Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla Valuation Based on 5 Year Outlook

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Do you have an alternative comp?

Volkswagen, Toyota - and again, this is if you think 90% of net income in 5 years will be derived from selling cars.

DIO = days inventory outstanding
DSO = days sales outstanding
DPO = days payable outstanding
CCC = DIO + DSO - DPO
DAT = days asset turnover

TTM2020201920182017
Amazon
DIO2830363643
DSO2123272627
DPO7491848092
CCC-25-38-20-18-22
DAT281304293255269
Tesla
DIO5360636587
DSO1922201616
DPO8689677191
CCC-13-7161011
DAT538604510506889

This is why I don't think Amazon is a great comp. It's way more capital intensive (2x as much) to operate a manufacturing business than it is to operate a largely digital business.
 
Did you read the rest of the post or just like to cherry pick without context? Of the ~$101bn projected net income in 2026, ~90% comes from selling cars. You can't say, "well...there's some magic sauce" but not model it in and then say, "we should use this P/E." You can't really have it both ways.

I'm not saying Tesla is automotive company only, but I am saying that if you're projecting 90% of net income to come solely from selling automotives, it would make sense to use traditional auto co's P/E ratios to get to a projected stock price.

Which traditional auto company is growing 50-100% per year?
 
Volkswagen, Toyota - and again, this is if you think 90% of net income in 5 years will be derived from selling cars.

DIO = days inventory outstanding
DSO = days sales outstanding
DPO = days payable outstanding
CCC = DIO + DSO - DPO
DAT = days asset turnover

TTM2020201920182017
Amazon
DIO2830363643
DSO2123272627
DPO7491848092
CCC-25-38-20-18-22
DAT281304293255269
Tesla
DIO5360636587
DSO1922201616
DPO8689677191
CCC-13-7161011
DAT538604510506889

This is why I don't think Amazon is a great comp. It's way more capital intensive (2x as much) to operate a manufacturing business than it is to operate a largely digital business.

I do understand why many people use auto companies as their comps. It's been a recurring theme in these parts for a decade.

I personally don't consider any of them to be comps due to the growth issue identified by @PeterJA . What I do know for sure is that I wouldn't have ever invested in TSLA as a car company back in 2012 any more than I would invest in TSLA today as a car company. 200+ PE valuations are not warranted for car companies and it is first and foremost because of their growth rates.


One of the 2 or 3 big drivers of a higher TSLA share price that I see coming is the transition from what I call a "story investment" business case to a financial metrics business case. As TSLA becomes increasingly profitable, with a history of profits and a projectable level of profits, financial metrics investors can start fitting the company into their investment cases. At some point the financials will become so compelling that it won't matter what the business is - these investors will start flocking to the company.

But it might be more than 5 years before profits are high enough and PE is low enough for financial metrics driven analysis to yield an investable company.


At the core of this is the question of how much you value previous, current, and forecasted growth. I consider Amazon as a comp solely because its got some similar characteristics (capital intensive as compared to the "purely" digital asset companies) and high growth rates off of a really large base. I don't know of any other company with similar growth levels that aren't digital asset companies. But I also value growth very highly. I suppose that to be more precise - I value growth very highly when I also see a strong path to profitability.
 
1/6

Amazon began it's continous string of profits in 2015. I used the Amazon P/E multiples to project Tesla's value.
With this I get a fair value of $1,200 by the end of this year and $4,500 by 2026.
I am using GAAP EPS for Tesla although, I believe the higher non-GAAP number is a better gauge of profit but I use the GAAP number to be consistent with Amazon's numbers.


View attachment 685636
6/6 (last post)

Full 5 Year P&L


- I assume no Robo-Taxi
- I assume no Deferred Revenue on FSD (to keep things clean)
- I assume no Deferred Tax Benefit (to keep things clean)


View attachment 685649
7X in 5 years without robotaxi - WOW!
I hope you are right! (And, I also hope you are wrong !!)
 
  • Funny
Reactions: CarlS
2/6

View attachment 685644

Key Points:
- This table delineates production output, not capacity
- Over the 5 year period, Tesla will need to greatly expand Shanghai, Austin and Berlin.
- Tesla should begin construction of 2-3 new sites in 2022/2023 to ensure production of over 6m cars by 2026.
Time for the GIGA-guessing game! My bets are: Poland, Vietnam and Indonesia.
 
7X in 5 years without robotaxi - WOW!
I hope you are right! (And, I also hope you are wrong !!)
and consider this:
Elon has stated that the Energy business could be larger than the Automotive business yet I only have Energy sales at 10% of Auto in 2026.
1627057904520.png


If I had more confidence in increased battery production, I would increase the Energy sales.
I have 482 GWh in 2026. Although Elon is shooting for 3TWh by 2030, we are only at about 60GWh today.
 
I don’t see Tesla as a good fit with regards to comparisons with other capital intensive businesses.

Usually capital intensive businesses require a huge amount of external investment capital at multiple stages of the growth cycle since their margins are so low. With Tesla we are seeing ROI and free cash flows that look much more like non-capital intensive companies.

At this point they are retiring debt while funding factory expansion and adding to cash balance. Meanwhile they have a huge lead in technology, including batteries and software and are opening multiple non-traditional growth opportunities.

Nothing like normal auto companies and they should be valued like one.
 
I don’t see Tesla as a good fit with regards to comparisons with other capital intensive businesses.

Usually capital intensive businesses require a huge amount of external investment capital at multiple stages of the growth cycle since their margins are so low. With Tesla we are seeing ROI and free cash flows that look much more like non-capital intensive companies.

At this point they are retiring debt while funding factory expansion and adding to cash balance. Meanwhile they have a huge lead in technology, including batteries and software and are opening multiple non-traditional growth opportunities.

Nothing like normal auto companies and they should be valued like one.
Your comment caused me to look at the Free Cash Flow comparison to Amazon.
The first 4 years of the tables matched relatively well but in the final 2 years Tesla's Free Cash Flow accelerates much more than Amazon's.
Amazon had a significant investment in Amazon Web Services (AWS) in 2020 bringing Capex to $40B.

As I look at the FCF that Tesla should generate, I reflect now that my financial forecasts must be wrong becuase Elon will find a way to spend that huge pot of cash on something (generating more sales/income). I don't see Tesla doing Dividends or Buy Backs in the next 5 years. Perhaps they continue to expand in Battery manufacturing, purchasing mines or getting into robotics.

1627128471612.png
 
Yes - my Semi cost of production was really a stab in the dark. The low number of deliveries makes the Semi insignificant to the overall results.
I'll try digging around for a better cost estimate.
The 2121 average new US Class 8 tractor is roughly $120,000, and of Class 8 gliders (excludes engine) roughly $95,000. Gliders are threatened by regulations and now have emissions reduction technologies included.

The Tesla semi probable pricing and weights are still not known. Estimates from the only reliable source I know personally (Former head of EPA Truck and Bus fuel economy program) suggest that Tesla battery packaging and motor technologies may end out with equivalent w eights, so net freight capacity would not suffer. Further the integrated MIS will eliminate ~250 pounds, while also losing about 1500:pounds for fuel.

Based on Tesla construction principles the actual chassis weight should be about half that of the typical traditional Class 8 tractor. Those factors all together allow for plenty of battery.

I am convinced that if enough production capacity can be found, the Tesla semi could easily sell ~50,000 units per year. Beyond that remember that the ’fueling’ will be provided mostly through Tesla. Fueling and service far outweigh initial purchase price. At present we cannot begin to estimate that revenue, in part because relevant tax rules and/or incentives do not yet exist, nor do road taxes, that may have incentives also in some jurisdictions.

sorry for being verbose. My point is that Tesla Semi will end out being material.

Finally, the torque vectoring, regeneration and ancillary technologies could also be applied to trailers, in which case accident rates and weather resiliency would improve. Caravaning has also been discussed by Elon, postulating operating costs competitive with rail. Should such capacity materialize the revenue stream would be explosive. Please understand that the technology to do this already exists with Tesla. Lastly, the Starlink connections, already being tested on trucks, will enable far more precise navigation, load, weather/road hazards than anything available today.

However all of that happens, by the fifth year these revenues will be quite large. Chances are, if battery supplies permit, this entire ecosystem could be in operation within <three years. Repeating, All the component parts now exist at Tesla.

This topic is underrated exactly because it is not S3XY.

Three categories:
Europe TIR,
Australian Road Trains,
NA long haul Including Australia-style Road trains.
Those three are not on any competitors sights. Each is highly specialized and requires specialized data and operator training. Each is ideal for applying Tesla drivetrain technology to trailers as well as tractors. If Tesla attacks these markets with integrated solutions the result can be as consequential as has been Autobidder in South Australia.

For a five year forecast we should include some ‘wild card’ chances like these. The FSD evolution has sex appeal. Revolutionizing road freight is a larger, more immediate market.
 
Time for the GIGA-guessing game! My bets are: Poland, Vietnam and Indonesia.
GIGA expansion will be close to product final destination, so some version of future will include, if all goes well, India, Brazil/Mexico and one or two others in Asia and Europe, locations on an opportunistic basis. Non-GIGA will certainly have Nevada lithium, Australia, perhaps Indonesia and other locations to ensure cheap, cleanish, Lithium, Nickel etc. Those deals are already being announced one by one, somtimes Tesla, sometimes partners.

Beyond cars, TE is just beginning to grow. We tend to ignore that. There will be major capacity built for roofing products somewhere, probably several locations. There will also be products beyond Megapack but still modular. Many suppliers for that, but Tesla has a big dvantge in software and system integration, so the limit is building capacity. That will have technological advances and new storage technology in particular. By five years from now all of that will be much larger than the entire existing Tesla today.

As @The Accountant has said, ‘We don’t know how to model that”. True!

Following the Amazon example, nobody (probably including J. Bezos) knows. Their product expansion was opportunistic, observing a potential market then developing it. The classic AWS example was simply seeing that AMZN was fulfilling for vendors no providing MIS and manage,ent services for them, then seeing they could sell those things to anybody, so AWS spawned web services. Five years before nobody thought that could be ‘a thing’.

Tesla is indeed similar. I agree that when the next new Tesla idea hits it is likely to be capital intensive so there will be one or more huge now-unknown capital investments. The five year outlook will not be smooth.

So I am pointing out that in years 3-5 we should make some placeholders without excessive specificity. Everything about Tesla should tell us to expect the unexpected.

First Principles govern. Thus we must imagine how the next developments can define entirely new ways of doing old things.

Last point: what is the dirtiest GLOBO industry? Answer: marine shipping. Can the combination of Elon, SpaceX and Tesla come up with a clean way to ship? That, like the semi market will suddenly work when nobody thought it possible. Will that happen within five years?

We can model all of those, just as AMZN did with web services. Just size the market and plan for a tiny share, then hold on for dear life.

The growth will continue but cars are just the beginning, not the end!
 
GIGA expansion will be close to product final destination, so some version of future will include, if all goes well, India, Brazil/Mexico and one or two others in Asia and Europe, locations on an opportunistic basis. Non-GIGA will certainly have Nevada lithium, Australia, perhaps Indonesia and other locations to ensure cheap, cleanish, Lithium, Nickel etc. Those deals are already being announced one by one, somtimes Tesla, sometimes partners.

Beyond cars, TE is just beginning to grow. We tend to ignore that. There will be major capacity built for roofing products somewhere, probably several locations. There will also be products beyond Megapack but still modular. Many suppliers for that, but Tesla has a big dvantge in software and system integration, so the limit is building capacity. That will have technological advances and new storage technology in particular. By five years from now all of that will be much larger than the entire existing Tesla today.

As @The Accountant has said, ‘We don’t know how to model that”. True!

Following the Amazon example, nobody (probably including J. Bezos) knows. Their product expansion was opportunistic, observing a potential market then developing it. The classic AWS example was simply seeing that AMZN was fulfilling for vendors no providing MIS and manage,ent services for them, then seeing they could sell those things to anybody, so AWS spawned web services. Five years before nobody thought that could be ‘a thing’.

Tesla is indeed similar. I agree that when the next new Tesla idea hits it is likely to be capital intensive so there will be one or more huge now-unknown capital investments. The five year outlook will not be smooth.

So I am pointing out that in years 3-5 we should make some placeholders without excessive specificity. Everything about Tesla should tell us to expect the unexpected.

First Principles govern. Thus we must imagine how the next developments can define entirely new ways of doing old things.

Last point: what is the dirtiest GLOBO industry? Answer: marine shipping. Can the combination of Elon, SpaceX and Tesla come up with a clean way to ship? That, like the semi market will suddenly work when nobody thought it possible. Will that happen within five years?

We can model all of those, just as AMZN did with web services. Just size the market and plan for a tiny share, then hold on for dear life.

The growth will continue but cars are just the beginning, not the end!
Well . . . . you convinced me!
I need to develop a Bull Case version on what you just explained so that we have an idea on what is possible.
My current 5 year plan is only based on the "knowns" and even with what we know not very aggressive (e.g. Semi sales).
Tesla has suprised many people thus far and we should believe that they will continue to suprise us.
 
...First Principles govern. Thus we must imagine how the next developments can define entirely new ways of doing old things.

Elon has hinted at several:

1) Integrated home HVAC/energy/water systems. Maybe Tesla will build houses, which is an industry ripe for disruption. Elon reportedly lives in a prefab house now.

2) Restaurants/agriculture. Tesla is planning a pilot restaurant in LA, and Kimbal Musk co-founded three companies involved with healthy/sustainable food.

 
Caravaning has also been discussed by Elon, postulating operating costs competitive with rail. Should such capacity materialize the revenue stream would be explosive. Please understand that the technology to do this already exists with Tesla. Lastly, the Starlink connections, already being tested on trucks, will enable far more precise navigation, load, weather/road hazards than anything available today.

The additional observation I have about caravaning and the ability to be cost competitive with rail - we have a pretty large indirect subsidy to the truck based logistics industry, at least in the US. If we really do get our road based logistics competitive with rail then the incremental road traffic is going to need to be addressed. It won't be free - somebody, somewhere, will need to be paying for the incremental road network capacity to handle all of that additional traffic.

For the purpose of this thread that'll be a bit of a headwind to the implementation of some of these technologies - they'll still be deployed I'm sure.
 
Well . . . . you convinced me!
I need to develop a Bull Case version on what you just explained so that we have an idea on what is possible.
My current 5 year plan is only based on the "knowns" and even with what we know not very aggressive (e.g. Semi sales).
Tesla has suprised many people thus far and we should believe that they will continue to suprise us.
:rolleyes: Missed the "R" in surprise twice. That'll teach to not type without my reading glasses again.
 
Elon has hinted at several:

1) Integrated home HVAC/energy/water systems. Maybe Tesla will build houses, which is an industry ripe for disruption. Elon reportedly lives in a prefab house now.

2) Restaurants/agriculture. Tesla is planning a pilot restaurant in LA, and Kimbal Musk co-founded three companies involved with healthy/sustainable food.

How did I forget using HVAC and energy/water? Thank you for bringing that up, especially because ti builds directly on Octovalve structure while making heat pumps possibly replacing several high pollution options.

As for restaurants, I doubt they'll be seriously foundational but they might make the Superharging experience less boring.
 
Your comment caused me to look at the Free Cash Flow comparison to Amazon.
The first 4 years of the tables matched relatively well but in the final 2 years Tesla's Free Cash Flow accelerates much more than Amazon's.
Amazon had a significant investment in Amazon Web Services (AWS) in 2020 bringing Capex to $40B.

As I look at the FCF that Tesla should generate, I reflect now that my financial forecasts must be wrong becuase Elon will find a way to spend that huge pot of cash on something (generating more sales/income). I don't see Tesla doing Dividends or Buy Backs in the next 5 years. Perhaps they continue to expand in Battery manufacturing, purchasing mines or getting into robotics.


View attachment 687626

I agree with the prior comments on Amazon and Tesla being in different businesses - with Amazon doing almost no manufacturing.
Also, Amazon in 2015 had already established its second disruptive business (AWS), which had been introduced about a decade earlier, whereas Tesla is still building up its first disruptive business and has at best some feelers around what might become its second. Tesla may be more like Amazon in 2003, when what would become AWS was being developed for in-house use, but not the Amazon of 2015. If Musk had his way, he'd probably do what Bezos did and eschew all profits for years in order to have the most money to put back into developing the business. Amazon may have been (wrongly) declared "overvalued," but it never really had the FUD and degree of shorting that TSLA has been subject to.

That said, even a comparison to Amazon of 2003ish doesn't really work. The world had never seen an Amazon type business before, dominating internet retail and then inventing the public cloud. And while the world has never seen what Tesla has done and will do business-wise, that doesn't make them equivalent in scale nor timing, much less profitability and company valuation.

But, a great exercise in many ways, from clearly showing that Tesla will be building more Giga-Factories, to showing that Tesla has huge opportunities for additional businesses and income streams and that Electric Vehicles is only the first disruption to come.
 
I agree with the prior comments on Amazon and Tesla being in different businesses - with Amazon doing almost no manufacturing.
Also, Amazon in 2015 had already established its second disruptive business (AWS), which had been introduced about a decade earlier, whereas Tesla is still building up its first disruptive business and has at best some feelers around what might become its second. Tesla may be more like Amazon in 2003, when what would become AWS was being developed for in-house use, but not the Amazon of 2015. If Musk had his way, he'd probably do what Bezos did and eschew all profits for years in order to have the most money to put back into developing the business. Amazon may have been (wrongly) declared "overvalued," but it never really had the FUD and degree of shorting that TSLA has been subject to.

That said, even a comparison to Amazon of 2003ish doesn't really work. The world had never seen an Amazon type business before, dominating internet retail and then inventing the public cloud. And while the world has never seen what Tesla has done and will do business-wise, that doesn't make them equivalent in scale nor timing, much less profitability and company valuation.

But, a great exercise in many ways, from clearly showing that Tesla will be building more Giga-Factories, to showing that Tesla has huge opportunities for additional businesses and income streams and that Electric Vehicles is only the first disruption to come.
Thanks for the insights.
What are your thoughts on Energy Generation and Storage as the second disruptive business? . . . basically turning the Utility industry upside down.
My 5 year plan does not have Tesla disrupting the Utility industry (my growth here is modest). This is due to my uncertainty on battery supply and Tesla's less than stellar track record in growing the Energy business.
 
Thanks for the insights.
What are your thoughts on Energy Generation and Storage as the second disruptive business? . . . basically turning the Utility industry upside down.
My 5 year plan does not have Tesla disrupting the Utility industry (my growth here is modest). This is due to my uncertainty on battery supply and Tesla's less than stellar track record in growing the Energy business.
My own view is that this is the right valuation for these possible businesses for today.

In effect by owning Tesla we also get a (nearly) free option on the possibility of a utility business disruption, and a nearly free option on the possibility of a home construction business disruption, and ... Until those disruptions become at least as apparent as the original Model S launch then I'd leave them down in the rounding error category.

I see lots of possibilities in solar roof for instance, but I don't see evidence of it scaling (yet) at all. So set that aside.

I see huge possibilities in batteries and software for energy dispatch to disrupt the utility industry. I also see a lot of activity by other companies, the same battery constraints on Tesla's ability to pursue the business, and otherwise the possibility (today), but not a clear path. Fortunately this option is closer to being exercised - I think that clearing the path boils down to battery supply, and that is something that I expect we'll see coming pretty easily. Just as soon as Tesla has 'spare' battery capacity and all of the car making is fully supplied, then Energy is off to the races. And then we'll have something a little better than guesswork for this.


A big part of the problem with the utility industry is the regulatory drag and rent seekers that need to be plowed through. I like to follow the Australian renewable energy economy (via RenewEconomy) and what's happening there to get insight into what we'll see here in the US. You've got one part of the country (South Australia) that is >50% renewables on their grid and with multiple big batteries making for a strikingly more robust grid, and is eager for >100% net renewables by 2030 (my guess is they reach that by 2025). And some amazing stories about how their grid has performed in ugly situations :)

And you've got federal policies and elected government that is backing coal mining and doing their durndest to keep coal fired electricity plants going in the rest of the country. It's all over the map, and I'm pretty sure that the rent seekers are going to delay Australia reaching >100% net renewables by 15 or 20 years (that's my guess, and I'm not Australian or have any further personal insight than I get from reading that site).

The point is that as tough as the car industry has been to disrupt with dealer lobbies / laws and all the other stuff - it's trivial compared to how we get electricity (monopolies) and their ability to control the regulation on how we get electricity.

What is and will work well is deploying the technology at the retail level. That's going to need big drops in the costs to make this big, but there is a limit to just how much regulatory manipulation the rent seekers will be able to get away with on this front.