There's nothing I've seen in videos or data that makes me think they're on the cusp of getting where Waymo was 4 years ago in terms of capabilities. That is running a level 4 system. Not to mention level 5. So although V12 is a huge step forward, there's still a long way to go. And there are no guarantees on whether it's even possible for them to reach level 4 with the current approach. And I'm surprised people are pushing back so hard on the latter part. How can they be guaranteed to reach a milestone with a solution that NOBODY else has tried before?
From the data published by another poster, I can see that the MSRP to invoice difference is anywhere between 3 and 8%. So on average you can assume a conventional manufacturer loses 5.5% top line compared to Tesla's direct model and a fraction of that would've been gross margin. But I do get your point (and agree) that it's a complicated calculation to make. If you have any dealership network that is publicly listed, I'd love to delve a bit into their reports and see what I can find.
The bolded part is a strong statement to make. Conventional L2 systems are pretty good at reacting to frontal collisions, detecting cross traffic. What they can't do is take evasive maneuvers, but statistically you end up with just a few cases over an impressive number of miles driven. Don't want to discount those situations, every life is important, but people seem to discard those situations as "it will never happen to me".
Because I think the only timeline that matters from a financial perspective is the one for widespread L4 deployment. And although V12 is certainly a step forward, the timeline for widespread L4 deployment is certainly greater than 3 years out.
Here is the Europe+UK list as of 2023:
here is the US list:
All of those huge dealer groups have fairly complex accounting issues. Ones such as Penske, on both lists, have major consolidated leasing operations, in Penske's case one fo the largest commercial vehicle lessors in the world.
Where the problems of understanding dealer margins become clear is in the major collision repair, short term leasing/renting, warranty repair, service etc all are artfully managed to disclose what they want to disclose without revealing too much of OEM relationships. All of those dealership groups, on both sides of the Atlantic have huge volumes of used vehicles, from off lease, trade in, manufacturer supply all of which are not included in any typical new car MSRP/'dealer cost' calculus. In real world terms the large dealers have numerous extra benefits from sales quota 'spiffs' (extra common), floor planning incentives, equipment and facility finance, including subsidies.
All that accumulates to increase the cost of a dealer distribution system. The net of all that makes new car MSRP/'dealer cost' an entirely managed, financially insignificant, component of large dealer profitability.
Because Tesla has no dealers their actual distribution costs are probably about half that of typical OEM.
OTOH Tesla accounting recognizes a sale only on final delivery with payment in full. Other OEM's tend to recognize a sale when accounting transfer to a dealer/distributor happens (most often when shipped from a factory). That also means Tesla inventory levels include both OEM and dealer inventory so there si an apples to oranges comparison. Since in some cases OEM's also report dealer inventory that tends to distort actual inventory cost dynamics.
All this becomes very complex and generalizations are fraught because each is different. VAG, for example, owns some dealers that also serve as handy ways to solve sales issues. Not too long ago they allegedly sold large number of otherwise unsalable ID3 to their own dealers, so reported sales, even though it was actually to themselves. That sort of 'stuffing' long ago had Buick Reatta, which was virtually unsalable, 'sold' to Alamo Rent-a-Car, with "favorable terms". It was easier when a former GM executive ran the company, and GM mostly financed the company at the time.
These and countless other examples demonstrate the strange and often symbiotic relationship between OEM's and Dealers. After all the gimmicky accounting and incentives ar counted it's fair to say that dealer distraction costs most OEM's somewhere around 20-30% of gross sales with variation between countries, brands and models.
Some, like Geely have approached this by having dealers, where permitted, on fixed sales commissions of 6-8% plus pre-designated warranty fees, and then retain title themselves until customer delivery.while allowing used cars and out-of-warranty to be anything they wish. That has, in such countries, tended to help sell BEV's, especially. The side benefit is that they dictate service intervals to allow dealers more income, even when BEV services are not really necessary. Customers don't know that.
And on it goes, with more and more layers. Luckily for all of us with Tesla WYSIWYG. The sometimes irritating corollary: Tesla does not hide incentives and price changes. Every customer sees it. That allows some customers to be offended. Those might be happier if they are ripped off in secret.
Lastly: Leasing. The secret sauce of high profits and hidden costs. That is another story, Every significant dealer plays with this. Simultaneously reducing reported profits while avoiding taxes. In nearly every major country these are quite different, but have huge significance. Corporate tax rules in many countries make dealers wealthy while often masking their actual direct roles. In many large dealer groups leasing, whether openly disclosed or not, account for more than half of net profits. Tax rules nearly always allow taxable income to be far lower than it would otherwise be.
I will not further comment on Finance and Insurance (F&I) except to say a common dealer nickname in some quarters "Trash and Trinkets" T&T