I don't feel like I should have to point out this section of every investor letter, including the one linked, but maybe I do:cwerdna wrote: For investors. here's an example: http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/967ca2 ... 19c184331b which was the Q2 2017 updateThe standard Model 3, starting at $35,000 with 220 miles of range and a 0-60 mph time of 5.6 seconds, should be available in the U.S. in November
[/quote]Certain statements in this shareholder letter, including statements in the “Outlook” section; statements relating to the progress Tesla is
making with respect to product development, such as Model 3 and Solar Roof; statements regarding growth in the number of Tesla
store, service center, delivery hub, Supercharger and destination charger locations and in other service and repair capabilities;
statements relating to the production, production rate and delivery timing of products such as Model 3 and Solar Roof and completion of
energy generation and storage projects; statements regarding growth of our energy business and means to achieve such growth;
growth in demand and orders for Tesla products and the catalysts for that growth; the ability to achieve product demand, volume,
production, delivery, deployment, revenue, cash generation, cash flow, leasing, gross margin, spending, capital expenditure and
profitability targets; productivity improvements and capacity expansion plans, such as for Gigafactory 1; and statements regarding
Gigafactory 1 and Gigafactory 2 timing, plans and output expectations, including those related to battery and photovoltaic cell and other
production, are “forward-looking statements” that are subject to risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are based on
management’s current expectations, and as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those
projected. The following important factors, without limitation, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forwardlooking statements: the risk of delays in the manufacture, production, delivery and/or completion of our vehicles and energy products,
particularly Model 3; the ability to design and achieve and grow simultaneous and separate market acceptance of Model S, Model X
and their variants, as well as new vehicle models, specifically Model 3;[/quote]
If you are an investor looking for promises, I don't think you get investing.
Please tell me what part of that statement/goal has not been achieved and/or where it says anything about a specific price or timeframes.cwerdna wrote: As for govt, I'll have to see if I can find the terms of the loan but https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-gets-l ... ent-energy saysTesla Motors has received approval for about $465 million in low-interest loans from the US Department of Energy to accelerate the production of affordable, fuel-efficient electric vehicles.
[/quote]cwerdna wrote:I don't think it's fair either. Tesla raised prices on the S years ago and tried to cite CPI: https://www.tesla.com/blog/2013-model-s-price-increase. Notice the 40 kWh S is there? This is before any of those ever shipped. And those that ordered those eventually got a 60 kWh car software limited to 40.lpickup wrote:[And even though I don't necessarily think it's fair to play this game, I will point out that $35,000 in 2016 dollars is $36,706 in 2019 dollars.
Yes, and I think you missed my point, which is nicely illustrated by that document. In 2013 for $57,400 (or $59,900 after the increase) you could get a hypothetical 40kWh vehicle. Now for that price you can get a 75kWh vehicle. Is anyone really bemoaning the fact that they can't actually get a 40kWh Model S? Or is it that they couldn't get a $57,400 vehicle (at the time)? The effective costs of EVs are falling, even if the absolute price has not yet crossed that supposed $35,000 barrier, which apparently in some minds means it's suddenly affordable. To date Tesla (and other carmakers for that matter) have focused more on function than price, choosing to translate battery cost savings into increasing range for the same cost, rather than reducing costs and keeping the range the same. Sure, it's frustrating that it's taking longer to get to the true mass market. But it's the fiscally responsible way to proceed, in my opinion, particularly in light of sufficient (and maybe even overwhelming) demand. In the end that strategy is going to result in faster acceleration towards the goal of an affordable EV while strengthening the companies building the higher priced variants so that they are around to build those lower priced variants.
And as I said, if Tesla turns around and says "screw this, we're just going to focus on the high end" then I will join you in being disappointed, at least to the extent that other low-cost automakers don't swoop in and take that segment of the market. For example, if you draw another arbitrary line at $20,000, while I think it's important that that segment of the new car market ultimately be served by EVs, I don't necessarily think that Tesla needs to serve it, as long as they create the competitive pressure to force a lower-end manufacturer to release something in that segment. But for the time being, since Tesla did draw the line themselves at $35,000, I will hold them to that, and I believe they will eventually achieve that...just not on Elon's schedule.