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

TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
My take on the letter and call is a little different than some. As much as I'd love Tesla to beat their ramp targets, at the end of the day I don't think a month or two here or there will matter that much in the long run, although obviously it could affect short term share price.

To me the main takeaways were:
  • Model Y production target might be 1M per year -- details TBA in 6-9 months
    • Target of half the CapEx/vehicle as Model 3
    • CapEx for Model Y begins later this year
  • Model 3 still on track for 25% GM
  • Reasonable expectation (rough guesstimate) of 100K Semi/year in four years (2022ish)
    • I believe this is the first time we've heard a number from Tesla on initial Semi production targets
    • Semi specs may be exceeded
  • Goal of tripling capacity of storage installs in 2018 over 2017
  • Fully ramped GF2 will produce enough cells for 150K residential solar installs so WAG of ~100K solar roofs plus panels for 50K roofs
  • 5K production goal by end of Q2 confirmed, with appropriate caveats
    • Two identified problems for Model 3 ramp to 5K thus far:
      • for one a new, validated battery module assembly is being shipped from Germany -- problem is already solved and just a timing issue
      • the other (automated parts conveyance) sounds manageable
  • Cash position roughly the same at the end and beginning of Q4
  • Positive earnings on a sustained basis expected starting later this year
  • 1M vehicles in 2020 still in play
  • Reiterates Tesla expected to grow 50% per year
  • Current AP hardware still believed adequate for FSD; easy to swap out processor if needed
  • As expected, any excess cash flow will be plowed back into Model 3, Y, storage, Superchargers, etc.
 
Last edited:
I am really unclear how the market will react... plenty for both sides to sling at each other.
This characterization seems consistent with Elon’s comment during the call that they’re still really deep in production hell but are seeing their way out (about 25-30 min into the call IIRC). Getting out of hell is just as unappealing an experience as being in hell, but in a way is harder because your view has to persevere on an ideal that feels as far away as Mars, and everything still burns like all hell...all the way until you get out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrendTrader007
Didn't get to hear the conference call since I was on a plane. Can anyone explain what the positives are in this call? I think we all agreed the biggest thing that would determine reception was news on the Model 3 ramp. Way I read the shareholder letter : we are not going to get to 2500/week this quarter at all. And when @DaveT says the conference call added the news they need to fly in module assembly equipment to the gigafactory by March, that's even worse than I thought. And with the push back of the SR model to end of this year, it means GM beat Tesla a full two year with a $35K car to the market.
The equipment is assembled and working at Grohmann. They just have to take it apart and move it to Nevada. It will outperform all of the current automation at the Gigafactory, and take up less space. At least that's what I understood.
 
Though I have no idea how the market will react short-term, I thought this was quite an encouraging call. My takeaways from the call and the shareholder letter,

New Positives

- Semi goals ambitious near term... 4 years out 100,000 per year, possibly more (IIRC, total US market, roughly 250K per year... so, perhaps something like 20% US market share in just 4 years, balance shipping to ROW) While, we could envision such a large opportunity for the Tesla Semi, this is the first explicit indication of how quickly Tesla thinks the industry will be ready to go from testing to wide adoption (and how quickly they see their capacity to ramp production).

- Model Y may aim for as much as 1 million per year (sounded as though meant 1 million at initial production plant), Model 3 at Fremont, could be 600K, total with S/X 700K, and, reiterated 1 million by 2020 still in their sights

- Model Y goal of roughly 1/2 capex spend per unit of production capacity

- Energy storage revenues expected to triple year-over-year

- on developing autonomous driving from the letter, "an extensive overhaul of the underlying architecture of our software has now been completed, which has enabled a step-change improvement in the collection and analysis of data and fundamentally enhanced its machine learning capabilities."

Bear Rebuttals

- Cash flow far far better than street expectations, only about 1/3 the size of outflow as expected. Further reduces the likelihood of a cap raise to get through the ramp to 5K/week that the bears often pound the table about.

- Clarification on bottlenecks... only two currently known material ones, only one holding back from 2.5K/week rate. The first, module assembly, that the company is now on record saying replacement machines are working in Germany (and 3-4 times as efficient as machines they are replacing), and it's simply about timing re having them shipped and assembled in Nevada. The second not being fundamental to the design of the Model 3 (i.e., supports the case that Tesla did, in fact, design a simpler vehicle), but, relating to their automated process of moving stored parts to their appropriate spot in the assembly process, i.e., "conveyance system"). days are numbered for bear concern trolling that Tesla cannot mass manufacture

- Expect to generate positive quarterly operating income on a sustained basis this year, and, cautiously optimistic re positive earnings without any asterisks Q3 (I might not have the wording on the latter quite right), this is a near term path to demonstratively rebut the most persistent bear gibberish thesis

- Implicit rebuttal by JB of FUD from CNBC last week suggesting the human involvement of temporary patch to battery module issue is resulting in flawed products shipped to customers (JB said something to the effect that, machines are doing what machine precision is needed, humans are just moving works in process from machine to machine)

- First explanation of any detail I've ever heard from Tesla as to why they believe their path to autonomy vs. LIDAR is the clear choice, despite nearly all the rest of the industry going with LIDAR. This comes amid concerns from Adam Jonas re other players in the space, and a consulting report claiming Tesla was last of about 20 competitors in the autonomy race. While, it's beyond my field of view to evaluate whether what Elon offered to back his emphatic assertion that Tesla is on the right path & the LIDAR crowd misguided, I take the coast-coast drive coming at any point in the next year or so as a positive... I see a coast to coast demo is vastly more meaningful than the consulting report a few weeks back (I do realize people heard 3-6 months and saw that as a big negative... I just see a demo period as a positive. fwiw, the Falcon Heavy launch yesterday was roughly 5 years after its originally targeted debut).

Substantial reiteration of overlooked Tesla moat goal

- current auto manufacturing, movement of vehicle along the line slower than grandma with a walker, how do we not target at least a jog, even 20-30 mph, and, paraphrasing, ~it's as though no one else in the industry is even thinking about how much it can be improved~

Downside

- Departure of John McNeill, head of sales and service announced

- Implicit in discussion of resolving bottlenecks, until the new machinery from Germany arrives and is installed, there will not be much of any improvement in 3 production volumes. This may get considerable attention from bears, but, unless one is making a short-term market play, it's not material.

- Some will hear coast-coast drive 3-6 months out as a negative... as I described above, in my view, it's still a net positive, even if it happens beyond 6 months out (I doubt there will be a parade of competing programs achieving this before Tesla does, whether in 6 months or 10 months).
 
Last edited:
Didn't get to hear the conference call since I was on a plane. Can anyone explain what the positives are in this call? I think we all agreed the biggest thing that would determine reception was news on the Model 3 ramp. Way I read the shareholder letter : we are not going to get to 2500/week this quarter at all. And when @DaveT says the conference call added the news they need to fly in module assembly equipment to the gigafactory by March, that's even worse than I thought. And with the push back of the SR model to end of this year, it means GM beat Tesla a full two year with a $35K car to the market.
When did GM start selling a $35k car?
 
I have to say that as one of the longest term Tesla bulls I'm starting to wonder if they are actually learning from their mistakes. One of my favorite Elon quotes, regarding some of their suppliers, is "Their shi!t is not together". Elon, Tesla needs to get their sh|t together.

My observation is that Tesla’s compressed timeline has been a problem. Tesla wants to move far more quickly than the other automakers, but I believe that most components suppliers and subcontractors simply aren’t able to move at Tesla’s demanded pace. It only takes 1 to fall down on the job and cause a cascade of issues.

We know that the initial battery pack automation project failed, forcing Tesla to get the Grohman team in Germany to get it working ASAP. I’d be surprised if this was the only issue.

We began seeing Model 3 “release candidate” prototypes in April 2017, less than 4 months before the initial delivery event at the end of July. From a general industry perspective, that is an insane pace for a mass market car. By comparison, Honda was testing release candidates for the all new 10th Generation Accord in July 2016, and the production model went on sale 15 month later in October 2017 (and December 2017 for the bigger engine trim levels). For a company like Honda, a car that started release candidate trials in April 2017 would almost certainly not officially go on sale until something like July 2018. Mid-2018 was my original guess from 4-5 years ago for a realistic Model 3 launch timeframe. Some things just cannot be rushed, especially when so much of the supply chain moved in sync with automakers who stick to well established timelines/cycles.
 
The equipment is assembled and working at Grohmann. They just have to take it apart and move it to Nevada. It will outperform all of the current automation at the Gigafactory, and take up less space. At least that's what I understood.

Also, it sounded like they said the semi-autonomous module assembly was parallelable. Perhaps they are adding additional lines to boost pack production?
 
When did GM start selling a $35k car?
Well in fairness you can get base trim Bolt at this price today, it’s not like they are flying of the lot.
The move of SR to end of year may be a temporary move to lure some to upgrade while obviously managing margin. This demand for LR exists after all. Edit: my second reservation also moved to March-May instead of Dec-Feb. glad that the first one went through - taking delivery tomorrow!

Now I’m curious to see some of our experts revising their prediction on reaching the end of the fed tax credit. For one S/X will not increase, and then most of Q1 will be at max 1000/week.

I had mid-May as my prediction for reaching 200000 US deliveries, now I see a path to reach it early Q3...
 
Last edited:
Didn't get to hear the conference call since I was on a plane. Can anyone explain what the positives are in this call? I think we all agreed the biggest thing that would determine reception was news on the Model 3 ramp. Way I read the shareholder letter : we are not going to get to 2500/week this quarter at all. And when @DaveT says the conference call added the news they need to fly in module assembly equipment to the gigafactory by March, that's even worse than I thought. And with the push back of the SR model to end of this year, it means GM beat Tesla a full two year with a $35K car to the market.

The whole “race to 35k” was utterly stupid to begin with. It’s a meaningless number that says nothing about the merits of the design, quality, and utility of the vehicle, nor does it say anything about long term volume or benefit to the producing company. The original Nissan LEAF cost 35k at MSRP.

GM sold 23.3k Bolts in all of 2017. Not bad, but far from mass market. That’s about 2/3 of what Honda sells in just Civics in the USA in a single month.
 
And with the push back of the SR model to end of this year, it means GM beat Tesla a full two year with a $35K car to the market.

Who cares?!? If Tesla can sell all the $50,000 cars they can make, then I hope they never sell one for $35k.

P.S. - They are already outselling the Bolt this year, and the lead is going to get much bigger soon.
 
Here’s what’s decisive for me:

Until today, the message was: we have identified the M3 production problems, and we are confident we can solve them soon.

Today the message is: we have engineered and tested the solution, we just need a short amount of time to implement it.

That’s a substantial reduction in the risk of extended delays in the M3 ramp.
 
I think they're having more problems than we thought. Today they moved back the delivery of the short range battery to late 2018. If they are having problems making the battery modules it would seem that the short range would increase the number of cars by one third.

Therefore they must be having problems on the car assembly line, because they could make more cars using the short range battery pack.
 
Then I will keep driving an ICE, which is not the company's mission. Until some other company comes along.........

Which underscores a critical issue: Tesla by itself cannot transition the world to EVs, any more than Apple could transition everyone to touchscreen phones.

For the longest time, the true retail cost of a base iPhone was $649. Android handset makers rushed to fill the gap in demand for good phones priced at half or even less.
 
- First explanation of any detail I've ever heard from Tesla as to why they believe their path to autonomy vs. LIDAR is the clear choice, despite nearly all the rest of the industry going with LIDAR. This comes amid concerns from Adam Jonas re other players in the space, and a consulting report claiming Tesla was last of about 20 competitors in the autonomy race. While, it's beyond my field of view to evaluate whether what Elon offered to back his emphatic assertion that Tesla is on the right path & the LIDAR crowd misguided, I take the coast-coast drive coming at any point in the next year or so as a positive... I see a coast to coast demo is vastly more meaningful than the consulting report a few weeks back (I do realize people heard 3-6 months and saw that as a big negative... I just see a demo period as a positive. fwiw, the Falcon Heavy launch yesterday was roughly 5 years after its originally targeted debut).

This ^^^ is a great point worth highlighting. I would add that Elon is almost never wrong when it comes to first principles/engineering approaches.

The two Falcon Heavy boosters landing in unison yesterday is just the latest example that should (but won't) quiet all the doubters.

Although execution on the initial AP2 rollout was flawed (to say the least), that does not mean Tesla's approach to FSD is not sound.
 
Last edited:
I think they're having more problems than we thought. Today they moved back the delivery of the short range battery to late 2018. If they are having problems making the battery modules it would seem that the short range would increase the number of cars by one third.

Therefore they must be having problems on the car assembly line, because they could make more cars using the short range battery pack.

re delay of the SR Model 3... worth bearing in mind that it appears that SR battery will be available with the dual motor configuration in a few months (see comment #7)

Model 3 standard range postponed until Early 2019
 
  • Like
Reactions: Electrifying
Status
Not open for further replies.