TSLA corporate outlook

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

There is no reason whatsoever to think it will monopolize the EV market, IMO.

Charging networks take time and money to build. Tesla's charging network is by far the best. Assuming Tesla maintains the current 80% market share, Tesla can maintain a far better private charging network, allowing them to sell cars for a premium, which they can use to subsidize increasing market share and subsidize the charging network. It is not just the car.

There are currently no other networks because there are no other EVs.

" As of October 2019 the electric vehicle network consisted of 14,658 individual Supercharger stalls at 1,659 locations worldwide with an additional 115 locations under construction worldwide (64 in the USA)." - wiki.

$250k to build each station
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/23/how-tesla-is-supercharging-itself/

So if this is right Tesla has spent half a billion dollars on this infrastructure.

That is a rounding error. That is a terribly low barrier to entry if we're talking about the resources of the rest of the world's auto manufacturers, if they actually have to compete in this space.

 

[GRA]

There certainly are other networks to support the coming wave of non-Tesla fast-charging BEVs; EA (and EVgo to some extent) here, Ionity (and others) in Europe. EA doesn't have Tesla's coverage yet but is getting close, and Ionity is doing pretty well in Europe where distances are a lot less than here in any case. What remains to be seen is if any of them can be profitable while charging equal or less than the equivalent gas price/mile. They don't seem to be attempting that generally, for now: Ionity just imposed a flat 0.79 eurocents/kWh ($0.88/kWh) fee, although Mercedes gets a price of 29 eurocents/kWh; I expect the other German manufacturers who own Ionity (plus Ford and now Hyundai/Kia) will get a similar price break. https://ionity.eu/en/where-and-how.html

EA's pricing is higher than gas here, unless you fit in the sub-75 kW charging bracket: https://www.electrifyamerica.com/lo...VkB-tBh1pcg2KEAAYASABEgI_y_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

[Nubo]

There is no reason whatsoever to think it will monopolize the EV market, IMO.

Charging networks take time and money to build. Tesla's charging network is by far the best. Assuming Tesla maintains the current 80% market share, Tesla can maintain a far better private charging network, allowing them to sell cars for a premium, which they can use to subsidize increasing market share and subsidize the charging network. It is not just the car.

There are currently no other networks because there are no other EVs.

" As of October 2019 the electric vehicle network consisted of 14,658 individual Supercharger stalls at 1,659 locations worldwide with an additional 115 locations under construction worldwide (64 in the USA)." - wiki.

$250k to build each station
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/23/how-tesla-is-supercharging-itself/

So if this is right Tesla has spent half a billion dollars on this infrastructure.

That is a rounding error. That is a terribly low barrier to entry if we're talking about the resources of the rest of the world's auto manufacturers, if they actually have to compete in this space.

It's not just a monetary barrier to entry. It's several years of intense work in site selection, negotiations, permit procurement, construction and planning. It's an in-house staff of experts in getting this done.

 

[smkettner]

There is no reason whatsoever to think it will monopolize the EV market, IMO.

So far Tesla pretty much does dominate the US EV market.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I assume other manufacturers are all relying on CCS stations. In addition to the lead time problem none of them want to be first, why shell out a bunch to build a network that helps their competitors? When Tesla builds a station they know it will benefit their customers.

 

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

Charging networks take time and money to build. Tesla's charging network is by far the best. Assuming Tesla maintains the current 80% market share, Tesla can maintain a far better private charging network, allowing them to sell cars for a premium, which they can use to subsidize increasing market share and subsidize the charging network. It is not just the car.

There are currently no other networks because there are no other EVs.

" As of October 2019 the electric vehicle network consisted of 14,658 individual Supercharger stalls at 1,659 locations worldwide with an additional 115 locations under construction worldwide (64 in the USA)." - wiki.

$250k to build each station
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/23/how-tesla-is-supercharging-itself/

So if this is right Tesla has spent half a billion dollars on this infrastructure.

That is a rounding error. That is a terribly low barrier to entry if we're talking about the resources of the rest of the world's auto manufacturers, if they actually have to compete in this space.

It's not just a monetary barrier to entry. It's several years of intense work in site selection, negotiations, permit procurement, construction and planning. It's an in-house staff of experts in getting this done.

True, I did oversimplify it to look at just the install costs.

There is no reason whatsoever to think it will monopolize the EV market, IMO.

So far Tesla pretty much does dominate the US EV market.

Touche, except we all know he was talking about the future. Monopolizing 2% of the US car market isn't going to justify a $100B valuation. It needs to dominate the future when it's 10-20%

 

[WetEV]

There is no reason whatsoever to think it will monopolize the EV market, IMO.

So far Tesla pretty much does dominate the US EV market.

Touche, except we all know he was talking about the future. Monopolizing 2% of the US car market isn't going to justify a $100B valuation. It needs to dominate the future when it's 10-20%

Lead time. To produce a new product takes time. Tesla had been getting ready for Model 3 for years. Battery and other component design and ordering. Prototypes.

The automakers need to be starting a 5% of the market now product mix this year, and a 10% of the market in at most a year or two. This is a huge bet as they don't have a 1% of the market EV to learn from. Nissan and GM might be the closest to that, Nissan is in disarray due to corporate politics. Not just a single product will do. As VW seems to have noticed.

 

[iPlug]

...Monopolizing 2% of the US car market isn't going to justify a $100B valuation. It needs to dominate the future when it's 10-20%

Dominating 10-20% of the U.S. car market alone also does not justify a $100B valuation.

Fortunately that is not the current nor future story of Tesla. It's not about U.S. markets but world markets; not low profit margin vehicles, but high profit margin premium vehicles; not about legacy ICE capital, labor, and investment costs, but much lower EV ones; Model Y, Cybertruck, Semi, energy portfolio, AI, subscriptions, etc; much farther developed, reliable and reasonably priced charging infrastructure as described...

None of their current valuation requires future monopolization. Meanwhile competitors in the aforementioned regards remain a wide distance in the rearview camera.

 

[GRA]

ABG:

While we wait for Tesla's earnings report, here's how its profit per vehicle compares
Tesla stock may be soaring, but in this key measure, can't touch Porsche

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/01/28/tesla-earnings-per-vehicle-profits/

Buckle up. Tesla's quarterly and 2019 earnings report, expected for release late Wednesday after the market close, could be another wild ride for investors.

The electric carmaker's stock has more than doubled since Tesla's previous quarterly report on Oct. 23, when it posted a surprise profit that was viewed as a milestone for the company.
ADVERTISEMENT

Still, a Reuters analysis of Tesla's and other luxury carmakers' operating profit per vehicle — a metric closely watched by auto executives — shows Tesla still has a long way to go before reaching the steady profits of rivals Porsche, BMW and Mercedes-Benz. . . .

At an average of roughly $17,750 per vehicle, operating profit at luxury carmaker Porsche, for example, has been stable over the past four years. Mercedes' and BMW's profit per vehicle have been closer to $3,000.

At Tesla, on the other hand, operating results fluctuated between a loss of nearly $20,500 per vehicle in the third quarter of 2017 and a profit of nearly $5,000 per vehicle in the third quarter of 2018.

Calculating profits per vehicle allows for better comparison across the auto industry. Reuters selected Porsche, BMW and Mercedes because their cars compete in similar price segments and for a like-minded customer base. . . .

There are bar graphs.

 

[iPlug]

Will let some other willing participant explain again why that’s not how such things are measured. Lacking the time or patience.

Will only add here that Porsche electric vehicles by that false measure are in the negative $100k-millions per vehicle delivered so far.

So Tesla still way ahead on real and sham measures.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Record sales push Tesla to 2nd straight quarterly profit

Record sales push Tesla to 2nd straight quarterly profit

The company said in its quarterly investor letter that it expects to “comfortably” exceed production of 500,000 vehicles at its factories in Fremont, California, and Shanghai.
It expects net profits going forward, with possible some possible exceptions at times surrounding the launch of new products.

Tesla said it is starting to ramp up production of the Model Y small SUV in Fremont, a key product for the company. Deliveries are to start by the end of March. [Emphasis added]

The Model Y will be able to go up to 315 miles (507 kilometers) per charge, an increase over Tesla's previous estimate of 280 miles (451 kilometers), according to the letter.

[Edited to update the first link.]

 

[jlv]

There are misleading bar graphs.

FTFY

 

[GRA]

There are misleading bar graphs.

FTFY

Feel free to explain why. I have no dog in this fight.

 

[WetEV]

Imagine what would happen if every gas guzzling car today needed a super-duper charger. The current electrical grid could not handle it.

Ah yes, but unless people drive a LOT more miles the grid could handle it. Especially if charging stations were set up to charge when the network is underused. The car owner could over-ride, and pay more for the charge. Charging is almost always a deferable activity. Plug in when you get home, need 3 hours in the next 12 for a charge 3 hours * 6kW *3miles/kWh = 36 miles per day, that's 13k miles per year. Overnight, there will be 3 hours when the grid is under utilized.

Oh, but what if you have a 18kW charger in your car, and a 18kW L2? Then you only need an hour.

This is an easier problem than a bunch of grow operations.

50% EVs is likely good to go today, with a few local transformers will need to be replaced.
100% EVs will need 5% to 10% more generation, but will be more efficient combined cycle plants.

 

[smkettner]

There is no reason whatsoever to think it will monopolize the EV market, IMO.

So far Tesla pretty much does dominate the US EV market.

Touche, except we all know he was talking about the future. Monopolizing 2% of the US car market isn't going to justify a $100B valuation. It needs to dominate the future when it's 10-20%

In 2019 Tesla had about 58% of the US EV market.

The question is will Tesla hang onto even half that percentage as the US market transitions to 80%+ EVs.

 

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

lol Tesla is $650 in pre market because of the earnings report. redonukulous :lol:

 

[iPlug]

"redonukulous" is the tens of billions the shorts have been losing. If $650 looks too high, one should join those few remaining shorts. Money where the mouth is, they say...

 

[EVDRIVER]

"redonukulous" is the tens of billions the shorts have been losing. If $650 looks too high, one should join those few remaining shorts. Money where the mouth is, they say...

There are not a few and they are not going away. Q1 will be a buy opportunity for those interested in Tesla stock.

 

[EVDRIVER]

lol Tesla is $650 in pre market because of the earnings report. redonukulous :lol:

I know people are laughing all the way to the bank. Then in Q1 everyone will say the same tired BS and say sky is falling and those that buy then will also be laughing to the bank again. No one is paying attention, even the earnings report had a hint of something new every stupid analyst missed. But they are just talking heads.

 

[EatsShootsandLeafs]

lol Tesla is $650 in pre market because of the earnings report. redonukulous :lol:

I know people are laughing all the way to the bank. Then in Q1 everyone will say the same tired BS and say sky is falling and those that buy then will also be laughing to the bank again. No one is paying attention, even the earnings report had a hint of something new every stupid analyst missed. But they are just talking heads.

This stock has nothing at all to do with earnings. Its valuation is purely one of religion. As such a $2000 valuation makes no less sense than the current $650. Both are thoroughly indefensible using objective measures. 2H 2019 revenue for the company was the same as 2H 2018 revenue, yet with less earnings. No matter, $650/share! What's next $700? $900 by end of March?