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.
I’d expect a dual motor Cybertruck to cost a good chunk more than a dual motor Model Y but who knows, and who knows when we’d see significant numbers of them rather than the more expensive tri and quad motor variants they will lead production with
I’m pretty sure they didn’t just pull those launch day numbers out of their ass, so I’m sure there is some route to profitability near those prices with adjustments for rational inflation.

I think that makes sense in. the beginning, but the promise of CT is to reduce its production cost to not much more than a cheap battery pack. I don't presume to know if that will ever come to pass, but it is why I don't go out on a limb when it comes to CT retail pricing. The attempt by Tesla at a paradigm shift is too uncertain and novel.
Tesla has always made a fairly sincere attempt to deliver on what they first show. If the Cybertruck were massively more expensive than launch pricing, it would be their first big exception to that. Some adjustments for inflation make sense.


Not really the place for a big debate on CT pricing so don’t expect another reply.
 
I think that makes sense in. the beginning, but the promise of CT is to reduce its production cost to not much more than a cheap battery pack. I don't presume to know if that will ever come to pass, but it is why I don't go out on a limb when it comes to CT retail pricing. The attempt by Tesla at a paradigm shift is too uncertain and novel.
I am expecting Cybertruck production costs to be far greater than Tesla anticipated when it was announced, and may be one of the factors which has held releasing the Cybertruck priority-wise while Tesla continued to look for ways to reduce cost (and delay taking the margin hit). That said, Tesla will likely roll production this year entirely on higher-end trims, keeping production of it rather profitable and hopefully converting most of the original reservation holders to those higher-priced higher-end trims to get delivery in 2023/2024 vs waiting to 2025 or later for the original trim options. After that is done, then the lower trims can be produced and shipped in 2025+. Worst case, those who placed an order for a Cybertruck when the original pricing was still locked in (prior to the Cybertruck reservation page removing pricing) and who don't move to a higher trim to get delivery sooner may even get a Cybertruck delivered at their original price despite Tesla's manufacturing cost exceeding that sales price on that one particular unit, but I don't think this is likely or will be very much volume-wise. Think of the $35K Model 3 as a reference point (with the added complication that some of the Cybertruck pricing is locked in for specific trims, etc).
 
Tesla reiterated their 50% or better guidance.... twice... after the covid shutdown early in 2022 (and it's hard to buy "unforseen" after that either).
Ah yes, TSLA should have guided for future changes in Covid policy in China.

Your rhetoric is beyond ridiculous, although it is nice to see you at least writing 'guidance' instead of 'promise.' I'm done here.
 
The market should have enough brain cells to realize that unforeseen Covid shut-downs are not boiled into future looking guidance statements. And if they do lack those 3 brain cells, that is not a problem with TSLA guidance.

Now, explain to me why you do not get into a huff when guidance is exceeded.

What an amazingly inane discussion, born out of the whining of day traders.
To be fair, @Knightshade is not saying that Tesla is posting disappointing results. He's simply saying that the market doesn't work off CAGR. He's not saying that the market is right, just that that's how it is. It's ok to say that the market is short sighted but also that Tesla has missed its stated guidance for this year, understandably due to external factors. Tesla has said both: 50%+ CAGR AND 50%+ for 2022, and I'm ok with that. 40%+ revenue growth in this environment is amazing.
 
How can Tesla offer a Model Y 5-Seater for less than $55,000 in order for it to qualify for the IRAs $7,500 incentive?

The Long Range AWD currently starts at $65,990.

With the colors being ~$1,500 each and the white interior being another $1,000, the car would have to start at roughly 52k to qualify for the IRAs incentive with visual changes.

Option one:
Make the MSRP of the new Model Y version 52k to allow for color and interior options

Option two:
Make the MSRP exactly below 55k and make all visual changes (color + interior) free.

I think option two makes more sense. (mostly financially), so lets go with that.

Tesla could offer a "Model Y Mid-Range AWD", a software locked LR.

Make the MSRP $54,990. All options (excl. autopilot / FSD and wheels as both can be changed afterwards) are free.

Lock the range at 200mi (from 330mi)

Remove software-lockable features from the car to make them available later on through in-car or in-app purchases.

- Range upgrade ~$9,000
= Unlocks the full potential of the battery = 75 kWh / 330mi

- Acceleration boost ~$2,000
= Unlocks more power and a quicker acceleration

- Heated Seats $200

- Heated Steering Wheel $100

= ~$11,300

Or make everything available as one package combined to unlock the full potential of the car (Essentially turning it into a LR)

Car should still be somewhat profitable even if someone decides to not purchase any of the enhancements

Would this work?
 
Option one:
Make the MSRP of the new Model Y version 52k to allow for color and interior options

Option two:
Make the MSRP exactly below 55k and make all visual changes (color + interior) free.
Option three:
MSRP is barely under the incentive. Paint and tire options are self-selected by people who don’t qualify for the incentive. Others need to use aftermarket wraps and tires, or lease to qualify.


I think option two makes more sense. (mostly financially), so lets go with that.

Tesla could offer a "Model Y Mid-Range AWD", a software locked LR.
It’s possible, but I don’t think we’ll see a huge array of software upgrades. If they do it, it’ll likely be just one or two options, not a big menu of choices. I don’t see any Tesla’s with big piles of optional features software or otherwise and I don’t expect they will start.
 
I realize “not much more” is a flexible term, but I cannot but think you are much more optimistic than sensible.
Audie, you cannot leave that drive-by jab without an explanation; I respect your opinion too much.

In the meantime, I'll double down and point out that that Tesla has a minimalism mindset that extends to function. It is not a huge jump to go from there to no-frills but highly utillitarian clean transport. No paint, no curves, no chrome, no leather ...
 
Ah yes, TSLA should have guided for future changes in Covid policy in China.

Your rhetoric is beyond ridiculous, although it is nice to see you at least writing 'guidance' instead of 'promise.' I'm done here.
Actually, Tesla *did* guide based on potential future changes, in two key ways:
1. Reviewing the specific verbiage on each of the last 4 quarterly calls, their language went from strongly confident to confident to aspirational, reflecting that that as quarterly forecasts were replaced with actuals, Tesla understood this made hitting the specific goal metric less and less likely. Exactly what I (as an investor) want to see happen; setting challenging goals you are confident in (but which has risks as everything does), but acknowledging reality if those risks come to pass and moving from a strongly confident to confident to aspirational view in that scenario.
2. But specifically in black-and-white, I would say Tesla "guided for future changes in Covid policy in China" (and potentially other countries) pretty directly, as their ***#1 risk*** in their 2022 Q3 Tesla Quarterly Update, where this was the very first risk listed: "The following important factors, without limitation, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements: uncertainties in future macroeconomic and regulator conditions arising from the current global pandemic..."


P.S. As another poster recently lamented, far too often people don't read / think thru the actual documents that Tesla releases, even when they have a significant holding in the company. It is not all just "legalese boilerplate language to make the lawyers happy"...
 
Not sure when I’d expect to see large numbers of <$80k Cybertrucks when a Model Y LR is $66k.

Maybe <$80k is doable with single motor variants, but even then it feels like a stretch considering pricing across the lineup. People seem to expect the tri and quad motors to run $100k+.

Tesla knows it's not in the business of selling pickups costing in excess of six figures so the people who expect that are simply not good at parsing basic information. They are wrong.

What we don't know is how the production costs of the stainless steel exoskeleton will compare to that of traditional painted steel and aluminum cars that require zinc dunk tanks and multi-coat painting. All indications are that the unique construction of the Cybertruck represents some real cost savings, enough to offset the higher cost of stainless steel vs. carbon steel chassis.

Here's my seat of the pants analysis for the manufacturing costs of Cybertruck relative to a truck with the same capabilities but made using traditional automotive manufacturing/construction technology:

60% chance it's significantly less (with a 20% chance it's dramatically less)
30% chance it's similar
10% chance it's significantly more

note: This is not a comparison of actual release prices vs. reveal prices, it's about whether the stainless steel exoskelton will save significant money over carbon steel and paint. Savings from front and rear gigacastings would be in addition to any savings of the stainless steel body that doesn't need to be painted and can have less complicated welding lines since it's built using fewer parts. This means that even if the stainless construction has no cost savings, the trucks could still be very cost-competitive due to other efficiencies we already expect. The economics of Cybertruck would be favorable even in the scenario of no significant cost savings because the stainless steel makes the truck more desirable due to it being more durable in that it's resistant to dents and corrosion and has no paint to scratch.

By this point in time Tesla has a very good idea how the cost to manufacture is shaping up so I've been looking for clues from them but they have been pretty mum lately. The last time we had a good clue was during the height of raw materials price increases when Elon took the opportunity to lower expectations on sticking strictly to the announced release pricing. This is the primary reason I only gave a 20% chance of prices being dramatically lower vs. traditional construction. We really don't know whether Elon lowered price expectations solely due to skyrocketing raw materials costs or if it was also due to newly discovered production challenges and general increases in things like labor.

My sense is that with recent reductions in raw material costs, Tesla pricing on the Cybertruck will not be as dramatically higher as all the naysayers propose. I do think the entry-level single motor variant will not exist, at least not for many years. That would make the entry level variant a dual motor version which was announced at only $49K but which will likely be somewhere between $55K-$60K. But it will have significantly more functionality than originally announced due to Elon's inability to resist making it more awesome than it already was.

I think the pricing of the top of the line, quad motor, 500-mile version will stay under $100K and, even if it were $90K-$95K, it would have mind-blowing demand for such a high price point. The "Tesla stretch" would be on full display as people emptied their savings for the chance to own such a modern marvel. And not just Tesla fan boys, but regular truck owners in the 30-60 year old range.

My point with all this is not to under-estimate how much demand there will be for Cybertruck, even if/when Tesla announces new pricing. The biggest unknown is whether gross margins will be normal automotive-type margins around 5%-15%, normal Tesla-like margins around 25% or, potentially, margins as high as 35%. It mostly depends upon how quickly and easily Tesla can manufacture them. Whether the cost efficiencies Tesla and Munro originally envisioned actually pan out in actual production. Tesla has been impressively tight-lipped about any real details, from pricing to manufacturing challenges and breakthroughs, so much so that I don't think there is anyone outside of Tesla that has a solid idea on how good margins will be. If the margins are there, and suitable batteries are available in sufficient numbers, the one thing I have no doubt on is that demand will be through the roof.
 
Tesla Q4 delivery estimates

@TeslaKairav 424,968
@oracletim1 430,000
@WholeMarsBlog 420,000
@TSLAFanMtl 420,000
@ICannot_Enough 420,069
@teslapodcast 434,109
@CuriousPejjy 434,000

Street expectation: 420,000
/End tweet
@TroyTeslike 428K
Thanks for posting mate! Looks like I'm on the high side! Any ideas on production?
 
.... what?

Can you cite cases previous where you think your comment is reflected in anything I've said regarding previous years guidance in any year? ever? Or is this just another weird reflexive echo chamber thing like when people were (wrongly) attacking Troys #s by claiming his early estimates were always wrong in the opposite direction from the way they were actually wrong? (and once corrected on that moved the goalposts to maybe he's a short, and then once corrected on that moved them again to still be mad at him?)


Tesla guided, every quarter of 2022, for 50% or greater growth in 2022. Clearly and explicitly on every single earnings call. They are likely to miss that.

That's it. That's the whole thing.


Nobody's saying there aren't reasons for it- just that it's what happened, and trying revisionist history gymnastics that ignore what Zach and Elon actually, repeatedly, said doesn't help anyone.

(and I'll absolutely be first in line impressed AF and saying so here if they hit it anyway despite all the out-of-their-control headwinds- that would be simply amazing).





You can of course expect anything you want.... but generally the market expects guidance, especially guidance the company explicitly repeats on every earnings call all year- to be fairly accurate- and reacts accordingly when it doesn't turn out that way. In fact referencing your initial remarks about previous years-- this issue is compounded by the fact Tesla has managed to meet or exceed guidance over and over in previous years, so the first time they don't do so will be viewed more significantly than it probably should be- and investors should probably be aware of that.

Tesla growing at "only" something in the mid or high 40% range is still phenomenal (and I specifically said so in the post you're jumping on here) but ignoring what was actually said on the earnings calls to make up a fake narrative about they "didn't really miss guidance at all!" is just as bad as the nonsense the Q folks make up to explain their own narrative and how they'll doubtless use a tiny miss to claim it's, how do the kids say it, a busted growth story?


We ought to be better than that, and much more firmly rooted in facts and reality.
The key conflict here is that Musk doesn't play the corporate game. When normal corps make forward looking statements (guidance), they aim to underpromise - it is something that they believe is conservatively achievable. This is what Wall Street expects: what is the most likely conservative outcome. It's useful for making predictive investments.

When Tesla/Musk makes forward-looking statements, it appears as though they are sharing their goals/best case scenarios that are difficult to achieve so that there's a greater chance of greater success: aim low, once you achieve that target, there's less incentive to push beyond that you think you can do. Aim for what you think is the absolute best, and you'll probably miss 90% of the time, but even your misses will almost always end up being beyond the conservative goal/guidance.

They are speaking a different language than Wall Street, and Musk doesn't care. He cares about Tesla's performance, not stock performance. He's said this so many times. Even the constant 50%, it's usually couched in terms of "I can see a pathway toward 50%," or "50% is possible," which is not the same as saying, "You should evaluate your risks based on 50% growth as a baseline" (which is the normal/expected thing to do).

I can see an argument saying that Tesla *should* make distinctions and maybe give "guidance" separately from their aspirational goals, or not share their goals publicly, but I think Musk is one of those people who realize that by saying it out loud it creates more motivation and urgency and increases the odds of achievement. I'd personally keep the aspirational goals in house, but I'm also not sending rockets to the moon at a fraction of NASA's cost or revolutionizing industries. It's really hard to argue against the effectiveness of the results.

Personally, I think Wall Street needs a complete overhaul, and Musk not playing their games is achieving that faster.

Edit: after reading a few more posts connected to this conversation, I should add that I'm specifically referring to Musk's public statements, and during the quarterly calls. As someone pointed out, Tesla's actual reports do talk about the standard legal guidance with disclaimers around what could go wrong. My point is narrow - just to remind us not to read Musk's remarks (that are technically statements about Tesla's future activities) as classic guidance statements we'd hear from other CEO's. Maybe it's an unnecessary point that's less connected to what you guys were talking about, my apologies!
 
Last edited:
How can Tesla offer a Model Y 5-Seater for less than $55,000 in order for it to qualify for the IRAs $7,500 incentive?

The Long Range AWD currently starts at $65,990.

With the colors being ~$1,500 each and the white interior being another $1,000, the car would have to start at roughly 52k to qualify for the IRAs incentive with visual changes.

Option one:
Make the MSRP of the new Model Y version 52k to allow for color and interior options

Option two:
Make the MSRP exactly below 55k and make all visual changes (color + interior) free.

I think option two makes more sense. (mostly financially), so lets go with that.

Tesla could offer a "Model Y Mid-Range AWD", a software locked LR.

Make the MSRP $54,990. All options (excl. autopilot / FSD and wheels as both can be changed afterwards) are free.

Lock the range at 200mi (from 330mi)

Remove software-lockable features from the car to make them available later on through in-car or in-app purchases.

- Range upgrade ~$9,000
= Unlocks the full potential of the battery = 75 kWh / 330mi

- Acceleration boost ~$2,000
= Unlocks more power and a quicker acceleration

- Heated Seats $200

- Heated Steering Wheel $100

= ~$11,300

Or make everything available as one package combined to unlock the full potential of the car (Essentially turning it into a LR)

Car should still be somewhat profitable even if someone decides to not purchase any of the enhancements

Would this work?
Why not?
Isn’t the entire world gripped in a race to maximum stupidity?
 
Tesla Q4 delivery estimates

@TeslaKairav 424,968
@oracletim1 430,000
@WholeMarsBlog 420,000
@TSLAFanMtl 420,000
@ICannot_Enough 420,069
@teslapodcast 434,109
@CuriousPejjy 434,000

Street expectation: 420,000
/End tweet
@TroyTeslike 428K
The noteworthy piece of this post is how tightly those estimates are packed. High-low midpoint of 427,055 with the range only being +/- 1.65%. I wonder why that would be...
 
Tesla reiterated their 50% or better guidance.... twice... after the covid shutdown early in 2022 (and it's hard to buy "unforseen" after that either). So again you appear to be fabricating excuses in contrast to Elon and Zachs own words. Maybe you should take a moment to reflect on why you keep doing that instead of going by what they actually said, and when they said it?
This was the mistake, IMO. The Q2 GF3 C19 shutdown gave them a Mulligan to revise the annual forecast. They could have easily said they have the ambition to hit 50%, but given the lost production 45% was more realistic

Wall Street would have accepted this without a stock impact, and yet here we are. Poor expectation management, simple as that

And sure, you can blame the short-termism of the markets, but it's the pool we're swimming in

We need more under-promising and over-delivering, that's all

Edit: used the same phrase twice, which is very poor form...
 
Last edited: