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

Q2 2020 Update

ir.tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 302 posts

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#191

Post by DanCarvajal »

jedberg wrote: post #182
ckastner wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The list goes on in terms of growth & profitability" It better. Tesla has a market cap of 4x that of VW, a car maker with €256bn revenue and ~€17bn profit in 2019. It is beyond me why anyone would buy this stock over VW, let alone pay 4x the price for it. Even if Tesla could put out 900K cars in a quarter instead of the current 90K, they'd still not come even close to the competition is terms of financial success.…

Tesla doesn't just make cars. They are really a battery company that happens to make cars that use their batteries, but they also make whole home batteries, which include recycling the ones from the cars, as well as solar panels to charge those batteries and charging systems that can be deployed to charge those batteries. I'm not saying the valuation makes sense, but to compare them to a car company doesn't make a to…

Nonsense. Tesla doesn't even make batteries, they pay Panasonic to make their batteries with some Chinese batteries on the side.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#192

Post by jeremiahhs »

Kareem71 wrote: post #132

I remember Elon at one time claiming that model y demand will outstrip model 3, x, and s combined. It’s getting harder and harder to believe his claims

Well the Model Y has been on sale since March in the middle of a pandemic. The Model 3 has been on sale for 3 years.

I think we'll have a better view on Model Y demand in the coming year.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#193

Post by jliptzin »

CydeWeys wrote: post #147
xchaotic wrote: post #134

Purely anecdotal but we are in the market for a new car when our current lease runs out. We were looking at Tesla and the quality is not there and dealerships means we can’t test etc. The valuation is crazy, VW can literally flip the switch and start producing more e-Golfs etc when the demand is there.

So you'll be getting the e-Golf? I just looked it up and its range is only 123 miles; is that enough?

You need 300 mile rated range bare minimum or you are going to be in for a lot of headaches. That range is only actually 300 miles when the climate is good (not too cold) and you are driving like a grandma. If you're in a cold climate or you want to do 80 on the highway or a lot of quick accelerating/stopping or elevation changes that range goes down.

On top of that, you really don't want to drive the car down to 0% charge for obvious reasons so you want to give yourself at least a 5-10% cushion to your destination (aka you never get below that threshold), so slice another 5-10% off the car's useful range.

Then of course the battery natural degrades after a lot of charge/discharge cycles. I love my model 3 long range and this is why other car companies producing EVs under 300 mile range for the same price as a tesla are a joke.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#194

Post by jeremiahhs »

realtalk_sp wrote: post #102
unixhero wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's red flags when you make conservative measurements against a traditional industry proxy measurement - and applying classic investment banking logic. However you have got to remember that this is not just another company, it's not just another brand. They've already changed the world, it's all there in their track record.

They don't have any significant monopolistic advantage and they're operating in a highly price-sensitive, competitive market. My personal theory is that Musk knows this and his real objective is to provoke car manufacturers into competing on electric. From Musk's point of view, the win is likely not Tesla making any significant amount of money for shareholders but instead it driving the whole market towards electric,…

Musk's only compensation for Tesla is related to share price. He is therefore doing everything he can to take a large market share from the incumbents - they have had 8 years to respond to the Model S, and have done nothing.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#195

Post by H8crilA »

guerby wrote: post #112
H8crilA wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to make it more clear what bqe is saying: they are selling the ~same amount of cars as 2 years ago. Both in terms of $ and in terms of #. Growth is completely flat.

Q2 2018: 53,339 vehicules produced Q2 2020: 82,272 vehicules produced 2 years ago flat? Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc . Tesla production will be around 100k+ per quarter until they open a new factory (Berlin, july 2021) or expand current ones. If they're still production limited the only growth in production numbers for the next 12 monthes will be in their China factory and may be a bit in Fremont…

Not exactly 2 years: look up Q3 2018 onwards.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#196

Post by jcheng »

hrpnk wrote: post #137
knrz wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, but the rebalancing occurs in September I think.

A company can issue new shares for the index funds instead of requiring those to buy the shares on the market. Otherwise, with the low free float, such demand would move the price higher.

Is there a reason the company would want to do that? Why wouldn't they just let the price move higher?

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#197

Post by shuckles »

baggachipz wrote: post #91
shuckles wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty odd to consider that every other carmaker, obsessed with optimizing their business, would rather pay Tesla straight cash than rush out an electric drivetrain car. Across the Taycan, i3, and Bolt, there’s certainly plenty of evidence that they can.

That's because they could build them, but not profitably . Changing the design wholesale and then retooling your lines to build the cars at scale is insanely expensive and will take a long time to do. The i3 and Bolt are objective failures (in the US) because they're just not that good compared to what Tesla is doing at about the same price. The dealers also have an inverse incentive to sell them so one has to go way…

You first point is around whether it’s economical. A carmaker can scale a program in ~3 years, so that they haven’t is almost certainly a conscious choice. Furthermore, the Bolt shares a production line with the Sonic so the process concerns are limited. In terms of competitiveness, the Bolt offered longer range at a lower price than the Model 3 at launch and still does. Here people respond by saying the Tesla is a much better driving experience because of software, but if that’s the case they’d be much more profitable selling their in car experience software on top of ICE vehicles.

All that said, Tesla also doesn’t build and sell cars profitably. Selling credits is the source of their profits.

EVs are not disruptive in any well-defined sense of that word. They are more expensive and do not create demand against non-consumption of automobiles. The disruptive electric mobility option is the explosion of personal form factors such as ebike, scooters, and the like.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#198

Post by shuckles »

jeffbee wrote: post #94
shuckles wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty odd to consider that every other carmaker, obsessed with optimizing their business, would rather pay Tesla straight cash than rush out an electric drivetrain car. Across the Taycan, i3, and Bolt, there’s certainly plenty of evidence that they can.

It costs them almost nothing to pay the credits. Meanwhile here in the second age of free gas the gross margins on trucks are more than good enough to cover this small expense. Ford alone makes $10 billion annual in gross profits on just the F150 model. The regulations are enough to carve out a little niche for Tesla to hoover up a few dollars, but not enough to change the industry. Pass a realistic carbon tax and se…

If Tesla would thrive in a world where gasoline was priced correctly, it would surely fail in a world where automobile infrastructure (parking, highways, sprawl) was priced correctly. This is not a reassuring line of reasoning.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#199

Post by brianwawok »

philwelch wrote: post #119
adventured wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is beyond me why anyone would by this stock over VW, let alone pay 4x the price for it. The better answer is that nobody should buy VW either. Their business has zero potential upside and a huge downside risk in the transition to EVs; along with the inevitable rise of China's domestic automakers, which will eat a very large amount of market and sales away from the old giants. VW's position is its weakness, it ha…

> The better answer is that nobody should buy VW either. Their business has zero potential upside and a huge downside risk in the transition to EVs VW is an EV manufacturer and is investing heavily in the transition to EVs themselves. And they’re already at a much larger scale than Tesla in terms of distribution and manufacturing the rest of the car.

To some extent, the 1900s distribution model of dealerships is a burden.

When you buy a tesla, tesla gets 100% of the revenue.

When you buy a VW or a ford, what % cut does the dealership take?

How much does it cost to have 800 cars sitting on a lot, vs order on demand?

Auto industry is ripe for innovation, glad we have someone innovating. I will hopefully never need to talk to a car salesmen or do the dealership thing again.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#200

Post by brianwawok »

curious_fella1 wrote: post #177
marc__1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla posted positive free cash flow (CFO - capex) for 4 of the last 5 quarters (page 24) and it the only company with increase in # of deliveries among the 10 largest autos globally (page 7). Gross margins >20% is also best in class in the auto industry The list goes on in terms of growth & profitability

> and it the only company with increase in # of deliveries among the 10 largest autos globally I'm sure others have commented, but this is some real silly logic. Yes, going from (fake numbers) 100k -> 110k cars sold is a lot easier than going from 1M -> 1.1M.

May be easier, but it means something. Growing in a down market is a thing.
Post reply on HN