Dr. Menahem Anderman at advanceautobatDOTcom has a new Tesla report dated 11/12/14. The free extract has some interesting comments. The un-redacted full report starts at $2,800. (Battery consulting is a higher margin enterprise that battery manufacturing.)
“ a utility could add grid storage even in residential neighborhoods.
As prop_trader told your LR alter ego, you are twisting fantasy and fact. There is NO comparison between running pumped storage through turbine-generators at “central station” hydro-electric facilities and distributing DC battery packs throughout residential neighborhoods. Utilities are “terribly conservative” because they are regulated monopolies. As such, they are always subject to 20/20 hindsight (research prudency hearings and nuclear plant cost overruns) Reliability of the grid is critical. The dealer association kerfuffles were walks in the park compared to the S storms Musk will encounter at state PUC’s if his effort to exploit “innovative opportunities” jeopardizes system reliability in the least.
The only thing TSLA/SCTY are currently exploiting with stationary batteries is the economic foolishness of their current customers. From the proxy: “We received approximately $1.6 million from SolarCity during fiscal year 2013 for stationary batteries we supplied to SolarCity pursuant to this supply agreement.” If Tesla was supply constrained by battery cells, why supply a single cell to SCTY? How much, if any, of that $1.6 million dropped to the bottom line?
TSLA & SCTY are dancing on an ethical knife edge engaging in inter-corporate transactions. The two corporations have different owners (shareholders) and different creditors (note holders.) Musk is the chairman of, and Gracias is a member of, both Boards. Straubel is TSLA’s CTO and a SCTY director. Jurvetson is a TSLA director and a big SCTY investor. Buss is SCTY’s CFO and a former TSLA director. It’s an irreconcilable, per se conflict of interest. Who decides which constituency gets the financial advantage? If the SEC is not already investigating this, rest assured the plaintiffs’ bar will be all over it like a cheap suit.
Straubel is Tesla's brightest engineer currently (including Musk). If any competitor were to lure hime away, sell more with both fists.
"don't you think your remark about waiting to "admit" guidance was too high is a bit out of place? "
No. Tesla held 2nd quarter conference calls in 2010,2011, 2012, and 2013 on either the 1st or 2nd Wednesday of August. The shutdown was supposed to be completed by the end of July; for some un-explained reason, Tesla moved the 2014 CC up to the last Wednesday in July. Why?? I submit it's caused "plausible deniability." Tesla either knew or should have known by the end of the scheduled shutdown that it was not going well and was behind schedule. If the call was held a week or two later, Tesla would have had to admit the problem in August; instead they preserved the delayed/problematical restart for use in November as an excuse for lowering the annual delivery guidance.
Tesla doesn't have a demand problem--they're just supply constrained, or making the machines that make the machines is really difficult, or whatever.
"I'm betting that Tesla will sell at least 700,000 cars per year in 2020 in addition to batteries for grid/solar/wind storage. "
Who will buy these "batteries for grid/solar/wind storage from Tesla? Utilities? Industrial enterprises? Commercial entities? Residential electricity users? Why would any of these potential customers opt for Tesla's battery chemistry when more durable, less expensive, more stable alternative chemistries are readibly available from far more experienced and financially stable companies?
I know that blurb about Musk and the loans from the IBs' banking affiliates is from an SEC filing; it cleverly does not mention that Musk also borrowed to buy shares at the 2nd following offering in September 2012. IMO, all three of those purchases at the following offerings were intended to dupe the low information types into believing Musk had so much confidence in Tesla's future that he was investing more of his own money in the offerings. In reality, just the opposite was true, Musk was extracting more than he ever put in.
“Where do you differ?” Probably only around the fringes. As I have previously mentioned here, I first started looking at TSLA at IPO time as a possible long investment. I, too, think there are undeniable advantages of BEVs over ICE vehicles—but only once battery technology (and infrastructure build-out) advances sufficiently to make BEVs VALUE competitive. The more I researched Tesla and Musk, the more I came to the conclusion that Tesla’s business plan is severely flawed. Musk may be a brilliant physicist/engineer, but the “first principles he reasons from” on the business side escape me. It certainly does not appear to be goals of sustainable profitability and free cash flow. Musk appears, like most engineers, to love to tinker; hence, constant over the internet updates, the D, and auto-pilot rather than focusing all available resources on the much touted nirvana—the model 3.
I’m skeptical of “supply constrained” in its various versions. To me it’s just another indicia of Tesla’s failure to formulate a coherent business plan and execute it well. With each passing quarter, the trend becomes increasingly clear: Tesla expands to a new geographic market, satisfies pre-existing reservations built up over many months and/or years, and then has insufficient new sales to cover the store/service center/supercharger overhead. When new geographic markets to expand to are exhausted, it becomes “weighing” time.
"the Electric Utility companies who use oil to generate electricity"
Oil-fired generation is negligible
To clarify the 50,000 for 2015 was for S deliveries, any Xs delivered in the 3rd or 4th quarters would not count towards the 50k. As the year proceeds that distinction will evaporate and TSLA will once again "beat the street."
You are clueless. For tax purposes, the date of sale is what matters, not the date the transaction clears. Short transactions are ALWAYS short term gains or losses (including LEAP puts held over one year.)
From an english.caixin piece about:
"Tom Zhu Xiaotong will oversee the company's China operations on the departure of Veronica Wu Bixuan....The appointment signals the company's ambitions to expand more aggressively on electric car sales, said an industry source. The knowledge of charging infrastructure within the country is of particular importance to growing the company's sales network."
"Tesla sold 1,586 electric cars in China in the first 10 months of this year, according to calculations on government data by Caixin. The company came in second to Shenzhen-based BYD Auto Co., which sold 11,200 models of the Qin plug-in hybrid."
I have no clue, Some guesses:
-He has a SpaceX launch on 12/19 which is the one they hope to land the first stage on a floating platform?
-The IBs & outside counsel are finalizing the prospectus for the next capital raise and don't want to deal with last minute extraneous issues/clarifications?
-the re-hired veep of Communications (Reyes?) only agreed to return if Musk discontinued tweeting?
-Musk matured and decided to act like a CEO?
-Guillen is doing such a good job, why bother?
It's possible that his advisers convinced him that they can do the best damage control by carefully crafting the explanations in the shareholder letter and the 10k.
OK. Fair enough. What IS your long term view? For 2014 through November, the best available reporting indicates Tesla has delivered about 8,000 cars in Europe and 14,000 in North America. No cars were delivered to Asia in the 1Q!4. The 10Q’s show revenue of $141.8 million from Asia in 2Q14 and $342.8 million from China in 3Q14. Assuming $120k/vehicle (because Tesla collects Chinese import duties/fees as part of revenues) that’s 1,181 and 2,856 cars or slightly over 4,000 as of the end of September.
Musk predicts 50% compound annual growth rate in deliveries indefinitely. Starting with 33,000 in 2014, that would be:
(Something closer to 56% CAGR would be needed to hit 500,000 in 2020)
Regardless, what’s your long term view of the number of deliveries in NA, Europe and Asia for the four years between 2015 and 2018?
The issue with the Tesla story is when it misses a forecast the whole yarn starts to unravel- a miss in the following year is even more harmful --“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost, for the want of the shoe.
It's 50% of base 60kwh and 42% on all options with additional deductions for excess mileage and wear & tear.
The more features/options on newer cars, the more the older cars are devalued. So far, the re-sale market has been consistently above straight line depreciation over 39 months. A few may return their cars because they are tired of BEVs but the big risk for a financially devastating return scenario is a big advance in battery technology or a significantly worse reliability record.
The X reservation tally thread on TMC shows zero X reservations from Japan.
For those who like moving average lines breaking through other lines, check out post no. 1325 in that thread.
Probably caused by a combination of the most recent announcement of delay and D cannibalization. The 50% CAGR for 2016 yields 74,250 (based on 33,000 in 2014) With the S styling soon to be six years old, Tesla will need to sell a lot of Xs to come close to 74,000
I thought those were only legal in Colorado and Washington.
"Sales are much better in Germany.."
I've been wondering why Musk would promise the Fatherland a battery factory.