They are probably a few other things, but this is the mystery of their valuation.
[1] https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/teslas-market...
But my theory with petroleum is that it has so many HUGE economies of scale built into its production that a demand collapse will send it into a rapid tailspin.
A small version of this happened in the Dakotas when the Saudis started dumping oil to get it under a price, and the North Dakota oil industry collapsed. That was due to intentional oversupply, not necessarily due to collapsed demand.
But so much of the oil market is now pretty expensive extraction: tar sands, shale oil, fracking, deep offshore. The easy stuff is gone. That to me means that the industry rests on a certain price, and if it falls under that, the industry can't sustain it.
I think the big thing in this reverse economies of scale, where costs rise as the industry shrinks (and absorbs writeoffs) is that finance, already somewhat intimidated by the growing pressure to divest from fossil fuels, will rapidly abandon it once it becomes extremely risky due to collapsing demand and massive migrations of transportation modes to electric.
It's all vague decade-away prognostication, but you'll start hearing the violins playing for oil companies when some combination of this happens:
- charging infrastructure builds out (2 years to catch the current Tesla supercharger, probably another 5 years to get some semblance of every-50-miles availability)
- LFP chemistry hits a power density of somewhere around 200-250wh/kg (LFP is really cheap and has far less materials restrictions from cobalt) (probably in 1-2 years for mass production)
- various solid state technologies hit production (looks unlikely for 5 years)
- EV drivetrain cost (battery, motors, cooling, case, management systems, etc) drops to 2/3 of ICE (probably another 4 years)
- a carbon tax, a more substantial EV subsidy
The floor will rapidly fall.
I'm not saying Tesla isn't insanely valued. But the grim reaper is coming for all those oil companies.
I'm not sure what is the percentage of consumer sales for any if those companies mentioned, but I suspect that even if it was 0 it would not drastically affect anything but profits. Oil will be less profitable -- yes, but it will be widely used as long as energy required to mine it is less than what is produced. It is unfortunate, but these companies are on a very good long term business (hard to say really because I don't know what are the global untapped oil reserves).
Manufacturing components to produce renewables require a lot of fossil fuels as well. We are not yet at the point where we can create new renewables without using fossil fuels.
I'm not saying the floor will not fall, but I'm afraid that if the floor falls we are in quite big trouble, and it is not because if the EV market.
The Navy will lose a huge reason for its existence: securing the seas for supertankers. There are so many countries we won't care about anymore. Iran. Iraq. Venezuela. Nigeria. Really, by extension, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, etc. Then again they'll just keep building up the China boogeyman to keep their money, regardless of its validity.
As you pointed out, Russia will face an existential crisis, I think oil revenue basically keeps Putin afloat. A total collapse of Russia is pretty risky due to the nukes, but we'll see.
But this is lala-land thinking. As long as the United States remains on the UN Security Council (which is equivalent to saying as long as the UN continues to exist in any practical form), both Taiwan and Israel will remain our client states.
A lot of European/Asian countries would like to distance themselves from Israel but cannot due to US influence. Furthermore losing the US support loosens their investments into the country and siding with China or Russia would cut a lot of economic ties to the US for sure.
>But this is lala-land thinking. As long as the United States remains on the UN Security Council (which is equivalent to saying as long as the UN continues to exist in any practical form), both Taiwan and Israel will remain our client states.
Thats my point, if US leadership decides that Israel is no longer worth the liability, then that entails allowing the UN and its member states to start putting real pressure on Israel. Again, you might think this is lala-land but we are seeing small changes starting to happen as the internet has helped to expose Israel and act as a counterbalance to mainstream talking points.
With Millennials and Gen-Z starting to come into power we are seeing even more pushback. I don't realistically see meaningful reform until Boomers are pushed out. While all this is happening in the West, Israel has made a turn towards hard right wing and I feel this will be a strategic error long term as the pendulum is swinging back to hard left in the western countries.
Ukraine receives most of its nuclear services and nuclear fuel from Russia, but is reducing this dependence by buying fuel from Westinghouse in the USA.
Just do more of this. I doubt Russia will attack a US concession that's building a nuclear plant.
There are a couple other stand out problems I see with getting the industrial/manufacturing sector off fossil fuels. First, I don't think that we have the grid infrastructure to replace natural gas with electrification at the same time we do cars[1][2]. From what I understand its something of a problem already for electric car charging, and industrial use of gas for heat (and saying nothing of trying to replace the petrochemical industry, interesting read on all-electric ammonia production [4]) is pretty staggering as well; electric transmission is some substantial multiple less efficient then direct heating with Gas. I think this is kind of the opposite of electric cars which tend to be more efficient than ICE, but again I'm not an expert and am not at all sure that is true of cars, just my impression which seems reasonable intuitively, as turning fuel directly into heat has essentially 100% efficiency while turning fuel into motion can only be some fraction.
Second, super cheap electricity is extremely fungible, so it becomes a prime candidate for Jevon's Paradox[3]. I feel that there would have to be some "unfair" power rates for heating for electricity to supplant natural gas unless we implemented massive carbon taxes, in which case return to my first point about off-shoring.
I can see how it would theoretically make sense to put industry right next to large power generation sources, like dams, solar array/ battery installations, or nuclear power plants(lol), but a lot of these operations aren't exactly trivial to move, and our current climate of Environmental regulation makes moving these sorts of things that much more difficult. Also manufacturing requires a not insignificant amount of logistics/shipping so transplanting them to power generation sites has its own set of drawbacks.
All in all, I try to be a techno-optimist, but seriously worry that humanity's ad-hoc system of organization (that's rife with corruption) will be our downfall in this global climate crisis we've created. So far I can't see a way out of this without a breakthrough in power generation and a breakthrough in carbon capture or some other unforseen-by-me break through. Really I just don't see our current tech stack as being capable of getting us out of this mess. So here's hoping that high-temp super conductors bare fusion fruit, and this gallium catalyzed CO2 splitting is the real deal.
[1]https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/climate/gm-electric-cars-... (has additional good links as well)
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox (fun fact, I've used duckduckgo for many years now, and this required the rare !g to find without knowing what the paradox was called off the top of my head. my query was: "the cheaper something gets the more it is used", top hit on big G, nowhere to be seen in the DDG results)
[4]https://www.cleantech.com/green-ammonia-potential-as-an-ener...
You would need to generate more electricity, although this could be mitigated through improved insulation and smart control of heating systems (for example turning off the heating for 30 minutes during spikes in usage, assuming the temperature is above a certain level).
[1] https://www.edfenergy.com/heating/advice/air-source-heat-pum...
>Lower output temperature than conventional boilers – you may need to update your insulation and invest in bigger radiators too
is a pretty big problem when you are trying to heat industrial quantities of things up to industrial process temps at industrial rates.
Once you factor in the fossil fuels used to extract fossil fuels it all topples pretty quickly.
The main source of trouble will be people ignoring the issue until it becomes urgent and not planning a smooth transition, global procrastination rather than the actual task itself.
Actually, I would love to see a the real "energy footprint" of a solar panel. Like, how much mining, transporting, manufacturing and installing the panels consumed energy, and how many days it takes for a panel to produce more energy than the entire operation used. If anyone has such a breakdown I would be really happy to see it. If the numbers are good, maybe the future is still bright.
In a sense, this would be much cheaper and more convenient than supercharger stations - but what it trades in infrastructure saving, it costs in getting myriad of land owners and councils to make it happen.
This is myth. 35yr loan is pretty basic, most loan supports up to 50yr. We can see many houses built 35yr ago. Anyway, installing EV charger is easy task for own house. It just takes about from $200 if 200V line is available. I believe mostly available unless the house is very old.
More importantly, there are many condos and parking that's hard to install charger due to it need to be approved in condo committee.
Tesla has shown electric cars can be superior to gas cars in all but one metric (road trips) and they're closing in on that. Wind and solar are now cheaper than coal and in some markets cheaper than natural gas. At peak times electricity from renewables is so cheap its creating a gold rush to develop low cost energy storage to soak up all the dirt cheap electricity that's being produced.
Theres also companies who can produce synthetic liquid fuels with co2 from direct air capture using renewable energy. With a decent carbon tax they could compete directly with fossil fuel companies but eventually renewable energy should be cheap enough that they won't even need a carbon tax.
Fossil fuel companies are as good as dead. They just dont know it yet.
Honestly though, I think this is what they have going for themselves:
- a large amount of smart, if unprincipled, engineers.
- a huge apparatus for government lobbying
- maybe a lot of capital, or at least some window to invest in switchover?
- generator knowhow (turbines, etc)
- global logistics systems
The government lobbying is the key. If there is one industry that could get LFTR/NextGenNuclear off the ground it would be the oil/gas people. The legacy nuclear industry has no ability or desire to produce a nuclear power gen solution that is competitive not only with current day alt energy, but the alt energy that will be in ten years.
I'm the guy that tells every pro-nuclear post on HN that its infeasible to chase whatever gee-whiz design is being discussed because of the ten year lead time and that storage/wind/solar are still on nonlinear cost improvement curves.
But the oil/gas industry DOES have the political juice to chase that at the multiple levels of federal/state/local/military/civilian that it would require to get a cost-effective small-scale nuclear reactor solution like a LFTR/MSR.
But that really is a pipe dream. That would require foresight from the executives, and executives in fading industries almost always just ride the companies into irrelevance, and most importantly for the executives, retirement/pension, and of course huge out-the-door "retention bonuses" in the dying days.
THIS! Thank you for bringing this up. Few people talk about this coming death spiral. This is really going to mess up a lot of countries incomes and may have severe worldwide political ramifications. In your opinion when do you think it will trigger? It feels like when it does actually happen, its going to happen quickly. From my vantage point in the US it still seems like the majority are not realizing what is coming. Hell Companies like Ford are still introducing new vehicle platforms in ICE configuration only (Ford Bronco for example) and people are buying them up without any consideration as to the future so I suspect it won't happen this decade.
I don't know enough about the economics of the fossil fuels supply chain to make a reasonable calculation.
In terms of your other calculations your targets seems very reasonable. Its amazing at how Tesla is iterating so fast on things like Battery and Motor design. Its super sexy to see the new stuff they keep pumping out(even if the founder seems like a jerk)
Do you want to buy stocks in companies that have a strong future of growth, or who have always made a lot of money doing one thing, and expect to keep making money doing that same old thing, even though it's clearly not going to last.
While they're not going to die overnight, I suspect they're not going to be worth all that much by 2050, and ~nothing by 2075.
Example: the australian PM who repealed their carbon tax, is now working with his coal baron buddy on a green hydrogen plant. He's now calling for a ... brace for the irony ... carbon tax to help his new business.
edit: correcting myself, getting two PMs mixed up, Turnbull scrapped new Carbon Tax plans while PM, under pressure from Abbot (who he replaced as PM), who in turn had scrapped an existing carbon tax. Still demonstrates the slow shift of the well-connected politicians to follow the money.
Companies like Tesla are not for traditional value investors. Bonds and boring stocks or ETFs serve that purpose.
Goodwill is on the asset side of the equation.
Basically, Tesla stock owners consider the company to have ambiguous secret sauce of the right employees, IP, brand recognition/reputation that makes it more valuable than its current on-paper business activity.
Or, it’s just a stock that they believe they can find buyers for – a belief which has been proven to so far be true.
It's not a problem for Tesla or Elon per-se, but we shouldn't assign intelligence to people basically voting for their favs with their wallets.
(Myself, if I had some funds that are not already earmarked for something more important, I'd dump some into TSLA just as an expression of support to Musk and electrification of transport. I'm sure many people did just that, with no expectations of return.)
They literally developed a completely new battery manufacturing factory and cathode plant from the ground up. Plus of course their own batteries with their own chemistries. No other car company comes even close to that.
They are vertically integrating to the point where they themselves are building their own battery manufacturing equipment.
They are even slowly getting into mining themselves. And of course solar, stationary storage and so on.
Hard to see what company is doing considerable more. Tesla is doing a pretty large amount of innovation.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/566060/automotve-firms-b...
We will see if they sustain that, but it looks like that is their plan.
That risk is what made a lot of people rich of course, but investments in green energy companies in Denmark have seen a 15-35% increase in value, year by year, over the past decades without any real risk. It’s been safer than index funds here.
All energy companies have really, but you feel better when they are green.
Tesla may yet revolutionise batteries the same way the personal computer or the smartphone became something we all have, and thus be the best investment you could make right now, but it also might not.
The energy companies on the other hand aren’t going to stop selling a steady flow of energy to people. Why we let investors benefit from utilities is another discussion, but as long as we do, it’s going to be some of the safest investments you can get into.
Tesla doesn't have nearly the size of the distribution network of any of the oil companies.
The fact is Tesla was trading at 1000x historic earnings, and 161x future earnings, or to put it another way, 10x any other car manufacturer, and this this was before this deal. [0]
This simply doesn't make any sense.
[0] https://www.tradestation.com/insights/2021/04/08/tesla-overv...
The other OEMs are laden with debt, which Tesla doesn't have so any comparison there would be at the EV level which doesn't make Tesla look that out of line considering it is about to overtake in 3-4 years most of the companies it is compared with. Also that debt the other OEMs have, was used to build ICE factories and technologies which are quickly becoming outdated.
If and its a rather big IF I'll grant you that Tesla manages to achieve what they aim for which is 20 million cars in 2030, thats effectively 1/5 market share globally. Add into that the energy storage, charging network, solar roof tiles, AI and FSD.
However any signs of growth weakness or interest rate changes will wreak havoc for sure.
Even if Tesla falters, the other LICE OEMs are destined to fail, maybe 1-2 survives (GM/VW), the cat is out of the bag and what looked like a totally entrenched industry has been blown wide open by Tesla, and loads of other startups are following through.
Sure they were late to the game, and but it’s not a foregone conclusion that Tesla (or any startup) is going to dominate this market.
As for AI and FSD, I’ll put my flag in the sand. We will not have production fully autonomous self driving cars (ie cars without controls) on uncontrolled surface streets in 20 years. From what I understand, the technology has hit a plateau, and there’s just way too many edge cases. If this wasn’t the case, you wouldn’t have people like Andrew Ng going around telling people to redesign cities to make it easier for robot drivers.
If it does happen, it’s not going to be Tesla. I don’t think they’re the technology leader here. Last time I read something, Cruise and Waymo were leading, and Elon’s insistence on not having lidars was holding Tesla back.
With regards to execution, I don't think anyone has done a better job of scaling physical production faster than Tesla? And you don't have to like Elon but he sure does know a thing or two about this.
I've heard both the quality argument and the Tesla killer argument for so long that I no longer believe it to be true. If they could, they already would - I would suggest that you drive a Tesla for a couple of days, then go back to ICE. All the revving of the engine and performance hooplas seems so last century after that. A comparison kills the ICE alternative (except for long ranges atm).
The consumer will if given a choice (Tesla supply is restriced) choose the best offering at the lowest price and everything is lined up for Tesla to be just that.
The big joker from my perspective is what the EU / US / Japan / Korea will do to ensure strategic production capacity / industrial strength capacity, enormous subsidies are definitely on the table.
China is all in on electric so they have nothing to lose.
Does he though? Elon's hand can be traced directly to production and safety issues. Lest we forget his hubris in trying to do final assembly with robots, a task that was tried and dismissed by multiple "legacy" manufacturers, and directly resulted in defects and manufacturing slow downs. He's not even technically a founder of Tesla. He partially financed the A round, and then started telling everyone he founded the company. Even SpaceX widely seen as Gwynne Shotwell's baby. I will say that he he's enough money and a fan base to make a bunch of meme stocks. That's something.
As far as driving a Tesla, I have. I test drove a Model S several years ago. I thought the regenerative braking was weird, but something I would have to get used to. I liked the exterior of the Model S, but I did not like the interior. I thought it was ugly and empty (a personal preference), and the infotainment system a cruel joke that not only lacked features common on cheaper cars (CarPlay), but was filled with knockoffs (Slacker instead of Spotify or Pandora, and Google Maps without Google turn-by-turn in particular) and pointless gimmicks (Paint). Even with their v10 update that brought Spotify to the US (finally a win), also brought a bunch of video streaming services that only work when the car is in park. (Why bother? Just use your phone.)
I think you should compare a Model S to a Porsche Taycan. They're comparably priced plugin electrics, but the Porsche is well... a Porsche, a finely made automobile with attention to detail. A Model S is slapdashed together; but you're right, Tesla buyers don't seem to care. Also, for some reason Tesla owners purchase their cars instead of leasing them, the only electric car owners to do so. I can't explain either of these facts.
General Motors's old financial arm was GMAC, now Ally Bank. Under General Motors's ownership, they offered credit cards[+], mortgages, and were in the insurance market since 1939. This is not an innovation.
[+] This was the only credit card my parents had for over a decade.
So, if you want to compare GM and Tesla's market caps, you need to lump the appropriate fraction of GM's franchisees' market caps in with GM's in order to make them comparable.
As far as summing up dealerships, let's go!
Tesla has 438 stores worldwide. Toyota has 1500 dealerships in the United States alone. GM? 4500 in the United States.
Do you honestly think that if we summed up all the Toyota dealerships in the world, it would be worth $750 billion? I don't, but that's how much they'd have to be worth to give Toyota a market cap of 1 trillion dollars.
Or to flip it around, even if we spotted Tesla manufacturing 2x Toyota. (Toyota is the most valuable manufacturer by market cap at $240 billion.), that would mean those 438 stores have to be worth over a billion dollars EACH.
It's even worse for General Motors. Their market cap is only 84 billion. The entire worldwide network of dealerships would have to be 11x General Motors proper, or over $900 billion dollars.
Generally I'd expect service and repairs to be of the same order of magnitude as sales, because if you have to spend $5000 a year to service and repair a $20000 car, you'll probably junk it and buy a new car that breaks down less, while if it costs you $500 a year to keep it going you'll probably either keep it running or sell it as a used car. One revenue stream might be two or three times bigger than the other, of course, and the profit margins might differ, and the dealerships don't capture all the service and repair.
I'm not sure what the number of dealerships tells us about the relative earnings potential. B. Dalton had more dealerships than Amazon ten years ago. (Or do we count B. Dalton and Waldenbooks as "dealerships of Hachette and Penguin Random House"?)
We can probably do a reasonable Fermi estimate of total dealership profits, though; 1.3 million car salespeople in the US probably means about US$60 billion in car sales commissions per year, which is about US$250 billion in car sales per year and something like US$25 billion in dealership profits; at a reasonable P/E of 30 years, the capital stock of US auto dealers would be worth about US$750 billion in total. https://policyadvice.net/insurance/insights/us-auto-sales-st... says the number of new cars sold in the US is 17 million a year, which suggests that these figures are in the ballpark, since it would mean that the average car cost US$14700, which seems maybe a little low for the US but not absurd. However, used cars are an additional 40 million a year, so maybe US$1.5 trillion for the capital stock of US auto dealers. Adding in whatever they make on sales and service, say US$3 trillion.
The worldwide number is 74 million new cars per year, 4.4 times the US number, so if we just multiply the US number by 3 (probably the average car in the US costs more), we get US$6 trillion for the value of hypothetical worldwide car dealership capital stock.
So, yeah, it does seem plausible that all the Toyota dealerships in the world would be worth US$750 billion, with similar numbers for GM, Fiat, etc.
Another thing, though, is that Tesla's vertical integration goes both directions, and you're not counting companies like American Axle & Manufacturing, Mold Masters Co., Grand Traverse Plastics, and Bosch as part of GM's market cap either.
So, I think buying TSLA at a P/E of 161 years is a pretty daring bet, and there's a significant chance it won't pay off. But I don't think the comparison to other car companies makes it look nearly as crazy as you make it sound, even if TSLA doesn't end up running our power grid on its batteries.
Autonation is a publicly traded network of car dealerships. Market cap of $7.9bn for 545 locations. That's $14.5M per location.
Car companies already make huge money on service. Plus in sum, all dealerships combined make huge money on service.
Once Tesla has an large aging fleet they will make an absurd amount of money. Something people don't yet consider is that Tesla has been losing massive amounts money building out their global service network and because of having no fleet, making little money from it.
Tesla has industry leading margin now, while having negative margin on the highest high margin business for traditional companies.
While these may be hits or misses, they underline the immense market penetration of Tesla. They're not just cars, which is why many investors project a much higher valuation for them in the coming years.
There is still a disconnect for me. First everyone outsources, apparently successfully for automotive, and that’s great, all these joint ventures between car makers etc. Then Tesl comes along, integrates everything, and poof that’s also good..?
Tesla started much later and didn't have this problem.
It feels to me that even taking the company at face value, this valuation is just silly. And I thought that for years, so clearly as a short-seller I’d be toast. But the more the price levitates, the more unreal it feels.
Tesla employees are payed just as well, and with stock options they actually historically have been paid WAY, WAY better.
The thing about Tesla is that its forward looking for a long time since they have a stable leadership with a clear long term plan. This leadership has been leading the company for more then a decade and all their plans have worked out.
Tesla now certainty is worth now what they were valued at a few years ago.
For myself, I would already consider electric flight as part of their future revenue. Its a logical next step but it will take 10 years. Of course I can understand that other people think this is crazy. But flat out, for me, I see them growing 50% a year for many more years with no end in sight.
I simply believe in leadership, no company with Elon as a CEO has really failed to grow. The closest is maybe Solarcity but he was not CEO.
Tesla threw Elon has strong connection with SpaceX. They already share material science. SpaceX uses Tesla battery technology. The connection is strong. Electric flight (not flying taxis) is a clear next step for both companies and Elon has been wanting to do it for a decade. It will take another 3-5 years before this is a serious project, but I don't think any other company is really up to it. Boeing and Airbus are not gone do it.
Until then I see continue 50% growth for a long while based on EV and Storage.
If Self-Driving works out, its massive. I am not counting on that. Even just as a advanced level 2 system its a great asset. But if it works out, the potential value is huge.
That's extremely unrealistic. The aeroplane industry is extremely complex, and there are heavy regulations where (hopefully) Tesla's "move fast and break things" + use commercial grade stuff and refuse warranty ( was it the chips in their screens or the screens themselves in some models that were not made for constant use in a car) approach won't fly. 10 years is a decent development time for a plane, if you skip the parts that Tesla have no experience with it and there'd be plenty of R&D to make them work. For reference, Bombardier, a company with decades of aeronautics experience and an established supply chain, started work on the C-Series in 2004. First flight was in 2014, first commercial service in 2016, and it nearly banrkupted them. Unless Tesla are already currently working on an electric airplane, i call bullshit on them having one in 10 years. Considering they already have the truck and semi which are oversold and underdelivered/delayed, do you think they have the capacity to tackle such a huge undertaking any time soon?
As to your other comment that Airbus won't do it - they've been on it since 2010:
https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-fli...
If one of the biggest companies in aviation has been working on it for a decade and doesn't have anything commercially viable yet to show for it, and estimate it will take them another decade for this, what makes you think a company with no aeronautics experience and history of overpromising and underdelivering can do it all in a decade?
People said the same about SpaceX. And yet they beat everybody. Tesla already works with SpaceX in a number of ways.
Do you think Musk or Tesla are not able to adjust to different industry? Are they so bull headed that they will say 'we make cars like this therefore we make planes like this'.
Tesla and SpaceX working together have the technologies required and the financials to do it, and just as important, the will to do it.
> was it the chips in their screens or the screens themselves in some models that were not made for constant use in a car
That this is still the example of 'look at this terrible company' is just embracing. A relatively young company on its first mass produced car made a mistake. Therefore for the rest of history they can never accomplish anything and they will forever be known as 'the company that selected the wrong screen'.
> it nearly banrkupted them
Tesla has better finances and ability to raise money.
> Unless Tesla are already currently working on an electric airplane, i call bullshit on them having one in 10 years.
Maybe that is the case, I don't have a fixed timeline. What I care more about is who will have it first, who makes the best and at what price can they produce them.
I don't think the existing companies will push hard enough.
I do think they are already working on battery chemistry needed for the airplanes. That is very much most difficult and unknown part about electric flight.
> Considering they already have the truck and semi which are oversold and underdelivered/delayed
The primary issue is battery supply. More products with a fixed amount of battery-supply does not mean you make more money. Overcoming battery supply and improving battery quality is the primary task right now.
> As to your other comment that Airbus won't do it - they've been on it since 2010:
Just as existing car manufactures had been working on EV since the 1970s. I think they are adopting some wrong strategies and they have very little intensive to kill their existing business.
The German car manufactures were still committing Disel gate when Tesla was producing EVs.
> estimate it will take them another decade for this, what makes you think a company with no aeronautics experience and
Maybe my estimate is wrong, but the earnings potential is there even if it takes longer. And Musk and SpaceX have lots experience.
How much experience did Tesla have in battery design and battery manufacturing 10 years ago? Almost non. 10 years later they literally have the highest output and fastest battery manufacturing line in human history producing their own cells with their own chemistries.
How much experience did SpaceX have with space capsule designs? Non in 2009 and in 2020 they launched humans. Lets consider relanding rockets, in 2011 they started working on it, they did it in 2016 and its totally routine now.
You can do amazing things if you have the will, the financials and the people to put behind an effort.
> history of overpromising and underdelivering can do it all in a decade?
People are so obsessed with that. They under-deliver because the promise insanely ambitious things. And even when the underdeliver, the results are still great. Should I be mad that they didn't deliver the Semi yet when instead the manage 50% YoY growth without it?
Why is nobody impressed that they are hitting their buissness targets WITHOUT interducing new products. That seem to be totally ignored, specially when 'lack of demand' was the main criticism of Tesla for a long time.
As it was with the Model 3, first people believe it want happen. Then when it does people say it wont scale. And then it will come on big. The Semi when it comes out will be just as demand constraint as rest of Tesla cars. Tesla will be a huge part of the global Semi market, I have little question about that. Its not like the other players in that space are rolling out massive amounts of electric semis yet either.
And anyways everybody will be battery constraint so for everybody Semi in large rollout will be tricky for everybody.
Again, I don't care if people don't agree with any of this. I don't give investing advice. Don't gamble with money I can't lose. There is a big chance this wont happen.
Tesla's stock price is confusing because it cannot be explained, let alone justified, by any market analysis, results, or market price calculation. It's purely willingness to pay driven by meme stock speculation.
> They are also a car manufacturing supply chain, having brought much of their component production in house.
This assertion makes absolutely no sense given that Tesla's market value is currently greater than Volkswagen's market value, and by no means is Tesla even comparable with Volkswagen in terms of any of the criteria you've brought up.
So basically a car company. GM makes their cars in-house. They own their own parts supplier (acdelco) and charging/distribution network (Ultium Charge 360). Ford and Stellantis are working on the same.
"Tesla the stock isn't being valued by any metrics that make sense and today investors are paying too much for their future growth which is dangerous."