Howard wrote:odysseus2000 wrote:If you subscribe to the FT, watch this & then cancel your subscription, it is hillarious:
https://youtu.be/gyMQJs9uy7wRegards,
A brilliant video:
This guy must have been reading this thread!
Which of his comments could one disagree with?
Tesla is a small producer of cars and like its competitors it has low margins.
The CEO makes absurd forecasts like robotaxis.
Tesla is a typical car company, same margins, same investment needs, same product cycles. And it needs to update its old models.
It has had an advantage in that it gets more range out of a Panasonic battery than its rivals. But even its most expensive model (around £100k) gets less than 400 miles range in real life. And competitors are closing the gap.
And his comments about Tesla’s rapid decline in market share of the EV markets in Norway and Germany has been reported here fairly often.
As he says, Europe is currently the hottest BEV market in the world and Tesla’s share of it is being taken away by its competitors.
He does also mention problems with service, quality, breakdowns and high insurance rates.
Other than that, he liked driving the £82k model X.
Regards
Howard
PS He didn't mention that sales in China haven't been that impressive yet.
Ha Ha! you are back to being the infantry, not the generals.
This guy got Tesla completely wrong in that the share price from when he started his research is now many times higher, seemingly assuming that the market was wrong and never considering that he and his approach could be wrong.
He applied a pure valuation model with no growth considerations, that's fine for 12 year old, but not for a reporter.
He describes Apple as being a very expensive company, but in terms of its valuation it is not.
Despite his concerns on valuation he made no comparisons of debt levels which had he done so would have shown him how heavily in debt legacy auto is and that has significant valuation implications that he did not consider.
He went on about how legacy auto was responding, failing to note the effect that this two product stream of ice and bev will have on their business
He failed to discuss the costs to legacy of trying to ramp up bev and the impact this will have on their projections which are based on continued ice demand and their forward earnings.
He failed to consider the impact of battery supply & all the new developments that Tesla have made
He failed to consider the advantages of having purpose built factories rather than trying to adapt legacy lines while at the same time making ice.
He did not do any cash flow arguments on the software sales that Tesla is now generating and whether Tesla really is a car company. He just had a prejudiced that it wasn't. Good for a 12 year old.
He assumed that market share in one market mattered while failing to consider the number of cars being sold and the rate of growth.
I could go on, but the whole video was an indication of a reporter who does not understand that secular change going on, who believes that the legacy auto industry will just go on and on and who makes no checks on whether what he is saying is reality.
For a 12 year old great, for anyone wanting analysis of Tesla and the secular change to BEV from ICE it was worse than useless as it propagates all manner of misconceptions and errors and sets anyone who takes notice of this as being ready to miss opportunity or get creamed trying to short Tesla.
It is a video for the infantry who are there to obey and follow orders, not for the generals who command winning armies.
Regards,
