The future of Tesla

[Live trash can]

That's a rather pointless argument.

I think billionaires have a lot of influence. Having something in common with a billionaire raises the proabability of them doing something in your own favor.

I guess I assume that Musk must be nice from what I have heard of him. Especially concerning Civilization. I haven't heard any not nice things except from this thread.

I tend to believe the best when I assess people. If they do something wrong I think this is for some good reason. And they are not totally wrong. In the same way I believe Musk has some good traits from his way of playing Civilization, and therefore I would cut him some slack.

Not all people who play the game are nice though.

It's the same with Steven Seagal. I have a lot in common with him and used to love his movies, so I think of him with respect, even though I believe he has hit his wife.

 

[HoloDoc]

I think billionaires have a lot of influence. Having something in common with a billionaire raises the proabability of them doing something in your own favor.

I guess I assume that Musk must be nice from what I have heard of him. Especially concerning Civilization. I haven't heard any not nice things except from this thread.

I tend to believe the best when I assess people. If they do something wrong I think this is for some good reason. And they are not totally wrong. In the same way I believe Musk has some good traits from his way of playing Civilization, and therefore I would cut him some slack.

Not all people who play the game are nice though.

It's the same with Steven Seagal. I have a lot in common with him and used to love his movies, so I think of him with respect, even though I believe he has hit his wife.

I tend to believe the worst of people. I call this attitude; "experience."

Musk has bee a well-known nutjob for years. He is just good at PR, or at least he has been until recently. A lot of these tech billionaires have good PR. Bill Gates screwed over his long-term business partner by basically defrauding him of his shares while said partner was dying of cancer. Steve Jobs was an abusive weirdo who never bathed and liked to soak his feet in the toilet. He also ate nothing but fruit for years, which caused numerous health problems. Mark Zuckerberg absolutely stole the idea for Facebook, and screwed over his own business partners, no matter what that propaganda piece with Jesse Eisenberg says. And Musk has a long history of exploiting his employees and narcissistic behaviour. Suddenly he has discovered marijuana, and the crazy is no longer behind closed doors.

Nice guys don't call people "pedo guys" for no good reason.

 

[Live trash can]

A lot of these tech billionaires have good PR.

I guess one shouldn't believe what comes through the main stream media.

And also, if these guys in the positions they are in, really wanted to make a change, they wouldn't do what they are doing. They would do some damage!

But what to do is a complex question. I do see that they could do things, but you can't do just what you want either.

Thanks for keeping it civil

 

[HoloDoc]

I guess one shouldn't believe what comes through the main stream media.

And also, if these guys in the positions they are in, really wanted to make a change, they wouldn't do what they are doing. They would do some damage!

But what to do is a complex question. I do see that they could do things, but you can't do just what you want either.

Thanks for keeping it civil

They mostly care about profit. Gates has decided to cure malaria since he retired from running Microsoft, so at least he's doing something useful. Good luck to him.

They do tend to cause a lot of collateral damage though, mostly through the manufacture of their products. A lot of the compounds in common electronics produce poisonous waste.

 

[Live trash can]

They do tend to cause a lot of collateral damage though, mostly through the manufacture of their products. A lot of the compounds in common electronics produce poisonous waste.

One thing that really baffles me, is that not more people try to stop the degradation of the environment. It seems "weak" that people in influential positions don't do more on this front.

Edit:
Maybe if people are kept busy enough, they don't have time to think about the environment?

I managed to get through high school without using much time on homework, and I ended up an environmentalist!

 

[HoloDoc]

One thing that really baffles me, is that not more people try to stop the degradation of the environment. It seems "weak" that people in influential positions don't do more on this front.

Once upon a time they did. It seems bizarre now, but the Republicans in the US used to be strongly pro-environment. Bush Sr, especially, passed quite a bit of environmental legislation. But big business rarely cares about the future, just their immediate profits, and politicians follow the money.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Richard Nixon gave us the EPA which was a breakthrough thing when it comes to the environment. I'm not sure any other country had anything like the EPA at the time.

 

[HoloDoc]

Richard Nixon gave us the EPA which was a breakthrough thing when it comes to the environment. I'm not sure any other country had anything like the EPA at the time.

Nixon was an astonishingly good president. It always surprises people when they first start learning about him, because everyone just knows Watergate.

Or Futurama. My daughter was horrified when she found out Nixon was a real guy, and the President once.

 

[Hrothbern]

Richard Nixon gave us the EPA which was a breakthrough thing when it comes to the environment. I'm not sure any other country had anything like the EPA at the time.

I see from wiki that EPA deals with the combination of public health and environment. With an "independent" head, appointed by the President, with the rank of a Cabinet member.
IDK how strong EPA is currently involved in defense against Climate change, but at that time certainly I guess it was all about the recognition that understanding, measuring, and policy proposals on environment to protect the public health was the main dish.

Had to look it up for NL
IDK about other countries, but here in the Netherlands, the RIVM was founded in 1934 to deal mainly with contagious diseases (Spanish flu, etc), but also already water pollution, as was done on a less coordinated way by its predecessor since 1909 (TBC etc), but since 1934 directly reporting to the Minister of Public Health and with ample budget and scope to investigate anything relevant.
After the big smog disaster of London in 1952, killing 12,000 people, of which 4,000 directly !, more and more attention went to public contamination/pollution of Industry, though for the Minister of economy growth came before health unless the pollution was too visible or deadly. But air pollution measurement of various scopes were put up everywhere in the 50ies as response to that London disaster. The effects of steel mills, mines, chemical industry, etc were measured and related with public health statistics. During the 60ies public awareness increased and the economy allowed a further balance shift from wellfare to wellbeing.
In that same year as the EPA founding, in 1970, general frame legislation on environment was made, having standards, that made it possible to intervene in and increase protecting regulations.

My guess would be that Germany was also early, but IDK how strong and coordinated. The industrial tycoons were strong.
The white beluga whale that swum up the river Rhine in 1966, getting blacker and blacker, had a big effect on the environmental awareness in Germany. The river Rhine at that moment an open sewer of all the heavy and chemical industry.
The beluga survived the 500 km, 4 week journey and got back to the North Sea.
http://www.environmentandsociety.or...raised-awareness-water-pollution-west-germany

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The EPA has been forefront on climate change as far as what our Federal government is willing/able to do on the issue - which is to say not a whole lot. But they do things such as set fuel efficiency requirements on cars.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Back to the topic -

Tesla just posted a rare quarterly profit. Again, this may be a bit of an artificial bump due to the way they staged deliveries at the end of the quarter.

However, this may also be the start of their turn around. If they have gotten Model 3 costs under their price point and they can maintain production at this rate they may be out of the danger zone

I can believe that they have costs under control but I'm iffy on sustained rate. Musk's approach to meeting rate has been to treat labor as an expendable resource so we'll see if he burns out a large chunk of his work force or if they've hired enough people to keep this up from here on out. The other big problem they face is entirely self-inflicted.

As soon as Tesla has historically 'fixed' the production rate of their previous vehicles, they tend to embark on new, ambitious products. They got the Model S going and then jumped into the overly-complex (even Musk admits this) Model X. Then they fixed that and jumped into Model 3. Now they want to do Model Y, Roadster 2 and a Semi. The problem is not that they are incapable of creating these things - it's that each of these things take massive amounts of capital/debt and that at the level of debt/income they are carrying, one misstep can bring the company down. They don't have to do this - they could (and probably should, to be honest) just rest on their laurels for a bit.

Right now they have debt payments on the order of $900 million and if they don't take a breather and just focus on selling Model 3's then they will have to take on even more debt for the other projects. This is a problem they don't need right now.

 

[innonimatu]

I was surprised. There are people saying that they've "paid" and are still waiting delivery, and there's 600 million (more than the declared profit) added to accounts receivable. Waiting to see it it was an accounting trick.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They should begin selling Model 3's in Europe next year and are also going to build a factory in China for that market. Chinese law requires foreign companies to surrender IP and set up local factories when selling China (this is part of why there is a trade war between them and the US) so I'm curious as to how wise it is to sell there? Chinese partner-companies (also required under Chinese law) are notorious for taking that IP and reselling it or openly recreating/stealing it and competing against their foreign partners.

 

[Oerdin]

Back to the topic -

Tesla just posted a rare quarterly profit. Again, this may be a bit of an artificial bump due to the way they staged deliveries at the end of the quarter.

However, this may also be the start of their turn around. If they have gotten Model 3 costs under their price point and they can maintain production at this rate they may be out of the danger zone

I can believe that they have costs under control but I'm iffy on sustained rate. Musk's approach to meeting rate has been to treat labor as an expendable resource so we'll see if he burns out a large chunk of his work force or if they've hired enough people to keep this up from here on out. The other big problem they face is entirely self-inflicted.

As soon as Tesla has historically 'fixed' the production rate of their previous vehicles, they tend to embark on new, ambitious products. They got the Model S going and then jumped into the overly-complex (even Musk admits this) Model X. Then they fixed that and jumped into Model 3. Now they want to do Model Y, Roadster 2 and a Semi. The problem is not that they are incapable of creating these things - it's that each of these things take massive amounts of capital/debt and that at the level of debt/income they are carrying, one misstep can bring the company down. They don't have to do this - they could (and probably should, to be honest) just rest on their laurels for a bit.

Right now they have debt payments on the order of $900 million and if they don't take a breather and just focus on selling Model 3's then they will have to take on even more debt for the other projects. This is a problem they don't need right now.

You won't find an MBA in the world who advises that. You want to be the first to market with the disruptive tech, you want to plant your flag, and build your name on it. You can ALWAYS get financing and investment as long as your idea is good but you have to be fast and you have to beat everyone else to market.

With Tesla it is speed or die (or at least end up getting taken over by a dinosaur who doesn't really want to change).

 

[Oerdin]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...n-america-about-to-crush-bmw-lexus-in-q4/amp/

On a related note last quarter Tesla outsold Mercedes, Audi, Acura, and Infinity. Next quarter they should be the best selling brand in the luxury segment bearing everyone including BMW and Lexus.

They are doing very well but need a full line up to really stay on top. Thus the Model Y (An SUV), the pick up, and the roadster are really needed to flesh out the line up. I have reservations on the Semi, I don't see it being a market segment leader so why bother? But Musk seems to think electric semis are needed to really start to get CO2 emissions falling.

 

[Hrothbern]

You won't find an MBA in the world who advises that.

Expectation management of future profits is key for big companies. Both too low as too high profits reported compared to realised are detrimental for trust and a max share price.
It is not so much faking the books, but the combination of shifting operational actions, like for example pulling forward special write offs based/backed by operational explanations on new facts/insights, etc, etc, with the desired financial effects, optimised within the room available for the financial reporting effect as desired.
Moderate profit shifting happens therefore on a continuous base in all big companies. It is exactly the expertise of your Finance department to be able to do it within the room available. Analists know that and do read between the lines, big investors that own big amounts of shares do expect off the record information hinting at that to get a better picture, a better understanding of the future profits as from the strategic plan, than purely from the reports that are public. The criterium is that they recognise the shifting is done for a more stable and controllable likely realisation of future profits, and the goal: future share price and dividends. It is one of the key tasks of the CEO and the CFO to have that process and communication in place.

Whereby I do not exclude that the losses reported of Q1 were a trick to get the share price lower and to go private at a lower cost.... and bouncing back the profits when in private ownership. Having your "everything" reported in public, to your dinosaur competitors, could very well be seen by Musk as conflicting with his market strategy. And the moment just before profits started to come a last opportunity to shift. IDK.

You want to be the first to market with the disruptive tech, you want to plant your flag, and build your name on it. You can ALWAYS get financing and investment as long as your idea is good but you have to be fast and you have to beat everyone else to market.

With Tesla it is speed or die (or at least end up getting taken over by a dinosaur who doesn't really want to change).

Yes... speed.... extremely important to conquer the market, to plant your flag. Every company recognises that, acts by that. But normally it does not show so much, does not affect the total company so much, because it is only part of a big companythat is engaged in such an all out effort for a new product. Investors have less experience with such a setting. The usual setting is a company forced to take risks by fast growth in defending an existing market for an existing productgroup against competitors carving out a big share of a (too) fast growing market (from some new development).

It is I think still a balance between risk appetite (Musk has lots of that), and faster growth for a stronger long term position.

For Climate, for electrification of cars, both Tesla able to grow fast without accidents, as pushing the dinosaurs to faster development of electric cars with that threat, have a comparable overall effect.
Perhaps the optimal scenario for a max overall effect is less agressive than Musk is doing. IDK.

 

[Moriarte]

But Musk seems to think electric semis are needed to really start to get CO2 emissions falling.

Lower emissions is a nice perk, yet the core reason why electrification has so much potential from the POV of Musk (and similar Capitalists) is cost savings - both on running the car/truck and on repairs. Furthermore, tesla can’t afford to be beaten to this market, they have to delve into truck production before the likes of Volvo and Daimler fill the void.

https://media.daimler.com/marsMedia...b1R5cGVJZD00MDYyNiZ2aWV3VHlwZT10aHVtYnM!&rs=0

 

[Oerdin]

The problem is the established players already are rolling put electric trucks so I just don't see where their competitive advantage is in big rigs except in cheaper batteries.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You won't find an MBA in the world who advises that. You want to be the first to market with the disruptive tech, you want to plant your flag, and build your name on it. You can ALWAYS get financing and investment as long as your idea is good but you have to be fast and you have to beat everyone else to market.

With Tesla it is speed or die (or at least end up getting taken over by a dinosaur who doesn't really want to change).

Maybe you missed the part where I said they already have debt payments closing in on a billion dollars? Also, your characterization in the third sentence here is a massive simplification.

There won't 'ALWAYS' be financing; see 2008 or realize how many businesses never get off the ground or just fail for lack of access to capital. Further, just because there is capital available doesn't mean the banks will lend it to Tesla on terms Tesla can accept. They're already leveraged to the hilt are in a quarterly scramble cycle as they have to resort to antics to clear bond payments. I said before that setting up tent factories was a picture of how poorly Tesla has managed their growth. Banks see that just as well as anyone else and typically have access to analysts who spend all day synthesizing data points like that and Tesla's FTC filings into a coherent picture of how well the business is doing.

In addition, the first mover advantage is easy to overestimate here. It's easy for GM and Toyota to sit back and watch how Tesla plays out in the market over the next couple of years since they know that long before Tesla can grow to a dominant market position they can pivot their production lines to EV's and drown Tesla in a sea of cheaper (and more available) knock-offs. They can learn from Tesla's mistakes and are big enough that redirecting only a small portion of their research and productive capacities to EVs would make them the de facto leaders of the EV market.

Moreover, the fact that Tesla can't physically sell their cars because they can't build them fast enough is a massive problem for them. I'd buy a $35,000 Tesla right now if I could but instead will likely go with a Chevy Bolt. @caketastydelish's father was also going to buy one but they aren't available. So they have to continue their production ramp up and sustain rate just to keep up with their bond payments.

Sane banks would stay away from providing them even more loans to build new vehicle lines in marginal and/or untested markets for EVs.

I want Tesla to thrive but their is a ton of hype around the company that is divorced from reality on the ground.

Finally - on MBAs - you know Elon is famously against MBAs and sees the degrees as completely useless and those that pursue them to be kind of dumb?

 

[Oerdin]

I completely disagree. Not only are they not leverage to the hilt but their ability to pay is growing far faster than their debt. This CNBC article might help you get a better factually based inderstanding.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...analysts-had-to-say-about-tesla-earnings.html