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

[SOULPEDL]

Supercharger data through the end of 2022 for North America. Record number of new locations and stalls for any quarter and for any year.

(Disclaimer: data was pulled from supercharge.info, which is not official data from Tesla)

New locations per quarter
View attachment 891381

New stalls per quarter
View attachment 891383

Some tidbits from the underlying data:

• Tesla has averaged > 10 stalls per location for each year starting in 2018 (although some quarters average less than 10)
• The last 150 kW install in NA was on 12/11/2020. All since then have been 250 kW (v3) and 72 kW (urban chargers)

Who pays for all these Super Chargers and locations? /s

Is this part of Tesla vehicle margins or something else like factory equipment that dilutes all products evenly? Like, what would a Tesla cost if they didn't build any superchargers, I wonder? McDonalds created most of its value out of land in the end, not the burgers (but they owned the land while Tesla leases).

How to put a price on superior charging and (some) prime locations - IDK but I suspect it's a lot higher value as a result.

 

[Artful Dodger]

If the Tesla BOD wants to wait on a buyback, that’s fine with me. If a buyback is on the table though, I hope Tesla has bought or will buy calls in order to lock in today’s low share price.

Indeed, we still don't know who made this multi-billion bet back on Dec 08, 2022:

Cheddar Flow on Twitter: "Most Bullish Flow Today $TSLA $BABA $AMZN https://t.co/y5irKqJz5f" / Twitter

Some folks object "But Telsa employees, Officers and Directors can't buy derivatives, only stock". Well that's true, but there's no rule against the CORPORATION buying derivatives. If fact, we know they do since they bought some hedges against the stock price for redeenmable bonds issued back in 2018.

Cheers to the Longs!

 

[Paracelsus]

So while we are on the subject of 'subsidies', and we are drilling down into the nuances of 2 rows of seats vs 3 rows of seats and whether this was intended to hurt Tesla or save US Tax Payers money in the long run...why isn't anyone on this board asking who passed the Fossil Fuel Inflation Act when we weren't looking? @TheTalkingMule might have some insight to this (hope all is well and hope to see him again on TMC in 2023),

If 'printing money' is generally accepted as the inflationary catalyst, then why are we printing it for subsidies of industries that are SO profitable that they will be buying back their own shares by the bucket load with money made in part from subsidies. Exxon and Chevron are sharing about $80B in profit this last year according to estimates, and Exxon will buy back $50B of their shares through 2024.

Exxon and Chevron share $100bn in profit after surge in oil prices

Record haul during Ukraine war marks reversal of fortunes after pandemic demand crash

www.ft.com

The title of the Inflation Reduction Act itself is an oxymoron, and it is disingenuous to wrap it with language around Climate Change and accelerating EV adoption without addressing the subsidies that are working directly against those goals in real time IMO. Passing out new massive amounts of subsidies with odd nuances attached for the non-performers and non-visionary Legacy Auto mfgs while retaining much of the fossil fuel and ethanol/farm subsidies that helped create this mess in the first place would be laughable if it wasn't so hurtful. End the subsidies and you reduce the amount of money being printed. Reduce the amount of money being printed and you pave a path to reduce inflation. If you insist on subsidizing a particular future vision, then be consistent with those subsidies and don't subsidize both sides of the fence. People with views on both sides of the aisle warmed up to EV's during the spike in fuel prices. Let the TRUE cost of fossil fuels be seen on display at the gas pump and the EV transition will successfully plow forward - and it will do so while the budget deficit shrinks. Hard to believe that Carter had put solar panels on the White House in 1979 and we are still up to our neck in fossil fuel subsidies - to include subsidies for hybrids with a whopping 30 miles of range that almost nobody will use after the get $7,500 from all of us to go buy it with, and then go spend that $7,500 of recently printed money on fossil fuels and oils that all of us are making unnecessarily cheaper through more subsidies than any of us really know. No inefficiencies there.

There was a path to a better simulation we could/should already be living that the US almost set out upon long ago. Here are the links to the speech by Carter in 1979 that outlined that path to an energy goal of his administration to achieve 20% renewable energy by 2000 that he discussed at the unveiling of the 39 new solar panels on the White House. It was a very insightful and thoughtful speech, so I posted the YouTube link as well. The YouTube link also provides an opportunity to view the difference in dialog and in delivery from a more Socratic time, and is well worth a listen -particularly if you are passing the time until the Tesla numbers come out:

President Jimmy Carter’s Remarks at White House Solar Panel Dedication Ceremony, 1979. | Energy History

energyhistory.yale.edu

 

[SOULPEDL]

To quote the late great Tom Petty,
"The Waiting is the Hardest Part"

"Runnin Down a Dream" is personal with me. Guitarist Mike Campbell of the Heartbreakers pointed me out in the crowd while singing this song recently at the Who concert in Phx. I'm still taken... how did he know?

 

[Knightshade]

A third of 40 million? That's way less cars than Tesla alone will make in the US the next 10 years.

Now that you've run math, I see the disconnect.

I was talking about, and it appears you were initially ALSO talking about, annual sales. Which haven't ever hit even 18 million, total, in the US. So yes 1/3rd of 50 million isn't unreasonable as a future annual sales # for all light vehicles in a year in the US...and 50 million is outrageously high.

As a reminder of how this began- you wrote:

If both the EV and battery pack market doubles every year for the next 10 years

And I replied later:

a doubling of EV demand annually for the next 10 years putting 2033 annual demand in excess of the entire population of earth if it helps any

So it seemed clear to me we were talking -annual- sales. And your next reply had you citing the 50 million number, hence concluding you were suggesting annual sales that high.

But apparently you had switched to cumulative sales over 10 years instead of annual sales somewhere in there.

These numbers include hybrids but for now they are eligible and after the first couple of years their share will be insignificant. Lets do this with 50% growth which pretty much every country has managed for several years after being where the US are now.

2022 1.000 million EVs (or close)
2023 1.500 million
2024 2.250 million
2025 3.375 million
2026 5.062 million
2027 7.594 million
2028 11.390 million
Lets assume the growth stops here either because the market become smaller or the last few million of ICE buyers are reluctant to stop buying them.

I see you both dialed your original 100% annual increase down to 50%, and stopped it after 6 years instead of 10.... hopefully because you realized how ridiculous the #s get with your original 100% increase for 10 years idea

Yeah, I'm not a believer that robotaxis will have a significant impact on the number of new private vehicles sold for the next decade. It will eventually but even if it starts becoming useful in say five years (there goes half of any potential positive reactions) it'll take most or even all of the decade to have a serious impact.

I don't really disagree with this, having used fsdb for a good while now I don't think they're coming anytime soon... but as I mention car sales were declining even without that factored in, and more and more young people are less interested in buying new cars.... RTs if they have any impact at all just hasten that decline. The only reason there was a recent bump in sales (still well below record numbers) was because covid had depressed sales so heavily the year before.

 

[wipster]

"Runnin Down a Dream" is personal with me. Guitarist Mike Campbell of the Heartbreakers pointed me out in the crowd while singing this song recently at the Who concert in Phx. I'm still taken... how did he know?

Let's hope that song is appropriate after we get done with the waiting! I'm wearing out the refresh button!

BTW, one of my favs as well, Campbell's guitar solo is stunning, even better live!

 

[CatB]

I know It’s a dangerous thing to engage in fantasy
But what happens if P&D #s beat big time?
No need to answer this rhetorical question
We’ll find out in less than 2 hours

I’ll have what he’s having.

 

[y_naught]

I do not recognize this poetry form. Can you rewrite as a limerick?

Courtesy of ChatGPT:

There once was a man named Elon
Whose Tesla production never faltered on
Quarterly numbers were strong
As electric vehicles, he cranked out by the throng
Leading the charge for the future, all day long

 

[EverettRuess]

I always liked Campbell and Charlie Sexton together when they played for Dylan's band.

 

[Noble Ninja]

...

There was a path to a better simulation we could/should already be living that the US almost set out upon long ago. Here are the links to the speech by Carter in 1979 that outlined that path to an energy goal of his administration to achieve 20% renewable energy by 2000 that he discussed at the unveiling of the 39 new solar panels on the White House. It was a very insightful and thoughtful speech, so I posted the YouTube link as well. The YouTube link also provides an opportunity to view the difference in dialog and in delivery from a more Socratic time, and is well worth a listen -particularly if you are passing the time until the Tesla numbers come out:

President Jimmy Carter’s Remarks at White House Solar Panel Dedication Ceremony, 1979. | Energy History

energyhistory.yale.edu

Thanks for sharing this video. To think this was 43 years ago, just a few years shy of half a century ago. How much progress has been made since then?

 

[EverettRuess]

I always liked Campbell and Charlie Sexton together when they played for Dylan's band.

I was thinking of Larry Campbell but Mike played as well.

 

[StealthP3D]

I could be proved wrong in 3 hours but I think tesla is more likely to stop sharing P+D reports prior to earnings than it is to include mega pack sales in a automotive P+D report paradigm

Revealing sales numbers 2 days into the quarter is a car thing, and a weird one at that. Not like Apple will announce how many iPhones it sold last quarter later today.

Yep. I'm guessing these quarterly Production and Delivery reports are left-over from the days when the American auto industry was king and growing every year. Auto execs were riding high and wanted to share their success with everyone as soon as possible. Now, with shrinking sales for nearly a decade, they are something legacy auto must dread like a bad dream. Because the numbers make the decline of their manufacturing might all the more obvious and blatant, no matter how hard analysts and the media try to find a favorable reference point to make the P&D reports seem positive.

Even if Tesla were to release absolute blowout numbers, Tesla would not be given credit for their amazing achievement in the MSM, no one would celebrate the incredible growth of a rising star in the (otherwise) dying auto industry, the return of a highly successful company in the auto industry (as GM's dominance was widely celebrated back in the day), nor would they put Tesla's business model on a pedestal as the answer to the decline of manufacturing in America. No. They would not do that even if Tesla sold an unthinkable 460,000 EV's. The media would simply blow it off as the natural result of slashing prices without addressing the elephant in the room when earnings come out, the astounding profit margins Tesla is able to make, even after such reckless price-slashing.

I'm sure legacy auto wishes demand for those legacy P&D reports would emulate the demand for their gas vehicles and quietly go away. But to cancel them now would only highlight the fact that they are dying businesses that require government life support simply to remain a going concern.

 

[Favguy]

I know It’s a dangerous thing to engage in fantasy
But what happens if P&D #s beat big time?
No need to answer this rhetorical question
We’ll find out in less than 2 hours

Who knows? Knowing the way things went all of last year, great results will probably see us nosedive tomorrow! Or maybe it will be a wake up call and we shoot upwards. I'm hoping for the latter of course, but a drop is almost tradition now.

 

[Unpilot]

Even if Tesla were to release absolute blowout numbers, Tesla would not be given credit for their amazing achievement in the MSM, no one would celebrate the incredible growth of a rising star in the (otherwise) dying auto industry, the return of a highly successful company in the auto industry (as GM's dominance was widely celebrated back in the day), nor would they put Tesla's business model on a pedestal as the answer to the decline of manufacturing in America. No. They would not do that even if Tesla sold an unthinkable 460,000 EV's. The media would simply blow it off as the natural result of slashing prices without addressing the elephant in the room when earnings come out, the astounding profit margins Tesla is able to make, even after such reckless price-slashing.

This is so true....and sad at the same time.

 

[Silent Ludicrosy]

This is so true....and sad at the same time.

And an opportunity for those who see through the bs.

 

[SunCatcher]

 

[Paracelsus]

Thanks for sharing this video. To think this was 43 years ago, just a few years shy of half a century ago. How much progress has been made since then?

It could be argued that the act of removing those 39 solar panels by the next administration, and the growing of the US footprint in the Middle East and the military to support it by almost every subsequent administration resulted in enough expenses on our nation that we would have been able to put solar on every home and business and an EV in every garage while creating a Nation-wide Distributed Grid instead, with money left over for infrastructure improvements afterwards. And that of course doesn't even mention the number of lives lost since the US 'chose poorly'. There is no value that can be placed on that great loss IMO.

Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths

A report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people.

www.brown.edu

Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths​

"A report from the Costs of War project at Brown University revealed that 20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people..........."

And these are just the estimates since 9/11. It does not include any expenses or loss from the time period when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 up until 9/11. That time period included multiple conflicts, and it included the Desert Storm war. Sadly, the US probably could have completed that Distributed Grid running off clean renewable energy for much of Canada and Mexico as well. Those are the prices of the subsidies that we will never see displayed at the gas pump.

 

[growler23]

I realize this is a topic that touches on our identity as Tesla investors, so ego is involved and rationality sometimes takes a back seat, but here goes:

Having read TMC for several years, let me see if I have this straight:
- Tesla has no subsidies (anymore).
- Tesla is against all subsidies.
- Tesla needs no subsidies! (Gondor needs no king!)
... and the clincher....
- Tesla is being screwed out of some new subsidies.

Have I got that right?
Do we cognitive dissonance much?
Great googly moogly, people! Tesla will do fine here. They'd weather this (even if there is anything to weather, which isn't even certain now) if they just sold the best cars and had the most modern factories and the most integrated supply chain. Add in the Supercharger network, Tesla Energy, Tesla Semi, Insurance, etc., and there is not a shadow of a doubt.
(And no, there was no politically possible way to remove the fossil fuel subsidies from the US tax and agricultural codes - for decades there never has been, and given a literal 0 vote margin in the Senate? It is more likely that we would see a 600 mile range Mach E next year )

 

[bkp_duke]

I realize this is a topic that touches on our identity as Tesla investors, so ego is involved and rationality sometimes takes a back seat, but here goes:

Having read TMC for several years, let me see if I have this straight:
- Tesla has no subsidies (anymore).
- Tesla is against all subsidies.
- Tesla needs no subsidies! (Gondor needs no king!)
... and the clincher....
- Tesla is being screwed out of some new subsidies.

Have I got that right?
Do we cognitive dissonance much?
Great googly moogly, people! Tesla will do fine here. They'd weather this (even if there is anything to weather, which isn't even certain now) if they just sold the best cars and had the most modern factories and the most integrated supply chain. Add in the Supercharger network, Tesla Energy, Tesla Semi, Insurance, etc., and there is not a shadow of a doubt.
(And no, there was no politically possible way to remove the fossil fuel subsidies from the US tax and agricultural codes - for decades there never has been, and given a literal 0 vote margin in the Senate? It is more likely that we would see a 600 mile range Mach E next year )

The cognitive dissonance is that the rules do not appear to be applied evenly.

That appears evident to most here


I'm with Elon, remove ALL subsidies, and if Tesla is competing on an even playing field it will destroy everyone.

 

[wipster]

"I got blisters on my fingers!"