Hvac and insurance as well
Tesla tanking
33,051 Views |
249 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by hph6203
This is the debate between the bulls and bears. They could be Blackberry or Apple. I just see them more of Apple than Blackberry.DubFalls said:
What if Tesla is the Palm or Blackberry of EV?
If someone can come up with a EV car that is 20K, FSD, 0-60 in 1.5s then Tesla will be nonexistent. I just don't see this happening.
Interesting there is an appl thread someone bumped from 10 yrs ago wondering if they should sell and most thought it was overpriced.
FunkyKO said:
Wrights law.
Everyone else is 10 years behind in battery cost.
Self driving. Tesla hired the lead guy from Nvda. There is a reason Nvda is wanting the ai company from SoftBank.
Wake up Ford is selling the mustang whatever they call it at a loss while at the same time not selling a vehicle that creates a profit. See the dilemma?
Tesla sells vehicles at a loss.
Yeah, but they do it the smart way and still make money.bmks270 said:FunkyKO said:
Wrights law.
Everyone else is 10 years behind in battery cost.
Self driving. Tesla hired the lead guy from Nvda. There is a reason Nvda is wanting the ai company from SoftBank.
Wake up Ford is selling the mustang whatever they call it at a loss while at the same time not selling a vehicle that creates a profit. See the dilemma?
Tesla sells its vehicles at a loss.
Irish 2.0 said:Yeah, but they do it the smart way and still make money.bmks270 said:FunkyKO said:
Wrights law.
Everyone else is 10 years behind in battery cost.
Self driving. Tesla hired the lead guy from Nvda. There is a reason Nvda is wanting the ai company from SoftBank.
Wake up Ford is selling the mustang whatever they call it at a loss while at the same time not selling a vehicle that creates a profit. See the dilemma?
Tesla sells its vehicles at a loss.
When manufacturers have their own EV line up, they won't be buying credits from Tesla.
That's not what earnings report says.
Since this is the investing board.
Pick your car manuf stock. If not tsla then who?
Since this is the investing board.
Pick your car manuf stock. If not tsla then who?
I hate this thread.
-Tesla does not sell cars at a loss. They have 20-25% margins on vehicles sold. Their operations are what cause them to not make a clear profit. They have a path to cost reductions that will marry a low cost car with low prices, in the mean time they rely on ZEV credits. This is a non-sense statement. VW and Ford however seem to be selling a vehicle that has a bill of materials that's basically the same as their sticker price, which means they can't sell those vehicles as a profitable business. That's a dramatically bigger issue than operationally they lose money absent ZEV credits. They do this so they don't have to pay fleet penalties, so as a business it improves their profitability and image, but it's not a sustainable business model if they fully convert their fleet over without dramatic cost reductions.
-Cruise absolutely is ahead of Tesla in full self driving. So is Waymo. The problem with their platform is they rely on LIDAR sensors that make the vehicles prohibitively expensive to manufacture as a mass market vehicle. They're basically gunning for Uber/Lyft while owning the vehicles at the riskiest level, or selling them the vehicles and allowing another company to be the owner operator.
The other issue is that currently their platforms operate as well as they do, because they are geofenced to relatively small areas. Tesla is not geofenced, but they require many more interventions than Cruise or Waymo. The question is whether Tesla's data advantage can catch and pass Cruise and Waymo, and activate millions of potential robotaxis. If they can then Waymo and Cruise's entire business model is worthless.
-Saw someone post on another thread an article that said "Tesla admits FSD is a fraud and will never be more than a level 2 system!" No, they were dealing with California regulators with respect to their city streets beta and stated that system (the software, not sensors) was never intended to be a level 3 system where it's fully autonomous without driver intervention. It's a driver assist system. They stated they'd make it clear when it is a level 3 system, notify regulators of that intention, test it internally, and then release it to the public on a rolling basis.
-No, VW, Ford and GM do not sell more electric vehicles worldwide. At all, and especially not by a factor of 2-4x. Whatever the source of that information was, stop paying attention to it.
-Tesla is "losing market share" in "mature EV markets". What that means is Audi and VW outsold Tesla for a quarter or two in Norway last year. Tesla also shipped more vehicles to Norway in December 2020 than Audi and VW shipped for the entire quarter. Is it market share loss or not prioritizing those markets for delivery? We'll find out when the Giga Berlin factory opens. Those vehicles relative to what Tesla makes seem incredibly unappealing on a price for what you get basis.
-Tesla is not going to absolutely crush every other battery manufacturer in cost per kW. They don't have to. They have to be the lowest cost per kW for their own vehicles with no intermediary margins that increase the cost to build the car. Other companies will adapt and they'll make batteries cheaper.
I'm invested in Tesla. I think they will be a massive auto manufacturer and I think they'll be the most profitable auto manufacturer in the world at maturity. I think that because of their vertical integration, speed of improvements on vehicles, and their engineering team. I think they will solve full self driving in a timeframe where it won't matter if Waymo/Cruise beat them to it, because I don't think Waymo/Cruise will ever be able to scale that business fast enough to beat Tesla to the punch. That's why I'm willing to risk money on Tesla, but I'm under no illusions that it's not a risk.
-Tesla does not sell cars at a loss. They have 20-25% margins on vehicles sold. Their operations are what cause them to not make a clear profit. They have a path to cost reductions that will marry a low cost car with low prices, in the mean time they rely on ZEV credits. This is a non-sense statement. VW and Ford however seem to be selling a vehicle that has a bill of materials that's basically the same as their sticker price, which means they can't sell those vehicles as a profitable business. That's a dramatically bigger issue than operationally they lose money absent ZEV credits. They do this so they don't have to pay fleet penalties, so as a business it improves their profitability and image, but it's not a sustainable business model if they fully convert their fleet over without dramatic cost reductions.
-Cruise absolutely is ahead of Tesla in full self driving. So is Waymo. The problem with their platform is they rely on LIDAR sensors that make the vehicles prohibitively expensive to manufacture as a mass market vehicle. They're basically gunning for Uber/Lyft while owning the vehicles at the riskiest level, or selling them the vehicles and allowing another company to be the owner operator.
The other issue is that currently their platforms operate as well as they do, because they are geofenced to relatively small areas. Tesla is not geofenced, but they require many more interventions than Cruise or Waymo. The question is whether Tesla's data advantage can catch and pass Cruise and Waymo, and activate millions of potential robotaxis. If they can then Waymo and Cruise's entire business model is worthless.
-Saw someone post on another thread an article that said "Tesla admits FSD is a fraud and will never be more than a level 2 system!" No, they were dealing with California regulators with respect to their city streets beta and stated that system (the software, not sensors) was never intended to be a level 3 system where it's fully autonomous without driver intervention. It's a driver assist system. They stated they'd make it clear when it is a level 3 system, notify regulators of that intention, test it internally, and then release it to the public on a rolling basis.
-No, VW, Ford and GM do not sell more electric vehicles worldwide. At all, and especially not by a factor of 2-4x. Whatever the source of that information was, stop paying attention to it.
-Tesla is "losing market share" in "mature EV markets". What that means is Audi and VW outsold Tesla for a quarter or two in Norway last year. Tesla also shipped more vehicles to Norway in December 2020 than Audi and VW shipped for the entire quarter. Is it market share loss or not prioritizing those markets for delivery? We'll find out when the Giga Berlin factory opens. Those vehicles relative to what Tesla makes seem incredibly unappealing on a price for what you get basis.
-Tesla is not going to absolutely crush every other battery manufacturer in cost per kW. They don't have to. They have to be the lowest cost per kW for their own vehicles with no intermediary margins that increase the cost to build the car. Other companies will adapt and they'll make batteries cheaper.
I'm invested in Tesla. I think they will be a massive auto manufacturer and I think they'll be the most profitable auto manufacturer in the world at maturity. I think that because of their vertical integration, speed of improvements on vehicles, and their engineering team. I think they will solve full self driving in a timeframe where it won't matter if Waymo/Cruise beat them to it, because I don't think Waymo/Cruise will ever be able to scale that business fast enough to beat Tesla to the punch. That's why I'm willing to risk money on Tesla, but I'm under no illusions that it's not a risk.
Quote:
Looking at recent February auto sales data, analysts at Morgan Stanley discovered an interesting nugget. While battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales outpaced the total vehicle market by nearly 40% in February, Tesla's BEV market share declined to 69% of the market, vs. 81% a year ago. Morgan Stanley analysts found that the Ford Mustang Mach-E accounted for nearly 100% of Tesla's market share loss.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-mustang-mach-e-meet-the-ev-stealing-market-share-from-tesla-174121042.html
Gotta love that piped in audio.
Seriously. 18% market share in 15-20 years is what it will probably end up with.
Seriously. 18% market share in 15-20 years is what it will probably end up with.
Nice post. Same here
A lot of people are butthurt they missed the train and add in that it's "anti-oil" and more of a liberalish concept it's easy to understand the hate
FunkyKO said:
The below might be true for all manufacturers to some extent, but Teslas do not meet their rated ranges.
https://insideevs.com/news/487329/tesla-fails-meet-epa-range-edmunds-tests/
Quote:
Tesla would overpromise and underdeliver when it comes to the range: it was one of the only two companies that failed to meet its EPA numbers with all its five cars tested by the website. The other one was Polestar.
....
The best car in the test was the Porsche Taycan 4S. Instead of the 203 miles of the EPA range, it reached 323 miles when tested at 73F (22.8C). That's a 59.3 percent better range than that informed by EPA.
....
These tests from Edmunds also calculated how energy efficient these EVs are. If you thought a Tesla would beat all competition in that regard, that was definitely not the case. According to Edmunds, the most efficient EV for sale among the 15 it tested was the Hyundai Ioniq Electric, with an energy consumption of only 20.8 kWh/100 miles. Norwegian tests said it is also the most efficient in cold weather.
Self driving cars are 2040-2050 timeframe for widespread use. The V2V and V2I necessary and replacing all the old cars will take 20 years from when they are first sold to the public. I assume that starts in 2030.
By then... I bet we don't own cars anymore, either. We ride share/becomes more transit oriented. You make a call and they come get you.
By then... I bet we don't own cars anymore, either. We ride share/becomes more transit oriented. You make a call and they come get you.
Edmunds owned by Carmax are on the losing end of ev and self driving. Of course they're going to say that.
A quick Google search finds articles about the Mach e not meeting epa range ESTIMATES.
If only Ford could offer wireless updates to allow for more efficiency. I'm sure it's coming.
A quick Google search finds articles about the Mach e not meeting epa range ESTIMATES.
If only Ford could offer wireless updates to allow for more efficiency. I'm sure it's coming.
FunkyKO said:
Edmunds owned by Carmax are on the losing end of ev and self driving. Of course they're going to say that.
A quick Google search finds articles about the Mach e not meeting epa range ESTIMATES.
If only Ford could offer wireless updates to allow for more efficiency. I'm sure it's coming.
I doubt most manufacturers actual perform matches their published performance. And I don't think this EPA range and efficiency numbers will make a huge difference in the long run.
The fact that this thread is called "tesla tanking" is laughable.
After the FIVE WAY SPLIT, they were down at $400/share
Then they went up to over $800
At the time of this thread being created they were down below $600. Which is deemed "tanking" by people here. As of today, it's back to $700.
Stop letting your political animus toward tsla cost you money. This thread could be titled "I don't like EV cars, ha-ha look at tesla going down **self-ownage**"
After the FIVE WAY SPLIT, they were down at $400/share
Then they went up to over $800
At the time of this thread being created they were down below $600. Which is deemed "tanking" by people here. As of today, it's back to $700.
Stop letting your political animus toward tsla cost you money. This thread could be titled "I don't like EV cars, ha-ha look at tesla going down **self-ownage**"
Tesla knows how to get the best range marks from the EPA, but their vehicles still have the most efficient drivetrain, which means they can sell cars with longer ranges at the same or lower price point. Model S is cheaper than the Taycan, same battery pack size, with more range. The Taycan has better fit and finish/interior, but the Tesla is 20k cheaper. The comparable Tesla Model S is around the same price as the mid-tier Taycan and I'm not sure how it's interior rates out, but the range is still more even real world numbers.
That's the top thing I care about when it comes to EVs, what's its performance and what is its range and how much do I have to pay for it. Porsche is built for the extremely well off. Tesla has a product at nearly every price point, and supposedly by year end they'll have one at every price point other than the ultra budget sub $20,000 range.
Right now EV sticker is higher than combustion for a similar car, but cost of ownership is lower. When the sticker gets comparable to combustion we can start getting into the intricacies, but for EVs to be truly mass market the prices have to come down. That means a $100k Taycan with only 300 miles of range, or a $60k E-Tron with 240 miles of range is just an absolute joke of a vehicle.
Why I only care about the ID.3/ID.4 and the Mach-E as a conversation and I don't think either of those vehicles are produced at a cost/price/spec sheet where they are a viable competitor to Tesla and I don't think either of those companies are interested in building vehicles at a volume that would make them a serious competitor to Tesla in the next year.
Despite reports of "market share shifts" where it's not really those companies stealing market share, but rather growing the overall market, of which Tesla has the same number of cars sold, just a smaller percentage of the overall market. With an expanding factory in Shanghai, a new factory in Texas and Berlin and a more permanent expansion in Fremont I don't think Tesla should be worried about market share losses. If they have 70% of the market in 5 years it would be a stunner. Their percentage will go down, doesn't matter as long as their volume goes up. And it is. Pretty rapidly. 1+ million production capacity by year end.
That's the top thing I care about when it comes to EVs, what's its performance and what is its range and how much do I have to pay for it. Porsche is built for the extremely well off. Tesla has a product at nearly every price point, and supposedly by year end they'll have one at every price point other than the ultra budget sub $20,000 range.
Right now EV sticker is higher than combustion for a similar car, but cost of ownership is lower. When the sticker gets comparable to combustion we can start getting into the intricacies, but for EVs to be truly mass market the prices have to come down. That means a $100k Taycan with only 300 miles of range, or a $60k E-Tron with 240 miles of range is just an absolute joke of a vehicle.
Why I only care about the ID.3/ID.4 and the Mach-E as a conversation and I don't think either of those vehicles are produced at a cost/price/spec sheet where they are a viable competitor to Tesla and I don't think either of those companies are interested in building vehicles at a volume that would make them a serious competitor to Tesla in the next year.
Despite reports of "market share shifts" where it's not really those companies stealing market share, but rather growing the overall market, of which Tesla has the same number of cars sold, just a smaller percentage of the overall market. With an expanding factory in Shanghai, a new factory in Texas and Berlin and a more permanent expansion in Fremont I don't think Tesla should be worried about market share losses. If they have 70% of the market in 5 years it would be a stunner. Their percentage will go down, doesn't matter as long as their volume goes up. And it is. Pretty rapidly. 1+ million production capacity by year end.
Malachi Constant said:
The fact that this thread is called "tesla tanking" is laughable.
After the FIVE WAY SPLIT, they were down at $400/share
Then they went up to over $800
At the time of this thread being created they were down below $600. Which is deemed "tanking" by people here. As of today, it's back to $700.
Stop letting your political animus toward tsla cost you money. This thread could be titled "I don't like EV cars, ha-ha look at tesla going down **self-ownage**"
You can like the company but not like the stock.
I like Tesla.
I don't think they're a top 5 US stock by market cap.
So you don't own any.
The street does. So there's that
The street does. So there's that
Bfd....the taycan is like $200k. You can get a model 3 performance for $55k.bmks270 said:FunkyKO said:
The below might be true for all manufacturers to some extent, but Teslas do not meet their rated ranges.
https://insideevs.com/news/487329/tesla-fails-meet-epa-range-edmunds-tests/Quote:
Tesla would overpromise and underdeliver when it comes to the range: it was one of the only two companies that failed to meet its EPA numbers with all its five cars tested by the website. The other one was Polestar.
....
The best car in the test was the Porsche Taycan 4S. Instead of the 203 miles of the EPA range, it reached 323 miles when tested at 73F (22.8C). That's a 59.3 percent better range than that informed by EPA.
....
These tests from Edmunds also calculated how energy efficient these EVs are. If you thought a Tesla would beat all competition in that regard, that was definitely not the case. According to Edmunds, the most efficient EV for sale among the 15 it tested was the Hyundai Ioniq Electric, with an energy consumption of only 20.8 kWh/100 miles. Norwegian tests said it is also the most efficient in cold weather.
FunkyKO said:
So you don't own any.
The street does. So there's that
I've owned Tesla for a long time through total market index funds. At one point a few years ago it was a much better play if you like to dabble in a small portion of funny money stocks. But then it got hyped up beyond belief, hit the retail investor class as a meme stock, and is now part of a manic bubble that requires absolute perfection to justify its valuations. And maybe it will, but I find the downside case to be much more realistic than the upside case.
I'm not going to overweight it because it's probably going to be the next Cisco. Luckily it won't register much of a blip on the way down.
You don't own Tesla. Index funds don't count
Stopped reading there
Actually couldn't help myself.
The next Cisco? The stock that since inception has averaged over 20% a year? Can think of a lot of companies that would like that performance.
Pick a car company. Any car company
You know CSCO is the 39th largest holding in your vti right?
Stopped reading there
Actually couldn't help myself.
The next Cisco? The stock that since inception has averaged over 20% a year? Can think of a lot of companies that would like that performance.
Pick a car company. Any car company
You know CSCO is the 39th largest holding in your vti right?
FunkyKO said:
You don't own Tesla. Index funds don't count
Stopped reading there
Actually couldn't help myself.
The next Cisco? The stock that since inception has averaged over 20% a year? Can think of a lot of companies that would like that performance.
Pick a car company. Any car company
You know CSCO is the 39th largest holding in your vti right?
"Index funds don't count" okay Jan
The next Cisco meaning the pioneer in a new industry that gets wildly overvalued then crashes 80% and takes twenty years to course correct.
That may be the more optimistic case, Tesla may never get close to whatever highest market cap it achieves
I'm sorry my bad. I'm just looking at my .10 cent cost basis on csco. You could have also used Msft as an example. 2000 did that to a lot of equities in the tech space.
Great point except aggieee was referencing tech bubble of 2000. So your pipe in about 2009 has completely missed what the conversation we about. Congrats on not reading
Do the math.
50,000k cost basis at .10 cents a share. Yeah. It funded a few endowed scholarships over the years.
Do the math.
50,000k cost basis at .10 cents a share. Yeah. It funded a few endowed scholarships over the years.
Again. Missed the point. Read next time.
You know Msft and CSCO have been around a lot longer than just a decade and had a period in which it took years to recover past year 2000 high points.
Thanks and gigem
This fool talking decade. Youngsters
You know Msft and CSCO have been around a lot longer than just a decade and had a period in which it took years to recover past year 2000 high points.
Thanks and gigem
This fool talking decade. Youngsters
Quick look. Tesla's tanking.
And yep. Own those as well. But that's not the point of the Tesla tanking thread
And yep. Own those as well. But that's not the point of the Tesla tanking thread
VWAGY may be the leader in traditional auto manufacturers transitioning to electric, and they have been on a tear this year.
VWAGY up over 20% today
Cathie Wood put a $3000 target on TSLA by 2025. I've never owned TSLA but thinking about buying a small position. It's only trading $1k times earnings.......
Featured Stories
See All
20:47
1d ago
4.4k
Around the SEC: Recruiting News & Trends
by Jason Howell
16:01
20h ago
1.9k
Pass the Sticks: Angelo McCullom vs. Marco Jones
by Andrew Wu
Texas A&M targets to follow at The Opening Finals
by Jason Howell
Upcoming announcements for Texas A&M's top targets
by Ryan Brauninger