I thought Elon tweeted early last year that Tesla was on track to build 500K cars in 2019 year. 370K is way off from that number.
> Meant to say annualized production rate at end of 2019 probably around 500k, ie 10k cars/week. Deliveries for year still estimated to be about 400k.
For deliveries 400k isn't too far from 367,500. But it's not clear (to me) what their annual production rate is.
One would hope/imagine that if they get their production rate competitive with the biggest producers of automobiles (anything with 4 wheels), like Toyota, Ford and GM, then the average selling price could come down a bit, too.
I just want a decent-looking electric car (preferably hatchback) I can charge at any available charging station with no frills but 250-300 mile range for $25-30k USD. I know batteries aren't there yet!
How do you really value a company like Tesla?
According to skeptics the company should've been dead 10 times over already. But if you actually do some research, you find that the technology is sound, the execution is there, and not at least the vision of an electric future is there. Further more its CEO has stated that 'We're going to do these other things also.' - Referring to Full Self Driving and production rates. It has a track record of delivering; 'maybe not on time - but we get it done.' There's no real reason to doubt that they are serious, go watch autonomy day and you'd get the idea.
The vision isn't just automotive, it's solar for homes and grid batteries as well. a decentralized power grid for the future.
Meanwhile all the promised competition and Tesla killers have proven to be vaporware. And that's before you start looking at the logistics of making an electric car. With electric cars you need batteries and lot's of them. No other car manufacturer has access to enough volume to even begin to compete with Tesla, these battery factories haven't even been built. And the electric motors of competitor are less efficient by a large margin, meaning they need larger batteries for the same range, and higher charging speed to be able to charge the same distance in time as a Tesla.
Buying tsla is right now like buying a part of the future, and no other company is close.
Is the share price ridiculously high? Yes, but which other company in the world right now is stumping the competition as badly as Tesla. The only real comparison is Apple after the release of the iPhone. But while apple got real competition after 4-5 years. Tesla still rules all the important metrics regarding electric cars wh/km, accel, charging speed.
And apple still keeps most of the profits in the mobile market, even tough they have a small market share.
So maybe it is rational pricing that you are seeing, the markets are trying to value more than just cars produced. After all the CEO is landing rockets on barges as well so who knows :)
The "issue" is, these are low margin businesses. Why don't you provide some actual numbers? How many cars, roofs and batteries do they have to build/install to justify the market cap?
Much of the Tesla valuation is based on self driving taxis and appreciate cars, and that ain't happening for a while.
>But if you actually do some research,
You don't think funds with billions on the line are "doing research"? That's...presumptuous.
PS> I am a Tesla owner who then bought the stock as well since the experience was so revolutionary. I agree with the other poster who compared it to the 2007 iPhone.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-q4-2019-production-and-...
A tweet issued after hours and corrected the same day does not change the range explicitly stated in every earnings call and quarterly statement Tesla issued throughout 2019.
It doesn’t matter what you or I think. The market speaks for itself. After announcing the number the stock is up ~3.5%. That indicates that reaching the lower range number was not fully priced in as of yesterday, and that the market deems this to be good news.
Also, the annualized run rate with GF3 producing 3k/week would exceed 10k/wk based on 100,000 cars produced in Fremont in 13 weeks in Q4. Getting GF3 to 3k/week less than one year after breaking ground was also something the pundits said was “impossible”.
Really? Because I follow some of TESLAQ on Twitter, and many were expecting 115k delivered this quarter. Consensus was around 110k. One prominent poster had 367k for the year, and was within a fraction of a percent of what Tesla ended up delivering (isn't it odd that analysts can forecast more accurately than the CEO?)
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that "everyone" said the low end would be impossible. I don't know a single analyst who thought that. Care to provide a source?
>stated in every earnings call and quarterly statement Tesla issued throughout 2019.
I don't think they stated that number in any call except the Q3 call, but you could easily prove me wrong. What he did state, though, that Tesla wouldn't be "self-constrained to 400,000 units" (Q1 call). He also said that Freemont would be producing 8,000 - 9,000 cars per week in Q3 (Q2 call).
>The market speaks for itself.
Ah yes, the old infallible market. What does stock price have to do with anything?
> “In total, we are expecting to deliver 360,000 to 400,000 vehicles in 2019, representing a growth of approximately 45% to 65% compared to 2018” [1]
Finding a listing of consensus analyst estimates for 2019 made early in the year is a lot harder. But as late as last week the consensus was barely 360k.
[1] - https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-92...
[1] https://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/news-release-details/tesl...
Official statement: "We reaffirm our prior guidance of 360,000 to 400,000 vehicle deliveries in 2019." That was met.
> Barring unexpected challenges with Gigafactory Shanghai, we are targeting annualized Model 3 output in excess of 500,000 units sometime between Q4 of 2019 and Q2 of 2020
Source: https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-92...
Of course it's not yet Q2 2020.
In fact this exact type of tweet is listed by expressly in the updated agreement[0].
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/business/elon-musk-tesla-...
Ultimately Tesla and Musk agreed with the SEC that his previous conduct was wrong, and that's how we got to this settlement agreement. So to argue now that the SEC is wrong and that Musk's behavior is fine because that's his "style" seems to fly in the face of Tesla's own viewpoint on historical events vis-a-vis misleading tweets.
Musk hasn't made similar tweets since then, so it seems plausible that SEC did indeed give some sort of warning, or that the parties have had some sort of clarifying exchange regarding their agreement.
This is all a matter of public record, it was not handled behind closed doors.
Would you be shocked to learn that when a company realizes they are going to to materially miss a forecast they are obligated to notify shareholders? This is how it works.
You know, the exact opposite of Elon saying "profits from here on out" then losing $700MM the very next quarter.
A follow up tweet doesn't allow him to bypass the pre-approval process he agreed to in the settlement.
Where you are wrong is your claim that it needed pre-approval under the first agreement. Only statements that Musk, in his own opinion, believed contained material facts need pre approval. Gloss on publicly known figures is not material, that is what Musk thought he was posting, therefore it did not need per-approval.
The SEC tried and failed to push the argument you are trying to push in court. You can view the complete docket here. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7946295/united-states-s...
You can find musk making the admission I claim he made above in this court filing. You can also find a better version of the argument I made about the tweet not needing pre-approval. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755...
As a long term investor, is the exact number all that important compared to the general shape of the curve?
(N.b. I have no position in $TSLA)
But it wasn't run by the lawyers because it contains a factual reporting error the lawyers would have flagged. Thus he violated the SEC agreement.
Nobody said the tweet was banned. The tweet violated the agreement because it likely wasn't pre-approved (or his lawyers are really really bad).
But, you are still messing up your dates. He did not violate the agreement because the original agreement was in effect at the time and it did not require running this past his lawyers.
This has run out through court already, the SEC did not win.
What do you mean? Tesla and Elon settled fraud charges:
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
Stop the gaslighting.
A settlement where you get literally nothing that you asked for is a loss not a win.
Edit: I just realized you linked to the wrong settlement. One sec, I'll find the right one for you.
It seems that the SEC didn't release any press releases over their loss (shocking, I know) - but here is an article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-26/musk-sec-... - you could also refer to the original article you posted in your original incorrect claim that Musk violated the updated agreement.
What are you even talking about? I made no such claim.
Elon Musk settled fraud charges with the SEC, and is being sued in civil court, as we speak, for the same infraction (shocking, i know).
Elon Musk settled charges with the SEC before this tweet happened.
Elon Musk "settled" contempt charges over this tweet with the SEC, in the sense that the SEC capitulated and agreed to no punishment whatsoever after some strong words from the court that barely fell short of a ruling against them...
I haven't been following any shareholder lawsuits closely, I'm willing to bet that there are none over this tweet though. This tweet did not move the market, and to the extent that it was incorrect or even plausibly inappropriate it was immediately corrected. I strongly suspect all shareholder lawsuits are over the previous "funding secured" tweet and tweets around that tweet in time (before any settlement with the SEC happened). That is not the same infraction as the tweet being discussed here.
The allegation that it violated the original agreement was tested in court by the SEC, and effectively failed.