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

101–110 of 604 posts

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#101

Post by msisk6 »

s0rce wrote: post #68
blhack wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The piece of the puzzle that Ford doesn't currently have is charging stations. Tesla building its supercharger network was a brilliant move because it means that Teslas are comparable to most petrol-fuel vehicles (as far as where you can go), and everybody else isn't. If I buy a Ford, can I drive it to see my family in Northern Minnesota[1]? Because I know that I can take a tesla. That's a really big deal. I know the…

Big gap in Northwest Nevada/Southeast Oregon too, although quite remote, a fun place to drive. I'll stick with my ICE for now.

There's a big gap in those parts for gasoline, too. Once a few years back I camped out near Fields Station waiting for the store to open 'cause I didn't have enough gas in my Jeep to make it to Burns.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#102

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

Taek wrote: post #70

What this says to me is that the stock asset class is broken. The value of a stock is supposed to be the amount of earnings you are expected to receive from it over its lifetime (adjusted according to the risk free rate or whatever). But today a stock's value can be influenced by a cool factor. Stocks that never pay any earnings can have high values (Amazon) and investor mania can out-live any attempted short. There…

> the value of a stock is supposed to be the amount of earnings you are expected to receive from it over its lifetime

Who supposes that? I don't and I'm ready to pay a different price that you'd do. If there isn't a good reason for that, you might be able to take advantage from my position.

Now, there are many reasons why I wouldn't price a stock as the sum of its (future) earnings. For instance, a company can be acquired by another and makes a very different business in the combined configuration. Moreover, the acquirer could use the merger to prevent a competitor to enter a very profitable market. Why would you care about the performance of the acquired company if it remained independent? There's no way to estimate the future earnings of a company without knowing all the possible strategic configurations.

Growth stocks are bought for potential capital gains, not dividends. (Market) power is much more important than earnings you can forecast.

I'm a Tesla shareholder (the stock makes over 90% of my financial assets) and I don't expect a buck of dividend from this company. I intend to keep the stock for ~20 years, which I bought at $25 avg.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#103

Post by mikeash »

John23832 wrote: post #78
mikeash wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals within a company seek to be viable in the future, which often leads them to reject innovation that might endanger their role. History is littered with companies that refused to pivot into new technology until far later than they should have, because they were too heavily invested in the old way. American car companies suffered from this in the 70s, where they got thrashed by competition from small imports…

Bureaucracy goes out the window when you have an activist investor asking you why you're ignoring clear market trends.

By the time the trends become that clear, you're often years behind.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#104

Post by sergiosgc »

pc86 wrote: post #91
cmarschner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford (and all the other car companies) has also huge liabilities - a huge supply chain and R&D costs around combustion engines, and costly dealerships that revolve around servicing a hugely complicated contraption made up of hundreds of mechanical parts. Much of this will be of zero value in the near future.

Because Tesla's cars are not "hugely complicated contraption[s] made up of hundreds of mechanical parts?"

To a much lesser degree. An electric engine is a lot simpler, mechanically, than an ICE. To the point that, I think, major malfunctions will result in replacement of the engine instead of fixing engine components. Given good refurbishment logistics, this is much more efficient.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#105

Post by [deleted] »

John23832 wrote: post #7
adamnemecek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors invest based on promise of future value. How much is Ford expected to grow?

If they can properly pivot into the electric car market, a lot. Ford has all the infrastructure that Tesla is attempting to build now (aside from the batteries, but that is something that Ford could easily partner with another manufacture to get). They know how to mass produce cars (granted right now, ICE cars). That's not an easy feat. They have a large manufacturing and maintenance base that, frankly, Tesla can't r…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#106

Post by jread »

John23832 wrote: post #7
adamnemecek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors invest based on promise of future value. How much is Ford expected to grow?

If they can properly pivot into the electric car market, a lot. Ford has all the infrastructure that Tesla is attempting to build now (aside from the batteries, but that is something that Ford could easily partner with another manufacture to get). They know how to mass produce cars (granted right now, ICE cars). That's not an easy feat. They have a large manufacturing and maintenance base that, frankly, Tesla can't r…

Aside from batteries, supercharger network, and any true desire to actually build nice electric cars. I drove an electric Ford Focus for 2 years, and it was an absolute terrible afterthought of an electric car. It was downright dangerous on wet surfaces with front wheel drive and batteries in the rear, not to mention the horrendous user experience that is Ford Sync. I drive a Tesla now and couldn't be happier.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#107

Post by billhathaway »

ctdonath wrote: post #71
blhack wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The piece of the puzzle that Ford doesn't currently have is charging stations. Tesla building its supercharger network was a brilliant move because it means that Teslas are comparable to most petrol-fuel vehicles (as far as where you can go), and everybody else isn't. If I buy a Ford, can I drive it to see my family in Northern Minnesota[1]? Because I know that I can take a tesla. That's a really big deal. I know the…

You may want to clarify the non-sequitur there. Yes, Ford doesn't have it's own network of "chargers" (300+ mile recharge in 5 minutes or less), but you know there's a solid network available; in the few places where chargers are lacking, you can easily take extra power units with you (disposably cheap at that). That said, Tesla is pursuing the angle of enabling customers to install their own charging station requiri…

Can you expand on what you mean by "you can easily take extra power units with you (disposably cheap at that)." ?

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#108

Post by John23832 »

palebluedot wrote: post #96
John23832 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if Ford/GM holds on to their huge marketshare with a successful switch to electric, that's a mark against them? Hypothetically, it would cost Ford/GM much less to put a "SuperCharger" at every existing dealership than it would for Tesla's entire basic roll out. Tesla has been successful at marketing thus far, not manufacturing.

No, that isn't what I said -- you are moving the goal post now from "a lot" of growth, to "holding on to their marketshare". As matter of fact, that was my whole point: Rather than growing "a lot" they may end up just holding on to their marketshare. Whether that is a mark against them or not is for you to decide, when researching investments.

> No, that isn't what I said -- you are moving the goal post now from "a lot" of growth, to "holding on to their marketshare".

Ok true, but Ford is way past "post-ipo". Growth is not the metric to measure them by (they will grow, but no where near as much as Tesla). That's pretty much agreed upon by market analysts.

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#109

Post by macspoofing »

dsugarman wrote: post #55
dan1234 wrote: post #2

Interesting, but market cap isn’t everything - FTA: "While Tesla’s market capitalization has swelled in size, Ford still overshadows the Palo Alto, California-based company in most other financial metrics. Over the last five years, Ford has posted net income totaling $26 billion, while Tesla has lost $2.3 billion. Last year, Ford had annual revenue of $151.8 billion compared with Tesla’s $7 billion. And when it comes…

Tesla is potentially a trillion dollar company and it's biggest current hurdle is getting it's production up to meet an enormous demand. The reason it's trading at a higher market cap is because Ford doesn't have any growth potential and Tesla is still trading at a fraction of what it could be. Of course there is still a ton of risk factors for them, but expected value for investing should be based on the chance of s…

>Tesla is potentially a trillion dollar company...

Huh?

Re: Tesla Passes Ford by Market Value

#110

Post by cmarschner »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #76
cmarschner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford (and all the other car companies) has also huge liabilities - a huge supply chain and R&D costs around combustion engines, and costly dealerships that revolve around servicing a hugely complicated contraption made up of hundreds of mechanical parts. Much of this will be of zero value in the near future.

>a huge supply chain and R&D costs around combustion engines You mean largely trouble-free engines that run on ultra-cheap gas? ICE has environmental issues, of course, but the idea that electric is universally superior is questionable. There's no range anxiety with gas and any backyard mechanic can fix most issues. Your locked down $100,000 IoT car is a completely different beast. >Much of this will be of zero value…

>Says who

It is foreseeable that ICEs will become banned, at least in Europe. Right now there is still too much lobbying by the traditional car makers, but long term there is no other choice for reaching climate goals.

Edit: See e.g. http://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-end-of-the-internal...

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/germany-asks-eu-to-think-...

Post reply on HN