Sancho]

Tesla Analyst Alex Potter of Piper Jaffray interviewed by Rob Mauer

This interview highlights to me the upside potential of the TSLA SP. By the time the SP goes to $425, analysts like him will easily be at $500 (based on evidence of China demand alone). And if TE starts to show real positive numbers, his price target goes up even faster.

The SP and price targets fail to capture an important investing metric: what is the price that bullish holders will sell (or bearish will buy).

That unaccounted metric is much higher for TSLA than most high growth companies. I bet most of us on this forum are like me: I’d take some profits on some of my position as the SP rises, but I wouldn’t sell most of position tomorrow if the SP magically jumped to $500. Which means, currently, I’m not remotely in play in setting the SP. The SP is really being set by weak longs and shorts. When the SP rises, for most stocks, the stronger longs start to take profits. But that is not going to happen very much with TSLA. An unusually large percentage of longs are uber long.

All of which is to say that if the SP starts shooting up, there is very little to stop the rise from becoming unprecedentedly steep.

 

[Navin]

Cool thread wrt Elon and his family, mom
Lisa on Twitter

 

[winfield100]

Elon stated that Tesla Energy is becoming a distributed global utility.

Does anyone know what that means? Their current plan seems to be just to sell stuff to the energy providers and energy consumers, and that does not qualify as being a utility company, which owns/operates/or is responsible for energy generation and distribution.

I can get my head around Tesla beginning to own their own energy generation (although they currently do not), but I don’t see how they can handle the distribution aspect. Can they purchase bandwidth on the power lines, make their own power lines, replace the need for power lines altogether?

I’m very confused. Is Elon being hyperbolic or are there moves going on behind the scenes to completely replace local utility companies with Tesla utility service?

VPP’s, “Virtual Power Plants” loosely aggregated by software.
Consider
10,000 PV rooftop arrays
(4 square miles of 1/4 acre lots with houses, with each one having PV arrays)
Each 11,655 watts
This is/could be a 116,550,000 virtual power plant, (116 megawatts)
Look at S Australia, where the (present) goal is 50,000 PV arrays
The above VPP could/would be 582 megawatts, over 1/2 gigawatt
It’s scalable, cost of T&D (transmission and distribution) is practically zero
FCAS is usable and valuable (proven by giant battery in S Australia)
FCAS = frequency control and Ancillary services
It seems pretty obvious when pointed out

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

But 3 ASP would have been higher. They wouldn't have introduced SR in a hurry. Q1 wouldn't have been so bad.

Most importantly a lot of us wouldn't have lost a lot of money.

And on the flip side a lot of us wouldn’t have had the opportunity to accumulate significantly more shares. I’m glad they had a bad Q1.

 

[Silent Ludicrosy]

Interesting take from Soylent Brown on Taycan’s power usage. Not looking good for the “sleeping giant” theory.