TSLA: What Changed?
- Yesterdaysnews
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 1:25 pm
- Location: Sugar Land, TX
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
This stock is simply insane.
-
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:25 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Markets are not efficient. This is a perfect example. Anyone who believes markets are efficient should be admitted to a mental institution.Kookaburra wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:39 pm I realize there are widely varying opinions as to whether Tesla stock is properly valued. Setting that aside, if we assume the market is efficient and prices in all known info about the future, what is the prevailing explanation for its all-of-sudden meteoric rise that started one year ago and continues? In other words, what suddenly changed or became known starting about a year ago that catalyzed this (if anything)?
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
It's not efficient. But the problem is, “The stock market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." This is why shorting TSLA might not be a good move even at PE of 400.Valueinvestor2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:54 pmMarkets are not efficient. This is a perfect example. Anyone who believes markets are efficient should be admitted to a mental institution.Kookaburra wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:39 pm I realize there are widely varying opinions as to whether Tesla stock is properly valued. Setting that aside, if we assume the market is efficient and prices in all known info about the future, what is the prevailing explanation for its all-of-sudden meteoric rise that started one year ago and continues? In other words, what suddenly changed or became known starting about a year ago that catalyzed this (if anything)?
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Oh my god. That second video.stocknoob4111 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:52 pm this may become the most valuable company in the entire world I saw a youtube video recently with the title "Retire on Tesla stock", with those type of titles you know the end is near...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvVaz9hG6SU
Tesla is my Retirement plan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ygjW8MDKtA
-
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:25 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Marseille07 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:56 pmIt's not efficient. But the problem is, “The stock market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." This is why shorting TSLA might not be a good move even at PE of 400.Valueinvestor2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:54 pmMarkets are not efficient. This is a perfect example. Anyone who believes markets are efficient should be admitted to a mental institution.Kookaburra wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:39 pm I realize there are widely varying opinions as to whether Tesla stock is properly valued. Setting that aside, if we assume the market is efficient and prices in all known info about the future, what is the prevailing explanation for its all-of-sudden meteoric rise that started one year ago and continues? In other words, what suddenly changed or became known starting about a year ago that catalyzed this (if anything)?
Agree 100%. But for the BH that believe markers are actually efficient this is a perfect example of that not being true.
Shorting is a losers game. Sitting on the sidelines and waiting patiently for gamblers to lose most their money is free entertainment.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Are the TSLA holders going to lose though? I don't have skin in the game, but their PE has been high for a decade and going higher.Valueinvestor2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:48 pm Agree 100%. But for the BH that believe markers are actually efficient this is a perfect example of that not being true.
Shorting is a losers game. Sitting on the sidelines and waiting patiently for gamblers to lose most their money is free entertainment.
What sucks is if TSLA crashes and burns, we are also impacted through S&P500.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Aren't markets supposed to be efficient in the aggregate (not specific securities)?Valueinvestor2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:48 pm Agree 100%. But for the BH that believe markers are actually efficient this is a perfect example of that not being true.
Some are undervalued. Some are overvalued. That's why you diversify. If you know which ones are under and overvalued then congrats.
55% VUG - 20% VEA - 20% EDV - 5% BNDX
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
I have a small number of TSLA shares that I bought in 2012. The second video almost makes me want to see the stock go to $0.stocknoob4111 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:52 pm this may become the most valuable company in the entire world I saw a youtube video recently with the title "Retire on Tesla stock", with those type of titles you know the end is near...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvVaz9hG6SU
Tesla is my Retirement plan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ygjW8MDKtA
-
- Posts: 6238
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Efficient markets just mean that prices reflect all available information quickly and efficiently due to the collective buying/selling of all participants.LTCM wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 9:21 pmAren't markets supposed to be efficient in the aggregate (not specific securities)?Valueinvestor2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:48 pm Agree 100%. But for the BH that believe markers are actually efficient this is a perfect example of that not being true.
Some are undervalued. Some are overvalued. That's why you diversify. If you know which ones are under and overvalued then congrats.
It does not claim that the market is rationally pricing information from all participants. In fact, it's very efficient at pricing in all the delusions of market participants. It should be no surprise that we are living through extremely speculative and irrationally exuberant times.
If the delusions get large enough, they can have a sizable impact on your investments. Tesla is probably the greatest speculative mania of any stock I've ever seen, shooting quickly up to the number 5 largest stock in the entire world despite only being a very small fraction of an overall market, and where it is pricing in unreasonable growth and where buyers are not considering valuation models for its purchase. While it is only one example, there are countless others to pick from that may fit that same model on a lesser scale.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
- Yesterdaysnews
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 1:25 pm
- Location: Sugar Land, TX
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
I don’t have the guts to short it. I’ll just watch from the sidelines I guess
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
I shorted like a decade ago. Not a big position, but it ran up fast and I closed my position quickly.Yesterdaysnews wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:07 pm I don’t have the guts to short it. I’ll just watch from the sidelines I guess
Now we're forced to long it via US TSM or S&P500.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:39 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
279 million. Their revenue from regulatory credits have been decreasing for a few quarters and q3 was no exception. If i remember right they made 350 million or so in Q2 from the credits. Doesn’t seem to be hurting them much if at all.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 7:30 pmHow much of these earnings are still dependent on credits?investorpeter wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:37 pmAnd EPS is up YOY from $0.27 in Q3 2020 to $1.44 in Q3 2021.bogledogle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 3:41 pm 342 posts for an investment asset with 390 P/E?
Tesla is the new Crypto. Ban incoming!
https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/TWPK ... ate.pdf%22
So the P/E of 390 is actually in a downward trend from 1102 earlier in the year.
For context, AMZN has a max PE of 3732 and median PE of 144.59.
Source: https://www.gurufocus.com/term/pettm/AM ... Amazon.com
Not saying this recent move is entirely rational, but there are fundamental trends to support some of the movement. Tesla is making profits and has significant runway to continue increasing profits for years to come. I do think it is a bit frothy at the moment, but if you are in for the long-run (10 years+) this recent run-up may just be an unnoticeable blip.
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:32 am
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
IMO we are presently defining the “Cisco bagholders.”
Remember Cisco? Profitable. Built the internet (disruptive). Similar mania around it as it raced up near $1t. 20 years later it’s a very good profitable $236b company.
In that 20 years the vision for the internet and Cisco’s role was realized. The business did well. The stock….
This is the fate of the bag holder. And the bag holder in a mania is defined during the last parabolic surge.
Remember Cisco? Profitable. Built the internet (disruptive). Similar mania around it as it raced up near $1t. 20 years later it’s a very good profitable $236b company.
In that 20 years the vision for the internet and Cisco’s role was realized. The business did well. The stock….
This is the fate of the bag holder. And the bag holder in a mania is defined during the last parabolic surge.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Too negative for my participation further
Last edited by 4nursebee on Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pale Blue Dot
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
A diversified set of index funds would mean if Tesla went Enron we would lose less than on a normal bad day for stocks. Life would go on as if nothing happened and all the majors would make and sell electric cars by 2030. The electric Camry won't be able to drive to you in the parking lot or have plaid speed but it will be reasonably priced and have a normal steering wheel based on you know, real human ergonomics.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:52 pmAre the TSLA holders going to lose though? I don't have skin in the game, but their PE has been high for a decade and going higher.Valueinvestor2 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:48 pm Agree 100%. But for the BH that believe markers are actually efficient this is a perfect example of that not being true.
Shorting is a losers game. Sitting on the sidelines and waiting patiently for gamblers to lose most their money is free entertainment.
What sucks is if TSLA crashes and burns, we are also impacted through S&P500.
70% Global Stocks / 30% Bonds
-
- Posts: 6238
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Both companies had plenty of runway even in the case of Netflix with high valuations4nursebee wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:23 amI remember selling NFLX and AAPL about 2007/2008 and all the subsequent gains that I missed.NoMansLand wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 5:44 am IMO we are presently defining the “Cisco bagholders.”
Remember Cisco? Profitable. Built the internet (disruptive). Similar mania around it as it raced up near $1t. 20 years later it’s a very good profitable $236b company.
In that 20 years the vision for the internet and Cisco’s role was realized. The business did well. The stock….
This is the fate of the bag holder. And the bag holder in a mania is defined during the last parabolic surge.
One has to choose what anchors to use.
Apple was even trading in the low 10s P/E
Tesla skyrocketed into the top 5 largest companies seemingly overnight based on rainbows and unicorns
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
- burritoLover
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Yep. And there's a number of investors who are periodically investing in TSLA each paycheck to hold "forever". The run-up has only re-enforced this strategy as there have been many saying Tesla is way overvalued along the way and yet it has kept going up. This is really a case study on human behavior. And if Tesla crashes like Cisco, there will likely be a number of these same investors buying on the way down while the smart money gets out.NoMansLand wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 5:44 am IMO we are presently defining the “Cisco bagholders.”
Remember Cisco? Profitable. Built the internet (disruptive). Similar mania around it as it raced up near $1t. 20 years later it’s a very good profitable $236b company.
In that 20 years the vision for the internet and Cisco’s role was realized. The business did well. The stock….
This is the fate of the bag holder. And the bag holder in a mania is defined during the last parabolic surge.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
I don't understand why the SEC and FED don't limit or ban option trading. It's obviously being used to manipulate the market. I guess as long as its going up they don't care. IF it dives they'll then come to the rescue and say "who could have seen this coming?"
TSLA is the option market right now
TSLA is the option market right now
All posts are my own opinions and are not financial advice.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Believing in the mission as the only justification for buying a stock is the sign of someone who really should follow Boglehead philosophy (I don't follow it 100%)...or otherwise shouldn't invest for themselves. Believing in the mission without context of valuation is a fools game. Musk and Tesla can "get it done" and be wildly successful and still not do enough to justify the current price in 5 years. That's how out of touch the current pricing is.srt7 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 5:55 pmExactly! They believe in the mission and as long as Elon's at the helm they know he'll get it done. Yes, I understand it goes against the investing philosophy of many here. IMHO the real issue here is a clash of short-term vs. long-term philosophies.burritoLover wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 4:23 pm I don't think most TSLA retail investors care what the price is. The market cap could be $2 or $3 trillion - wouldn't matter - they'd still be buying or holding what they have.
For example, 50% annual sales growth has come up a number of times in this thread. Well, 50% annual sales growth likely puts them just under 4.5M sales in 2025. The Gary Black analysis previously posted is based on 5.2M sales in 2025. For Tesla to sell 3.5M cars in 2025 would be unheard of growth in manufacturing. Not just cars, any manufacturing. Without the context of current projections, it would be an amazing feat, and one I think they can achieve. But it's not a growth rate that supports current pricing.
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
As far as the manufacturing goes, that got me thinking of people complaining about the old guard auto manufacturers and how they are slow and reluctant to switch to EVs, new technology, etc. A portion of that sluggishness is likely due to the cost of refitting manufacturing processes at scale for changes in design, products, and technology. I'm not sure how Tesla won't also run into those same issues once they get there. It'll be interesting how the market responds if and when that happens.GT99 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:23 pm
Believing in the mission as the only justification for buying a stock is the sign of someone who really should follow Boglehead philosophy (I don't follow it 100%)...or otherwise shouldn't invest for themselves. Believing in the mission without context of valuation is a fools game. Musk and Tesla can "get it done" and be wildly successful and still not do enough to justify the current price in 5 years. That's how out of touch the current pricing is.
For example, 50% annual sales growth has come up a number of times in this thread. Well, 50% annual sales growth likely puts them just under 4.5M sales in 2025. The Gary Black analysis previously posted is based on 5.2M sales in 2025. For Tesla to sell 3.5M cars in 2025 would be unheard of growth in manufacturing. Not just cars, any manufacturing. Without the context of current projections, it would be an amazing feat, and one I think they can achieve. But it's not a growth rate that supports current pricing.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
On the "comparison to legacies" front, Toyota finally, after quite a long time, has announced some full BEVs.
I know Toyota isn't TSLA, but as the biggest player who had been holding out now enters the space, that can't be good news for TSLA.
I know Toyota isn't TSLA, but as the biggest player who had been holding out now enters the space, that can't be good news for TSLA.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Derivatives trading pretty much dominates short term price movements these days. People scrape and scratch for fundamentals explanations when the movements of popular stocks are pretty much entirely explained by derivatives market structure. It's really interesting stuff way beyond my abilities, but long term I don't think anythings different. Tesla is either going to justify its price through longterm growth and profits or it wont.Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:05 pm I don't understand why the SEC and FED don't limit or ban option trading. It's obviously being used to manipulate the market. I guess as long as its going up they don't care. IF it dives they'll then come to the rescue and say "who could have seen this coming?"
TSLA is the option market right now
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
The fact the the Japanese legacy brands have no BEV offerings in 2021 still baffles me. Toyota dominated the hybrid market for a long time, but their current CEO has been outwardly opposive of BEV's and it will hurt them. They are SO late to the game now, with VAG, MB, GM, Ford, Kia, etc ahead of them by years. And Telsa by more than a decade.
Like other legacy brands, they lack a charging network, FSD, performance, range, proven reliability, etc... not a threat to Tesla. This coming from a non-Tesla EV owner.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:39 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
I am an EV owner and I wholeheartedly agree with this take. Toyota is at least 5 years behind VW/Ford/GM and a decade behind Tesla and it has everything to do with their hostility towards the EV transition. To just now get into the game is to start the race when you’ve already been lapped by the competition. There is certainly some risk to Tesla but it sure isn’t coming from Toyota.rhoms33 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:20 amThe fact the the Japanese legacy brands have no BEV offerings in 2021 still baffles me. Toyota dominated the hybrid market for a long time, but their current CEO has been outwardly opposive of BEV's and it will hurt them. They are SO late to the game now, with VAG, MB, GM, Ford, Kia, etc ahead of them by years. And Telsa by more than a decade.
Like other legacy brands, they lack a charging network, FSD, performance, range, proven reliability, etc... not a threat to Tesla. This coming from a non-Tesla EV owner.
On another note, the wife and I planned a last minute road trip to the ozarks. We booked at a hotel that had a tesla destination charger and didn’t even think about needing to check if there were sufficient supperchargers on the way for the trip. Only a little more planning required compared to an ice car. I would not be so confident in a car that did not have teslas infrastructure.
-
- Posts: 6238
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Toyota may be behind, but those other issues aren’t major hurdlesrhoms33 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:20 amThe fact the the Japanese legacy brands have no BEV offerings in 2021 still baffles me. Toyota dominated the hybrid market for a long time, but their current CEO has been outwardly opposive of BEV's and it will hurt them. They are SO late to the game now, with VAG, MB, GM, Ford, Kia, etc ahead of them by years. And Telsa by more than a decade.
Like other legacy brands, they lack a charging network, FSD, performance, range, proven reliability, etc... not a threat to Tesla. This coming from a non-Tesla EV owner.
Charging networks aren’t exclusive, FSD isn’t a real thing, etc etc
Not everyone can afford a 50K EV. Toyota and others will provide pricing pressure competition in EVs
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Clearly you don't own an EV if you don't see the massive benefit of the Supercharger network. EA is an absolute shit show and they are "second best". Tesla just opened CCS charging in the Netherlands on the Supercharger network. A HUGE benefit for all BEV owners if they make it happen here, and a profit center for Tesla.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:29 pm Toyota may be behind, but those other issues aren’t major hurdles
Charging networks aren’t exclusive, FSD isn’t a real thing, etc etc
Not everyone can afford a 50K EV. Toyota and others will provide pricing pressure competition in EVs
Have you driven a car with FSD? Debate it all you want, you are fooling yourself if you think any other OEM is even remotely close to FSD, or even autopilot for that matter. Porsche innodrive and BMW driving assistance professional are laughable in comparison to just autopilot, both cars in my garage, not afraid to admit it.
Not everyone can afford a $50k EV, sure. How much is Toyota's BEV? Oh that's right, you can't even order one because it doesn't exist. There is no proof that they will provide pricing pressure. Meanwhile, Tesla is selling every car they can make, growing 50% YOY, and will have a cheaper compact by the time Toyota can scale their BEV line to a fraction of Tesla's sales.
- burritoLover
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
If Tesla opens up their supercharging network to non-Teslas here in the U.S., I would be a lot less likely to buy one again. Some superchargers are already crowded - I can only imagine what it will be like if they opened the floodgates.rhoms33 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:53 pmClearly you don't own an EV if you don't see the massive benefit of the Supercharger network. EA is an absolute shit show and they are "second best". Tesla just opened CCS charging in the Netherlands on the Supercharger network. A HUGE benefit for all BEV owners if they make it happen here, and a profit center for Tesla.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:29 pm Toyota may be behind, but those other issues aren’t major hurdles
Charging networks aren’t exclusive, FSD isn’t a real thing, etc etc
Not everyone can afford a 50K EV. Toyota and others will provide pricing pressure competition in EVs
Have you driven a car with FSD? Debate it all you want, you are fooling yourself if you think any other OEM is even remotely close to FSD, or even autopilot for that matter. Porsche innodrive and BMW driving assistance professional are laughable in comparison to just autopilot, both cars in my garage, not afraid to admit it.
Not everyone can afford a $50k EV, sure. How much is Toyota's BEV? Oh that's right, you can't even order one because it doesn't exist. There is no proof that they will provide pricing pressure. Meanwhile, Tesla is selling every car they can make, growing 50% YOY, and will have a cheaper compact by the time Toyota can scale their BEV line to a fraction of Tesla's sales.
I don't have FSD but the standard dynamic cruise control on my model 3 has numerous issues compared to other systems from other ICE manufacturers I've used. It's buggy - braking for no reason when passing someone in a right turn lane, weird delayed braking instances after someone crosses the street in front of you, short maximum follow distance, random braking for no reason on the highway. I have to keep my foot on the gas to override the dumb behavior to avoid potentially getting rear-ended by another driver.
Toyota isn't a threat yet. If I were Tesla, I'd be more worried about Lucid Air (520 mi range), Rivian (first EV truck), and the boatload of ICE manufacturers coming out with numerous different EVs.
-
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:47 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
At least with the Non-Tesla Supercharger Pilot in Netherlands, they specifically chose locations that were not already crowded. Their FAQ also says "Future sites will only be opened to Non-Tesla vehicles if there is available capacity." Unclear if Tesla will dynamically close off Non-Tesla superchargers when locations become busier, e.g., holiday travel.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:01 pmSome superchargers are already crowded - I can only imagine what it will be like if they opened the floodgates.
Technically AutoSteer isn't supposed to be used on city streets, but this is indeed a problem with plain Traffic-Aware Cruise Control. I can report that FSD Beta does solve this problem as I've had multiple vehicles including bicyclists cross in front, and the car does not slow down unless necessary, and when it needs to, it's the appropriate amount (and not delayed sudden braking).burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:01 pmweird delayed braking instances after someone crosses the street in front of you
There are plenty of uncomfortable behaviors of current Autopilot, and it seems reasonable that improvements for FSD will make it to regular Autopilot as it will likely also be used for improved safety features. But definitely it's unclear if or when that might happen.
- burritoLover
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Yeah, to me, this move by Tesla seems counterintuitive to me. You have this monopoly on chargers that can only be used with Teslas. It would kind of like Apple allowing non-Apple app stores to be used on the iphone.harikaried wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:47 pmAt least with the Non-Tesla Supercharger Pilot in Netherlands, they specifically chose locations that were not already crowded. Their FAQ also says "Future sites will only be opened to Non-Tesla vehicles if there is available capacity." Unclear if Tesla will dynamically close off Non-Tesla superchargers when locations become busier, e.g., holiday travel.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:01 pmSome superchargers are already crowded - I can only imagine what it will be like if they opened the floodgates.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
OR it may just be the validation that people needed from a top manufacturer. But I see your point on how most would rather buy a Toyota EV over a Tesla one.
Taking care of tomorrow while enjoying today.
- unclescrooge
- Posts: 6265
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:00 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
+1NoMansLand wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 5:44 am IMO we are presently defining the “Cisco bagholders.”
Remember Cisco? Profitable. Built the internet (disruptive). Similar mania around it as it raced up near $1t. 20 years later it’s a very good profitable $236b company.
In that 20 years the vision for the internet and Cisco’s role was realized. The business did well. The stock….
This is the fate of the bag holder. And the bag holder in a mania is defined during the last parabolic surge.
I wouldn't be surprised if TSLA is dead money for the next ten years.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
More like Apple allowing its App Store to be used on other phones.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:16 pmYeah, to me, this move by Tesla seems counterintuitive to me. You have this monopoly on chargers that can only be used with Teslas. It would kind of like Apple allowing non-Apple app stores to be used on the iphone.harikaried wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:47 pmAt least with the Non-Tesla Supercharger Pilot in Netherlands, they specifically chose locations that were not already crowded. Their FAQ also says "Future sites will only be opened to Non-Tesla vehicles if there is available capacity." Unclear if Tesla will dynamically close off Non-Tesla superchargers when locations become busier, e.g., holiday travel.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:01 pmSome superchargers are already crowded - I can only imagine what it will be like if they opened the floodgates.
- burritoLover
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Can't cause IOS apps no worky on Android OS.pasadena wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:53 pmMore like Apple allowing its App Store to be used on other phones.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:16 pmYeah, to me, this move by Tesla seems counterintuitive to me. You have this monopoly on chargers that can only be used with Teslas. It would kind of like Apple allowing non-Apple app stores to be used on the iphone.harikaried wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:47 pmAt least with the Non-Tesla Supercharger Pilot in Netherlands, they specifically chose locations that were not already crowded. Their FAQ also says "Future sites will only be opened to Non-Tesla vehicles if there is available capacity." Unclear if Tesla will dynamically close off Non-Tesla superchargers when locations become busier, e.g., holiday travel.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:01 pmSome superchargers are already crowded - I can only imagine what it will be like if they opened the floodgates.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:39 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Not sure if you’re being facetious or not, but these are just analogies. The monopoly on chargers is analogous to the app-store monopoly. The vehicle is analogous to the iphone/android. Therefore opening your monopoly to other branded cars is similar to opening the appstore to other phones. Pasadenas analogy works.burritoLover wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:35 amCan't cause IOS apps no worky on Android OS.pasadena wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:53 pmMore like Apple allowing its App Store to be used on other phones.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:16 pmYeah, to me, this move by Tesla seems counterintuitive to me. You have this monopoly on chargers that can only be used with Teslas. It would kind of like Apple allowing non-Apple app stores to be used on the iphone.harikaried wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:47 pmAt least with the Non-Tesla Supercharger Pilot in Netherlands, they specifically chose locations that were not already crowded. Their FAQ also says "Future sites will only be opened to Non-Tesla vehicles if there is available capacity." Unclear if Tesla will dynamically close off Non-Tesla superchargers when locations become busier, e.g., holiday travel.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:01 pmSome superchargers are already crowded - I can only imagine what it will be like if they opened the floodgates.
Makes perfect sense to me why Tesla would do this. They would charge non Teslas more money to charge at their charger. This brings in additional revenue and makes their competitors’ customers reliant on their infrastructure. If apple could allow android users to purchase apps through their appstore instead and charge a premium, they’d do it in a heartbeat.
- burritoLover
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
They do have a monopoly on chargers that only work with the vehicles they sell. They open that up to any EV, they have then removed a major incentive to purchasing a Tesla and reduce that feeling of being part of an exclusive community (sounds hokey but I don't think this can be discounted - people don't purchase Teslas just because of specs alone). You also may alienate these existing customers who find the superchargers way more crowded. The only argument for it is additional profit which will dwindle over time as other chargers become as ubiquitous as gas stations anyway.Soysauceonrice wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:55 amNot sure if you’re being facetious or not, but these are just analogies. The monopoly on chargers is analogous to the app-store monopoly. The vehicle is analogous to the iphone/android. Therefore opening your monopoly to other branded cars is similar to opening the appstore to other phones. Pasadenas analogy works.burritoLover wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:35 amCan't cause IOS apps no worky on Android OS.pasadena wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:53 pmMore like Apple allowing its App Store to be used on other phones.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:16 pmYeah, to me, this move by Tesla seems counterintuitive to me. You have this monopoly on chargers that can only be used with Teslas. It would kind of like Apple allowing non-Apple app stores to be used on the iphone.harikaried wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:47 pm At least with the Non-Tesla Supercharger Pilot in Netherlands, they specifically chose locations that were not already crowded. Their FAQ also says "Future sites will only be opened to Non-Tesla vehicles if there is available capacity." Unclear if Tesla will dynamically close off Non-Tesla superchargers when locations become busier, e.g., holiday travel.
Makes perfect sense to me why Tesla would do this. They would charge non Teslas more money to charge at their charger. This brings in additional revenue and makes their competitors’ customers reliant on their infrastructure. If apple could allow android users to purchase apps through their appstore instead and charge a premium, they’d do it in a heartbeat.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:39 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
This is valid, but i doubt it’s anything musk hasn’t thought about. If you live in LA, where there are constant queues at the tesla supper chargers, chances are those are not going to be opened up. I believe they’ve already stated that they will only open up low demand chargers to start. Theres nothing stoping tesla from slowly opening the network up only on areas where the infrastructure is robust enough to accommodate additional volume. The incentive to purchasing the tesla is still there, because even if all chargers are open to non teslas, the non tesla pays a premium. Why buy a VW and pay more to charge when i can just buy the tesla ?burritoLover wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:10 amThey do have a monopoly on chargers that only work with the vehicles they sell. They open that up to any EV, they have then removed a major incentive to purchasing a Tesla and reduce that feeling of being part of an exclusive community (sounds hokey but I don't think this can be discounted - people don't purchase Teslas just because of specs alone). You also may alienate these existing customers who find the superchargers way more crowded. The only argument for it is additional profit which will dwindle over time as other chargers become as ubiquitous as gas stations anyway.Soysauceonrice wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:55 amNot sure if you’re being facetious or not, but these are just analogies. The monopoly on chargers is analogous to the app-store monopoly. The vehicle is analogous to the iphone/android. Therefore opening your monopoly to other branded cars is similar to opening the appstore to other phones. Pasadenas analogy works.burritoLover wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:35 amCan't cause IOS apps no worky on Android OS.pasadena wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:53 pmMore like Apple allowing its App Store to be used on other phones.burritoLover wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:16 pm
Yeah, to me, this move by Tesla seems counterintuitive to me. You have this monopoly on chargers that can only be used with Teslas. It would kind of like Apple allowing non-Apple app stores to be used on the iphone.
Makes perfect sense to me why Tesla would do this. They would charge non Teslas more money to charge at their charger. This brings in additional revenue and makes their competitors’ customers reliant on their infrastructure. If apple could allow android users to purchase apps through their appstore instead and charge a premium, they’d do it in a heartbeat.
- burritoLover
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Yeah the devil is in the details in this case. Tesla uses a proprietary cable in the U.S. so there has to be some revamping of the superchargers in that case (which I don't think applies in other countries that use CCS) - I would imagine an additional cable per station that is Chademo for non-Teslas or perhaps just designate 1 or 2 spots for non-Teslas.Soysauceonrice wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:28 amThis is valid, but i doubt it’s anything musk hasn’t thought about. If you live in LA, where there are constant queues at the tesla supper chargers, chances are those are not going to be opened up. I believe they’ve already stated that they will only open up low demand chargers to start. Theres nothing stoping tesla from slowly opening the network up only on areas where the infrastructure is robust enough to accommodate additional volume. The incentive to purchasing the tesla is still there, because even if all chargers are open to non teslas, the non tesla pays a premium. Why buy a VW and pay more to charge when i can just buy the tesla ?burritoLover wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:10 amThey do have a monopoly on chargers that only work with the vehicles they sell. They open that up to any EV, they have then removed a major incentive to purchasing a Tesla and reduce that feeling of being part of an exclusive community (sounds hokey but I don't think this can be discounted - people don't purchase Teslas just because of specs alone). You also may alienate these existing customers who find the superchargers way more crowded. The only argument for it is additional profit which will dwindle over time as other chargers become as ubiquitous as gas stations anyway.Soysauceonrice wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:55 amNot sure if you’re being facetious or not, but these are just analogies. The monopoly on chargers is analogous to the app-store monopoly. The vehicle is analogous to the iphone/android. Therefore opening your monopoly to other branded cars is similar to opening the appstore to other phones. Pasadenas analogy works.
Makes perfect sense to me why Tesla would do this. They would charge non Teslas more money to charge at their charger. This brings in additional revenue and makes their competitors’ customers reliant on their infrastructure. If apple could allow android users to purchase apps through their appstore instead and charge a premium, they’d do it in a heartbeat.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
My reading indicates they are selling an adaptor to non-Tesla EV Owners that want to use the service that will allow the existing proprietary Tesla charge connector to be used with common ports.
Unlike the seamless approach that a Tesla user has when charging, which is basically plug the car in and go shopping or get a burger, the non-Tesla user has to have an app installed on their phone, set up their vehicle type, charging parameters(to prevent blowing up their pack due to charging at typical Tesla speeds), indicate which stall they are at, acknowledge current charging costs (as they are variable due to local availability of charging stations for the Tesla owners, real time electrical costs etc) and then initiate the charging session.
Where I live, there are 3 super charger sites within 1.5 hour drive. I've been to all three and have only seen one other Tesla at one of those sites. The infrastructure ROI on those 3 sites would take decades to recover as it is not a trivial amount of electrical gear/concrete etc involved in putting them in place. I suspect their placement was to help flesh out the cross country availability as this is in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and people do once in a while drive through this area.
If this move helps recover some of that investment or even generate profits and can be managed to not inconvenience the existing customer base, then that's a win for everyone including investors.
I know I personally would be happy to show a non Tesla driver my car if asked and would be friendly, but I"m also not waiting in line to charge, really ever.
Unlike the seamless approach that a Tesla user has when charging, which is basically plug the car in and go shopping or get a burger, the non-Tesla user has to have an app installed on their phone, set up their vehicle type, charging parameters(to prevent blowing up their pack due to charging at typical Tesla speeds), indicate which stall they are at, acknowledge current charging costs (as they are variable due to local availability of charging stations for the Tesla owners, real time electrical costs etc) and then initiate the charging session.
Where I live, there are 3 super charger sites within 1.5 hour drive. I've been to all three and have only seen one other Tesla at one of those sites. The infrastructure ROI on those 3 sites would take decades to recover as it is not a trivial amount of electrical gear/concrete etc involved in putting them in place. I suspect their placement was to help flesh out the cross country availability as this is in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and people do once in a while drive through this area.
If this move helps recover some of that investment or even generate profits and can be managed to not inconvenience the existing customer base, then that's a win for everyone including investors.
I know I personally would be happy to show a non Tesla driver my car if asked and would be friendly, but I"m also not waiting in line to charge, really ever.
-
- Posts: 49038
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
I believe that the Japanese car companies (and the Koreans) bet fairly heavily on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs).Soysauceonrice wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:46 amI am an EV owner and I wholeheartedly agree with this take. Toyota is at least 5 years behind VW/Ford/GM and a decade behind Tesla and it has everything to do with their hostility towards the EV transition. To just now get into the game is to start the race when you’ve already been lapped by the competition. There is certainly some risk to Tesla but it sure isn’t coming from Toyota.rhoms33 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:20 amThe fact the the Japanese legacy brands have no BEV offerings in 2021 still baffles me. Toyota dominated the hybrid market for a long time, but their current CEO has been outwardly opposive of BEV's and it will hurt them. They are SO late to the game now, with VAG, MB, GM, Ford, Kia, etc ahead of them by years. And Telsa by more than a decade.
Those may yet have their day, but BEVs went from totally inadequate range and performance to more than adequate performance (and good enough range).
This does so much remind me of Clayton Christensen's disruptive innovation theory. Although apparently the (late) Clay Christensen said he would not include Tesla in that bucket.
The idea being is the industry incumbents meet their existing customer needs too well. Kodachrome 64 slide film. IBM Mainframes. etc.
Some upstart comes along with a markedly inferior product (early digital cameras) which addresses a customer need in some way (and may be radically cheaper). They lock in those "unattractive" customers. Then, over time, performance improves, and eventually Kodak, IBM etc have their core market implode.
It's impossible for the incumbent to react, because that would mean jettisoning profitable, well-served customers in the current market. It's not that the incumbents are bad companies with inferior products, it's that they are very good companies, with superior products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation
Although there are still cost issues. I think EVs have turned into the 21st century's disruptive innovations. Battery density rose and cost fell, and eventually EVs had reached the level at which they meet the needs of ordinary drivers, most of the time. We are very close to the "tipping point" of mass adoption of EVs*.
FCVs may well have a place with heavy commercial vehicles (and things like big pickups or SUVs?) plus trains and shipping.
* this will happen outside the USA faster than inside, I expect. Because of government legislation associated with decarbonisation -- new ICE vehicles will be banned from 2030 in the UK (old ones will still be road licensable). Europe and China in particular. But... Tesla is an American company and made its first big splash there-- I certainly did not anticipate that.
-
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 11:52 am
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
This article is a great writeup on TSLA, the greatest bubble in the history of the stock market,
https://www.fxempire.com/forecasts/arti ... pse-795672
Interesting note - the news of 100,000 car sale to Hertz added 4 entire Ford Motor Companies ($300 billion) to the market cap when this sale would generate, being extremely generous, a modest $2 billion in profit.
Infact, just the Hertz news added a market cap equal to a third of all the automobile companies on the planet.
Bulls are arguing that it isn't the Hertz sale but people will drive the rentals and get addicted to TSLA and drive up demand, c'mon now.. this is the most laughable argument I have heard in my entire life. This is characteristic of humungous bubbles, people have all sorts of incredulous justifications for the stock price.
https://www.fxempire.com/forecasts/arti ... pse-795672
Interesting note - the news of 100,000 car sale to Hertz added 4 entire Ford Motor Companies ($300 billion) to the market cap when this sale would generate, being extremely generous, a modest $2 billion in profit.
Infact, just the Hertz news added a market cap equal to a third of all the automobile companies on the planet.
Bulls are arguing that it isn't the Hertz sale but people will drive the rentals and get addicted to TSLA and drive up demand, c'mon now.. this is the most laughable argument I have heard in my entire life. This is characteristic of humungous bubbles, people have all sorts of incredulous justifications for the stock price.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
There is some truth here, but I get the impression you're overstating. I have a Model 3, and am waiting for an EV SUV that meets our needs at a price I'm willing to pay to replace our current SUV. Having an exclusive charging network is 0% factor in the decision of what we buy. I know it is for some, but I doubt it's a big factor for that many. The availability of a charging network is far more important than the exclusivity of it.burritoLover wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:10 am
They do have a monopoly on chargers that only work with the vehicles they sell. They open that up to any EV, they have then removed a major incentive to purchasing a Tesla and reduce that feeling of being part of an exclusive community (sounds hokey but I don't think this can be discounted - people don't purchase Teslas just because of specs alone). You also may alienate these existing customers who find the superchargers way more crowded. The only argument for it is additional profit which will dwindle over time as other chargers become as ubiquitous as gas stations anyway.
I think Tesla realized that automakers having exclusive networks is not sustainable in the long run. It's like automakers requiring different types of gas. Having a cohesive, standard network is in the customers' best long term interest, and thus in the manufacturers' best long term interests. Tesla realizes this.
-
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:47 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
It's probably not too useful in trying to associate any given stock movement to any piece of news. Maybe it was mostly unrelated. As you pointed out, the actual profit isn't that much, and Tesla is still production constrained anyway.stocknoob4111 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 3:28 pmnews of 100,000 car sale to Hertz added 4 entire Ford Motor Companies ($300 billion) to the market cap when this sale would generate, being extremely generous, a modest $2 billion in profit
- burritoLover
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:13 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Jim Cramer (of all people) about TSLA:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/01/cramer- ... thing.htmlJim Cramer wrote: I’ve actually never seen a stock go up endlessly on nothing.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
It's fascinating that TSLA only went down 3% yesterday but 11% today. As far as I know, the tweet was the only news.
-
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:08 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Rivian being valued at 100 billion starts to make Tesla look cheap.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Oh Ok I see....PE 26.3 in 2025: that means if TSLA increase by just 10%/year til the end of 2025: it will be about $1.35 Trillion market cap: at PE of 26.3 we are looking at $51 billion in net income per year or about $12.75 billion/quarter: it is quite daunting. Tesla does not have the factories to produce that many cars by 2025...they have to make money from somewhere else...I don't know what by 2025. This is not saying market cap can't be $2 Trillion or $3 trillion or $4 trillion, etc....GT99 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 3:07 pmIt was in the spreadsheet Gary Black tweeted that I was responding to. That was his projection based on his analysis.tdmp wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:38 amJust a question: how did you come up with TSLA having a PE of 26.3 in 2025???GT99 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:19 pmThere are a number of issues here. I'll preface this by saying (as I've said in past similar posts) that I'm a Tesla owner and fan, and a big EV bull. But he's making his case using best case scenarios.4nursebee wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:46 am For those that want to argue against current TSLA price, I am curious about your views on one specific wall street alumnus' opinion. Gary Black came up with a new price target of $1400, shares his reasons and a spreadsheet on his twitter feed. If you are willing, can you review it and punch holes in what he lays out? What exactly would you criticize?
His value based upon the future?
His other assumptions? Which?
What specifically would you take issue with?
Thank you...
https://twitter.com/garyblack00
1. Let's start by looking look at his delivery projections based on production capacity. Current annual production capacity is about 1,050,000 in Fremont and Shanghai. That's max - those factories have both been open for years and they have not had a quarter with anywhere near max production. Texas and Germany both are supposed to open in the next 2 months and ramp up to 500k capacity (with potential expansion in the future).
- 2022 - 250k units per new location for 2022 is aggressive, but not out of the question. If they are both at 250k and Shanghai+Fremont get close to max, his 1,520,000 deliveries in 2022 isn't too crazy. Still at the high end of what's likely, but reasonable.
- 2023 - this is where things get very squirrelly. All 4 existing plants give you just over 2M production capacity, but he's projecting over 2.5M deliveries. So Tesla needs to have 500k in new production in 2023 from somewhere construction hasn't started, whether that's new capacity at existing factories or 1or more new factories. Not completely out of the question, but highly unlikely. Forecasts should be done based on what's most likely.
2. Now lets look at delivery projections based on demand. Harder to analyze with numbers, but Tesla's global market share of EVs is already dropping. This is natural as there is more competition coming out constantly, and there will be a ton more competition in the next 2 years. The idea that despite all of that competition, Tesla will only experience a tiny decrease in market share is crazy. If Tesla has 15% global market share in 2025 that would be outstanding.
- 2025 - 5.2M Deliveries - Tesla basically has to increase their production capacity by 2.5x in just over 3 years (to the start of 2025) to make this happen. Not just build and start production, but have production fully ramped up, which takes a year or more from production start. Tesla basically needs to start building 5 new factories the size of Giga Texas in the next 6 months AND expand existing factories to make this happen. Even if they did that, 5.2M in 2025 is still a stretch. It would still require everything to go perfectly.
3. Despite all of that, if all of these things happen and everything goes perfectly for the next 4 years and he is right, you're still holding a stock with a P/E of 26.3....based on 2025 sales. That's just slightly lower than were Apple is today based on trailing 12 months sales. Which supports my standing that while the future is extremely bright for Tesla, it's already priced in.
I don't see Tesla dropping to 200 or 300 or anything like that. I'm very bullish on the companies prospects. But it's all already priced in (heck it was priced in at $800...now it's back to nuts).
If you want to pick individual stocks, it's a game of odds. You don't bet on the best case scenario happening, which is what Black is doing. You bet on better upside potential than downside risk.
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Once all planned/announced factories are built out and optimized they'll potentially have a 5M run rate or so. You can't just count the number of factories and say each have 500-600k run rate and be done. If you look at the land acquired and plan for each of the new factories, they're much larger than the current ones.
There's a reason why VW's Diess is trying to light a fire by comparing VW to Tesla. It takes Tesla 10 hours to build a model 3 where it takes them 3 times as long to make an ID3.
Also, when Tesla bulls talk about manufacturing advantage, they're referring to building the factory and efficient lines (yes some cars still have small panel gaps and squeaks and such). Tesla keeps optimizing factory lines and the manufacturing process to make each new iteration factory even more efficient and can manufacture more in a smaller space. They're eliminating the need for several robots and processes through innovation.
These small things and many more are the reasons why comparing Tesla to a traditional auto manufacturer and old valuations doesn't make sense. They both make things with 4 wheels that move you from point A to B but the entire process and approach is different.
There's a reason why VW's Diess is trying to light a fire by comparing VW to Tesla. It takes Tesla 10 hours to build a model 3 where it takes them 3 times as long to make an ID3.
Also, when Tesla bulls talk about manufacturing advantage, they're referring to building the factory and efficient lines (yes some cars still have small panel gaps and squeaks and such). Tesla keeps optimizing factory lines and the manufacturing process to make each new iteration factory even more efficient and can manufacture more in a smaller space. They're eliminating the need for several robots and processes through innovation.
These small things and many more are the reasons why comparing Tesla to a traditional auto manufacturer and old valuations doesn't make sense. They both make things with 4 wheels that move you from point A to B but the entire process and approach is different.
-
- Posts: 6238
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:28 am
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
So conventional autos can’t optimize their production lines for EV?Nysoz wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:56 am Once all planned/announced factories are built out and optimized they'll potentially have a 5M run rate or so. You can't just count the number of factories and say each have 500-600k run rate and be done. If you look at the land acquired and plan for each of the new factories, they're much larger than the current ones.
There's a reason why VW's Diess is trying to light a fire by comparing VW to Tesla. It takes Tesla 10 hours to build a model 3 where it takes them 3 times as long to make an ID3.
Also, when Tesla bulls talk about manufacturing advantage, they're referring to building the factory and efficient lines (yes some cars still have small panel gaps and squeaks and such). Tesla keeps optimizing factory lines and the manufacturing process to make each new iteration factory even more efficient and can manufacture more in a smaller space. They're eliminating the need for several robots and processes through innovation.
These small things and many more are the reasons why comparing Tesla to a traditional auto manufacturer and old valuations doesn't make sense. They both make things with 4 wheels that move you from point A to B but the entire process and approach is different.
20% VOO | 20% VXUS | 20% AVUV | 20% AVDV | 20% AVES
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:39 pm
Re: TSLA: What Changed?
Maybe ? The problem is they are not fully "all-in" on EVs. Tesla only makes EVs. They are not splitting their human/financial capital between ICE and EVs, so of course they do it best. With the "conventional" automakers, you have varying degrees of commitment to electrification, from outright hostility/begrudging acceptance (Toyota), to enthusiastic embrace (VW). But none of these companies are "EV OR BUST" like Tesla.Nathan Drake wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 9:49 amSo conventional autos can’t optimize their production lines for EV?Nysoz wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:56 am Once all planned/announced factories are built out and optimized they'll potentially have a 5M run rate or so. You can't just count the number of factories and say each have 500-600k run rate and be done. If you look at the land acquired and plan for each of the new factories, they're much larger than the current ones.
There's a reason why VW's Diess is trying to light a fire by comparing VW to Tesla. It takes Tesla 10 hours to build a model 3 where it takes them 3 times as long to make an ID3.
Also, when Tesla bulls talk about manufacturing advantage, they're referring to building the factory and efficient lines (yes some cars still have small panel gaps and squeaks and such). Tesla keeps optimizing factory lines and the manufacturing process to make each new iteration factory even more efficient and can manufacture more in a smaller space. They're eliminating the need for several robots and processes through innovation.
These small things and many more are the reasons why comparing Tesla to a traditional auto manufacturer and old valuations doesn't make sense. They both make things with 4 wheels that move you from point A to B but the entire process and approach is different.
On another note, Rivian is now valued more than both Ford and GM. They started production of their R1T pickup mid September. As of October 22, they had produced 56 R1Ts. 56 vehicles produced, yet more valuable than GM or Ford.. I think it's clear that it's not just Tesla's valuation that doesn't make sense.