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

[EQC_]

Or "Can you help justify the value proposition to investors that have funded well over $2B+ as an investment in an exclusive Supercharger network only to seemingly be opened to anyone willing to adopt the NACS? How do you convince current owners that the extra traffic won't compromise the experience on busy weekends and that investors are getting a fair ROI?"

Not sure if you intended it, but your wording sounds rather harsh and accusatory. I may be misreading, and you were just aiming to cover all the points of concern in order to get as much information as possible out of a hypothetical Tesla response .

To address some of your thoughts, from both a shareholder and an owner perspective, here's what I'm thinking:

1. Regarding ROI, I sortof disagree with your wording of "investors...funded well over $2B+...in an exclusive Supercharer network...", but there's probably a way of thinking that makes that technically correct, so I really can't argue that point. But:
   1. Investors have already seen a big return on that investment because Tesla sold more cars as a result, and therefore generated more profit and company value for investors. How many extra cars did Tesla sell, and how much profit generated because they built the Supercharger network? If the profit per vehicle is on the order of $10K, then 200,000 "extra" cars sold provides the profit to cover that entire $2B investment. I'd propose that the supercharger network has resulted in far more than 200,000 "extra" sales. And more sales also means more economy of scale and more fully-utilized factories, resulting in additional cost savings and investor value. Significant ROI secured!
   2. Additionally, these deals to share the Supercharger network seem to have caused the stock price to surge considerably, creating obvious and direct value for shareholders. There have been other catalysts, but since the May 25 announcement by Ford, TSLA is up roughly $90 per share. With roughly 3 billion shares, that is a gain for investors of $270 billion in a month and a half. Certainly much more than $2B of that rise can be attributed to the deals with other automakers to share the network. Even more investor value returned!
      1. Side note: I absolutely hate the "short term thinking" that the stock market forces on companies, with many driven to increase near-term share-holder value with decisions that neglect to invest/plan for years down the road. But, for anybody that thinks that is what Tesla has done here, none of those negative consequences can possibly hit until at least 2024 (when other cars can use an adapter to Supercharge)...so there's at least 6 months window to sell shares before any related negatives could hit the stock.
   3. Any cars that do eventually charge at a Supercharger will be paying Tesla one way or another, which should also be a positive on company revenues.
   4. We don't know if Ford/GM/etc. paid Tesla or will be paying Tesla for some relative share of the Supercharger network build cost...but that's definitely a possibility.
   5. These deals might generate more Tesla sales...if we believe Tesla has a superior product. There's bound to be some cross-shopping at superchargers as owners (or their passenger friends/family) of more expensive and/or slower charging vehicles can directly compare their cars to a Tesla, and perhaps additional Tesla sales will be the result.
2. "exclusive Supercharger network"
   1. Elon and Tesla have said, for as long as I can remember, that they'd be open to other manufactureres joining the Supercharger network...as long as they contributed some corresponding value to the cost and as long as the cars could charge at some minimum threshold. So, nobody should have expected the supercharger network to be exclusive forever
3. "How do you convice current owners that the extra traffic won't compromise the experience on busy weekends?"
   1. Isn't the Supercharger network already relatvely open/shared and using a universal port in Europe? Is overcrowding an issue there?
   2. Certainly, there might be some impact, at a few spots, at busy times.
   3. But, as the other networks add or convert to NACS plugs, some Tesla owners might occasionally divert to those other networks, spreading the load
   4. Likewise, many of the "other" cars will also continue to use the other charge networks for various reasons, keeping the load spread
   5. And, as I understand it, older supercharger stations might not work with other vehicles (via adapter or otherwise). So, some areas or stalls might remain exclusively Tesla (which can be used strategically), or they might need to be upgraded anyway...which would increase the throughput of that site.
   6. None of this will start until 2024, when other manufacturers start using adapters, which will likely be slowly manufactured and distributed. And then, another leg of usage will start in 2025 when other manufacturers might have native NACS plugs. So there will be a ramp-up in "additional" usage, which Tesla will see, and have time to compensate with additional supercharger builds.
   7. And, those other cars are gong to be a small fraction of the Supercharging population for some time to come.
      1. In recent quarters, Tesla's are still 60+% of North American EV sales. In past quarters, Tesla's share was even higher. And there are a good number of EV's on the road (Leafs, Bolts, etc.) that will probably never be eligible to supercharge because they can't support some minimum specs (charge port type, charging speed, etc.). So adding all that up, I suspect cars that CAN use North American superchargers will be 80-90% Teslas for at least a few years. And, given that many of the "other" cars are lower range and slower charging, they will be less motivated to take road trips, even with Supercharger's being an option. So, even more of the supercharger usage will be going to Teslas. The additional usage from "other" cars is going to be a small fraction of Tesla usage, so I think impact would be rare, and upgrades can be made as needed.
   8. (semi-joking) Tesla owners can always whip out their referral codes and hand it out to the "other" owners at a supercharger. No use giving your referral code to another Tesla owner...but owners of "other" cars who are seeing how much better a Supercharger is compared to their previous charging site might be open to the idea that a Tesla car might be better too...

*Edited to add the note/question (bullet 3.1) about Europe.

 

[madodel]

Or "Can you help justify the value proposition to investors that have funded well over $2B+ as an investment in an exclusive Supercharger network only to seemingly be opened to anyone willing to adopt the NACS? How do you convince current owners that the extra traffic won't compromise the experience on busy weekends and that investors are getting a fair ROI?"

Are these long HODL investors, you know, real investors, or the whiners who are just in it until the next dip and have stop loss limits set?

 

[StapleGun]

Or "Can you help justify the value proposition to investors that have funded well over $2B+ as an investment in an exclusive Supercharger network only to seemingly be opened to anyone willing to adopt the NACS? How do you convince current owners that the extra traffic won't compromise the experience on busy weekends and that investors are getting a fair ROI?"

"It might not be a great investment but it seems like the right thing to do". --Elon probably.

Direct the question at Zach and keep it short and to the point if you actually want some insight. When you ask multiple questions it's very easy for them to only pick the part they want to answer

 

[MC3OZ]

Honestly, I find this sad and pathetic. I would've wished Ford did a better job in build and pricing to move toward a sustainable alternative to Tesla's lineup for those consumers who (for whatever misguided reason) want to drive an EV but don't want a Tesla. In fact, the mission needs this from somebody. I thought Ford was closer to fulfilling this role. Seems like no US companies are close to capable of picking up any appreciable market share.

We could conclude many legacy car makers are not that good at making cars.

Certainly not good at making EVs that are a "value for money" proposition.

In many cases after dragging their feet and making minimal efforts for over a decade, they rush to build a compromise vehicle not considering whether or not customers will view it as "value for money".

Start ups like Rivian and Lucid have some good ideas legacy auto can steal some of them, they can obtain Tesla teardown reports, and steal some Tesla ideas.

We can only hope that behind the scenes they are all in on designing good EVs that will be "value for money" with a realistic plan to deliver them in time to preserve some market share.

In the meantime, Tesla and the Chinese are picking some some easy market share with products that are better "value for money".

Legacy car makers are to addicted too the idea that they set the price and determine the specs, and the customer will accept what they are given, and pay the price.

 

[EQC_]

This stuff mostly is regulated by the individual states- If a federal case could've been won on this Tesla would already be legal selling in all 50 states- and they're not- in fact they just recently had a federal case on this very topic tossed out by the court.

I think there are a few levels and types of law that come into play for the vehicle manufacturers. I'm not a lawyer or a lawmaker, so my terminology is definitely not the official sort. But, I see:

1) Contract law. All of the traditional manufacturers have franchise contracts with their dealers. They can't sell cars directly and compete with their own franchisees. I assume that's built into the franchise contracts now. This seems like a just and legally sound protection for dealerships.

2) Old dealer protection laws. Long ago, manufacturers set up the franchises so they wouldn't have to invest so much to achieve nation-wide sales. Then later, I believe, the manufacturers got bigger and thought they might try to set up their own stores and undercut or otherwise out-compete their franchisees. That motivated states to create laws to prevent that unfair competition. I view this as a hard-coding of (1) above, since perhaps the original contracts with dealerships didn't specify that the manufacturers wouldn't compete, since that was not envisioned originally. The intent (and usually the wording) of these laws specifically forbids manufacturers from selling cars except through THEIR franchise dealerships. This too seems like a just and legally sound protection for dealerships, to enforce their existing contracted relationship and the resulting investments they made. And, based on the intent of these laws, they should not relate to any manufacturer who didn't make franchise agreements.

3) The newer, twisted "no direct sales" laws. Some states have re-written or purposely re-interpreted versions of point (2) above. In some states, they literally changed a few words in existing laws -- converting statements like "no manufacturer can sell cars except through THEIR franchise dealerships" (which creates an obvious exception for companies that never contracted with dealerships) to "no manufacturer can sell cars except through franchise dealerships." These laws got re-worded or re-interpreted AFTER Tesla came on the scene, and are clearly put in place at the request of dealership lobby groups, clearly due to corrupt relationships between those dealerships/lobbyists and lawmakers. We all know there is no reasonable justification for dealerships to have power over a manufacturer that has no contract with them.

Tesla only has to fight or work-around item (3), and only in a selection of states.

On the other hand, the traditional OEMs locked themselves into (1) and (2) by their own business decisions and contracts, and obviously aren't exempt from (3) either. They'll have to find some way to better work with their dealers to evolve the relationship and the overall business. But, I don't really believe this needs to be as huge a deal as the dealers and OEMS seem to make it. Sure, EV market share is growing...but even once it gets to 50% and then 90%+, there will still be a huge long tail of ICE vehicles that need maintenance for another 15+ years.

With some reasonable planning from businesses and workers, there's no reason for everything to suddenly crash. Just let the older ICE maintenance specialists retire, and let some of the shops close as their owners retire, and make sure that young/new hires are made in lower numbers (to account for lower maintenance needs in EVs) and aren't trained exclusively on skills that won't be needed in 10-20-30 years.

On the other hand, nobody likes this type of logical long-term planning...so instead many businesses will spend their money on clinging to the past, paying to advertise yesterday's technology, paying for politicians to slow progress, and will be unwilling/unable to plan and invest reasonably for the future. We all just hope that these stubborn ones don't impact the rest of the economy too hard...

 

[Curt Renz]

I complained to my state attorney general about her joining this protest.
Reuters - today:
Republican attorneys general urge Biden to drop EPA emissions plan

Excerpt:

A group of 25 Republican state attorneys general Thursday urged the Biden administration to abandon its proposal to sharply cut vehicle tailpipe emissions, which would require dramatically more electric vehicles, saying it would harm the economy and burden the electrical grid...

 

[ZeApelido]

I complained to my state attorney general about her joining this protest.
Reuters - today:
Republican attorneys general urge Biden to drop EPA emissions plan

Excerpt:

A group of 25 Republican state attorneys general Thursday urged the Biden administration to abandon its proposal to sharply cut vehicle tailpipe emissions, which would require dramatically more electric vehicles, saying it would harm the economy and burden the electrical grid...

 

[insaneoctane]

Not sure if you intended it, but your wording sounds rather harsh and accusatory. I may be misreading, and you were just aiming to cover all the points of concern in order to get as much information as possible out of a hypothetical Tesla response .

To address some of your thoughts, from both a shareholder and an owner perspective, here's what I'm thinking:

1. Regarding ROI, I sortof disagree with your wording of "investors...funded well over $2B+...in an exclusive Supercharer network...", but there's probably a way of thinking that makes that technically correct, so I really can't argue that point. But:
   1. Investors have already seen a big return on that investment because Tesla sold more cars as a result, and therefore generated more profit and company value for investors. How many extra cars did Tesla sell, and how much profit generated because they built the Supercharger network? If the profit per vehicle is on the order of $10K, then 200,000 "extra" cars sold provides the profit to cover that entire $2B investment. I'd propose that the supercharger network has resulted in far more than 200,000 "extra" sales. And more sales also means more economy of scale and more fully-utilized factories, resulting in additional cost savings and investor value. Significant ROI secured!
   2. Additionally, these deals to share the Supercharger network seem to have caused the stock price to surge considerably, creating obvious and direct value for shareholders. There have been other catalysts, but since the May 25 announcement by Ford, TSLA is up roughly $90 per share. With roughly 3 billion shares, that is a gain for investors of $270 billion in a month and a half. Certainly much more than $2B of that rise can be attributed to the deals with other automakers to share the network. Even more investor value returned!
      1. Side note: I absolutely hate the "short term thinking" that the stock market forces on companies, with many driven to increase near-term share-holder value with decisions that neglect to invest/plan for years down the road. But, for anybody that thinks that is what Tesla has done here, none of those negative consequences can possibly hit until at least 2024 (when other cars can use an adapter to Supercharge)...so there's at least 6 months window to sell shares before any related negatives could hit the stock.
   3. Any cars that do eventually charge at a Supercharger will be paying Tesla one way or another, which should also be a positive on company revenues.
   4. We don't know if Ford/GM/etc. paid Tesla or will be paying Tesla for some relative share of the Supercharger network build cost...but that's definitely a possibility.
   5. These deals might generate more Tesla sales...if we believe Tesla has a superior product. There's bound to be some cross-shopping at superchargers as owners (or their passenger friends/family) of more expensive and/or slower charging vehicles can directly compare their cars to a Tesla, and perhaps additional Tesla sales will be the result.
2. "exclusive Supercharger network"
   1. Elon and Tesla have said, for as long as I can remember, that they'd be open to other manufactureres joining the Supercharger network...as long as they contributed some corresponding value to the cost and as long as the cars could charge at some minimum threshold. So, nobody should have expected the supercharger network to be exclusive forever
3. "How do you convice current owners that the extra traffic won't compromise the experience on busy weekends?"
   1. Isn't the Supercharger network already relatvely open/shared and using a universal port in Europe? Is overcrowding an issue there?
   2. Certainly, there might be some impact, at a few spots, at busy times.
   3. But, as the other networks add or convert to NACS plugs, some Tesla owners might occasionally divert to those other networks, spreading the load
   4. Likewise, many of the "other" cars will also continue to use the other charge networks for various reasons, keeping the load spread
   5. And, as I understand it, older supercharger stations might not work with other vehicles (via adapter or otherwise). So, some areas or stalls might remain exclusively Tesla (which can be used strategically), or they might need to be upgraded anyway...which would increase the throughput of that site.
   6. None of this will start until 2024, when other manufacturers start using adapters, which will likely be slowly manufactured and distributed. And then, another leg of usage will start in 2025 when other manufacturers might have native NACS plugs. So there will be a ramp-up in "additional" usage, which Tesla will see, and have time to compensate with additional supercharger builds.
   7. And, those other cars are gong to be a small fraction of the Supercharging population for some time to come.
      1. In recent quarters, Tesla's are still 60+% of North American EV sales. In past quarters, Tesla's share was even higher. And there are a good number of EV's on the road (Leafs, Bolts, etc.) that will probably never be eligible to supercharge because they can't support some minimum specs (charge port type, charging speed, etc.). So adding all that up, I suspect cars that CAN use North American superchargers will be 80-90% Teslas for at least a few years. And, given that many of the "other" cars are lower range and slower charging, they will be less motivated to take road trips, even with Supercharger's being an option. So, even more of the supercharger usage will be going to Teslas. The additional usage from "other" cars is going to be a small fraction of Tesla usage, so I think impact would be rare, and upgrades can be made as needed.
   8. (semi-joking) Tesla owners can always whip out their referral codes and hand it out to the "other" owners at a supercharger. No use giving your referral code to another Tesla owner...but owners of "other" cars who are seeing how much better a Supercharger is compared to their previous charging site might be open to the idea that a Tesla car might be better too...

*Edited to add the note/question (bullet 3.1) about Europe.

Thank you for your well constructed response with helpful perspectives. I am interested in Tesla's answer, specifically to your "We don't know if Ford/GM/etc. paid Tesla or will be paying Tesla for some relative share of the Supercharger network build cost...but that's definitely a possibility." comment. I'll agree that the tone should be softened and maybe just focus on the looking forward part, what are Tesla's latest expansion estimates and how are the new partners subsidizing future build?

 

[Cosmacelf]

We could conclude many legacy car makers are not that good at making cars.

We are seeing the same destruction in the auto industry that SpaceX delivered to ULA, Boeing, ESA, Roscosmos, etc. It's fascinating that people can look at SpaceX's 85% market share and say "Huh, that's interesting", and not even think that the same CEO, who runs both companies in very a similar manner, could possibly destroy the entire auto industry (save the parts that will be propped up by governments).

SpaceX outcompeted the world with a single heavy manufacturing plant in Los Angeles of all places. Not exactly a cheap labor pool. Not exactly devoid of regulations.

Tesla became extremely competitive with a single plant based a stone's thrown from silicon valley. Again, probably the worst location to site a car manufacturing plant, except maybe Manhattan, but they more than pulled it off.

So it shouldn't be a surprise that with plants in Shanghai, Berlin, Texas, and soon Mexico, Tesla will absolutely obliterate the entire industry. And I do mean obliterate. The only reason they are still standing is that Tesla isn't big enough yet to have a fully fleshed out product line. And of course, we are now seeing the legacy manufacturers calling in their political chips to save their asses. GM and Ford in the US, and even China is now slow rolling Tesla's Chinese expansion plans. It's not going to matter, of course. They can play around at the margins in their government 15% market share sinecure while Tesla eventually owns the lions share of the market.

This assumes, of course, that Elon continues living and/or his management systems have become embedded enough to outlive him. The effective takeover of the auto market will still take another 10+ years, but unless things change drastically, that is absolutely where we are headed.

 

[EQC_]

I complained to my state attorney general about her joining this protest.
Reuters - today:
Republican attorneys general urge Biden to drop EPA emissions plan

Excerpt:

A group of 25 Republican state attorneys general Thursday urged the Biden administration to abandon its proposal to sharply cut vehicle tailpipe emissions, which would require dramatically more electric vehicles, saying it would harm the economy and burden the electrical grid...

Ugg.
"Burden the electrical grid."

I typed another one of my lengthy bulleted posts here, but deleted it all...you all know the truth already . Basic calculations on average vehicle age, EV and ICE production rates, and US electricity usage has all the info anybody needs to see that this change will be gradual and the extra electrical demand can totally be handled by existing technologies.

Bottom line, the US new-vehicle marketshare of EV's for 2022 and early 2023 was only 7%. There are a huge number of ICE vehicles on the road already, and 90%+ of new vehicles in the US are still ICE. Even under the most optimistic case of EV manufacturing ramp-up, the US probably has over 20 years before the majority of cars on the road are EV's, and even more years to approach 100%.

Even with today's proven and in-use technology, 100% EV's would require pretty modest additions to our electrical system...and the actual cost is further minimized because much of the grid already needs maintenance and modernization. Minimal cost, big benefits...but instead we're stuck with false hand-wringing and roadblocks from power- and money-hungry political figures.

 

[Stretch2727]

We could conclude many legacy car makers are not that good at making cars.

Certainly not good at making EVs that are a "value for money" proposition.

In many cases after dragging their feet and making minimal efforts for over a decade, they rush to build a compromise vehicle not considering whether or not customers will view it as "value for money".

Start ups like Rivian and Lucid have some good ideas legacy auto can steal some of them, they can obtain Tesla teardown reports, and steal some Tesla ideas.

We can only hope that behind the scenes they are all in on designing good EVs that will be "value for money" with a realistic plan to deliver them in time to preserve some market share.

In the meantime, Tesla and the Chinese are picking some some easy market share with products that are better "value for money".

Legacy car makers are to addicted too the idea that they set the price and determine the specs, and the customer will accept what they are given, and pay the price.

I worked for Ford a while back for 10 years and it's likely one of the biggest reasons I invested in Tesla about 8 years ago. Except for (ICE) powertrain and body the legacy manufacturers were hollowed out years ago from an engineering perspective. When I was there I used to say the real engineering happened at suppliers. Industries generally evolve from vertical integration to commodity components. Legacy evolved to this point due to the cost pressures in the industry. Buying from a supplier that can optimize and share the component across the entire industry will generally get you the lowest cost. Unfortunately this has left them in a position where they are lacking the skills to truly innovate in a disruptive environment. Some of them (Ford and VW come to mind) realize this and are trying to reinvent themselves. Time will tell but I mostly doubt they will make it through the transition. For sure, some of the the brands will survive but what is behind the brand will be completely different, possibly Chinese ownership or licensing technology from an EV start up.

 

[TrendTrader007]

We are seeing the same destruction in the auto industry that SpaceX delivered to ULA, Boeing, ESA, Roscosmos, etc. It's fascinating that people can look at SpaceX's 85% market share and say "Huh, that's interesting", and not even think that the same CEO, who runs both companies in very a similar manner, could possibly destroy the entire auto industry (save the parts that will be propped up by governments).

SpaceX outcompeted the world with a single heavy manufacturing plant in Los Angeles of all places. Not exactly a cheap labor pool. Not exactly devoid of regulations.

Tesla became extremely competitive with a single plant based a stone's thrown from silicon valley. Again, probably the worst location to site a car manufacturing plant, except maybe Manhattan, but they more than pulled it off.

So it shouldn't be a surprise that with plants in Shanghai, Berlin, Texas, and soon Mexico, Tesla will absolutely obliterate the entire industry. And I do mean obliterate. The only reason they are still standing is that Tesla isn't big enough yet to have a fully fleshed out product line. And of course, we are now seeing the legacy manufacturers calling in their political chips to save their asses. GM and Ford in the US, and even China is now slow rolling Tesla's Chinese expansion plans. It's not going to matter, of course. They can play around at the margins in their government 15% market share sinecure while Tesla eventually owns the lions share of the market.

This assumes, of course, that Elon continues living and/or his management systems have become embedded enough to outlive him. The effective takeover of the auto market will still take another 10+ years, but unless things change drastically, that is absolutely where we are headed.

Entire automotive industry is likely to be replaced by Tesla. I would not be surprised if eventually majority of vehicles worldwide replaced by Tesla. This is much bigger than a company like Apple coming up with iPhone, where competition from Samsung and android still exist. This is a winnerTake all scenario. this is nothing the world has ever seen before. Tesla as a company, if successful in even half of its aspirations could easily become the New World superpower. What happens if Tesla eventually controls the entire sustainable economy, including auto, energy, Teslabot/all forms of artificial intelligence! Not to mention outside Tesla, spaceX, especially star link, neural link,x.com, truth, GPt etc.
For most, it is simply incomprehensible
Long-term shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway just might look like paupers in comparison to long-term tesla shareholders. Give it another 10 years and see.

 

[Fred42]

and even China is now slow rolling Tesla's Chinese expansion plans.

Why do people say this? Is there reliable information that this is true?

 

[Tronguy]

Thank you for your well constructed response with helpful perspectives. I am interested in Tesla's answer, specifically to your "We don't know if Ford/GM/etc. paid Tesla or will be paying Tesla for some relative share of the Supercharger network build cost...but that's definitely a possibility." comment. I'll agree that the tone should be softened and maybe just focus on the looking forward part, what are Tesla's latest expansion estimates and how are the new partners subsidizing future build?

Um. We do kinda know. One of the C-suites, in charge of finance, at GM stated during a conference call after GM agreed to support NACS that GM wasn't paying Tesla anything for access to the Supercharger network. The way his statement was worded it appears that the only silly stuff was that people with GM cars would be able to set up and pay for Supercharger access without having to have the Tesla app on their cell phones.

That was pretty definitive, I thought, and said so here.

There's been tons of speculation, of course, from lots of people who just can't believe that Tesla would let the possibility of coins slipping through their fingers pass on by. I mean: Everybody else money gouges, so why not Tesla?

It's pretty straightforward, I think. From Tesla's point of view, what with all the CCS-1 based cars coming on line, CCS-2 mandated in Europe, and China going their own way, NACS was going to eventually fade into irrelevance. This would eventually mean that Tesla would have to retrofit all those Superchargers to have CCS-1 connectors, at great expense.

From GM/Ford/whoever's point of view, they would have to pour $$$ into building out a CCS-1 network, in one way or another, to providers that, at this time, do not apparently have the financial resources to keep the existing equipment working well. This current fact also works against selling their current offerings, now and into the future. One might also note that Ford/GM/VW/etc do not own the charging stations: Being the traditional ICE types that they are, they farmed all that out to third parties. Who are very probably being funded by venture capitalists who Want Their Percentage. Which means that the current providers might be able to hold the occasional fire sale, but won't be able to keep it up for the long term

So, if GM/Ford/etc join Tesla's party:

• NACS sticks around and becomes a real standard. The technical superiority of the NACS connector doesn't go by the wayside. No need for Tesla retrofitting, like what happened in the EU.
• Tesla's not exactly making a profit, much, on the Supercharging network, but the goal is to get Superchargers out there; the more, the merrier. That's Tesla's stated goal, anyway. Since it's going to be a fee-free standard (excuse me while I fall down), the other charger vendors will join the party as well. This doesn't exactly hurt Tesla, either: If the VCs do their bit, the other charger vendors will continue to have problems keeping their equipment running. Or, alternatively, expanding their networks. Or the other charger vendors will simply have to do Capitalism 101 and adapt... which is not a bad thing.
• GM/Ford/Whatever get a pre-existing network of reliable DC fast chargers for the cars that they're selling. That pushes sales and profits; I'm certain that they're salivating madly. (Heck, one of my brothers just bought a Bolt: Come 1/1/2024, he'll be on the list to get that GM NACS-to-CCS1 adapter and will be Very Happy. Um. As happy as a 100 miles/30 minutes charge rate person can be, anyway.)

It's a win-win. No wonder Ford, GM, and the others signed up.

Y'know, it's one of those situations where nobody actually has to lose, you know. With the possible exceptions of Electrify America and their ilk. And it's not like the mass move to NACS is going to kill EA and them: It's just going to put pressure on them to do better and, well, compete. If the ones who can't compete go under, well, that's capitalism 101. And why VC's aren't always the answer.

 

[M|S|M MYP]

Entire automotive industry is likely to be replaced by Tesla. I would not be surprised if eventually majority of vehicles worldwide replaced by Tesla. This is much bigger than a company like Apple coming up with iPhone, where competition from Samsung and android still exist. This is a winnerTake all scenario. this is nothing the world has ever seen before. Tesla as a company, if successful in even half of its aspirations could easily become the New World superpower. What happens if Tesla eventually controls the entire sustainable economy, including auto, energy, Teslabot/all forms of artificial intelligence! Not to mention outside Tesla, spaceX, especially star link, neural link,x.com, truth, GPt etc.
For most, it is simply incomprehensible
Long-term shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway just might look like paupers in comparison to long-term tesla shareholders. Give it another 10 years and see.

I am almost 99.999% sure that the good ole US of A gov't will never allow this to happen. Oh wait, i forgot, Tesla advertises now /s

 

[Cosmacelf]

Why do people say this? Is there reliable information that this is true?

I’d have to chase down various posts, but I thought the info was pretty reliable. A while ago Tesla stated they wanted to expand their Shanghai footprint, but nothings come of it.

 

[SOULPEDL]

Entire automotive industry is likely to be replaced by Tesla. I would not be surprised if eventually majority of vehicles worldwide replaced by Tesla. This is much bigger than a company like Apple coming up with iPhone, where competition from Samsung and android still exist. This is a winnerTake all scenario. this is nothing the world has ever seen before. Tesla as a company, if successful in even half of its aspirations could easily become the New World superpower. What happens if Tesla eventually controls the entire sustainable economy, including auto, energy, Teslabot/all forms of artificial intelligence! Not to mention outside Tesla, spaceX, especially star link, neural link,x.com, truth, GPt etc.
For most, it is simply incomprehensible
Long-term shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway just might look like paupers in comparison to long-term tesla shareholders. Give it another 10 years and see.

Bullish?

 

[Words of HABIT]

Canada offering up to $30B in production subsidies for battery plants of Stellantis and Volkswagen. My tax paying dollars hard at work...or is that hardly working. Never a fan of any government picking winners and losers as they tend to get it wrong most of the time. Incentives should be equal to all players and performance based, with all on equal footing, letting free markets determine the winners. The best survive and thrive, the weakest let die. With this news, and Ford's recent $9B government loan for their US battery plant, looks like bailouts for EV wannabes has already begun. What have these companies been doing for the last ten years? Certainly after Tesla showed them their fully electric Model S win the 2013 Motor Trend Car of The Year Award, EVs had potential and was the the right thing to do. Surely...yet here they are today, still ten years behind Tesla.

Canada mimics U.S. strategy by offering nearly $30 billion for Stellantis, Volkswagen battery plants

Canada and Ontario are providing Stellantis and LG Energy with up to $15 billion for their battery plant project. Find out more.

financialpost.com

 

[2daMoon]

Um. We do kinda know. One of the C-suites, in charge of finance, at GM stated during a conference call after GM agreed to support NACS that GM wasn't paying Tesla anything for access to the Supercharger network. The way his statement was worded it appears that the only silly stuff was that people with GM cars would be able to set up and pay for Supercharger access without having to have the Tesla app on their cell phones.

That was pretty definitive, I thought, and said so here.

There's been tons of speculation, of course, from lots of people who just can't believe that Tesla would let the possibility of coins slipping through their fingers pass on by. I mean: Everybody else money gouges, so why not Tesla?

It's pretty straightforward, I think. From Tesla's point of view, what with all the CCS-1 based cars coming on line, CCS-2 mandated in Europe, and China going their own way, NACS was going to eventually fade into irrelevance. This would eventually mean that Tesla would have to retrofit all those Superchargers to have CCS-1 connectors, at great expense.

From GM/Ford/whoever's point of view, they would have to pour $$$ into building out a CCS-1 network, in one way or another, to providers that, at this time, do not apparently have the financial resources to keep the existing equipment working well. This current fact also works against selling their current offerings, now and into the future. One might also note that Ford/GM/VW/etc do not own the charging stations: Being the traditional ICE types that they are, they farmed all that out to third parties. Who are very probably being funded by venture capitalists who Want Their Percentage. Which means that the current providers might be able to hold the occasional fire sale, but won't be able to keep it up for the long term

So, if GM/Ford/etc join Tesla's party:

• NACS sticks around and becomes a real standard. The technical superiority of the NACS connector doesn't go by the wayside. No need for Tesla retrofitting, like what happened in the EU.
• Tesla's not exactly making a profit, much, on the Supercharging network, but the goal is to get Superchargers out there; the more, the merrier. That's Tesla's stated goal, anyway. Since it's going to be a fee-free standard (excuse me while I fall down), the other charger vendors will join the party as well. This doesn't exactly hurt Tesla, either: If the VCs do their bit, the other charger vendors will continue to have problems keeping their equipment running. Or, alternatively, expanding their networks. Or the other charger vendors will simply have to do Capitalism 101 and adapt... which is not a bad thing.
• GM/Ford/Whatever get a pre-existing network of reliable DC fast chargers for the cars that they're selling. That pushes sales and profits; I'm certain that they're salivating madly. (Heck, one of my brothers just bought a Bolt: Come 1/1/2024, he'll be on the list to get that GM NACS-to-CCS1 adapter and will be Very Happy. Um. As happy as a 100 miles/30 minutes charge rate person can be, anyway.)

It's a win-win. No wonder Ford, GM, and the others signed up.

Y'know, it's one of those situations where nobody actually has to lose, you know. With the possible exceptions of Electrify America and their ilk. And it's not like the mass move to NACS is going to kill EA and them: It's just going to put pressure on them to do better and, well, compete. If the ones who can't compete go under, well, that's capitalism 101. And why VC's aren't always the answer.

Excellent response!

Add to this how the NACS receptacle may offer some savings on the production line for the OEMs adopting it if the cost is lower than installing the CCS receptacle. Another win, even if they only save a nickel per car.

The more cars that are using Tesla Superchargers, the more Tesla Superchargers there will be. A corollary to, "The more Teslas Tesla sells, the more Teslas Tesla sells" marketing strategy. The expansion of the Supercharger network ramps up with profits derived through greater usage.

The only folks with a beef may be those who are enamored with the idea of having an exclusive charging network and are unable to imagine that Tesla has people who have thought this through to the Nth degree and determined this is the best way to go.

Anyone doubting Tesla's prowess in planning for future growth might want to give their past history more study.

 

[Knightshade]

Bullish?

It's certainly a word that sounds similar!