TSLA corporate outlook

[edatoakrun]

TSLA is a pioneer... in manufacturing inefficiency.

Tesla's real capacity problem: Too many people

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said last week the company has run out of space at its Fremont, Calif., plant and is looking to build a second factory.

"There's no room at Fremont," Musk said. "It's bursting at the seams."

But that statement left plenty of industry watchers scratching their heads...

Tesla ... had between 6,000 and 10,000 workers in 2016 and manufactured 83,922 vehicles. That puts its vehicle-per-worker number between 8 and 14, about one-seventh the efficiency of NUMMI at its peak.

"The number of people Musk's got in there has a great deal to do with why he doesn't make money building vehicles," said automotive manufacturing consultant Michael Tracy of Agile Group in Howell, Mich. "Toyota's numbers reflect the number of people you expect to have if you were going to efficiently build vehicles for a profit."...

http://www.autonews.com/article/2017061 ... any-people

[sparky]

TSLA is a pioneer... in manufacturing inefficiency.

I realize this is just snark.
I'm no auto manufacturing consultant but I suspect the breakdown isn't that simple. First, you're comparing peak output of a mature plant to one that is still being built.
Tesla is in the midst of completing a 400,000 car/year line and much of the workforce is probably in place and some fraction is building the line.
Second, Tesla is very vertically integrated. The plant itself builds a lot of the car parts. More than most manufacturers.
NUMMI was just the final assembly-line.
As an extreme comparison, Tesla's European assembly plant in Tilburg already has numbers closer to Toyota's (around 70 cars/worker annually). But they do much less per vehicle than Fremont; bolt drive-trains and battery packs to vehicles and QA.

[cwerdna]

TSLA is a pioneer... in manufacturing inefficiency.

I realize this is just snark.
I'm no auto manufacturing consultant but I suspect the breakdown isn't that simple. First, you're comparing peak output of a mature plant to one that is still being built.
Tesla is in the midst of completing a 400,000 car/year line and much of the workforce is probably in place and some fraction is building the line.
Second, Tesla is very vertically integrated. The plant itself builds a lot of the car parts. More than most manufacturers.
NUMMI was just the final assembly-line.
As an extreme comparison, Tesla's European assembly plant in Tilburg already has numbers closer to Toyota's (around 70 cars/worker annually). But they do much less per vehicle than Fremont; bolt drive-trains and battery packs to vehicles and QA.

Well, NUMMI did a LOT more work than what you describe of the Tilburg plant.

I toured NUMMI before GM went BK and pulled out. I recall stamping, welding besides final assembly of components internal and external + QA at the end, of course. I think we did see "marriage" of the chassis w/the drivetrain.

I think there might've been an engine assembly line for at least 1 of the engines used there (memory foggy), but not all of them since they made the Corolla-based cars like the Pontiac Vibe, Corolla, etc. + the Tacoma.

We didn't get to see the paint shop. I've toured many auto plants and the only one I've been on that let us see the paint shop at all was BMW's in Munich.

[sparky]

Germany's Berenberg upgrades TSLA to $464.

Berenberg upgraded Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA) from Hold to Buy with a price target of $464.00 (from $193.00), saying the threat from traditional OEMs is overestimated and less realistic than perceived.

Analyst Alexander Haissl said beyond "skeleton" strategies and unsubstantial announcements, underlying progress towards dedicated, mass-market electric vehicles (EVs) by traditional OEMs will remain uncompetitive as long as they remain bound to the same low-risk, low-cost approach that has been in place for the past 20 years....
...Haissl says OEM production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers.

[lorenfb]

Germany's Berenberg upgrades TSLA to $464.

Berenberg upgraded Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA) from Hold to Buy with a price target of $464.00 (from $193.00), saying the threat from traditional OEMs is overestimated and less realistic than perceived.

Analyst Alexander Haissl said beyond "skeleton" strategies and unsubstantial announcements, underlying progress towards dedicated, mass-market electric vehicles (EVs) by traditional OEMs will remain uncompetitive as long as they remain bound to the same low-risk, low-cost approach that has been in place for the past 20 years....
...Haissl says OEM production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers.

"Production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers" - Oh Please! Total Naivete!

Another MBA student that attended the same finance class, "How to Hype a Stock", as did Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley,
presented by the professor's grad student whose key background was trading penny Stocks. Most likely Alex Haissl
hopes to obtain the next round of stock offerings to finance the balance of Tesla's 2017 anticipated negative cash flow.
They both probably missed most of their Product Marketing lectures on "External Threats & Long Term Viable Products".

[GetOffYourGas]

Germany's Berenberg upgrades TSLA to $464.

Berenberg upgraded Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA) from Hold to Buy with a price target of $464.00 (from $193.00), saying the threat from traditional OEMs is overestimated and less realistic than perceived.

Analyst Alexander Haissl said beyond "skeleton" strategies and unsubstantial announcements, underlying progress towards dedicated, mass-market electric vehicles (EVs) by traditional OEMs will remain uncompetitive as long as they remain bound to the same low-risk, low-cost approach that has been in place for the past 20 years....
...Haissl says OEM production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers.

"Production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers" - Oh Please! Total Naivete!

Another MBA student that attended the same finance class, "How to Hype a Stock", as did Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley,
presented by the professor's grad student whose key background was trading penny Stocks. Most likely Alex Haissl
hopes to obtain the next round of stock offerings to finance the balance of Tesla's 2017 anticipated negative cash flow.
They both probably missed most of their Product Marketing lectures on "External Threats & Long Term Viable Products".

Your unrelated rant aside, I think that "legacy footprint" will absolutely hamper traditional OEMs as they try to embrace EVs. Their entire business is built upon a ICEVs. They have countless billions invested in manufacturing facilities which cannot simply be retuned to build EVs. The entire infrastructure for sales, service, parts, etc for ICEVs is largely not applicable to EVs.

But it sounds like you'd rather jump to the conclusion that this is a giant conspiracy to hype up Tesla's stock.

[lorenfb]

Germany's Berenberg upgrades TSLA to $464.

"Production inefficiencies coupled with a legacy footprint will hamper those manufacturers" - Oh Please! Total Naivete!

Another MBA student that attended the same finance class, "How to Hype a Stock", as did Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley,
presented by the professor's grad student whose key background was trading penny Stocks. Most likely Alex Haissl
hopes to obtain the next round of stock offerings to finance the balance of Tesla's 2017 anticipated negative cash flow.
They both probably missed most of their Product Marketing lectures on "External Threats & Long Term Viable Products".

Your unrelated rant aside, I think that "legacy footprint" will absolutely hamper traditional OEMs as they try to embrace EVs. Their entire business is built upon a ICEVs. They have countless billions invested in manufacturing facilities which cannot simply be retuned to build EVs. The entire infrastructure for sales, service, parts, etc for ICEVs is largely not applicable to EVs.

But it sounds like you'd rather jump to the conclusion that this is a giant conspiracy to hype up Tesla's stock.

Yes, some automotive OEMs may fail by not embracing new technology and significant changes, e.g. Blackberry,
but to imply that most all present ICEV OEMs would not be able/willing to adapt when significant changes necessitate
change is naive. As an obvious example is GM with the Bolt, i.e. the first below $50K 200+ mile BEV. To some, it has
fallen short of the "ideal" market BEV, but GM did produce it. We have yet to see a long term profitable BEV from Tesla,
and the scaled-down version of the Model S, i.e. the Model 3, will be even less profitable further questioning the
long term viability of Tesla.

[GetOffYourGas]

Yes, some automotive OEMs may fail by not embracing new technology and significant changes, e.g. Blackberry,
but to imply that most all present ICEV OEMs would not be able/willing to adapt when significant changes necessitate
change is naive. As an obvious example is GM with the Bolt, i.e. the first below $50K 200+ mile BEV. To some, it has
fallen short of the "ideal" market BEV, but GM did produce it. We have yet to see a long term profitable BEV from Tesla,
and the scaled-down version of the Model S, i.e. the Model 3, will be even less profitable further questioning the
long term viability of Tesla.

This much is true. But the original quote said nothing about other OEMs failing. It was talking about their threat to Tesla. Since Tesla is exclusively an EV company, that threat is mostly over the developing EV market. The point is that they are at a competitive disadvantage in this market. The conclusion is that their threat to Tesla is overstated, not that this will become their downfall.

I don't pretend to know what the market will look like in, say, 8 years from now. I do know that I strongly disagree with Mr. Tony Seba. I believe that gas and diesel cars and trucks will continue to be sold, and in large numbers. But there could easily be some shakeups, and bankruptcies in the industry.

[lorenfb]

This much is true. But the original quote said nothing about other OEMs failing. It was talking about their threat to Tesla. Since Tesla is exclusively an EV company, that threat is mostly over the developing EV market. The point is that they are at a competitive disadvantage in this market. The conclusion is that their threat to Tesla is overstated, not that this will become their downfall.

To state that ICEV OEMs are at competitive disadvantage to Tesla is naive:

1. The BEV technology is basically "off-the-shelf", e.g. motors & key ECUs are accessible to all ICEV OEMs.
2. Tesla presently possesses no key cost advantage to battery technology/production, i.e. Giga is presently questionable.
Also, Tesla still relies on Panasonic.
3. Tesla's only present key "rent" is its SC network which can easily be displaced by independent energy suppliers, e.g. EVGO.

Yes, major ICEV OEMs are a long term threat to Tesla simply because they can operate profitably long term!

[edatoakrun]

I've never thought these surveys were particularly useful myself, but many do take them quite seriously.

IMO, this is just another example of TSLA obsessive-compulsive management, wanting restrict to all access to vehicle data to the greatest extent the law allows.

Even for its own customers...

Why won’t Tesla participate in the J.D. Power quality survey?

‘THEY DON'T WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME’

How do the quality ratings for the 2017 Tesla Model S and Model X compare to competitors?

They don't, based off J.D. Power's 2017 U.S. Initial Quality Study that was released Wednesday. That's not because Tesla Inc. doesn't make quality vehicles, but because it doesn't allow J.D. Power access to its customer registration data for the survey...

http://autoweek.com/article/tesla/why-w ... ity-survey