did she adjust the seat?
bc i’m pretty sure w/ no dash and the correct seat/steering adj anyone could get ample line of sight out the windscreen.
i’ve had about 2 dozen women test drive, and haven’t heard issue yet.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
did she adjust the seat?
bc i’m pretty sure w/ no dash and the correct seat/steering adj anyone could get ample line of sight out the windscreen.
i’ve had about 2 dozen women test drive, and haven’t heard issue yet.
Same here. Nice to see. The last paragraph was something of a disclaimer, makes sense for balance etc. But the main message was very upbeat, nice to see as this might encourage more people with HL to consider the stock.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
Was just joking with someone about this. What did I tell everyone? This is how shorts does accounting. Anything past simple addition and multiplication is a no go.
Why is there fud?
If Tesla produces 7000 vehicles a week.
And we were to fill those 7000 vehicles full of gas - 15 gallons per vehicle to fill them up for the first fime.
We would need 105,000 gallons of gas every week - or roughly 11 full semi tanker loads - just to fill the cars for the first time. More than 1 tanker per day is eliminated from regional demand.
At $3 per gallon this would cost $315,000. Every week. Just to fill tanks for the first time.
Over 52 weeks of this level of production the cost to fill the cars for the first time is 16 million and would require over 600 semi truck loads of fuel.
Assuming conservatively, owners only keep these cars 3 years and only fill up each 10 days, In one year of production Tesla eliminates 108 trips to the gas station for the individual, and almost 40 million trips for a years worth of individuals.
Those 40 million times somebody isn’t putting 15 gallons of gas in their car at 3 dollars per gallon costs gas companies 1.7 billion dollars.
1.7 billion dollars worth of gas over three years eliminates the need for ~65,500 full semi trucks of gas.
Before Donald trump gave substantial cuts to oil and gas this amount was Exxon Mobiles annual profit.
And if gas is more than $3, average consumers fill up more than once per 10 days, Tesla owners stay electric longer than 3 years, or Tesla produces more than 7000 per week...well it’s all multiplicative. If gas doubles in cost then the amount removed from gas companies doubles. If Tesla then doubles production that new number doubles again.
And none of this can ever go back to the gas companies. No Tesla owner can decide to use gas in the car. It’s a permanent loss.
That’s why there is fud. It’s going to start a death spiral.
Because it isn’t just Tesla and it isn’t just a year of production.
If Tesla produces 7000 vehicles a week.
And we were to fill those 7000 vehicles full of gas - 15 gallons per vehicle to fill them up for the first fime.
We would need 105,000 gallons of gas every week - or roughly 11 full semi tanker loads - just to fill the cars for the first time. More than 1 tanker per day is eliminated from regional demand.
At $3 per gallon this would cost $315,000. Every week. Just to fill tanks for the first time.
Over 52 weeks of this level of production the cost to fill the cars for the first time is 16 million and would require over 600 semi truck loads of fuel.
Assuming conservatively, owners only keep these cars 3 years and only fill up each 10 days, In one year of production Tesla eliminates 108 trips to the gas station for the individual, and almost 40 million trips for a years worth of individuals.
Those 40 million times somebody isn’t putting 15 gallons of gas in their car at 3 dollars per gallon costs gas companies 1.7 billion dollars.
1.7 billion dollars worth of gas over three years eliminates the need for ~65,500 full semi trucks of gas.
Before Donald trump gave substantial cuts to oil and gas this amount was Exxon Mobiles annual profit.
And if gas is more than $3, average consumers fill up more than once per 10 days, Tesla owners stay electric longer than 3 years, or Tesla produces more than 7000 per week...well it’s all multiplicative. If gas doubles in cost then the amount removed from gas companies doubles. If Tesla then doubles production that new number doubles again.
And none of this can ever go back to the gas companies. No Tesla owner can decide to use gas in the car. It’s a permanent loss.
That’s why there is fud. It’s going to start a death spiral.
Because it isn’t just Tesla and it isn’t just a year of production.
Last edited:
strangecosmos
Non-Member
Really good video I just re-watched. It's about the elusivity of alpha.
This is why I'm always skeptical of any claim that the market is underpricing or overpricing a stock. I'm especially skeptical when it comes to highly followed stocks like Tesla, which gets more scrutiny than the vast majority of stocks. And I'm especially, specially skeptical that detecting the mispricing of a highly followed stock comes down to something as simple as just taking earnings / OCF / FCF and multiplying it by the relevant multiple. There are tons of professional analysts working full-time doing valuation models of Tesla, looking at all these financial metrics and multiples.
But is not to say it never happens. Just that the bar is high. You're much more likely to have overlooked something than to have found a mispriced stock based on such a simple methodology.
Now, I notice that very few of the professional analysts' valuation models include anything about autonomous ride-hailing. Adam Jonas is the only mainstream analyst I'm aware of who models it. Can anyone think of any others? Jonas only assigns Tesla's autonomous ride-hailing opportunity a $12 billion net present value. If you are willing to adopt a 15-20 year time horizon, you can come up with an estimate that's ~10x higher.
On a 20-year time horizon, I came up with a $100 billion net present value estimate for Tesla, based on the following assumptions:
The way to attain alpha is to be contrarian and right. Multiplying a financial metric by a valuation multiple to derive a valuation definitely isn't a contrarian way of thinking. Since it isn't contrarian, it can't be contrarian and right. So, it can't attain alpha. It can't identify a mispriced stock. At least, almost never.
Alpha is correlated to uncertainty. The things that are uncertain are not a company's financial metrics or the valuation multiples of comparable companies or the S&P 500. The things that are uncertain are long-term future growth, technology, complex systems, and so on.
This is why I'm always skeptical of any claim that the market is underpricing or overpricing a stock. I'm especially skeptical when it comes to highly followed stocks like Tesla, which gets more scrutiny than the vast majority of stocks. And I'm especially, specially skeptical that detecting the mispricing of a highly followed stock comes down to something as simple as just taking earnings / OCF / FCF and multiplying it by the relevant multiple. There are tons of professional analysts working full-time doing valuation models of Tesla, looking at all these financial metrics and multiples.
But is not to say it never happens. Just that the bar is high. You're much more likely to have overlooked something than to have found a mispriced stock based on such a simple methodology.
Now, I notice that very few of the professional analysts' valuation models include anything about autonomous ride-hailing. Adam Jonas is the only mainstream analyst I'm aware of who models it. Can anyone think of any others? Jonas only assigns Tesla's autonomous ride-hailing opportunity a $12 billion net present value. If you are willing to adopt a 15-20 year time horizon, you can come up with an estimate that's ~10x higher.
On a 20-year time horizon, I came up with a $100 billion net present value estimate for Tesla, based on the following assumptions:
- Tesla has a 50% chance of launching the Tesla Network and a 50% of going bankrupt
- if successful, the Tesla Network launches in 2024
- if successful, Tesla captures a 10% global share of the autonomous ride-hailing market
- ARK Invest's model is correct with a 5-year delay
The way to attain alpha is to be contrarian and right. Multiplying a financial metric by a valuation multiple to derive a valuation definitely isn't a contrarian way of thinking. Since it isn't contrarian, it can't be contrarian and right. So, it can't attain alpha. It can't identify a mispriced stock. At least, almost never.
Alpha is correlated to uncertainty. The things that are uncertain are not a company's financial metrics or the valuation multiples of comparable companies or the S&P 500. The things that are uncertain are long-term future growth, technology, complex systems, and so on.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
"Slow money" takes time to get interested in any company, but once they do it's 10 times the investment flow...
My guess is still that Q4 and maybe the now overdue Moody's upgrade is probably required to mobilize a broad range of investors, but maybe I'm too pessimistic.
Singer3000
Member
Yup agreed. Tesla was born in the ashes of the Great Recession. And another recession could well be when it truly comes of age.Yeah, so I think Tesla's business model is counter-cyclical for the next ~10 years, i.e. they'll grow even faster during recessions.
I also think that starting in 2019 I think they'll start hoarding cash like Apple, because there's a limit to how fast they can expand on a natural trajectory. So there is going to be a de facto rainy day fund, in practice utilized to opportunistically snatch up somewhat aging but otherwise well equipped factory buildings from cash starved, downsizing competitors in liquidity crisis.
A severe recession might hit their sales volume. But it just as well might not given they have a superior product, one that offers lower running costs and one that is more likely to benefit from stimulus policies than the competiton. I expect if their sales fell, it would be more slowly than the market, which would mean in a recession they would gain market share.
And Big Auto mostly have balance sheets that look like pre-collapse emerging market banks. Just a big book of speculative loans backed by overvalued collateral, that’s grown too fast for the credit quality to hold up when it seasons.
bhtooefr
Active Member
I'm nowhere near that bearish on Toyota (Ford, absolutely, but not Toyota).
The trick with Toyota is, they've already got the pieces in place to survive this if they want to. They have highly efficient electrified powertrains (their hybrid architecture is extremely dependent on the electrical pathways being efficient), they understand aerodynamics, they have a battery joint venture with Panasonic, and while they move extremely slowly typically, they can move quickly once they see an existential threat (the development of the Prius is actually a very strong example, it was a response to a previous existential threat).
Their biggest enemy is really their own ultra-conservative (not in the American politics sense) management that lives 5-10 years behind reality (and therefore is just starting to realize how well EVs can work) - the Prius was the result of a skunkworks project that was allowed to bypass that management, in response to declining marketshare in the Japanese market 25 years ago.
The hydrogen boondoggle has wasted a lot of time and money, but I suspect at least some of that was driven by foolish national energy policy, and I suspect Toyota's too big for the Japanese government to let fail especially when it was their policy that did it.
Scuttlebutt
Member
How low will we go today? Predictions anyone? GM announcement vs election uncertainty effects on Market? Kicking around the idea of selling some of my Long position since early2014 and buy back in for a gain of a few shares. I have never sold a share of TSLA before.
strangecosmos
Non-Member
This might be true if Toyota's multiples today were half what they were prior to the launch of the original Roadster in 2008. But in 2006 and 2007, Toyota's P/E ratio was around 10-12. From 2013-present, they've fluctuated in the roughly 7.5-12.5 range. If we give Tesla a P/E of 12 on a forecasted $5 billion in GAAP profit, that's $60 billion in market cap or $353 per share.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
There's also another important rule of GASP accounting (Generally Accepted Shortseller Principles): extrapolating from past quarters is only allowed when the financials of a company are deteriorating.
If the shorted company is growing and is profitable then using numbers from even the most recent earnings report is, as they frequently say it in the newsroom of the Shortsville Times (whose exact geographical location is a closely held secret), "verboten!".
There is literally no one capable of making enough EV in 5-10 years to put Toyota put of business. Also, news alert: Many buyers will prefer inexpensive gas vehicles. Cheap gas in cheap cars.
If everything goes well at Tesla they will perhaps be passing the million passenger vehicle mark in 5 years. That leaves another 79 million vehicles that Tesla is not building.
If you are long than you shouldn't ask for today.
The real question would be how high we could go after 5 years?
Huh? Those seems like mutually exclusive options, so you are saying Tesla which just made a nice profit) will go bankrupt unless Tesla Network works?
If they are not mutually exclusive, then you allow for Tesla to be profitable long term without Tesla Network. Since Tesla Network is purely a software function, you would then be implying that Tesla Network is enough of a money sink to exceed all profit...
Me thinks your assumptions are ill conceived and thus any conclusions are erroneous at best.
bhtooefr
Active Member
While I'm neutral on Toyota, and just said why I don't think they're going out of business... betting on them being able to coast on their existing product is dangerous.
Automotive demand is elastic, especially in changing regulatory environments (look at the European market in the wake of diesel bans). Basically, Tesla could Osborne the rest of the industry, with people hanging on to an old ICE car and waiting for an EV, rather than replacing it with another ICE car on their usual schedule, especially if anti-ICE regulations are passed. That could seriously hurt an ICE-dependent automaker.
My neutrality is based on Toyota's large market position in their home market, as well as their existing HEV technologies and partnerships that can be reused to make a good EV (far better than the mediocre German offerings).
Words of HABIT
Active Member
That's because the first two months of each quarter, Bloomberg throws darts at a wall and on the third month of each quarter they get the official quarterly results from Tesla and account for their previous two dart throws which likely missed the dart board completely.
But will there be sufficient numbers of OEMs producing EVs to drive Toyota out of business? It needs not be purely Tesla. Nor does it require taking all of Toyota's market share, only the last few percent which generate the profit...
Also, used Teslas will be a better value than new ICE....
If everything goes well, Tesla may be passing the two million vehicle mark in 5 years... (more likely 1.5 million, but I'm an optimist and want my pickup before the Sierra dies...)
cheshire cat
Member
H&L. Can smell the cash a mile off, It would be interesting to know what they know as to how much is invested with Tesla in their accounts. And don't forget the "old gits". Nnnrrrrrrrr !!!
Last edited:
Yeah, too much nonsense and time wasted reading it. Can't take it anymore. Blocked.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
