Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive...
Discussion
Heres Johnny said:
T-195 said:
Be the same here next year with zero BIK - plenty will be flooding to them when you consider the tax break against a BMW 3 series is what, £3k a year in your pocket.
T-195 said:
If you want to be taxed out of existence just to get some money off an EV, move to Norway.
There are some advantages - ranked third worldwide for happiness, sixth for per-capita wealth, second for personal freedom, ninth for education, albit a mere 25th for longevity (still above the UK)jjwilde said:
Even if Tesla becomes the no.1 selling car in the UK people on this thread would still find a way to say Tesla were a failure.
Next it will be the 0% BIK is 'unfair' and 'if it was not for that Tesla would have failed in the UK' etc. etc. I can't wait for it because this is my go to comedy mental gymnastics thread on PH.
I also like to read similar threads on bitcoin.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding throughout the history of this thread and it has gone on so long that it is both painful and embarrassing that adults who have benefited from a Western education simply don’t understand or don’t want to understand the absolute basics of business or economics. Next it will be the 0% BIK is 'unfair' and 'if it was not for that Tesla would have failed in the UK' etc. etc. I can't wait for it because this is my go to comedy mental gymnastics thread on PH.
I also like to read similar threads on bitcoin.
Whether Tesla is the no1 or no100 in world rankings isn’t what is important nor what is being discussed. What is important for the company to survive is to be able to sell whatever they produce at a profit. For a decade the company was in start up mode where the losses were covered by the investors so as to create a market share and to get the business to the point of profitability. But today that phase has passed. The debate isn’t about being no1, that’s just top trumps kiddy thinking, it’s about being profitable and therefore independent and self financing.
That is what the whole discussion is about and the core numbers are that supply has been pretty much fixed at 7k/week since it got up to speed but the business as of last Q had still failed to find sustainable profitability and was even discounting. US demand is pretty static now it has bedded down and while we have the big jump from G3 to come on stream followed by the Y the single, crucial aspect remains whether the business has become efficient enough at building cars to be profitable at building cars.
The moment Tesla proves that it can sell car’s for a net profit then this thread is to all intents and purposes over as they will have proven that they aren’t going to go bust.
Haven't heard anyone pair tesla fanbois with the alt-right before!
Not sure the start up phase has really passed. Tesla have publically abandoned profitably in the near future, and aim to be “approximately cash-flow neutral” in order to grow the fleet as fast as practically possible.
Prioritising volume over profit is not typical mature company behaviour.
ASP appears to be trending up including FSD, vs 2018.
Not sure the start up phase has really passed. Tesla have publically abandoned profitably in the near future, and aim to be “approximately cash-flow neutral” in order to grow the fleet as fast as practically possible.
Prioritising volume over profit is not typical mature company behaviour.
ASP appears to be trending up including FSD, vs 2018.
DonkeyApple said:
jjwilde said:
Even if Tesla becomes the no.1 selling car in the UK people on this thread would still find a way to say Tesla were a failure.
Next it will be the 0% BIK is 'unfair' and 'if it was not for that Tesla would have failed in the UK' etc. etc. I can't wait for it because this is my go to comedy mental gymnastics thread on PH.
I also like to read similar threads on bitcoin.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding throughout the history of this thread and it has gone on so long that it is both painful and embarrassing that adults who have benefited from a Western education simply don’t understand or don’t want to understand the absolute basics of business or economics. Next it will be the 0% BIK is 'unfair' and 'if it was not for that Tesla would have failed in the UK' etc. etc. I can't wait for it because this is my go to comedy mental gymnastics thread on PH.
I also like to read similar threads on bitcoin.
Whether Tesla is the no1 or no100 in world rankings isn’t what is important nor what is being discussed. What is important for the company to survive is to be able to sell whatever they produce at a profit. For a decade the company was in start up mode where the losses were covered by the investors so as to create a market share and to get the business to the point of profitability. But today that phase has passed. The debate isn’t about being no1, that’s just top trumps kiddy thinking, it’s about being profitable and therefore independent and self financing.
That is what the whole discussion is about and the core numbers are that supply has been pretty much fixed at 7k/week since it got up to speed but the business as of last Q had still failed to find sustainable profitability and was even discounting. US demand is pretty static now it has bedded down and while we have the big jump from G3 to come on stream followed by the Y the single, crucial aspect remains whether the business has become efficient enough at building cars to be profitable at building cars.
The moment Tesla proves that it can sell car’s for a net profit then this thread is to all intents and purposes over as they will have proven that they aren’t going to go bust.
Sambucket said:
Haven't heard anyone pair tesla fanbois with the alt-right before!
Not sure the start up phase has really passed. Tesla have publically abandoned profitably in the near future, and aim to be “approximately cash-flow neutral” in order to grow the fleet as fast as practically possible.
Prioritising volume over profit is not typical mature company behaviour.
ASP appears to be trending up including FSD, vs 2018.
I think that’s the nun of the point of time we are at now. They announced last year that the start-up phase was over with their ‘profitable going forward’ but then had to kick start it again with an emergency cash raise which cost a huge amount to get away. The start-up phase is over and we are manifestly in the transition period and struggling through 2019 to get through it. Not sure the start up phase has really passed. Tesla have publically abandoned profitably in the near future, and aim to be “approximately cash-flow neutral” in order to grow the fleet as fast as practically possible.
Prioritising volume over profit is not typical mature company behaviour.
ASP appears to be trending up including FSD, vs 2018.
As for the alt-right comment I have no idea what to make of that either other than to suspect it’s loon logic from the other side of the loon coin.
technically, what decides whether a company goes bust is its cash generation, or broadly its access to cash, not its profits
but agree with Donkey...nothing to do with unit volumes or sales charts
and as We Work has shown, investor appetite for expensive loss making concept stocks can evaporate faster than the water in a M3's rear light clusters
mind you these are not normal times and some people may still feel their money is better used betting on Tesla, than lets say, a nice safe investment like German govt bonds that now cost you money
but agree with Donkey...nothing to do with unit volumes or sales charts
and as We Work has shown, investor appetite for expensive loss making concept stocks can evaporate faster than the water in a M3's rear light clusters
mind you these are not normal times and some people may still feel their money is better used betting on Tesla, than lets say, a nice safe investment like German govt bonds that now cost you money
There’s a profitable business within Tesla but they are running out of time to get to that point and the current economic climate is as much an inhibitor now as Musk’s poor management and decision making.
They have a core demand for their product but it’s taking a long time for them to find and deliver the production efficiencies needed to deliver solid net profits. Q3 is going to indicate what in roads they’ve made in that regard but the worry has to be that over the last 18 months all their raw materials have been getting cheaper and cheaper but they haven’t been making cars more cheaply to date.
They have a core demand for their product but it’s taking a long time for them to find and deliver the production efficiencies needed to deliver solid net profits. Q3 is going to indicate what in roads they’ve made in that regard but the worry has to be that over the last 18 months all their raw materials have been getting cheaper and cheaper but they haven’t been making cars more cheaply to date.
REALIST123 said:
Sambucket said:
I wonder if the Tesla haters also moaned about diesel subsidies and tax breaks back in the day?
Whats that, some of your best friends are EV drivers and you once dated an i3? Sorry, my mistake.
I’m not saying you’re wrong but I don’t remember diesel being subsidised relative to other fuels in cars. Whats that, some of your best friends are EV drivers and you once dated an i3? Sorry, my mistake.
As I recall BIK was always a couple of % higher, the cars cost more in the first place and diesel was always more expensive than petrol.
What subsidies are you referring to?
hyphen said:
BBC: Trump has stripped California of the power to set auto emission standards and banned other states from also doing so.
Could stop EV growth somewhat if California's appeal through the courts fails.
How big is the difference? Donny reckons the new standard is extremely environmentally friendlyCould stop EV growth somewhat if California's appeal through the courts fails.
Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 18th September 20:37
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1174342...
hyphen said:
BBC: Trump has stripped California of the power to set auto emission standards and banned other states from also doing so.
Could stop EV growth somewhat if California's appeal through the courts fails.
Who knows with Trump but it seems more logical for the whole US to work to a single standard. If it’s actually well thought out then such an action could reduce overall national emissions while also saving money. It can’t exactly be efficient delivering differing products to different states within a single economy. Could stop EV growth somewhat if California's appeal through the courts fails.
Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 18th September 20:37
On paper it is an illogical system which allows many states to be overly polluting for no reason other than local political gain for a few individuals.
In reality it doesn’t actually seem like a policy the Republican Party would make, rather a Democrat one.
hyphen said:
BBC: Trump has stripped California of the power to set auto emission standards and banned other states from also doing so.
Could stop EV growth somewhat if California's appeal through the courts fails.
Not at all.Could stop EV growth somewhat if California's appeal through the courts fails.
Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 18th September 20:37
Californians aren't buying s
t loads of Teslas because a governor is making them do so. They are choosing to buy Teslas because California is a very environmentally focused atmosphere socially. Californians are proud to be leading the way to the future on many subjects (see the Silicon Valley crowd) but environmental issues are right at the core of the ex-hippy San Fran. It's no different than Brighton being the place the Green party is most likely to actually get elected.This means that without doubt, a Tesla in California is a powerful status symbol. However, it's not a status symbol in the way people traditionally think of them - it's not saying "I am successful", it's saying "I am green". Californians who want to project that image don't have to stretch to a range topping P100D to do that, they can achieve the same with a far less expensive model 3.
What is the net result? The 3 is smacking it, but the S is outsold by the 5 series and E class. The X is outsold by the Lexus and X5. The "showy" status symbol crowd aren't choosing to flaunt their wealth with high end Teslas. High end cars are where the margins live..
So we're back to the initial problem statement from page 1 - can Tesla make profit on the cars they sell? IMO unless there's a huge tax swing that doesn't show on Google, the Trump intervention doesn't impact the higher end cars at all, only (maybe) the lowest end where the margin of "man maths" vs whatever other car an American was considering takes a swing towards ICE if the ICE cars become cheaper as Trump claims. Tesla's problem isn't selling more bottom end cars (they're numbers constrained), it's their fundamental inability to upsell. Nothing in Tesla's current strategy appears to be aimed at fixing that issue, and the promise of profit seems as empty as the promise of FSD by date x, robotaxis by date y, or "funding secured".
TL;DR? IMO Trump won't have an effect on Tesla's profitability.
Some Gump said:
Not at all.
Californians aren't buying st loads of Teslas because a governor is making them do so. They are choosing to buy Teslas because California is a very environmentally focused atmosphere socially. Californians are proud to be leading the way to the future on many subjects (see the Silicon Valley crowd) but environmental issues are right at the core of the ex-hippy San Fran. It's no different than Brighton being the place the Green party is most likely to actually get elected.
This means that without doubt, a Tesla in California is a powerful status symbol. However, it's not a status symbol in the way people traditionally think of them - it's not saying "I am successful", it's saying "I am green". Californians who want to project that image don't have to stretch to a range topping P100D to do that, they can achieve the same with a far less expensive model 3.
What is the net result? The 3 is smacking it, but the S is outsold by the 5 series and E class. The X is outsold by the Lexus and X5. The "showy" status symbol crowd aren't choosing to flaunt their wealth with high end Teslas. High end cars are where the margins live..
So we're back to the initial problem statement from page 1 - can Tesla make profit on the cars they sell? IMO unless there's a huge tax swing that doesn't show on Google, the Trump intervention doesn't impact the higher end cars at all, only (maybe) the lowest end where the margin of "man maths" vs whatever other car an American was considering takes a swing towards ICE if the ICE cars become cheaper as Trump claims. Tesla's problem isn't selling more bottom end cars (they're numbers constrained), it's their fundamental inability to upsell. Nothing in Tesla's current strategy appears to be aimed at fixing that issue, and the promise of profit seems as empty as the promise of FSD by date x, robotaxis by date y, or "funding secured".
TL;DR? IMO Trump won't have an effect on Tesla's profitability.
The popularity of Tesla in California in particular is also down to it being one of four states in America where you can lease a new EV.Californians aren't buying s
t loads of Teslas because a governor is making them do so. They are choosing to buy Teslas because California is a very environmentally focused atmosphere socially. Californians are proud to be leading the way to the future on many subjects (see the Silicon Valley crowd) but environmental issues are right at the core of the ex-hippy San Fran. It's no different than Brighton being the place the Green party is most likely to actually get elected.This means that without doubt, a Tesla in California is a powerful status symbol. However, it's not a status symbol in the way people traditionally think of them - it's not saying "I am successful", it's saying "I am green". Californians who want to project that image don't have to stretch to a range topping P100D to do that, they can achieve the same with a far less expensive model 3.
What is the net result? The 3 is smacking it, but the S is outsold by the 5 series and E class. The X is outsold by the Lexus and X5. The "showy" status symbol crowd aren't choosing to flaunt their wealth with high end Teslas. High end cars are where the margins live..
So we're back to the initial problem statement from page 1 - can Tesla make profit on the cars they sell? IMO unless there's a huge tax swing that doesn't show on Google, the Trump intervention doesn't impact the higher end cars at all, only (maybe) the lowest end where the margin of "man maths" vs whatever other car an American was considering takes a swing towards ICE if the ICE cars become cheaper as Trump claims. Tesla's problem isn't selling more bottom end cars (they're numbers constrained), it's their fundamental inability to upsell. Nothing in Tesla's current strategy appears to be aimed at fixing that issue, and the promise of profit seems as empty as the promise of FSD by date x, robotaxis by date y, or "funding secured".
TL;DR? IMO Trump won't have an effect on Tesla's profitability.
And who wants to look like some burned out hippie clown?
Edited by T-195 on Thursday 19th September 09:46
Some Gump said:
Not at all.
Californians aren't buying st loads of Teslas because a governor is making them do so. They are choosing to buy Teslas because California is a very environmentally focused atmosphere socially. Californians are proud to be leading the way to the future on many subjects (see the Silicon Valley crowd) but environmental issues are right at the core of the ex-hippy San Fran. It's no different than Brighton being the place the Green party is most likely to actually get elected.
...
California is not a small town like Brighton...Californians aren't buying s
t loads of Teslas because a governor is making them do so. They are choosing to buy Teslas because California is a very environmentally focused atmosphere socially. Californians are proud to be leading the way to the future on many subjects (see the Silicon Valley crowd) but environmental issues are right at the core of the ex-hippy San Fran. It's no different than Brighton being the place the Green party is most likely to actually get elected....
You cannot characterise Silicon Valley and Hollywood as the entire, huge, state.
Most of it is filled with the same wide ranging spectrum of people as anywhere else.
Otherwise California wouldn't need to mandate any regulations, it would be surplus to requirements
Arguably the biggest threat in CA is the Tesla brand suddenly not being the brand to be associated with. The West coast consumer isn’t actually buying EVs to be green but to be on trend. I can’t see a relaxing in local emission laws having any descernable impact on CA demand for the latest must have image projection device for the profligate.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff