Elon Musk's epic bacon adventures

Revan said:
I wouldn't even say it is whataboutism. A person can clearly be a cnut and also great at what he does. In the case of Musk (who is a dickhead although recently has been more blatant), he is great at building innovative companies that try to solve really hard problems.
Click to expand...

This forum is toxic, they would find fault with Mother Teresa.

Elon's an awesome entrepreneur and a flawed human. But reading this thread, it's clear the CAF dislikes him so it's a waste of time to have a constructive debate. Apparently Elon's dumb, Tesla is a piece of trash and all nuance is out of the window.
 
Raoul said:
It is true that they are pricey, but he is rumored to have a Model 2 in the works that will be priced in line with many of the EV competitors (as low as the 20s apparently).
Click to expand...
That's why the market cap makes little sense. Car companies are big in terms of revenue, # of employees, etc. But their unit economics aren't great if you were to allocate all the capital and R&D expenses on a per unit basis, and calculate the per unit profit. And per unit profit isn't high because consumers haven't really consistently shown so strong a brand preference in the lower and mid-tier to allow companies in that sector to price higher than competitors and earn bigger profits.
 
Suedesi said:
This forum is toxic, they would find fault with Mother Teresa.

Elon's an awesome entrepreneur and a flawed human. But reading this thread, it's clear the CAF dislikes him so it's a waste of time to have a constructive debate. Apparently Elon's dumb, Tesla is a piece of trash and all nuance is out of the window.
Click to expand...
she was a terrible person actually.
 
MTF said:
That's why the market cap makes little sense. Car companies are big in terms of revenue, # of employees, etc. But their unit economics aren't great if you were to allocate all the capital and R&D expenses on a per unit basis, and calculate the per unit profit. And per unit profit isn't high because consumers haven't really consistently shown so strong a brand preference in the lower and mid-tier to allow companies in that sector to price higher than competitors and earn bigger profits.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I do think they have shown brand preference so far, at least in the US. The supercharger network and the perceived iPhone like coolness of owning a Tesla (Musk's personal antics aside) are what is fueling it imo. If he does get the Model 2 to market, his market share will go up due to having an ecosystem (car plus charging network) already in place.
 
Raoul said:
I agree, but I do think they have shown brand preference so far, at least in the US. The supercharger network and the perceived iPhone like coolness of owning a Tesla (Musk's personal antics aside) are what is fueling it imo. If he does get the Model 2 to market, his market share will go up due to having an ecosystem (car plus charging network) already in place.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the magic of Apple in terms of the financials is that if consumers were indifferent between the iPhone and competitors, Apple would have to price it like the competitors or potentially engage in serious price competitions that could see phones be some 30%+ cheaper than they are. But consumers pay whatever Apple charges, and that extra is pure profit.

If Tesla is going to bring a new car to market and price it like competition, then they're more like an ordinary car company, and I'd give them an ordinary car company valuation.

I like a quote from the late Sergio Marchionne, who ran Fiat-Chrysler and executed quite a turnaround there in terms of taking a dying company and making it at least minimally healthy again. He was answering to financial analysts who thought it was foolish for him to acquire Chrysler: "If we stand still and do nothing we are doomed. I can’t close it, it’s a car company. I’ve tried to sell it, believe me, but there are no buyers. The only way out is to build it"

That's forever been the reality of car companies, governments will not let them close. So unlike ordinary markets where the worst competitors fold, in the car market they keep coming back with minimally viable products at subsidized prices, and the consumers do purchase at least some of them.
 
MTF said:
That's why the market cap makes little sense. Car companies are big in terms of revenue, # of employees, etc. But their unit economics aren't great if you were to allocate all the capital and R&D expenses on a per unit basis, and calculate the per unit profit. And per unit profit isn't high because consumers haven't really consistently shown so strong a brand preference in the lower and mid-tier to allow companies in that sector to price higher than competitors and earn bigger profits.
Click to expand...

Isn't Tesla more vertically integrated than your typical car manufacturer? It'd be interested to see a comparison of the cost structure breakdown between Tesla and say GM/Ford. I'm guessing the latter keep far less on a percentage basis than Tesla.
 
MTF said:
Yeah, but the magic of Apple in terms of the financials is that if consumers were indifferent between the iPhone and competitors, Apple would have to price it like the competitors or potentially engage in serious price competitions that could see phones be some 30%+ cheaper than they are. But consumers pay whatever Apple charges, and that extra is pure profit.

If Tesla is going to bring a new car to market and price it like competition, then they're more like an ordinary car company, and I'd give them an ordinary car company valuation.
Click to expand...

Yes, but even Apple has cheap iPhone versions to accompany expensive ones, and it hasn’t been an issue. At the end of the day greater market share will mean more than the novelty of a Cybertruck or yoke steering wheel on the Model S.
 
Last edited:
Suedesi said:
Isn't Tesla more vertically integrated than your typical car manufacturer? It'd be interested to see a comparison of the cost structure breakdown between Tesla and say GM/Ford. I'm guessing the latter keep far less on a percentage basis than Tesla.
Click to expand...
It's not my area of coverage, so I'm talking about my ass just a little bit. But I know that it is very hard to earn outsized profits in industries that see heavy subsidies for competitors. Besides car companies, think airlines.

In the 1960s PanAm and their newest peers were innovative. But in international air travel nearly every developed country stood up an airline to serve all the major foreign capitals, and subsidized them so that they could run at break-even or a loss. So PanAm could never leverage the advantage of being the first and being the largest to gain more market share and bigger per-seat profits.

If Tesla is to justify its current valuation at some point in the future, they will have to become both the largest car manufacturer in terms of $ revenue, and they will have to charge more per unit than the equivalent competitor model, and consumers will have to perceive such and advantage that they're willing to pay. Any efficiencies from manufacturing advantages (which I don't know if they have or not) tend to be competed away over time as other companies copy.
 
Thank god this mammoth of a man is fighting the good fight against the "wacktivists"! Isn't Elon a clever cnut.

 
MTF said:
Yeah, but the magic of Apple in terms of the financials is that if consumers were indifferent between the iPhone and competitors, Apple would have to price it like the competitors or potentially engage in serious price competitions that could see phones be some 30%+ cheaper than they are. But consumers pay whatever Apple charges, and that extra is pure profit.

If Tesla is going to bring a new car to market and price it like competition, then they're more like an ordinary car company, and I'd give them an ordinary car company valuation.
Click to expand...

Tesla's margins are something like 2-4x those of a traditional car marker's, and that will probably improve as they scale.
 
nickm said:
Tesla's margins are something like 2-4x those of a traditional car marker's, and that will probably improve as they scale.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for that? Difficult to believe when they were losing money until very recently and the traditional car makers have been making good margins on gas cars. 4x the margin on a beamer or benz would be the price of the whole car ;)
 
Raoul said:
That still equates to being the world's leading (and most successful) EV maker in the present, which is significant for a bespoke company that literally didn't exist two decades ago. As long as he has the unique charging infrastructure in place, he will continue to be a leading EV maker. He should be focusing on getting the Model 2 to market instead of fixating on dopey concepts like Cybertruck and Roadster.
Click to expand...
Not sure that is true, in terms of high end EV cars, Porsche are outselling Tesla in my part of the world anyway. I think once the major mainstays have similar propositions across all of the lines, Tesla will fade into the pack. The quality of their cars is not very good.
 
Conor said:
Not sure that is true, in terms of high end EV cars, Porsche are outselling Tesla in my part of the world anyway. I think once the major mainstays have similar propositions across all of the lines, Tesla will fade into the pack. The quality of their cars is not very good.
Click to expand...

The likes of Porsche and Audi fall under VW. The cheapest Porsche EV model (the Taycan base) starts in the 80k range, so I doubt it is outselling other brands given that Teslas start in the 40s.
 
MTF said:
It's not my area of coverage, so I'm talking about my ass just a little bit. But I know that it is very hard to earn outsized profits in industries that see heavy subsidies for competitors. Besides car companies, think airlines.

In the 1960s PanAm and their newest peers were innovative. But in international air travel nearly every developed country stood up an airline to serve all the major foreign capitals, and subsidized them so that they could run at break-even or a loss. So PanAm could never leverage the advantage of being the first and being the largest to gain more market share and bigger per-seat profits.

If Tesla is to justify its current valuation at some point in the future, they will have to become both the largest car manufacturer in terms of $ revenue, and they will have to charge more per unit than the equivalent competitor model, and consumers will have to perceive such and advantage that they're willing to pay. Any efficiencies from manufacturing advantages (which I don't know if they have or not) tend to be competed away over time as other companies copy.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but at the moment the typical car manufacturer does the assembly, manages the supply chain, and then hands out the finished product to the dealer network who handles sales and repairs. Tesla on the other hand makes the battery pack, the drive-unit, the electronics, screen, chips and handles the sales process and repairs - so I'm inclined to think they keep a far larger percentage of revenue vis-a-vis competitors (not to mention they're far more insulated from supply chain disruptions). I'm an investor in Ford and it's been painful to listen to the ER's whilst Tesla has been knocking it out the park.

Tesla has the biggest network of superchargers (aka electrical equivalent of gas stations), a more advanced AI and OS team than competitors - I think they are the clear leader on a fast growing segment - whether or not the share price is justified that's another matter.
 
Raoul said:
That still equates to being the world's leading (and most successful) EV maker in the present, which is significant for a bespoke company that literally didn't exist two decades ago. As long as he has the unique charging infrastructure in place, he will continue to be a leading EV maker. He should be focusing on getting the Model 2 to market instead of fixating on dopey concepts like Cybertruck and Roadster.
Click to expand...
That wasn't your original point. Anyway enough pedantry for me today.
 
Suedesi said:
This forum is toxic, they would find fault with Mother Teresa.

Elon's an awesome entrepreneur and a flawed human. But reading this thread, it's clear the CAF dislikes him so it's a waste of time to have a constructive debate. Apparently Elon's dumb, Tesla is a piece of trash and all nuance is out of the window.
Click to expand...
MT was rather shit.
 
Raoul said:
The likes of Porsche and Audi fall under VW. The cheapest Porsche EV model (the Taycan base) starts in the 80k range, so I doubt it is outselling other brands given that Teslas start in the 40s.
Click to expand...
I said high end cars, not all cars.
 
Suedesi said:
No doubt, but at the moment the typical car manufacturer does the assembly, manages the supply chain, and then hands out the finished product to the dealer network who handles sales and repairs. Tesla on the other hand makes the battery pack, the drive-unit, the electronics, screen, chips and handles the sales process and repairs - so I'm inclined to think they keep a far larger percentage of revenue vis-a-vis competitors (not to mention they're far more insulated from supply chain disruptions). I'm an investor in Ford and it's been painful to listen to the ER's whilst Tesla has been knocking it out the park.

Tesla has the biggest network of superchargers (aka electrical equivalent of gas stations), a more advanced AI and OS team than competitors - I think they are the clear leader on a fast growing segment - whether or not the share price is justified that's another matter.
Click to expand...

Charging infrastructure and batteries are the key imo. The Tesla Supercharger network is vastly more advanced than any other comparable network in terms of reducing range anxiety fears, which are still prevalent among many perspective EV buyers. This is an area. (at least in the US) where Tesla competitors are still frantically playing catch up.
 
Suedesi said:
No doubt, but at the moment the typical car manufacturer does the assembly, manages the supply chain, and then hands out the finished product to the dealer network who handles sales and repairs. Tesla on the other hand makes the battery pack, the drive-unit, the electronics, screen, chips and handles the sales process and repairs - so I'm inclined to think they keep a far larger percentage of revenue vis-a-vis competitors (not to mention they're far more insulated from supply chain disruptions). I'm an investor in Ford and it's been painful to listen to the ER's whilst Tesla has been knocking it out the park.

Tesla has the biggest network of superchargers (aka electrical equivalent of gas stations), a more advanced AI and OS team than competitors - I think they are the clear leader on a fast growing segment - whether or not the share price is justified that's another matter.
Click to expand...
I do not agree on AI, to be fair. From other top companies who are working on autopilot, they do not even consider Tesla as a competitor.

Google Waymo and startups such as Argo AI, Aurora, Cruise are ahead of them. In case of Argo AI and Cruise they are essentially VW, Ford and GM.

Tesla definitely lead on their native technology, but on AI, nope.
 
Conor said:
I said high end cars, not all cars.
Click to expand...

Sorry, missed that bit. The best selling Teslas are not high end either (Model Y, Model 3). The Models X and S are the high end ones and sell far less because they are priced out of most middle class budgets.
 
Revan said:
I do not agree on AI, to be fair. From other top companies who are working on autopilot, they do not even consider Tesla as a competitor.

Google Waymo and startups such as Argo AI, Aurora, Cruise are ahead of them. In case of Argo AI and Cruise they are essentially VW, Ford and GM.

Tesla definitely lead on their native technology, but on AI, nope.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I'll defer to you on this one.
 
Suedesi said:
It's impossible to have a substantive debate with trolls. Even the example is not to your liking, the essence of the post is valid.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point. You were making a point of people on here criticizing even the best of people and then went on to use Mother Teresa as an example. :lol:
 
Moby said:
That's the whole point. You were making a point of people on here criticizing even the best of people and then went on to use Mother Teresa as an example. :lol:
Click to expand...

TIL that a Catholic nun who dedicated her life to caring for the destitute and dying in the slums of Calcutta is a terrible person.
 
Suedesi said:
Sorry mate, I'm not about to watch a 20 minute video. Cliff notes?
Click to expand...

The gist of it is that she wasn't so much trying to help people, as providing a place for people to die, and glamorizing (?) suffering in honour of God... or something. I can't remember exactly, but I do remember it turned out that maybe that's a slightly unfair characterization. Still, she's far from the person I'd use as an example of the unquestionably good person.
 
Suedesi said:
TIL that a Catholic nun who dedicated her life to caring for the destitute and dying in the slums of Calcutta is a terrible person.
Click to expand...
It's not surprising you don't have much of a clue on the subject given you couldn't just now give 20 minutes on a rather summarised piece. Embrace ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.