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

Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 463 posts

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#301

Post by KKKKkkkk1 »

DennisP wrote: post #129
_uhtu wrote: post #7

I'm not sure you can say that when the market cap is still 10x car companies that deliver orders of magnitude more cars than them. Even a high growth car company wouldn't justify that valuation. No, Tesla is still very overpriced for a car company based on hype.

I'm not gonna say TSLA isn't overpriced but number of cars isn't a great metric. Let's look at some financials: Tesla: mcap $388B, debt $9B, op income $12B, free cash flow $9B GM: mcap $49B, debt $110B, op income $10B, free cash flow $1B Ford: mcap $48B, debt $139B, op income $11B, free cash flow $3B Tesla makes more money than Ford or GM, while having much less debt. The fact that they sell fewer cars means their ma…

Debt in itself doesn't matter when you value a company. What you want to look at is shareholder equity, which is assets net of liabilities. When you look at that indicator, Tesla comes behind GM and Ford.

Tesla: $31.0 bn

GM: $65.3 bn

Ford: $42.1 bn

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#302

Post by darknavi »

bombcar wrote: post #250
dlivingston wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> South Korea’s antitrust regulator said it would impose a 2.85 billion won ($2.2 million) fine on Tesla for failing to tell its customers about the shorter driving range of its electric vehicles in low temperatures. As a Tesla owner: range and ambient air temperature are significantly correlated (i.e., your 300 miles of range plummets to ~120 when below freezing). But, on a good, sunny, warm day, their range claims…

And IIRC from a previous post, Tesla by far wins the "loses least range during shitcold temps".

Their new octovalve heat pump stuff makes a significant difference in cold weather. Anecdotally our Model Y (heat pump) is a bit more performant in the cold vs our 2018 Model 3 (not heat pump).

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#303

Post by bluGill »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #184
pulse7 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I read something like "are many decades away" and "less than one decade away" I ask myself if we have a prophet here... Since nobody knows what will be discovered today and tomorrow nobody can make claims that "something is many decades away". And on the other side, nobody can make claims for "less than one decade away", because some lunatic with the atomic bomb can stop the progress of an almost finished…

Investment is nothing but a game of probabilities. If it's true that self-driving is likely to be developed in the next 10 years than Tesla and Uber are good investments, because there's a reasonable chance of a world-changing, market-monopolising product making your investment incredibly profitable. If self-driving is unlikely in the near-term then Tesla and Uber are not so attractive - you're looking at investing i…

What about them is market-monopolising? Cruise and Waymo both are working on self driving cars and making progress (those are ones I know, I'm sure there are others that I'm not aware of). The traditional taxi businesses are watching this, and won't sit still.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#304

Post by 8ytecoder »

conductr wrote: post #226
judge2020 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference seems to be that Tesla was 5-10 years ahead on everything: Minimalistic interiors, modern infotainment, mobile app performance, and of course they lead the way in making electric cars viable by showing that they can both look good and blast off in record time. But you're right that other automakers see Tesla as a threat and are catching up; for example, the range and charging curve improvements on mode…

> in making electric cars viable by showing that they can both look good and blast off in record time I still don't get the 'look good' part, why do non-ICE cars always need to have a different look that what is already popular/proven in the market. The traditional automakers are still doing this today with their first big pushes in EV. If they don't sell they'll blame 'the market' for not wanting EV, but in reality…

Almost as if ICE car companies don’t want electric to sell. BMW was the worst of the lot. They’re doing better now.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#305

Post by darknavi »

FpUser wrote: post #53
gwbas1c wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that Autopilot has some magic sauce that nobody else can replicate is laughable. Apparently GM's Supercruise is better, and cheaper. I got enhanced autopilot in my first Tesla. Except for changing lanes, things like summon and autopark are just toys. The auto lane chance is so glitchy I decided I was better off saving seven grand on my second Tesla. But if Enhanced Autopilot was 1-2 grand, I'd have bought…

>"I was better off saving seven grand" Seven grand for a software update sounds like a ripoff. Especially just for lane change.

Wait until you learn that "Full Self Driving" is $15,000USD right now.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#306

Post by bluGill »

jcranmer wrote: post #255
rsynnott wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposedly, in some places, transport planners, who really should've known better, made decisions about mass transit projects on the basis that self-driving cars were coming any day now. If _they_ got it so wrong, why would investors do any better? There was a weird period a while back where basically everyone except people who actually worked in the area seemed to believe the self-driving car was nigh.

My recollection of those cases is that those who believed mass transit was a boondoggle that no one uses were using the imminence of self-driving cars to argue against mass transit projects that they already opposed.

Most of those in charge of transit do not believe in transit. (in the US). Most politicians see transit as a way to shovel money into some special interest: they appoint a supported to lead transit as a way to reward help with no concern if they appoint someone who will be good.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#307

Post by bluGill »

abruzzi wrote: post #258
dopamean wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that services like Uber without the drivers would make car ownership obsolete drove those valuations. Did investors really believe that? I don't know a single person who believed that years ago when the pre-IPO valuations were going through the roof. I maybe knew a few people who believed it was possible one day but not anytime soon. It's wild to me that so called sophisticated investors really believed th…

I don't know who actually believed it, or if it had any real impact on investors, but it seemed to be a common comment on self driving threads on HN ~5 years ago that instead of ownership, there would just be idle fleets of cars that you would summon from, and you'd simply subscribe to a vehicle service as a monthly cost.

I still see that all the time. I don't think it will happen: there are too many advantages to owning your own car.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#308

Post by darknavi »

Faaak wrote: post #252
yalogin wrote: post #236

The only advantage Tesla has is their charging network. They were forced to build it out because they were the first car out there and they needed to provide a way for their customers to use their cars. However now it has become their strength. Without a fast charging network all the other cars are restricted to a narrow radius. The car itself should be commoditized any day now.

Tesla is not the only fast charging network though. In Switzerland for example there are many (Move, GoFast, Ionity, etc.) and some are even cheaper than Tesla.

In the US at least their charging network is top tier. EA is rolling out pretty wide with US highways but most non-Tesla Supercharger site's reliability is laughable right now. To the point where they simply don't work when it's cold outside [0].

We (US) really need more competition in this space.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0RAjJ1PKQ

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#309

Post by bluGill »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #267
pjdemers wrote: post #88

Tesla, and even more Uber, were priced as if self driving cars are almost here. The idea that services like Uber without the drivers would make car ownership obsolete drove those valuations. Now that self driving cars are many decades away, instead of less than one decade away, is bring stock prices down. I always questions how fast we would see self driving cars, not because of the technology, but because of consume…

For so many years, the car ads were selling us freedom. The open road, and you're in the driver's seat. Driving could be fun , not just a means of getting somewhere. Sure, they were trying to manipulate public perception, but they were doing so in a way that resonated with a lot of people. A robot driving your car? Where's the fun in that?

Look close. They are selling Dad (as in a male, and probably white) on driving, while they are selling mom (female) and the kids on enjoying the ride. As ads become less sexist you will see more females in the driver seat, but most ads are still selling the whole family experience, and that includes getting places while someone else in in control. Even when they do show females driving, the focus on the ads is less on the experience of driving and more on other features of the car.

Re: Investors conclude that Tesla is a carmaker, not a tech firm

#310

Post by skykooler »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #140
lotsofpulp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The giant tablet screen that sticks out like a sore thumb is the opposite of minimalistic, or minimalistic in the worst way. I wonder how long Tesla can get away with not offering CarPlay/Android Auto functionality. The lack of that basic, cheap, and frequently used feature disqualifies any car from consideration in my view.

I don’t love that I have to use the touch screen to open my glove box, and I certainly think there are a lot of UI issues (and the lack of integration with phones beyond regular bluetooth), but one thing I appreciate is that there aren’t any blinding dash lights. I can see a lot better at night in my Tesla as a consequence compared with any other vehicle I’ve driven.

The Nissan Leaf lets you dim the dashboard lighting really far down. I’ve never had a problem with visibility at night.
Post reply on HN