TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[ggr]

200k? I think you hit the wrong button there. But since you calculate a market share of 0,25%, maybe not..

You're right, I was thinking about expectations for this year, not achieved last year (for fair comparison to 2017 deliveries). So there's an extra year of doubling before we have to worry.

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

1) Cannibalization: Yes. Daimler already warned investors that, during the first years of EV production, their EBIT margin may shrink to 7% or 8% from currently ~9.5%. Here is hope they'll survive with only $10-12 billion profit a year. I mean, looking at worldwide sales they are building the best selling luxury sedan (and a lot more models except that certain sedan) That may help.

I used to think this game is Tesla's to lose, and that they will crash existing auto industry. I thought that other manufacturers would be forced into change at such a pace that all profits would evaporate and some of them would bankrupt.
While some of them may be bankrupt still; and while I still see Tesla as one of the big winners; if Tesla continues executing like they have last 2 years (Model X and 3 ramp, 4 rewrites of auto-pilot 2.0, slow storage ramp) scenario you describe may be more realistic. Again, I still don't see anyone stopping Tesla, I've just lost some trust in their execution, so I can see enough of the breathing space for the rest of the industry...

BTW, welcome! You are the best new addition to this board in a while, probably since bdy0627 joined. Or maybe I'm just very thirsty for intelligent bear arguments

 

[K_Dizzle]

I think we’re going to see a Kanye bump tomorrow

 

[bdy0627]

Tesla's Model 3 production problems are continuing. How hard can it be to make a car? | WIRED UK

A worthwhile read with input from some industry insiders.

That was a little hard to get through with the negative Tesla bias. Here's a quote in the article from Mike Ramsey, "automotive analyst at Gartner and former automotive journalist for the likes of Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal" (that should tell you what to expect) describing Tesla's Autopilot technology as something "...which every other manufacturer could also do at the time but chose not to because they didn't want their customers thinking these cars could actually drive themselves." Huh? Why would they be worried about that when some (VW) focused massive amounts of energy on fooling regulatory agencies as well as their customers into believing their car's emissions were legal when they weren't? Yet, we are supposed to believe Ramsey's suggestion that these car companies didn't want their customers thinking these cars could actually drive themselves? C'mon man! It's pretty obvious that Tesla got way ahead of these entrenched car companies with their assisted driving technologies. That article was pretty irritating.

 

[Skryll]

Who says they are probono? What if they are just charging normal rates for electricity their. I honestly don't know, but I do know that Tesla helped when others didn't and I know that island needs solar and batteries because it's cheaper than diesel. I also know what billions will pour into pr to fix this stuff. Eventually. Tesla will be remembered.

I am talking about the next earnings that Elon was hinting may be cash flow positive, or maybe not this one then the next. And now that I look for it I don't see any more which article said that they are pro-bono temporary with the hope of selling them to them later, maybe I fell for some fakenews there?

Anyone have some validated facts?

 

[jeewee3000]

Who are you using, @jeewee? I'm with keytrade and I think it's around €25 for a NASDAQ trade + stamp duty.

Still, no capital-gains tax, so we win-out in the end, considerably

I'm with Binck. Similar costs to Keytrade I guess.

 

[bhtooefr]

Here's a quote in the article from Mike Ramsey, "automotive analyst at Gartner and former automotive journalist for the likes of Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal" (that should tell you what to expect) describing Tesla's Autopilot technology as something "...which every other manufacturer could also do at the time but chose not to because they didn't want their customers thinking these cars could actually drive themselves." Huh? Why would they be worried about that when some (VW) focused massive amounts of energy on fooling regulatory agencies as well as their customers into believing their car's emissions were legal when they weren't? Yet, we are supposed to believe Ramsey's suggestion that these car companies didn't want their customers thinking these cars could actually drive themselves?

Here's a possible argument for why an automaker would cheat on emissions but not want to give the impression of self-driving.

Violating emissions laws will get governments suing you, but individuals often see vehicle emissions as a nuisance, not the end of the world. Governments, however, have a vested interest in keeping the economy running, which means not hitting automakers too hard, unless they're not contributing much to the economy that that government is responsible for. (Which is why the US government hit VW as hard as they should have, but Germany's dithering on whether to hit them much at all.)

Crash safety issues, on the other hand, are the end of the world for many individuals. As a result, they'll cause personal injury lawyers to seek blood, and they have no vested interest in the car company's continued existence. Consider the general aviation industry, where over half the price of a light plane goes to pay lawyers and insurance companies to defend against pilots' and passengers' families suing the manufacturer. Giving the perception of self-driving when the system isn't able to do that - and Autopilot is not - could be considered negligence on a manufacturer's part.

(I am not a lawyer, though. And I invest in TSLA despite my concerns about Autopilot. Note that I think Tesla could massively improve Autopilot's safety through technologies like the eye tracking that GM's Super Cruise system uses, too, to ensure that the driver is paying attention.)

 

[Reciprocity]

I am talking about the next earnings that Elon was hinting may be cash flow positive, or maybe not this one then the next. And now that I look for it I don't see any more which article said that they are pro-bono temporary with the hope of selling them to them later, maybe I fell for some fakenews there?

Anyone have some validated facts?

If they are pro Bono then that is cool and all, but it's not like it's necessary. If you are a hospital and the power goes out and Tesla's panels and power packs kick in, they can just charge the same rate as the local utility. Sure, they can put a price tag on the buyout to own, but there is no reason for it to be completely free, just fair. But you are probably right, Tesla probably did it for free.

Tesla needs some examples to point to and SA and PR would be great example of how solar+battery dominates traditional solutions. It can be much more robust by being highly distributed. It can be cheaper and it can obviously be much cleaner.

 

[sweter]

That was a little hard to get through with the negative Tesla bias. Here's a quote in the article from Mike Ramsey, "automotive analyst at Gartner and former automotive journalist for the likes of Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal" (that should tell you what to expect) describing Tesla's Autopilot technology as something "...which every other manufacturer could also do at the time but chose not to because they didn't want their customers thinking these cars could actually drive themselves." Huh? Why would they be worried about that when some (VW) focused massive amounts of energy on fooling regulatory agencies as well as their customers into believing their car's emissions were legal when they weren't? Yet, we are supposed to believe Ramsey's suggestion that these car companies didn't want their customers thinking these cars could actually drive themselves? C'mon man! It's pretty obvious that Tesla got way ahead of these entrenched car companies with their assisted driving technologies. That article was pretty irritating.

A car with higher emissions than advertised has no immediate impact on the driver's health. A car that the driver thinks is self-driving has an immediate impact on the driver's health when it drives into a highway barrier. I can imagine people thought one of these is easy to sweep up under the rug.

 

[bdy0627]

Here's a possible argument for why an automaker would cheat on emissions but not want to give the impression of self-driving.

Violating emissions laws will get governments suing you, but individuals often see vehicle emissions as a nuisance, not the end of the world. Governments, however, have a vested interest in keeping the economy running, which means not hitting automakers too hard, unless they're not contributing much to the economy that that government is responsible for. (Which is why the US government hit VW as hard as they should have, but Germany's dithering on whether to hit them much at all.)

Crash safety issues, on the other hand, are the end of the world for many individuals. As a result, they'll cause personal injury lawyers to seek blood, and they have no vested interest in the car company's continued existence. Consider the general aviation industry, where over half the price of a light plane goes to pay lawyers and insurance companies to defend against pilots' and passengers' families suing the manufacturer. Giving the perception of self-driving when the system isn't able to do that - and Autopilot is not - could be considered negligence on a manufacturer's part.

(I am not a lawyer, though. And I invest in TSLA despite my concerns about Autopilot. Note that I think Tesla could massively improve Autopilot's safety through technologies like the eye tracking that GM's Super Cruise system uses, too, to ensure that the driver is paying attention.)

My issue with this argument is that many of the car companies are now loudly advertising self-driving technologies, saying they have this or that tech allowing for hands-free driving. Their tech at this point seems roughly comparable to Tesla's Autopilot. Why would they be ok with it now if they were so concerned about it a couple of years ago? Maybe because they actually have the tech now? Or do you think we should conclude that they have achieved such a high level of safety with it now that their lawyers are saying thumbs up?

 

[bdy0627]

A car with higher emissions than advertised has no immediate impact on the driver's health. A car that the driver thinks is self-driving has an immediate impact on the driver's health when it drives into a highway barrier. I can imagine people thought one of these is easy to sweep up under the rug.

See my earlier response. There is a growing surge of car companies now touting their hands-free driving tech. I have not seen any indication that they are superior to Tesla's Autopilot. If they were concerned about safety before then they should still be. I think what changed is these companies perceived that it is now important to have the technology or they risk appearing obsolete, not that they have finally developed safer driver-assistance tech than Tesla has.

 

[JRP3]

Or do you think we should conclude that they have achieved such a high level of safety with it now that their lawyers are saying thumbs up?

You can be sure they ran it past the lawyers.

 

[JRP3]

It's pretty obvious that Tesla got way ahead of these entrenched car companies with their assisted driving technologies. That article was pretty irritating.

Maybe so but it's also obvious that Tesla got ahead of themselves with their self driving promise. Remember the cross country trip? I doubt we even see it this year and if we do it'll be a one off stunt.

 

[mongo]

Maybe so but it's also obvious that Tesla got ahead of themselves with their self driving promise. Remember the cross country trip? I doubt we even see it this year and if we do it'll be a one off stunt.

Can't speak to timing (the original answer created the 3 months maybe, 6 months definitely meme), but they apparently are avoiding the one off stunt approach:

“We could have done the coast-to-coast drive, but it would have required too much specialized code to effectively game it or make it somewhat brittle and that it would work for one particular route, but not the general solution. So I think we would be able to repeat it, but if it’s just not any other route, which is not really a true solution,” Musk said.

Elon Musk explains the delay for Tesla's autonomous coast-to-coast trip

 

[Irishjugg]

The first part of your post (that I removed from the quote) makes perfect sense, I have no problem with that.
However, reading your last sentence made my spidey sense tingling. Do you really believe, that Tesla will start paying dividends with Elon Musk at the helm ? The way I see him is that he has such grand visions for the future that he will always find new areas to invest in, expanding the business to cover more and more markets. Started with cars, then stationary battery storage, then solar roofs, Tesla network (uber-like service with self-driving cars), Semi trucks, coffee shops at superchargers, insurance, ...

Do you think this growth will stop and Tesla starts paying out the profits as dividends ?
I could only see that happening after Elon retires on Mars and enjoys the magnificent view of Olympus Mons from his backyard.

Musk has basically said that he thinks dividends are an enormous waste and that he doesn't plan to pay them.

 

[Todd Burch]

5,170 new Model 3 VINS.

Highest 33466.

Model 3 VINs on Twitter

 

[Todd Burch]

So that's a good sign that maybe production is back and running today.

 

[mutle]

So that's a good sign that maybe production is back and running today.

Also there are reports that the parking lot at the factory was ~50% full last night

skabooshka on Twitter

skabooshka on Twitter

 

[corduroy]

Added 5 more @287. But I've got to admit, I'm getting less confident about buying on these dips...

 

[Unpilot]

Not a good start this morning...here is to hoping for a bounce!