Forbes Administers a Slap and a Tickle to Fans of EVs

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--So if no one else if paying for it when tax credits are handed out to EV buyers, it must also be true that no one else is paying for it when tax credits are given to say for instance oil companies, yes?

--Also it should be noted that the government takes in huge sums in gas and corporate profit taxes, much more than the companies make in profits, which makes it financially worth while for the government to offer these incentives for desired behavior. Once you subtract what the government takes in. the net subsidy is hugely negative. With renewables and EVs this huge net profitability to the government has not yet been demonstrated, only promised. Certainly the Volt has not yet earned enough in profits to pay back the initial investment.

--I was amazed to lean in these very pages that the reason EVs are not selling like hot cakes, is because the potential buyers are stupid or they are ICE owners who want to pollute more than they want to save oodles of moola.
And here I thought they were just buying what suited them. Feh.

--I do not recall saying that the Volt was designed by the federal government. I was merely opining that perhaps the un-businesslike decision to go ahead with it was heavily influenced by the feds.

"All business sagacity reduces itself in the last analysis to judicious use of sabotage."
Thorstein Bunde Veblen 1857 - 1929

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[mtdoc]

--Also it should be noted that the government takes in huge sums in gas and corporate profit taxes, much more than the companies make in profits, which makes it financially worth while for the government to offer these incentives for desired behavior. Once you subtract what the government takes in. the net subsidy is hugely negative.

Nonsense. There is no factual basis for that statement.

Snip---Various straw-man arguments ignored ---

I was merely opining that perhaps the un-businesslike decision to go ahead with it was heavily influenced by the feds.

So you've changed your tune from it being part of the GM bailout terms (factually wrong) to being "influenced by the feds". What does that even mean?  Any actual facts to back up that statement?

[tom66]

This is a particularly common element of right wing politics (conservatism), the desire to keep things "as-is" because it's "all fine".

[dannyf]

the desire to keep things "as-is"

The desire to not take your money away from you, nor to allow you to take my money away from me.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--It is not conservatism, it is common sense. Example. While I love and support Space Exploration and Science, I was never a fan of the Shuttle or the Space Station. Why? Because in both cases those promoting the projects, told huge lies, about what they would cost, and what they would do. In the case of the Shuttle they told huge lies about how many missions per year, and the cost per mission. They also lied about the safety of the boosters and the main engine, read Feynman's report. In the case of the Space Station it was lying about the cost, and how many Shuttle missions it would take to complete. At the last they reclassified a bunch of construction missions, as maintenance missions so they could claim an earlier completion date and a lower budget figure. Then there was the idea of going halves with Putler, great Idea that. Now he is conquering free countries by force and shooting down airliners. Administration policy? Lets kiss up to him some more, and Iran too. 

--Face it, the Volt is never going to sell the promised 60,000 per year, or even the re-promised lowered expectation of 45,000 per year, no matter how many subsidies, and no matter how many fleet sales to boondoggle friendly local governments and companies like General Electric (half owner of unwatched MSNBC).

--What is a person in favor of any and all government expenditures except non-green subsidies, and defence spending to do? Do not present facts, attack those who disagree, and claim they do not really disagree, but have other motives. Compare them to religious zealots, who have not even appeared in this blog. And never, repeat, never acknowledge that the governments make a lot more money on sales, than oil companies do. Just keep harping on the subsidies, like they exist in a vacuum. Try to make things personal in your blog posts if you can, by mentioning the hated enemy as often as possible. And most important of all is, to claim that all EV and Renewable projects are huge successes, no matter how they turn out. And remember, keep it personal and keep it hostile.

--Governments should fund research, real research, where the outcome is unknown. Governments should not as general matter be funding production.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov 1920 - 1992

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

Compare them to religious zealots, who have not even appeared in this blog.

I would argue that those "science is settled" crowd and tree huggers are pretty religious about their self interests.

You don't have to have a religion to be religious.

[tom66]

I would argue that those "science is settled" crowd and tree huggers are pretty religious about their self interests.

I would argue the exact opposite. It is the deniers who are treating it like a religion because there is scant evidence to support their cause.

If sufficient evidence came my way that showed climate change wasn't human caused, or wasn't even happening, then I'd change my opinion on the matter. Yet in fact the opposite has happened. Evidence has been presented, in multiple forms, but you continue with the denial that AGW is some kind of institutionally wide fraud or is massively exaggerated.

Compare: evolution vs intelligent design. Both sides claim their theory to be valid. Which is backed by actual evidence? And which acts like a religion?

[Corporate666]

You're correct, I was mistaken - there are 2200 Teslas in the Netherlands, or about 1 per 8,000 capita.  But there are close to 400,000 cars sold per year in your country.  By any measure, Teslas are rare.  To claim that on 90% of your trips you see one (and they are different ones you're seeing), and these people are always driving slower than traffic, giving you enough of a sample size to reasonably conclude that range anxiety is causing them to drive slow...

If you spend much of your time near Schipol airport you will see Teslas a LOT. They have long lines of them at the taxi ranks there. I was told those taxis spend most of their time just around that part of Amsterdam. However, in 5 days staying in central Amsterdam last November I saw Teslas numerous times in that area too. Not all of those were taxis.

If they are mainly being used as commercial taxis around the airport - then that casts even more doubt upon the claim that they are driven slowly due to "range anxiety".

However you slice it, they are rare cars anywhere - more so in the Netherlands than here in the USA where they're still rare cars.

[Corporate666]

The major "subsidy"  for EVs in the US is the income tax credit.  This is a tax credit - basically a reduction in the amount of taxes the EV buyer owes for one year - up to $7500. Note they only get that if they owe over $7500 in taxes already. So - no one else is paying for it.  A few states have similar state income tax credits -but most don't.

 Are you sure? So how does the federal budget respond to this $7500 reduction in their income? Cut spending by $7.5K for each person that takes advantage? Increase taxes to compensate for the reduction? Or just increase the federal deficit?

People talk about the $7500 as if the federal goverment cuts a check to... "someone"... for that amount.

Unfortunately, EV's are like religion.  And as humans, when people have a bias towards or against something - they become blind to the facts towards the goal of proselytizing.

In the case of the tax credits - it's up to $7500 and it's a reduction in taxes owed.  The false assumptions are that

1) Everyone buying a qualifying EV is "getting" a payment of $7500
2) Everyone qualifies for the full $7500

and most importantly...

3) That people spending $40-140k on a car would not do other things with that income which would also diminish their tax liability.

In other words, in reference to #3, the assumption is that the consumer would sit there and take the $7500 tax bill like a lemming - but in reality we all do lots of things to mitigate tax liability.  This is no different.  Not to mention the encouragement of commerce that the $7500 provides which leads to additional tax revenues that offsets (or perhaps exceeds) the initial tax credit revenue loss.

[Corporate666]

--So if no one else if paying for it when tax credits are handed out to EV buyers, it must also be true that no one else is paying for it when tax credits are given to say for instance oil companies, yes?

Yes, subsidies in general are not costs - they are recorded that way because there is really no way to measure the cost and benefit portions, so they are based out of the idea of promoting <something>, whether that be home ownership, medical insurance, a college education, etc.  All of these things encourage spending which largely offsets (or entirely negates) the subsidy.

--Also it should be noted that the government takes in huge sums in gas and corporate profit taxes, much more than the companies make in profits, which makes it financially worth while for the government to offer these incentives for desired behavior. Once you subtract what the government takes in. the net subsidy is hugely negative. With renewables and EVs this huge net profitability to the government has not yet been demonstrated, only promised. Certainly the Volt has not yet earned enough in profits to pay back the initial investment.

You don't understand how global economies work.  Subsidies are not simply offset by income tax on profits of the manufacturer of the subidized product - rather there is a huge effect all the way down the line.  People employed at parts suppliers who are collecting salaries and paying income (and other) taxes.  Property and other taxes paid by those firms.  The wealth generated by the investment GM made in their EV's flows to local business, colleges and incalculably more places.  Where did you get your numbers on oil subsidies being "hugely negative" and demonstrated yet the same not being true of EV's?  You don't have that data - nobody does, which renders your post ideology without a basis in fact.

--I was amazed to lean in these very pages that the reason EVs are not selling like hot cakes, is because the potential buyers are stupid or they are ICE owners who want to pollute more than they want to save oodles of moola.
And here I thought they were just buying what suited them. Feh.

A good metric for stupidity is clinging to a belief despite it being in contrast to demonstrated facts and available data.  EV sales are rising rapidly - much faster than the original Prius and orders of magnitude more than other alternatives (fuel cells, hydrogen).  Only a fool would expect EV's to match combustion engine car sales to any extent in the opening years of the EV - especially considering the infrastructure is largely not built out.

However, the proof is in the pudding... Tesla has created around $25 billion in market value which did not previously exist.  That is about half of what GM and Ford are worth.  Pretty impressive considering the resources of the latter compared to Tesla.  It's yet another great American success story.  What is the word for someone who hates Americans succeeding?

--I do not recall saying that the Volt was designed by the federal government. I was merely opining that perhaps the un-businesslike decision to go ahead with it was heavily influenced by the feds.

You've said this many times before and have been corrected many times before - I've corrected you on at least two occasions including backing up the point with direct quotes from Bob Lutz who was integral to the problem.

What is the word for someone who believes their ideology despite provable facts to the contrary?  Is such a person to be listened to and should their words be given weight?  If so, why?  I see no difference between that and a street preacher telling you that hell awaits if you don't repent.  Are such people considered intellectuals with insightful opinions?  Not around here.

[SgtRock]

Greeting EEVBees:

--In October of 2008 GM was given the first 13.4B in bail out money, under TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program). This was pushed by President Bush, candidate Obama, and virtually all of the Democrat controlled legislature. By November President Elect was touting a million electric cars on the road by 2015. [Not even close] It was at this very time that the below article was written. It shows GM, begging for another 18B and touting the Volt and energy saving technology to save the company. [Not even close] Now I cannot prove that there were phone calls and emails between GM and administration officials discussing the Volt, but it is not an unreasonable speculation.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/108120415351/wagoner-heading-to-bailout-hearing-in-chevy-volt-prototype [December 4 2008]

"During GM's presentation the company will showcase the technology behind the Volt in an effort to explain to the Senators that the company's viability will be based on new energy saving technologies. With GM's plan to cut costs and focus on four core brands, the company is hoping Congress will approve their request for $18 billion in government loans. Source: Automotive News"

--"Viability", "A million electric cars", Hmmm. So, as I see it the failure of the Volt is not the sole responsibility of GM and Lutz. I think the present, and the previous administrations deserve a large share. I understand the concept of Keynesian spreading of the wealth having a "huge effect all the way down the line". But that would depend would it not on whether the benefits outweighed the costs, otherwise all subsidies to unprofitable projects would be good ideas, yes? In any case a successful attempt probably generates more "huge effect" than a failure.

--I support Tesla because I think it is real, bankable, approach to the EV, by someone who has skin in the game, not just a bunch of hypothecated Keynesian deficit spending, again. So, I am probably every bit as stupid as all the other ICE drives who have not bought an EV yet. Just ask Bob Lutz, the republican.

"If Mr. Einstein doesn't like the natural laws of the universe, let him go back to where he came from."
Robert Benchley 1889  -  1945
 
Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

The Volt was part of the package was well understood then, now and hopefully in the future.

Any denier of it simply wants to chop down trees, starving kids and run over their neighbor's dogs.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Meanwhile, Tesla, Solar City, and most analysts are not very worried about fuel prices slowing the growth of PV.

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/12/22/john-solari-teslas-economic-multiplier-looks-good/20750317/

"The gigafactory’s eye-popping jobs figures may be conservative"

--And that is not the government or Tesla talking.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096168_tesla-gigafactory-for-electric-car-batteries-site-work-continues-photos

"The car is presently targeted for first production in late 2017, but the factory must be up and running at sufficient capacity to produce enough battery packs for the Model 3 before then--an ambitious schedule."

http://wunc.org/post/nevadas-tesla-battery-factory-triggers-wave-follow-business

"Tesla's abatements are performance-based. And the increase in people working and living here will supply new revenue, says developer Lance Gilman."

--So as far as I can see the State of Nevada is not risking too much. But of course the people who are building the following business are putting their own money at risk, and not the government's.

"Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one."
William Henry Gates III 1955 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--I should have added the below article from Investors Business Daily to my previous post.

http://news.investors.com/technology/122914-732441-tesla-400-mile-battery-shows-e-car-range-gains.htm?ven=market_realistcp]

""There are a lot of hybrid announcements, but right now in terms of pure battery-electric, (Volkswagen's (OTCPK:VLKAY) Audi seems to be ahead of everyone else," Dougherty's James told IBD. "Next year they're going to introduce a car that competes with what the Roadster was in 2009, and in 2017 they will introduce a car that competes with where the Model S was in 2012."

"Inside the one outfitted with the Roadster 3.0 package will be a bunch of battery cells that yield 31% more energy than the originals, and so deliver 70 kilowatt hours of electricity in the same size battery pack, Tesla said on its blog Dec. 26."

"If we assume the improvement seen in the Roadster is applied to the Model S," she said, potential tweaks to the Model S could reach a range of 350-400 miles per charge by the end of 2017. "By that point they will be vertically integrated (with the Gigafactory) and they'll be locking up battery cell supply.Tesla is James' top stock pick for 2015 among 11 companies she covers. She has a buy rating and 325 price target on Tesla shares"
 
"Albertine has a buy rating and 400 price target on Tesla stock, which fell nearly 1% Monday but is up 48% this year to near 226 after a 344% gain in 2013."

--Whoo hoo, I do not recall seeing this kind of advice to investors from IBD or any of its sisters regarding the Volt, but then again they are capitalists.

"A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier."
H. L. Mencken 1880 -1956

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[mtdoc]

SgtRock you continue to be either uninformed or purposely deceptive.  Your history of posts suggests it is the later.

--In October of 2008 GM was given the first 13.4B in bail out money, under TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program).

TARP wasn't even signed into law until October 2008.  GM was not approved to even be considered a financial holding and hence eligible for TARP until December 2008.

--http://www.worldcarfans.com/108120415351/wagoner-heading-to-bailout-hearing-in-chevy-volt-prototype [December 4 2008]

All the article you referenced says is that GMs CEO was going to drive to the bailout hearings Washington in a Chevy Volt.  So let's see he was driving a Volt in December 2008 - before GM had even received any federal money..  Kind of defeats your own argument don't you think? 

By December 2008 GM was already securing contracts with suppliers, the UAW and putting in place facilities for mass production of the Volt. Is it a surprise that when asking for money Wagoner would be touting GMs latest, greatest technology?

More facts about the GM Baiout:

" On December 2, 2008, General Motors submitted its "Restructuring Plan for Long-Term Viability" to the Senate Banking Committee and House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.[22] Congress declined to act, but in December 2008 the Bush administration provided a "bridge loan" to General Motors with the requirement of a revised business plan."

"On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements."

June 1, 2009: GM filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

July 10, 2009: A new company financed by the United States Treasury, "NGMCO Inc"purchased the most of the assets, and the trademarks of the General Motors Corporation.

In total $51 billion taxpayer money has gone in the GM bailout. Until December 10, 2013, the U. S. Treasury recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake. The final cost of the GM bailout cost the U. S. taxpayer $12 billion ($10.5 billion for General Motors and $1.5 billion for former GM financing GMAC, now known as Ally).

According to a study by the Center for Automotive Research the GM bailout saved 1.2 million jobs and preserved $34.9 billion in tax revenue.

The facts are a matter of historical record, Your contention that production of the Volt was part of  GMs bailout terms is not accurate and your ongoing attempt to say it is despite being shown the facts speaks to your motivations and character.

Personally, I was very opposed to TARP and was not happy when Bush and Paulson held the country hostage to get it passed.  I was not if favor of ANY of the government bailouts during the 2008/2009 financial crisis (on which I blame both the 'Clinton and the Bush administrations along with their Wall st. puppeteers.).  I was opposed to the GM bailout but even more so the much larger bailout of AIG and the big banks.  At least GM's bailout involved a Chapt 11 bankruptcy and the bondholders and shareholders were required to take a haircut. And GM is an actual company producing something of value and not the pox on humanity that the big banks have become- but I digress....

In anycase - regardless of what I think about GMs bailout, the Volt is a great car (ask anyone who owns one) with great engineering and  given the political forces aligned against it,  it continues to slowly gain sales as part of the early wave of EV adoption.  I'm also a big fan of Tesla - it is clearly leading the way and and forcing the big automakers to play catch up.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--See below article about GM CEO Rick Wagoner driving a Chevy Volt-Mule to Capitol hill.

http://jalopnik.com/5101870/gm-ceo-rick-wagoner-rolls-up-to-capitol-hill-in-cruze-covered-chevy-volt-mule

"GM CEO Rick Wagoner just showed up to Capitol Hill driving the Chevy Volt mule."

"You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 1012 to 1."
Ernest Rutherford 1871 1937

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[mtdoc]

Nice try Sgt. Rock. I hadn't previously taken you for a troll, but now....

[dannyf]

"GM CEO Rick Wagoner just showed up to Capitol Hill driving the Chevy Volt mule."

Is that before or after they flown in with their corporate jets?



GM and Chrysler are kind of like those tree-huging environmental extremists: they cannot make a living on their own but they insist that you follow their instructions to live your life.

[Corporate666]

Greeting EEVBees:

--In October of 2008 GM was given the first 13.4B in bail out money, under TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program). This was pushed by President Bush, candidate Obama, and virtually all of the Democrat controlled legislature. By November President Elect was touting a million electric cars on the road by 2015. [Not even close] It was at this very time that the below article was written. It shows GM, begging for another 18B and touting the Volt and energy saving technology to save the company. [Not even close] Now I cannot prove that there were phone calls and emails between GM and administration officials discussing the Volt, but it is not an unreasonable speculation.

It's a shame that you continue to be intentionally dishonest in your statements, despite being corrected numerous times previously.

1) Obama's statement about "one milliion EVs" was not made "around this same time", he said it during his 2011 State of the Union speech.  Lie #1.

2) Nowhere does the article state that Wagoner "touted the Volt and energy saving technology to save the company".   You made that up because it supports you anti-EV stance.  Lie #2

3) The Volt was shown as a concept in January of 2007, after being developed through 2006 in response to Lutz wanting to take another crack at EV's with the development of Li-Ion batteries.  It was green-lighted shortly after the 2007 Auto Show and the R&D and tooling was complete and the first production unit was built BEFORE the GM executives even went to Washington.

Therefore, the claim that it would "not be unreasonable" to speculate there were calls and emails between GM and officials is obviously nonsense.

--"Viability", "A million electric cars", Hmmm. So, as I see it the failure of the Volt is not the sole responsibility of GM and Lutz. I think the present, and the previous administrations deserve a large share. I understand the concept of Keynesian spreading of the wealth having a "huge effect all the way down the line". But that would depend would it not on whether the benefits outweighed the costs, otherwise all subsidies to unprofitable projects would be good ideas, yes? In any case a successful attempt probably generates more "huge effect" than a failure.

1) The "million EV's" statement was a political platform statement by Obama and has nothing to do with viability of any EV or whether spending on the Volt was warranted.   Therefore using Obama's hope for a million (collective) EV's from all manufacturers as being the metric for success is yet another dishonest statement. 

2) GM (and the facts) would disagree with you that the Volt is a failure.  There were articles that claimed GM loses $40k-60k per Volt sold.  The author took the total R&D costs and divided it amongst the units sold to date.  That doesn't even work by elementary school logic, yet it was repeated ad nauseum by folks who didn't possess the smarts to think it through.  Lutz, in response, stated the obvious - R&D costs are recouped over the lifetime of a platform - not over the first years production or even the first generation.  The Voltec platform has expanded beyond the Volt.  It is also used in Via motors electrified trucks, as well as the Cadillac ELR, and now with the 2nd generation 2016 Chevy Volt.   We've had Republican and Democratic congresses and white houses during the life cycle of the GM Volt.  The idea that it's a political icon is obviously untrue.  Not to mention GM has had various managers, CEO's and executives over the years and the Volt program lives on and has grown substantially since inception.  That's success by any measure.

3) You do not understand Keynesian economics.  It has nothing to do with "trickle down" - which was championed by Reagan's administration.  In fact, Keynesian and "trickle down" are somewhat opposites of each other.

--I support Tesla because I think it is real, bankable, approach to the EV, by someone who has skin in the game, not just a bunch of hypothecated Keynesian deficit spending, again. So, I am probably every bit as stupid as all the other ICE drives who have not bought an EV yet. Just ask Bob Lutz, the republican.

1) Nobody has said people who don't buy EV's are stupid - that is merely another claim you have invented to argue against.  That is a logical fallacy called a "straw man" - misrepresenting someone's position and arguing about what you have claimed their position is.  It's intellectually dishonest because, of course you know nobody said that. 

2) You've been corrected numerous times about tax credits not being "spending", yet you continue to make the claim - which is also dishonest.

Best Regards
Clear Ether

In sum, looking through your post, it's pretty much just lies, logical fallacies and false claims.  Not the kind of things someone would do if they had a valid point that was defensible.  Rather, the kind of thing someone would do who was arguing flawed ideology against facts.  Not really any different than an Occupy Wall Street type demanding social spending to give everyone a "living wage", including those that prefer not to work at all. 

[Corporate666]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Meanwhile, Tesla, Solar City, and most analysts are not very worried about fuel prices slowing the growth of PV.

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/12/22/john-solari-teslas-economic-multiplier-looks-good/20750317/

"The gigafactory’s eye-popping jobs figures may be conservative"

--And that is not the government or Tesla talking.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096168_tesla-gigafactory-for-electric-car-batteries-site-work-continues-photos

"The car is presently targeted for first production in late 2017, but the factory must be up and running at sufficient capacity to produce enough battery packs for the Model 3 before then--an ambitious schedule."

http://wunc.org/post/nevadas-tesla-battery-factory-triggers-wave-follow-business

"Tesla's abatements are performance-based. And the increase in people working and living here will supply new revenue, says developer Lance Gilman."

--So as far as I can see the State of Nevada is not risking too much. But of course the people who are building the following business are putting their own money at risk, and not the government's.

"Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one."
William Henry Gates III 1955 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

You should be able to see the error of your thinking based on the above article.

Previously, you claimed that tax credits were warranted when corporate profits would make up for the credits.  You may notice in the article you quoted that nowhere do they talk about corporate profits offsetting the tax credits.  They DO talk about jobs, payroll taxes and "trickle down" effects of giving thousands of people tens of thousands of dollars a year which they will spend on homes, cars, clothes, food, entertainment, at local shops and such, etc.   Nevada doesn't write a check to Tesla - they simply agree to give them a postponement of taxation for a specific period of time.  If they did not give that deal, Tesla would not go to Nevada.  So what was the net effect for Nevada?  They will get millions or billions in revenue (after the tax free period ends as well as immediately from all the economic activity building the plant followed by the economic activity and payroll taxes for thousands of employees).  That revenue would otherwise not exist - for Nevada.  It is an opportunity cost alone.  To claim otherwise is to say that if you were thinking of buying a new TV that's usually $1000 but is on sale for $500, but you didn't realize that you missed the sale at Best Buy so you decided to keep your old TV... and doing so cost you $500. 

Hopefully you now understand the benefits of tax credits and how they are not spending and can be more truthful in subsequent posts.

[Corporate666]

Greetings EEVBees:

--I should have added the below article from Investors Business Daily to my previous post.

http://news.investors.com/technology/122914-732441-tesla-400-mile-battery-shows-e-car-range-gains.htm?ven=market_realistcp]

""There are a lot of hybrid announcements, but right now in terms of pure battery-electric, (Volkswagen's (OTCPK:VLKAY) Audi seems to be ahead of everyone else," Dougherty's James told IBD. "Next year they're going to introduce a car that competes with what the Roadster was in 2009, and in 2017 they will introduce a car that competes with where the Model S was in 2012."

"Inside the one outfitted with the Roadster 3.0 package will be a bunch of battery cells that yield 31% more energy than the originals, and so deliver 70 kilowatt hours of electricity in the same size battery pack, Tesla said on its blog Dec. 26."

"If we assume the improvement seen in the Roadster is applied to the Model S," she said, potential tweaks to the Model S could reach a range of 350-400 miles per charge by the end of 2017. "By that point they will be vertically integrated (with the Gigafactory) and they'll be locking up battery cell supply.Tesla is James' top stock pick for 2015 among 11 companies she covers. She has a buy rating and 325 price target on Tesla shares"
 
"Albertine has a buy rating and 400 price target on Tesla stock, which fell nearly 1% Monday but is up 48% this year to near 226 after a 344% gain in 2013."

--Whoo hoo, I do not recall seeing this kind of advice to investors from IBD or any of its sisters regarding the Volt, but then again they are capitalists.

"A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier."
H. L. Mencken 1880 -1956

Best Regards
Clear Ether

Unfortunately, you don't understand how investing or how the stock market works.

IBD will never issue a "buy" on anything Volt, because if they sell 20,000 units in a year at $32,000 (cost to dealer, where GM gets its revenue from), that is $640 million.  GM does around $155 billion a year in sales, so even if ALL the money paid by dealers was retained by GM, the Volt would account for less than one half of one percent of GM's sales.  In reality, GM doesn't keep all that revenue - much is returned to dealers in the form of incentives, hold backs and advertising fees, as well as year end credits and performance credits.   Even if the Volt was going to increase to triple the income to GM next year, it would account for about 1% of their total sales.  In other words, the Volt can't "move the needle" on GM's stock because it is a tiny fraction of their global business.

The Tesla Model S - the only car Tesla makes right now, accounts for 100% of their revenues however.  GM's P/E ratio is around 21, while TSLA's was over 1,000 in 2013 and -550 in 2014, but with a market cap for TSLA of $24 billion.  Meaning Tesla is not sold on earnings but on future potential.  Therefore, news about what is coming from TSLA is super important to their stock price and has a great effect on value.  News about what the Volt is coming with in 2016 will not have a major effect on GM, so that news is as important in terms of stock price as whether the next version of MS Flight Simulator will let you fly a green 747 has on Microsoft's share price.

[SgtRock]

Greeting EEVBees:

http://www.hybridcars.com/obama-calls-for-1-million-plugin-hybrids-0805/

” He backed up his trademark optimism with the most dramatic auto technology proposals of the 2008 campaign cycle. Obama said he hopes to see 1 million plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road by 2015, a number far beyond the most optimistic forecasts."

--Looks like 2008 to me.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/108120415351/wagoner-heading-to-bailout-hearing-in-chevy-volt-prototype [December 4 2008]

"During GM's presentation the company will showcase the technology behind the Volt in an effort to explain to the Senators that the company's viability will be based on new energy saving technologies.

--In order for the company to be saved, does it not have to be viable?

http://wunc.org/post/nevadas-tesla-battery-factory-triggers-wave-follow-business


"Tesla's abatements are performance-based. And the increase in people working and living here will supply new revenue, says developer Lance Gilman."

"Nevada doesn't write a check to Tesla - they simply agree to give them a postponement of taxation for a specific period of time.  If they did not give that deal, Tesla would not go to Nevada.  So what was the net effect for Nevada?  They will get millions or billions in revenue (after the tax free period ends as well as immediately from all the economic activity building the plant followed by the economic activity and payroll taxes for thousands of employees)."

--The above quoted post seems to have gotten what I was saying about the deal completely backwards and has restated my conclusion as if in argument. The post was pro Tesla, not anti. Duh.

--I hope for now that we can all agree that Wagoner did indeed drive a Volt-mule to Capital Hill in 2008 after the private plane imbroglio, and that Obama, in 2008, indeed touted 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015. Moreover, it would have been much more stupid to make that prediction in 2012. Talk about inaccurate nitpicking.

--True enough people cannot buy stock in the Volt, but they can buy stock in GM, and IBD hasn't written the kind of article about GM that the have Tesla. They did however mention the Volt in the below 2008 editorial about the Volt and EVs in general.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/080713-666735-gm-dropping-price-on-chevrolet-volt.htm

"Sales of the Volt, the most popular electric vehicle, were only a little more than half of the 45,000 that GM expected last year. Ford built 1,627 Focus Electrics in 2012 and sold only 685 of them.Foreign makers fared no better. Mitsubishi could sell only 600 of its i-MiEVs while Nissan sold fewer than 800 of its Leafs last year. Sales in 2013 remained stagnant until Nissan cut the price by $6,400 early in the year. Yes, Tesla seems to be doing well. But remember: It makes a luxury car that appeals to the wealthy who buy them as toys. It's an outlier.Meanwhile, Chrysler has wisely decided to stay out of the EV market until "consumers are willing to step up and pay for the technology," Automotive News reported this week. That's the way it should be." Government involvement invariably introduces inefficiency, improper incentives and, in the end, failure.

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
François, Marie Arouet - Voltaire
1694  -  1778
 
Best Regards
Clear Ether

[tom66]

Over 100,000 Leafs have been sold.

Each Leaf is profitable if sunk costs (R&D, facility construction) are ignored:
http://www.torquenews.com/2250/nissan-leaf-now-profitable-sort

By the end of next year, the Leaf will probably be making Nissan a net profit.

The Model S is profitable for Tesla, but it turns out building a massive battery factory and supercharger network requires a lot of capital. So they are currently losing money. But guess what - Tesla is now free of government loans. The only subsidy is the ~$7.5k + state incentives, which do make the cars more attractive. But Tesla is just making use of what is already there. I have little doubt that Tesla could still survive without those subsidies, although their sales figures would probably be lower, especially for the small-battery models.

[dannyf]

Each Leaf is profitable if sunk costs (R&D, facility construction) are ignored:

Every decision you have made is correct, if the incorrect ones are ignored;

Every answer you give is correct, if the incorrect ones are ignored;

...

That's liberal's mentality.

[tom66]

Danny, it's a reasonable thing to do, to ignore R&D and facility construction for now.  Those costs will be amortised across all cars. The point is, it costs $X to build and sell a Leaf and Nissan can sell a Leaf for $X+Y, where $Y is positive, netting them a profit on each car. Since the facility is built and the R&D is finished, Nissan is on track to become profitable even when sunk costs are taken into account. Plus, they have sold over 100,000 Leafs, and they are on track to sell more this year than in any previous year.

Your argument may as well be the same as for the Volt, take total invested and divide by one mule car, oh dear, GM must be losing $5bn on the first Volt they sell!

I believe this is GAAP/non-GAAP stuff, though I can't be sure.

It's amazing how poor of a grip on  basic financial systems you seem to have. I am no whiz myself but even I can understand this.