However, that is NOT what is being said by bdunham7, a minority of "analysts" and some media outlets.
?? What did I say? Was it about scaling? Scaling up is overrated, especially in an automotive company. There are efficiency and cost gains up to a point (which Tesla is past, IMO) and then further expansions create management and supply chain headaches. I don't think Tesla is going to 'fail' anytime soon, not because of their growth story, but because they are now in a position to survive a serious setback or two--although their stock price may crater in the process. Their expansion actually increases their risk in my view. Perhaps they ought to learn from companies like Volvo and Ferrari, which they more closely resemble despite their outsized market cap. Operating on the level of VW, Ford or god help them, Toyota, is a whole 'nother ball game.
[...]
... Musk's ability to sell the growth story is another aspect that I think is problematic. Scaling up isn't the answer to everything and once you reach a certain size and still aren't profitable--or profitable enough--then growth simply diverts attention from the fundamentals for a while. And that's been working for them so far.
One of the reasons people like Elon is that he spends time down on the factory floor to actually solve technical issues and improving processes. It's extremely uncommon for the CEO of a big company to get their hands dirty like that.
[...]
Warren Buffet: ...and be fearful when others are greedy.
Teslaratis: Buffet is an idiot! Dogecoin to the moon!
[...]
Elon: Why is the line halted?
Manager: A supplier failed to deliver a part...
Elon: You're fired! You there, you're the new manager here! Get this going now!
New Manager: Um, we're out of....
Elon: Get 'er done or go home!
New Manager: Yes sir!
Were you not saying Tesla's business is fundamentally flawed (lacking profitability) and growth is being used as a coverup? Because that's what your quote of me is responding to.
As to your point on Tesla expanding further, do you have any evidence they lack the competence to manage operations past their current state? What is the "increased risk" Tesla has in expanding further? And is that risk not commensurate to the additional demand they stand to capture?
Also, do you acknowledge the previous point on: dilution based capital rising, particularly in the way Tesla has done it and the direction of market reaction, is perfectly "normal" and not particularly perverse in anyway?
QuoteAlso, do you acknowledge the previous point on: dilution based capital rising, particularly in the way Tesla has done it and the direction of market reaction, is perfectly "normal" and not particularly perverse in anyway?
Absolutely not. The exceptions you cited prove the rule--those are all very recent examples in a very unusual environment. It's not that Tesla's capital raise or the lack of a negative effect was unexpected given the current market conditions, but rather that current financial market conditions are very, very atypical from a historical perspective--and Tesla is a very unusual case in that unusual environment. It's not 'perfectly normal' or anything close to it. It's a complete freakshow.
1. $AU60M equity raise, Australian Finance Group, $AU708M MCAP, May 2020 https://themarketherald.com.au/australian-finance-group-asxafg-announces-60m-equity-raise-to-support-growth-2020-05-14/
2. $AU300M equity raise, Cromwell Property Group, $AU2.28B MCAP, Nov 2018 https://realassets.ipe.com/news/cromwell-property-seeks-up-to-aud300m-equity-raise-to-fund-growth/10028312.article
3. £150M equity raise, SIG plc, £600M MCAP, May 2020 https://www.insidermedia.com/news/yorkshire/sig-sets-out-plans-for-150m-equity-raise
4. $AU218.7M equity raise, Paladin Energy, $AU1.264B MCAP, March 2021 https://themarketherald.com.au/paladin-energy-asxpdn-looks-to-pocket-218-7m-for-capital-restructure-2021-03-17/
As to your point on Tesla expanding further, do you have any evidence they lack the competence to manage operations past their current state? What is the "increased risk" Tesla has in expanding further? And is that risk not commensurate to the additional demand they stand to capture?
Devolving into attacking a straw man now are we? This is not the quality of discussion I wish to be involved in.
As to your point on Tesla expanding further, do you have any evidence they lack the competence to manage operations past their current state? What is the "increased risk" Tesla has in expanding further? And is that risk not commensurate to the additional demand they stand to capture?In my view the risk of Tesla expanding further is that they start to produce more cars than the market is willing to buy. Look at the sales situation in the Netherlands as an example where a little bit of competition (the VW ID.3 isn't even finished!) sinks Tesla's market share. If I look at the sales numbers of Tesla in the first 4 months of 2021 compared to 2020 their numbers went down by more than 75% where other manufacturers show much lower numbers or even see sales increase: VW shows -30%, Toyota -13% and Skoda +15% for example.
In my view the risk of Tesla expanding further is that they start to produce more cars than the market is willing to buy. Look at the sales situation in the Netherlands as an example where a little bit of competition (the VW ID.3 isn't even finished!) sinks Tesla's market share. If I look at the sales numbers of Tesla in the first 4 months of 2021 compared to 2020 their numbers went down by more than 75% where other manufacturers show much lower numbers or even see sales increase: VW shows -30%, Toyota -13% and Skoda +15% for example.
So have they made a single Cybertruck since the announced it when, two years ago or something? I have not seen on one the streets of Toronto.
As to your point on Tesla expanding further, do you have any evidence they lack the competence to manage operations past their current state? What is the "increased risk" Tesla has in expanding further? And is that risk not commensurate to the additional demand they stand to capture?In my view the risk of Tesla expanding further is that they start to produce more cars than the market is willing to buy. Look at the sales situation in the Netherlands as an example where a little bit of competition (the VW ID.3 isn't even finished!) sinks Tesla's market share. If I look at the sales numbers of Tesla in the first 4 months of 2021 compared to 2020 their numbers went down by more than 75% where other manufacturers show much lower numbers or even see sales increase: VW shows -30%, Toyota -13% and Skoda +15% for example.That seems reasonable. My only argument against that would be we would need to wait till the EU Tesla production from the Grünheide Gigafactory to gets into swing then the "real" difference in desirability with an "equal playing field" will show just how desirable Tesla is compared to the legacy EU automakers.
Edit: Another reason Tesla might continue to beat legacy automakers is their higher investment in battery production and vertical integration allowing greater and more consistent supply. Even when other automakers produce a competitive EV they will likely face the same problems as Tesla has previously faced and still faces with meeting demand, see the supply issues on the Mustang Mach-E
Some people are cancelling their cybertruck pre-order
Thanks nctnico, really useful to hear some EU perspectives.
The new SUV EV offerings from non-Tesla automakers coming out now are looking strong. Though its possible they might be cannibalising their own ICE sales rather than stealing BEV market share from Tesla.
Thanks nctnico, really useful to hear some EU perspectives.
The new SUV EV offerings from non-Tesla automakers coming out now are looking strong. Though its possible they might be cannibalising their own ICE sales rather than stealing BEV market share from Tesla.In the EU most car manufacturers HAVE TO canibalise their ICE sales in favour of BEVs to make sure they meet average CO2 emission limits. Except for Toyota; they sell enough hybrids (*) already not to need BEVs at all in order to meet average CO2 emission limits. It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out BEVs from European manufacturers are sold at a very low profit margin (or no profit at all) just to avoid paying the fines.
* One interesting fact is that Toyota doesn't have any diesel passenger cars in their line-up on their Dutch website. Other manufacturers like Volkswagen, Peugot, Citroen and Ford still offer diesel engines.
The real question is whether the quality level can be raised to European standards. Germany does have a good track record of being able to build good cars. Regardless the brand unless ofcourse US style management screws things up.... It is not uncommon for US companies to crash & burn in Europe because they underestimate the huge difference in culture.
Still, producing in Germany doesn't mean they can produce cheaper. Especially if a lot of parts need to come from the US.
When you look at a Tesla close by, and see the huge gaps between panels, that are often times not straight, the exposed bolts, the paint... But you know, it has a farting sound app.
In the EU most car manufacturers HAVE TO canibalise their ICE sales in favour of BEVs to make sure they meet average CO2 emission limits. Except for Toyota; they sell enough hybrids (*) already not to need BEVs at all in order to meet average CO2 emission limits. It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out BEVs from European manufacturers are sold at a very low profit margin (or no profit at all) just to avoid paying the fines.
* One interesting fact is that Toyota doesn't have any diesel passenger cars in their line-up on their Dutch website. Other manufacturers like Volkswagen, Peugot, Citroen and Ford still offer diesel engines.
When you look at a Tesla close by, and see the huge gaps between panels, that are often times not straight, the exposed bolts, the paint... But you know, it has a farting sound app.
Then the 2030s ICE bans, are they reasonable or harmful to the consumer?
https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musks-plans-for-life-on-mars-a-dangerous-delusion-12243479
I’m glad other inhabitants of planet earth don’t have their heads in the clouds as most others seem to!
https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musks-plans-for-life-on-mars-a-dangerous-delusion-12243479
I’m glad other inhabitants of planet earth don’t have their heads in the clouds as most others seem to!Elon's StarShip is way too small to support 100 humans all the way to Mars. I mean WAY too small, see here (I thought it was a lot bigger):
It would be as bad as packing sardines in a can. Maybe, by pure luck, it might be able to send 10 people with something of a degree of safety margins. I would say it's a suicide mission.
[5:13] It's not an escape vehicle [...] unless Mars is made self sustaining which will probably not happen in my life time [...] it's meaningless to have an escape [vehicle], life boat or an escape hatch if you are simply moving to another place where you will soon die out. That doesn't count, it's not much of a life boat really
[...]
[6:43]You first have to say what is the goal [...] the goal is get enough tonnage to Mars and enough people to make Mars self sustaining as quickly as possible. So then you say ok let's back out the math on this. We're gonna need a lot of tonnage. Maybe, I don't know 100 000 tons may 1 000 000 tons? so then you can't be faf'ing around with these expandable rockets, they're a joke. They're absurd ... If you want to get let's say first order of approximation 1 million tons to to the surface of Mars inclusive of people [and cargo] that means something probably around 4 or 5 million useful tons of payload in low earth orbit [...] Let's put this into perspective, total global capacity to orbit of all expendable rockets is around 5 or 6 hundred tons [...] if you say the world's going to end then if you do not increase your capacity perhaps they could do 1000 tons. That's 1/5000th of what's needed. This is ridiculous. It's not even .1%
[...]
[9:15] Expendable rockets are just utterly stupid in my opinion, utterly stupid. They are a complete waste of time.
[...]
[10:12] You basically need to have something that in expendable form that would probably get about 4% of its [lift-off mass] to orbit such that you can spend about half of that 4% on reusability.
[...]
[11:20] You can't have a tiny rocket. As a tiny rocket you basically just end up carrying your electronic[avionics] to orbit. [...] trying to get even a 10 000kg rocket to orbit I think you would get bascially zero payload [...] [12:10]For big rockets you also get gauge [manufacturing minimum tolerance] advantages... [...] [14:18][Falcon 9] with a 12ft or 3.6M diameter which is that size because of road transport limitations
[...]
[17:35] "Large size, twice the take off thrust of a Saturn-V but about the same payload but that gives you reusability much cheaper, in situ propellent, it all is coherent" - Dr. Robert Zubrin
[...]
[19:21] I'm trying to make sure that our rate innovation increases it does not decrease. This is really essential, in fact if we do not see something close to an exponential improvement in our rate of innovation we will not reach Mars.
[21:16] In so far as building a self sustaining city on Mars [...] you have to achieve full and rapid reusability. I emphasis full and rapid. Reusability is only relevant to the degree it is rapid and complete. You also have to do orbital refuelling, this is essential, as well. And then propellent production on Mars, this is also essential.
[22:05] In the absence of radical innovation we have no chance of meeting that goal [Mars colonisation]. If our goal was simply, you know, defeat Lockheed and Boeing or something like that we would probably achieve that goal [logarithmically].
[23:45] So let's not shoot for the Moon let's shoot for Mars. And then these competitive things are kind of small things along the way. Unless somebody else is shooting for Mars, they will not be competitive with something as pedestrian as launching a few satellites into Earth orbit.
[27:13] "How would you prioritise missions 2 thru 10? Are you going to focus on exploration, building up the infrastructure or science?" [open potential plans for order of missions to Mars]
Elon's StarShip is way too small to support 100 humans all the way to Mars. I mean WAY too small, see here (I thought it was a lot bigger):
It would be as bad as packing sardines in a can. Maybe, by pure luck, it might be able to send 10 people with something of a degree of safety margins. I would say it's a suicide mission.Starship is not meant to be an escape vehicle for sending 100 peoeple to Mars in one go.
I think some of the '100 people to mars' confusion is due to the original starship design being bigger than the current design.
The design has change quite a bit from early plans to now. From memory the original idea was 100 people on one big ship but it was scaled back because
- A production line for smaller ships is easer
- Sending many ships is trivial once you have a production line producing them.
- Sending many ships has more redundancy and safety if there are issues on the mission.
(I think most people would be totally ok being crammed in like sardines on a starship if there was an emergency and the alternative was death)
The constant and rapid pace of development and change in SpaceX plans (and Elon Musk plans in general) probably causes a lot of confusion to people not following closely and makes it easy for those interested in painting an unflattering picture to mislead a less informed audience.
Correction: Elon Musk is a billionaire delusional moron.Depends on where the money comes from. A person who made it to a billionaire on his/her own can not be a moron. Actually Musk is quite smart to make lots of money from crappy products. Who likes Paypal? And if you look at car reliability / service level then Tesla is at the wrong end of the rankings. For an autistic person Musk seems to be able to understand how to hype stuff to people pretty well.
I admit I don't know much of Musk's background: he is still young and I am eager to see what future will bring with such a person in lead. Interesting times are coming!
For the TLDR crowd, the upshot is that Errol has a story (that hasn’t been and likely can’t be corroborated) about an informal stake in a Zambian emerald deposit in the 80s. The deal had nothing to do with apartheid, and the lifetime income generated, depending which version of Errol’s story you believe, might pay for one or two Tesla Roadsters today. But any flow of emeralds had already ended by the time that Elon left South Africa at 17 with $2,000 in his pockets to begin some very lean years in Canada.
The more interesting story here though is less the myth itself and more how it came to be, and why this sort of thing keeps happening.