Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 604 posts

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#571

Post by marchenko »

vectorjohn wrote: post #506
bluGill wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I like knowing that there are extra diapers and a change of clothing for each kid in my car should I need them. I carry enough in to cover my current needs, but as anyone with kids known sometimes that isn't enough. I know many people who keep golf clubs in their car because sometimes a salesman is looking to round out a 4-some. I like going to walmart/lowes... over lunch and leaving my treasures in my car.…

Wow, so for the short time you have kids in diapers this won't work for you personally. Big whoop. We still have typewriters around too, and some people ride horses. Old tech doesn't die, it just diminishes to a smaller niche.

"Diapers" is just a synecdoche for parenting equipment: diapers, wipes, books, snacks for older kids, extra changes of clothing, etc.

Car seats will be a bigger problem: they are unwieldy, legally mandated, and require careful installation to be effective. Unlike diapers, even the small boosters used for older children can't fit in a shoulder bag.

A young couple expecting to have children in the next few years might balk at these inconveniences, and that could depress adoption of the 'mobility' model. You have to keep prospective purchasers in mind, who are evaluating their needs over the use-life of a car.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#572

Post by clock_tower »

vectorjohn wrote: post #507
clock_tower wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are physical reasons why driverless cars will never be as good as trains: they're rubber-on-asphalt instead of steel-on-steel, and you need a lot more engines, space, and transportation of dead weight per unit of people moved -- and they'll probably still need parking, too. As near as I can tell, driverless cars are horseless-carriage thinking... but trains have no element of novelty to them.

Driverless cars can take you between train stations and destinations. No magical form of train will come to your house or go to your office. In fact, this is a perfect use case for driverless cars. The problem with trains everywhere is the wasted time not on the train and the million stops along the way.

> No magical form of train will come to your house or go to your office.

Yes they will; the magic trains you're thinking of are called streetcars. And, with the oddities in oil and the difficulties of maintaining suburbia, we'll be moving back to dense streetcar suburbs soon enough.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#573

Post by peterbonney »

skybrian wrote: post #568
peterbonney wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're insisting that debt is another form of investment, and depending on what you're looking at that makes sense, but when talking about 'value' it doesn't always hold true. This sort of intuition is seductive, because we're generally told "debt bad, equity good!" But it's not correct, for the very simple reason that debt and equity are, in many ways, fungible: each type of financing can be utilized to replace th…

It seems strange to ignore the terms agreed to when raising money. A company that raises money via loans typically has more obligations than one that raises money via equity. Doesn't the option value for repayment count for anything?

> It seems strange to ignore the terms agreed to when raising money.

I'm not sure what you mean by this - can you clarify?

> A company that raises money via loans typically has more obligations than one that raises money via equity. Doesn't the option value for repayment count for anything?

Certainly the equity of a highly indebted company will behave differently than the equity of a debt-free company. But "different" isn't necessarily "better". To go back to my company A & B example, if both companies double in enterprise value, the equity holders of company A will get a return of 100% ($1,000,000 profit on capital of $1,000,000), but the equity holders of company B will get a return of 200% ($1,000,000 profit on capital of $500,000). Conversely in a scenario where each company loses half of its value, the equity holders of company A will still be left with half of their money, while the equity holders of company B will be wiped out (to first order - reality is more complicated than this usually).

So in some scenarios the company A equity looks better and in some scenarios the company B equity looks better. Which you prefer overall depends on your individual risk preferences - some people want a higher potential return at the cost of higher risk, some people want less risk at the cost of a lower potential return. There's no objectively "best" structure.

Even for companies with no debt at all you'll see investors who artificially create financial leverage by buying options on the company's equity. Different strokes for different folks, or as my dad likes to say, there's an a$$ for every seat. :)

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#574

Post by vmeson »

anko wrote: post #532
Spooky23 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common pattern to electric and self-driving enthusiasts, but unfortunately it's the automotive equivalent of Wired articles about the internet circa 1996. Problems include: - Cost. All of the (limited) Tesla automation technologies cost more than my last car. - Liability. Who is liable for mishaps? As Uber has demonstrated accidents and traffic violations happen with automated tech. - Utility. The majority…

> Cost: We're not there yet, but not paying registration/insurance/repayments/garage space will make this economical in time - at first at least for second car owners > Liability: Insurance - I think automation will be safer i.e. less accidents > Utility: I think door to door driving without looking for parking is a pretty good perk > Pool vs. own: Both of these models will be competitive with each other, so in the e…

Interesting comments but they're hard to read because you use the word 'less' rather than 'fewer': http://blog.dictionary.com/fewer-vs-less/ ! This seems to be a generational shift so please inform your peers! :)

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#576

Post by snambi »

msisk6 wrote: post #351
snambi wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone pre-order a F150?

Yes. Lots of private individuals as well as fleets will pre-order trucks to get the exact options they want.

Sounds like customization. Tesla pre-order is basically a queue for a future delivery, not about getting a specific feature.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#577

Post by snambi »

prklmn wrote: post #287
snambi wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone pre-order a F150?

Does it matter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_automobil... Take a look at the USA on this chart.

True, but that is not the point. In terms of electric + self-driving technology, Tesla has a huge lead over every other auto player including Ford.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#578

Post by aerovistae »

dkrich wrote: post #544
aerovistae wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current amateur here. I feel like there's only one important thing to consider when comparing Tesla and Ford as investment opportunities: is their value likely to increase? With Tesla, there's an obvious path for potential massive growth. It's not guaranteed, but the potential is obvious. With Ford, it's like any other auto manufacturer. What surprises are we expecting? What new products or innovations? Does Ford hav…

The problem with this analysis is that it ignores current valuation. What if somebody offered to sell you 1,000 shares of ford right now for $1 each? Would you buy? Of course you would because you know that the value of one share is much higher than $1. So despite whether you think Ford has room to grow, it's very possible that the market is simply undervaluing it as a company, all things considered- assets, brand va…

But I would only buy the $1 shares because I know the market value is $11. I can see that incontrovertibly. If they offered it at $11 and we were hypothesizing the real value is yet higher still, I would have no way of knowing that the market will soon come to realize the "true value" and increase the price. It would be a gamble of me betting the market comes to realize they've undervalued the company.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#579

Post by jeffbax »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #291
skdotdan wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these products can potentially be commoditized. But their brand is strong.

Commoditization is never instantaneous. You start of highly competitive because the products are all immature. During this period people who can differentiate become market leaders. Companies without R&D staffs can't compete yet because by the time they copy last year's product, next years product is out. After a while, usually decades, commodity producers take over the lions share of the market. The high end is capt…

There's a big difference between being the premium product when the range for them is $0-$1200, your margin is massive, and everyone on the planet needs one.

It's another when the range is $12,000-$100,000, margins are much more competitive with way more competent adversaries, all the while car ownership is changing drastically to rental/ride sharing for a great many people.

At that point, you don't necessarily care the car you hired that day is a Tesla or Ford, because you experience it for 20 minutes and are done. The buyer in this case is the fleet owner not an individual, which does not necessarily favor Tesla.

I don't think that you can compare Tesla's product to Apple's (not to mention Apple's software ecosystem permeates so many more aspects of one's life if you are a part of it, Tesla not so much)

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#580

Post by lkbm »

josefresco wrote: post #551
bronz wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even years ago, a model s was as expensive to own, all costs accounted for over the span of seven to ten years, as a honda odyssey minivan. they are about to release a car that costs 35000 dollars.

There's literally a sh*t ton of assumptions, and caveats to the comparison you're referring to: https://www.teslacost.com/model Also, the "winner" of his comparison was a RAV4 EV (by about $20K) The Tesla finish mid-pack (behind the Ody)

So three years ago, the high-end, not-meant-to-be-cheap $92,800 car was 5% more expensive than the Odyssey according to a decent-looking model (but cheaper according to some reports), and significantly more expensive than the since-discontinued Rav4 EV.

Fair, it's not a slam-dunk that the Tesla S was a great purchase if your goal was saving money. I'm pretty sure it' wasn't the best option in that case.

The Model 3 sticker price is less than half the S85, though. Short-term, yeah, most people still won't be driving a Tesla, but when I see volume increasing and unit price decreasing, I extrapolate to "Tesla could easily become a major player", not to"this is irrelevant to 99% of us".

Post reply on HN