It does, however, incorporate "The Airing of Grievances" , so perhaps quite apropos here.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I think several factors are in Tamberrino's SP number.Not just that, how do they arrive at a $200 TSLA valuation with such insanely high revenue and cash flow, did Tamberrino typo the valuation and the real number he calculated is $2,000?
1) Increased number of shares.
2) Tesla achieving a real P/E ratio on low profit levels
3) Increased debt from Chinese factory and rolled-over debt causing increased interest expenses.
Tesla cannot easily be compared with other companies yet. Becoming profitable and establishing a positive P/E ratio could impact the SP when compared to the likes of Apple, Google, etc. (forgetting other carmakers altogether).
How much do you think raw materials including processing/refinement is? You can't just look at bulk rates for the elements. When you double energy density, you need half as much processed raw materials. For instance, you can fit 36 Wh into the 2170 cell casing that would otherwise hold 18 Wh, meaning you need half as many. And the mix of the anode and cathode materials may change, but the quantity would be the same, by volume.
Production would also be much more efficient. Currently Tesla is producing around 20 GWh/year of cells with something like 2000 employees. Assuming $75k average salary, the labour cost works out to $7.5/kWh. If the same employees would make the same amount of cells with twice the energy density, the labour cost would drop to $3.75/kWh. Machines is the same - they're limited by the number of cells, not by capacity. So, depreciation cost per kWh would halve.
Like I said, I'm not saying that Tesla should switch chemistries or anything like that. But energy density is the single most important property of batteries. Saying otherwise is silly.
The lithium is in very thin layers and in relatively low quantities per cell, and each cell is sealed. You can find metallic lithium in the current NCA cells, depending on state of charge, and I don't think this would be more problematic, if they get it to work right.
Energy density is the most important factor for cost. And it doesn't limit itself to the cell level.
With a 50% smaller/lighter 80 kWh pack for the Model 3, you can downsize stuff like suspension components, crash buffers, roll-beams, brakes, tires/rims, motors, etc. A 200 kg reduction on the battery pack could turn into a 250-300 kg reduction on the car, once you account for all the possible improvements.
Benzinga - 7 minutes ago: Why Investors Are Optimistic When A Company Moves Forward An Announcement Date
Yes, unless you are quoting Samuel L. Jackson.
Nav on Autopilot 'seems' to have gone out to early access program members a few days ago. I say seems, because well, Fight club
So Goldman is basically manipulating, as usual. Setting impossible expectation, where no other analysis on the street suggests they will be on a data point, including the company itself...and then when they miss, Goldman pats itself on the back for being amongst the most bearish? Where’s the value in that analysis?
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
MartinAustin
Active Member
It's the music they will use during the reveal of the Tesla pickup.
Consumer Reports news having more or less zero influence on TSLA. In fact TSLA is going up right now!
Ulmo
Active Member
That's true. In the past, one of my brokers analyzed the equity holdings many days after a movement and changed the margin equity requirement for a stock. There were immediate freezes on old margin allowances, and an impending margin call that wasn't due for over a week past the original movement, way past a normal margin call due date. I completely reorganized everything from that brokerage and it worked out great, creating yet more activity both in the exits and re-entries. All of that happened on days not determined by exact +0 +1 +2 +3 +5 +7 +8 formulas.
I think raw material sums up to maybe 60$/kWh (with obvious volatility in those markets) and the remaining 40$ would not surprise me if is basically irreducible at this point because there's quite a bit of work to get that material into cell form. Energy density is the principal long-term cost savings going forward because of reduced raw material cost. Musk has said that rather directly.
Separately, the Netflix war crime continues. The market is throwing 100$ bills on the ground in some dumb algorithmic fear trade. I don't think this bodes well for Tesla so.... be careful chasing after good results in AH if they occur.
Separately, the Netflix war crime continues. The market is throwing 100$ bills on the ground in some dumb algorithmic fear trade. I don't think this bodes well for Tesla so.... be careful chasing after good results in AH if they occur.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Exclude feelings, be algorithmic about it: estimate probability of Street beat/meet/miss, weighted by the probable range of the resulting price movement, capped by maximum capital drawdown you are willing to risk, and act accordingly to close X% of your position.
(And if you have a single options contract that cannot be split then roll dice.)
Ulmo
Active Member
Two things:
1. Tesla is doing well.
2. Because of #1, it is a refuge from other things and a way to still make money on the upside.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Zachs Concensus Estimates for Tesla 2018 Q3 revenue is $5.785B.
This is a 36% increase (+$1,541B) over 2018 Q2 revenue ($4.244B).
This is a 36% increase (+$1,541B) over 2018 Q2 revenue ($4.244B).
The difference between the cell cost and the raw materials cost. Aka, the majority of the cost.
Substitute the word "feedstocks" for elements and yes, you can.
Doesn't work that way, for the reasons I already laid out in detail. It only works in a world where the energy density increase occurs through magic with otherwise no other changes. In reality, to achieve any change in energy density, you have to use different materials and production processes. This instantaneously invalidates your hypothesis. As mentioned, for example, LiS requires more lithium per kWh, not less, due to its lower voltage.
You might come up with some super cell with crazy high energy density, but if the separator membrane is made out of platinum, well, your raw materials priced into a market where only spacecraft manufacturers and sheikhs can afford you. To retierate: your argument only works in a fictional world where energy density increases occur without anything else changing.
Or if you'd rather a real world example: look at how long it took li-ions to get cheaper than NiMHs per kWh, despite the much higher energy densities. Because - even ignoring the "starting from stage 0 with manufacturing" aspect - they went from nearly pure nickel electrodes to electrodes that used cobalt; from an aqueous electrolyte to a fluorinated organic one; from zero intercalated species to a relatively expensive one (lithium); and from a simple membrane to a much more complicated one.
Not low quantities per vehicle. It physically can't be; the migration of li-ions between the cathode and anode is how energy is stored.
Only if they're defective. Lithium plating out in a NCA cell is a dangerous defect that battery designers always seek to avoid. It's one of the reasons you don't charge freezing batteries; that encourages lithium plating.
As mentioned, you get a far better "lightness" bang for your buck by cutting cell prices in half and using that money to buy a more expensive, lighter chassis than you do from doubling cell energy densities.
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Btw., that big aggressive sale of 280k shares at 12:45 was interesting, it dropped the price from ~$297.5 to ~$292 immediately. This was roughly when the CR article came out.
Price recovered much of that drop within a few minutes.
Wondering what that was about:
Price recovered much of that drop within a few minutes.
Wondering what that was about:
- Last ditch attempt to manufacture a panic?
- Fat fingered trade?
- Margin call buy-in?
Thumper
Active Member
I would love to see Deepak ask Tamberino where he got the wrong share count number then publicly humiliate him with the correct count. A task best left to Deepak instead of Elon.
Any other day this CR report would have taken some points off the stock price. I'm shocked by how fast it shook it off.
Think I'll just... HOLD for the next 10-15 years!
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I doubt Model Y will be same length as Model X. One should be a compact CUV while the other is a full size CUV( but not as big as full sized SUVs)
I also doubt that the pickup will use the same frame as Model Y. Compact CUV vs full sized pickup truck.
Elon has repeatedly said Tesla truck is an F Series competitor that can be used for heavy duty applications. Tesla pickup is not a Honda Ridgeline unibody competitor. That is a tiny market compared to full size body on frame pickups .
Weight of cells does not matter but weight of chassis is very important?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
