TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[kbM3]

No, you said 35 GW/year without saying anything about when. That it refers to 2019 is quite valuable information. The progression might be something like this:

2018: 20 GWh/year
2019: 35 GWh/year
2020: 55 GWh/year
2021: 75 GWh/year
2022: 105 GWh/year

The exact ramp remains to be seen. But the end target is likely somewhere in the 100-150 GWh/year range.

105 was originally targeted for 2020 iirc, but Tesla does seem to be slowing down plans some, so you may not be far off.

 

[EinSV]

No, you said 35 GW/year without saying anything about when. That it refers to 2019 is quite valuable information. The progression might be something like this:

2018: 20 GWh/year
2019: 35 GWh/year
2020: 55 GWh/year
2021: 75 GWh/year
2022: 105 GWh/year

The exact ramp remains to be seen. But the end target is likely somewhere in the 100-150 GWh/year range.

Also, Panasonic's fiscal year ends in March -- the info for FY 2018 (through March 2018) just came out.

So FY 2019 ends in March 2019. 35GWh projection is for March 2019.

 

[bdy0627]

Come on, it´s not that simple. Autopilot has shown that it can navigate curves very well, so it knows its trajectory a bit into the future. With that knowledge it can identify if an object is in its path or not.

That said I know it is obviously a problem to switch on the braking for stationary objects due to other corner cases leading to false positives. But I do think that is a serious shortcoming of AP, even it is well documented and any user who read the manual should know that.

We all agree that legally Tesla is not at fault as the driver has to monitor what´s going on and is responsible to brake if there is a stationary object. However, given the level of advancement of the rest of the system one would intuitively not expect AP to ignore those objects.

Also, there have been some serious accidents due to this shortcoming. I am sure Tesla is doing everything they can to improve AP in this regard. But they are making a choice by keeping the system running like it is and that´s up for discussion.

The bottom line IMO with these types of accidents is distracted driving, no question. But, looking deeper, this is really what is going on here. People use the system, and it generally works so well that, to their own harm, they forget its limitations and rely on it to do more than it can. This, despite Tesla's warnings in the manual and on the console regarding the limitations of the technology. If a car is just inching along ahead, AP slows down no problem, as you would expect. If the car ahead is momentarily stopped, which may even be hard to notice as you are driving, AP may completely ignore it, with the result being that the car could slam into it at full speed. I think it's probably common for a driver to become accustomed to AP consistently maintaining a safe distance behind the car ahead, regardless of speed, so that the technical reality of AP tending to ignore stationary objects is easily forgotten until it may be too late. It is technically the driver's fault for not paying attention, but still easy to do with this system. It's very unfortunate, and it will continue until the technology has improved. Hopefully they are working hard at Tesla to address this limitation.

 

[Chickenlittle]

We all agree that legally Tesla is not at fault as the driver has to monitor what´s going on and is responsible to brake if there is a stationary object. However, given the level of advancement of the rest of the system one would intuitively not expect AP to ignore those objects.

Also, there have been some serious accidents due to this shortcoming. I am sure Tesla is doing everything they can to improve AP in this regard. But they are making a choice by keeping the system running like it is and that´s up for discussion.

Have to disagree. The accidents are due to driver inattention

 

[schonelucht]

No, you said 35 GW/year without saying anything about when. That it refers to 2019 is quite valuable information.

Sure, anything is possible. But why doesn't Panasonic mention the plan to go beyond 35GWh at the gigafactory? It's highly relevant for their shareholders.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Another negative WSJ article. No mention of the current positive model 3 production ramp, sigh. Tesla’s Fundraising Options Get Thornier

 

[brian45011]

No, you said 35 GW/year without saying anything about when. That it refers to 2019 is quite valuable information. The progression might be something like this:

2018: 20 GWh/year
2019: 35 GWh/year
2020: 55 GWh/year
2021: 75 GWh/year
2022: 105 GWh/year

The exact ramp remains to be seen. But the end target is likely somewhere in the 100-150 GWh/year range.

Since Tesla reported $3.54 billion in CapEx for GF-1 through the end of 1Q18, what will the progression of CapEx for calendar years 2018 through 2022 likely be?

 

[K_Dizzle]

Another negative WSJ article. No mention of the current positive model 3 production ramp, sigh. Tesla’s Fundraising Options Get Thornier

From the article

No fundraising option is without drawbacks. Issuing new shares would dilute shareholders and likely drive down the share price, potentially rattling creditors and pushing up borrowing costs—a chain that could result in further share declines. And the falling price of Tesla’s unsecured bond means new debt could lead to significant added interest expense.

Tesla could also sell convertible bonds, a hybrid of debt and equity that has been the company’s favored means of raising cash in recent years. But that could prove more challenging due to the unique dynamics of the market. Many investors, such as hedge funds, will buy convertible bonds only if they can also bet against, or short, the issuer’s shares—a strategy known as convertible bond arbitrage.


I didn’t know about convertible bond arbitrage, what’s the better outcome for the bond buyer, stock going up or down?

 

[Krugerrand]

Sure, anything is possible. But why doesn't Panasonic mention the plan to go beyond 35GWh at the gigafactory? It's highly relevant for their shareholders.

Because conspiracy.

 

[Curt Renz]

From the article

...Issuing new shares would dilute shareholders and likely drive down the share price, potentially rattling creditors and pushing up borrowing costs—a chain that could result in further share declines...

Referring to the issuance of new shares as dilutive is misleading, and saying it is likely to drive down the share price, etc. is especially ignorant or deceptive. The money raised by selling new shares adds to the value of a company, i.e. the pie grows. Each shareholder shares in ownership of the newly raised money. Each shareholder's slice of the pie remains the same weight, even though his percentage of a now larger pie decreases.

If the newly raised money is placed in a safe, the situation is a wash for each shareholder as there would be little or no change in the share price. But if the money is invested in rapid growth by an innovative young company successfully disrupting long established capital intensive industries, it can result in a significant bump upward in the share price.

 

[CuriousSunbird]

Sure, anything is possible. But why doesn't Panasonic mention the plan to go beyond 35GWh at the gigafactory? It's highly relevant for their shareholders.

Panasonic sales to Tesla are less than 200 billion pa as against total sales of 7.3 trillion. Not very relevant.

 

[Jxtheone]

Come on, it´s not that simple. Autopilot has shown that it can navigate curves very well, so it knows its trajectory a bit into the future. With that knowledge it can identify if an object is in its path or not.

That said I know it is obviously a problem to switch on the braking for stationary objects due to other corner cases leading to false positives. But I do think that is a serious shortcoming of AP, even it is well documented and any user who read the manual should know that.

We all agree that legally Tesla is not at fault as the driver has to monitor what´s going on and is responsible to brake if there is a stationary object. However, given the level of advancement of the rest of the system one would intuitively not expect AP to ignore those objects.

Also, there have been some serious accidents due to this shortcoming. I am sure Tesla is doing everything they can to improve AP in this regard. But they are making a choice by keeping the system running like it is and that´s up for discussion.

It comes down to statistics. Essentially, a car stopping when it doesn't need to would be a Type I error. To greatly increase the chance of stopping when it should, you would likely also increase the chance of having a Type I error, stopping when it doesn't need to, which if this happens too often, then Tesla would be terrible at doing basic statistics.
The serious issue with with have a Type II error, not stopping when it should. This is always a huge problem because it has more severe consequences, and is a natural reason for frustration (and inevitable statistics wise).

Consider this scenario: You have to take some prescribed drug, but in the label it says you must walk for 10minutes immediately after taking it (or change this condition to whatever you want). Suppose there is only a 0.01% chance that you will die IF you do not walk for 10minutes. And over several times of taking the drug, you forgot to walk or just decided not to walk, and you realize oh hey, I don't really really need to walk ALL the time after taking the drug. So, on average, 1 out of every 10,000 who take this drug will die after taking the drug (if they all think this way), or if you think this way, you'll likely die after about 10,000 times of taking the drug.
I don't think it would be the drug company's fault if those people die for not walking when they should have. Also, I would think in a scenario like this EVERYONE would take the 10min walk (to not risk dying). Yet, there are tons of people who still smoke often, and people who don't put their hands on the wheel while driving in autopilot.....

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

Sure, anything is possible. But why doesn't Panasonic mention the plan to go beyond 35GWh at the gigafactory? It's highly relevant for their shareholders.

Panasonic probably understands 'underpromise and overdeliver', as opposed to some other people
But seriously, Panasonic has nothing to gain by being aggressive in guidance. Their shareholder base would be also more staid and tend to punish them for misses

 

[RobStark]

Yes, that's what I said?

No, this is what you said.

No. Last week Panasonic reported growing inventory due to slower than expected take up of its product at the gigafactory.

Btw someone should tell Panasonic that the gigafactory will be a 105GWh facility because they are still sticking to 35GWh in their investor’s communications.

At 30% complete Panasonic is projecting 35 GWh of battery cell production in fiscal year 2019.

Once Nevada GF is fully completed at 100%, Panasonic will likely have capacity for 105 GWh of battery cells.

 

[Ugliest1]

Yet, there are tons of people who still smoke often, and people who don't put their hands on the wheel while driving in autopilot.....

Heh. I remember a change management conference probably 20 years ago when a presenter showed a slide that stated "People would rather die than change". The asterisk on it pointed to the previous year's statistics of the number of deaths in the US from smoking-caused cancer.

 

[JRP3]

Have to disagree. The accidents are due to driver inattention

Unfortunately because of the intense scrutiny on Tesla if it keeps happening enough authorities may be prodded to act. Tesla stuck their neck out with autopilot and overestimated their speed of progress and underestimated human stupidity. It could get ugly out there.

 

[EinSV]

Unfortunately because of the intense scrutiny on Tesla if it keeps happening enough authorities may be prodded to act. Tesla stuck their neck out with autopilot and overestimated their speed of progress and underestimated human stupidity. It could get ugly out there.

Elon said on the last earnings call that they will be publishing quarterly Autopilot safety reports. Hopefully, they start sooner rather than later.

 

[RobStark]

Sure, anything is possible. But why doesn't Panasonic mention the plan to go beyond 35GWh at the gigafactory? It's highly relevant for their shareholders.

Because Kazuhiro Tsuga is not Elon Musk and doesn't publicize aspirational goals.

Panasonic projects into fiscal year 2019, what is clearly visible to them, and not beyond.

 

[vinvin218]

It was a busy week for me, went to Chongqing, China for a 4 days business conference. Just got back to Cali last night.
Long story short, when I arrived Chongqing, I kinda turn on my google map and see how many Tesla charging stations in Chongqing area.
I found 7 different locations, it was quit impressive cuz it was just 1-2 stations a year ago (I was here for the same event last year).

here is my tweet with google map pic vincent on Twitter

On the last day of my business trip, I took a half day off and went lunch in SING KONG PLACE in Chongqing downtown, one of the most modern high end shopping center. One of the main reason is Tesla store is in there, and I would love to check it out by myself.

Arrived SING KONG PLACE at around 12:30pm, Tesla store is located in one of the main entrance of the shopping mall with a huge "Tesla sign" right next to the front door(have some pix in my tweet below). Roughly there was couple families in the store checking around. I was heading back to the store at around 2:30pm after lunch, there was 7-8 people in the Tesla store, one couple was preparing paper works for ordering a new Model X when I was there. A gentleman was arranging for a test drive. The main questions from the customers over there are about range of the vehicles and AC filter system in Model X ( My guess is because the air pollution in China ).

here is my tweet of the Tesla Chongqing store : vincent on Twitter

 

[Teslie]

Does Tesla have a contract with Panasonic re. further investments in GF beyond 35 GWh ?