JRP3
Hyperactive Member
How much money do you think people got that they can still afford not to work? No, it was not the stimulus money, that was a drop in the bucket, and the bucket is full of holes.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Key clause:Next-Gen Vehicle Platform to Include Trucks in Classes 4 Through 7?
One of Tesla's next-gen vehicles could benefit with a 30% subsidy from the US clean commercial vehicles credit, up to $40k max. Maxing out the credit would imply a 40/0.3 = $133k price.
Most investors are aware that this commercial vehicle subsidy will benefit the Semi, but it also applies all the way down to Class 4 vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GWVR) of at least 14k pounds (per federal classification nomenclature). For smaller trucks (Classes 1 through 3) the clean commercial vehicle credit caps at $7.5k just like the consumer version of the clean vehicle credit.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
The Cybertruck will most likely be in Class 2 or 3, but it's reasonable to expect that Tesla will eventually make a larger version of the Cybertruck, just as other truck brands such as Dodge Ram offer a range of sizes based on the same platform. An example of a Class 4 truck is the Ram 4500, depicted below. Tesla has already said a smaller Cybertruck version will probably be made for markets outside North America, and the Master Plan calls for Tesla to "expand to cover the major forms of terrestrial transport".
View attachment 916201
Trucks in classes 4 through 7 are a major form of terrestrial transport, and one with disproportionately large human and environmental impacts from toxic exhaust, brake dust, and noise. Looking at data for the USA, we can see that this mid-market segment is as large as the Class 8 segment that the Semi will serve. I assume it's probably similar elsewhere, but I haven't checked and anyway Tesla's truck division is focused on the American domestic market for the foreseeable future because of the extreme order backlog and the extreme subsidies. The pollution impact from mid-tier 4 through 7 trucks is due to their tendency to be used in more urbanized areas for stuff like Amazon deliveries and local contracting and trades work, which means they frequently start and stop during typical usage and the resulting pollution is released around lots of people.
(link)
Therefore, I expect at least one larger Cybertruck variant suitable for professional use, as well as a box truck like what Rivian will be supplying Amazon.
Remember also that one of Tesla's largest competitive advantages is the 4680 nickel batteries. Trucks will be using these batteries, not iron-phosphate cells, in accordance with Tesla's three-pronged cathode strategy presented at Battery Day. If all of the Battery Day tech roadmap happens, then Tesla will have a major advantage in cost, performance, scalability, efficiency and longevity for these high energy density cells. My understanding is that getting these cells right is much more difficult than LFP cells.
View attachment 916214
Having a battery advantage matters even more for the truck segment because the larger vehicle size and heavy work requirements dictate designs in which the battery pack comprises a bigger portion of the overall weight and cost than for vehicles like a Model Y. Additionally, in contrast to retail vehicle buyers, professional truck buyers look more at factors like total ownership cost and longevity, so it matters more than Tesla will win on these objective metrics. The hardcore smackdown of electric trucks embarrassing diesel trucks is much stronger for more urbanized usage because range is less of a concern and because every start-stop cycle for a diesel truck inevitably sends money up in smoke, and the slow acceleration makes for worse average speed. The advantage of regenerative braking and efficient acceleration is a huge deal for urban trucks.
In summary, Tesla has a large opportunity to dominate the mid-tier work vehicle segment, which currently has annual volume of ~200k trucks in the US alone, and Tesla can benefit from up to 30% subsidies for sales in the US until the end of 2032.
Lesser of 30% of basis or incremental cost over comparable ICE vehicle.
2023 Treasury safe harbor guidance based on DoE for the 15% smaller GVWR was that all [other than super small cars] qualified for $7,500.
14k+ GVWR: Battery size and fuel cell costs are the key drivers of incremental cost, resulting in an incremental cost for Class 4-6 vehicles of $34,500 (BEV), $28,000 (PHEV), and $41,000 (FCEV). All other vehicle classes larger than 14,000 pounds have incremental costs of $66,000 or greater.
2022 Incremental Purchase Cost Methodology and Results for Clean Vehicles
Last edited:
Oh, wow, that's much worse than I would have guessed. What is the meaning of the ones in Red vs. Black?
It might still be a slight distortion of the actual level of damage though. If I (my startup) had a balance of $375k, we would count as a customer that wasn't insured, but would still get $250k immediately (on Monday). However with numbers like that I imagine that most of their depositors would consider that to be petty cash.
Especially when it's us, the taxpayers, paying for them. IIRC this was part of the government welfare when they went bankrupt.
Tell me about it, the housing market is ridiculous here in Southern CA, even with mortgage rates approaching 7%! House in our neighborhood went up for sale last weekend (Open house Sunday, monday and Tuesday), multiple offers ensuing into a bidding war. Who can afford housing like this these days? Cash buyers? Link for reference:
I would not be surprised if they bid up the price to $1.6M.
I'm around here and there, just very preoccupied for the past couple of months. My spouse has been going through some health issues (hip surgery) among other things.
Then combine that with there's really nothing to post on TSLA or the market in general in the current environment. Everything's long term/far out catalyst when it comes to TSLA and the near term catalyst are the Fed and macro's. Investor day was a great example of that. Excellent long term catalysts that are not going to mean much for the next 3-4 quarters.
It's going to take a few quarters for the EV price wars dust to settle and the ramifications become clear. I do think 4th quarter of 2023 is when legacy auto's cloaks get pulled off and they'll be exposed as fraudulent as their "forecasts".....cough Mary
But for Tesla/TSLA specific, there's really just no point in guessing what the stock is going to do for the next 1-2 quarters. Frankly I was amazed at the stock hitting 215/share after what I was considered was meh earnings. They weren't terrible by any means but also had enough meh parts where bears could (and definitely tried) to paint a downbeat pictures
Yes Q1's earnings estimates are very low which makes a beat seem pretty certain but the headlines are guaranteed going to be "Tesla Q1 earnings down YoY". So I'm not expecting Q1 deliveries or earnings to do anything for the stock except set more of a floor in the mid 100's. I think there's definitely more price cuts coming because the updated guidelines for the IRA consumer credit might cut some of the credits for consumers. With auto loan rates at a ridiculously 10-12% and going higher, affordability for consumers is becoming a issue even with the tax credits. I do like that Zach confirmed that the ASP won't drop nearly as much as people are expecting because of the difference in price between existing orders and the current price. But at the same time Zach's comments about direct credits from the IRA was a bit disappointing in that it made it clear Energy/Megapack isn't going to be as big of a contributer as I was hoping for this year
So then as I said at the beginning, it all really come down to the Fed now. Maybe the crash of the tech banks will finally cause the black swan event to finally force the Fed's hand. They seem to completely ignore the actual important data and the lag effects of rates. I do think (and hope actually) that the tech bank contagion spreads along with good CPI numbers that cause the Fed to finally pivot.
As for what I'm doing personally with my strategy, since the stock price is down to where I have a decent amount of lots that are break even/slight long term gains, I've been selling some stock around 200 and all the way down (and will continue to do so) where I sell say 100 shares and then buy 1 June 2025 LEAP at the current share price strike price. If the Fed does pivot and the stock market rallies, well I have the cash set aside to exercise those LEAPS two and half years from now. If the Fed remains stubborn and we really go into a mini 2008 bank crisis, I'll buy some more of the Leaps and/or stock (with intent to exercise). It's all about trying to get as many shares 2 years from now with minimal risk.
While Q1 will be a tough YoY comp, I think Q2, Q3, and Q4 will be very favorable YoY comp's for TSLA and can see the stock rebounding hard 2nd half of 2023.
Last edited:
Frankly I don't know what the big deal is and this is entirely an over reaction. It's not like SVB took depositor's money and yoloed on Rivian options. They were treasury bonds they can no longer service due to the interest rate imbalance, so they decided to sell at a loss to get the majority of the principle back, while selling shares to make up the rest. It's not like there was some major liquidity issue as if hundreds of billions disappeared out of thin air.
But CPI basket has no service. Food prices aren't impacted by service. Energy prices aren't impacted by service.
It's really not that hard to see that inflation being high is due to demand outstripping supply for foods, and supply outstripping demand for money. There are therefore 3 ways to reduce inflation: boost supply, cut demand, and reduce money supply. The Fed is using interest rates to cut demand for goods and reduce supply of money. Congress through IRA tried to boost supply by bringing production closer to the US to minimize supply chain risk. It takes a while for these measures to take full effect.
So far, the impact of the rate hike on the labor market has been the strongest among enterprises that had excess labor, especially in technology. Critical industries are still healthy, again because demand for goods is still outstripping supply. If there's money to be made, there will be goods to be produced.
Once demand stabilizes at a lower level and money supply gets down to a sustainable level, we'll be done with inflation and get back to a reasonable level of interest rates.
Last edited:
gabeincal
Active Member
True. Thank you for the information.
So are we seeing a corresponding increase in govt assistance handed out?
So if I understand you correctly, wages stagnated but govt assistance increased and it causes this weird problem that people are better off not making money?
What’s the solution then…? Surely not inflation?
Won't the demand for food be fairly steady regardless of the interest rates?
It is never about absolutes. Things happen at the margin. Some one who was in the fence about retiring 2 years later, would have pushed forward their retirement. A new mother looking at the the trade-offs might decide to stay at home for longer.
The COVID stock boom might have convinced a few people that speculation is a good way to make money. It can be a combination of things.
The bucket might have holes, but for a while, it does appear full. Eventually, these people will come back to the workplace. The jobs report this AM clearly showed both participation rate and the unemployment rate inch up despite a high jobs number. These things just take time and I agree that the fed needs to be patient.
Good to hear from you my friend! And I while I hope you're not right about the next few months, you have been right about the last few, so I ain't bettin' against ya! Hope your spouse gets better soon.I'm around here and there, just very preoccupied for the past couple of months. My spouse has been going through some health issues (hip surgery) among other things.
Then combine that with there's really nothing to post on TSLA or the market in general in the current environment. Everything's long term/far out catalyst when it comes to TSLA and the near term catalyst are the Fed and macro's. Investor day was a great example of that. Excellent long term catalysts that are not going to mean much for the next 3-4 quarters.
It's going to take a few quarters for the EV price wars dust to settle and the ramifications become clear. I do think 4th quarter of 2023 is when legacy auto's cloaks get pulled off and they'll be exposed as fraudulent as their "forecasts".....cough Mary
But for Tesla/TSLA specific, there's really just no point in guessing what the stock is going to do for the next 1-2 quarters. Frankly I was amazed at the stock hitting 215/share after what I was considered was meh earnings. They weren't terrible by any means but also had enough meh parts where bears could (and definitely tried) to paint a downbeat pictures
Yes Q1's earnings estimates are very low which makes a beat seem pretty certain but the headlines are guaranteed going to be "Tesla Q1 earnings down YoY". So I'm not expecting Q1 deliveries or earnings to do anything for the stock except set more of a floor in the mid 100's. I think there's definitely more price cuts coming because the updated guidelines for the IRA consumer credit might cut some of the credits for consumers. With auto loan rates at a ridiculously 10-12% and going higher, affordability for consumers is becoming a issue even with the tax credits. I do like that Zach confirmed that the ASP won't drop nearly as much as people are expecting because of the difference in price between existing orders and the current price. But at the same time Zach's comments about direct credits from the IRA was a bit disappointing in that it made it clear Energy/Megapack isn't going to be as big of a contributer as I was hoping for this year
So then as I said at the beginning, it all really come down to the Fed now. Maybe the crash of the tech banks will finally cause the black swan event to finally force the Fed's hand. They seem to completely ignore the actual important data and the lag effects of rates. I do think (and hope actually) that the tech bank contagion spreads along with good CPI numbers that cause the Fed to finally pivot.
As for what I'm doing personally with my strategy, since the stock price is down to where I have a decent amount of lots that are break even/slight long term gains, I've been selling some stock around 200 and all the way down (and will continue to do so) where I sell say 100 shares and then buy 1 June 2025 LEAP at the current share price strike price. If the Fed does pivot and the stock market rallies, well I have the cash set aside to exercise those LEAPS two and half years from now. If the Fed remains stubborn and we really go into a mini 2008 bank crisis, I'll buy some more of the Leaps and/or stock (with intent to exercise). It's all about trying to get as many shares 2 years from now with minimal risk.
While Q1 will be a tough YoY comp, I think Q2, Q3, and Q4 will be very favorable YoY comp's for TSLA and can see the stock rebounding hard 2nd half of 2023.
Lol typo. I meant to say 'goods', not food.
Xepa777
Banned
This is yet another “overly hopium” post you’re probably going to be wrong about, but great cat nip for dreamers.Next-Gen Vehicle Platform to Include Trucks in Classes 4 Through 7?
One of Tesla's next-gen vehicles could benefit with a 30% subsidy from the US clean commercial vehicles credit, up to $40k max. Maxing out the credit would imply a 40/0.3 = $133k price.
Most investors are aware that this commercial vehicle subsidy will benefit the Semi, but it also applies all the way down to Class 4 vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GWVR) of at least 14k pounds (per federal classification nomenclature). For smaller trucks (Classes 1 through 3) the clean commercial vehicle credit caps at $7.5k just like the consumer version of the clean vehicle credit.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
The Cybertruck will most likely be in Class 2 or 3, but it's reasonable to expect that Tesla will eventually make a larger version of the Cybertruck, just as other truck brands such as Dodge Ram offer a range of sizes based on the same platform. An example of a Class 4 truck is the Ram 4500, depicted below. Tesla has already said a smaller Cybertruck version will probably be made for markets outside North America, and the Master Plan calls for Tesla to "expand to cover the major forms of terrestrial transport".
View attachment 916201
Trucks in classes 4 through 7 are a major form of terrestrial transport, and one with disproportionately large human and environmental impacts from toxic exhaust, brake dust, and noise. Looking at data for the USA, we can see that this mid-market segment is as large as the Class 8 segment that the Semi will serve. I assume it's probably similar elsewhere, but I haven't checked and anyway Tesla's truck division is focused on the American domestic market for the foreseeable future because of the extreme order backlog and the extreme subsidies. The pollution impact from mid-tier 4 through 7 trucks is due to their tendency to be used in more urbanized areas for stuff like Amazon deliveries and local contracting and trades work, which means they frequently start and stop during typical usage and the resulting pollution is released around lots of people.
(link)
Therefore, I expect at least one larger Cybertruck variant suitable for professional use, as well as a box truck like what Rivian will be supplying Amazon.
Remember also that one of Tesla's largest competitive advantages is the 4680 nickel batteries. Trucks will be using these batteries, not iron-phosphate cells, in accordance with Tesla's three-pronged cathode strategy presented at Battery Day. If all of the Battery Day tech roadmap happens, then Tesla will have a major advantage in cost, performance, scalability, efficiency and longevity for these high energy density cells. My understanding is that getting these cells right is much more difficult than LFP cells.
View attachment 916214
Having a battery advantage matters even more for the truck segment because the larger vehicle size and heavy work requirements dictate designs in which the battery pack comprises a bigger portion of the overall weight and cost than for vehicles like a Model Y. Additionally, in contrast to retail vehicle buyers, professional truck buyers look more at factors like total ownership cost and longevity, so it matters more than Tesla will win on these objective metrics. The hardcore smackdown of electric trucks embarrassing diesel trucks is much stronger for more urbanized usage because range is less of a concern and because every start-stop cycle for a diesel truck inevitably sends money up in smoke, and the slow acceleration makes for worse average speed. The advantage of regenerative braking and efficient acceleration is a huge deal for urban trucks.
In summary, Tesla has a large opportunity to dominate the mid-tier work vehicle segment, which currently has annual volume of ~200k trucks in the US alone, and Tesla can benefit from up to 30% subsidies for sales in the US until the end of 2032.
1) It’s not simple to just “make a bigger version” of the truck, especially if that means bed width widens. That can materially change truck design and castings. Tesla is a company that’s reluctant to even change the outside of its cars (which is why so many erroneously believe the Model S is the same car from 2012) on a superficial level.
2) If the dimensions of the bed length are true, it looks to be smaller than the standard work truck. That makes it non viable for many commercial applications, if anything just for the accessory compatibility. Yes the bed is bigger than the lightning but the lightning isn’t made in any volume and we haven’t seen it widely used for fleet vehicles yet. It seems as if tesla made a decision to go after individual buyers by making it small enough to fit in a garage. All speculation, but if the bed (with its slanted shape mid gate and petruded wheel areas) isn’t competitive, the truck isn’t competitive.
3) the retail demand for the truck might be high enough for tesla to just focus on the retail customer and sell an expensive version first. Elon didn’t know cybertruck demand and tesla was in a fundamentally different state in early 2019. Surprise that you as a margin boy don’t feel tesla is going to extract as much of the inelastic price demand for suberban families who want this for show off value for a couple of years before making the single motor, let alone the work truck (which will NEED to be economical). To this day tesla doesn’t even offer a real ST model Y (Austin version doesn’t count).
4) there’s a giant ecosystem around the truck market and ford f150 specifically. Even if the truck is superior, the third party resources, tools, and support will make it slow/hard to switch over, especially as reliability or the truck is proven out the first few years.
If you caveated your post by saying “by 2030 tesla might have a bigger workforce truck” okay, but it didn’t read that way from what I read.
Someone should keep a running track record of the hopium y’all put on here. Especially on an investor forum for someone who’s aspiring to be an influencer, it’s dangerous as people could make financial decisions based off what you can say (no matter how many disclaimers you might theoretically put).
Based on data, people buy trucks for commute, with the idea of them able to tow, haul, or can go off roading. The problem with driving an inefficient vehicle day dreaming one day you'll actually use its features is costly on resources because you get like 15 miles to the gallon.
According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible
It's hilarious to see people compare specs and their competitiveness when most of the time they buy it for the cool factor. I mean 65% of the owners leave the bed empty..lol.
It's probably a guy thing. I would love to own multiple sniper rifles...just so I know one day I might be that guy from saving private ryan sniping my enemy away. Yeah 99.9% that wouldn't happen but...what if the apocalypse comes and the 0.01% happens. Better put in my order for that sniper rifle now.
You Don't Need A Full-Size Pickup Truck, You Need a Cowboy Costume
The full-size pickup truck has become America's best-selling vehicle by a country mile. But most Silverado, Ram, and F-Series buyers would be better served with a cheaper means of role-playing.
www.thedrive.com
I think that most are concerned with the potential short-term dislocation. SVB had a somewhat unique business and was the glue of the startup ecosystem.
Also, this could be the proverbial canary in the coal mine. We've known that flooding the market with liquidity and then abruptly pulling it back could have some violent consequences. It looks like we are starting to learn the details of those consequences.
Last edited:
I think there's probably some ill actors in this space, shorting small caps, start up companies, and causing fear. The hole they needed to plug was not all that big, it was def no Lehman brother's moment.
looks like option exercising.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
