pavarchin, I disagree.
I've read the projections used by a few of the analysts for future years, and generally, I find them conservative. For three years now, I've done my own modeling of earnings scenarios for Tesla, and recently I arrived at $355 as the current fair value of TSLA stock by using multiple scenarios for 2020 and 2025. For net margins I take Tesla's guidance of low teens down to 10% to be a bit conservative myself. fwiw, my 2025 revenue assumptions are dramatically lower than what Elon Musk has suggested. Over three years, Tesla and Musk have earned credibility with me in terms of projecting margins. I do take Elon's "Apple market cap" statement with a large grain of salt, because part of his role at Tesla is to keep his team pushing ahead with the ferocity of a startup and my sense is sometimes that means setting goals he knows will rally effort but will not be achieved in the timeline he's set.
I can understand why you may have come to a different conclusion. There are some in the media who repeatedly try to paint Tesla as overvalued, or as Jim Cramer does, try to suggest the company cannot be valued. In my view they are as flatly wrong saying this today, as when they sang this same tune when Tesla traded at $30 and $80 per share. I have some ideas about their motivations (there's a famous video of Cramer talking about the process he used of pushing bs out through the media to try to manipulate stock prices), but what matters is thinking for one's self.
While I would agree that it is quite rare that the future torrid growth of a company 5 years out, much less ten years out, can be seen with high probability, that is not a reason to deny that such a company can exist or can be valued. If you are lucky enough to come across such a company, if it turns out the company is undervalued, you have a terrific opportunity for a very long term growth holding.
The main thing that does not get discussed about Tesla by its detractors is that Tesla has extraordinary moats around their growth opportunity, and an extremely high probability of dramatically improving their vehicles vs. ICE vehicles for many years to come. By 2020, it is likely mass market priced Tesla's will be at cost parity at purchase compared to ICE vehicles, and thereafter save the consumer $1-2K per year in fuel. For less money, you will be able to purchase a Tesla caliber vehicle that is decidedly better than an ICE vehicle in most major areas consumers consider (performance, safety, storage, maintenance...), and equal in other areas. You might wonder about other BEVs... there's another key point that never gets mentioned by Tesla's detractors; Tesla is running towards BEVs, while, with the partial exception of Nissan, other automakers are running from BEVs. For example, even GM which recently unveiled a Bolt 200 mile EV prototype, has battery supply for merely 20K Bolts per year. Tesla is creating battery supply for 500K long range EVs per year. Resisting a volume move into EVs is not simply stupidity on the part of automakers. There is a list of quite compelling reasons the other automakers do not turn to EVs... reasons that apply to all of them but not to Tesla (in short, investments in engineering, equipment, personnel, corporate identity, and the individual career and lifestyle security of those running these companies). Finally, when the automakers do find it attractive to turn to BEVs, it will take $1 trillion (at current pricing) and decades to build up battery supply to transition to EVs. Until that point, whatever new BEVs the incumbents do make will just join those from Tesla in replacing ICE vehicle sales, rather than competing with each other for BEV sales.