-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
That was... Well. Polrly researched. Telling sign: "Tesla should easily be able to increase production."
This guy knows zero about car manufacturing.
I skimmed the article as I find it not worth reading for several reasons.
1. The article is too long and contains too many irrelevant statements that distract from already low clarity. Author claims to be English language teacher, yet he seems not to have managed some basic writing skills, like being to the point, sticking to the facts and presenting arguments in a clear and concise way. This is what we get instead:
2. The author has zero business exposure, experience or understanding and makes some claims from the position of ignorance, as Johan points out. Google seems to be the sole source of his very limited knowledge. In his own words, what he finds is quite incomprehensible to him or as he put it like being in Urdu. First he needs to google what a shim is then he concludes that because shim is so simple Tesla did not need to fly staff to Norway to work on repairs that included such simple part. He fails to grasp that a simple component is a part of complex assembly. His logic is seriously underdeveloped:
3. He claims no exposure to Tesla stock yet spends many hours writing about Tesla. He seems to crave fame on the back of writing about Tesla and he dreams of debunking Tesla.:biggrin:
4. The author comes across as beyond naive if he expects any investor to take him seriously. He has zero investment or finance credentials, but most of all I see a lot of nonsensical dribbles there.
Last edited:
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Yeah that article had me laughing for sure. If this is the core of the bear argument then we're all in luck, and in for another round of short squeeze juice.
Just read this quote and don't waste 10 minutes of your life reading the whole thing:
"Tesla in particular can increase production very quickly if it wants to.
Tesla's Fremont factory used to churn out 500,000 cars in the best years. The factory itself is 1.6 million square feet, and sits on a plot of land three times that size. Tesla had to buy new equipment, but that was that. There is plenty of space to increase production. Admittedly, the Model S appears to include a higher component manufactured onsite than the typical car; it's not just assembly but also battery pack manufacturing (Tesla buys cells from Panasonic and assembles them into packs), aluminium welding and so on. Even then, you can see Tesla with its 35,000-a-year production isn't running out of space any time soon.
Building factories takes years. Buying and installing equipment takes months. So if Tesla has the factory for the job, and only needs the equipment, why can't it meet demand two and a half years after starting production? Didn't they know this level of demand was coming? It seems Elon expected to make 500,000 cars in 2020, but he didn't expect to make 35,000 in 2014!"
Also, constantly referring to Paulo Santos as your main source of information is, well, not very clever.
Just read this quote and don't waste 10 minutes of your life reading the whole thing:
"Tesla in particular can increase production very quickly if it wants to.
Tesla's Fremont factory used to churn out 500,000 cars in the best years. The factory itself is 1.6 million square feet, and sits on a plot of land three times that size. Tesla had to buy new equipment, but that was that. There is plenty of space to increase production. Admittedly, the Model S appears to include a higher component manufactured onsite than the typical car; it's not just assembly but also battery pack manufacturing (Tesla buys cells from Panasonic and assembles them into packs), aluminium welding and so on. Even then, you can see Tesla with its 35,000-a-year production isn't running out of space any time soon.
Building factories takes years. Buying and installing equipment takes months. So if Tesla has the factory for the job, and only needs the equipment, why can't it meet demand two and a half years after starting production? Didn't they know this level of demand was coming? It seems Elon expected to make 500,000 cars in 2020, but he didn't expect to make 35,000 in 2014!"
Also, constantly referring to Paulo Santos as your main source of information is, well, not very clever.
What I found amazing was how far he would reach to put down Musk. The initial parts are clothed in lots of references and"detail" that they might make you think. However, at the end, he slams Musk for his stance on artificial intelligence and ignores the fact that Steven Hawking and Bill Gates agree. Furthermore his brief reference gives the impression that Musk somehow came up with this issue when in reality Musk just read a book (which he references) and said "holly crap."
Referencing Musk's stance on climate change is another one. When someone puts down concerns over climate change then I know they are someone who doesn't dig deeper than listening to talking heads. Personally, I took the time to go back to original papers and to look at the data itself. I wanted to believe it was just being hyped. What I found, instead, scared the crap out of me.
Referencing Musk's stance on climate change is another one. When someone puts down concerns over climate change then I know they are someone who doesn't dig deeper than listening to talking heads. Personally, I took the time to go back to original papers and to look at the data itself. I wanted to believe it was just being hyped. What I found, instead, scared the crap out of me.
Well, give him credit for being thorough.
His weakest argument is the talk about how easy it is to increase production. The "the factory has a capacity of 500k per year" fallacy is just garbage. They bought a building; they had to outfit it completely from scratch.
However, I find the talk of the battery swap station compelling. I have just always assumed that the swap stuff was about meeting the letter of the law on CARB rules because they could. If the rules are silly and allow you to claim a lot of credits by doing 1 battery swap, that is not Tesla's problem it is the government agencies.
Also, in aggregate I tend to agree that Elon's no-filter approach leaves a long trail of statements that don't come true, or not on schedule. I cringe a bit at a lot of his statements. I know the flipside is that he is honest and forthright, but he promises more than he delivers.
His weakest argument is the talk about how easy it is to increase production. The "the factory has a capacity of 500k per year" fallacy is just garbage. They bought a building; they had to outfit it completely from scratch.
However, I find the talk of the battery swap station compelling. I have just always assumed that the swap stuff was about meeting the letter of the law on CARB rules because they could. If the rules are silly and allow you to claim a lot of credits by doing 1 battery swap, that is not Tesla's problem it is the government agencies.
Also, in aggregate I tend to agree that Elon's no-filter approach leaves a long trail of statements that don't come true, or not on schedule. I cringe a bit at a lot of his statements. I know the flipside is that he is honest and forthright, but he promises more than he delivers.
Tesla’s Speed Isn’t the Whole Story -- Heard on the Street - WSJ
this works to bypass paywall, also no ad revenue to WSJ.
I read the article last night. There was more FUD in the comments, and some very effective FUD vaporizing comments in response. I just went to look for new comments, and clicking on the comments link did not bring me to them. I'm curious as to whether anyone else can still reach the comments. I suspect this may be the WSJ's attempt to avoid negative falsehoods about Tesla being exposed as false rather than anything to do with my computer.
There are some glaring sins of omission and commission in that WSJ article.
...reflecting the planned factory shutdown in Q1 and the shorter length of the Q1.
Because Musk forecast 9,500 in Q1 and 55,000 for the year, doesn't that suggest that he fully understands the need for the ramp up during the year and has plans to accomplish it?
Extrapolating from a sample size of 1? The Model S was Tesla's first production car; the Model X is a variant. A much faster ramp is entirely likely.
This may be the one item in the report of some value. There's an unsurprising inventory doubling of raw materials and service parts: if the factory run-rate has doubled and Model Ss on the road have doubled, those items also ought to double. WIP had a modest 32% increase. But even after backing out $140 MM for the 1,400 delayed-delivery vehicles, finished good inventories rose by $188 MM (271%). The China miss alone can't account for that. Some of it is pipeline filling to new markets that weren't relevant in Dec'13, e.g. Australia and Japan. Some of it may well be cars bought back by Tesla from people trading up to Ds, but not yet sold under the CPO. It will be interesting to see the Q1 numbers, both directionally and because Tesla indicated that it would break out CPO cars from new starting this quarter.
Count the number of negative adjectives / derogatory words in the article ("troubling," "concerning," "concerned," "just barely" "but"). It's not unbiased journalism, it's paid-for attack propaganda with a deliberate agenda. When a major newspaper article reads worse than an anonymous internet forum "trolling" post, you know print journalism is dead/dying in this country.
somewhat OT, but at one point (I believe the last time X deliveries got pushed out), Musk indicated that compared to the S, they were going to have a longer timeframe of testing beta versions of the X to ~"test the heck out of the cars" to allow for a substantially faster ramp up of the X than the S once they start making production cars for delivery. Basically an investment in time now, to save time later and deliver a more finished product to customers from day 1 with the X. I wouldn't expect the WSJ to know that, but I think it's helpful information for Tesla investors to know.
The WSJ apparently doesn't allow you to circumvent the paywall multiple times unless you clear your cookies.
In any event, the rookie reporter appeared to be simply a toady for the short sellers. Perhaps that's what Murdoch and the editors expected from him. He does not appear to have consulted with Tesla Motors or closely examined the 2014 Q4 report or transcript of the conference call. Rather than draw reasonable unbiased conclusions, he came up with twisted ones aimed at supporting a one sided negative thesis. He was advocating rather than reporting. The contemptuous adjectives he used are not those of an objective reporter. Even if he were an editorial columnist they would be considered over the top. It's almost as though he peppered the article with denigrating words and misrepresentations that were supplied by short sellers, oil companies or competing automakers. The reporting was nothing like one would expect from a formerly responsible financial newspaper, but instead resembled the nonsense dispensed at Seeking Alpha.
The financial news profession has gone horribly downhill since I left it.
Last edited:
Aren't cars sent to stores for test rides and to service centers as loaners considered inventory? How about those in transit to buyers? As the company grows, I would expect all inventory categories to grow. In any event, there is still a large backlog of orders.
Last edited:
I agree, but the growth should be proportional. Raw materials inventory doubles; check. Service parts inventory doubles; check. Finished goods inventory quadruples; problem? I'm not willing to give Tesla a pass on this question just yet, although I don't believe the cause is Tesla having clumps of unwanted cars sitting a warehouse somewhere (aside from the China issue, discussed elsewhere).
I would expect finished goods inventory to rise in sync with the rise of new stores and service centres, plus to cover the growth of pipeline.
Each new store gets few or more new cars, each service center gets few or more loaners, so cars inventory growth related to stores/centers growth is likely a multiple of the new stores and centers growth.
It's official. The Wall Street Journal is now as credible as SeekingAlpha: Tesla to Upgrade Slower-Selling Version of Model S - WSJ
They quote "hedge fund" manager Mark Spiegel (i.e., Logical Thought from SeekingAlpha). If that's not funny enough, his quote is talking about how raising the price of the base model is somehow a price cut - by comparing it to the higher model that they didn't change the price of.
They quote "hedge fund" manager Mark Spiegel (i.e., Logical Thought from SeekingAlpha). If that's not funny enough, his quote is talking about how raising the price of the base model is somehow a price cut - by comparing it to the higher model that they didn't change the price of.
The Wall Street Journal and its reporter Mike Ramsey have sunk to new journalistic lows, if they present as a credible source to readers the manager of a puny $2 million hedge fund operated out of an apartment. That TSLA short selling news source has been constantly denigrating Elon Musk and Tesla Motors through Seeking Alpha and Twitter ever since the TSLA IPO in June of 2010.
I researched guests far more thoroughly before inviting them on my TV financial news program. Nowadays some financial reporters appear too lazy to consult reputable sources or company management, and eagerly print whatever someone with a vested interest shoves their way.
Holy moly, Spiegel's Twitter account is a thing of beauty. Absolute comedy gold posted earlier today:
I have no proof your mother sleeps with strangers for money, but...
Wanted to share this note from a former oil company paid PR worker for those of you that still think paid PR/shills are not performing anti-Tesla propaganda on a regular basis (warning, some colorful language):
This is via Reddit in comments regarding an article about Chevron engaging in a paid cover-up of its illegal activities.
Propaganda is easier than ever to create given the anonymity of the internet and the lack of journalistic integrity / proper sourcing. It's all around us. Do your best to think critically about what you read.
This is via Reddit in comments regarding an article about Chevron engaging in a paid cover-up of its illegal activities.
Propaganda is easier than ever to create given the anonymity of the internet and the lack of journalistic integrity / proper sourcing. It's all around us. Do your best to think critically about what you read.
Similar threads
