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.
You mean the cryptic comment that "specific to the dry process, we made great progress in Q2"? I took that to mean they figured out how to get a dry cathode (the six month old 4680 that The Limiting Factor got seemed to only have a dry anode). But I'm not sure what this has to do with Munro's teardown?
The cells in the pack Munro are tearing down are from Kato Rd and may have been produced several months ago, we don't know when the dry process progress was made relative to when the cells where produced.

If they only started using DBE on the cathode in Q2. there may be a cycle of testing and validation that takes several months.
 
I'm one. My car has been training me for many months to understand and avoid its many failure modes when FSD is on. The frequency of failures has been going down, and the number of failure modes has been decreasing as well. But when I get an update and an old failure mode returns I recognize it right away.

Those new, or newer, to FSD aren't nearly as highly trained and are therefore more likely to run into trouble of one kind or another. And certainly their tension level will be higher than mine.

I was poking a little fun because I'm a FSD beta tester (and so is my wife). The point is, any Joe Blow Tesla owner can be a FSD beta tester, so it makes little rational sense to say the very low FSD accident rate is the direct result of fairly highly trained beta testers. Yet that was the claim.
 
The cells in the pack Munro are tearing down are from Kato Rd and may have been produced several months ago, we don't know when the dry process progress was made relative to when the cells where produced.

If they only started using DBE on the cathode in Q2. there may be a cycle of testing and validation that takes several months.
It sounded to me like the main DBE improvement was automation related. Resulting in higher throughput and quality.
 
Ooooh. That hurts! Have you got some sort of list of people who said stupid things? How/why did you find a quote from me from 2019???

TMC maintains the list, I just have to search for @Cosmacelf and "demand" (before 2020). I found a whole bunch which informed that my memory was not faulty, I just quickly picked that one because it also pertained to another pet peeve of mine that is related to demand problems, people saying Tesla should spend money on advertising!

But don't worry, it was meant to congratulate you for growing out of that phase long ago! I've noticed the welcomed change! :)
 
I applied average sales price and...nothing was really learned. 😀

ASP : Average sales price (e.g. automotive revenue / deliveries)
P&D Price : share price end of day after the P&D report
Total run-rate : total quarterly deliveries x 4
Minimum IC : Minimum installed capacity reported

Screen Shot 2022-07-20 at 7.32.36 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-07-20 at 7.33.01 PM.png


Screen Shot 2022-07-20 at 7.33.23 PM.png
 
Elon said in October at Giga Brandenburg county fair that Berlin should hit greater than 5k per week by end of year with hopefully 10k/wk. The ensuing 6-month delay wasn't expected so targeting 5k/wk now is reasonable and basically just affirms the original goal with a few months of delay built in.

Still hard to predict steep part of S-curve. Could be a lot higher or lower.

Reasonable for Austin to approximately match Berlin as they started at almost exactly the same time.

40k/week * 52 weeks/year = 2.1M/yr

Here's a bearish scenario for Q4, assuming that gross profit per car only rises slightly to $18k.

Q4 2022 Estimates (Annualized)
1.1Shanghai
0.55Fremont
0.25Berlin
0.25Austin
2.15Volume (m)
$62ASP (k)
$134Rev (b)
$44Avg CoGS (k)
30.0%Gross Margin
$40Gross Profit (b)
$1Energy Profit (b)
-$7OpEx (b)
$23Net earnings per share if 20% income tax and 1.2 billion shares outstanding fully diluted
70P/E for Q4 (not trailing twelve months)
$1,600Stock Price

And here's a scenario that's more likely in my opinion. The differences are:
  • $1k extra for ASP
  • $2k less for cost per car
  • 15% income tax instead of 20%
  • Somewhat higher production volume
  • 80 P/E ratio instead of 70, reflecting likely market reaction to faster earnings growth relative to the bear case

Q4 2022 Estimates (Annualized)
1.2Shanghai
0.6Fremont
0.30Berlin
0.25Austin
2.4Volume (m)
$63ASP (k)
$150Rev (b)
$42Avg CoGS (k)
34.0%Gross Margin
$51Gross Profit (b)
$1Energy Profit (b)
-$7OpEx (b)
$32Net earnings per share
80P/E for Q4
$2,546Stock Price

This is why I have been buying a lot of call options at $1300-$2500 strike price for 2023 and 2024. Not investment or financial advice.
 
Last edited:
Looks like the new FUD being pushed is that free cash flow is actually negative but the BTC sale "cooked the books".

Does anyone remember around when they bought? I want to say it was 24-27k or so based on our guesses.

Well cash went up $902M, BTC sales was $936M, and they paid off $402M of debt... So no way do you look at it was cash flow negative.

And wasn't BTC included in the cash, or equivalents, already?

BTC was an asset, turned into cash when sold.
Without BTC, cash flow would be $-34M.
Except it wouldn't, because advanced debt repayment is optional, as was the $90M purchase of marketable securities.

Correction to my post, Free Cash Flow (operating cash flow - CapEx) was $621M and did not include BTC sale.
The $902M is just the change in cash balance (which does include BTC).
 
q3q4q1q2
rev (b)13.717.718.716.9
veh prod (k)238306305258
rev / veh prod $ 57,563 $ 57,843 $ 61,311 $ 65,504

Simplified and will be less accurate over time, but this shows total revenue versus vehicle production. We should see revenue per vehicle produced continue to climb over the next six quarters due to price increases, increased energy revenue, and increased revenue from other sources (service, superchargers, etc)