-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
It's a stew of malice, stupidity, corruption and BRAIN DAMAGE. ( no /s )Does that evidence completely rule out a possibility of stupidity being a factor, at least to some degree?
/S
In each CNBS article they take a scoop out of this stew. And every scoop creates a different percentage of each ingredient in a specific article. This also applies to most other MSM articles.
I see Tesla is not taking new orders for the S in the US.
(I'm getting caught up, and I'll delete this if someone already posted it.)
(I'm getting caught up, and I'll delete this if someone already posted it.)
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Both customers and cell suppliers can be won over, mostly via the power of money.
1) Tesla has been taking customers from other brands since Day One, which conclusively demonstrates Tesla’s ability to do so. Conquest sales have always constituted the vast majority of Tesla’s sales volume, and as we look to the future it appears the balance of competitive power will only tilt further in Tesla’s favor.
2) Many of these companies currently buying battery cells (and thereby diluting Tesla’s % share of the market) will go bankrupt. How will they keep buying cells then? The cell production capacity will go to someone.
3) Cell supplier allegiance isn’t that strong. They make thin margins and I believe if Tesla simply outbids competitors then they can buy up almost arbitrarily large portions of global cell supply. Only Tesla will have the cost wiggle room to allow for this. “Oh you want to supply Ford? What about an extra $10/kWh and you double your gross margin, how does that sound?” The same applies to commodity minerals like lithium, nickel and graphite. Free markets, when working efficiently, are brutally effective at allocating resources like battery cells to their highest-value uses. Stuff like long-term contracts can have transitory effects but ten years from now when the dust has settled it looks to me that Tesla will have overwhelming negotiation leverage.
Yes but the problem here is using current EV market share and historical trends as representative of the future. As a TSLA investor, for the auto business I’m mainly looking at the giant profits coming in the 2030s and beyond. The 2020s are just the warm-up.
The current data is representative if and only if the underlying dynamics will stay the same over time, but the dynamics of the EV market in 2030+ will be drastically different than today. We are in the early stage of a major, disruptive phase transition and the other side looks quite different from the present. In the 30s there will no longer be the opportunity for companies to sell loss-making compliance cars or sell hopeful investors on EV startup dreams, and these two categories cover pretty much the entire array of mass-market non-Tesla EV options being delivered today. What is working now won’t continue working as the EV market scale climbs another couple orders of magnitude.
Last edited:
Spacep0d
Active Member
I prefer this version of Hanlon's Razor; "Never attribute to malice that which is better explained by stupidity."
Malice takes some knowledge and intelligence to know the truth but to maliciously misdirect people (a la Gordon Johnson). Stupidity on the other hand takes no effort at all. Malicious FUDsters need to know where the land mines are (the facts) in order to further their misdirection or to employ a little 'truth' to make the FUD believable.
The FUD around Tesla is mostly intentional (malice) but sometimes it's just incurious, ignorant stupidity.
Last edited:
Why do you say that? I can still place an order for a Model S right now: Design Your Model S | Tesla
Captkerosene
Member
Why would you want to discourage someone trying to manipulate the stock? I love it when the stock gets too cheap or too expensive. When it's too expensive it's a chance to trim a little and buy that second home. Or, maybe sell a few covered calls to generate a little income. When it's too cheap you can add a little margin or sell other assets to increase the size of your position. If it gets crazy cheap then buy a few LEAPS. When it's in the middle "zone of reasonableness" then do nothing. This only works when you can accurately value a business and its future prospects. Many posters here have that ability. In the future, Tesla will have excess cash and they will also have the opportunity to take advantage of mispricing.
Novice investors underestimate normal price fluctuations in the stock market. TSLA cratered 70% last year and has doubled so far this year. That seems unusual but it isn't. I would expect most years for TSLA to swing 60% or more going forward. That presents far more opportunity than trying to shave a few pennies off of trades for 99% of the posters on this board. I've seen this work over the last twenty years on the Berkshire Hathaway board. Most investors there straight buy and hold. In fact, many will never sell their shares. There are others who buy and sell ... but only when the shares become noticeably mispriced. They have probably doubled their returns during that time. (And BRK is a stock that is far more stable.) I don't recall anyone on that board ever talking about MM, MMDs, capping, hedge funds, TA or options expirations.
Drumheller
Active Member
No. One could argue that being greedy is stupid as it leads to a trap. Many of the media situations arise from sold integrity.Does that evidence completely rule out a possibility of stupidity being a factor, at least to some degree?
Watching with joy - its my favorite series! Binge watching!
I just tried again, and I can't. I can only get the inventory page.
Edit: I see your link works. But from the Tesla website I can only get the inventory page for the S. Site works normally for the Y.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Might be local to your area. I can access the regular S order page too.
We don't have long to wait for Investor Day.
The majority of market share is lower priced models, the segment Tesla is about to enter with Gen3.
Simplicity and lower cost has many virtues.
I view Gen3 as a 50% cost reduction on existing Model 3/Y, not on Model 3 Highland which taps some of the same advantages.
Sometimes the right product can turn around marketshare by being lower cost and superior to the competition. A whole fleet of those products and capital efficient scaling and clean transport can be accelerated.
With Gen3 I now think that even vechicle design time might be reduced.
This is a technique Tesla uses to shunt people towards inventory vehicles rather than first directing to the custom build page, we had seen similar strategies already in recent history. They must want those inventory cars to be priority #1 right now rather than custom builds.
The big question is whether Tesla will ever compete in the sub $10k EV market.
They don’t need to in order to hit 20m vehicles. Maybe that’s what the auto industry looks like in 15 years. Tesla dominating the $20k+ market with a dozen Chinese companies fighting over the $20k and less market. Much like the smartphone market with the iPhone.
When Tesla will need to enter that market, I hope FSD will have been completed and ready for deployment in most cities.
Then, that market should disappear because owners of such taxi fleet will prefer to operate durable $20+k multi-purposes vehicles models that can transport families with luggage and deliver many/various packages in one trip, than cheap cars.
The initial cost of the car should matter than the cost of maintenance over its lifetime, and more importantly, the versatility of the vehicles.
The Tesla Gen3 cars are certain to have FSD hardware.True that *in theory* if the competition were making enough EVBs in 2028/2029 they could have a sensor-equipped fleet of the required size thats true. However that assumes:
Any of those companies survive the next 5-6 years in any form
That they can attract the specialist talent required for computer vision, away from tesla and optimus projects.
That they can continue to afford to equip those cars with sensors and manage the backend data collection without going bankrupt first.
Tesla is currently a much desired EV, even without robotaxi, and even at a high price. In 2030, if Tesla are making the most affordable EV AND have robotaxi capability, I dont see anybody catching up. Who is going to take a chance on a GM robotaxi when it costs the same or more as the pioneer in the field, and the brand synonymous with EVs AND with Autonomy?
None of us know what will happen for sure
How many entry level ICE and EVs from competitors have self-driving hardware?
BYD are adopting a typical strategy of reducing costs by reducing functionality. IMO Gen3 is about reducing costs by being smarter.
Many of the the things BYD are doing Tesla can easily copy, To copy Gen3 probably requires new vechicle designs, new parts, new manufacturing equipment.
Another carmaker making a complete copy of Gen3 5 years after Tesla would IMO be a good achievement, any less than that is a great achievement.
No one is used to carmakers being smart, everyone is used to carmakers reducing functionality.
Last edited:
The other point about Gen3 is that I expect margins to be good, better than BYD margins, with BYD margins being better than most of the competition.
Eventually Tesla might be able to walk a compact Gen3 model down to a $15k price and still have a reasonable margin. Much lower, then margins need to suffer, or quality and functionality need to be cut to the point where it is no longer a Tesla.
With Robotaxis, those currently buying $10k EVs have another option.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
