Hacker News Reader

Comment by count | Hacker News Reader

Ford is a manufacturing company, and its stock is valued as such.

Telsa is valued as a 'tech company', and so has magic unlimited upside unicorns attached to its stock. Rivian too.

Tesla's valuation is influenced by hordes of retail investors who believe that any day now, their Tesla vehicles will receive an update that will turn them into FSD robotaxis that will generate income for them while they sleep.

Ford doesn't have a funny meme man/CEO on Twitter making promises about their products to millions of retail investors that will never pan out. The dumb money just isn't there to drive up crazy valuations.

Tesla is probably a bit overvalued but not by much. You are not factoring in how much money printing is happening. A turd with a stock ticker would have a market cap at least into the tens of millions.

Ford with the F-150 Lightning and the Mach-E seems grossly undervalued and a huge buying opportunity. When rednecks find out what “instant full torque” means the Lightning will sell very well.

Is your claim that Ford should be valued more as a tech company now? I’d be curious if you could elaborate why

> Tesla is probably a bit overvalued but not by much.

Tesla's current market cap only makes sense if they're producing more vehicles than every other US manufacturer, combined. That's a little more than "but not by much".

I think their value went too high... But I think of them as an energy company. They sell the cars and the "gas stations" and the "oil wells" and all the retail spots.

They also do that without spend on advertising. Honestly, that's pretty impressive. Is it worth more than all other auto companies combined? Will it last?

No idea.

Energy companies aren't worth much of anything, so even if you value Tesla as an energy company that still doesn't justify its valuation.

Tesla is basically in all the high capital with low margin businesses (cars, electricity, solar, batteries).

That's even worse. I'm struggling to think of any large energy company that ever had a tech-ish P/E ratio. There was Enron, I suppose, but that was because it was a fraud, and wasn't _really_ an energy company anyway. As a general rule, the energy industry doesn't have huge margins.

>When rednecks find out what “instant full torque” means the Lightning will sell very well.

The grid in rural areas suck, in general. The reliability is terrible and there may not be enough capacity for everyone to start charging their vehicles when they get home from work. Rural people also tend to drive many more miles (and sometimes much more energy intensive miles), and range can be a serious challenge. If they’re hauling, range is significantly diminished, and it’s not like you can throw a few extra batteries in the bed for when you’re out of juice. With a diesel, you can throw a 100gallon transfer tank in the bed for under $1000 and make it clear across the lower 48 without stopping (though that’s not normally what they’re for).

All that said, electric has promise. Longer vehicle lifetime and less maintenance is a huge plus.

You’re right, but I’d wager that 70+% of truck buyers have never used any considerable amount of the payload capacity and don’t tow anything that a crossover SUV couldn’t tow.

If they're "rednecks", they almost certainly have. Dirtbikes if nothing else.

Dirtbikes aren't exactly very heavy. Even a sedan with a small trailer can pull a few dirt bikes.

The reality is that most of the people buying trucks do it because they like trucks and perhaps think it's more practical. It's not for actual work use. The same way most people buying SUV's aren't actually doing any off-roading or towing as well.

> According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...

A lot of people make this case that you can go X distance without stopping. But that's completely impractical. There are many laws that regulate the trucking industry. For example you can only drive 11 hours consecutively, and then you're required to spend at least 10 consecutive hours not driving. There are also more rules about having to take breaks after a certain number of hours, and limits on number of hours per week they can work.

So if you're following the law, you will end up having to stop anyway. And as charging tech improves that stop will get shorter and shorter until it's no longer a concern. And again, once people see the economics of it and see how much money is being saved, they'll gladly trade off a little bit more time waiting for charging if necessary.

Rednecks already understand the value of heavy torque. The automotive-minded ones are the ones pushing the boundaries all the time.

Google up 'hold my beer'. You'll see.

Ford can absolutely become a tech company.

I mean, are we using tech to mean just software? Because if you look at how fast cars technological evolve, they’ve been a tech company for over 100 years. How is this different?

I don’t think Ford has an interest in become over hyped trash, they are doing just fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com