Crown

lukestern:

MKSGR:

Please keep in mind that Ferrari or Porsche are in a much higher price and profit bracket than Tesla.

Also, I think Tesla's annual production was far below 100k cars?

Porsche higher price bracket? Average sales price for a Porsche vehicle in 2016 was $90k. Same figure for Tesla about $100k. Profit per sold vehicle of course Porsche is in another league for many reasons.

Tesla sold 80k cars in 2016 and estimate 100k for 2017 (after Q3 about 75k S/X delivered).

Ferrari - not Porsche. Porsche is much more profitable (without any accounting tricks).

Porsche is much more profitable (without any accounting tricks).

lukestern:

MKSGR:

Please keep in mind that Ferrari or Porsche are in a much higher price and profit bracket than Tesla.

Also, I think Tesla's annual production was far below 100k cars?

Porsche higher price bracket? Average sales price for a Porsche vehicle in 2016 was $90k. Same figure for Tesla about $100k. Profit per sold vehicle of course Porsche is in another league for many reasons.

Tesla sold 80k cars in 2016 and estimate 100k for 2017 (after Q3 about 75k S/X delivered).

More fun with Tesla’s SEC accounting filings.  Be careful of how Tesla is ramping up Model S/X production numbers.   A sizable percentage are now at the service centers as loaners to be sold later as certified pre-owned vehicles.   This negatively impacts its margins but positively boasts its output.   Coupled with this trick, Tesla is guaranteeing resale values on older Tesla cars.  The trade-in values offered are greater than the market prices.   

CGX car nut:

lukestern:

MKSGR:

Please keep in mind that Ferrari or Porsche are in a much higher price and profit bracket than Tesla.

Also, I think Tesla's annual production was far below 100k cars?

Porsche higher price bracket? Average sales price for a Porsche vehicle in 2016 was $90k. Same figure for Tesla about $100k. Profit per sold vehicle of course Porsche is in another league for many reasons.

Tesla sold 80k cars in 2016 and estimate 100k for 2017 (after Q3 about 75k S/X delivered).

More fun with Tesla’s SEC accounting filings.  Be careful of how Tesla is ramping up Model S/X production numbers.   A sizable percentage are now at the service centers as loaners to be sold later as certified pre-owned vehicles.   This negatively impacts its margins but positively boasts its output.   Coupled with this trick, Tesla is guaranteeing resale values on older Tesla cars.  The trade-in values offered are greater than the market prices.   

 

Lol, don't over estimate that and write a "sizable percentage". It's quite well known and Tesla even post figures in their reports separating production volumes from actual customer deliveries.

http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1042449

You do realize Tesla has never ever post a real profit in a quarter right? The only profitable quarters were when they book the green credit resale, as someone said, accounting trick. Enron anyone?

They are burning A LOT OF CASH every quarter, hence the need to keep tapping the debt market.

Elon has a great vision, no doubt, but the business case is not iron clad. 

So long as they can break even, the rest of the automotive world could be in trouble. Hell, so long as they can lose only $100M/year the rest of the automotive world is in trouble.

I ultimately have no idea how well it will do financially, but even staying solvent is going to inflict pain and damage on the margins of everyone else.

And on top of all this, autonomous driving will eventually devastate car sales.

As Noone says, as long as they can raise capital, they are a game changer.

Tesla actually need to move it's target, from passenger cars to trucks. Quickly. Forget about the ultra competitive passenger market, truck market is where they can make real money.

It is already perceived as a very green company, and the dirtiest thing on the road are the trucks. These things produced far more pollutants than all cars combined.

They already have a head start against the competition, so why not take advantage of that? Even the huge amount of batteries needed for each truck is not a problem, they make their own batteries. 

Sure they can be granted huge government subsidies for doing 'green' trucks. That will help their bottom line.

noone1:

So long as they can break even, the rest of the automotive world could be in trouble. Hell, so long as they can lose only $100M/year the rest of the automotive world is in trouble.

I ultimately have no idea how well it will do financially, but even staying solvent is going to inflict pain and damage on the margins of everyone else.

And on top of all this, autonomous driving will eventually devastate car sales.

I cannot follow any of these points I have to confess 

SciFrog:

As Noone says, as long as they can raise capital, they are a game changer.

There we are again at the core of the problem - their case is based on hope not on actual success. A huge bubble, like Uber etc. Only problem: bubbles burst... Cash burning bubbles in particular...

lukestern:

CGX car nut:

lukestern:

MKSGR:

Please keep in mind that Ferrari or Porsche are in a much higher price and profit bracket than Tesla.

Also, I think Tesla's annual production was far below 100k cars?

Porsche higher price bracket? Average sales price for a Porsche vehicle in 2016 was $90k. Same figure for Tesla about $100k. Profit per sold vehicle of course Porsche is in another league for many reasons.

Tesla sold 80k cars in 2016 and estimate 100k for 2017 (after Q3 about 75k S/X delivered).

More fun with Tesla’s SEC accounting filings.  Be careful of how Tesla is ramping up Model S/X production numbers.   A sizable percentage are now at the service centers as loaners to be sold later as certified pre-owned vehicles.   This negatively impacts its margins but positively boasts its output.   Coupled with this trick, Tesla is guaranteeing resale values on older Tesla cars.  The trade-in values offered are greater than the market prices.   

 

Lol, don't over estimate that and write a "sizable percentage". It's quite well known and Tesla even post figures in their reports separating production volumes from actual customer deliveries.

http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1042449

Tesla describes the variances as vehicles in transit, not increased inventories at the retail level.   This is a significant difference with retail inventories around 10,000 units.  

Many people think like you do, just look at the short interest on TSLA (21%). Keep in mind all these people will have to buy their shares back at some point and that they have lost billions already so far as a group.

Investors knew they would need to pour billions before they could pump out cars at the rate they anticipate. You call it what you want, but so far there hasn’t been any big suprprises one way or the other and that’s why the stock price doesn’t tank.

The bubble will burst if they don’t deliver what they promised to, ie 500,000 cars a year.

Whoopsy:

Tesla actually need to move it's target, from passenger cars to trucks. Quickly. Forget about the ultra competitive passenger market, truck market is where they can make real money.

It is already perceived as a very green company, and the dirtiest thing on the road are the trucks. These things produced far more pollutants than all cars combined.

They already have a head start against the competition, so why not take advantage of that? Even the huge amount of batteries needed for each truck is not a problem, they make their own batteries. 

Sure they can be granted huge government subsidies for doing 'green' trucks. That will help their bottom line.

 

Funny you mention trucks.  The US market is 250,000 units annually at $30 billion gross.  What is interesting is Musk publicly stating that the Tesla Semi is built on several Model 3 motors.  Hence, there is finally operating scale not present with the Model S, Model X, and Model 3.   Surprisingly, the Model 3 motor embodies permanent magnets reliant on rare earth elements, notably from China, where the other two rely on induction motors which contain no rare earth elements.    The supply web of raw materials is an often overlooked area.  Controlling this is key yet no one company has managed this well.  

SciFrog:

Many people think like you do, just look at the short interest on TSLA (21%). Keep in mind all these people will have to buy their shares back at some point and that they have lost billions already so far as a group.

That's not entirely true. A high short percentage on a stock that has been volatile does not indicate overwhelming losses.You can be short for any length of time, at the best time or the worst time, and you can have options to hedge.

I believe shorts have lost money overall on Tesla, but the extent is rather unknown.

It is true. The short interest has alway been in the 20 top 30% range. That whole group of people taken all together have lost about $10B. There is no arguing about this, it is simple math. Of course in that group not everyone is a looser, who knows how they traded the stock overall. But overall, it is what it is.

Options are a zero sum game, it is of course possible that some of that short interest has been buying puts to offset their short. That is not a very common strategy. And anyhow someone else took the other side of the trade so my argument is still widely valid...

I do not agree with everything said here, it is healthy for a company to have short sellers:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/elon-musk-said-tesla-short-sellers-are-jerks-who-want-us-to-die.html

I don't believe that's mathematically correct. It depends how many were short at what time and what value. An average is not a good indication of this. Also, short sellers don't hedge by buying puts, they hedge by selling puts and buying calls. Long holder hedge by buying puts and selling calls.

As I said, I don't think it's really possible to come to a very good conclusion about the overall losses on shorting Tesla. They lost, but I don't think it's obvious how much.

Maybe worth keeping in mind that Tesla is currently trading 20% below it's all time high, which represents a mark-to-market loss to long shareholders of over $12 billion, so the "smart money" has already sold. Indeed, you will have noted that many members of Tesla management, including family, have been selling stock regularly.

With a "story" like Tesla, it's all about timing -- plenty of money has been made by investors on the way up... but a long way to fall back as the $1.4bn quarterly cash burn eats up the existing $3bn of cash on balance sheet (i.e. within 6 months) and investors have to look at distressed valuation metrics. Any company that believes market cap is a free revolving credit facility can get a very nasty surprise on the way down!

For those that are bullish on the name, enjoy the ride, but watch out for the impact of a discounted rights issue if the credit rating is downgraded to CCC and the cash flows continue to be negative. 2018 is make or break and the track record of delivery versus guidance is not good so far.

The current valuation requires surprises on the upside to be sustained. Underperformance in the next couple of quarters would see a significant revaluation by the market.

Elon Musk could be a genius, but he's also got a lot on his mind...

Link: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/elon-musk-inventors-plans-for-outer-space-cars-finding-love-w511747

noone1:

I don't believe that's mathematically correct. It depends how many were short at what time and what value. An average is not a good indication of this. Also, short sellers don't hedge by buying puts, they hedge by selling puts and buying calls. Long holder hedge by buying puts and selling calls.

As I said, I don't think it's really possible to come to a very good conclusion about the overall losses on shorting Tesla. They lost, but I don't think it's obvious how much.

The new Tesla Roadster will turn some heads. 0-60 1.9 sec. 0-100 8.6 sec and top speed 250 mph. 

Tesla Roadster will smoke every production gas car at least in acceleration. According th Musk it has a range of 650 miles. 

"A man wrapped up in himself makes for a very small bundle."

nberry:

The new Tesla Roadster will turn some heads. 0-60 1.9 sec. 0-100 8.6 sec and top speed 250 mph. 

Tesla Roadster will smoke every production gas car at least in acceleration. According th Musk it has a range of 650 miles. 

Physically it's impossible to get a 1.9 sec 0-60 on street tires.

The current record, 2.2 seconds by the 918 is pretty much AT the limit of street tire traction. The Model S is not far behind at 2.23. It's not about power and torque anymore.

Anything better than those times needed to be on slicks.

--

Whoopsy:

nberry:

The new Tesla Roadster will turn some heads. 0-60 1.9 sec. 0-100 8.6 sec and top speed 250 mph. 

Tesla Roadster will smoke every production gas car at least in acceleration. According th Musk it has a range of 650 miles. 

 

Physically it's impossible to get a 1.9 sec 0-60 on street tires.

The current record, 2.2 seconds by the 918 is pretty much AT the limit of street tire traction. The Model S is not far behind at 2.23. It's not about power and torque anymore.

Anything better than those times needed to be on slicks.

--

 

 

 

 

I'll take the under (under 2 seconds) on this one.  To think the 918's time is the fastest a car can possibly accelerate for ever is a bit naive, especially considering the recent pace of tire improvement.

I am a huge critic of Tesla, but the presentation tonight was impressive.  I remain skeptical regarding whether they can execute on the new promises, but taking deposits for both the Semi and Roadster may help them squeak by until they reach cash flow break even (may never happen).

By the way the 0-100 mph time is 4.2 seconds, not 8.6.  Apparently it will do the quarter mile in 8.9 seconds.  Again, these are better figures than those of the holy trinity, (Chiron as well?).  Not to mention 620 mile range.

TO BE CLEAR - I am not convinced Tesla can pull this off, but if they do they will have earned massive respect in my book.

Well that was unexpected. Unfortunately I don't find it very good looking, but those stats are might impressive. I'm really interested to see how it performs otherwise with all the weight etc.

Did they release a weight for it?

noone1:

Well that was unexpected. Unfortunately I don't find it very good looking, but those stats are might impressive. I'm really interested to see how it performs otherwise with all the weight etc.

Did they release a weight for it?

Unexpected indeed, and definitely impressive specs. I otoh do love the looks of it.

This is what I was saying about super high-end EVs. You can still 200 kwh battery packs in them and get a ton of range. This is going to be true about all high-end cars.

https://twitter.com/DavidHodge/status/931391188065705984/video/1

Pretty wide-sill. CF tub?

200 KwH battery will be incredibly heavy! This isn’t a light car for sure. My i3 has 33KwH just as a comparison. 

Apparently one of the journalists at the launch party asked why the aerodynamics of the new Tesla Roadster appear rather under-developed with a distinct lack of downforce compared to other 250mph hypercars...

...it seems that - thanks to the flux capacitor - above 88mph the Tesla Roadster doesn't need roads!

400kmh yeah right, if it ever gets to production you can bet they will then change it to 300kmh due to tires not being approved for higher, and even so, driving at 300kmh on a Tesla or a >250kmh speed turn? Good luck with that, I sure wouldnt trust the aerodinamic stability, and setup... Great stoplight racer though, if you are into that.

Hope they do come out with it and its not delayed year after year... Regardless of what I said above, with that price if true in the end, it may put pressure on other sportcar manufacturers and that is good for all of us who are their customers.

--

⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS

Whoopsy:

nberry:

The new Tesla Roadster will turn some heads. 0-60 1.9 sec. 0-100 8.6 sec and top speed 250 mph. 

Tesla Roadster will smoke every production gas car at least in acceleration. According th Musk it has a range of 650 miles. 

 

Physically it's impossible to get a 1.9 sec 0-60 on street tires.

The current record, 2.2 seconds by the 918 is pretty much AT the limit of street tire traction. The Model S is not far behind at 2.23. It's not about power and torque anymore.

Anything better than those times needed to be on slicks.

--

 

 

 

 

Best a German car magazine ever achieved on street tires was 3.2 seconds I think...Tesla S P100D in Ludicrous mode.

Those acceleration runs done on drag strips are ridiculous, also considering what it (usually) requires to "prepare" for a Ludicrous mode run.

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet (2015), Porsche Cayenne S Diesel (2017), Audi R8 V10 Plus (2016), Mini JCW (2015)