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

271–280 of 302 posts

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#271

Post by Dumblydorr »

lubujackson wrote: post #121

TSLA in some ways reminds me of Amazon at the beginning. Way overpriced, but kept reinvesting into new things as it went and the stock price kept going up and profits stayed zero forever while the company kept building itself bigger and bigger. So I can see the bull perspective. However... Car manufacturing is not the same as slinging books online. Profits are consistently thin and Tesla's only edge is in battery tec…

They're not just a car company, that is a poor comparison. They sell batteries which is much higher margin, and they take advantage of green EV policies which no other car company is well positioned to do. These two advantages alone set them far above other car companies.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#272

Post by spectrum1234 »

lubujackson wrote: post #121

TSLA in some ways reminds me of Amazon at the beginning. Way overpriced, but kept reinvesting into new things as it went and the stock price kept going up and profits stayed zero forever while the company kept building itself bigger and bigger. So I can see the bull perspective. However... Car manufacturing is not the same as slinging books online. Profits are consistently thin and Tesla's only edge is in battery tec…

No, their edge is their factories (manufacturing innovation). This is the real product. The cars don't really matter. Seriously.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#273

Post by vardump »

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

Wikipedia about Tesla Model Y on December 24th 2019: "The Tesla Model Y is an upcoming electric compact crossover utility vehicle (CUV) in development by Tesla, Inc.[1] It was unveiled in March 2019[2], with deliveries planned to begin in summer 2020.[3]"

They did manage to start production 3-4 months early. But certainly this time can't be indicative of the model's success?

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#274

Post by zaroth »

contingencies wrote: post #257
zaroth wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you explain how their capex is decreasing Capital efficiency. It should not be surprising that a greenfield factory built in China based on a spec you iterated on in Fremont, CA results in a much higher $/Cars/Day, a.k.a capital efficiency. Iterating on a live line in Fremont, CA is significantly more costly. It's like $/sq ft. for renovating your house versus buying new. Also, look at the flow diagrams they've…

flow diagrams they've published on the floor layout and the path through a factory a car takes to go from start to finish in Fremont vs. GF3. URL? I found a 2016 Fremont planned layout http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODN/SanFranciscoChron... and a 2019 Fremont layout https://villanyautosok.hu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019_09... plus GF4 images https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOVTM-avTBP0VMbqc3dynh6... N…

Yes, your last link was what I was thinking of. It’s page ~16 of 2019 Q4 Letter:

https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/b3cf7f5e-546a-4a65-9888-c9...

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#275

Post by thebean11 »

notJim wrote: post #236
xnx wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TSLA is absolutely the present-day BTC.

I really need to get better at getting into these asset bubbles. I'm too late for Tesla, and it doesn't look like BTC has been going anywhere lately. Anyone got any tips for me?

Bitcoin halved recently, things could get interesting soon but who knows.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#276

Post by DanCarvajal »

vardump wrote: post #265
DanCarvajal wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They're already producing in Fremont and on track for TWh scale battery production in Texas. I think it's fair to say Tesla is a battery company, at least in part.

No and no, the don't produce cells in Fremont at best they pack cells into packs. Given there's no plant in Texas there's nothing concrete to substantiate your claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily evidence.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#277

Post by DanCarvajal »

jedberg wrote: post #252
DanCarvajal wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They designed the batteries that Panasonic makes exclusively for them and they are building their own cells in Fremont.

Neither of these things are true, they're at best modified off the shelf cells. They don't make cells at Fremont, at best the pack them into packs. There's no regulatory filings for cell production at Fremont.

The whole argument is that they could use off the shelf materials at scale to attain profitability, since that hasn't happened the goalposts keep being moved by Musk, rumors, and myths.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#278

Post by justapassenger »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #261
justapassenger wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to check your data. Netherlands and Norway are markets where Tesla is failing extremely hard once competition showed up. They used to be one of the top selling brands, 1-2 years ago. Since then, their market share plummeted. For Norway, in 2020, for all car sales, Model 3 is in the 6th place, and with 1-4th place occupied by BEV from "legacy" car companies [1]. Model S/X sales are basically gone. Their marke…

In both the Netherlands and Norway that happened because there were limited-time incentives that ran out, so Tesla shipped disproportionate amounts of cars for the last few quarters when they were still available. Both the "n% of new cars are Teslas" and the "instant n% drop in Tesla sales" news stories are red herrings. They were both artificially caused by where Tesla allocated their production. The only signal you…

You’re contradicting yourself. First you say it’s because of initiatives and then it’s because of where Tesla allocates their production.

I fully agree that regulatory credits were big part of that growth and drop, in Netherlands. But the story that sticks to people is wrong one, that Tesla dominates Netherlands and demand for them is huge, and Tesla is posed to dominate all markets in the world. It was demand for free money from government. And while one can argue that other governments will have similar initiatives, that will allow Tesla to play this game for years, competition in EV space is growing, so they’re unlikely to get such a big piece of pie there.

There was no regulatory change in Norway. Tesla brand got pretty badly bruised, with lots of stories in Norway about subpar service. And, most importantly, real competition arrived, while their portfolio is aging (model 3 is 3 years old design, model y is model 3 with a lift kit, and model s/x are way way due for redesign).

But I do see your point, that this all can be attributed to Tesla being production constrained. Except, that Tesla keeps on dropping prices and offering initiatives to push more sales.

Why not push more cars to one of the wealthiest nation on earth (Norway), where EV are ridiculously competitive to ICE cars, due to taxes? Why instead keep on dropping prices, while company is pushing really hard to be profitable?

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#279

Post by grecy »

Animats wrote: post #247
bryanlarsen wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assume they stay there Hopefully that assumption doesn't hold. Quoting from the earnings call: "Our cars are not affordable enough—we need to fix that. We are making progress in that regard. We need to not go bankrupt, obviously, but we're not trying to be too profitable. One or 2 percent, it's not too crazy. Slightly profitable and maximize growth, making the cars as affordable as possible"

Tesla's price movement has been in the other direction - upward. The Model 3 was originally supposed to sell for $35,000. Now, it's "$39,990 - $56,990".

You can absolutely still buy the $35k Model 3. It's not listed on their site, but you can order it over the phone.

Re: Q2 2020 Update

#280

Post by labcomputer »

xoxoy wrote: post #113
baggachipz wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it'll surprise you how long it lasts. These big car companies take a long time to change in a meaningful manner and every month they spend trying to do that is time Tesla is advancing themselves. These credits should stick around (albeit in a diminishing manner) for at least a few more years.

look at the pipeline for EVs coming to market in 2021/2022. there are dozens.

People have been saying this for years. 2017 was supposed to be the year that legacy automakers crushed Tesla to dust. Why should 2021 be different from 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020?

If you lurk on the Tesla-killer forums, most buyers are apparently people who either dislike Tesla or only buy European cars.

And the used-car market is telling, too: Used 2019 i-Paces and e-Trons with less than 1,000 miles on the odometer (basically a brand new car) are trading for about the same price as today's cheapest Model Y.

Even if you assume the owners originally negotiated a fantastic deal(and if you lurk on the forums for long, it's clear that most of these cars come with trunk money) and that the owners took the tax credits, they're still apparently willing to take a bath to get rid of the car. That should tell you something (i.e., there's something so bad about the ownership experience with these cars that owners can't wait to offload the misery onto someone else).

There are only two companies today that sell EVs at MSRP and have good resale values: Tesla and Hyundai-Kia.

Post reply on HN