PowerPack, as far as we know uses NCA and comprises most of Tesla Energy's shipping products. Given the amount of PowerWall's we've seen and the amount of PowerPacks, it is likely PowerPack has more than 99% of the shipments in terms of MWh so far. Tesla can obviously change the product mix as they like... And use NCA as a daily cycler with a different DoD profile.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
PowerPack, as far as we know uses NCA and comprises most of Tesla Energy's shipping products. Given the amount of PowerWall's we've seen and the amount of PowerPacks, it is likely PowerPack has more than 99% of the shipments in terms of MWh so far. Tesla can obviously change the product mix as they like... And use NCA as a daily cycler with a different DoD profile.
LargeHamCollider
Battery cells != scalable
Source? I haven't heard this, and I'm guessing M3 will be more like 230 miles EPA for the 55kwh base model and 300miles for the 75kwh higher model.
dreamingof3
Member
Thinking of selling out at a huge loss. Maybe buy back if it goes lower. Not that I want it to, but one minor hiccup and the bears will be howling again.
How many times did we here other OEM's didn't have alternatives & would be forced to buy batteries from Tesla, looks like the line at the Gigafactory is getting shorter while they find supply from South Korea.
Recent photo of the GF doesn't reveal next phase of construction...
Recent pictures and updated model of the Tesla Gigafactory 1 emerge | Electrek
How do you judge when to buy back in? I understand your thinking what if we go down considerably lower from this point. The flip side, what if we get a run like we did this week from the 140s to 160s. Do you want to miss that movement. Do you believe the future is brighter for TSLA. Depending on your timeframe, holding through Q1 and Q2 may give you a considerable chance to regain paper losses at this point.
Johan, you're sort of right in what you say however the issue surrounding the emotive term Cash Burn is a good deal more complex. Sadly when it comes to market manipulation complexity creates openings for FUD.
This comes down to word-play on accounting terminology that media pundits and a lazy audience is not interested in explaining or understanding.
When you're running a business it is pretty natural in my view to separate:
A. the concepts of monthly overheads into the cash burn category
and
B. Developing a new product, launching a media campaign, hiring new staff and buying more plant and machinery into the investing in growth category.
The trouble with this is that out of all of the above ONLY buying more plant and machinery sits on the accounts under the column marked 'Investing Activity'. All the rest belongs on the accounts in various categories that can be construed (or misconstrued) as cash burn. For example the is no category in accounting language for 'Investing In People', certainly not in the 'Investing Activity' column. Most likely it goes to SG&A which is the very definition of Cash Burn.
What Wheeler has done with his Cash Flow from Core Operations subcategory is to strip out all of the stuff that a business person would consider investing in growth. For example R&D for developing new products in addition to the products being sold by the 'Core Operation'.
However it gets even more complicated and FUD-prone than that when viewed through the eyes of Automotive Industry pundits including for example morons like Mark Speigel. While it would seem obvious in Silicon Valley that investing and staffing up for production of a new and ground-breaking product like the Model X was "investing activity" or investing in growth rather than a component of Core Operations of building, selling and incrementally improving Model S (even though it is not strictly Investing Activity in accounting language). In the automotive industry at large, R&D and staffing up for a new car model is not even colloquially considered an investment. It is literally viewed as cash burn and an every-day cost of keeping the lights on - because 130 years after the ground breaking invention of the internal combustion engine, incremental R&D expenditure by the automotive majors that grew up around it, while absolutely enormous in terms of cumulative cash burn, has produced practically nothing by way of competitive advantage for one over another. The FUDsters pitch is that Tesla being an automotive business should be regarded in the same light.
Wheeler's counterargument to the FUDsters is that Tesla has two things going on simultaneously. A Core Operational Automotive and Energy Storage business that is building and selling cars and batteries with positive cash flows i.e. Operational Leverage and separately it has Growth Activities going on which cost money that Core Operational Business was able to fund 45% in Q4 2015 and this year will on balance be able to fund slightly more than 100% for the full year thereby alleviating the need to raise cash. Presenting this counterargument to the FUDsters is definitely a PR move. A good one too. It's about time they explained this because it's true. It is also a very significant distinction from the business of other automotive companies that TSLA shareholders should be aware of. The fact that the Spiegels of this world don't and won't understand this is useful.
BTW the difference in what I am saying and what Elon is doing is just that. He is trying to persuade people of exactly the same thing but he doesn't need to get involved in a verbal bun fight with the skeptics because he can build the product and deliver the results to shut them up (and in the case of vested skeptics, defund their shorts). The point of saying it before he does it is to expose an information advantage that is actionable for investors in advance of events unfolding. This is why what I say is often counter-intutive and controversial, it is because the guy is doing counter-intuitive and controversial things. The future is both counter-intuitive and amenable to the scientific method. Musk is irrefutable living proof of it (and rather less importantly so is my track record of pointing to it). This is how Musk has been able to go all in with giant projects. He's not guessing and hoping things will turn out OK. Neither am I. Just trying to do my bit to accelerate the (inevitable) advent of electric vehicles by defending this mission from BS and I hope to some extent assisting in transferring wealth and the influence it brings from really bad people to really good ones by debunking some of the prevailing misperceptions and the deliberate FUD that is designed to produce the opposite effect.
Gerardf
Active Member
I don't think there will be any interest for Tesla to sell to others, at least not from GF-1 production.
Every MWh cells produced at GF-1 will result in Tesla making a nice profit on the cars and energy storage systems that they put these cells in.
I would be interested in the price MB, VW and GM will have to pay to their Li-Ion suppliers. They would probably be very eager to buy from Tesla at the forecasted cell prices of the GF. (rumor is the 145,- / kWh stated by GM is not the real price they have to pay for for the LG cells, but part of a package deal).
dreamingof3
Member
My concern is that Tesla is possibly going lower with a weak oil environment. At this point I am a bit skeptical that the market perception of Tesla is too negative to return to the mid 200's in the foreseeable future. They have proven inept at building the X in volume. Everything has been a disaster since the X "debut". As i've said in the past I don't think this drop can be entirely blamed on the Macro environment. It seems like someone big would have had to sell out to create that big of a drop. I guess I'm just frustrated in the execution by Tesla management. I don't agree with not having X's in showrooms. Tesla has gone from a momo stock to a dog in terms of share performance. Perhaps my biggest concern is another huge execution error on the X build and a continued delay in meaningful ramp. The stock will get destroyed if this happens. Also the rumors swirling about Elon showing pictures of the 3 gives me nightmares.
I think you may have mistaken something fundamental. Bears always howl. They are howling the loudest right now because they are scared to death of the Tesla Model 3 - and they should be. Now the Koch brothers are officially scared to death of losing market share of Petroleum itself. (You do know that they operate gasoline refineries, that is mainly what they do).
Shorts and bears are two different things. With Tesla there is a huge contingent of bears with zero skin in the stock. This really unusual for a publicly traded stock of any description. What I understand that to mean is that the bears are seriously unsophisticated when it comes to trading. Between 90% - 100% of the bearish market noise surrounding TSLA at any given time is complete and utter BS. Just factually wrong, for one blatant example: Clinging to the idea of Tesla demand slumping as a result of low oil prices while factually Tesla's deliveries, revenues and order back-log has climbed higher, quarter in quarter out.
It's wrong because it emanates from PR shills, not shorts that stand to lose money in the stock market if they are wrong and yet the bears influence the behavior of the shorts tremendously. Think of them as the victims.
Now if you are sitting on a position that is at risk of imminently expiring worthless, then we have a problem, depending how imminent we are talking about. If not it would really make the most sense given that 30 million shares are sold short on total BS that to unplug your laptop and plug it back in again in three to six months time. That I sincerely think would preserve the greatest quantum of sanity and wealth in your case.
(This is my sincere opinion. Not investment advice).
dreamingof3
Member
ludicrousspeed
Member
I just have shares not options----And I'm average priced at $249
Dont trade Tesla short term. If you want to invest, buy and hold for the long term and it should appreciate. Personally, I won't need any of my funds for the foreseeable future so I've continued to accumulate more in 2016.
I just have shares not options----And I'm average priced at $249
I'm going to get shot down for saying this but I'm going to say it anyway. In your own rational self interest why don't you quit spewing fear about your own stock holding? That goes for @Amped Realtor too.
You will be in the money by May at the latest or I will eat my unwashed socks and send you the video to prove it.
I just have shares not options----And I'm average priced at $249
Unless you really need the money right now, I think you are crazy to sell. The Model X ramp is probably going better than you think. They are now over 1000 on the VINs for Production models, and we know this is going to accelerate through Q2. Car mags will be reviewing the Model X in the next couple months. It is a 7 passenger SUV that drives almost like a Model S - that makes it the best performing SUV in the world by a HUGE margin. People are loving the falcon wing doors much more than they thought they would. Model 3 reservations are going to shock the world. So while the stock might go a little lower in the next month, after March 31st there is going to be a huge gain. If you sell now and don't need the money now, then in my opinion you are a terrible investor and really shouldn't be in the stock market.
I just have shares not options----And I'm average priced at $249
My personal portfolio wide break even price is 211. 222 in tax advantaged and 191 in regular accounts. I couldn't be happier, though if I had more cash I would definitely have bought more at 150, I'd love a 180 cost basis.
Ask yourself where you see TSLA in two years, if it's bigger than 249 then why worry? Or if that's too abstract, where do you see Tesla market cap in two years? your break even is around 32 billion. Do you think Tesla will be worth more than 32 billion in two years?
I personally do, 8 billion in revenue this year is already 1/4 of that, the actual margin is around 25%. 2 billion of profit on goods sold before expenses. If 50% YOY growth continues, that's 18 billion revenue with 4.5 billion profit on goods sold. A less than 2x price to revenue seems unlikely. Tesla spending more than 4.5 billion in a year seems unlikely too. If they spend half our break even P/E is 14.2. That's a pretty low P/E for a growth company. At 25 P/E the sick price would be around 429/share. Works for me.
Please don't hate on my typos, typing on a phone at work is tough.
ludicrousspeed
Member
Dont confuse gross margin with net income. Tesla will likely not sustained positive ne income on a GAAP basis until full production of the M3 and the market is willing to accept that. I do agree that they won't be valued at less than 2x LTM revenue for at least 5 years.
The metric I use for valuing Tesla is forward price to sales ratio. It has gone down from about 10X to 2.5X. Assuming they will keep 40-50% yearly growth and have a P/S of 3 that would put their market cap at $130B end of 2020.
I do think there will be a time were they will stop at around 40-50B as that is what the large auto companies are worth now, but eventually they will break though it if growth continues.
I don't see much that can stop the 40-50% growth so this feels like a rock solid investment for those five years. The only risk I see are EM getting unable to work or that their will be new battery tech that Tesla is not getting access to (because of joint venture or patents).
That and the fact that the Shorts are radically oversold and dead wrong on every single negative investment assumption save the gambling addicts chance of dumb luck running headlong into being proved dead wrong by a management team that has decided to get its mojo on again.
FEDs have backed down on screwing the markets.
Goldman is recommending shorting Gold.
Musk has just picked up $200 million of TSLA on the dip that weak hands have sold into, nice guy but he does not require that kind of charity from TSLA longs IMO, better to support him by buying one of his cars.
Competitive threat to Tesla is a joke (Model S has proven it, Model X has proven it - yes look at the reservation backlog, Model 3 will prove it conclusively in shockingly undeniable ways).
Tesla is pulling up from "burning cash" by any definition fair or FUD.
Tesla is going for GAAP profitability in Q4 - what the hell happened to "losing $x per car", did they gain $20K more profit per car in a year? Really Shorts??
Tesla needs to raise cash to survive. Ooops. Fail.
Honestly if the FUD propping up 30 million shares sold short was turned on its head as a Long thesis (for anything) investors would split their sides with laughter, especially if the stock was anywhere near an ATH. This is the quality of the Short Thesis near what is almost certainly the Feb 10th 2016 pre-ER ATL from here on out.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
