Business & Investing
Sponsored by

TSLA

166,766 Views | 1168 Replies | Last: 18 days ago by TxAG#2011
Fizban
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Deputy Travis Junior said:

Fizban said:

The point is that for years people have been saying that once a "real" automaker decides to make an electric car Tesla will be doomed. When these new electric cars have arrived they haven't been remotely competitive. As it turns out building a good electric car is a very hard engineering problem and requires a lot of tech that is new to the older manufacturers.

So far the next wave of challengers don't appear to be on track to do much better.

The reason TSLA is priced the way it is is because it is disrupting one of the biggest industries on earth, and is a significant participant in several emerging fields with potential.


I think the point that the "Tesla killer" is basically a boogeyman is well taken. Tesla is finally finding its footing and moving past the "chippy startup" phase, and the brand has a lot of panache, so I don't think anybody is going to swoop in and kill it. But let's look forward:

Tesla is currently priced as the second most valuable car company in the world. However, in 2019 it shipped ~375k cars compared to 77M total car sales worldwide (Statista.com source: Link), which works out to half a percent. Toyota, meanwhile, sold something like 11M cars. Thus, I think you'd agree that to justify its current valuation, Tesla needs to approach 6-8M sales/year, which is a 16- to 20-fold increase for current production (it also needs to dramatically improve and optimize operations so that it can take advantage of the fatter margins present in the luxury car space, but let's assume they can do that).

When you look at EV sales growth projections over the next decade or two, you realize that Tesla will need to 1) own nearly all of the growth in that space and 2) continue to ramp up production without hiccups to make a real attempt at that 6-8M target. This brings us to the conclusion that while Tesla stockholders needn't fear a "Tesla Killer," simply a legitimate alternative (read: actual competition that grabs some market share) could derail the ultra-rosy future baked into the current stock price.

It's massively overvalued, and the fact that none of the traditional automakers have a nice alternative doesn't yet mean anything; the segment is still far too small for that to matter. They have years to develop and deploy true competition.

TSLA's value is certainly built around the assumption that it will continue to grow at an extremely high rate. Obviously its 2019 sales don't justify its present valuation, but valuations are forward looking.

There is also much more to things than just market share.

Tesla has the potential to be considerably more profitable than their old-school competitors because they simply have a different business model. They own their business from nose to tail. They build the cars, sell the cars, maintain the cars. They don't have parking lots full of inventory sitting all across the country in the hands of third-party dealers. They have built their own charging infrastructure. They have built their own software. They are moving into insurance. They don't have unions dictating when and where they can open and close plants.

There is a lot going on here and most of the market is just starting to figure it out.
Fizban
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bo Darville said:

Quote:

The reason TSLA is priced the way it is is because it is disrupting one of the biggest industries on earth, and is a significant participant in several emerging fields with potential.


I can't believe I just read this on board dedicated to actual finance and business. Wow.

Sure, I guess their stock price must be driven by something other than "actual finance and business."

I don't love Cramer but he is atypically coherent here:




Deputy Travis Junior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fizban said:


TSLA's value is certainly built around the assumption that it will continue to grow at an extremely high rate. Obviously its 2019 sales don't justify its present valuation, but valuations are forward looking.

There is also much more to things than just market share.

Tesla has the potential to be considerably more profitable than their old-school competitors because they simply have a different business model. They own their business from nose to tail. They build the cars, sell the cars, maintain the cars. They don't have parking lots full of inventory sitting all across the country in the hands of third-party dealers. They have built their own charging infrastructure. They have built their own software. They are moving into insurance. They don't have unions dictating when and where they can open and close plants.

There is a lot going on here and most of the market is just starting to figure it out.


I acknowledged that valuations are future-based. Hell, 90% of my post looks at future forecasts and predictions. So I don't understand why your post is written as if you're dropping some previously-unconsidered knowledge bomb (It's like you're just copying and pasting the same thing without even reading the argument). Also, the "valuations are forward looking" principle doesn't mean that any BS number is suddenly justified; a valuation still needs to tie back realistic future expectations.

Tesla is more vertically integrated than other car companies, but that's a two-edged sword. Extreme vertical integration is only a good thing if you can build all the individual components cheaper or better than suppliers could, which, with something as complicated as a car, means you have to develop expertise in often numerous unrelated mechanical fields (meaning you have to join the talent acquisition and development competition over and over). If you don't, you run the process less efficiently than suppliers would and drive up prices or reduce quality. Or both. At best, Tesla's very iffy on this right now.

If they pull it off, great, but let's not pretend that vertical integration is done new concept that nobody's ever considered before and that the heads of these multi billion dollar companies are all bumpkins. They don't get the media attention of Musk, but these guys are all wicked smart, ruthless competitors, and if they thought they could do something better in-house, they'd do it.
Fizban
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Deputy Travis Junior said:

Fizban said:


TSLA's value is certainly built around the assumption that it will continue to grow at an extremely high rate. Obviously its 2019 sales don't justify its present valuation, but valuations are forward looking.

There is also much more to things than just market share.

Tesla has the potential to be considerably more profitable than their old-school competitors because they simply have a different business model. They own their business from nose to tail. They build the cars, sell the cars, maintain the cars. They don't have parking lots full of inventory sitting all across the country in the hands of third-party dealers. They have built their own charging infrastructure. They have built their own software. They are moving into insurance. They don't have unions dictating when and where they can open and close plants.

There is a lot going on here and most of the market is just starting to figure it out.


I acknowledged that valuations are future-based. Hell, 90% of my post looks at future forecasts and predictions. So I don't understand why your post is written as if you're dropping some previously-unconsidered knowledge bomb (It's like you're just copying and pasting the same thing without even reading the argument). Also, the "valuations are forward looking" principle doesn't mean that any BS number is suddenly justified; a valuation still needs to tie back realistic future expectations.

Tesla is more vertically integrated than other car companies, but that's a two-edged sword. Extreme vertical integration is only a good thing if you can build all the individual components cheaper or better than suppliers could, which, with something as complicated as a car, means you have to develop expertise in often numerous unrelated mechanical fields (meaning you have to join the talent acquisition and development competition over and over). If you don't, you run the process less efficiently than suppliers would and drive up prices or reduce quality. Or both. At best, Tesla's very iffy on this right now.

If they pull it off, great, but let's not pretend that vertical integration is done new concept that nobody's ever considered before and that the heads of these multi billion dollar companies are all bumpkins. They don't get the media attention of Musk, but these guys are all wicked smart, ruthless competitors, and if they thought they could do something better in-house, they'd do it.

I could say the same thing about people who point out that Tesla is highly valued relative to their market share. Yes, Tesla is very highly valued relative to their market share. Of course, most of the companies people are comparing Tesla to have been languishing for years. Look at how Ford or GM have done relative to the S&P over the last 5 years. These are not high performing companies, or stocks.

Yes, vertical integration introduces a lot challenges, and Tesla has certainly tripped over more than a few of them. (look at their problems with service) They are also well on their way to overcoming those challenges. (my opinion obviously)

As for the older companies, yes, they have a lot of smart people. That was true of Nokia and Blackberry when the iPhone arrived too. I think the traditional auto manufacturers have been under performing for a long long time.



jagged
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Up 15% today based on some analyst price target revision.
hph6203
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If Tesla succeeds in it's goals, then automobile manufacturing/sales shouldn't be the basis for your valuation. It's speculative, but if they succeed then 10 years from now their automobile sales will look like book sales for Amazon.
.
CondensedFogAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Regardless of TSLA stock valuation, its really great that a US company is leading and may basically be significantly altering an enormous industry. An industry where we've been slugging it out with Germany and Japan for decades.

If someone was gonna do it, might as well be a US company that brings jobs and profit to the mainland.
lead
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hph6203 said:

If Tesla succeeds in it's goals, then automobile manufacturing/sales shouldn't be the basis for your valuation. It's speculative, but if they succeed then 10 years from now their automobile sales will look like book sales for Amazon.
. My imagination sucks. Are you suggesting that we'll have electric airplanes, boats, trains?
Chipotlemonger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is kind of missing the forest for the trees. Not everything needs to be tied to transport vehicles themselves.
lead
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chipotlemonger said:

This is kind of missing the forest for the trees. Not everything needs to be tied to transport vehicles themselves.
. How else shall we use Tesla's technology? Like I said, my imagination sucks, so walk me through the analogy.
hph6203
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Short answer: Full autonomy, ride sharing replacement, freight shipping replacement (for truckers and trains), grid storage, energy production, insurance, battery sales, drive train licensing, data sales for advertisers/municipalities. Lots of opportunities that an autonomous vehicle network can provide you. It has worldwide transportation disruption potential.

Long Answer: No, Musk has a vision of the future of low maintenance vehicles, with long up times and no drivers necessary. Right now you have a situation where a year ago analysts didn't know if Tesla would survive Model 3 ramp and that they could go bankrupt before they reached their fully autonomous vehicle. You now have a whiplash effect since they've been profitable the last two quarters and their cash holdings have increased, I believe, 5 of the last 6 quarters. October 2018 when Musk got stoned on Rogan and then later tweeted he had the funding to take Tesla private was basically the low point for Tesla.

Cheap and safe ride sharing, cheap and safe shipping via semis with minimal downtime or operating costs and long vehicle longevity. Tesla may end up being a services company rather than a consumer auto company in the long run.

As far as full autonomy, they are technically behind on feature set, but their implementation is cheaper than the competition and they have much, much more data than the entire rest of the industry combined to train their neural networks. Waymo (Google) has 20,000,000 miles driven, Tesla has 14,000,000,000 driven and Waymo is the next closest. Waymo , uses Lidar (Very expensive, will be a long time until it's on a consumer car, if ever) in addition to what Tesla uses to operate their vehicle, Tesla uses radar, ultrasonics and vision. Basically Tesla is betting with a big enough data set they can get to full autonomy faster and cheaper and many people believe they're right. Every new car delivered is another data gathering drone and they're projecting to increase their drones by more than 50% this year and they're already talking feature complete autonomy this year, at that point it's mostly training the system with ever increasing miles.

They also are pretty far ahead in battery production and EV efficiency. No one has beaten the 2012 Model S as far as a spec sheet yet, and some of these cars are selling for more than it did at that time.

They can sell their batteries when their production capacity exceeds their needs and they can also license their drive train to other auto manufacturers. They're in their own ramp stage right now to try to build as many data gatherers as they can, but once they've sufficiently matured they can branch out. Their batteries and drivetrain are much better than the competition.


It goes deeper than that when you consider the alternative uses of batteries as they get cheaper, home electric back ups paired with solar panel arrays on roofs, electrical grid backups, consumer electronic batteries if they revolutionize battery tech before others. Creating an app store like experience in their vehicles offering services and taking a cut. etc. etc. Lots of opportunities to make money that cost way less than manufacturing a car.
.
Chipotlemonger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are you one of the people that also think going to space was/is a waste of time and ignore the technology that came/comes out of it?
hph6203
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fully believe that in the next 6 months the world is going to recognize Tesla as the future and the doubters are going to look more and more foolish.
.
lead
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not as bearish on Tesla as you may think, it all seems like a big guess. Presuming there is a top of the mountain - a limit to their ingenuity- what is it? They're nearly worth 150B right now, what's the ultimate worth and why?
hph6203
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's obviously a bet, but that's generally all investing is. You're betting that company will either continue to do what they're doing, and share their profits or that they'll achieve what they're aiming at.

The speculation is that if Tesla solves autonomy then using a ride hailing service will be cheaper by 50% than owning your own car. Projected to be profitable at $0.20 per mile when at scale, I easily spend more than that on my truck between gas, registration, maintenance and depreciation. No dealing with talkative ride share drivers, no paying attention to the road while traveling, no insurance, no registration fees, maintenance etc. At that point they become self sufficient even without the sell through to consumers, they produce as many vehicles as they can and operate them as robotaxis.

Tesla says they'll be feature complete on full self driving this year, and that they'll be fully autonomous not long after that. Even if it's 5 years out, you're talking about a company that may make owning and driving a car a thing of the past. How innovative do they need to be to have justification for a valuation over $150 billion? If they achieve that, then $150 billion doesn't even begin to cover their true value, and that's what some people are betting on.

If you think there's a 10% chance they'll do it, then they're undervalued. That's my opinion anyway.
.
Ragoo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Owning a car is more American than owning a house. This is a big uphill battle.
jamaggie06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ragoo, agreed.

And if you thought it was a ten percent chance of success, no, you shouldnt value them at $150 billion today... unless youre very bad at math.
gvine07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dang it you guys should have made me buy calls... and keep them this long!


lead
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hph6203 said:

It's obviously a bet, but that's generally all investing is. You're betting that company will either continue to do what they're doing, and share their profits or that they'll achieve what they're aiming at.

The speculation is that if Tesla solves autonomy then using a ride hailing service will be cheaper by 50% than owning your own car. Projected to be profitable at $0.20 per mile when at scale, I easily spend more than that on my truck between gas, registration, maintenance and depreciation. No dealing with talkative ride share drivers, no paying attention to the road while traveling, no insurance, no registration fees, maintenance etc. At that point they become self sufficient even without the sell through to consumers, they produce as many vehicles as they can and operate them as robotaxis.

Tesla says they'll be feature complete on full self driving this year, and that they'll be fully autonomous not long after that. Even if it's 5 years out, you're talking about a company that may make owning and driving a car a thing of the past. How innovative do they need to be to have justification for a valuation over $150 billion? If they achieve that, then $150 billion doesn't even begin to cover their true value, and that's what some people are betting on.

If you think there's a 10% chance they'll do it, then they're undervalued. That's my opinion anyway.


Step 1. Make electric car mainstream
Step 2. Figure out how to make car at a profit
Step 3. Eliminate demand for car
hph6203
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Alter the form in which the demand is fulfilled, not eliminate demand. Who makes more money from a car, the car manufacturer or the taxi owner/operator? What if the owner/operator of the car is the manufacturer? If that happens it's going to become very expensive to own a car of your own.
.
lead
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hph6203 said:

Alter the form in which the demand is fulfilled, not eliminate demand. Who makes more money from a car, the car manufacturer or the taxi owner/operator? What if the owner/operator of the car is the manufacturer? If that happens it's going to become very expensive to own a car of your own.

I don't see how demand for new vehicles doesn't drop enormously in a self-driving world where cars don't have individual owners. Perhaps the bet is that Tesla will be the Uber of this technology and will ultimately control all roads.
Fizban
How long do you want to ignore this user?
lead said:

hph6203 said:

Alter the form in which the demand is fulfilled, not eliminate demand. Who makes more money from a car, the car manufacturer or the taxi owner/operator? What if the owner/operator of the car is the manufacturer? If that happens it's going to become very expensive to own a car of your own.

I don't see how demand for new vehicles doesn't drop enormously in a self-driving world where cars don't have individual owners. Perhaps the bet is that Tesla will be the Uber of this technology and will ultimately control all roads.

Tesla has said for some time now that their intent is to provide the service.

See here for original plan (relied on self driving):
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/22/tesla-plans-to-launch-a-robotaxi-network-in-2020/

More recent story (actually mostly about insurance):
https://electrek.co/2020/02/04/tesla-ride-sharing-app-driver-insurance/
aggie_fan13
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Buy $1500 calls ? Or too late
Deputy Travis Junior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ragoo said:

Owning a car is more American than owning a house. This is a big uphill battle.


Disagree. Quickly growing numbers of paper in urban areas don't own cars, and there are lots of articles on how teenagers just aren't that interested in driving.

That said, the hype about a Tesla robo taxi service is just that: hype. They are nowhere near that right now. They're considerably behind the competition when it comes to software quality (GM and Ford actually are better positioned right now, as is Waymo), and there are oodles of problems to solve in that space anyway. Google can't even get their service off the ground in a tiny, boxed portion of Phoenix that they've mapped to the nines and that almost never suffers from bad weather. Snow, ice on the roads, heavy rain, construction zones? Nobody is anywhere close to solving those.
FriskyGardenGnome
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Deputy Travis Junior said:

Ragoo said:

Owning a car is more American than owning a house. This is a big uphill battle.


Disagree. Quickly growing numbers of paper in urban areas don't own cars, and there are lots of articles on how teenagers just aren't that interested in driving.

That said, the hype about a Tesla robo taxi service is just that: hype. They are nowhere near that right now. They're considerably behind the competition when it comes to software quality (GM and Ford actually are better positioned right now, as is Waymo), and there are oodles of problems to solve in that space anyway. Google can't even get their service off the ground in a tiny, boxed portion of Phoenix that they've mapped to the nines and that almost never suffers from bad weather. Snow, ice on the roads, heavy rain, construction zones? Nobody is anywhere close to solving those.
Plus, I can (right now today) purchase a car that will paaark like a complete a-hole ... all by itself.
Ag13
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lead said:

hph6203 said:

Alter the form in which the demand is fulfilled, not eliminate demand. Who makes more money from a car, the car manufacturer or the taxi owner/operator? What if the owner/operator of the car is the manufacturer? If that happens it's going to become very expensive to own a car of your own.

I don't see how demand for new vehicles doesn't drop enormously in a self-driving world where cars don't have individual owners. Perhaps the bet is that Tesla will be the Uber of this technology and will ultimately control all roads.
This is the opportunity. Transportation of people and goods will never go away. Automating it can take out the need to own a car and thus take out all the headaches of owning a car (insurance, maintenance, gas, car washes, somewhere to park it, etc etc etc). If Tesla owns the technology, the hardware, and the network, then the possibilities are limitless.

Imagine a world where a car is waiting for you every day at 7am to take you to work. And it's way cheaper than an uber now because there's no driver to pay. It's also certainly significantly cheaper than your car note and mileage expenses.
hph6203
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You're thinking in terms of them selling vehicles to consumers rather than operating them as their own ride share service. They make way more money per car to operate it themselves than they do selling through to consumers and even if they do sell through to consumers they can charge a higher up front cost as the vehicle generates revenue for the end customer and then charge an ongoing cost to the customer for utilization of their network.

They can basically turn their cars into franchisee investments.

That's assuming they solve autonomy. At the very least their cars are going to either reduce in price and increase demand while maintaining margins, or they're going to increase margins. EV technology is emerging, it is getting cheaper over time as the drivetrain gets cheaper (Tesla has already stayed that the goal of their next iteration was cost reduction, even though it increased performance) and battery production is going to get substantially cheaper in the next couple of years.

Imagine a vehicle that costs less to produce than a Camry, costs less to operate than a Camry, and has a longer useful life than a Camry. That's Tesla's future.

Regulators are going to force EV technology and Tesla is already years ahead of everyone else and the gap is growing, because while other manufacturers are buying parts and assembling, Tesla is extremely vertically integrated and expected to increase their integration by building their own batteries rather than contracting with Panasonic.
.
Deputy Travis Junior
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hph6203 said:


Regulators are going to force EV technology and Tesla is already years ahead of everyone else and the gap is growing, because while other manufacturers are buying parts and assembling, Tesla is extremely vertically integrated and expected to increase their integration by building their own batteries rather than contracting with Panasonic.


Tesla is doing a lot of interesting stuff, but it's very important to point out that your comment on the benefits of vertical integration is absolutely not a given. At its best, vertical integration allows a company to make great items for cost and avoid supplier markups. At its worst, it puts a company in a "jack of all trades, master of none" situation, which reduces quality WHILE increasing price. Lots of companies avoid vertical integration for the simple reason that it's really hard and if you get it wrong it actually reduces competitiveness.

As for Tesla, car construction is highly complicated and doing it correctly requires expertise and sophistication in a wide variety of demanding, extremely technical areas. Tesla is trying to be a leader in battery R&D, AI and self driving software, solar panels, and manufacturing WHILE running a charger network and contemplating a dive into insurance. Maybe they do it, but it is very far from a given. At minimum, you need to appreciate the magnitude of what they're attempting; their many quality concerns, the multi-year servicing fiasco, and their inability to make much money should show you the reality of that.
Gigemags382
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A $100B company is trading like a penny stock. This is crazy. I'm not saying it's unjustified, just that's its crazy seeing what's happening with this stock right now.
HustlerAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gigemags382 said:

A $100B company is trading like a penny stock. This is crazy. I'm not saying it's unjustified, just that's its crazy seeing what's happening with this stock right now.
I would buy in right now and it would tank, knowing my luck.
Hustle Harder
Hendrix
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think they're trying to boil the ocean. Their solar panels are severely inferior to competitors. There's a lot of potential 5-10 years from now. Potential. The question is can they handle an economic downturn, increased competition from traditional manufacturers that partner with giants like Google, etc. The solarcity acquisition was criminal. They still haven't solved service issues. If that's their type of leadership, then good luck to them. No question it's parabolic now. It will come back to earth soon enough. At this price point it may be an incredible investment if you can wait a decade.
hph6203
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Definitely a risk, which is why I'm not sure those that think their acquisitions point to self production of battery cells instead of just optimizing the production for their battery partners are correct. Regardless their acquisitions point to production increases/cost reductions/and density improvements, which should help them increase the range gap between their vehicles and competitors.

Think it's too early in the race to say who actually leads in self driving. Ford/GM/Waymo are using better inputs to get better outputs, but their inputs cost substantially more and their install base is substantially smaller than Tesla. If Tesla's data lead allows them to catch the functionality of Ford/GM/Waymo, and vision truly is good enough for self driving, then Tesla will blow by them on cost and quality.

Seems like stock price is going nuts because shorts are getting squeezed and there's going to be a pull back in the not too distant future.

Edit to add: I am not currently invested. Just discussing the reasoning behind the valuation.
.
Gigemags382
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tesla is approaching a $200 BILLION market cap. That is an incredible valuation and expectation for this company. Again, not saying it's completely unjustified, but good grief is that a massive valuation.
Gigemags382
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Alright I understand the optimism and big gains for Tesla this year, but it's now officially the FOMO crowd jumping in.
FaceMask
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So how far/ fast will this go...$1200, $1800? I'm looking at a short position, but am patient.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.