Boy, she can't catch a break can she...
-
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
cliff harris
Member
Trying to predict Cybertruck from model 3 (not Y because 3 was a bigger departure. the Y was a refinement).
Its chaos! Obviously Tesla are way better at ramping now. We are at maybe 100 CTs a day now. maybe 20 days a month, so 2,000 a month? Will there be 3k in Q1? I admit I'm shocked to see that Tesla went from wk to 25k in a quarter. a 10x jump. Even if we assume half that, could we see 15k CTs in Q2? I would be pretty happy to see 50k CT production in 2024, and I'm increasingly thinking that this is likely. Thats the same current output as Rivian, and way higher than the F150 Lightning.
| Quarter | Model 3 Production |
|---|---|
| Q1 2017 | 2,425 |
| Q2 2017 | 25,708 |
| Q3 2017 | 18,140 |
| Q4 2017 | 1,542 |
| Q1 2018 | 9,766 |
| Q2 2018 | 28,578 |
| Q3 2018 | 53,239 |
| Q4 2018 | 61,394 |
Its chaos! Obviously Tesla are way better at ramping now. We are at maybe 100 CTs a day now. maybe 20 days a month, so 2,000 a month? Will there be 3k in Q1? I admit I'm shocked to see that Tesla went from wk to 25k in a quarter. a 10x jump. Even if we assume half that, could we see 15k CTs in Q2? I would be pretty happy to see 50k CT production in 2024, and I'm increasingly thinking that this is likely. Thats the same current output as Rivian, and way higher than the F150 Lightning.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
Another article on this with more information:
The three Tesla Roadsters from China find an unlikely buyer
You probably remember a story from last year about a trio of brand new Tesla Roadsters that were found abandoned in a shipping container in China. Nearly a year later the three Roadsters are back […]driveteslacanada.ca
Kinda bizarre. But I'm glad those Roadsters have found a home where they will be treated well.
Maybe it will keep keep Dan off the street and out of trouble.
Why One Of Tesla's Toughest Critics Just Rescued Three Abandoned Tesla Roadsters
Seems like Dan's a real Tesla fanboy behind his FSD derangement: two 2010 roadsters, a 2012 Model S, and two Model 3s (of unspecified vintage). Drives nothing but Teslas every day.
Attention seeking garden tool is all he is
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Where are you getting those #s from? Model 3 production didn't start until Q3 2017. Production in Q1 and Q2 was zero
Q3 was only 260 cars
Tesla Investor Relations
PALO ALTO, Calif., Oct. 02, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In Q3, Tesla delivered 26,150 vehicles, of which 14,065 were Model S, 11,865 were Model X, and 220 were Model 3.
Tesla Q3 2017 PD numbers said:
From Q4 2017 onward your numbers appear accurate, but wildly not so prior to that.
This would be great. I would vote in favor in a heartbeat.
However, this idea was discussed back when the judge's decision first came out. One potential problem is that it's not certain it would pass. There are many more shares controlled by institutions today than there were back in 2018. Would they vote yes or no? Some have speculated they would vote no.
It would be disastrous to hold this vote and have it be turned down. I would hope they would check in with the Vanguards and Blackrocks to see where they stand before floating the same comp package to a vote.
GhostSkater
Member
I wasn’t following it close at the time, what caused such a huge drop?
Stretch2727
Engineer and Car Nut
Not sure where you got this but it is incorrect. Tesla started Model 3 production in Q3 of 2017 and there were only 260 units.
My personal opinion is CT should do better than Model 3. Elon admitted they went overboard with the "alien dreadnought" on Model 3. Over automating really hurt the Model 3 ramp.
From what I have seen in videos of the CT assembly production it looks really well sorted. Likely the biggest challenges are supplier parts and internal subassemblies. Parts tend to have more "process" than general assembly and tend to have higher risk that things go off track. Process meaning there are more parameters (temp, time, material stability, dimensions, etc.) that need to be tightly controlled to get a good part.
To add a few key points from the video, everyone seems to know ChatGPT4 is not AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) yet it appears this matters as to whether Open.ai should still remain "Open" (as I understand it). But by forcing a Judge to decide if this is true or false we will all learn it is not AGI yet - public as well.
Any Microsoft claims of AGI secret work evaporates (now or future). Yet their stock remained at their all time high on Friday. I do see Microsoft loosing some control here, with lots of discovery being shared with the Jury (we hope).
Does MSFT SP drop on this... as it's discovered the secret's coming out?
Does Gemini by Google emerge as a leader in time for Grok from X.ai to step out in front?
I can attest to the fact that AGI does not exist exactly where physics is concerned, my experience with media generations anyway. It's pretty stupid, doesn't know what it's drawing or if it makes any sense. Add to this the fact that I posted multiple errors when quoting on this very platform (deleted), this is not AGI either. And Gemini couldn't tell me who was playing in the Superbowl the very next day.
Who knows, but popcorn is in order!
"Anything can happen in the next half-hour."
Stretch2727
Engineer and Car Nut
Personally I think institutions would vote for it.
On a spread sheet it is ~10% dilution. An unmotivated CEO would be way worse than 10% dilution.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
You know, Imagining that if AGI exists that it will make its existence known to random idiots rather than hide is making a pretty huge assumption.
Thoughts and questions:
1) did this case ever get any kind of "class action" status? Or did some number of shareholders officially sign on (not just "didn't opt out" if there was some way to do that)?
This $6 billion proposed bill is roughly 1% of the value of the company. I would be perfectly fine if each shareholder that took an ACTIVE step to approve/join/whatever this lawsuit showed their appreciation by being required to donate 1% of THEIR shares to the lawyers. These shareholders apparently think they have been saved 10% dilution by taking away Elon's incentive package, so they should be happy to pay 1% of THEIR shares. The rest of us should not be forced to suffer for the choices of a few, so we should not have to compensate the lawyers via dilution or direct share loss or any other method.
Naturally, this will also limit financial gain the lawyers get, and hopefully disincentivize these sorts of suits in the future.
Unlikely, I know...but I can dream about basic logic winning for once....
2) Sure, Elon's incentive package had a cost (as any compensation plan does), but it also had a benefit -- Elon did what he did to hit the milestones, and the rest of Tesla executed...and the share price went way up along with Tesla's huge growth and achievements. Many people, shareholders included, probably thought those milestones were impossible or much farther off at the time the compensation package was voted in. But, Elon and Tesla did execute, and the value of TSLA to shareholders went up by MORE than the $60 billion "cost" of the package during the time period in question. Before any calculation is used to determine compensation for the lawyer's "service," the benefit of the total compensation package should have to be considered, not just the (smaller) cost at the end. Can these lawyers or Mr. 9 shares say with a straight face that the milestones of the compensation package would have been achieved to the same extent, and in the same timeframe, without the carrots for Elon?
3) I wonder how much total compensation via stock options went to other employees during this same period. If the courts can take it away from Elon after the fact, what's to stop somebody from filing a suit saying that the thousands of line workers and engineers should also have to give up 10's of billions of dollars worth of options, and the lawyers likewise asking for billions in compensation?
4) Honestly, all Elon should have to do is point to the "typical" guaranteed multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses and golden parachutes of other auto-industry CEOs and show key examples of those payments when the value of the company dropped during the CEO's tenure. They were literally given guaranteed pay for decreasing shareholder value. By comparison, Elon's milestones actually required enormous company growth and increases in shareholder value, and his compensation was a fraction of that gain, and completely contingent on the gain actually being achieved. How is that not MORE fair than typical CEO compensation?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
It was a single shareholder, who owned 9 shares.
ANY shareholder can file a lawsuit, no class action needed.
That would be 0.09 shares.
But since the lawyers agreed to work for them on contingency they don't need to pay them anything themselves.
The entire point of the ask is they're requesting a fraction of the amount they saved you... that's the opposite of "costing" you something, it's just that you're now only saving 89% instead of 100% of the shares Elon would've ended up with.
The amount of either figure in comparison to total shares of the company is not relevant.
You can certainly argue the 11% ask is ridiculous- and I expect Teslas lawyers will do exactly that- but you've got the basic mechanics and math of the ask incorrect.
You are misunderstanding one of the basis on which the lawsuit was won. It wasn't just that it was a big pay package- it was that it was a big pay package, was negotiated in a way that seemed not at arms length, AND the disclosure during the shareholder vote did not make that possible not-arms-length bit clear.
All three of those together is how the judge reached the decision.
Again you can argue (and Teslas lawyers will on appeal) those findings weren't correct- but it's not simply a matter of "It was too much money for what Tesla got for it" and thus "proving" the value of what Tesla got wouldn't change the outcome here at all.
Further, at this point, the amount of "savings" to Tesla is--- the entire compensation package. The targets have already been hit. There's no time machine to retroactively go back and unhit them that Tesla loses by no longer having to grant all those options.
Again- That's entirely irrelevant to the actual issues raised in the lawsuit.
Nobody was claiming "Tesla paid Elon for nothing"
There's nothing stopping them from filing such a case...
any shareholder can file a lawsuit for anything
But the legal facts around the other option grants are grossly different and you'd be incredibly unlikely to win such a case.
Why?
That, too, would have nothing to do with the actual legal issues the lawsuit was about.
"did Tesla get any value for the deal" was not the deciding issue of the verdict.
I recognize the verdict seems incredibly unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. I largely agree with those sentiments.
But making up what you imagine the lawsuit was about, rather than learning what it actually was about is not a good way to analyze how much those things are true.
See above. If the ONLY question before the court had been "Will you overturn this package because it's big?" then Elon would have won.
The actual decision required a number of other problems to be found with the compensation package, all of those things combined were the basis of the verdict.
Again- there's good arguments to be made (and I expect they will be on appeal) that the decision on some of those other problems isn't correct- and thus the overall verdict should be overturned.
But you can't pretend those other things don't exist and it's just about "Did Elon hit the goals Tesla paid for?"
Wait, I don't remember any insight Tesla gave that the Model 3 Highland was in any significant way easier to manufacture than the old? I know there was a lot of unsubstantiated hype beforehand...
As for 2024 deliveries, Tesla themselves indicated YoY growth would not be as high this year as previous. And to start in Q1, Troy's evidence so far is that production might be around 450k-460k. That annualizes to 1.8 million. If Tesla does:
Q1: 450k
Q2: 500k
Q3: 550k
Q4: 600k
That would get 2.1 million. That seems like a best case. Cybertruck might add 50k total for the year, so you are talking big quarterly increases in Model 3 and especially Model Y. Each quarter would have to produce an additional 3,800 cars/wk vs the quarter before.
Berlin and Austin should scale some, but not that much.
2 million seems like a good guess.
cliff harris
Member
Those horribly wrong numbers come from microsoft copilot. So I guess... sell shares in MSFT?
Thanks for corrections. They did seem wrong to me, but I stupidly trusted the very authoritative sounding chatbot...
Thanks for corrections. They did seem wrong to me, but I stupidly trusted the very authoritative sounding chatbot...
Krugerrand
Meow
I don’t see how it’s semantics. It’s truth vs lie. It’s Tesla’s charging network that they invented and implemented. It was Tesla who said they’d share it.
Let’s not brush off the facts as semantics. They’re already trying to change history by it being called NACS and covering up that all of ‘this’ is because of Tesla. Let’s not help them bury the facts.
Ok - then who's they though? Are you referring to Youtuber(s), Ford, the enclave of Tesla haters?
Actions speak louder than words, at least, to me. The fact that NACS is an almost worldwide standard means that automakers are coming on board for this part of the train towards sustainability. Regardless of whether they want to or not is a different story, but the fact is they've adopted the new standard and are bringing their customers along too.
Tesla is doing the heavy lifting no doubt, but it still takes those automakers to get to sustainability. Elon has said a number of times that it's impossible for Tesla to conquer 100% of the market. It probably, also, goes against the ideals of a capitalist society to attract a multi-trillion dollar business to 100% take over multiple multi-trillion dollar markets.
Stretch2727
Engineer and Car Nut
Kyle Conner and Tom M doing a 1000 mile "race" in identical F150's. One using Superchargers and the other using CCS stations to see who gets there in the least amount of time.
NACS where NA stands for North America
Europe is CCS-2 as it supports 3 phase power, also used in Chile
China is GB/T
Japan is Chademo, but Teslas use NACS
Tesla Charge Ports & Plugs from China, North America, and Europe Compared (for Models S, X, 3, & Y)
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Lol, that's the 2nd Province! Saskatchewan has had a similar EV "
Road-Use Charge on Electric Vehicles | Fuel Tax and Road Use Charge | Government of Saskatchewan
Effective October 1, 2021, a $150 annual charge has been introduced for owners of Class LV electric vehicles registered in Saskatchewan.
www.saskatchewan.ca
"Effective October 1, 2021, a $150 annual charge has been introduced for owners of Class LV electric vehicles registered in Saskatchewan."
The Alberta EV tax goes into effect on Jan 01, 2025 so 3 years, 3 months after the Saskatchewan EV tax. Similar to many other U.S. States who are also addicted to fossil fools.
Cheers to the Lumps of Coal!
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
