TSLA corporate outlook

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
edatoakrun said:
GRA said:
...Whether or not Tesla itself survives as a company and manages to introduce mass market cars, mass market BEVs undoubtedly will arrive, largely thanks to them demonstrating what could be done.
TSLA has never built any "mass market BEVs", as defined by relatively high production levels and low price, and may never build any.

I am one of millions of drivers world-wide who actually do drive "mass-market BEVs", in my case since early 2011.

I doubt the large majority of those who drive BEVS were significantly influenced by TSLA, even if they, like many misguided ICEV drivers, see some achievement in TSLA's failures.

I don't see how it is possible find any plausible rational counterfactual argument that the billions of dollars flushed down TSLA these many years could not have been far more productively invested in BEV production, under more competent management.
Which management would that be, since no one else has managed to produce a compelling BEV salable outside the limited market of BEV enthusiasts (without subsidies, that is)? As I said, whether or not Tesla will build the first mass market BEV remains unclear, but someone will because Tesla has

1. Eliminated for all time the canard about BEVs being "nothing more than glorified golf carts"

2. Taken significant business from the likes of BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche etc., so they can't dismiss them as being niche cars, and have to compete.

3. Showed how and then built a charging infrastructure that makes BEVs usable for shorter trips (if still well short of what's needed to fully compete with liquid fuels on longer ones).

None of this assures or even requires that Tesla be the company which achieves the first mass market car, or even that they survive, but it does ensure, along with the move to ban non-ZEVs from many cities or countries past a certain date, that mass market BEVs will arrive. Neither the LEAF or Volt has had as much impact on the non-enthusiast public, and I suspect looking back the Model S will be judged to be the most significant car of the first quarter of this century if not longer (I'd say the Prius was the most significant one for the first decade). Next to that, a few billion down the tubes, if it comes to that, just isn't that important (except to the investors).
 
Via ABG:
Germany removes Tesla from EV subsidies list as too pricey
Tesla insists Germans can buy a stripped Model S for less than the price cap.
https://www.autoblog.com/2017/12/01/germany-tesla-ev-subsidies-too-pricey/

. . . Tesla customers cannot order the Model S base version without extra features that pushed the car above the 60,000 euro ($71,500) price limit, a spokesman for the German Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Controls (BAFA) said on Friday.

Germany last year launched the incentive scheme worth about 1 billion euros, partly financed by the German car industry, to boost electric car usage. The price cap was included to exempt premium models.

"This is a completely false accusation. Anyone in Germany can order a Tesla Model S base version without the comfort package, and we have delivered such cars to customers," Tesla said in a statement. . . .
To which I say, good! It's high time that max. price limits were put on subsidies, if they aren't eliminated. We could use them here (Washington state has had one for a couple of years now, $35k IIRR), but maybe Congress will just toss subsidies altogether. Taxpayers have no business subsidizing the purchase of luxury goods by people who can easily afford to buy them without same. And mass market cars need to be priced so that people can afford them without subsidies, or at least the subsidies should be minimized. If the intent of subsidies is to grow the PEV market, there's far more value in giving $1.5k to five middle-class LEAF buyers than giving $7.5k (essentially pocket change) to a single wealthy Tesla buyer. While we're at it, there also needs to be max. income limits, and a tightening of them where they already exist. California's $150k limit for a single filer, while lower than originally, is still ridiculous and needs further reduction.
 
GRA said:
It's high time that max. price limits were put on subsidies, if they aren't eliminated. We could use them here (Washington state has had one for a couple of years now, $35k IIRR), but maybe Congress will just toss subsidies altogether. Taxpayers have no business subsidizing the purchase of luxury goods by people who can easily afford to buy them without same. And mass market cars need to be priced so that people can afford them without subsidies, or at least the subsidies should be minimized.
The rationale for subsidizing the purchase of a Tesla is not to help a consumer buy a luxury good, it's to shift the overall value proposition in favor of an EV at the expense of ICE competitors. I do agree, however, that there's a law of diminishing returns. Someone purchasing a Model S P100D for $140k is likely not going to be swayed much by $7500, making this a poor use of the subsidy. On the other hand, a family stretching to buy an entry level Model S for $75k will likely be influenced by the tax credit and should, in my opinion, be eligible for it at least until the Model 3 becomes available in large quantities.

I also think that, as long as these subsidies are needed due to the failure to enact a real carbon tax, they should be tied more closely to the capabilities of the vehicle. A Tesla Model 3, with its long range and ability to be charged quite rapidly, should be eligible for larger subsidies than a Nissan LEAF. This is simply because a Model 3 is likely to displace significantly more ICE use than a LEAF.
 
GRA said:
To which I say, good! It's high time that max. price limits were put on subsidies, if they aren't eliminated. We could use them here (Washington state has had one for a couple of years now, $35k IIRR), but maybe Congress will just toss subsidies altogether. Taxpayers have no business subsidizing the purchase of luxury goods by people who can easily afford to buy them without same. And mass market cars need to be priced so that people can afford them without subsidies, or at least the subsidies should be minimized. If the intent of subsidies is to grow the PEV market, there's far more value in giving $1.5k to five middle-class LEAF buyers than giving $7.5k (essentially pocket change) to a single wealthy Tesla buyer. While we're at it, there also needs to be max. income limits, and a tightening of them where they already exist. California's $150k limit for a single filer, while lower than originally, is still ridiculous and needs further reduction.
That's all well and good but it should be accompanied by a concurrent reduction in subsidies, both direct and indirect, for fossil fuel use by wealthy ICEV owners. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen!

For the federal EV tax credit the question appears to be moot, given the tax change package that seems on its way to being passed by Congress — the primary beneficiaries of which are the uber wealthy, ironically enough.
 
abasile said:
GRA said:
It's high time that max. price limits were put on subsidies, if they aren't eliminated. We could use them here (Washington state has had one for a couple of years now, $35k IIRR), but maybe Congress will just toss subsidies altogether. Taxpayers have no business subsidizing the purchase of luxury goods by people who can easily afford to buy them without same. And mass market cars need to be priced so that people can afford them without subsidies, or at least the subsidies should be minimized.
The rationale for subsidizing the purchase of a Tesla is not to help a consumer buy a luxury good, it's to shift the overall value proposition in favor of an EV at the expense of ICE competitors. I do agree, however, that there's a law of diminishing returns. Someone purchasing a Model S P100D for $140k is likely not going to be swayed much by $7500, making this a poor use of the subsidy. On the other hand, a family stretching to buy an entry level Model S for $75k will likely be influenced by the tax credit and should, in my opinion, be eligible for it at least until the Model 3 becomes available in large quantities.
Well, there's the thing. Anyone who doesn't want to wait for a Model 3 has the option of a Bolt now, with the LEAF to follow and other longer range BEVs on their heels. To be mass market, BEVs must be affordable basic transportation, and that doesn't describe a car that starts at $75k - anyone 'stretching' to buy such a car should simply wait until more affordable BEVs are here. It's not as if the purchase of the limited number of those expensive cars that are only salable with subsidies will have any significant effect on pollution or the size of the BEV fleet. At this point, IMO subsidies should be designed to drive the cost of mass market vehicles down until they're no longer needed, not prop up sales of more expensive ones. The money will go far further that way.

abasile said:
I also think that, as long as these subsidies are needed due to the failure to enact a real carbon tax, they should be tied more closely to the capabilities of the vehicle. A Tesla Model 3, with its long range and ability to be charged quite rapidly, should be eligible for larger subsidies than a Nissan LEAF. This is simply because a Model 3 is likely to displace significantly more ICE use than a LEAF.
I somewhat agree that subsidies, if they continue, should be based on range rather than total capacity. Actually, what I prefer is to have a soft max. out-the-door sans govt. taxes and fees price limit (to avoid companies gaming the system with $5k delivery or $1k doc. fees), starting at say $40k and reducing annually or bi-annually, with every dollar over that reducing the subsidy by an equal amount until it reaches zero. I'd rather set the max. limit lower, but anything is better than nothing. If desired, modifying that based on extra range would be acceptable. But, as dgpcolorado notes, it seems increasingly likely that the fed. credit will be gone soon.
 
GRA said:
abasile said:
On the other hand, a family stretching to buy an entry level Model S for $75k will likely be influenced by the tax credit and should, in my opinion, be eligible for it at least until the Model 3 becomes available in large quantities.
Well, there's the thing. Anyone who doesn't want to wait for a Model 3 has the option of a Bolt now, with the LEAF to follow and other longer range BEVs on their heels.
While there's overlap between Model 3 and Bolt customers, the Bolt falls far short of the Model 3 in terms of road trip capabilities. Anyone wanting a BEV that can, for their purposes, fully replace an ICE has good reason to go for a Tesla. Same with anyone who requires AWD, or seating for six or seven.

GRA said:
To be mass market, BEVs must be affordable basic transportation, and that doesn't describe a car that starts at $75k - anyone 'stretching' to buy such a car should simply wait until more affordable BEVs are here.
Note that this could be a multi-year wait for those looking for a large family vehicle! The Tesla Model S and Model X remain the only BEVs that can truly displace the family ICE minivan or SUV, and the Model 3 won't change that. For those who are willing to make the stretch, why penalize them by taking away the rebate or tax credit? Rather than instituting a low cap on vehicle price, a cap on personal income and/or wealth might be more appropriate in terms of maximizing the efficiency of the subsidies. Indeed, California ties its EV rebates to income.

GRA said:
It's not as if the purchase of the limited number of those expensive cars that are only salable with subsidies will have any significant effect on pollution or the size of the BEV fleet. At this point, IMO subsidies should be designed to drive the cost of mass market vehicles down until the point where they're no longer needed, not prop up sales of more expensive ones. They will go far further that way.
While I wouldn't agree that Teslas are "only salable with subsidies", it's certainly true that sales have been helped by subsidies. You do make a fair point that subsidy dollars will go further if they're applied to "mass market" vehicles. But that presumes the existence of mass market BEVs that meet consumer needs, and we're not quite there yet. Until we get there, we should be rewarding people who are willing to spend more than usual for the privilege of getting off gasoline while still meeting their transportation needs.

GRA said:
But, as dgpcolorado notes, it seems increasingly likely that the fed. credit will be gone soon.
Yes, that's the reality we live in. However, these arguments are just as applicable at the state level, etc.
 
abasile, I'd written a long reply yesterday but MNL burped and ate it, and I'm pushed for time today (beautiful CAVU day got me out riding, and now I'm off to my local to watch the Warriors), so will try and reply tomorrow. One point of misunderstanding I want to clear up now: I agree that the Model S/X are the only BEVs currently 'salable without subsidies'; my statement about limited numbers applies only to those Model S/X which can only be bought by people 'stretching' to buy them, and who would be dependent on subsidies to do so. I'll get to the rest later.
 
GRA said:
2. Taken significant business from the likes of BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche etc., so they can't dismiss them as being niche cars, and have to compete.
Case in point, via IEVS:
Despite Struggles, Tesla Steals Market Share From Rivals
https://insideevs.com/despite-struggles-tesla-steals-rivals-market-share/

Regular visitors to this space already know that Model S has dominated the large luxury segment for some time now. However, a new infographic from the UK firm Select Car Leasing (via ValueWalk) adds some details to that picture.

This infographic compares the sales of Model S to those of “competing” sedans from Audi, BMW, Mercedes and Jaguar. The electric trendsetter’s share of this segment has grown rapidly, from almost nothing in 2013 to 35% in 2016.

Upstart Tesla is stealing a lot of sales from these venerable European brands. Of the seven fossil models compared here, only one – the BMW 7 Series – saw its sales grow in the period 2014-2016. The rest posted substantial losses, while Model S sales soared by 43%.

A chart of year-on-year sales for 2013-2016 also makes for some interesting reading (see below). Other than the BMW 7 Series and the Mercedes S Class, the legacy models show clear downward trends, while Tesla’s numbers are spiking ever upwards. . . .
Chart included.
 
abasile said:
GRA said:
abasile said:
On the other hand, a family stretching to buy an entry level Model S for $75k will likely be influenced by the tax credit and should, in my opinion, be eligible for it at least until the Model 3 becomes available in large quantities.
Well, there's the thing. Anyone who doesn't want to wait for a Model 3 has the option of a Bolt now, with the LEAF to follow and other longer range BEVs on their heels.
While there's overlap between Model 3 and Bolt customers, the Bolt falls far short of the Model 3 in terms of road trip capabilities. Anyone wanting a BEV that can, for their purposes, fully replace an ICE has good reason to go for a Tesla. Same with anyone who requires AWD, or seating for six or seven.
In which case, they should opt for a much less expensive PHEV, HEV or stick with the ICE they have for now and await events, or consider just replacing their local car with a BEV if they have more than one.

abasile said:
GRA said:
To be mass market, BEVs must be affordable basic transportation, and that doesn't describe a car that starts at $75k - anyone 'stretching' to buy such a car should simply wait until more affordable BEVs are here.
Note that this could be a multi-year wait for those looking for a large family vehicle! The Tesla Model S and Model X remain the only BEVs that can truly displace the family ICE minivan or SUV, and the Model 3 won't change that. For those who are willing to make the stretch, why penalize them by taking away the rebate or tax credit? Rather than instituting a low cap on vehicle price, a cap on personal income and/or wealth might be more appropriate in terms of maximizing the efficiency of the subsidies. Indeed, California ties its EV rebates to income.
I don't believe we should be encouraging anyone to stretch to afford a luxury vehicle that's simply too expensive for them if things go sour; we had enough of that sort of thing with the mortgage meltdown. See below

abasile said:
GRA said:
It's not as if the purchase of the limited number of those expensive cars that are only salable with subsidies will have any significant effect on pollution or the size of the BEV fleet. At this point, IMO subsidies should be designed to drive the cost of mass market vehicles down until the point where they're no longer needed, not prop up sales of more expensive ones. They will go far further that way.
While I wouldn't agree that Teslas are "only salable with subsidies", it's certainly true that sales have been helped by subsidies. You do make a fair point that subsidy dollars will go further if they're applied to "mass market" vehicles. But that presumes the existence of mass market BEVs that meet consumer needs, and we're not quite there yet. Until we get there, we should be rewarding people who are willing to spend more than usual for the privilege of getting off gasoline while still meeting their transportation needs.
Hopefully I've already cleared up the confusion over "only salable with subsidies", so moving on. At this time, I don't believe any BEV is capable of being a true mass market vehicle, as they remain too expensive or too limited - average MSRP of cars (not pickups of SUVs) sold in the U.S. this year was about $31.7k, and that's before incentives. Even adding in the others only moves the average MSRP up to $35,870 IIRR, and again that's before the increased incentives that are being offered. For the moment, I believe only PHEVs with fairly small packs priced like the Prime
can be mass market, with cars like the Model 3 more entry-level luxury, a substantial market but not mass. I think we'll probably have to wait until the next decade to see true mass-market BEVs.

abasile said:
GRA said:
But, as dgpcolorado notes, it seems increasingly likely that the fed. credit will be gone soon.
Yes, that's the reality we live in. However, these arguments are just as applicable at the state level, etc.
I'm very glad to see that California is now preventing the well off who don't need the rebates from double-dipping,i.e. getting both the state rebate and the SO HOV stickers; now it's one or the other. Now we need to cut the max. income limit in half, from $150k single/$204k HoH/$300k joint, as the median family income in the state (2015) is only $64,500. And I still want a max. price limit that excludes luxury models.
 
GRA said:
I don't believe we should be encouraging anyone to stretch to afford a luxury vehicle that's simply too expensive for them if things go sour; we had enough of that sort of thing with the mortgage meltdown.
Nor do I have any interest in encouraging people to purchase vehicles that they truly cannot afford.

When I mentioned middle-class people "stretching" to buy expensive EVs, I was thinking of this in a more benign fashion. In the case of my own middle class family, we spent more on both our new LEAF and on our used Tesla than we previously would have spent on similar vehicles. Affordability wasn't really an issue for us, but we just weren't into spending big on vehicles. I'm quite sure we wouldn't have purchased our 2011 LEAF without the incentives. Of course, we didn't receive rebates/credits on our used Tesla, but the existence of those subsidies helped lower the prices on used vehicles to the point where we felt comfortable making a purchase.

With respect to personal finances, it goes without saying that people have to make choices which reflect their values. For some, that might entail forgoing expensive vacations and staying closer to home, eating out less, and making similar choices that enable them to afford "green" technology such as EVs and PV. When people are willing to make such choices, and when EV purchase incentives exist, I think it's wrong to take away those incentives for middle class people who desire to buy relatively expensive yet exceptionally capable BEVs. The incentives truly do make a difference for such people, and they help stimulate technology development.

GRA said:
I'm very glad to see that California is now preventing the well off who don't need the rebates from double-dipping,i.e. getting both the state rebate and the SO HOV stickers; now it's one or the other. Now we need to cut the max. income limit in half, from $150k single/$204k HoH/$300k joint, as the median family income in the state (2015) is only $64,500. And I still want a max. price limit that excludes luxury models.
Lest any of my prior comments be misconstrued, I'm not at all interested in using EV incentives as a tool to accomplish wealth redistribution. My only concern is that the incentives grow the EV market to the maximum extent possible. For the sake of efficiency, I've come to accept that income caps are a good idea because wealthier individuals are less likely to be swayed by the existence of incentives. However, if the income limits are set too low, then a large pool of prospective buyers will be excluded and the take rate on the incentives will likely be lower than desired. The current California limits probably strike the right balance, in my opinion.

I'm in support of the new HOV sticker policy in California. The carpool lanes get clogged as is, so we do need to be careful about handing out stickers.
 
Each week that the promised ~5,000 model 3's are not sold, results in ~ $250,000,000 in lost revenue for TSLA, accelerating the timing for another cash infusion to keep the gigafactory doors open.

Tesla stock downgraded to sell on signs Model 3 demand is starting to flag

Customers are realizing that they can’t get new vehicles until 2019, and are starting to look elsewhere


Tesla Inc. stock was downgraded to sell from hold by Cascend Securities on Tuesday on signs that customer demand for the mass-market sedan, the Model 3, is beginning to flag as the company grapples with production issues.

Cascend’s Chief Investment Strategist Eric Ross said new customers who have not already preordered the Model 3 are realizing that they can’t get new vehicles until 2019, and are starting to look elsewhere. The electric-car field is growing, with all the major car makers working on their own models, he said. Ford Motor Co. F, -1.35% alone has 13 electric vehicles planned for release in the next five years.

Meanwhile, “the company is burning through cash and will likely need to raise capital in the first half of 2018 (and perhaps even the first quarter 2018),” Ross wrote in a note. “And there won’t be enough Model 3 production to suggest break-even is around the corner.”...
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-stock-downgraded-to-sell-on-signs-model-3-demand-is-starting-to-flag-2017-12-05


GRA said:
edatoakrun said:
GRA said:
...Whether or not Tesla itself survives as a company and manages to introduce mass market cars, mass market BEVs undoubtedly will arrive, largely thanks to them demonstrating what could be done.
TSLA has never built any "mass market BEVs", as defined by relatively high production levels and low price, and may never build any.

I am one of millions of drivers world-wide who actually do drive "mass-market BEVs", in my case since early 2011.

I doubt the large majority of those who drive BEVS were significantly influenced by TSLA, even if they, like many misguided ICEV drivers, see some achievement in TSLA's failures.

I don't see how it is possible find any plausible rational counterfactual argument that the billions of dollars flushed down TSLA these many years could not have been far more productively invested in BEV production, under more competent management.
Which management would that be, since no one else has managed to produce a compelling BEV salable outside the limited market of BEV enthusiasts (without subsidies, that is)? As I said, whether or not Tesla will build the first mass market BEV remains unclear, but someone will because Tesla has

1. Eliminated for all time the canard about BEVs being "nothing more than glorified golf carts"

2. Taken significant business from the likes of BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche etc., so they can't dismiss them as being niche cars, and have to compete.

3. Showed how and then built a charging infrastructure that makes BEVs usable for shorter trips (if still well short of what's needed to fully compete with liquid fuels on longer ones)...

1. The opinions of idiots have limited relevance.

2. Unsupported by facts. Those companies have seen premium SUV sales surge, more than offsetting losses in the declining sedan segments.

In fact, TSLA seems to have increased total high-priced vehicle sales by means of subverting the intent of government subsidies for BEVs, diverting those payments toward the premium market segments. In doing so, TSLA has provided cover for other premium vehicle brands to take their own seats at the taxpayer-funded trough.

3. Each supercharger location is an open wound from which TSLA bleeds cash. Why anyone would regard such a silly and unsustainable promotional stunt as a corporate asset, is beyond rational understanding.

Superchargers are a major reason why, despite selling cars at very high prices, and further supported by very high government subsidies, TSLA today still has no profits in view.
 
blah blah blah...more drivel from the weak minded (and short sighted)

you sure do waste a lot of time on this site trying to work others into your frenzied short position....how many other sites do you rotate to?

must suck living in such constant negativity and doubt
 
The negativity is a little crazy on this thread. It's easy enough to have an intelligent and civil conversation.

Each side of this debate is grounded in logic and fairness. Tesla IS burning through cash at alarming rates right now, and HAS missed multiple self-imposed deadlines. It's fair to point that out and say that it is concerning to the overall health of the company.

I look at the other side and say that it is inevitable that Tesla will resolve its production issues and within 1-2 years will EASILY sell 500,000 cars per year - resulting in an ESTIMATED net profit of $4-Billion/year. They are the brand leader in a rapidly growing market. To me it's a no-brainer and I would ignore all of the nay-sayers. If you find it hard to ignore the cash woes and production issues - I respect that. You might be right, but I respectfully disagree. I think Tesla will have no problem selling their "junk" bonds to raise cash next year (which I predict they will have to do). An extra quarter or 2 of cash burn is nothing compared to profits Tesla will gain.

I will say that it is concerning that production STILL hasn't picked up. This makes me think the issues are deeper than a couple of component bottlenecks. I still believe it ultimately won't matter.
 
most of the vitriol and conflict in this thread is premised on the mistaken assumption that Tesla wants to make money selling cars. Couldn't be farther from the truth which is why arguments on both sides have "some" sense to them. But the reality is neither applies here.
 
edatoakrun said:
GRA said:
edatoakrun said:
TSLA has never built any "mass market BEVs", as defined by relatively high production levels and low price, and may never build any.

I am one of millions of drivers world-wide who actually do drive "mass-market BEVs", in my case since early 2011.

I doubt the large majority of those who drive BEVS were significantly influenced by TSLA, even if they, like many misguided ICEV drivers, see some achievement in TSLA's failures.

I don't see how it is possible find any plausible rational counterfactual argument that the billions of dollars flushed down TSLA these many years could not have been far more productively invested in BEV production, under more competent management.
Which management would that be, since no one else has managed to produce a compelling BEV salable outside the limited market of BEV enthusiasts (without subsidies, that is)? As I said, whether or not Tesla will build the first mass market BEV remains unclear, but someone will because Tesla has

1. Eliminated for all time the canard about BEVs being "nothing more than glorified golf carts"

2. Taken significant business from the likes of BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche etc., so they can't dismiss them as being niche cars, and have to compete.

3. Showed how and then built a charging infrastructure that makes BEVs usable for shorter trips (if still well short of what's needed to fully compete with liquid fuels on longer ones)...

1. The opinions of idiots have limited relevance.
Since many of those 'idiots' were and in many cases still are the management of the companies which are now scrambling to build BEVs to compete with Tesla, that brings us back around to my "Which management would that be?" question. Besides, prior to the advent of high specific energy Li-ion batteries like Panasonic's NCA, it was largely the correct view.

edatoakrun said:
2. Unsupported by facts. Those companies have seen premium SUV sales surge, more than offsetting losses in the declining sedan segments.
Oh, come now. While consumer preferences are clearly shifting away from cars and towards CUVs/SUVs, BMW (to take one example) has sold twice as many cars as CUVs in the U.S. this year, 162,514 to 80,869. The Model S has unquestionably taken sedan market share from the Euro-lux makers. Even in the CUV segment, while the BMW X5xDrive40E PHEV is selling reasonably well, the Model X, despite its utility compromises and probable long-term reliability issues, is outselling them 4:1, 18,015 (IEVS est.) to 4,517 YTD. Do you think BMW, Audi et al are developing BEV CUVs just because they can?

edatoakrun said:
In fact, TSLA seems to have increased total high-priced vehicle sales by means of subverting the intent of government subsidies for BEVs, diverting those payments toward the premium market segments. In doing so, TSLA has provided cover for other premium vehicle brands to take their own seats at the taxpayer-funded trough.
You'll get no argument from me that it's high time to put a price cap on which vehicles qualify, but that seems likely to be moot soon as far as the feds.

edatoakrun said:
3. Each supercharger location is an open wound from which TSLA bleeds cash. Why anyone would regard such a silly and unsustainable promotional stunt as a corporate asset, is beyond rational understanding.

Superchargers are a major reason why, despite selling cars at very high prices, and further supported by very high government subsidies, TSLA today still has no profits in view.
SCs are a marketing expense, far more useful and valuable to customers (not to mention as assets to potential purchasers of the company) than advertising would be. Despite their usual delays, Tesla should initially complete (for small battery cars) the primary interstate network in 2018; in most cases the interstates awaiting completion only need another 3 or 4 to do so. After that, they will need to devote more attention to off-interstate SCs, but owing to the much higher density of the interstate network east of the Mississippi that will largely be restricted to west of it, so probably just 100-200 more will be needed for that. And once the Model 3 starts to be delivered in large numbers, the amount of charging that's 'free' will rapidly decline, although it's unlikely that very many Model S/X owners have used SCs enough to wipe out the extra $2k they paid up front, which financed their building.
 
Via IEVS:
Tesla Finally Lands Win In Ongoing Direct-Sales Battle
https://insideevs.com/tesla-win-direct-sales-battle/

The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that three plaintiffs had no standing to follow through with a lawsuit banning Tesla from selling its cars directly in the state. The Missouri Automobile Dealers Association (MADA), along with a local automobile dealer, and a mobile home manufacturer recently went to bat against the Silicon Valley automaker. A lower court had moved to revoke Tesla’s license to sell, but the appeals court overturned that ruling.

When then lower court ruled not to renew the automaker’s license, Tesla had to temporarily close up shop at its Kansas City and University City stores. However, the higher court allowed the company to immediately reopen during the appeal proceedings.

MADA, Reuther Ford, and Osage Industries asserted that their right as economic competitors and taxpayers allowed them to sue Tesla in an attempt to get the automaker’s sales license revoked. The appeals court disagreed. The court believes that its ruling was:

“… consistent with every appellate court ruling in the country that has addressed standing in similar Tesla license challenges in other states.”

The court basically said that it only appeals cases where a business license is denied or revoked. Simply being an economic competitor doesn’t give a company standing to bring forth a lawsuit. . . .
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
most of the vitriol and conflict in this thread is premised on the mistaken assumption that Tesla wants to make money selling cars. Couldn't be farther from the truth which is why arguments on both sides have "some" sense to them. But the reality is neither applies here.
For most companies, if they have no profits and just continual large losses, they will go bankrupt unless some savior comes to rescue them in some way (e.g. buyout). The purchaser will want to eventually make money and will make changes in an attempt to make the unit profitable. There'd be no reason to buy if it's just another money pit.

TSLA's net income is somewhere north of negative $3.8 billion cumulative now. They're also burning thru cash like crazy.

It is both amusing and annoying that certain folks here (more like one) are just completely dismissive of anything that doesn't worship the cult of Elon and doesn't paint Tesla/Elon in a positive light/can do no wrong.

For the company's sake, hopefully there is an actual point at which they can breakeven and become profitable w/sufficient Model 3 deliveries. And, hopefully the company can reach it before running out of cash.
 
cwerdna said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
most of the vitriol and conflict in this thread is premised on the mistaken assumption that Tesla wants to make money selling cars. Couldn't be farther from the truth which is why arguments on both sides have "some" sense to them. But the reality is neither applies here.
For most companies, if they have no profits and just continual large losses, they will go bankrupt unless some savior comes to rescue them in some way (e.g. buyout). The purchaser will want to eventually make money and will make changes in an attempt to make the unit profitable. There'd be no reason to buy if it's just another money pit.

TSLA's net income is somewhere north of negative $3.8 billion cumulative now. They're also burning thru cash like crazy.

It is both amusing and annoying that certain folks here (more like one) are just completely dismissive of anything that doesn't worship the cult of Elon and doesn't paint Tesla/Elon in a positive light/can do no wrong.

For the company's sake, hopefully there is an actual point at which they can breakeven and become profitable w/sufficient Model 3 deliveries. And, hopefully the company can reach it before running out of cash.

They will NEVER be a profitable company building cars... NEVER. But that is not Tesla's long term goal anyway.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
cwerdna said:
DaveinOlyWA said:
most of the vitriol and conflict in this thread is premised on the mistaken assumption that Tesla wants to make money selling cars. Couldn't be farther from the truth which is why arguments on both sides have "some" sense to them. But the reality is neither applies here.
For most companies, if they have no profits and just continual large losses, they will go bankrupt unless some savior comes to rescue them in some way (e.g. buyout). The purchaser will want to eventually make money and will make changes in an attempt to make the unit profitable. There'd be no reason to buy if it's just another money pit.

TSLA's net income is somewhere north of negative $3.8 billion cumulative now. They're also burning thru cash like crazy.

It is both amusing and annoying that certain folks here (more like one) are just completely dismissive of anything that doesn't worship the cult of Elon and doesn't paint Tesla/Elon in a positive light/can do no wrong.

For the company's sake, hopefully there is an actual point at which they can breakeven and become profitable w/sufficient Model 3 deliveries. And, hopefully the company can reach it before running out of cash.

They will NEVER be a profitable company building cars... NEVER. But that is not Tesla's long term goal anyway.

If they NEVER reach their goal of selling 500,000 cars per year, then of course your statement is true. I believe they will. I believe unit sales in the millions will be easily achievable within 5 years based on demand in Europe and China. Again, there is a possibility that TESLA will prove so inept at manufacturing that noone will buy their bonds when they need cash in 1st or 2nd quarter 2018, but I think that possibility is extremely slim.
 
Back
Top