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.
re Korea imports
Theory that imports are form Shanghai I think is highly unlikely if my google-fu is correct and there is 8% import tax:
search for code 8703801000 which I think are for EVs
1622132137972.png
 
Tesla Insurance does not now and likely never will move the needle in any significant way for TSLA... it is a nice to have for customers ... and represents a distraction from the real goals of AI and energy .... in fact the state by state effort would be better spent on FSD and autonomy .....
we can stop this now and agree to disagree... :D

and of course any company can be wiped in BS event but likelihood of financial firm being wiped out is much greater ...
Certainly if you were to imagine that Tesla will not innovate in insurance products your objections would be valid.
However, the use of future conditional tense is intentional for I think those views are contrary to reality.
Tesla developments in both insurance and other financial products are being developed to lower adoption costs and reduce objections to adoption. All their efforts are now roughly where the original Roadster was in terms of maturity. Within a couple of years they'll be at Model S equivalency, followed by increasingly major innovation.
Tesla is not in Financial Services of any type just to make money. They are doing so to ease the transition to sustainable energy though improvement of the adoption process itself.

A bit of ancient US history is highly relevant:

In 1919 the tiny General Motors could not compete directly with the giant Ford. So, they founded a thing called General Motors Acceptance Corporation that financed dealers, their inventory and the end consumers fo their products. Suddenly they had dealers everywhere who could have inventory and customers who could pay in installments. It worked. Ford took until 1956 to follow GM's then insurmountable lead.

In 1932 US families could not afford the new electric refrigerators and the other electrical appliances General Electric made. Electricity was rapidly being extended even in semi-rural areas. So General Electric Contracts Corporation was formed to support dealers and consumers of GE products. At the time very few banks would entertain such loans.

Fast forward to 2021. Now solar roofs, solar panels and battery storage, electric vehicles too are often more expense to insure, more expensive to finance and lease than are other consventional products. Now, however, there are huge data advantages in optimizing such products and designing them to reduce risks and costs. That is what Tesla is doing.

In 100 years the goals have remained similar but the needed techniques have mostly not been materially improved. Tesla is doing that.

FWIW, it is not accidental that both of those pioneers needed many decades to eventually forget what their business was. GE Capital became a giant tax dodge. GMAC decided to dominate sub-prime mortgages. Both pretty well blew up spectacularly. Oddly, perhaps, the basic business of both continued to thrive updated for modern product finance. Forgetting the mission destroyed their integrity.

Tesla has a long way to go in innovation and product design before they make those old mistakes.
So long as they keep to their mission they are quite likely to thrive for decades. In the meantime just think about how happy those securitization pool buyers are to have a higher than typical yield on lower than typical risk. That will change in a year or so when TSLA securities are upgraded a bit more.
 
re Korea imports
Theory that imports are form Shanghai I think is highly unlikely if my google-fu is correct and there is 8% import tax:
search for code 8703801000 which I think are for BEVs
View attachment 666819
Fremont has been supplying SK market, that hasn't changed. Maybe some 3 SR+ come from Shanghai but not the LR 3/Y
 
  • Like
Reactions: FireMedic
So, you're saying $80K cars could come with the battery software locked to 20 miles of range and then be unlocked for an additional $20K-$40K at a later date to increase the range to 450 miles?

That sounds like a good way to deal with ridiculous government incentives. Personally, I wish all EV incentives would go away and they would make gas/oil pay their fair share of taxes (including a health and clean air tax).
Now we know why the Model S was priced at $79,990...someone knew something.....:oops:
 
Second, even if it did survive, the bill would still be a huge net win for Tesla. Currently Ford gets $7500 tax credit and Tesla gets $0. Even with the union clause, worst case scenario is that'd change the math to Ford - $12,500 and Tesla - $10,000. The result would make Teslas even more attractive, not less.

Bottom line is virtually any version of this bill helps Tesla more than any other manufacturer, since it's the only one currently eligible for zero Federal tax credits.

I disagree with this thinking because it's short-term thinking. The current status quo is that no manufacturer can receive credit for more than 200K vehicles (plus one more quarter of sales and declining credits for two more quarters). GM has used up all their credits. Nissan must be close. The bottom line is, if nothing is done, the credits go away before they can hit (harm) Tesla sales in any significant manner other than potentially reducing their margins for a year or so. That is the optimal situation for Tesla in my opinion because it clears the air by removing all this credit nonsense and lets EV's compete on their merits. Removing fossil fuel tax breaks would be the icing on the cake.
 
Tesla Insurance does not now and likely never will move the needle in any significant way for TSLA... it is a nice to have for customers ... and represents a distraction from the real goals of AI and energy .... in fact the state by state effort would be better spent on FSD and autonomy .....
we can stop this now and agree to disagree... :D

and of course any company can be wiped in BS event but likelihood of financial firm being wiped out is much greater ...
Insurance is integral part of Tesla Network, it doesn’t make sense for anyone else other than the manufacturer to take the risk to insure FSD cars.

Even if someone is brave enough to do it without knowing the inner workings, they would charge away majority share of FSD incomes.
 
It'd be a net gain for Tesla so they won't lobby against it
  • $0 now for Tesla
  • $7500 now for the one or two companies still under 200,000
  • net difference $7500
changes to

  • $10,000 for Tesla
  • $12,500 for GM and Ford
  • net difference $2500
that improves the balance for tesla by $5,000 per car.

Add on top, that most people don't have a $12,500 tax liability and for those lower income buyers it's a wash if you can only do $8,402 because your income isn't high enough it'll be $8,402 for both Tesla and non Tesla.

  • $8,402 for Tesla
  • $8,402 for GM and Ford
  • net difference $0

It'd be a very small group of wealthy people buying a GM or Ford EV and getting that last wedge of tax credit.


Could be a rebate to incentivize the many people who can’t utilize a tax credit — making the price differential vs. comparative ICE vehicles much more immediate and definite.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Artful Dodger
View attachment 666691

$7,500 tax credit (proposal would eliminate existing cap)
+$2,500 for vehicles assembled in U.S.
++$2,500 if production workers are members of or represented by a labor union
Today I sent the following email to the White House and the three people who represent me in Congress. You may want to express your opinion to those who represent you.

Please strike out the unionization requirement in the bill that includes an income tax credit or rebate to consumers who buy electric vehicles. Workers can always vote whether to unionize. Companies have no say. Neither do their customers. The government should not require workers to unionize for their company’s customers to receive tax benefits. A bill designed to encourage the manufacturing and purchasing of EVs should not also be a bill designed to encourage workers to unionize. Those are entirely separate matters. The best companies are those that treat their employees so well that they choose not to unionize.
 
Meanwhile, Tesla Lawyers looking up the narrowest definition of Union I suppose, but not much bargaining power for workers if their Stock Options come off the table. So why not go "Union" (fine print required)? What's the downside, a Tesla strike? I'd still work there, for free or as an apprenticeship, and so would a million other people. Job satisfaction isn't just about money, it's more about feeling included and making your time count. Tesla has that market sewn up.

Maybe there's a Tesla Credit Union for employees.
 
I disagree with this thinking because it's short-term thinking. The current status quo is that no manufacturer can receive credit for more than 200K vehicles (plus one more quarter of sales and declining credits for two more quarters). GM has used up all their credits. Nissan must be close. The bottom line is, if nothing is done, the credits go away before they can hit (harm) Tesla sales in any significant manner other than potentially reducing their margins for a year or so. That is the optimal situation for Tesla in my opinion because it clears the air by removing all this credit nonsense and lets EV's compete on their merits. Removing fossil fuel tax breaks would be the icing on the cake.
But now for reality. The language of the bill I’ve seen is very much set up to be consistent with the rules of Reconciliation. It consists of modifications to the existing EV tax law rather than new legislation (note that the new language still calls the rebate a "refundable tax credit"), and to be revenue-neutral (at least in theory), they need to pay for all the tax credits somehow -thus elimination of oil/gas subsidies.

edit: Sure, I guess you could eliminate all subsidies for everyone, but I think the Biden admin really is worried about Chinese EVs (plus Tesla) killing Ford's and GM's future. I think the tax credits are to help against future Chinese imports hurting car manufacturers in Democratic or swing states. They can’t avoid helping Tesla, too.
 
Last edited:
Insurance is integral part of Tesla Network, it doesn’t make sense for anyone else other than the manufacturer to take the risk to insure FSD cars.

Even if someone is brave enough to do it without knowing the inner workings, they would charge away majority share of FSD incomes.

Tesla has no insurance underwriting operations right now. They are simply brokering insurance policies to an underwriter sub. In California at least, Markel Insurance Company has done the underwriting for all of the policies.

To actually underwrite the policies, Tesla would need to massively rework their operations compared to how it's been rolled out so far. For now, Markel seems content to take the risk to insure Tesla vehicles.

In Texas, the policies are underwritten by Redpoint County Mutual Insurance. In Illinois, they'll be underwritten by a subsidiary of American Family Mutual.

EDIT - source
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zero CO2
Today I sent the following email to the White House and the three people who represent me in Congress. You may want to express your opinion to those who represent you.

Please strike out the unionization requirement in the bill that includes an income tax credit or rebate to consumers who buy electric vehicles. Workers can always vote whether to unionize. Companies have no say. Neither do their customers. The government should not require workers to unionize for their company’s customers to receive tax benefits. A bill designed to encourage the manufacturing and purchasing of EVs should not also be a bill designed to encourage workers to unionize. Those are entirely separate matters. The best companies are those that treat their employees so well that they choose not to unionize.
Done, done and done. Took about 3 minutes. Thanks Curt!

 
Today I sent the following email to the White House and the three people who represent me in Congress. You may want to express your opinion to those who represent you.

Please strike out the unionization requirement in the bill that includes an income tax credit or rebate to consumers who buy electric vehicles. Workers can always vote whether to unionize. Companies have no say. Neither do their customers. The government should not require workers to unionize for their company’s customers to receive tax benefits. A bill designed to encourage the manufacturing and purchasing of EVs should not also be a bill designed to encourage workers to unionize. Those are entirely separate matters. The best companies are those that treat their employees so well that they choose not to unionize.
Thanks--done.