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

[growler23]

Well we are going to see as I am sure this happens before I die (5 time cancer survivor now so..this is always an iffy blanket statement). I am speaking of a much shorter time frame than you, I love the idea of boring co tunnels working out. I don't see it short term (2-3) or even medium term (3-10) I am thinking in the next 10 years. There is lots of good data on Seattle, it's why I chose Everett to Seattle. You can look up and see exactly how long you need to leave to make sure you are there with a 95% confidence interval. The average commute time is how long it takes but there is obviously lots of variability even on a single trip. Everett to Seattle with a 95% is 75 mins If I recall from my reading last night.

WSDOT - Multimodal Mobility Dashboard Central Puget Sound Interstate 5 corridor - Commute times

Some days you'd still be late but 19/20 days you'll be on time.

I focus on commuters because so many people commute. If you want to replace ICE you have to solve this issue, either they need EVs or you have to have another model (EV Buses, etc). I don't personally care about RT or not, I care about EVs or not. That's the focus of time here (mostly). EVs, sustainability in transportation.

It's why I was concerned about the pace of the 4680 rollout. Remember. Was I wrong then? Nope...turns out I was spot on. Well here we are and I am telling you I don't see TaaS as being a big deal within the next 10 years. Not enough to shift to EVs. If you can't solve the commuter problem with TaaS than we still need EVs getting produced, as many models as possible.

I think I remember your predictions from around then. You had some detailed spreadsheets from industry sources IIRC, and indeed were right - Tesla's 4680 rollout / ramp / development has been slower than many of us hoped. Other more experienced battery makers are rolling out that same form factor now, for what it is worth, as has been noted here. I for one would like to hear your take on whether those will help, hurt, or even be used by Tesla, given the product/battery choices Tesla has made lately with the 3, Y, and CT.
It is hard for me to judge from all the headlines, but with CATL and BYD both saying (almost committing to!) a 50% drop in battery prices this year, and other stories talking about a coming glut of batteries, and the significant drop in lithium and other raw materials costs... do you think that (a glut) is what is happening (at least with other form factors like 2170?) Are we looking at a very near future of Tesla being neither battery constrained nor compute constrained?
And if Tesla has neither of those constraints, what does the Tesla future in a 5-year timeframe look like? (Question not just to @nativewolf but everyone here)

 

[alexxs88]

You're saying "there's no hurry for them to transition over a short period of time. Their sales are increasing, while Tesla's are decreasing".

But who cares about a tiny increase of dinosaurs' EV sales when it's still insignificant – to their overall sales as to the global auto sales? EV sales are slowing down now, everywhere. Tesla is the most affected since they're the leader, but they may well also just be the first in the wave. And, as it's been repeated here, Tesla's EV market share could well be increasing despite the difficult times.

Now, either the transition won't happen and dinosaurs can take their times, or it will happen when the current downturn stops and EV sales resume.

Please, zoom out and watch the EV sales trend: look at Norway for a quick look at an early adopter and see what happens when EVs get past a critical point. When your neighbors, friends, family and coworkers are all praising their EVs, you have to try them out when looking at replacing your 15 year-old car.

2. So yes, Tesla sales are down today, probably due to high interest rates, China's slowdown and a slow ramp of Cybertruck and Semi. But watch out if and when sales start picking up again. ICE OEM are not rushing when they should. They probably won't have another chance.

I think it's lazy on Elon's part to blame high interest rates on declining sales YoY. BMW, Daimler, Audi are all doing just fine, while selling cars with ASPs higher than Tesla's. There's no rule set in stone saying the speed at which EV adoption will happen.

PS: I was actually talking about YoY increase on all their sales, not just EVs. That kinda proves that rates are not Tesla's problem.

As I understand it, if a company's sales are continuing to increase, only, doing so at a lower rate than before, their sales are still increasing. It is only their "rate of increase" that is decreasing.

Tesla's sales in Q1 have decreased YoY. Q2 will most likely be a similar story. 2024 is expected to have lower sales than 2023 and that's with a new product (CT).

It seemed to me that your message meant that Tesla competition in EU is active and alive, and you wrote

Their sales are increasing, while Tesla's are decreasing.

If you are saying that their ICE sales are increasing, it's right. They are dragging their feet, successfully. But they will have to switch to EVs sooner or later, and the later the sorrier they will be
I've posted a chart of the emissions credits they still buy from Tesla, and it's literally in the billions:
View attachment 1040710
This is Bloomberg article where is comes from. The idea is that BYD and Tesla will continue to grow, albeit more slowly, and conquer market share and sell hundreds thousands of vehicles. European OEMs will probably slow down a bit, win a battle or two, but ultimately give money and market share to Tesla and lose the war.
All of this without FSD.

I think the future in which legacy manufacturers roll over and die while BYD and Tesla grow market share on their home turf is not realistic. Why would that happen? They have the cash to do the switch, the Chinese companies have proven there's no magic dust (you might not end up as efficient as a Tesla, but in the long run that's no moat) and they'll have the full support (financially and regulation) of their governments and suppliers.

Tesla's stock biggest problem is that, if FSD doesn't happen in a big way (replacing Uber for example), they'd need to sell ~450B worth of cars every year. That's 11m cars with an ASP of 40 000$. That's not realistic in any way, shape or form. There's simply not enough customers looking for the same thing and able to afford that in the world. i

You have stopped responding because you can not explain to us how Waymo becomes profitable. If there is hope for Waymo, I'd really like to know about it.

In isolation, I think it's much easier / conceivable for Waymo to scale their fleet and generate profit than it is for Tesla to solve FSD on the cheaper sensor stack. Not saying Tesla won't do it, but if you were to bet, the path for Waymo to profitability is much easier than Tesla's. Keep in mind I haven't said huge profits.

 

[unk45]

Sorry, I'm confused by what you appear to be saying. First Principles? Of marketing? No such thing. There is no physics analog in any aspect of human behavior, and first principles refers strictly to laws of nature that cannot be violated, i.e. physics.

So what is it that you mean here by "First Principles"?

You may be so constrained in your thinking but Elon is not. Elon to begin with states he is an engineer rather than a physicist, anyway, and he applies the concept to engineering solutions, as we famously know. First Principles is a philosophical construct, which can be applied in many areas notably including physics, but even in physics it is distinctly logical rather than mechanical. The term is a reference to assessing the most basic elements possible rather than making broad assumptions.The boundaries of physics have not yet been defined, as anyone at CERN, for example, might advise you.

Perhaps James Clear can help clarity:

First Principles: Elon Musk on the Power of Thinking for Yourself

Read this article to learn how brilliant minds like Elon Musk use first principles thinking to solve difficult problems and develop innovative solutions.

jamesclear.com

 

[SO16]

BMW, Daimler, Audi are all doing just fine, while selling cars with ASPs higher than Tesla's.

Are they though?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782460661160714458

Mercedes-Benz Q1 sales drop on supply bottlenecks in Asia

Mercedes Benz sales fell 6% in the first quarter, hit by supply bottlenecks in Asia and its luxury model range changeover, the German premium carmaker said on Wednesday. Deliveries fell to 568,400 cars and vans in the January-March period, while sales of battery electric vehicles dropped even...

finance.yahoo.com

“That said, Audi sales were down overall — by 16% year over year in the 1st quarter.”

Yes, their EV sales grew but that’s from fairly low numbers.

US Audi EV Sales Grow 29%, BMW EV Sales Grow 63% - CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! I published a long article yesterday on Teslaâs drooping sales in the 1st quarter of 2024 â compared to the 4th quarter of 2023 and even the 1st quarter of 2023. Some readers asked ... [continued]

cleantechnica.com

 

[Usain]

In isolation, I think it's much easier / conceivable for Waymo to scale their fleet and generate profit than it is for Tesla to solve FSD on the cheaper sensor stack. Not saying Tesla won't do it, but if you were to bet, the path for Waymo to profitability is much easier than Tesla's. Keep in mind I haven't said huge profits.

Nobody, including Waymo, has actually explained Waymo's path to profitability. Their weaker technology is holding them back. The vehicles are too expensive to produce and the system requires too much human intervention. Waymo just doesn't have enough intelligence inside the vehicle.

Elon famously said that anyone who uses lidar for autonomy is doomed. But it is a later, less famous, quote that makes Waymo's doom more clear.
MODERATOR (M*DIA=twitter)ANY links that include trashy talk like the one deleted here ALWAYS puts you the poster on 2.99 out of 3 strikes. You have done this before - next and you’re out. (/M*DIA)

Waymo doesn't have the data needed to build this mini AGI. And without it, Waymo can never be profitable.

 

[Linkmeup]

Yes, I understand this in broad strokes, but it feels kind of like "well we should invest in computers because people are gonna be using a lot of those".

What is it about those technologies that's relevant to Tesla today, or Tesla in the next 1, 2, or 5 years? Are these technologies merely "good" or are they actually good investments? How do you model those?

And bad cases too: what if SpaceX updates their plan and says "Mars is too hard to get to right now, let's shoot for 40 years instead"? Or that once interplanetary travel is feasible, SpaceX gets nationalized for security concerns. Stuff like that.

I totally get that it's very exciting to think about going to Mars, it's just hard for me to work back to something actionable today or in the near future with Tesla.

I personally don't know how to go to Mars, never been there nor worked on any technologies that could even minorly help to get us there. If you look at previous posts, I'm smart enough to assess whether there's corporate execution and mission alignment. A lot of my posts are about tracking the updates and figuring out how they're making this happen. Taking this approach, well, gives me personal peace of mind in my investment.

My viewpoint is genuinely different than a lot of people, I think. Though, my investment in TSLA started in 2012 and its worked out. It's still fractionally there until TSLA reaches $500 / share (I've been with it since $2 / share) because that's the line in the sand I personally put in place.

It's been a real rollercoaster, but getting out once TSLA reaches $1.5T-$2T market cap after starting out at $50B market cap...well, makes me happy and gives me the wherewithal to move on from the investment to other areas I'm currently researching in the world. Until then, I'm here posting tracking updates figuring out how they're making this happen.

 

[Chartered321]

Are they though?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782460661160714458

Mercedes-Benz Q1 sales drop on supply bottlenecks in Asia

Mercedes Benz sales fell 6% in the first quarter, hit by supply bottlenecks in Asia and its luxury model range changeover, the German premium carmaker said on Wednesday. Deliveries fell to 568,400 cars and vans in the January-March period, while sales of battery electric vehicles dropped even...

finance.yahoo.com

“That said, Audi sales were down overall — by 16% year over year in the 1st quarter.”

Yes, their EV sales grew but that’s from fairly low numbers.

US Audi EV Sales Grow 29%, BMW EV Sales Grow 63% - CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! I published a long article yesterday on Teslaâs drooping sales in the 1st quarter of 2024 â compared to the 4th quarter of 2023 and even the 1st quarter of 2023. Some readers asked ... [continued]

cleantechnica.com

Problem is wall street sees what happens in 2yrs not more than that. The mass market is not ready for EV yet. People need to understand that vs ICE there's a huge advantage either in price or in ease of use. There's nothing we can do until the sentiment of the consumer changes. Today people can't be bothered to buy an EV without having the perfect set up (garage, charging infrastructure, etc..). They hate the idea of change. Incumbents hate the idea as well. Media and wall street want everything EV to die (lobbies controlling them). Only way is to demonstrate that there's an advantage to have an EV which is an equation like economical convenience - range anxiety + x + y + ... ≥ ICE cars. Long story short you have to pay the consumer to get an EV today, otherwise they'll go ugly polluting and cheap. There's nothing we can do but to wait that the equation gets better for EV. Currently is skewed towards Hybrids an ICE. How can we solve it? Information is hugely needed. Vast majority of people still believe that EV catch fire and pollute the most....

 

[EQC_]

Headlines today showing that Tesla's are the cheapest brand to maintain and repair, beating all other brands for both the first 5 years, and for years 6-10. Data/Analysis from Consumer Reports:

Consumer Reports link to the original source:

Title: Four of the Five Least Expensive Car Brands to Maintain Are American​

Sub-title: Tesla costs the least; German brands the most, in CR’s exclusive analysis


Teslarati story title: Tesla maintenance and repair costs are lowest in the auto industry: data


Electrek story title: Tesla has lowest maintenance and repair cost of any brand


As far as I can tell, this is not specific to EV's....it is a look at all brands of all types of cars....so Tesla being all-EV can be argued to have a bit of an advantage. But, it still says quite a lot that the average Tesla is less costly in terms of typical maintenance and repair costs than a Honda or Toyota or Kia.

I'm also not sure what they include in "maintenance and repairs." The first 5 years of Tesla is listed as a total maintenance and repair cost of $580...but I would expect most people to need a new set of tires in that window, and it's hard to find a set of 4 known-brand tires installed for that price nowadays...

 

[Bet TSLA]

You may be so constrained in your thinking but Elon is not. Elon to begin with states he is an engineer rather than a physicist, anyway, and he applies the concept to engineering solutions, as we famously know. First Principles is a philosophical construct, which can be applied in many areas notably including physics, but even in physics it is distinctly logical rather than mechanical. The term is a reference to assessing the most basic elements possible rather than making broad assumptions.The boundaries of physics have not yet been defined, as anyone at CERN, for example might advise you.

Perhaps James Clear can help clarity:

First Principles: Elon Musk on the Power of Thinking for Yourself

Read this article to learn how brilliant minds like Elon Musk use first principles thinking to solve difficult problems and develop innovative solutions.

jamesclear.com

You (and James Clear) are making this up. Elon starts with what he is sure is true. You know, like gravity. You don't really care if people believe in it because they fall down whether or not they believe. That's a first principle. Sure, physics has edges, where the known becomes iffy. All science is hypothesis, just with varying levels of uncertainty. But most engineering is based on settled theory.

Sure, you can make attempts to apply this sort of reasoning outside of areas where you can determine truth, but it's then useful only insofar as you are correct in determining your "first principles", your basic truths. And that's going to be a subject of endless debate. Which means, as I said, that there are no first principles. You can do something like "first principles" reasoning by trying to start with "basics", things that most experienced and savvy practitioners in the field agree is right. But, as we've seen over and over again throughout history, such rules of thumb and common sense are repeatedly shown to simply be sloppy thinking.

There are no first principles of economics. There are no first principles of marketing. There are no first principles of software. There are no first principles of psychology. And (sadly, as of yet) there are no first principles of fluid dynamics. Asserting otherwise is nonsense and leads us into error. We, including Elon, do the best we can without first principles in those areas.

 

[Featsbeyond50]

I think it's lazy on Elon's part to blame high interest rates on declining sales YoY. BMW, Daimler, Audi are all doing just fine, while selling cars with ASPs higher than Tesla's. There's no rule set in stone saying the speed at which EV adoption will happen.

PS: I was actually talking about YoY increase on all their sales, not just EVs. That kinda proves that rates are not Tesla's problem.



Tesla's sales in Q1 have decreased YoY. Q2 will most likely be a similar story. 2024 is expected to have lower sales than 2023 and that's with a new product (CT).



I think the future in which legacy manufacturers roll over and die while BYD and Tesla grow market share on their home turf is not realistic. Why would that happen? They have the cash to do the switch, the Chinese companies have proven there's no magic dust (you might not end up as efficient as a Tesla, but in the long run that's no moat) and they'll have the full support (financially and regulation) of their governments and suppliers.

Tesla's stock biggest problem is that, if FSD doesn't happen in a big way (replacing Uber for example), they'd need to sell ~450B worth of cars every year. That's 11m cars with an ASP of 40 000$. That's not realistic in any way, shape or form. There's simply not enough customers looking for the same thing and able to afford that in the world. i




In isolation, I think it's much easier / conceivable for Waymo to scale their fleet and generate profit than it is for Tesla to solve FSD on the cheaper sensor stack. Not saying Tesla won't do it, but if you were to bet, the path for Waymo to profitability is much easier than Tesla's. Keep in mind I haven't said huge profits.

Have you tried the latest FSD?

 

[2daMoon]

Tesla's sales in Q1 have decreased YoY. Q2 will most likely be a similar story. 2024 is expected to have lower sales than 2023 and that's with a new product (CT).

Are you suggesting that ICE will be overtaking BEV over the long term?

Ipso-facto, are you implying that BEV growth is slowing in comparison to ICE growth?

When the market is going through a slump due to simultaneous economic issues in US, EU, and China, it will affect most of the participants in these markets, won't it?

I try to maintain a perspective based upon whether such short-term effects have any bearing on the long-term outcome.

With this in mind, there is nothing about these numbers to suggest that Tesla, and BEVs, are no longer expected to be the dominant players. Rather, this slump will have greater negative effect on those companies with fewer resources and poorer prospects for making it through the transition to renewable energy, intact.

This transition, BTW, is accelerating, thus, accomplishing the Tesla mission.

Do you then believe the long-term prospects for Tesla will be significantly reduced by these blips on the radar measured in quarterly increments?

Tesla folk clearly indicated in the 23/Q4 Earnings Call how 2024 will be a slow year for Tesla, as they are focused on preparing the company for more growth in the future. Thus, the weekly, monthly, and quarterly numbers for 2024 don't seem like a reasonable metric for investors to spend much time fretting over.

Traders, on the other hand...

 

[Captkerosene]

Keep in mind those are People who support the ones implicated in insurrection. If deemed political, this will be deleted. In fact this is a major factor in prevention of Brazil Tesla/SpaceX permitting, and threatened X and Starlink limits. We cannot avoid the direct consequences of such events on Tesla prospects.

No problem with 50 "I have a friend" who hates Elon posts but you find this picture objectionable? You don't think there are some potential Tesla customers in this picture?

 

[Skryll]

Headlines today showing that Tesla's are the cheapest brand to maintain and repair, beating all other brands for both the first 5 years, and for years 6-10. Data/Analysis from Consumer Reports:

to maintain I get but to repair ? Colission repair always seemed one order of magnitude more expensive. Wait, is CR where the advertisement $$$ went ?

 

[2daMoon]

You (and James Clear) are making this up. Elon starts with what he is sure is true. You know, like gravity. You don't really care if people believe in it because they fall down whether or not they believe. That's a first principle. Sure, physics has edges, where the known becomes iffy. All science is hypothesis, just with varying levels of uncertaintiy. But most engineering is based on settled theory.

Sure, you can make attempts to apply this sort of reasoning outside of areas where you can determine truth, but it's then useful only insofar as you are correct in determining your "first principles", your basic truths. And that's going to be a subject of endless debate. Which means, as I said, that there are no first principles. You can do something like "first principles" reasoning by trying to start with "basics", things that most experienced and savvy practitioners in the field agree is right. But, as we've seen over and over again throughout history, such rules of thumb and common sense are repeatedly shown to simply be sloppy thinking.

There are no first principles of economics. There are no first principles of marketing. There are no first principles of software. There are no first principles of psychology. And (sadly, as of yet) there are no first principles of fluid dynamics. Asserting otherwise is nonsense and leads us into error. We, including Elon, do the best we can without first principles in those areas.

To me, facts are always true. Even people who otherwise disagree will accept how, when either of them drop something, it falls.

Each may make up a personal story to explain what they observe, and this will be each of their own truths. Or, they can accept that it happens without trying to explain it beyond their opposing certainties and agree upon this phenomenon being a repeatable fact.

Truth is always belief based. Sometimes it is belief in fact. Other times, truth can be demonstrated to not be based in fact. The true accounting of witnesses to some event, for instance, will often not reflect what actually happened. Still, to them, it is their sworn truth.

Choose the use of those words carefully. The "truth" isn't always the same as fact.

Scientific Method can be used to measure with some accuracy the effects of advertising. That science is repeatable, therefore can be accepted as fact for designing an effective ad campaign.

In order to remain valid, the science must continue to track the response. It may need to be adjusted over time if there is a change in the measurements recorded.

Would this not be a study based upon first principles? Ready to fail often and iterate as needed to achieve the greatest effect.

 

[alexxs88]

Are they though?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782460661160714458

Mercedes-Benz Q1 sales drop on supply bottlenecks in Asia

Mercedes Benz sales fell 6% in the first quarter, hit by supply bottlenecks in Asia and its luxury model range changeover, the German premium carmaker said on Wednesday. Deliveries fell to 568,400 cars and vans in the January-March period, while sales of battery electric vehicles dropped even...

finance.yahoo.com

“That said, Audi sales were down overall — by 16% year over year in the 1st quarter.”

Yes, their EV sales grew but that’s from fairly low numbers.

US Audi EV Sales Grow 29%, BMW EV Sales Grow 63% - CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! I published a long article yesterday on Teslaâs drooping sales in the 1st quarter of 2024 â compared to the 4th quarter of 2023 and even the 1st quarter of 2023. Some readers asked ... [continued]

cleantechnica.com

Yes, comparing car sales QoQ is not very intellectually honest (not accusing you, but the sources). So BMW is up 1.1% YoY (it even says so in the second article you quoted, but you prefered the first one. Why?

 

[EQC_]

to maintain I get but to repair ? Colission repair always seemed one order of magnitude more expensive. Wait, is CR where the advertisement $$$ went ?

Many possibilities there.

Maybe they were limiting "repairs" to things more like component failures, and not collisions.

Or maybe the survey asked about owner expense...and collision repair is usually handled by insurance companies.

Or maybe it comes down to (I'm guessing here) a vast majority of cars never being in a significant collison so never actually needing collision repair? So, when averaging a few horror story accidents along with thousands of cars with no accidents, the collision costs end up insigificant on average?

With my optimist glasses on, maybe it's because automated safety features on Teslas have reduced collision rates so much that the collision rates are getting lower and lower...

 

[unk45]

You (and James Clear) are making this up. Elon starts with what he is sure is true. You know, like gravity. You don't really care if people believe in it because they fall down whether or not they believe. That's a first principle. Sure, physics has edges, where the known becomes iffy. All science is hypothesis, just with varying levels of uncertainty. But most engineering is based on settled theory.

Sure, you can make attempts to apply this sort of reasoning outside of areas where you can determine truth, but it's then useful only insofar as you are correct in determining your "first principles", your basic truths. And that's going to be a subject of endless debate. Which means, as I said, that there are no first principles. You can do something like "first principles" reasoning by trying to start with "basics", things that most experienced and savvy practitioners in the field agree is right. But, as we've seen over and over again throughout history, such rules of thumb and common sense are repeatedly shown to simply be sloppy thinking.

There are no first principles of economics. There are no first principles of marketing. There are no first principles of software. There are no first principles of psychology. And (sadly, as of yet) there are no first principles of fluid dynamics. Asserting otherwise is nonsense and leads us into error. We, including Elon, do the best we can without first principles in those areas.

You persist. There are no First Principles by your definition in Physics. Fundamental 'Fact' is limited to human understanding and all science evolves. First Principles are the most basic we can actually think we understand. Perhaps you need to study particle physics or astrophysics. Then you might begin to understand that mankind has no immutable truths. Immutable truth is the stuff of religion, not science.
You really should learn to understand Elon's own thinking on this subject. For him were there to be perfect knowledge (i.e. First Principles to you) there would be no ned for evolution in manufacturing, we would know it already.

 

[alexxs88]

Are you suggesting that ICE will be overtaking BEV over the long term?

Ipso-facto, are you implying that BEV growth is slowing in comparison to ICE growth?

When the market is going through a slump due to simultaneous economic issues in US, EU, and China, it will affect most of the participants in these markets, won't it?

But it's not. Comparing for example BMW's YoY sales, they rose 1.1%. Mercedes, who's an established company, had sales dipping 6% YoY, while Tesla, the up and coming contender supposed to grow high double digit each year, had its sales drop by almost 9%.

I'm simply suggesting that the world seems to be content with the ratio of BEV to ICE sales for now. And it's not because of rates.

I try to maintain a perspective based upon whether such short-term effects have any bearing on the long-term outcome.

With this in mind, there is nothing about these numbers to suggest that Tesla, and BEVs, are no longer expected to be the dominant players. Rather, this slump will have greater negative effect on those companies with fewer resources and poorer prospects for making it through the transition to renewable energy, intact.

This transition, BTW, is accelerating, thus, accomplishing the Tesla mission.

How do you define accelerating when the growth rate is decreasing?

Do you then believe the long-term prospects for Tesla will be significantly reduced by these blips on the radar measured in quarterly increments?

Tesla folk clearly indicated in the 23/Q4 Earnings Call how 2024 will be a slow year for Tesla, as they are focused on preparing the company for more growth in the future. Thus, the weekly, monthly, and quarterly numbers for 2024 don't seem like a reasonable metric for investors to spend much time fretting over.

I don't see the future growth. We're talking about a company which, on present numbers, should be valued at 20% of its current market cap. This is priced for perfection in terms of execution. And the execution is terrible. And the touted future growth levers have been cut down to one thing that should've came 8 years ago: FSD. 2025, 2026 and 2027 have no path to growth and, if things stay as they are (growing competition), numbers will actually get worse.

 

[2daMoon]

How do you define accelerating when the growth rate is decreasing?

When considering a transition that will take decades to complete, I define it over a period of time longer than one year.

I don't see the future growth. We're talking about a company which, on present numbers, should be valued at 20% of its current market cap. This is priced for perfection in terms of execution. And the execution is terrible. And the touted future growth levers have been cut down to one thing that should've came 8 years ago: FSD. 2025, 2026 and 2027 have no path to growth and, if things stay as they are (growing competition), numbers will actually get worse.

That's one way of looking at it. It isn't the only way.
Zoom out and see if it looks any different. Or don't.

Best of luck with your investments.

EDIT: BTW, will you tell us which other user names you have used here, or, do we have to figure this out on our own?

 

[alexxs88]

That's one way of looking at it. It isn't the only way.
Zoom out and see if it looks any different. Or don't.

Best of luck with your investments.

Graphs only tell a part of the story. The other part is told by looking at the factors that influence them. Sorry, but I can't see Tesla resuming meaningful double digit growth anytime soon. Not without a new model and Model 2 is, for all intents and purposes, at least 3 years away - and that's me being quite optimistic for Tesla.

PS: I don't understand what part of my valuation you don't agree with. Do you not think Tesla is priced for perfect execution of FSD and steady sales growth? Why else do you think institutional investors would sell? The negative growth this year impacted their valuation models and the resulting price was (significantly) lower than the current trading price. So they sold.