Antworten zu diesem Thema
Das Phänomen Tesla und Elon Musk verdienen einen eigene..., Rang: Warren Buffett(1877), 15.9.19 21:33
Subject Auszeichnungen Author Message Date ID
Slow Sales In China Highlight Tesla's Demand Problem
16.5.19 20:08
1
Elon Musk to Tesla Employees: It's 'Hardcore' Belt-Tigh...
17.5.19 15:48
2
Tesla Shares Sink Below $200 Amid Trade Woes, Cautious ...
20.5.19 16:00
3
Tesla Bear-Case Price Is $10 at Morgan Stanley on Weak ...
21.5.19 10:40
4
RE: Tesla Bear-Case Price Is $10 at Morgan Stanley on W...
22.5.19 21:50
5
Musk exercising options
22.5.19 21:41
6
How Tesla's greedy bankers ripped Tesla’s face off
23.5.19 22:19
7
Musk Counters Tesla Delivery Doubt With Upbeat Internal...
24.5.19 08:49
8
RE: Musk Counters Tesla Delivery Doubt With Upbeat Inte...
24.5.19 08:54
9
SpaceX launches dozens of ‘Starlink’ internet satellite...
24.5.19 12:05
10
The Bursting of the Tesla Stock Bubble
24.5.19 14:02
11
Tesla’s new cost cutting-effort is going all the way do...
24.5.19 19:31
12
RE: Tesla’s new cost cutting-effort is going all the wa...
24.5.19 21:41
13
      RE: Tesla’s new cost cutting-effort is going all the wa...
25.5.19 09:56
14
      RE: Tesla’s new cost cutting-effort is going all the wa...
25.5.19 10:14
15
Whitney Tilson über Tesla
25.5.19 19:10
16
Verriß von Consumer Reports:
25.5.19 21:29
17
RE: Verriß von Consumer Reports:
25.5.19 21:43
18
      RE: Verriß von Consumer Reports:
26.5.19 18:18
19
In April, the Tesla Model 3 was replaced by the Renault...
29.5.19 16:04
20
RE: In April, the Tesla Model 3 was replaced by the Ren...
29.5.19 17:15
21
Musk Pushes Tesla Delivery Employees to `Catch Up' With...
29.5.19 23:30
22
Tesla-Aktie einfach bloß „missverstanden“?
03.6.19 09:50
23
RE: Tesla-Aktie einfach bloß „missverstanden“?
03.6.19 09:59
24
Tesla Begins Taking Orders on Its Cheaper China-Built M...
03.6.19 21:03
25
Verkauf von Emissionsrechten an GM und Chrysler
04.6.19 06:49
26
Tesla Stock Is Back Above $200
06.6.19 20:38
27
RTesla-Chef Musk prognostiziert Rekordquartal
12.6.19 09:46
28
SpaceX vs. Ariane
17.6.19 09:32
29
Goldman slashes Tesla price target by $42 on demand con...
20.6.19 18:00
30
Goldman slashes Tesla price target by $42 on demand con...
21.6.19 09:48
31
Jefferies senkt Ziel für Tesla auf 300 Dollar
21.6.19 10:18
32
SpaceX Attempts ‘Big Bang’ Military Mission With Massiv...
24.6.19 17:10
33
RE: SpaceX Attempts ‘Big Bang’ Military Mission With Ma...
25.6.19 10:11
34
Medien: Tesla verfehlt angekündigtes Rekordabsatzziel
26.6.19 09:45
35
Tesla verliert Fertigungschef Peter Hochholdinger
26.6.19 22:51
36
Mark Spiegel of Stanphyl Capital has long been one of t...
01.7.19 21:46
37
Tesla posts record vehicle deliveries in the second qua...
02.7.19 22:28
38
RE: Tesla posts record vehicle deliveries in the second...
02.7.19 22:34
39
Shame of me
04.7.19 22:27
40
RE: Shame of me
05.7.19 11:28
41
Tesla gamed a subsidy program in Canada
05.7.19 16:32
42
Tesla will stop selling cars once full self-driving is ...
08.7.19 12:19
43
My analyst's bull case for Tesla
08.7.19 22:00
44
RE: My analyst's bull case for Tesla
09.7.19 06:20
45
      Responses to my analyst's bull case on TSLA
10.7.19 20:42
46
      Tesla (TSLA) is getting ready to ramp up production
10.7.19 20:49
47
Model 3 unzuverlässig
11.7.19 21:16
48
RE: Model 3 unzuverlässig
12.7.19 07:08
49
      ehrliche meinung oder gekaufte meinung?
14.7.19 20:25
50
Tesla: Einbruch in Norwegen?
16.7.19 09:50
51
RE: Tesla: Einbruch in Norwegen?
16.7.19 10:06
52
Tesla senkt Preise
16.7.19 13:19
53
Dirty Tesla: "15 Pounds" Of Dirt Trapped In Model 3
16.7.19 13:27
54
      Tesla Falls as Model 3 Price Cut Signals Need to Suppor...
16.7.19 15:01
55
      RE: Tesla Falls as Model 3 Price Cut Signals Need to Su...
16.7.19 15:17
56
      Tesla employees say they took shortcuts, worked through...
16.7.19 15:17
57
Tesla’s new V3 Supercharger can charge up to 1,500 elec...
19.7.19 19:57
58
Sehr interessanter Thread
22.7.19 21:16
59
Tesla’s Higher-End Sales Erode in Key Market Amid Model...
24.7.19 19:48
60
Tesla misses expectations for Q2 results
24.7.19 22:53
61
      RE: Tesla misses expectations for Q2 results
24.7.19 23:43
62
      RE: Tesla misses expectations for Q2 results
25.7.19 05:43
63
      RE: Tesla misses expectations for Q2 results
25.7.19 06:03
64
Tesla Breaks Records But Doesn’t Break Even
25.7.19 09:42
65
RE: Tesla Breaks Records But Doesn’t Break Even
25.7.19 10:39
66
      RE: Tesla Breaks Records But Doesn’t Break Even
25.7.19 11:27
67
      RE: Tesla Breaks Records But Doesn’t Break Even
25.7.19 11:36
68
      RE: Tesla Breaks Records But Doesn’t Break Even
25.7.19 11:41
69
      RE: Tesla Breaks Records But Doesn’t Break Even
25.7.19 12:16
70
      Tesla Co-Founder Leaves CTO Job After $30 Million in Sh...
25.7.19 12:41
71
      RE: Tesla Co-Founder Leaves CTO Job After $30 Million i...
25.7.19 13:06
72
      RE: Tesla Co-Founder Leaves CTO Job After $30 Million i...
25.7.19 13:57
73
      RE: Tesla Breaks Records But Doesn’t Break Even
25.7.19 11:44
74
      RE: Tesla Breaks Records But Doesn’t Break Even
25.7.19 12:09
75
Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
25.7.19 17:45
76
RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
25.7.19 18:03
77
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
25.7.19 18:16
78
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
25.7.19 21:37
79
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
25.7.19 21:49
80
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
25.7.19 22:21
81
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
25.7.19 22:43
82
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
25.7.19 23:39
83
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
26.7.19 05:53
84
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
26.7.19 07:34
85
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
26.7.19 07:37
86
      RE: Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
26.7.19 06:17
87
Tesla Is a Streetcar Named Desire
26.7.19 09:40
88
Tesla Loses a Founder, and a Piece of Its Soul
26.7.19 17:02
89
Analyst Commentary
28.7.19 18:56
90
"Automobilindustrie schlittert immer tiefer in die Kris...
01.8.19 20:49
91
Tesla Needs Even More Than Ludicrous Speed
29.7.19 22:28
92
Tesla is 'spooling up production line rapidly' in Buffa...
30.7.19 20:40
93
Someone Tell the President: Tesla's Musk Promised China...
03.8.19 11:17
94
I met a Tesla bull (hedge fund) to debate the short cas...
03.8.19 11:21
95
      RE: I met a Tesla bull (hedge fund) to debate the short...
03.8.19 11:29
96
      battery pricing and quality testinggut analysiert
03.8.19 11:34
97
      Panasonic demanding battery price hike?
03.8.19 11:59
98
Elon Musk to launch China unit for tunneling company th...
05.8.19 14:50
99
Former NYSE Chief Warns of “False and Misleading Claims...
07.8.19 20:18
100
Wieder kostenloses Laden für Tesla-Käufer
12.8.19 20:06
101
Tesla's Model 3 Sales In Europe Declined In Q2, July, A...
12.8.19 21:06
102
Tesla Enters “Whistleblower Hell”
14.8.19 13:46
103
RE: Tesla Enters “Whistleblower Hell”
14.8.19 14:01
104
Tesla has a huge incentive to deploy self-driving tech....
15.8.19 20:14
105
TeslaQ
15.8.19 20:22
106
Tesla Service Is Criticized in BMW’s Backyard
16.8.19 09:00
107
Jaguar and Audi SUVs Fail to Dent Tesla’s Electric-Car ...
19.8.19 10:47
108
Wal-Mart verklagt Tesla
21.8.19 22:07
109
RE: Wal-Mart verklagt Tesla
21.8.19 22:19
110
David Einhorn demands Elon Musk resign over solar panel...
23.8.19 19:47
111
Last year Tesla initiated 'Project Titan' — a stealth n...
23.8.19 22:01
112
Tesla Wins China Tax Break, Sidestepping U.S. Trade Ten...
30.8.19 22:17
113
Tesla Versicherung
03.9.19 23:49
114
The investor's guide to the Porsche Taycan
04.9.19 21:24
115
RE: The investor's guide to the Porsche Taycan
05.9.19 08:04
116
      RE: The investor's guide to the Porsche Taycan
05.9.19 10:01
117
      RE: The investor's guide to the Porsche Taycan
05.9.19 10:04
118
      RE: The investor's guide to the Porsche Taycan
05.9.19 11:18
119
      RE: The investor's guide to the Porsche Taycaninteressantinteressant
05.9.19 14:43
120
      RE: The investor's guide to the Porsche Taycan
05.9.19 14:48
121
      RE: The investor's guide to the Porsche Taycan
05.9.19 14:50
122
Bull-bear debate on the Porsche Taycan
06.9.19 22:24
123
August Numbers Are In For Tesla
06.9.19 22:32
124
How Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity
09.9.19 22:18
125
Analyst With $0 Price Target On Tesla Says Growth Story...
10.9.19 23:12
126
It’s Porsche Versus Tesla Facing Off in Germany’s Green...
13.9.19 22:27
127
Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors
15.9.19 21:33
128

Slow Sales In China Highlight Tesla's Demand Problem

...

The Model 3 does not show up on Gasgoo’s list of the top-ten selling NEVs in China in April. The number ten model on that list, JAC’s iEV6E, sold 3,002 units for the month of April. So, the only conclusion I can draw (I have reached out to Tesla management for comment; they have yet to respond) is that Tesla did not even sell 3,000 Model 3s in China in April.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimcollins/2019/05/15/slow-sales-in-china-highlight-teslas-d emand-problem/#4c7127a146ed

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Elon Musk to Tesla Employees: It's 'Hardcore' Belt-Tightening Time

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and new Chief Financial Officer Zach Kirkhorn will personally review all expenses going forward in a 'hardcore' attempt to cut costs following massive losses during the last quarter.

...

In an email sent to all Tesla employees and obtained by all-things-Tesla and EV news website Electrek, Musk noted that it was "extremely important" to "examine every expenditure at Tesla, no matter how small."

Even with $2.2 billion in cash on its books at the end of last quarter, Musk said that wouldn't last that long with the company's burn rate: "This is a lot of money, but actually only gives us about 10 months at the Q1 burn rate to achieve breakeven!"

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/musk-to-tesla-employees-it-is-hardcore-belt-ti ghtening-time-14963523

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Tesla Shares Sink Below $200 Amid Trade Woes, Cautious Analysts

In a note Sunday, Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said the electric-car maker faced a “Kilimanjaro-like uphill climb” to hit profitability goals in the second half of the year, while Needham analyst Rajvindra Gill said the latest report from the National Transportation Safety Board on a fatal Tesla crash “could cast doubt on Tesla’s self-driving capabilities, which have been highly touted by Mr. Musk.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-20/tesla-shares-sink-below-200-amid-trade -woes-cautious-analysts

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Tesla Bear-Case Price Is $10 at Morgan Stanley on Weak Car Sales

(Bloomberg) -- Tesla’s bear-case share-price estimate slashed to $10 from $97 by Morgan Stanley analysts including Adam Jonas, citing increased debt load, increasing dependence on China and potential for further negative news.
The broker rates Tesla equal-weight, with $230 price target
Analysts write in a note that Tesla’s stock price has been supported by demand for co.’s cars, cash flow generation, access to capital markets, and 2019’s “sharp deceleration” in sales has reduced self-funding ability
“Demand is at the heart of the problem,” as Tesla may be offering too many battery-powered sedans outside China; generating new demand will require expanding in China domestic market, offering lower-priced SUV and targeting logistics and mobility fleets
Executive departures, price cuts, “extraordinary” cost reduction efforts “add to the narrative of a company facing real potential stress”

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

>Tesla Bear-Case Price Is $10 at Morgan Stanley on Weak Car
>Sales


Tesla is down another $10 today, in part I think due to the conference call from 11am-noon this morning by the Morgan Stanley analysts, which I listened to.

In short: they could hardly have been more negative – and I thought I was bearish! I had to keep reminding myself that they were one of the banks pumping this awful deal less than three weeks ago…

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Die Shorts sind aber auch sehr "eager": Jetzt hat er mal ausgeübt, ev. Verkaufsmeldung muß erst kommen:


Just when you think Tesla’s news flow couldn’t be any more surprising, an unexpected regulatory filing pops up. And it’s a doozy.


Musk just exercised 175k shares from options that don’t expire till 2022 (see link to the Form 4 below).

There is one and only one reason to do this: he needs the cash - likely because he's being hit with a margin call...

http://archive.fast-edgar.com//20190521/ARA2T22CZ22XR222222O22Z2M2K2PZ2262B2/

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

My daily e-mail on May 6, Is Tesla desperate?; Taking a closer look at the deal, was dedicated entirely to Glenn’s trenchant analysis of the company’s convertible bond and stock offering. Glenn concluded that Tesla raised much-needed capital but paid a heavy price.



The underwriters made a fortune, largely at the expense of the company, by taking advantage of Tesla’s dire situation (demand has collapsed and it’s hemorrhaging cash, as I’ve covered extensively in previous e-mails) and its woefully inexperienced 34-year-old CFO, Zach Kirkhorn, whose background includes Harvard Business School and McKinsey – what could be worse??? (As an alum of HBS and another elite consulting firm, Boston Consulting Group, I speak from experience!).



As bad as we thought the deal was for Tesla at the time, we now believe that it was even worse than we thought. The structure of the capital raise and the greed of the underwriters has likely exacerbated the plunge in Tesla’s stock since the offering three weeks ago.



As background, at that time the company issued $1.6 billion in convertible bonds and $750 million in stock, with a “green shoe” option to the underwriters to buy 15% more of each.



As part of the deal, the company also engaged in a hedging transaction with the underwriters that had two legs: 1) Tesla purchased a call struck at the conversion price of $309.83 per share for $413.8 million, which would have the effect of reducing the dilution from the offering if the convertible bonds are converted into stock in the future; and 2) Tesla received $151.7 million to sell a call option struck at $607.50 per share.



These two calls, when taken together, are called a call spread (long the $309.83 call and short the $607.50 call). It was packaged by the underwriters using the stock that Tesla issued along with the convertible bonds. They hedged their exposure by buying the stock heavily during the day or two after the deal priced, which no doubt contributed to its spike after the deal was announced (also contributing were Musk’s preposterous claims that Tesla would achieve Level 5 – no steering wheel necessary – autonomous driving by the end of this year and have a fleet of a million Tesla robotaxis within 15 months).



Banks and brokers make much more money buying and selling options than more traditional securities like converts and common stock, so we have no doubt that Tesla paid a huge price for the call spreads that were part of the financing (they love dealing with rookie CFOs). In fact, our guess is that the bankers probably made more money selling the call spreads to Tesla than they made underwriting the two securities. Therefore, it was no surprise to us to see them exercise the full green shoe, as this would maximize the amount of the call spread – and therefore their profits on it.



Ah, but that wasn’t enough for these greedy pigs…



As background: a major purpose of any green shoe is to provide extra stock so the underwriters can support the deal and stabilize the stock if necessary.



But that can present a dilemma for the bankers: what if they exercise the green shoe (i.e., buy the securities) and then get stuck with them if their value plunges?



There’s an easy solution, however – as long as the underwriters don’t care about their client’s stock and the investors to whom they just sold the deal: just exercise the green shoe soon after the deal and then quickly dump the securities.



Sure enough, that appears to be what happened. Even though the green shoe is a 30-day option, Tesla’s underwriters decided to exercise it early: the 8-k announcing it was filed a mere five days after the pricing, and we have little doubt that they quickly sold.



Thus, when the stock fell through the deal price and kept falling, and falling, and falling… the banks weren’t there to support it.



But wait, it gets worse!



The banks are the counterparty to the call spreads they sold Tesla. They don’t want any risk, so they hedge it by buying the stock (as noted above). But as the stock falls, they need fewer shares as a hedge, so they become sellers of the stock – which, of course, further contributes to its decline. The more it falls, the more they sell…



This is what happens when you have seasoned professionals from the biggest banks in the world on one side of the table, and a desperate company with a clueless CEO and CFO on the other side.



In Wall Street terms, they got their faces ripped off. And Tesla shareholders have paid a heavy price… and will continue to do so we confidently predict…

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Musk Counters Tesla Delivery Doubt With Upbeat Internal Memo


(Bloomberg) -- Tesla Inc. shares swung wildly Thursday after an upbeat email that Elon Musk sent to employees countered days of escalating doubt that the company will hit its vehicle delivery targets.

The chief executive officer wrote that Tesla has a “good chance” in the second quarter of exceeding the record 90,700 deliveries achieved in the last three months of 2018. In the email, which first surfaced on a Chinese social media forum, Musk also said the company has received more than 50,000 net new orders this quarter.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-rallies-musk-upbeat-email-141242065.html

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

>The chief executive officer wrote that Tesla has a “good
>chance” in the second quarter of exceeding the record 90,700
>deliveries achieved in the last three months of 2018. In the
>email, which first surfaced on a Chinese social media forum,
>Musk also said the company has received more than 50,000 net
>new orders this quarter.


Die Aktie hat gestern darauf positiv reagiert aber mE ist das ja ein Desaster. Wenn 50k pro Quartal die steady state run rate ist?

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

SpaceX launches dozens of ‘Starlink’ internet satellites into space — its heaviest payload ever

SpaceX sent a packed rocket of 60 satellites into space on Thursday morning, in a key first mission toward building the company’s own high-speed internet network.

The launch was “the heaviest payload a Falcon 9 has ever launched, or Falcon Heavy, for that matter,” SpaceX CEO Elon Musk told reporters before the mission. All in all, the rocket lifted more than 37,000 pounds of mass, he said.

Called “Starlink,” the satellites represent the company’s ambitious plan to build an interconnected satellite network to beam high-speed internet to anywhere on the planet. It’s how Musk believes SpaceX will be able to generate enough revenue to realize its even more ambitious goals of sending astronauts to Mars, and to establish the first human colony on the Red Planet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/spacex-starlink-launch-60-internet-satellites-on-heaviest -mission.html

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Desperate.

Tesla’s new cost cutting-effort is going all the way down to toilet paper

Sources familiar with the matter told Electrek that teams at several Tesla facilities are going to some extremes in attempts to cut costs, including skipping on ordering office supplies – even toilet paper.

A source even said that some employees are bringing toilet paper from home to the office in an attempt to reduce their overhead.

https://electrek.co/2019/05/24/tesla-cost-cutting-effort-toilet-paper/

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

>Desperate.
>
>Tesla’s new cost cutting-effort is going all the way down to
>toilet paper
>
>Sources familiar with the matter told Electrek that teams at
>several Tesla facilities are going to some extremes in
>attempts to cut costs, including skipping on ordering office
>supplies – even toilet paper.
>
>A source even said that some employees are bringing toilet
>paper from home to the office in an attempt to reduce their
>overhead.
>

Das sind ja echte Kostentreiber die da angegriffen werden. Da würde ich als Mitarbeiter so schnell wie möglich flüchten.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>Das sind ja echte Kostentreiber die da angegriffen werden. Da würde ich als Mitarbeiter so schnell wie möglich flüchten.

warum? will man seine leute im kopf auf linie bringen, muß man dort anfangen. bei mir war es sogar üblich schreibpapier beidseitig zu nutzen. mitarbeiter die weglaufen wenn's eng wird sind übrigens kein verlust sondern eine wichtige einsparung. mit anderen worten, wer das kleine nicht ehrt ist das große nicht wert - das gilt auch beim sparen.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>Das sind ja echte Kostentreiber die da angegriffen
>werden. Da würde ich als Mitarbeiter so schnell wie möglich
>flüchten.
>
>warum? will man seine leute im kopf auf linie bringen, muß man
>dort anfangen. bei mir war es sogar üblich schreibpapier
>beidseitig zu nutzen. mitarbeiter die weglaufen wenn's eng
>wird sind übrigens kein verlust sondern eine wichtige
>einsparung. mit anderen worten, wer das kleine nicht ehrt ist
>das große nicht wert - das gilt auch beim sparen.


Ich glaub es ist was wert (aber Klopapier ist immer peinlich) wenn das schon in guten Zeiten gelebt wird, als Reaktion auf Schwierigkeiten wirkt das mE nur als Verzweiflungsakt und demotivierend.

P.S.: Dazu köstlich zu lesen: "Memos from the Chairman"

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Verriß von Consumer Reports:

David Friedman, vice president of advocacy at Consumer Reports, says that as it currently exists, the automatic lane-change function raises serious safety concerns.

“Tesla is showing what not to do on the path toward self-driving cars: release increasingly automated driving systems that aren’t vetted properly,” he says. “Before selling these systems, automakers should be required to give the public validated evidence of that system’s safety—backed by rigorous simulations, track testing, and the use of safety drivers in real-world conditions.”

Ultimately, automatic lane changes may be an interesting feature for Tesla enthusiasts, but the feature doesn’t provide any meaningful assistance to drivers—and it certainly doesn’t make Tesla vehicles “self-driving” by any means.

“This isn’t a convenience at all,” says CR’s Fisher. “Monitoring the system is much harder than just changing lanes yourself. Using the system is like monitoring a kid behind the wheel for the very first time. As any parent knows, it’s far more convenient and less stressful to simply drive yourself.”

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    


>“This isn’t a convenience at all,” says CR’s Fisher.
>“Monitoring the system is much harder than just changing
>lanes yourself. Using the system is like monitoring a kid
>behind the wheel for the very first time. As any parent knows,
>it’s far more convenient and less stressful to simply drive
>yourself.”


Sehr gut auf den Punkt gebracht.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

Ich sehe das ein wenig anders.

Der Autopilot von Tesla ist das beste am Markt befindliche Assistenzsystem. Besser als all die Spurhalteassistenten der Konkurrenz. Auf Autobahnen mit guten Bodenmarkierungen kommt er praktisch ohne Eingriffe des Fahrers aus.
Aber: Es ist kein vollständig autonomes Fahren möglich, der Fahrer sollte auf der Autobahn nicht schlafen und nicht lesen, sondern zumindest ein Auge auf das Verkehrsgeschehen haben.

Und weil immer wieder gesagt wird, daß der Autopilot nicht "Autopilot" heißen sollte, wenn er nicht vollautonom fahren kann: Auch der Autopilot eines Flugzeuges übergibt, sobald es ein wenig komplizierter wird, sofort an den menschlichen Piloten. Auch der ist nur ein Assistenzsystem.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

In April, the Tesla Model 3 was replaced by the Renault Zoe as the best-selling pure electric car in Europe. The French subcompact recorded approximately 4,000 registrations in 27 European markets, up by 62%, as it was boosted by strong demand in France, Germany and Italy. The Tesla Model 3 was 350 units behind, with Norway, Germany and the Netherlands making up its top three markets.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

Solange es Wartelisten gibt, hängen die Zulassungszahlen weniger an der Nachfrage, als an der Lieferfähigkeit der Hersteller. Deswegen konnte sich Tesla auch einmalig an die Spitze setzen: Es wurde einfach die ganze Produktion ein paar Wochen lang nach Europa verschifft.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Wenn das die Bullen sind ist Tesla verloren.

Tesla-Aktie einfach bloß „missverstanden“? Warum eine Analystin an ihr astronomisches Kursziel glaubt

Darum soll die Tesla-Aktie auf 4.000 US-Dollar steigen
Tasha Keeney heißt die besagte Analystin und sie ist derzeit bei Ark Invest im Dienst, einem Analysedienst, der sich gemäß der eigenen Webseite auf stark wachsende und disruptive Technologien und Aktien spezialisiert hat.

https://boerse-express.com/news/articles/tesla-aktie-einfach-bloss-missverstanden-warum-e ine-analystin-an-ihr-astronomisches-kursziel-glaubt-117212

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

>Wenn das die Bullen sind ist Tesla verloren.
>
>Tesla-Aktie einfach bloß „missverstanden“? Warum eine
>Analystin an ihr astronomisches Kursziel glaubt
>
>Darum soll die Tesla-Aktie auf 4.000 US-Dollar steigen
>Tasha Keeney heißt die besagte Analystin und sie ist derzeit
>bei Ark Invest im Dienst, einem Analysedienst, der sich gemäß
>der eigenen Webseite auf stark wachsende und disruptive
>Technologien und Aktien spezialisiert hat.
>
>https://boerse-express.com/news/articles/tesla-aktie-einfach-bloss-missverstanden-warum-e ine-analystin-an-ihr-astronomisches-kursziel-glaubt-117212

Viel Glück Tesla, jetzt wo VW alle großen Autobauer zwingt heftig in e-autos zu investieren.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Tesla Begins Taking Orders on Its Cheaper China-Built Model 3s

SHANGHAI— Tesla Inc. TSLA promised to start delivering Model 3 sedans built at its new Shanghai plant within six to 10 months—and priced them well below the imported version—as the electric-vehicle maker races to capitalize on booming Chinese demand.

Offering up details on its China strategy, Tesla said prices for the locally built Model 3 will start from about $47,500 for the Standard Range Plus version. Chinese buyers currently pay $58,900 for a basic Model 3 imported from the U.S.

Initial orders are being taken for the local Model 3 with the first Shanghai-built cars scheduled for delivery late this year or early next year, the company said in a post on its social media account.

Getting China right, industry analysts said, is pivotal for Tesla, whose share price has halved in the past six months amid doubts about its ability to ramp up deliveries in the U.S.

“Tesla has struggled with the Model 3 launch,” said Bill Russo, founder of Shanghai-based consulting firm Automobility. “A repeat of this in China would put their timing at risk and place further stress on their cash flow.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-begins-taking-orders-on-its-cheaper-china-built-model- 3s-11559297740

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Es gab im April schon einen Bericht für einen zukünftigen Deal mit Fiat in Europa. In den USA läuft dieser Geschäftszweig schon länger:
---------------

"Der Elektroautobauer wiederum habe seit 2010 fast zwei Milliarden Dollar Umsatz durch den Verkauf von Emissionszertifikaten gemacht."

https://derstandard.at/2000104299785/Tesla-verkauft-US-Emissionsrechte-an-GM-und-Fiat-Chr ysler

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Tesla Stock Is Back Above $200, on Hopes for Strong 2nd-Quarter Deliveries

appeared to be getting a lift from a Wednesday night story, published by Electrek, citing a company conference call on which executives suggested that Tesla was targeting 66,000 deliveries in North America in the second quarter.

That would top the more than 63,000 reported in the fourth quarter.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/tesla-stock-investor-focus-second-quarter-deliveries-mus k-electric-car-51559835214

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Tesla-Chef Musk prognostiziert Rekordquartal

Der US-Elektroautobauer Tesla zeigt sich für das laufende Quartal optimistisch.

Bei der Hauptversammlung am Dienstag sagte Tesla-Vorstandschef Elon Musk, dass er mit Rekordauslieferungen rechne. Zudem sei das Unternehmen auf dem Weg, sein Produktionsziel bis Jahresende zu erreichen. Die Tesla-Aktie legte im nachbörslichen Handel um rund vier Prozent zu.

https://diepresse.com/home/wirtschaft/international/5642781/TeslaChef-Musk-prognostiziert e-Rekordquartal

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Space X gibt es billiger

Aus diesem Grund kann Musks Firma Space X billigere Flüge anbieten: Er verlangt für die Aussetzung eines Großsatelliten 50 Millionen Dollar (44,6 Millionen Euro), während Ariane 6 im besten Fall, das heißt bei einem Doppeltransport, auf 80 Millionen Dollar kommt. Kritiker fragen deshalb: Ist die Ariane 6 schon vor ihrem ersten Start veraltet? Verpasst der Europa-Koloss den Anschluss an den "New Space", die neue Ära am Firmament mit tausenden neuer Minisatelliten und branchenfremden Playern wie Space X oder Blue Origin von Amazon-Gründer Jeff Bezos? "Keineswegs", antwortet André-Hubert Roussel, der Vorstandsvorsitzende von Ariane Group, als wäre er die Frage gewohnt. In der Chefetage mit Blick auf das unübersehbare Gelände von Les Mureaux führt der 53-jährige Franzose aus, warum die Technologie der Wiederverwendbarkeit für die Europäer derzeit keine Option sei: "Sie rechnet sich einfach nicht, weil wir zu wenig Starts verzeichnen. Ariane 6 wird vorerst höchstens zehnmal im Jahr abheben. Damit das Raketen-Recycling rentabel ist, wären aber jährlich mindestens fünfzehn Starts nötig." Dazu kommt ein weiteres Argument. Elon Musk bekommt dutzende Aufträge von der US-Raumfahrtsagentur Nasa sowie vom Pentagon, dem amerikanischen Verteidigungsministerium. Solche "institutionellen" Buchungen für Wetter- oder Spionagesatelliten machen bei Space X 75 Prozent aus, bei Ariane nur 30 Prozent. Für den "kommerziellen" Bereich der Telekomsatelliten kann Musk dafür Dumpingpreise ansetzen. "Institutionelle Aufträge" "Dagegen ist Ariane Group machtlos", räumt Roussel ein. "Die Europäer müssten uns mehr institutionelle Satellitenaufträge erteilen." Die europäische Raumfahrtagentur Esa könnte bei ihrer Zusammenkunft im November vier neue Aufträge bekanntgeben, darunter auch Nachzügler für das europäische Navigationssystem Galileo. Das lastet Ariane 6 aber noch nicht völlig aus. Die französische Ariane-Zentrale ist erbost, dass die deutsche Bundeswehr zwei Satelliten an Space X vergeben hat. Doch kann man es ihr verübeln, wenn die Amerikaner einen Flug ins All zum halben Preis offerieren?

derstandard.at/2000104959461/Europa-kaempft-um-seinen-Platz-im-All

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Goldman slashes Tesla price target by $42 on demand concerns

(Reuters) - Goldman Sachs on Thursday cut its price target on Tesla Inc by 21%, to third lowest on the Street, on concerns about the sustainability of demand for the electric car maker’s models.

The brokerage maintained his “sell” rating on the stock and cut its target by $42 to $158, 34% below the median target, saying the Street is “still modeling too optimistic sustainable volumes for Tesla”.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-stocks-idUSKCN1TL1U0

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Goldman slashes Tesla price target by $42 on demand concerns

The brokerage maintained his “sell” rating on the stock and cut its target by $42 to $158, 34% below the median target, saying the Street is “still modeling too optimistic sustainable volumes for Tesla”.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-stocks-idUSKCN1TL1U0

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

Jefferies senkt Ziel für Tesla auf 300 Dollar - 'Buy'

Das Analysehaus Jefferies hat das Kursziel für Tesla nach einem Besuch am Standort Fremont von 400 auf 300 US-Dollar gesenkt, aber die Einstufung nach den jüngsten Kursverlusten auf "Buy" belassen. Die Sorgen um die Nachfrage seien wohl überzogen, aber die finanzielle Entwicklung sollte in den kommenden Monaten mit der Ausweitung der Produktion und der Modellpalette des Elektroautobauers weiter stark schwanken, schrieb Analyst Philippe Houchois in einer am Freitag vorliegenden Studie.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. launched its Falcon Heavy rocket for the U.S. military early Tuesday, a spectacular night time liftoff that Musk described as the company’s toughest yet.
The rocket and payload rumbled aloft at 2:30 a.m. local time from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida after a three-hour delay.

SpaceX then recovered the rocket’s two side boosters -- which flew in April as part of the Arabsat-6A mission -- at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The center core failed to land on a droneship in the Atlantic Ocean.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Medien: Tesla verfehlt angekündigtes Rekordabsatzziel

Noch im Mai wollte der Elektro-Auto-Hersteller im zweiten Quartal den Rekord von 90.700 ausgelieferten Autos zu brechen. Nun sollen es höchsten 61.000 werden.

https://diepresse.com/home/wirtschaft/international/5649937/Medien_Tesla-verfehlt-angekue ndigtes-Rekordabsatzziel

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Die Auslieferungsschätzung wird man ja in Kürze überprüfen können:

Mark Spiegel of Stanphyl Capital has long been one of the most vocal bears on Tesla (TSLA). Here's his monthly letter, in which he updates his case against the stock.
https://assets.empirefinancialresearch.com/uploads/2019/07/EFD-7-1-Stanphyl-Capital-Lette r-June-2019.pdf

Excerpt:

Tesla's Q2 guidance is to sell 90-100,000 cars and while my own current guess is lower, at around 86,000 to perhaps as high as 88,000, due to 2019's massive price-slashing (approximately six "official" cuts so far this year plus huge discounting on top of that), whatever the delivery number is, it will occur at by far Tesla's lowest ASP ever... Even if it comes up with $340 million of non-repeating Q2 cost reduction/revenue recognition vs. Q1, Tesla will still lose around $500 million GAAP in the quarter...

The party's over, folks. With no profitable growth, massive ongoing losses and tens of billions of dollars in debt and purchase obligations, the equity in Tesla will prove worthless, either quickly or – following a series of increasingly ugly capital raises – slowly. And yet as the stock is currently still over $200/share...

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Tesla posts record vehicle deliveries in the second quarter

Tesla’s (TSLA) vehicle deliveries for the second quarter of 2019 topped Wall Street’s expectations, sending shares higher during after-hours trading.

The electric car-maker reported Tuesday that it delivered 95,200 vehicles in the three months ending in June, besting average analyst estimates for about 88,000 deliveries, according to Bloomberg data.

Shares of Tesla surged more than 7% during extended trading.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

Allerdings kein Wort zu Cash-Flow oder Profitabilität:

PALO ALTO, Calif., July 02, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In the second quarter, we achieved record production of 87,048 vehicles and record deliveries of approximately 95,200 vehicles. In addition, we made significant progress streamlining our global logistics and delivery operations at higher volumes, enabling cost efficiencies and improvements to our working capital position.





Production

Deliveries





Model S/X

14,517

17,650





Model 3

72,531

77,550





Total

87,048

95,200



Orders generated during the quarter exceeded our deliveries, thus we are entering Q3 with an increase in our order backlog. We believe we are well positioned to continue growing total production and deliveries in Q3.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Shame of me for missing the obvious fact that of course Tesla was going to hit its deliveries guidance of 90,000-100,000 cars. Every auto manufacturer in the world always sells what it produces. It’s not as if newly built cars, if unsold, are dragged away to the junkyard. Rather, if a particular model isn’t selling well, the manufacturer simply cuts prices until sales pick up. (Of course, if demand is weak, an automaker will also cut production, which is what Tesla did with its Model S and Xs. At one time, it was producing nearly 100,000 of these cars annually, but it’s now down to 50,000-60,000.)

 

So this is one of many critical questions about Tesla: how much did it have to cut prices to sell its cars? This will, of course, have a major impact on the company’s margins and net income.

 

Another key factor is product mix. Tesla makes a lot more money selling its higher-priced cars, the Model S and Model X, than the Model 3, yet Q2 deliveries were heavily skewed toward the latter. Comparing deliveries to last year’s fourth quarter (ignoring the unusually weak first quarter), Model S and X sales combined tumbled 36% while Model 3 sales jumped 22%, which does not bode well for margins.

 

Another mix factor to note is that the U.S. accounted for roughly 70% of sales in the second quarter vs. less than 50% in Q1. This could be due, in part, to Tesla pulling forward demand because the federal tax credit for all Tesla buyers fell from $3,750 in the first half of the year to $1,875 on July 1.

 

Recall what happened the last time the tax credit dropped – at the end of 2018, from $7,500 to $3,750. We now know that this helped Tesla report big sales in Q4 ‘19, but then Q1 was a disaster. Could we see the same dynamics at work from Q2 to Q3 this year?

 

In summary, while I cannot rule out the possibility that the better-than-expected delivery number for Q2 is indicative of a genuine and sustainable surge in demand, I don’t think it’s likely. The more likely scenario, in my opinion, is that the company struggles to sell all of the cars it’s producing, as a tidal wave of well-reviewed cars from nearly every major manufacturer in the world hits the market, leading Tesla to report ongoing losses – and the stock sinking to my $100 price target by year end.

Whitney Tilson

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

>Could we see the same dynamics at work from Q2 to Q3 this year?

Unwahrscheinlich mE, nachdem Tesla auch gemeldet hat, daß im 2. Quartal mehr Bestellungen eingegangen sind als Autos ausgeliefert wurden.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Tesla gamed a subsidy program in Canada to sell an extra ~4,000 cars. It was designed to exclude Tesla, asthis article notes, by being available only for cars with a price limit below even the cheapest Model 3. But Tesla was not to be deterred. It introduced a car priced $1 below the subsidy cap – with software set to limit the range to only 100 miles. Of course nobody would buy such a car, but now that the Model 3 “qualified” for the subsidy, Tesla then sold thousands of cars at full price. 

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

One of my analysts, Kevin DeCamp, has owned both a Tesla car and the stock for years and remains bullish on it.

Despite my contrary views, I’ve always welcomed his viewpoint and encouraged him to write this article outlining his thesis.

-------------------------

On the flight to my first Tesla shareholder meeting last month, I was reminded of the mock funeral that a group of GM EV1 owners held when the company took back their leased cars and crushed them against their will in 2003. Clearly, Tesla’s success has gone way beyond the EV1, but the total global fleet of 1.2 billion vehicles makes Tesla’s sales to date of ~600,000 cars seem like a drop in the bucket (0.05% of total global vehicles). With EV (electric vehicle) competition finally arriving from well-funded giants and numerous red flags surfacing, is this the end of the road for Tesla (TSLA)?



As a long-time Tesla shareholder and car owner, I am accustomed to the negativity surrounding the company – yet this year seems particularly concerning. Executive departures, price cuts, layoffs, autopilot crashes, SEC battles, countless lawsuits, quality issues, and a costly capital raise have all taken a toll.



As the meeting began, I couldn’t help but think that the shareholders were like a family at a hospital insisting that their loved one was only having a minor setback when in reality they were in critical condition in ICU. Never underestimate the power of denial.



Tesla bulls can brush these off as growing pains, but the CDS spike, bond rout, and the stock price breaking through long-term support could be warning signs that the company is on the road to needing life support.



Unlike most Tesla bulls, I’ve carefully considered the bear case over the years. More recently, I doubt there are any bulls more familiar with it as I’m an analyst for Whitney Tilson of Empire Financial Research, who made a big call in March that the stock would hit $100 by the end of the year.



I’ve forced myself over the last few months to analyze every possible facet of the bear thesis deeper than I ever had and question every one of my assumptions.



I wanted to make sure that I hadn’t fallen into the trap Charlie Munger warns about. He has said that the human mind is like the human egg – it has a shut-off device such that once an idea gets inside, it doesn’t allow a new one to enter. Could I be experiencing this in real time?



Ultimately, I concluded that I wasn’t. In fact, I’m now more confident than ever that Tesla will make it through this transition period and continue to dominate and lead the EV market.



While there are many elements to the bear thesis, the crux of it is that demand for Tesla’s cars is hitting a wall and thus we’re in the early stages of this becoming a broken growth stock. I believe that this is completely wrong for a number of reasons.





The legacy automakers are far from all in



For years I’ve been hearing about the incoming tidal wave of competition that will inevitably crush Tesla’s growth and margins. This is a compelling argument, but it is unlikely to happen due to a variation of the innovator’s dilemma, Tesla’s first mover advantage, continued lead, and the new market demand it’s creating.



Another valuable lesson from Charlie Munger is that incentives drive everything. Setting aside the inferior 204-mile range of the Audi e-tron, this vehicle is the most impressive of the competitors to challenge Tesla to date. Yet, what is the incentive for Audi to sell money-losing e-trons as opposed to their other, profitable models? On the contrary, Tesla’s entire existence depends on selling as many electric cars as possible.



This is likely the reason the legacy automakers have put more effort into headlines describing their future EV plans than securing battery supplies – a major mistake since a massive amount of battery supply is necessary for any serious EV program. In addition, the battery pack is an integral and crucial part of the EV powertrain – you would think that any serious EV manufacturer would play an integral part in its design and manufacture.



However, the Chevy Bolt – the original “Tesla Killer” – is a great example of the industry’s approach. 70% of the Bolt’s components are made by LG Chem versus 90% of the Model 3’s being made in house by Tesla.



It’s not surprising, therefore, that the Bolt has had no success in Norway, where more than half of all car sales are EVs thanks to big government incentives. GM has sold a total of 223 Bolts since introducing it years ago – a number that the Tesla Model 3 has easily beaten many days this year.



Battery supply is a major issue as Audi has been forced to slow production of its e-tron and delay the launch of its next model due to battery shortages from LG Chem. LG Chem is also a major battery supplier to other OEMs, so not surprisingly it’s taken advantage of this dynamic and raised prices.



If I were an investor in Volkswagen, Audi’s parent company, I would have mixed feelings about this dynamic. Since Audi appears to take a large loss on every e-tron sold, then I should be happy that the battery shortage is dampening the sales of money-losing EVs. But does failure in this important emerging market hurt the company in the long run? It’s a classic innovator’s dilemma. No wonder GM destroyed those EV1s...



VW has estimated that the industry will need the equivalent of 40 Tesla gigafactories by 2025 in order to meet battery demand, assuming that 25% of sales volumes are hybrid or fully electric vehicles. Where are all the plans for these factories? Not to worry, VW has taken a page out of Elon Musk’s playbook and recently announced that its battery supply is “secured.”



Also, VW is just waking up to the fact that the Tesla Model 3 battery contains less than ¼ the amount of cobalt than their batteries in the VW ID3 – due to be launched in 2020. Meanwhile, Tesla is working on eliminating it entirely from their battery cells.



A clear demonstration of the difference incentives make is Musk’s comment at the shareholder’s meeting that Tesla may get into the mining business.



As we scale battery production to very high levels, we actually have to look further down the supply chain. We might get into the mining business. Maybe. A little bit, at least.



Of course, this comment resulted in a barrage of criticism and mockery. But, everyone missed the point. Musk will do anything necessary in order to ensure Tesla has sufficient supply to meet his ambitious goals, while the rest of the industry will do anything to continue selling their more profitable gasoline-powered vehicles.



Speaking of incentives, the dealership model is an additional headwind to EV sales. The majority of dealership profits come from service. Since EVs need very little service, dealerships have powerful incentives not to sell EVs. I saw this when I went to test drive the Jaguar I-Pace (read my review here) and the salesman didn’t even try to sell the car. This is why Tesla has fought hard to use a direct sales model, even in the face of being banned in some US states thanks to the political muscle of the dealerships. This was a bold, smart move by Tesla that traditional automakers will be hard-pressed to match.



Another major advantage that Tesla has developed is its charging infrastructure. Read this article to get a sense of how painful driving a typical EV is today is on a round trip from Los Angeles to Vegas (“8 hours driving, 5 more plugged-in”). In comparison, I did an amazing 6,000-mile road trip in my 2014 Model S in the winter of 2016 with zero issues.



It’s great to see that Electrify America is adding high-speed chargers across the U.S., but they’re still way behind Tesla. And once you realize that VW is funding this effort only because it was forced to do so by the U.S. government as part of a settlement for the Dieselgate scandal, you see once again that the auto incumbents are far from all in.



Tesla’s technology lead is large and may be increasing



Tesla’s lead in EVs is apparent when you consider that no competitor has managed to match the efficiency and range of the Tesla Model S…from 2012! How such well-funded competitors could possibly still be so far behind can be explained largely by incentives, but there is much more to the story.



The most skilled and innovative engineers flock to work for Tesla. The company placed as the second most attractive employer – after SpaceX – for engineering students in a recent survey. Elon Musk’s ability to attract top talent has been crucial to Tesla’s success and its technological lead.



This lead is obvious when you consider Tesla’s EV powertrain, but it is also clear when you analyze Tesla’s seamless integration of hardware and software. The future car is a computer on wheels and no car manufacturer rivals Tesla’s talent in this area, including the ability to update software over-the-air. These OTA updates have been accelerating and improving since their introduction in 2012 while other companies have barely begun offering them – GM recently announced that it will offer them, but not in every model, and not until 2023.



Tesla’s advantage in human capital compounds over time, as A-players tend to love working only with other A-players. As Steve Jobs once observed, the difference between an average software engineer and the best software engineer is “fifty to one, maybe one hundred to one.” The big auto incumbents don’t stand a chance attracting the same talent.



Hardware and software integration is becoming even more important as autonomy advances. Although there has been a lot of skepticism regarding Musk’s autonomy claims, NVIDIA legitimized Tesla as its only competition in the AI self-driving space in a blog post after Tesla’s Autonomy Day:



Indeed Tesla sees this approach as so important to the industry’s future that it’s building its future around it. This is the way forward. Every other automaker will need to deliver this level of performance.



There are only two places where you can get that AI computing horsepower: NVIDIA and Tesla.



While I don’t claim any special insight into Tesla’s plans with their recently acquired Maxwell dry cathode battery technology, if they successfully execute here it’s unlikely the incumbents will catch up in battery tech in the next decade.



Tesla’s lead in EVs and the integration of hardware and software is substantial and may be increasing. It will take years for other car manufacturers to get where Tesla is today – but the problem for them is that Tesla is a rapidly moving target.



The key question for bears is: Why wouldn’t the company with the best incentives, people, and technology win?





There is strong demand for Tesla’s cars



It seems to be popular wisdom in the finance community that Tesla’s market is small – limited mostly to coastal tree-hugging elites or tech bros – and has already hit a wall. In addition, the number of competitors coming down the pike will compound this problem and put an end to the growth story. Look no further, the bears say, than the first quarter numbers and Tesla’s price cuts.



But there’s evidence that demand has rebounded strongly as Tesla sold a record 95,200 cars in the second quarter – a big jump from the first quarter’s 63,000. Even though this fell right in the middle of their guidance, it far surpassed everyone’s expectations including most bulls. Although bears have now shifted their focus to margins and second half numbers, there is a good chance they will be cash flow positive this quarter and have more than $5 billion in cash on hand.



If the “demand cliff” so integral to the bear thesis – which has now been moved forward 6 months - is wrong and second half numbers are better than expected, I think the short thesis will unravel and the stock will soar.



Big picture, I believe Tesla is the only company in the industry that is doing innovative and exciting things – and nobody else is even close. This is why the Model 3 is the best selling car in the US by revenue and 63% of trade-ins for the vehicle are from non-premium vehicles. This trade-in data can’t be emphasized enough as it shows that many people are spending more on the Model 3 than they ever have on a car.



Alex Roy – a well-known rally race driver and Musk critic – sums up my thoughts here on why this is happening:



Hilariously, $TSLA shorts and OEM publicists would have us believe the next "Tesla Killer" will deliver because a dozen committees met and everyone ticked their boxes. None of them understand what they're up against.



All of Musk's bulls**t, exaggerations and pettiness don't matter because once you get in a Tesla, there really is nothing else like it. Mine isn't perfect, and I don't care. I want what it does, and don't care about what it doesn't. I want to live the dream. I want to drive the future.



Remember, this is coming from a Tesla critic. Imagine how people who love the company and Musk feel about the car? Actually, you don’t need to imagine as Tesla topped Consumer Reports’ owner satisfaction list for the third year in a row, even with all the reliability issues and negativity surrounding the company. The majority of Tesla owners (myself included) are passionate evangelists for the company – bears underestimate the power of this at their peril...



While bears focus on quality and service issues, they forget that Tesla relentlessly strives for continual improvement and it has a growing “sales force” of tens of thousands of new customers a month – the majority of who are incredibly happy with their cars.



Tesla is destroying the competition with the Model 3 and this is before it enters the most popular segment, crossovers. Although the Model 3 was indeed a “bet the company” program, it’s only a warm up for the Model Y.



Tesla plans to sell more Model Ys than S, X, and 3 combined given the size of the crossover segment. And given that 75% of the parts in the Model Y are shared with the Model 3, I think both the cost and speed of the Model Y launch will surprise everyone.







Tesla sold 245,000 cars globally last year – about the same it sold in its entire existence before 2018. It has grown revenues at a 93% annual rate since it started selling the Model S in 2012, and I believe it can grow at a very high rate for many, many years given that it’s still only a tiny fraction of the total market. It sold a mere 0.29% of total cars worldwide last year. Do the bears really believe that Tesla’s market share a few years from now will still be 0.29%???



To see how wrong the bears have been, consider this 2014 article by one of the best known, Mark Spiegel of Stanphyl Capital: “Why Projections For Tesla To Sell 500,000 Cars In 2020 Are Absurd.” He wrote:



Conclusion: even if Tesla were able to grow as quickly as Microsoft did in its prime (an absurd scenario for a non-monopolistic, non-software company) it would produce only 186,000 cars in 2020.



Tesla beat this number by 32% - in 2018.



Tesla’s true competition is the hundreds of thousands of ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles that roll off the production line every day globally, not the trickle of inferior “Tesla killers” that are really just boring old cars that happen to be electric.

Profits and Valuation



To my knowledge, there have been no profitable EV programs to date anywhere in the world without government incentives due to the high cost of batteries. In fact, the majority of manufactures lose at least a few thousand dollars per vehicle with government incentives. This is why most carmakers only make EVs to satisfy regulators and clearly haven’t made much of an effort. They tell themselves that EVs are not profitable and consumers don’t want them so what is the point of making the massive investments necessary?



But EVs are much simpler than ICE vehicles and have 90% fewer moving parts, so they have the potential to be more profitable than ICE vehicles if battery costs can be reduced substantially through scale and innovation. To do this, however, you need a massive amount of capital and conviction – and, of course, the will to design EVs that people actually want to buy. The incumbent automakers have the capital, but are still lacking the conviction and this is why they are still way behind Tesla on battery costs and efficiency, with no signs of catching up.



Sandy Munro, a well-respected auto consultant, was surprised to see that the Model 3 has the potential for a 30% profit margin and claimed, “No electric car is getting 30%. Nobody.” Whether Tesla can achieve this with their current cost structure and manufacturing issues remains to be seen, but the fact remains they are the only company making the necessary investments to produce a desirable, profitable EV without incentives.



One of the most famous valuation experts in the world, Professor Aswath Damodaran of NYU Stern School of Business, has estimated Tesla can achieve 10% operating margins five years from now in his latest analysis, in which he calculates intrinsic value of the stock at $190/share.



His work is exceptional, but I believe his estimates of $100 billion in revenue ten years from now underestimates Tesla’s potential by at least 50-100%. In 2014, Mark Spiegel wrote that Tesla producing 186,000 cars by 2020 would be an “absurd scenario,” - yet tripling this number is a real possibility. Analysts and investors have consistently underestimated Tesla’s sales, which is why I think doubling Damodaran’s 2028 estimates of 1.6 million cars is an achievable goal, giving them a global auto market share of ~3%.



The U.S., China, SpaceX put



No discussion of Tesla is complete without touching on the negatives – although you can just go to Twitter for that!



Professor Damodaran also increased his probability of failure to 20% due to Tesla’s increased debt load. When asked why he bought such a risky stock at $180/share with only a 5% margin of safety, he sent us a lesson he did on margin of safety and said that he thinks Tesla’s stock has a positive tail and a downside floor, “partly from the possibility of autonomous cars and partly because there is a chance that it could end up dominating the EV business, and bringing in the possibility of an acquisition floor tilted the balance.”



Besides the acquisition floor, I believe there is another form of downside protection that no one is talking about. China allowed Tesla to build the first 100% foreign-owned and operated auto plant in the country because they are so committed to electric cars. In addition, it appears that the government really wants the company to succeed and the Chinese love the Tesla brand and Elon Musk.



China has the biggest auto market in the world and is leading the world in EVs. If electric cars are the future, when will the U.S. wake up and realize that China is way ahead in this important industry of the future and it needs to start being more supportive of it… and the world leader in the space – Tesla. When the two biggest economies in the world are competing with each other – and both want Tesla to succeed —I can see many ways in which this might benefit the company, from access to capital to building new factories.



Lastly, don’t forget Musk’s other moonshot (pun intended) company, SpaceX. Its valuation has continued a steady climb – almost doubling since Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas first brought up the idea of a Tesla-SpaceX merger in 2017. In his latest investor call, Jonas seemed particularly keen on the idea. In this scenario, Musk would use his 54% ownership of SpaceX as collateral for a loan to help take Tesla private.



All of this is speculation, but bears shouldn’t discount the incredible optionality and downside protection that exists in many forms at Tesla.





Conclusion



Tesla is disrupting a trillion dollar industry through bold bets, conviction, and innovation. Its technology and the human capital advantage behind it have created the first lineup of desirable, profitable EVs that have the crucial hardware and software integration that is necessary for future autos. Meanwhile, incumbent automakers are trapped in a classic innovator’s dilemma, as can be seen in their results and decisions to date.



As a result, I think we’ll see in the next 6-12 months that demand for Tesla’s EVs will be stronger than Wall Street expects, resulting in sales, margins, and cash flows that far surpass expectations enabling them to continue growing rapidly and funding their continued expansion.



This year has been a difficult one for Tesla as it struggles to drive efficiencies in order to introduce more affordable versions of the Model 3 and refresh their higher end models while maintaining margins after a big step down in the US EV tax credit. Bears smelt blood in the water and have finally made some money, but - in reality - this was nothing but a bump in the road of insane growth and demand for their cars will get them back on track.



Although likely to remain volatile, I believe the stock will keep it’s relatively high multiple due to Tesla’s continued lead in the future auto market and the share price will be much higher a few years out as operating margins continue to improve.


If I’m wrong and demand and/or margins disappoint, there is downside protection as Tesla has valuable assets (technology, people, brand, etc.).

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    
        

Responses to my analyst's bull case on TSLA

1)

Well done piece. I remain a bull on the company and a bear on the stock (without a financial position). What is missing from the article (though clearly touched on) is this: I have many friends with Audis, BMWs, MBs, etc, all of which cost more than my Tesla (AWD LR 2019 Model 3). Once they are in my car, they are certain that there next car will be a tesla. It is just that impressive and keeps on impressing in many ways, while other cars fade in glory.



To me, the biggest unknown is: how much demand might flow from more and better marketing. The car does sell itself, but it is the ONLY car I know of that does no traditional sales and marketing.



2)

I'm certainly biased myself, but I do not find this whole ode to Elon convincing in the least. He is steel man-ing all his own arguments, and straw man-ing all the opposing arguments.

He never addresses the fact that the Model 3 isn't profitable, and sales for their more profitable models are slowing down continually.

He never talks about the fact that Tesla pulls in hundreds of millions in revenue from emissions credit sales every year (most likely every quarter).

He compares Chevy Bolt sales in Norway to global Model 3 sales.

Completely ignores the whole Panasonic fiasco, with the purchasing commitment that goes with it.

One second he (briefly) mentions the procession of senior management that keeps leaving the company, and next says how all engineers want to work there. Because people love to work for companies where they keep seeing the managers leave.

Never talks about all the endless servicing and repair waiting times.

Never mentions the insider stock sales, or the board members who will not be renewing their directorships.

He also confuses that Elon will say anything with Elon actually doing anything to make the company succeed.

Doesn't mention the fact that Tesla just opened new territories for sales that likely bumped up demand temporarily.

Thousands of cars standing in lots doing nothing.

China wants Tesla to succeed? When has China wanted anyone to succeed? Given their history of industrial espionage, IP theft, and expropriations, you'd have to be incredibly certain that you have covered all your bases covered in order not to lose your shirt in China.

Disclaimer: our friends have a Model X. The car is incredibly cool. But one of the first times I sat in it, the regenerative braking didn't kick in.



3) I give you credit for having hired such a smart young man



4)

What your Tesla bull ignores is these three issues, which completely and utterly demolish the case for BEV and not only for Tesla, but especially for Tesla since they committed themselves to a BEV only strategy.



• The consumer use case is dead. The way BMW analyzed that there is NO demand for BEV in Europe outside of incentives and regulation, for the consumer use case simply does not exist. Their conclusion, the only markets with demand for BEV are California and China.

• But China is already shifting from BEV towards hydrogen, shifting $17 bn from BEV towards FCEV.

• The regulatory use case is dead. The marginal analysis that is now beginning to be widely accepted is that hybrid cars reduce CO2 from the automotive sector far faster and much more than the BEV sector, so that even for committed greenies, if they get honest, the use case for BEV from a policy standpoint is dead. The meaningful forward strategy is hybrid now and FCEV later.

In short, Tesla committed too early to a single technology as the right one for the future, which is now increasingly being recognized as wildly suboptimal. It plunged some legacy car makers prematurely into a BEV strategy. Toyota and BMW may be a few of the smart ones that may be left standing in the end. BEV is a dead end. Combine all that with the mounting quality problems of the model 3 and it will end up that Tesla did for cars, what pantyhose did for fingerf*cking. (I would not publish that last comment, but I consider this private correspondence.) The point is Tesla did shake up the automotive industry, but caused the lemmings to go off the cliff on a BEV bet... only a few thought it through and have a chance of coming out as winners. For the most part the BEV will prove to be a historical mistake, a dead-end.



5) I think you just made Mark Spiegel spit out his morning coffee.



6)

Thanks for the article. Overall, I think it’s a good one, and admire your analyst’s courage and kudos to you for your open-mindedness as the boss.



I would have liked to have seen more balance sheet analysis with more elaboration on their debt load and how they are going to cover that moving forward. I know he mentions Damodaran’s assessment, but what about his? Of course assuming Tesla’s demand is highly, highly cyclical. Given their levered balance sheet, heavy/ongoing CAPEX, and assuming a more than likely recession in the next few years; they have very little room error. Given that, my questions are:



- Assuming soft credit markets, how will they fund these needs given their current capital structure?

- How can they fund just their current operational needs as is in event of stress?

- Truly what value can be assigned to their assets in event of stress?



I may be off the ranch here, but want to help prevent “Errors of Omission.” Thanks and keep up the great work!



Kevin’s reply:

Tesla remains an incredibly risky stock. Although I alluded to that, I should have emphasized this more and maybe discussed position sizing so nobody gets hurt. Because this seems obvious to me, I didn’t spend much time on it. Nevertheless, this was still a failure on my part and thank you for pointing it out.

Your questions are good ones, but I would add to your point by saying that the company doesn’t even need a recession to experience stress given the capital structure. All it needs is softer demand than anticipated and this is why some of the smartest investors in the world - Whitney being one of them - think the game is over. This is reflected in the stock and bond market (or maybe just beginning to be reflected).

In this case - even without a recession - some sort of restructuring will likely be necessary. One of the reasons I believe Whitney chose $100 as a target as opposed to zero is because he thinks there is some value there and/or knows that Musk has quite a few billionaire friends and has a gift for raising money.

This is why my whole thesis is based on demand being higher than Wall Street expects. Their capital structure is essentially a result of their biggest asset and their biggest liability – Musk. He should have raised more equity at higher prices instead of debt, but I guess a combination of hubris, his insane comp program, and his confidence in demand for his products explains this choice.

Essentially, demand (as a result of the reasons discussed) will be the “bailout” they need to improve their operating leverage and margins so that the market will regain confidence in the story. In turn, this will allow them to continue funding the massive investments necessary through cash flows and further capital raises. Obviously, I may be proved wrong.

In terms of a recession, there is a chance that the only reason Tesla is still alive as we know it is because we have gone so long without one. Although the business is clearly cyclical, there is a decent chance that the nature of the demand dynamics with the secular shift to EVs and their unique products and brand strength will help them ride out a recession. However, this depends heavily on how the demand and margins settle out over the next 6-12 months.

I agree 100% there is little room for error, but this has always been the nature of Tesla and Elon Musk. I still haven’t quite figured him out, but I think he thrives on operating this way. We’ll find out within the next year of two if it will finally get the best of him.

Thanks for your valuable feedback. I will definitely include more of the risks if I end up publishing it.



7)

I have been wanting to tell you a fun story about my wife and Tesla. Sha has been listening to me do research (on the sofa at night) on the model 3 for 6 months, but I never bought one. She owned an Audi A5 for the past four years and is a 60 year old business woman who is someone stylish (unlike me) only buys Apple electronics, ect.



A month ago she walks in the house from work and announces immediately “I saw the cutest red car on 83 (interstate) pulled up next to it to see what it was, and it was a Tesla Model 3, I am going buy one.” Now, her current Audi was 4 years old, and she had been casually listening to me talk about the software, but I was shocked buy her statement. She is not an impulse person, pretty measured.



She goes to a dealer 2 days later to see one, and buys it on-line 2 days later. I had to scramble to get the 50amp plugs installed, it was delivered 10 days later. She has owned it for three weeks and never stops talking about it, I am sick of hearing about it at this point. Talks to everyone about it. She loves it.



She bought the most expensive configuration you can get ($49,000 before rebates) – AWD, long range battery, and red (extra $2k for red). She manages the car from her phone via the Tesla app which is a beautiful piece of software I had not ever seen. She learned the user interface in the car in a few days with no support. She is a single datapoint, but if she is an indicator of the general Tesla buyer, they are gonna sell a lot of these cars.



8)

Where are the numbers/projections, etc.? It appears that this article could be written whether TSLA trades at $100 or $1000. At least throw around some round numbers in some fashion. In the end the numbers actually do matter.



I see a whole lot wrong in the article; perhaps the biggest weakness is that there are a lot of assumptions about TSLA tech leading with no underlying research to support it. Are they really leading in batteries? Why would one think they are ahead of companies that have been doing it for much longer and for which it is the prime business? TSLA is ahead of Panasonic? No risk of TSLA’s battery tech becoming obsolete? Advantages in AI? Doubtful. They are ahead of Google and Amazon (and others)? These are important things to focus on if they are going to be the foundation of the bull case presented. I don’t think your analyst has actually dug into them. That is bordering on malpractice.



There is plenty to criticize in the write up but overall I see the underlying arguments as, well, immature. Really. A smart college undergrad in a business school could knock out something like this in a couple of weeks. Another smart college kid from the same class could write an even better rebuttal than the bear case he presented.



“China allowed Tesla to build the first 100% foreign-owned and operated auto plant in the country because they are so committed to electric cars. In addition, it appears that the government really wants the company to succeed and the Chinese love the Tesla brand and Elon Musk.”



Ummm, it’s not built yet. More importantly, I didn’t realize that any analyst could be so naïve. The Chinese government wants a US auto manufacturer to succeed? Really?



My thinking is that before we even get to finding out the real numbers for Q2, the new demand/sales for TSLA for July will start dribbling out. People are very carefully watching this stuff. It won’t look good and the stock is likely to start drifting lower. Then the Q2 numbers will shake things up, but, again, very quickly the focus will be on Q3 demand and as the numbers come in over time the stock will follow.



9)

The bears analyze tsla as if it’s a mature soft drink company, but this is a publicly listed late stage venture capital company with an evolving market and evolving products.



Bears are worried that TSLA margins have fallen by 20bp, or that Musk hasn’t yet delivered on an insurance product, but don’t see that costs will come down and multiple revenue streams will eventually be monetized.



Re: the demand issue and concern on prices dropping...

“I will build a motor car for the great multitude. It will be large enough for the family but small enough for the individual to run and care for. It will be constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise. But it will be so low in price that no man making a good salary would be unable to own one -- and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God’s great open spaces.”



Musk in 2019, no Henry Ford in 1908.



“Even Henry Ford himself was surprised by how much demand responded to the lower price. A price reduction to 35-40 percent of the original price boosted sales by more than 700 times. The fact is, the relationship between price reduction and demand expansion is asymmetrical. If you cut price by half or more, demand rises exponentially -- by tens or hundreds or thousands of times.”



And this was at a time where there were only scale benefits in manufacturing, and no benefits of data or networking.



Growth stories aren’t broken when they don’t show profit, but when they stop growing. I can’t think of a clearer growth story where you have a market leader in a massively growth market since e-commerce, smartphones, and credit cards.



You should be on the right side of history here. Even Citron made the right long term call here, though he traded it poorly.



10)

“Another valuable lesson from Charlie Munger is that incentives drive everything. Setting aside the inferior 204-mile range of the Audi e-tron, this vehicle is the most impressive of the competitors to challenge Tesla to date.”



-- Why is the Audi eTron more impressive than Kia Niro, Kia Soul EV, Hyundai Kona EV or Chevrolet Bolt EV? (Opel Ampera-e in Europe) The Audi eTron is a twice as expensive vehicle, is larger, vastly heavier, has AWD and is off-road worthy, sure -- but why is it a better engineering showcase than any of those other cars from Kia, Hyundai or GM? Those cars have great range for their prices -- mostly from 235 to 260 miles of range for US-equivalent prices of approximately $38,000 or so. In other words, very similar to a base Tesla Model 3.



“Yet, what is the incentive for Audi to sell money-losing e-trons as opposed to their other, profitable models? On the contrary, Tesla’s entire existence depends on selling as many electric cars as possible.”



-- First of all, we don’t know what Audi makes or loses on the eTron. Audi doesn’t report a per-vehicle line profit & loss statement. So it seems to be pure speculation. Secondly, let’s say it’s true though. Is that supposed to be a good argument in favor of Tesla’s business model -- that it alone among non-Chinese meaningfully sized automakers has no profitable business to help offset its losses that seem to be politically mandated in the BEV (battery-electric vehicle) world?



“This is likely the reason the legacy automakers have put more effort into headlines describing their future EV plans than securing battery supplies – a major mistake since a massive amount of battery supply is necessary for any serious EV program.”



-- No. The reason automakers, in the aggregate, don’t make more EVs has nothing to do with battery supply. It has all to do with profits. If they could make money selling them, they would! Battery production has been increasing constantly for several years already, and will continue to do so. Tesla will sell around 350,000 or so cars this year, out of close to a 2 million unit market. How come those other companies are able to have at or more than 80% of the market if they somehow can’t get batteries? To be sure, there will always be some automaker that will have a shortage here and there as a result of poor planning or unexpected demand. I believe Kia and Hyundai have been suffering from those phenomena for the last 10 months, for example. There will be other examples too, just like for other automotive parts. It happens here and there, but no major aggregate effect.



“However, the Chevy Bolt – the original “Tesla Killer” – is a great example of the industry’s approach. 70% of the Bolt’scomponents are made by LG Chem versus 90% of the Model 3’s being made in house by Tesla.”



-- GM has more experience in electric vehicles than any other automaker in the last two decades. Remember, manufacturing of the Chevrolet Volt began in November 2010. The Bolt EV came six years later -- November 2016. GM had the flexibility to make some of the components in-house vs letting a supplier make some of those parts. It chose the latter on this specific program. Why is that a bad thing? Isn’t it better to be flexible and allow for a supplier to outbid your internal production team?



“It’s not surprising, therefore, that the Bolt has had no success in Norway, where more than half of all car sales are EVs thanks to big government incentives. GM has sold a total of 223 Bolts since introducing it years ago – a number that the Tesla Model 3 has easily beaten many days this year.”



-- This is false. The Chevrolet Bolt EV is sold in Europe as the Opel Ampera-e, which has sold 2,664 units in Norway to date. The fact that there have been 223 Bolt EVs privately imported to Norway in addition to those, is not all that relevant. More relevant to GM/Opel in Norway are two other points, however. First, the Scandinavian countries have not been into GM or Opel cars historically. They have a bad quality reputation there. German and Swedish brands dominate in those geographies -- Volvo, VW Group, BMW and Mercedes. After those, the Korean and Japanese do pretty well. Secondly, and a lot more important in this case, is that GM sold Opel to PSA -- the French! -- two years ago, just as the Ampera-e was going on sale in Europe. Based on a variety of issues (transfer pricing, etc) between GM and PSA, the European sales plan for the Ampera-e got cut dramatically. So, that’s the main reason GM has exported so few Opel Ampera-e (and the same car with a different badge, the Chevrolet Bolt EV) to Europe.



“Battery supply is a major issue as Audi has been forced to slow production of its e-tron and delay the launch of its next model due to battery shortages from LG Chem. LG Chem is also a major battery supplier to other OEMs, so not surprisingly it’s taken advantage of this dynamic and raised prices.”



-- That’s a rumor that has never been confirmed by any of the parties involved. Besides, sales of the Audi eTron has done pretty well against Tesla Model X and S in Europe, so what’s the problem?



“VW has estimated that the industry will need the equivalent of 40 Tesla gigafactories by 2025 in order to meet battery demand, assuming that 25% of sales volumes are hybrid or fully electric vehicles. Where are all the plans for these factories? Not to worry, VW has taken a page out of Elon Musk’s playbook and recently announced that its battery supply is “secured.”



-- “Assuming that 25% of sales volumes are hybrid of fully electric vehicles.” That’s like saying that the automakers couldn’t adjust if 25% of sales volumes were to become a different body style, such as going from sedans to SUVs. If consumer preferences change, you can be sure that the automakers will shift their volumes too. It won’t happen in perfect lockstep -- building factories and changing production doesn’t happen with such smooth perfection -- but on the whole, that’s what will happen in that scenario. It’s a different story whether consumers actually *want* to pay for 25% of their cars to be electric. Of course, if the government mandates the whole thing, then you eat what The Politburo forces you to eat.



“Also, VW is just waking up to the fact that the Tesla Model 3 battery contains less than ¼ the amount of cobalt than their batteries in the VW ID3 – due to be launched in 2020. Meanwhile, Tesla is working on eliminating it entirely from their battery cells.”



-- And you don’t think Volkswagen and its battery cell suppliers aren’t?



“A clear demonstration of the difference incentives make is Musk’s comment at the shareholder’s meeting that Tesla may get into the mining business.”



-- That’s a clear sign of insanity or hubris. What’s next -- getting into the semiconductor business in order to compete with Nvidia or Intel? Oh wait...



“...the rest of the industry will do anything to continue selling their more profitable gasoline-powered vehicles.”



-- Um, this is called “sound business practice.”



“Speaking of incentives, the dealership model is an additional headwind to EV sales. The majority of dealership profits come from service. Since EVs need very little service, dealerships have powerful incentives not to sell EVs.”



-- Ironically, that’s not true for Tesla. An electric car is supposed to require fewer regular maintenance (such as an oil change every 10,000 miles) events, but Tesla sure is in the shop more often than any other car in the market: 468% more often, as measured by TrueDelta: https://www.truedelta.com/Tesla-Model-3/reliability-1376



“I saw this when I went to test drive the Jaguar I-Pace (read my review here) and the salesman didn’t even try to sell the car.”



-- And here I thought that it was a positive that salespeople were not supposed to be pushy? I thought that that was supposed to be a plus. Apple stores, hello? What you’re telling me is that trying to buy an electric car from a regular car dealer is like going into the Apple store. The reality is that any car dealer will be happy to sell you any car they have on the lot. No car dealer is happy sitting on inventory costing them interest every day. A car dealer will sell whatever is in demand -- otherwise the customer goes somewhere else, and it costs them money to sit on inventory.



“This is why Tesla has fought hard to use a direct sales model, even in the face of being banned in some US states thanks to the political muscle of the dealerships. This was a bold, smart move by Tesla that traditional automakers will be hard-pressed to match.”



-- This is true. Tesla should be allowed to sell its cars directly, just like most other products. Other automakers are prevented by state franchise laws from following this model. It’s not obvious to what degree this is an advantage, however. You need scale in order to make a direct sales model work, especially for large/heavy products such as an automobile.



“It’s great to see that Electrify America is adding high-speed chargers across the U.S., but they’re still way behind Tesla.”



-- Seeing as EA started opening its sites only little over a year ago, and Tesla started in late 2012, it should be no surprise that EA has not yet caught up. However, they’re spending $2 billion in the U.S. alone and just look at the EA map to see for yourself: https://www.electrifyamerica.com/locate-charger When I looked at EA’s U.S. map a moment ago, I counted 445 across the fruited plains -- almost complete to connect the major metropolitan areas across the country. Give it another few months, and they’re there.



“This lead is obvious when you consider Tesla’s EV powertrain, but it is also clear when you analyze Tesla’s seamless integration of hardware and software. The future car is a computer on wheels and no car manufacturer rivals Tesla’s talent in this area, including the ability to update software over-the-air. These OTA updates have been accelerating and improving since their introduction in 2012 while other companies have barely begun offering them – GM recently announced that it will offer them, but not in every model, and not until 2023.”



-- That’s not exactly true. GM cars have had over-the-air updates as early as 2006 or so. The difference is that those over-the-air updates don’t touch things such as steering, braking or acceleration. It tends to be limited to infotainment and telematics functionality. Ford has had this for the last three or so years too -- almost every Ford comes with SYNC-3 which gets over the air updates. The risks associated with over the air updates are huge. If something goes wrong, someone could die and the whole company could be sued or otherwlse legislated into oblivion. Remember the “unintended acceleration” lawsuits against Toyota a decade or so ago? Billions of dollars in liability. Did you see what happened to Boeing in the last couple of months, as its software malfunctioned? If you are an automaker, you are taking enormous tail risk with OTAs. It’s all fine and dandy as long as they work, aren’t hacked or a “bad government” doesn’t use them to insert its will into the matter. But as soon as something goes wrong, your “computer” (car) has now been hacked. As Dirty Harry said in 1970, “Do I feel lucky today?”



“But there’s evidence that demand has rebounded strongly as Tesla sold a record 95,200 cars in the second quarter – a big jump from the first quarter’s 63,000.



-- And yet, Tesla delivered fewer cars in the first half of 2019, than it did in the second half of 2018. The adjusted run-rate looks a lot like 90,000 per quarter. That seems to be Tesla’s capacity at Fremont. Until the China factory comes online, sales are unlikely to average much above 90,000 at best, and perhaps a little below, depending on pricing and other quarterly fluctuations.



“If the “demand cliff” so integral to the bear thesis – which has now been moved forward 6 months - is wrong and second half numbers are better than expected, I think the short thesis will unravel and the stock will soar.”



-- Let’s say that Tesla sells 91,000 cars in Q3 and 101,000 cars in Q4, from Fremont. That means 350,000 for the year. Perhaps add another 10,000 from China, for a grand total of 360,000. Do you think that will be bullish or bearish for the stock? Unless this volume comes with healthy and sustainable profits -- not one-time gimmicks -- I say it is more likely to be bearish.



“Tesla is destroying the competition with the Model 3 and this is before it enters the most popular segment, crossovers. Although the Model 3 was indeed a “bet the company” program, it’s only a warm up for the Model Y. Tesla plans to sell more Model Ys than S, X, and 3 combined given the size of the crossover segment. And given that 75% of the parts in the Model Y are shared with the Model 3, I think both the cost and speed of the Model Y launch will surprise everyone.”



-- There is some truth to that. However, look at the competition as it emerged for the Model S, X and 3, and then compare it with the competition for the Y. The S, X and 3 had little to no competition for the longest time. The Y will have stiff competition essentially from Day One -- and in some cases even before it arrives. Yes, the compact crossover segment is the place to be, but that’s also why other automakers are going there. I can’t think of a single volume automaker that isn’t going to blanket this with entries. Here are just some initial examples (there will be close to 50 or so of them in the market by 2022): Audi Q4 eTron, Volvo XC40, VW Crozz, Ford (no name), GM (several), Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota and others. You add them all together and consider the pricing pressures in that segment. Profits will continue to be elusive.



“Do the bears really believe that Tesla’s market share a few years from now will still be 0.29%???”



-- Actually, the bears think Tesla’s market share will be 0%, for it will have gone out of business. But if it stays in business and it continues to sell below cost, and government subsidies (emissions credits, etc) continue or even worsen, then it’s possible that Tesla’s market could approach 0.5% in four years from now. That’s probably the best-case unit volume scenario for Tesla.



“To do this, however, you need a massive amount of capital and conviction – and, of course, the will to design EVs that people actually want to buy.”



-- You must not have been paying attention to how much money automakers are spending on electrification. In fact, it’s taking a huge hit to their earnings numbers. Also, how do you explain that the Audi eTron and Jaguar i-Pace are doing so relatively well against Tesla Model X and S in Europe? Those were just the two first premium mainstream-form-factor EVs to arrive in competition to the X and S. What will happen when the Mercedes, BMW, Ford and Volvo start their equivalent sales over the next several months, between now and Summer 2020?



Sandy Munro, a well-respected auto consultant, was surprised to see that the Model 3 has the potential for a 30% profit margin and claimed, “No electric car is getting 30%. Nobody.”



-- Munro has been a credible guy, widely respected in the industry -- but most people in the industry think he is wrong on this 30% number. Every automaker has bought dozens of Teslas and torn them down. If Munro was right, Tesla wouldn’t have lost $700 million in Q1 alone.



“Whether Tesla can achieve this with their current cost structure and manufacturing issues remains to be seen, but the fact remains they are the only company making the necessary investments to produce a desirable, profitable EV without incentives.”



-- Without incentives? What? Whatever the other items of dispute, two things are clear: No company gets as many incentives (government-mandates policies, such as emissions credits) as Tesla, and no major automaker still loses as much money per car as Tesla if you average out a few quarters in a row, say a rolling two-year average.



“China allowed Tesla to build the first 100% foreign-owned and operated auto plant in the country because they are so committed to electric cars. In addition, it appears that the government really wants the company to succeed and the Chinese love the Tesla brand and Elon Musk.”



-- When it comes to Chinese treatment of foreign automakers on Chinese soil, let’s just say that the that jury is out! China has well over 300 of its own EV automakers, and it would be a shame if anything happened to the business prospects for any of the foreign-owned (in whole or in part) automakers trying to compete with China, on Chinese soil.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

Tesla (TSLA) is getting ready to ramp up production. An internal email says it is "making preparations" to boost output at the Tesla plant in Fremont, California. No other details were released.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

According to TrueDelta, the organization measuring service center visits, the Tesla Model 3 has to visit a service center 468% more than other cars, which places it as the single most frequent visitor to a repair shop out of all cars sold in the U.S. market, by a very wide margin: https://www.truedelta.com/Tesla-Model-3/reliability-1376

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

Die meisten Sachen klingen zwar nach Schönheitsfehlern, mit denen man genausogut weiterfahren könnte, aber eine gewisse Schlamperei in der Fertigung scheint zu bestehen oder bestanden zu haben.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        
    

Entweder fantastische Fortschritte bei den Kosten oder zähe Nachfrage?

Tesla shares drifted lower in pre-market trading Tuesday after the clean-energy carmaker dropped the cheapest versions of its Model S sedan and Model X SUV from its product lineup and adjusted some of its prices in a bid to simplify its offerings of models and ranges of battery-powered vehicles.

The automaker on Tuesday said it will limit its Model X and Model S to 'Long Range' or 'Performance' - cutting out lower end versions of the two cars that have standard-range capability, though also cutting the entry level price point on both models.

A long-range Model S will now start at $79,990, while a long-range Model X will start at $84,990, excluding potential buying incentives. Tesla also lowered the starting price of its mass-market Model 3 to $38,990.

https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/cars/tesla-tweaks-model-lineup-in-bid-to-simplify-pri cing-shares-slip-15020406

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    
        
        

>Tesla Falls as Model 3 Price Cut Signals Need to Support
>Demand
>
> Evercore links the change to the halving of U.S. tax credit
>
>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-16/tesla-says-it-cut-prices-of-vehicles-s hipped-to-china

Da werden viele froh sein ein appreciating asset nach einer Preissenkung zu kaufen.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

Kannibalisierung?

Tesla’s Higher-End Sales Erode in Key Market Amid Model 3 Gains

A 54% decline in California registrations of Model S adds pressure on the auto maker to boost sales of its lower-priced compact car

Registrations of new Model S sedans in the second quarter plummeted 54% to 1,205 in California, according to the Dominion Cross-Sell report, which compiles data from state motor-vehicle records. The Golden State is a strong indicator of demand as Tesla’s largest U.S. market, representing 40% of Model S registrations in the country last year, according to auto-sales tracker Edmunds.com Inc.

The new data from research firm Dominion Enterprises indicates the stylish sedan that arguably changed car buyers’ view of electric cars is losing its luster. Tesla is increasingly dependent on sales of the smaller Model 3, which starts at about $35,000, less than half the price of the most basic Model S.

Registrations of Tesla’s expensive Model X sport-utility vehicle also fell by about 40% in California during the quarter. Model 3 registrations, by contrast, nearly doubled in the state to 16,372. Registrations, which tend to lag sales by weeks, provide insight into where deliveries take place.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-faces-eroding-sales-of-higher-end-vehicles-amid-model- 3-gains-11563905728


  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

Tesla misses expectations for Q2 results

even after the company reported record second-quarter deliveries.

Here were the main numbers in the Palo Alto, California–based company’s report:

Revenue: $6.35 billion vs. $6.44 billion expected

Adj. loss: $1.12 vs. 31 cents per share expected

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-reports-2q-2019-results-184241081.html



  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>Tesla misses expectations for Q2 results
>
>even after the company reported record second-quarter
>deliveries.
>
>Here were the main numbers in the Palo Alto, California–based
>company’s report:
>
>Revenue: $6.35 billion vs. $6.44 billion expected
>
>Adj. loss: $1.12 vs. 31 cents per share expected
>
>https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-reports-2q-2019-results-184241081.html
>
>
>
>

Brutales Quarter.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>Tesla misses expectations for Q2 results
>>
>>even after the company reported record second-quarter
>>deliveries.
>>
>>Here were the main numbers in the Palo Alto,
>California–based
>>company’s report:
>>
>>Revenue: $6.35 billion vs. $6.44 billion expected
>>
>>Adj. loss: $1.12 vs. 31 cents per share expected
>>
>>https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-reports-2q-2019-results-184241081.html
>
>Brutales Quarter.

Ausführlich hier:

https://ir.tesla.com/press-releases

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

Tesla Breaks Records But Doesn’t Break Even

Tesla Inc.’s earnings calls have lately taken on the trappings of office going-away parties.

Just before the Q&A portion of Wednesday evening’s second-quarter call, CEO Elon Musk announced that JB Straubel, the company’s veteran chief technology officer, would step down to become a senior advisor. This was at least said up front, as opposed to the by-the-way announcement of the CFO’s departure at the very end of an earnings call in January. Still, news that the man second only to Musk in his identification with Tesla is stepping back now, and after a string of other departures, is even more jarring. Tesla’s stock, down 11% after hours already, dipped further on this news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/tesla-breaks-records-but-doesnt-breakeven/ 2019/07/24/f1e0dc7c-ae76-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

für ein visionäres projekt wie tesla, ist umsatz-und qualitätsentwicklung vorerst alles was zählt. profit kommt erst, wenn der boden trocken ist.
wer visionen nicht nachvollziehen kann, wird vermutlich noch längere zeit beim kopfschütteln bleiben müssen. (amazon-syndrom!)

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>für ein visionäres projekt wie tesla, ist umsatz-und
>qualitätsentwicklung vorerst alles was zählt. profit kommt
>erst, wenn der boden trocken ist.
>wer visionen nicht nachvollziehen kann, wird vermutlich noch
>längere zeit beim kopfschütteln bleiben müssen.
>(amazon-syndrom!)
>
>

Mit dem Unterschied, dass Bezos nie seine Integrität über board warf. Musk hingegen muss in einem realitätsverzerrenden Tunnel gefahren sein.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>Mit dem Unterschied, dass Bezos nie seine Integrität über board warf. Musk hingegen muss in einem realitätsverzerrenden Tunnel gefahren sein.<


stimmt, aber genialität hat eben auch ihre individuellen facetten.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>Mit dem Unterschied, dass Bezos nie seine Integrität über
>board warf. Musk hingegen muss in einem realitätsverzerrenden
>Tunnel gefahren sein.<
>
>
>stimmt, aber genialität hat eben auch ihre individuellen
>facetten.

ein reality distorsion field wie bei Steve Jobs

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>ein reality distorsion field wie bei Steve Jobs


kann man so sagen, wobei ein produkt allemal besser und früher präsentierbar ist, als eine dienstleistung.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        
        

>Tesla Co-Founder Leaves CTO Job After $30 Million in Share
>Sales
>
> J.B. Straubel is becoming adviser after 15 years with
>company
> Executive offloaded stock on eight occasions since November
>
>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-24/tesla-s-cto-straubel-to-step-down-rema in-adviser-musk-says

Was mir nicht eingeht ist, wie wollen sie bei dem Capex cut wettbewerbsfähig bleiben?

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>Tesla Co-Founder Leaves CTO Job After $30 Million in
>Share
>>Sales
>>
>> J.B. Straubel is becoming adviser after 15 years with
>>company
>> Executive offloaded stock on eight occasions since
>November
>>
>>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-24/tesla-s-cto-straubel-to-step-down-rema in-adviser-musk-says
>
>Was mir nicht eingeht ist, wie wollen sie bei dem Capex cut
>wettbewerbsfähig bleiben?


Weit unter Abschreibungen wird nicht dauerhaft so bleiben können.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>für ein visionäres projekt wie tesla, ist umsatz-und
>qualitätsentwicklung vorerst alles was zählt. profit kommt
>erst, wenn der boden trocken ist.
>wer visionen nicht nachvollziehen kann, wird vermutlich noch
>längere zeit beim kopfschütteln bleiben müssen.
>(amazon-syndrom!)
>
>

Das ist das klassische amerikanische Prinzip. Market share auf Teufel komm raus erreichen, dadurch Mitbewerber vernichten und dann langsam das Monopol ausspielen. Wurde schon x-mal vorgezeigt. In Europa hat halt niemand die Nerven - oder besser gesagt die Investoren die da mithalten - im Hintergrund. Da will man immer organisch - mit positiven Cashflow - wachsen. Was aber leider oft zu langsam ist.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

In Europa hat halt niemand die Nerven - oder
>besser gesagt die Investoren die da mithalten


Ganz genau - kein Management von VW, BMW etc. hätte es lange überlebt solche Milliarden zu verbrennen wie Tesla.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

>Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Yeah, it's like, this is a speculation and it's my opinion, but so what I think say long-term demand is for Model 3, it's probably 15,000 units a week globally something like that.

!?!
Da fehlt ein wenig auf World domination...

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>Q2 2019 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
>
>Yeah, it's like, this is a speculation and it's my opinion,
>but so what I think say long-term demand is for Model 3, it's
>probably 15,000 units a week globally something like that.
>
>!?!
>Da fehlt ein wenig auf World domination...



Ok. 2 Mio. Autos meint er selbst (siehe unten). Warum soll das Unternehmen also fast soviel wert sein wie BMW et.al?


The demand for -- sales demand for 3 is like on the order of three quarters of a million units a year, and it's probably 1.25 million per year for Model Year, so they combined is like maybe two million from those two vehicles, and then S/X is like there may be 80,000 to 100,000 a year. So it's like 4% or 5% of the volume in 3 and Y. And then you could throw like a truck in there, pickup truck and a semi, but it just gets smaller and smaller. So they are great products, but they’re -- from a volume standpoint, they're not all that important in the long-term.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        


>Ok. 2 Mio. Autos meint er selbst (siehe unten). Warum soll das
>Unternehmen also fast soviel wert sein wie BMW et.al?


Bei 2 Mio. bestünde immerhin die Chance in die Bewertung (40,9 Mrd) hineinzuwachsen,z.B 2 Mio mit 2000 USD Gewinn pro Fahrzeug = KGV 10

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>
>>Ok. 2 Mio. Autos meint er selbst (siehe unten). Warum soll
>das
>>Unternehmen also fast soviel wert sein wie BMW et.al?
>
>
>Bei 2 Mio. bestünde immerhin die Chance in die Bewertung (40,9
>Mrd) hineinzuwachsen,z.B 2 Mio mit 2000 USD Gewinn pro
>Fahrzeug = KGV 10


BMW hat im Vorjahr 2,5 Millionen Fahrzeuge verkauft. Von der Größenordnung her würde es schon passen. Nur daß man bei Tesla den Gewinn heute noch diskontieren muß, während er bei BMW bereits ausgeschüttet werden kann.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>
>>>Ok. 2 Mio. Autos meint er selbst (siehe unten). Warum
>soll
>>das
>>>Unternehmen also fast soviel wert sein wie BMW et.al?
>
>>
>>
>>Bei 2 Mio. bestünde immerhin die Chance in die Bewertung
>(40,9
>>Mrd) hineinzuwachsen,z.B 2 Mio mit 2000 USD Gewinn pro
>>Fahrzeug = KGV 10
>
>
>BMW hat im Vorjahr 2,5 Millionen Fahrzeuge verkauft. Von der
>Größenordnung her würde es schon passen. Nur daß man bei Tesla
>den Gewinn heute noch diskontieren muß,


Und der Diskontfaktor in Anbetracht der Risiken deutlich zweistellig sein muß.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        


>BMW hat im Vorjahr 2,5 Millionen Fahrzeuge verkauft. Von der
>Größenordnung her würde es schon passen. Nur daß man bei Tesla
>den Gewinn heute noch diskontieren muß, während er bei BMW
>bereits ausgeschüttet werden kann.

Wahre Geschichte: eine Firma veranstaltet für die Entwickler von e-mobility Lösungen in Deutschland einen Kundentag. Raum ist gefüllt mit allen Deutschen Herstellern, wichtigen Zulieferern ungefähr 80 Leute.

Frage eines der Vortragenden:"und wer von ihnen ist mit einem Elektroauto da?". Keiner zeigt auf...

Ich glaube um die deutschen Hersteller muss man sich Sorge machen...

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>Frage eines der Vortragenden:"und wer von ihnen ist mit einem
>Elektroauto da?". Keiner zeigt auf...
>
>Ich glaube um die deutschen Hersteller muss man sich Sorge
>machen...

Ja, ich habe es mir auch gestern gedacht, wie mit großem Tamtam der lange angekündigte vollelektrische Mini präsentiert worden ist. Der ist von den Daten her ungefähr am Stand vom E-Golf, der aber schon seit einigen Jahren am Markt ist ... man merkt ihm so richtig an, daß es ein umgebauter Verbrenner und kein eigenständiges Elektroauto ist.

Zum Beispiel ist die (halbe) Batterie zwischen Fahrer und Beifahrersitz, wo halt zufällig Platz war, weil beim Verbrenner dort das Getriebe wäre. Also wie der Umbau einer besseren Bastlerwerkstätte.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>Ja, ich habe es mir auch gestern gedacht, wie mit großem
>Tamtam der lange angekündigte vollelektrische Mini präsentiert
>worden ist. Der ist von den Daten her ungefähr am Stand vom
>E-Golf, der aber schon seit einigen Jahren am Markt ist ...
>man merkt ihm so richtig an, daß es ein umgebauter Verbrenner
>und kein eigenständiges Elektroauto ist.
>
>Zum Beispiel ist die (halbe) Batterie zwischen Fahrer und
>Beifahrersitz, wo halt zufällig Platz war, weil beim
>Verbrenner dort das Getriebe wäre. Also wie der Umbau einer
>besseren Bastlerwerkstätte.


Was soll der kosten?

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>Ja, ich habe es mir auch gestern gedacht, wie mit großem
>>Tamtam der lange angekündigte vollelektrische Mini
>präsentiert
>>worden ist. Der ist von den Daten her ungefähr am Stand
>vom
>>E-Golf, der aber schon seit einigen Jahren am Markt ist
>...
>>man merkt ihm so richtig an, daß es ein umgebauter
>Verbrenner
>>und kein eigenständiges Elektroauto ist.
>>
>>Zum Beispiel ist die (halbe) Batterie zwischen Fahrer und
>>Beifahrersitz, wo halt zufällig Platz war, weil beim
>>Verbrenner dort das Getriebe wäre. Also wie der Umbau
>einer
>>besseren Bastlerwerkstätte.
>
>
>Was soll der kosten?

"ab" 33.000€
Wird sicher seine Käufer finden, weil letztlich ist der Mini ein lässiges Auto, zu dem ein E-Antrieb gut passt. Aber 235km Reichweite nach WLTP, das traut sich sonst kaum noch ein Hersteller neu anzukündigen. Der Renault Zoe ist gerade bei 300 Kilometer und nach dem Facelift im Herbst werden es 390 sein ...

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>>Ja, ich habe es mir auch gestern gedacht, wie mit
>großem
>>>Tamtam der lange angekündigte vollelektrische Mini
>>präsentiert
>>>worden ist. Der ist von den Daten her ungefähr am
>Stand
>>vom
>>>E-Golf, der aber schon seit einigen Jahren am Markt
>ist
>>...
>>>man merkt ihm so richtig an, daß es ein umgebauter
>>Verbrenner
>>>und kein eigenständiges Elektroauto ist.
>>>
>>>Zum Beispiel ist die (halbe) Batterie zwischen Fahrer
>und
>>>Beifahrersitz, wo halt zufällig Platz war, weil beim
>>>Verbrenner dort das Getriebe wäre. Also wie der Umbau
>>einer
>>>besseren Bastlerwerkstätte.
>>
>>
>>Was soll der kosten?
>
>"ab" 33.000€
>Wird sicher seine Käufer finden, weil letztlich ist der Mini
>ein lässiges Auto, zu dem ein E-Antrieb gut passt. Aber 235km
>Reichweite nach WLTP, das traut sich sonst kaum noch ein
>Hersteller neu anzukündigen. Der Renault Zoe ist gerade bei
>300 Kilometer und nach dem Facelift im Herbst werden es 390
>sein ...


Ein Spaß-Zweitauto.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>
>>BMW hat im Vorjahr 2,5 Millionen Fahrzeuge verkauft. Von
>der
>>Größenordnung her würde es schon passen. Nur daß man bei
>Tesla
>>den Gewinn heute noch diskontieren muß, während er bei
>BMW
>>bereits ausgeschüttet werden kann.
>
>Wahre Geschichte: eine Firma veranstaltet für die Entwickler
>von e-mobility Lösungen in Deutschland einen Kundentag. Raum
>ist gefüllt mit allen Deutschen Herstellern, wichtigen
>Zulieferern ungefähr 80 Leute.
>
>Frage eines der Vortragenden:"und wer von ihnen ist mit einem
>Elektroauto da?". Keiner zeigt auf...
>
>Ich glaube um die deutschen Hersteller muss man sich Sorge
>machen...


Bisher warst du zuversichtlich daß sie Tesla fertigmachen?

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Analyst Commentary:
Evercore ISI analyst Arndt Ellinghorst -
Notes TSLA posted record deliveries and still could not produce a profit - as the adj loss of $~290M will bring back profitability concerns that had momentarily drifted away - notes also that $600M+ FCF was flattered by unsustainable levels of capex (<5% of sale) and WC (+$287M).
Cautions that sequential pressure on profits + cash flow is likely to increase given: 1) demand pull forward (US incentives) 2) deteriorating mix / price across all models 3) WC unwind / sequential capex increases - while loss of JB Straubel is the largest executive departure yet for a company that has, unfortunately, heard this song before.
Target is $200
Maintains an Underperform rating
JMP analyst Joseph Osha - lowers target
Notes even leaving aside the impact of lower regulatory credits, gross margin disappointed, with the GAAP outcome of 14.5% well below firm's forecast and Street expectations - noting vehicle production of 87,000 was below output capacity, mostly because of low utilization on S and X production, which is now running only a single shift - the resulting fixed cost under-absorption was a challenge (and weighed on margin).
Highlights however, that the company is having more success controlling operating costs - free cash flow at $600M was $100M was better than the firm had modeled, partially because of working capital recapture and partially because of the cost control efforts.
Target to $337 from $347; on 2.5x EV/revenue, 35x free cash flow, and 15x EV/EBITDA
Maintains a Market Outperform rating
Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas -
Notes the simplified approach to guidance, which included less specificity on opex,and no range for 3Q unit volume outlook - and while Tesla targets positive GAAP profitability in 3Q and 4Q, it allowed for 'expected fluctuations' and 'temporary exceptions' around free cash flow generation - firm understands why the stock is giving up some of its recent gains on added uncertainty.
Firm continues to believe Tesla is fundamentally overvalued but strategically undervalued - firm still expects near term volatility in the stock to be driven by real-time data-points around demand in the US and international market for Tesla's electric vehicles, though also expect discussions around the nature and value of the company's technology to be an important part of the narrative going forward.
Target is $230
Maintains an Equal-weight rating
Needham analyst Rajvindra S. Gill -
Notes that while gross margins grew slightly q/q from 12.8% in Q1, they remain at depressed levels as significant ASP reductions across all vehicles hurt margins - the impact of which only partially offset by cost improvements.
Notes the company reaffirmed its 360-400k FY19 delivery target and expects q/q delivery growth in 3Q & 4Q and expects to break even in Q3 and turn a profit in Q4 - though notes the firm is cautious on TSLA's ability to fulfill these goals as the ramp requires a significant snapback in 2H19.
Maintains an Underperform rating
Nomura/Instinet analyst Christopher Eberle - lowers target
Notes profitability metrics underwhelmed - as Automotive gross margin declined sequentially and non-GAAP loss-per-share missed revised Street estimates by over ($0.75).
Firm doubt this quarter will inspire enough confidence to get the stock working - expects investors may question the continued deceleration in investment given that the company recently completed a capital raise and is in the midst of an aggressive global expansion of its manufacturing footprint.
Target to $270 from $300
Maintains a Neutral rating
Piper Jaffray analyst Alexander E. Potter - lowers target
Highlights forward-looking metrics related to revenue (orders, deliveries, etc.) are all trending in the right direction - suggests these are the most important components of the story - the post-market selloff was driven initially by mix-related concerns (and the resulting pressure on gross margin) - and Tesla's CTO subsequently resigned on the earnings call, and the selling pressure intensified.
Believes it will take time for Tesla to prove that JB Straubel's departure does not portend ominous developments down the road - but ultimately, firm thinks management turnover will only matter if Tesla's financial metrics never improve.
Target to $386 from $396; 18x FY22E EV/EBITDA, after capex, discounted at 15%
Maintains an Overweight rating

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

"Automobilindustrie schlittert immer tiefer in die Krise"

Die Industrie in der Eurozone schrumpft so stark wie seit sieben Jahren nicht mehr. Deutschlands Autoindustrie belastet laut dem Chefökonom des Instituts IHS Markit den Sektor am stärksten.

https://diepresse.com/home/wirtschaft/international/5668102/Automobilindustrie-schlittert -immer-tiefer-in-die-Krise

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Tesla is 'spooling up production line rapidly' in Buffalo, according to Musk tweet

Tesla Inc.'s "Gigafactory 2" in Buffalo was an afterthought in the company's quarterly earnings release last week, garnering not a single mention in written materials or in executives' remarks to investors. Tesla CEO Elon Musk had plenty to say Tuesday ... albeit in just a few sentences. Responding to a question on Twitter, Musk said his company is "Spooling up production line rapidly" and hoping to manufacture at least 1,000 of its signature solar roof products per week by late 2019.

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/dac652a8-0652-3593-8e76-b7cbe0773766/tesla-is-%26%2339%3Bspoo ling-up.html

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/someone-tell-the-president-tesla-s-musk-promis ed-china-320m-tax-revenue-a-year-15036212

Someone Tell the President: Tesla's Musk Promised China $320M Tax Revenue a Year

1) Tesla released its 10Q for Q2


2) Anton Wahlman found some interesting tidbits buried in it. Here’s the first: Someone Tell the President: Tesla's Musk Promised China $320M Tax Revenue a Year. Excerpt:



So let's see what this means:



1. Tesla gets $713 million in U.S. subsidies per quarter.



2. Tesla moves production from the U.S. to China.



3. Tesla invests $2.1 billion in a Chinese factory.



4. Tesla promises China $320 million in annual tax revenue.



5. If Tesla can't pay, China nabs the factory.



U.S. taxpayer funds -- and technology transfer -- secured!



I can only imagine what President Donald Trump would say if General Motors or Ford did this. He would be up in arms, burning up a tweetstorm.



Is Trump aware that Tesla is moving production to China, collecting huge U.S. government subsidies, and reallocating a minimum of $320 million of those subsidies to the Chinese government? And if Tesla can't pay, China just nabs the factory?



3) Here’s the 2nd: Tesla Reveals In Its 10-Q That It Doesn't Yet Have The Required Manufacturing License For China. Excerpt:



Tesla filed its 10-Q for the June 2019 quarter, and it contains a startling admission that should make every investor seek urgent clarification.


On page 56, it reveals that it does not yet have “manufacturing licenses” for its China factory.


In the 10-K from February 19, it spoke only of “uncertainties, including regulatory approval.”.


This new warning in the 10-Q filed today, is more consistent with the warning that the then-CEO of BYTON said about Tesla’s Chinese situation following his CES keynote in January.


Why did Tesla suddenly feel the urge to disclose that it doesn’t yet have a manufacturing license for China, when it failed to disclose that in the 10-K in February?

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

I met a Tesla bull (hedge fund) to debate the short case. I was on the short side (i'm short) and he was a long (owns the stock in size). This person was intellectually honest, importantly didn't like Musk's antics or believe in his BS, and owned the stock for substantive reasons so I take his views more seriously than the typical long. Here were his pushbacks to the short thesis. I'd be curious in people's views:

1. On underlying demand + profitability: He believes that at the current price level there is demand for 300k - 350k cars in the US + select geographies in 2019. But he thinks that the price of the battery pack, which makes up the majority of the cost of this car, is coming down ~10-20% per year based on economies of scale related to production, productivity improvements (similar to semiconductors) and declining lithium pricing. He bases this on conversations with Panasonic and others in the EV battery pack value chain. His research also suggests that Tesla's initial batch of cars was horrifyingly over budget (due to inexperience in manufacturing) and that the cost of making the rest of the car will come down ~5% this year and probably another 5% next year at the least. He wouldn't be surprised if it comes down closer to 10% this year. That means the total cost of the car will probably come down ~low double digits this year and continue to fall as the cost of the battery falls over the next 5 years. A lower cost car will, in turn, be reinvested in further price cuts. As the price of the car comes down to the low 30k range, the addressable market will expand by many multiples since most Americans (and people in Europe) buy cars at an average price in the low 30k range, not in the high 30k range where it is now. Model 3 pricing will probably be in the low 30k range in 2021 if battery and manufacturing costs come down in line with his projections but 2020 growth should be driven by lower pricing to the mid 30k range as costs fall this year as well. His overarching point is "of course they are losing $$$ now. They are just trying to buy time to get to a point where they can offer a car in the low 30k range which is the price range that most people buy cars in. That comes when a) battery prices fall sufficiently, which they are rapidly and b) as Tesla get better at manufacturing, which they are already".

2. On recent cap-ex cut: He sees people making the argument that cutting cap-ex is a sign that demand is drying up. He thinks this is mistaken. His research on Tesla and their EV manufacturing process suggests its much less capital intensive than a ICE manufacturer. That's because the # of moving parts in the car is 7-10 vs. over 300 for an ICE guy. This means that adding incremental lines and variants is much simpler and less cap-ex heavy than it is for an ICE manufacturer. He believes Tesla can add lines in California and Fremont for roughly 20% of what an ICE manufacturer can add a line for and that currently lines are at ~65% of max utilization so there is room to grow production without that much incremental cap-ex. He says that most people are so stuck looking at ICE manufacturers and comping Tesla's cap-ex needs and margins to those players, that they forget that they are 100% EV player and that the EV cost structure is completely different to the cost structure of an ICE manufacturer. This all implies that the cut in cap-ex does not signify a decline in demand.

3. Competition: He points to the fact that every competitor to Tesla in the EV market has significantly worse range and that range is the biggest issue customers have when buying an EV. He sees the arguments that bears make that Tesla's battery is a commodity because they buy it from Panasonic and anyone can do that. But he points out that if the battery was a commodity, everyone would have the same range. His research suggests that Tesla buys commodity battery packs and then rengineers them physically (by adding hardware) and software that makes them much more efficient. This has taken time and effort and range continues to improve with new variants. He says that other EVs are years behind and Tesla is extending their lead. This will always make Tesla's car more attractive to buyers as long as the price is in line with competitors.

4. Margins: Believes that auto gross margins will hit 30% by 2021. In Q2, auto gross margins ex. reg credits went up by 200bps from 15.2% to 17.2%. This was with the impact of price cuts - this happened because a) more cars were sold, b) the price of the battery is falling and c) they are improving their production process. As the price of the battery falls further and Tesla improves their manufacturing process, margins should go up to the low 20s assuming volume stays where it is (95k cars per quarter). If volume grows, margins should improve given the scale benefits of amortizing the fixed cost. Margins should continue to ramp higher as the Company recognizes FSD revenue which he believes they will start recognizing in Q4 '19. As prices fall, he believes margins should ramp even faster as volumes should accelerate quickly.

Whitney Tilson

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>I met a Tesla bull (hedge fund) to debate the short case. I
>was on the short side (i'm short) and he was a long (owns the
>stock in size). This person was intellectually honest,
>importantly didn't like Musk's antics or believe in his BS,
>and owned the stock for substantive reasons so I take his
>views more seriously than the typical long. Here were his
>pushbacks to the short thesis. I'd be curious in people's
>views:

Here goes:

Underlying demand and profitability: First, underlying demand. Once the overall performance of a BEV (battery-electric vehicle) is close enough to a gasoline/diesel engine car, it all comes down to price and lifecycle total cost. The key thing to understand here is that while performance is not yet there for most people, it’s there for some people, and that the degree of this demand is almost entirely dependent on government mandates, subsidies and other incentives. If those are low or zero, the BEV market would be 0.1% of the total auto market. But if the government takes those to the extreme, the share could be 50% (Norway) or 100% (with a strict mandate). So, once you tell me what your assumptions are for the government to dictate the competitive environment, I can tell you how large the market will be.



As for profitability and the cost of batteries, this argument is insane. The correct analogy is this: 5G will increase data speeds etc by, say, 10 times. Does that mean that Verizon’s profitability will now increase by 10x? The next chip from Intel will be 2x faster. Does that mean that Intel’s profits will increase by 2x?



So what if battery prices will be going down by 10% or 20% or whatever? If battery prices are going down by 20% for Tesla, chances are they are going down for all other automakers as well. Nobody in the industry is seriously arguing that Panasonic has some special cost curve here, that doesn’t apply equally to Samsung, LG, SKI, CATL or BYD.



On recent capex cut: The argument that Tesla has some sort of special advantage in manufacturing cars is equally insane. The comparison is not between a BEV and an ICE car. It’s between Tesla making a BEV and another automaker making a BEV.



The Tesla Model 3 is around 11% of the plugin car market: http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/2019/07/global-top-20-june-2019.html



Add together the Model X and S, and Tesla might be around 16% of the worldwide plugin car market.



It does not matter whether it’s cheaper to put together a BEV vs putting together an ICE car. Because if it’s cheaper to put together a BEV for Tesla, it’s also cheaper for all other automakers to do so. See the analogy with 4G vs 5G and the next-gen Intel chip.



For example, VW will soon have its first BEV-only factory in Germany. China already has them, with so many more being finished in only months from now, that I can’t keep count anymore. Why would Tesla have some sort of capex advantage against any of those dozens -- soon to be hundreds -- of BEV-only factories, even if as a general statement it’s cheaper to build a BEV-only factory?



Competition: The author does not seem aware that when comparing range, he is not comparing apples to apples. Tesla has optimized its cars for range. The competition has optimized for other things, all of which eat away at range:

· Serviceability of the battery pack.

· Making the battery pack survive a crash.

· Reducing the probability of a battery fire.

· Longevity of the battery pack.

· The car itself has less aerodynamic efficiency because it’s more practical that way.

· That goes for door handles and roof racks, for example.

· The car itself weighs more (Audi eTron 5,600 lbs for example) because it’s a sturdier build.

· The car can go off-road (Audi and Jaguar).



Obviously if you optimize a flimsily built lightweight car for long-range highway driving, you are going to get better range than if you build a heavier and more square car that will last longer and go off-road.



Still, even after adjusting for all of those factors, Tesla may still have an advantage against most or all competitors in terms of miles-per-kWh. But, it’s not nearly as big as the raw number suggests. You have to adjust for all of the factors outlined above. Tesla’s real advantage here is somewhere between zero and very small -- not material.



Margins: That depends on pricing, which in turn is going to be heavily dependent on what competitors do with their prices. Of course, if you assume that competition isn’t going to increase, and/or that those competitors will not cut prices in order to meet their quotas, indeed Tesla’s margins could go up. Considering that there are over 200 competitive models in the pipeline between now and the end of 2022, that proposition may work in the short term -- perhaps for the next quarter or two -- but probably not for much longer.



That actually goes to basic economics 101: In a highly competitive market -- let alone one with notorious oversupply, home-champion over-investment, and government-mandated price pressure thanks to minimum sales quotas, margins are doomed to be small, negative and shrinking. This goes for Tesla as well as all other suppliers.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

Nettes Video (Link im Text)

A friend’s take on battery pricing and quality testing:

Battery prices may or may not be falling from this point. Considering that all battery manufacturing has been fully automated already, the scale efficiencies beyond a certain limited point are very modest. There is not a lot of labor involved. You capture almost all automation/scale benefits already at a fairly small scale.


Three has been a lot of advancements in terms of battery PACK design. That includes thermal management (heating, cooling) and the way that the pack is integrated into the body of the car, how it handles a crash, and so forth. That’s where most of the cost reductions have originated in the last 5-10 years.


Most people I know in the auto industry say that the battery prices are not falling much from here, if at all. Any movement from here will be mostly dependent on raw material prices, such as cobalt and all the other ingredients that go into a battery. If those costs go down, battery prices go down. But not very much otherwise.



The overall cost of the vehicle will decline somewhat from here because of dedicated BEV production lines with slightly simplified assembly processes. See both Tesla and Volkswagen’s MEB-based factory in Zwickau, for example, as they are 100% BEV. Or see Audi’s factory in Brussels, which is also 100% BEV. In China, already dozens of examples, rapidly approaching hundreds.



Tesla has indeed pioneered some battery pack and software techniques. They have two good motors, with industry-leading efficiency. So let’s say that buys them 2% or even 3% on those parts. Who is a more efficient manufacturer overall? Who buys steel and aluminum at lower prices? Who buys tires and all other components at lower prices?



The other automakers can also afford to outright subsidize their BEVs, because they actually have profitable product lines (gasoline, diesel) from where they can subsidize.



This is Audi’s 100% electric car factory in Brussels, Belgium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR0voji-vZk&t



You may ask yourself why Audi’s former production boss -- Peter Hochholdinger -- who left Audi 3 years ago to join Tesla -- left Tesla as soon as his 3 year contract was over. That was just over a month ago.



There is a world of difference between the way in which an Audi eTron is assembled, and the way in which a Tesla is assembled, from a quality and professionalism perspective. In addition, guess to what standards the Audi eTron was tested before being released for production, compared to the way a Tesla is tested (barely) before it goes into production. The level of quality control is in a different league.

Whitney Tilson

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

Panasonic demanding battery price hike?

A JPN biz weekly is reporting that Pana CEO Tsuga was at GF1 in June (for the 3rd time this yr). According to the article, he apparently was there to demand price HIKE on batteries.

Here’s the Google Translate of the article: https://twitter.com/passthebeano/status/1157395375260483584

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Former NYSE Chief Warns of “False and Misleading Claims” From Tesla. Excerpt:



The former head of the New York Stock Exchange took direct aim at Tesla on Wednesday, warning that “false and misleading claims” by the automaker can make it difficult to determine what to believe.



The comments by Thomas Farley, who headed the NYSE from 2014 to 2018, came hours after a transparency website released documents showing federal regulators ordered Tesla and its CEO Elon Musk to stop making what were described as “misleading statements” about the safety of the Model 3 sedan.



“How do you even triage the false and misleading claims that come out of Tesla to decide which ones to take issue with,” Farley said during an appearance on CNBC.



2) Advocacy Groups Attack Tesla’s Use of Autopilot — Again. Excerpt:



Two of the most vocal critics of Tesla Inc.’s Autopilot feature renewed their calls for federal and state investigations of the EV maker, claiming the company is engaging in “dangerously misleading and deceptive practices.”



Consumer Watchdog and the Center for Auto Safety once again accused the California-based electric vehicle maker and CEO Elon Musk of putting lives in peril by making claims that the Autopilot technology available on all three models Tesla offers is a fully functional autonomous technology.



The two groups have renewed their efforts in the wake of the investigations of two Florida deaths earlier this year that involved drivers using Tesla’s Autopilot at the time their vehicle’s crashed.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

The latest head-scratcher is the company’s decision to once again offer free unlimited supercharging for its Model S and Model X buyers.

“Really need to bring this program to an end while being as fair as possible. It’s not sustainable long-term,” Musk wrote.

The only logical explanation for the 180-degree turn on free charging is that Tesla is desperate to sell Model X and Model S vehicles. As bears have argued for months, the low-margin Model 3 is eating into demand for these more profitable models.

Model S registrations were down 54% in California during Q2, according to Dominion Cross-Sell. Model X sales were down 40%. California is by far Tesla’s largest market, accounting for 40% of total Model S sales in 2018.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-stock-unsustainable-free-supercharging-121628106.htm l

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    
    

Q der Ticker-Annex für bankrotte Aktien:

https://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-short-sellers-musk-20190408-story.h tml

$TslaQ has no leader, but it does have a hero. His name is Lawrence Fossi, a lawyer and New York money manager who contributed to the Twitter hashtag as well as investor site Seeking Alpha under the moniker Montana Skeptic — until he was exposed by Musk.

According to Fossi, after he was outed on Twitter last July, Musk personally called the small investment office he works for. Musk told his boss he wasn’t happy about the online activity and threatened to sue Fossi for defamation. (Tesla doesn’t dispute that Musk contacted the company.)

Meanwhile, Tesla’s public relations department sent emails to the media naming Fossi and encouraging reporters to call his boss — phone number included. The communications executive involved declined to discuss that matter.

“I had never before heard from Tesla or Elon Musk to correct anything I wrote,” Fossi said. “I would have been happy to correct anything that was wrong.”

Fossi said he didn’t take the lawsuit threat seriously, “but I couldn’t afford to drag my boss into this.” So he quit writing for Seeking Alpha and deactivated his Twitter account.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

I was very surprised to see that Walmart (WMT) sued Tesla (TSLA) yesterday: Walmart Says Tesla Solar Panels Set Fires Atop Stores. Excerpt:



Walmart is suing Tesla for breach of contract, contending that at least seven rooftop fires at the retailer’s stores between 2012 and 2018 were a result of problems with solar panels installed by the company.



The complaint asserted that Tesla engaged in “widespread, systemic negligence” and “failed to abide by prudent industry practices in installing, operating and maintaining its solar systems.” It said the panels were installed on the roofs of more than 200 of the 5,000 Walmart locations in the United States.



Representatives of Walmart and Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.



The panels were installed by Tesla’s solar business, which was absorbed when the electric-car maker acquired SolarCity in 2016. The Walmart complaint asserted that the company “adopted an ill-considered business model that required it to install solar panel systems haphazardly and as quickly as possible in order to turn a profit.”



Walmart is seeking damages from Tesla, as well as the removal of all the company’s solar power systems from its stores.



To be clear, I’m not at all surprised that the Tesla/SolarCity panels and/or their installation and maintenance are crap; rather, it’s that disputes like this are almost always settled out of court. Why would Tesla go to war against the largest company in the world (by revenue) and open itself up to charges like this (from the lawsuit)?



“On information and belief, when Tesla purchased SolarCity to bail out the flailing company (whose executives included two of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s first cousins), Tesla failed to correct SolarCity’s chaotic installation practices or to adopt adequate maintenance protocols, which would have been particularly important in light of the improper installation practices.” (Here are more excerpts from the suit.)



The fact that Tesla didn’t settle is a sign of two things I suspect: a) CEO Elon Musk rarely acknowledges bad news or mistakes and instead tries to hide problems; and b) Tesla is in a precarious financial position. When you’re losing money hand over fist and cash is tight, maybe it’s rational to get sued and pay more, as long as you can delay the payments by a year or two…

Whitney Tilson

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

A friend pointed out that one reason Tesla didn’t settle with Walmart it that it would open the floodgates to every other customer with similar issues…



2) Which makes this post on Reddit from seven months ago seem more timely (this is the first I’ve heard of this):



whistleblower123456

7 months ago



If you want the truth here it is. Tesla has installed millions of defective amphenol connectors all over the u.s. These connectors are catching fire and burning down homes and businesses. They are hiding it with something called project titan where they are hiring thousands of people just to replace connectors. The problem is that they are testing it with infrared cameras to see if the connector heats up and only then replacing it. These connectors are defective meaning just because it passes one day it does not mean it wont fail the next even after testing. Tesla refuses to replace all of these connectors betting on insurance to cover any fires and only looking at homes when their monitoring platform reports arc faults. This is why they are dismantling the solar division with layoffs. Right now if you have tesla installed on your roof you may have a ticking time bomb ready to kill you in your sleep. If you have it on your business same thing. Don't believe me, google walmart fires. If you have tesla stock better prepare to sell it because when this gets out it is going to crash. They need to do the right thing and shut off all systems with these connectors and replace them with mc4. They wont because it would cost them hundreds of millions to do and hundreds of thousands of dollars on lost production. Do the right thing tesla.

Whitney Tilson

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

David Einhorn demands Elon Musk resign over solar panel flap


David Einhorn
@davidein
· 4h
If @Tesla wants to save the human species, it should pay more attention to the
safety of its own customers. You shouldn’t have to be Walmart to have your
dangerous solar panels fixed. @Elonmusk


David Einhorn
@davidein
How many solar panels are still defective and could cause fires? @Tesla should
immediately notify the people who live in and work in buildings at risk. Secret
Project Titan is over the line. A recall should have happened long ago @USCPSC.
@Elonmusk should resign.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/greenlights-einhorn-calls-for-elon-musk-to-resign-17214410 3.html

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

Last year Tesla initiated 'Project Titan' — a stealth nationwide program to replace solar panel parts that could cause fires

Last summer Tesla initiated 'Project Titan,' an attempt to quietly replace defective solar panel parts nationwide, according to documents viewed by Business Insider.
Specifically, Tesla was replacing connectors and optimizers, parts that are meant to regulate the amount of energy flowing to a solar panel. Too much energy can cause a fire.

https://www.businessinsider.de/tesla-project-titan-replace-bad-solar-panel-parts-2019-8

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Tesla Wins China Tax Break, Sidestepping U.S. Trade Tensions

Tesla Inc. won exemption from a 10% Chinese tax on automotive sales, sidestepping trade tensions with the U.S. following Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk’s visit to the country.

The exemption, which typically is reserved for domestic makers of electric vehicles, affects all Tesla models sold in China, the nation’s industry ministry said Aug. 30 on its website. The electric-car maker’s shares jumped as much as 4.8% shortly after the open of regular trading.


https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-international/tesla-gets-exemption-from-ch inas-auto-purchase-tax-shares-gain

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

From the moment I heard Musk boast about Tesla Insurance, I've thought the idea was preposterous.

Tesla is going to enter an enormously difficult industry and successfully compete against well-run giants like Berkshire Hathaway's (BRK-B) GEICO and Progressive (PGR) – an industry in which companies need years of experience to have the data to set prices appropriately... where even a small mistake can lead to huge losses? What a joke!

I suppose Tesla bulls would argue that Musk has successfully disrupted other big, tough industries, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt. But this is a bridge way too far for me...

So what's really going on here? I think another friend of mine nailed it:

It's typical Tesla.

They have convinced everyone to focus on the gross margin they make selling autos. Meanwhile, they run a services business at a huge loss – for example, they under-accrue warranty cost and expense the extra losses through service. Also, they subsidize new car sales by overpaying for trade-ins and run the loss through services. Ditto for insurance – it's another way for them to subsidize the customer without affecting auto gross margin.

Insurance also won't be that big. Let's say they lose 10% of premium – which would be a horrible insurance result. That might be $400 per car per year. The Tesla fleet is 500,000 – globally. If they get 10% of that, it's a $20 million cost – a rounding error in the scheme of Tesla's already upside down P&L (or should I say just L?).

Plus they can reduce losses by giving insurance customers priority on service appointments and spare parts. Tesla won't care how this further irritates the rest of their customers, who already have to put up with an inconvenient repair situation.

Tesla's insurance partner, State National, is merely a "fronting" company. They take 4 or 5 points off the top, but don't assume the underwriting risk. No one knows who the money behind them is. My guess is that the losses one-way-or-another find their way back to Tesla.

Whitney Tilson

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Nettes Video. Der Journalist am Beifahrersitz (Tom Voelk) "can't wipe the grin of his face"

The investor's guide to the Porsche Taycan

Here are the essential things that investors should know about the Porsche Taycan launch:



1. It looks a lot closer to the 2015 concept car than the masked test cars suggested. Most people seem to think it looks absolutely stunning. This alone tends to be a major factor in any car’s sales success -- regardless of which kind of powertrain it has.

2. The base price of the version that you can actually buy in 2019 and early 2020 is $153,510, plus a $1,350 delivery charge. There will be less expensive versions available later in 2020 and beyond.

3. At these prices, the Porsche should skim away many of Tesla’s highest-end buyers, for whom price doesn’t matter as much as bragging rights. This is a far better-looking car than a Tesla, and obviously will have much better build quality. Would you rather show off a Tesla or the Porsche Taycan at the country club or the valet at your fancy restaurant? The answer is obvious and not remotely close. Besides, the Tesla spends most of its time in the repair shop anyway, so it rarely makes it to the country club anymore.

4. The range is said to be 280 miles on the WLTP test cycle (Europe). I typically apply a 14% discount factor for the US EPA test cycle. That brings us to about 240 miles. I suppose that’s the best-case scenario for the various versions for the U.S. market. I imagine most versions will fall in the 200-240 mile range.

5. Some will scoff at 200-240 miles of range, which is less than the Kia, Hyundai, Nissan or Chevrolet electric cars, for example. But ask yourself: How far from the Porsche buyer’s home is the country club and the fancy restaurant? I am guessing, no more than 20-40 miles. The Porsche buyer doesn’t take road trips, but rather flies if the trip would otherwise have been more than a couple of hours. There is no real need for “range” beyond 100-200 miles if your life exists almost exclusively within a 40-mile radius of your house.

6. The best video I have seen that communicates the actual *driving* experience is this one, from Tom Voelk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJloC3witfY Notice the drifting.

7. The best video I have seen that actually describes the technical aspects of the Taycan is this one, from Dan Edmunds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_vUaFb0fC8



Bottom line: Tesla has already lost Model X and S sales to the Audi eTron and Jaguar iPace. Model X and S sales are down materially this year. There isn't all that much more market share left to lose for Tesla Model X and S, as their sales are on a downward dive on their way to close to zero, but this is an example of the next drop in the water torture that’s starting to hit Tesla. There are over 200 competing EVs to come in the near future, each a hyena taking a bite out of the Tesla wildebeest flesh.

Whitney Tilson

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    
        

>Wozu das zweistufige Getriebe an der Hinterachse habe ich
>jedoch noch nicht durchschaut?

Zwecks dem Wirkungsgrad und Beschleunigung über den großen Geschwindigkeitsbereich. Drehmoment ist ja genug da.

Das Auto wird dem Tesla im margenstarkem Top-level Marktanteile kosten.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>Wozu das zweistufige Getriebe an der Hinterachse habe
>ich
>>jedoch noch nicht durchschaut?
>
>Zwecks dem Wirkungsgrad und Beschleunigung über den großen
>Geschwindigkeitsbereich. Drehmoment ist ja genug da.


Wirkungsgrad bei Elektromotor ist drehzahlabhängig? Dachte der ist ziemlich konstant.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>Wirkungsgrad bei Elektromotor ist drehzahlabhängig? Dachte der ist ziemlich konstant.

Verglichen mit einem Verbrennungsmotor ist er immer sehr hoch. Aber es gibt schon noch Nuancen, abhängig von Drehzahl und Last.



Quelle: http://www.energie.ch/asynchronmaschine

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>>Wozu das zweistufige Getriebe an der Hinterachse
>habe
>>ich
>>>jedoch noch nicht durchschaut?
>>
>>Zwecks dem Wirkungsgrad und Beschleunigung über den
>großen
>>Geschwindigkeitsbereich. Drehmoment ist ja genug da.
>
>
>Wirkungsgrad bei Elektromotor ist drehzahlabhängig? Dachte der
>ist ziemlich konstant.

Auch bei Elektromotoren gibt es ineffiziente Betriebspunkt. Damit man da nicht reinfällt verwendet man Getriebe, siehe zb auch
https://www.ingenieur.de/technik/fachbereiche/antriebstechnik/das-getriebe-in-elektrofahr zeugen-zukunft/

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        

>>>>Wozu das zweistufige Getriebe an der Hinterachse
>>habe
>>>ich
>>>>jedoch noch nicht durchschaut?
>>>
>>>Zwecks dem Wirkungsgrad und Beschleunigung über den
>>großen
>>>Geschwindigkeitsbereich. Drehmoment ist ja genug da.
>>
>>
>>Wirkungsgrad bei Elektromotor ist drehzahlabhängig? Dachte
>der
>>ist ziemlich konstant.
>
>Auch bei Elektromotoren gibt es ineffiziente Betriebspunkt.
>Damit man da nicht reinfällt verwendet man Getriebe, siehe zb
>auch
>https://www.ingenieur.de/technik/fachbereiche/antriebstechnik/das-getriebe-in-elektrofahr zeugen-zukunft/


Sehr interessant. Aber wo doch alle Welt weiß das Elektrofahrzeuge viel simpler sind etc.

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
        


>>>Wirkungsgrad bei Elektromotor ist drehzahlabhängig?
>Dachte
>>der
>>>ist ziemlich konstant.
>>
>>Auch bei Elektromotoren gibt es ineffiziente
>Betriebspunkt.
>>Damit man da nicht reinfällt verwendet man Getriebe, siehe
>zb
>>auch
>>https://www.ingenieur.de/technik/fachbereiche/antriebstechnik/das-getriebe-in-elektrofahr zeugen-zukunft/
>
>
>Sehr interessant. Aber wo doch alle Welt weiß das
>Elektrofahrzeuge viel simpler sind etc.

Im Detail ist wie immer alles sehr kompliziert...

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
    

August Numbers Are In For Tesla

Summary
We just got Insideevs US numbers for August, and we now have official country reporting for most European countries.

We are still missing numbers from China, Canada and UK, just to mention some important ones.

And yes, with Tesla usually delivering near 50% of the quarter in the last month, the swing factor remains as huge as it ever does this time in the quarter.

With all that said, it looks like Q3 could be very similar to Q2, when 95,200 units were sold. I have 97,188 for Q3 as of now.

Existing markets are on the decline, with help coming from new Model 3 countries such as UK and Australia. Pricing also will likely be weaker, hurting margins.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4289683-august-numbers-tesla-path-disappointing-97000-q3

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

How Elon Musk Gambled Tesla to Save SolarCity

This is perhaps the most damning article I've ever read about Musk and Tesla, both for the content as well as the author: Bethany McLean is one of the best, most respected business journalists in the world, with a proven record from the financial crisis of sniffing out fraud (of which there is no shortage at Tesla). Excerpts:

The controversy over SolarCity, which has dovetailed with questions about Musk’s mountain of debt and profit shortfalls, offers a window into the mindset of America’s most outlandish CEO.
... In June 2014, SolarCity bought Silevo, a solar-panel manufacturer that had struck a deal with New York to build a factory in Buffalo. On a conference call, Musk boasted that the deal would enable SolarCity to install tens of gigawatts of panels every year—far beyond the company’s peak annual run rate of about one gigawatt. He spoke as if the technology were already proven. On its website, SolarCity predicted it would “achieve a breakthrough” in solar-power pricing thanks to “massive economies of scale.”

“It was shoot first and aim later,” says the former senior employee. “There was a lot of machismo going on: bigger, better, badder, faster.

... Even then, to those who looked closely, the cracks at SolarCity were becoming apparent. In 2014, key executives had started to leave. The Rives began to sell stock. SolarCity’s debt was soaring, and the yield on its bonds hit double digits, a sign that the market thought the company was in trouble. Goldman Sachs, one of Musk’s major bankers, called SolarCity the “worst positioned” company for capitalizing on future growth in the solar sector. One of the few things shoring up the company’s stock, according to a former investor, were the constant rumors that Musk was somehow going to bail it out.

In reality, the situation was even uglier than outsiders knew. As SolarCity struggled to raise money from institutional investors, it began offering individuals a chance to buy what it called Solar Bonds. (“Now you can get paid while driving the solar revolution,” the marketing material said.) But there were few takers—so other parts of the Musk empire took up the slack. According to the shareholder lawsuit, SpaceX acquired $255 million of the bonds. Musk himself bought $75 million of them, and the Rives acquired another $38 million. To raise the cash, Musk borrowed against both Tesla and SolarCity stock, increasing his personal credit lines from $85 million to $475 million. He also used his own reputation to shore up the stock: In February 2016, when SolarCity stock plunged to its lowest level in three years, Musk bought $10 million in shares. A week later, when the news became public, the stock soared by almost 25 percent.
At the same time, according to the shareholder lawsuit against Tesla, the company faced “significant liquidity concerns”—meaning it was running out of money. An accounting inquiry from the SEC noted that SolarCity was burning through cash—$659 million in the first quarter of 2016 alone. That February, at a Tesla board meeting, Musk proposed a solution: Tesla, he said, should acquire SolarCity.
The board balked. But Musk kept pushing. Two weeks later, he proposed the acquisition again. Once again, the board said no.

It was a hopelessly conflicted situation. Musk owned more than 20 percent of both SolarCity and Tesla. His brother, Kimbal, served on both boards, as did several investors, including Antonio Gracias, a close friend of Musk’s. As a judge in the shareholder lawsuit ruled, it is “reasonably conceivable” that Musk effectively controlled the Tesla board when he pushed it to acquire SolarCity.

... But over the years, many skeptics have come to see Musk’s stunts—from smoking pot during an interview to calling a diver who helped rescue kids trapped in a Thailand cave a “pedo guy”—as more unhinged than iconoclastic.

... Now the brewing problems at SolarCity threatened to give skeptics real ammunition against Musk—unless those problems could be buried. In May 2016, the Tesla board finally agreed to acquire the company for almost $5 billion, including the assumption of nearly $3 billion in SolarCity debt. On a conference call on June 22, the day after the deal was publicly announced, Musk told analysts and investors that the company had “the best technology out there for high-efficiency, low-cost solar panels.” He didn’t say anything about the liquidity crisis at SolarCity. Nor did he mention something else that shareholders allege the Tesla board came to learn as it did its due diligence on SolarCity: The cost per watt of solar modules being produced in Buffalo was actually projected to be 20 cents above the rest of the industry.

Whitney Tilson

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/how-elon-musk-gambled-tesla-to-save-solarcity

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Allerdings ZeroHedge...

Analyst With $0 Price Target On Tesla Says Growth Story "Clearly Over" After August Delivery Estimates

McCabe wrote in a report Thursday: "While there is no reasonable justification for a structurally unprofitable and horribly managed company to enjoy a $40 billion market cap, proponents of the stock tout its growth. That story is clearly over."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-07/analyst-0-price-target-tesla-says-growth-story- clearly-over-after-august-delivery-0

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

It’s Porsche Versus Tesla Facing Off in Germany’s Green Hell

It’s here that Porsche’s new Taycan Turbo S set the record as the fastest four-door electric car last month, clocking in at 7 minutes and 42 seconds. The feat wasn’t lost on a rival sitting thousands of miles away in California: Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk. Always one to relish a good fight, Musk picked up the gauntlet and has dispatched a Model S to the German hinterland to reclaim the bragging rights as king of the electric sedan.

“We welcome competition, it helps you to get better step by step. But of course you always have to compare apples with apples,” Porsche AG Chief Executive Officer Oliver Blume told Bloomberg Friday on the sidelines of a panel discussion near the Frankfurt auto show.

The epic battle between incumbent and upstart has been infused with social-media feeds that have energized die-hard fans on either side of the Atlantic. Adding to the frenzy is former Formula One racing champion Nico Rosberg, who chimed in on Twitter offering to pilot the Tesla. Musk happily accepted in a tweeted reply, but it’s unclear who actually will be behind the wheel.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/porsche-versus-tesla-facing-off-141133430.html

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden

Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors,
by Edward Niedermeyer, which I highly recommend, irrespective of your view on the stock.

Niedermeyer has long been a Musk and Tesla skeptic, which certainly comes through in the book, but it’s not as one-sided as I expected. Tesla is an incredible entrepreneurial story, and this book covers it well.

“Ludicrous” will have tremendous appeal to car buffs but requires the reader’s faith that its assertions are reliable. Its sources have refused to be quoted out of fear of Mr. Musk. Mr. Niedermeyer says he conducted “hundreds of hours of interviews” with current and former Tesla employees, yet he acknowledges that “there are essentially no named sources in this book.” For instance, we meet “Tom,” said to possess detailed information about the company. Perhaps this information is solid. But people who aren’t identified can’t complain about being misquoted. It’s also ironic that, after not disclosing his sources, Mr. Niedermeyer goes on to slam Mr. Musk for not being open with the public.

Entertaining anecdotes abound in the book, from spats among Mr. Musk, his backers, critics and short-sellers, to publicity stunts that owe a debt to 19th-century magic shows. In one example, Tesla prototypes are rolled out to dazzle the press corps, only to then be taken behind a curtain, we are told, “to have gallons of ice water discreetly pumped through the battery.” (High-performance batteries tend quickly to overheat.) In another anecdote, a tricked-out car with a false-bottom structure makes it appear as if a depleted Tesla battery can be swapped out for a fresh one in mere minutes. All that’s missing is a lady being sawed in half.

Whitney Tilson

  

Beitrag dem Admin melden | Urheberrechtsverletzung melden
Thema #21739

Vorheriges Thema | Nächstes Thema

5
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.27
Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com
0.63