I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
And the power industry ?
I disagree about Tesla not being tech (they design their own chips; they are potential leaders in battery tech; they are heavily involved in industrial automation). Whether that justifies the current valuation is quite another matter.
(& it’s entirely possible, though only possible, that they take 50% of the electric vehicle market within a decade.)
... by which time the 'electric vehicle market' will be most of the 'vehicle market'.
Every electric car sold in the US now has a J1772 connector, except Tesla (and even Tesla includes a free converter).
I am driving today from Brentwood in North West Los Angeles, to Laguna Niguel in Orange County. There are a surprising number of 150 - 350 KW fast chargers along the way should I need to stop. (It's 200 miles round trip, which will be fine.)
The big issue is not so much the number of fast CCS chargers in the US, it is the fact that you don't know where they are because there are at least two large networks and a host of smaller ones.
America went for the really old Japanese standard? Blimey. As for chargers in the UK there genuinely are a lot springing up. But a lot a lot of networks. All with different payment systems and wildly different pricing for the electricity. Not remotely user-friendly.
OK, technically it's a J1772/CCS combo. It charges my car at up to 350KWh (theoretical and peak and only achievable for short bursts). Still, I can go from 5% to 75% on a fast charger in about 25 minutes. (Which is 200 miles of range.)
Why do you feel the need to keep posting statistics to imply Scotland and Wales have performed poorly throughout the life of the pandemic? It seems a really peculiar thing to want to do.
Just saying.
Surely the 'Wales is in a much better position than England' comment in that tweet deserves to be refuted if it is false. Or are you only happy with news when it makes Westminster look bad?
The figures generally in Wales have been pretty poor as they have been compared to our European neighbours, in the rest of the UK. The figures quoted should be contextualised by three meat processing plants in Anglesey, Merthyr and Wrexham. My issue isn't with calling all domestic government's out for a total failure, it just seems odd that someone living in Guernsey would feel the need to keep posting negative stories about Scotland and Wales specifically. I wouldn't get any particular pleasure from from learning that over the course of the pandemic, more people have passed away in England per 100,000 than in any of the other home nations. It's mawkish!
I’ve been critical of all the governments’ efforts - and in particular of partisan nationalists trying to claim that “our nationalism is superior to your nationalism - look at our results”.
All of them have made mistakes. Wales’ testing has been poor, Scotland made a mess of Care Homes (as did Guernsey) and the U.K. government has muffed quarantine and international travel.
I think we should learn from all of those - don’t you?
I see you forgot England won the premier league for care homes
Why do you feel the need to keep posting statistics to imply Scotland and Wales have performed poorly throughout the life of the pandemic? It seems a really peculiar thing to want to do.
Just saying.
Surely the 'Wales is in a much better position than England' comment in that tweet deserves to be refuted if it is false. Or are you only happy with news when it makes Westminster look bad?
The figures generally in Wales have been pretty poor as they have been compared to our European neighbours, in the rest of the UK. The figures quoted should be contextualised by three meat processing plants in Anglesey, Merthyr and Wrexham. My issue isn't with calling all domestic government's out for a total failure, it just seems odd that someone living in Guernsey would feel the need to keep posting negative stories about Scotland and Wales specifically. I wouldn't get any particular pleasure from from learning that over the course of the pandemic, more people have passed away in England per 100,000 than in any of the other home nations. It's mawkish!
I’ve been critical of all the governments’ efforts - and in particular of partisan nationalists trying to claim that “our nationalism is superior to your nationalism - look at our results”.
All of them have made mistakes. Wales’ testing has been poor, Scotland made a mess of Care Homes (as did Guernsey) and the U.K. government has muffed quarantine and international travel.
I think we should learn from all of those - don’t you?
I see you forgot England won the premier league for care homes
We ran a Nissan Leaf for 3 years from 2014. It was a very good (for the time) electric car but a pretty poor car. That Nissan are still selling the same car 10 years on from launch with the same decade old battery tech is why Tesla have already won.
Elon Musk applies a series of quite simple and quite old business ideas. In this case the one he applies is this:
Your product will be superseded by a better product. That cannot be stopped. Your choice is whether it superseded by your next product, or someone elses.
The Leaf experience demonstrated that we didn't want another Leaf. The Nissan experience demonstrated that we didn't want another Nissan (had loaner cars of everything from Micra to Qashqai). Had already known that Bristol Street Motors were awful, that all the local Nissan dealers are them or similarly awful pretty much nailed the coffin shut.
The problem with every non-Tesla is the charging network. The EU didn't impose CCS fast enough so that we have three different charging standards out there, and some of the private companies installing rapid chargers think that a higher pence per mile than Diesel is the way to go. Which is why wifey now has a ("self-charging") Hyundai hybrid and I have a mahoosive Volvo diesel.
I'm still diesel estate until eVs can sensibly tow 2 tons, over one of those silly tonka-tank things. But it will be the last, I expect.
This is the tipping point state IMO. Whoever wins it wins the election, most likely.
Pennsylania and Michigan and the Hillary States and one of Nebraska 02 or Maine 01 gets Biden to 269 which would be a tie but to win he probably needs Florida as well to get over the 270 votes needed for an EC majority
Why do you feel the need to keep posting statistics to imply Scotland and Wales have performed poorly throughout the life of the pandemic? It seems a really peculiar thing to want to do.
Just saying.
Surely the 'Wales is in a much better position than England' comment in that tweet deserves to be refuted if it is false. Or are you only happy with news when it makes Westminster look bad?
The figures generally in Wales have been pretty poor as they have been compared to our European neighbours, in the rest of the UK. The figures quoted should be contextualised by three meat processing plants in Anglesey, Merthyr and Wrexham. My issue isn't with calling all domestic government's out for a total failure, it just seems odd that someone living in Guernsey would feel the need to keep posting negative stories about Scotland and Wales specifically. I wouldn't get any particular pleasure from from learning that over the course of the pandemic, more people have passed away in England per 100,000 than in any of the other home nations. It's mawkish!
It is actually pathetic and very unedifying , they really need to get the chip off their shoulder and stop trying as hard to prove they are really English and being Scottish was just an accident of birth.
I see “No True Scot” is back with us......you on the other hand are a well balanced fellow - a chip on both shoulders....
I don't have to pretend , I am perfectly well balanced and happy in my skin.
He must be condemned for going into government to try to get some of their policies implemented? (and succeed.. e.g., the £10k income tax threshold was a LD idea...)
Ah, no.. it's his Facebook job.
"Nick Clegg is one of our most well-known figures. But he has abandoned our principles, and we must now condemn him for it. Splashed across the news are stories of Facebook defying a boycott aimed at getting them to tighten up on hate speech and information on their platform. And just behind Zuckerberg is our former leader, massaging the facts and spreading his own misinformation in an attempt to ameliorate his boss’s critics."
It's not as if it's the first time he's performed such a role.
Nick Clegg is earning $1 million a year at Facebook and pushing free speech, seems the very definition of a free market liberal to me
I hate myself, but I like two Kanye West songs (Goldigga and Black Skinhead) but I've got a ton of a Cardassian/Kardashian puns ready for deployment.
Oh, that lovely singalong ditty.
Now I’m not saying she’s a gold digga, But she ain’t playin’ with no broke n.....
Err, I think I’ll stop there, if that’s okay.
Great song though. One of many from him. Highly unlikely imo to be as good at American Presidency as he is at music.
Still, if it were Kanye v Trump ...
The worry is that it’s Kanye v Trump v Biden, in 50 FPTP elections. We could see a big Ross Perot effect.
West has already missed the registration deadline in New Mexico , North Carolina , Texas, New York , Indiana and Maine. To get on the ballot in states is a complicated process. And his arse licking of Trump previously means you’ll get very few Democrats being duped into voting for him. No paperwork has been filed with the FEC and more states have deadlines over the next few weeks . If he does run and it’s not just some publicity stunt then it’s an attempt to put Trump back in the WH and that message is going to be hammered home by the Dems .
Agreed. His best strategy is to run as a write-in, but I doubt he'll cause much of a blip anywhere. Of course the real fun would be if he achieves any electoral votes (next to impossible IMHO but you never know) and no-one hits the magic 270. The Presidential election then goes to the House voting by state where they can only choose from the top three candidates by EV. More fun, in a contingent election, the VP is elected by the Senate, and they can only chose from the top *two* VP candidates by EV. Even more fun, it's the new House and Senate that would hold the contingent election. Likely the new House would still have a GOP majority of state delegations, but the Senate might well be majority Democratic, so a contingent election in January 2021 could easily result in a Pres and VP from different tickets.
Why do you feel the need to keep posting statistics to imply Scotland and Wales have performed poorly throughout the life of the pandemic? It seems a really peculiar thing to want to do.
Just saying.
Surely the 'Wales is in a much better position than England' comment in that tweet deserves to be refuted if it is false. Or are you only happy with news when it makes Westminster look bad?
The figures generally in Wales have been pretty poor as they have been compared to our European neighbours, in the rest of the UK. The figures quoted should be contextualised by three meat processing plants in Anglesey, Merthyr and Wrexham. My issue isn't with calling all domestic government's out for a total failure, it just seems odd that someone living in Guernsey would feel the need to keep posting negative stories about Scotland and Wales specifically. I wouldn't get any particular pleasure from from learning that over the course of the pandemic, more people have passed away in England per 100,000 than in any of the other home nations. It's mawkish!
If the Welsh numbers should be massaged like that, shouldn't the English ones be treated the same way?
What do you mean massaged? Johnson has said we need to focus on local lockdowns so of course one needs to be able to highlight specific hotspots and analyse that localised data. I wasn't saying that the figures from these meat plants should be removed from the national figures, but it might be helpful to add caveats.
You were saying the Welsh figures had to be contextualised, but nothing on the English figures.
Of course all the figures should be contextualised. England generally have seen the R rate reducing. It would be even better were it not for the R rate running out of control in London.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
Completely Off Topic Tesla stock going wild 1,331.30 + 122.64 (+10.15%) I bought a few at 820 six weeks ago, last October they were 250.
Can anyone explain why Tesla is now valued at ~$250 billion?
1) Because they figured out how to make the Model 3 profitably. 2) They are selling cars with no advertising, and selling everything they can make 3) This means that every time they build another factory - more profit. 4) They seem to be ahead of all the other car makers on electric vehicles 5) They are ahead on battery power storage 6) Most of the western world in heading full tilt to get rid of ICE vehicles 7) The legacy car makers are trying to catch up - and not doing especially well
All of the above may not add up to $250 billion, but these are the reasons that it has gone that way.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
I saw last week an article that said Tesla was valued at more than the next 17 top manufacturers.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
And the power industry ?
I disagree about Tesla not being tech (they design their own chips; they are potential leaders in battery tech; they are heavily involved in industrial automation). Whether that justifies the current valuation is quite another matter.
(& it’s entirely possible, though only possible, that they take 50% of the electric vehicle market within a decade.)
They have 50% of the electric vehicle market (outside China) today. The question is, given a very limited selection of vehicles and improving products from everyone else, can they keep it?
If the I-Pace was better engineered, it would fill the spot held by the Tiguan/Macan as a midsized SUV. Sadly, it just feels cheap inside.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
Why do you feel the need to keep posting statistics to imply Scotland and Wales have performed poorly throughout the life of the pandemic? It seems a really peculiar thing to want to do.
Just saying.
Surely the 'Wales is in a much better position than England' comment in that tweet deserves to be refuted if it is false. Or are you only happy with news when it makes Westminster look bad?
The figures generally in Wales have been pretty poor as they have been compared to our European neighbours, in the rest of the UK. The figures quoted should be contextualised by three meat processing plants in Anglesey, Merthyr and Wrexham. My issue isn't with calling all domestic government's out for a total failure, it just seems odd that someone living in Guernsey would feel the need to keep posting negative stories about Scotland and Wales specifically. I wouldn't get any particular pleasure from from learning that over the course of the pandemic, more people have passed away in England per 100,000 than in any of the other home nations. It's mawkish!
It is actually pathetic and very unedifying , they really need to get the chip off their shoulder and stop trying as hard to prove they are really English and being Scottish was just an accident of birth.
I see “No True Scot” is back with us......you on the other hand are a well balanced fellow - a chip on both shoulders....
I don't have to pretend , I am perfectly well balanced and happy in my skin.
Your sunny disposition shines through unfailingly.....
Completely Off Topic Tesla stock going wild 1,331.30 + 122.64 (+10.15%) I bought a few at 820 six weeks ago, last October they were 250.
Can anyone explain why Tesla is now valued at ~$250 billion?
1) Because they figured out how to make the Model 3 profitably. 2) They are selling cars with no advertising, and selling everything they can make 3) This means that every time they build another factory - more profit. 4) They seem to be ahead of all the other car makers on electric vehicles 5) They are ahead on battery power storage 6) Most of the western world in heading full tilt to get rid of ICE vehicles 7) The legacy car makers are trying to catch up - and not doing especially well
All of the above may not add up to $250 billion, but these are the reasons that it has gone that way.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
I saw last week an article that said Tesla was valued at more than the next 17 top manufacturers.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
This is the tipping point state IMO. Whoever wins it wins the election, most likely.
Pennsylania and Michigan and the Hillary States and one of Nebraska 02 or Maine 01 gets Biden to 269 which would be a tie but to win he probably needs Florida as well to get over the 270 votes needed for an EC majority
There are a bunch of other winnable states that potentially get him there too however
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
And the power industry ?
I disagree about Tesla not being tech (they design their own chips; they are potential leaders in battery tech; they are heavily involved in industrial automation). Whether that justifies the current valuation is quite another matter.
(& it’s entirely possible, though only possible, that they take 50% of the electric vehicle market within a decade.)
... by which time the 'electric vehicle market' will be most of the 'vehicle market'.
Easy path to $100bn annual revenues within 3 years, when you tot up Model 3,Model Y and Cybertruck programme. This is without considering growth potential from logistics (Semi trucks, delivery trucks, port services), energy (solar, storage, grid services including taking out gas peaker plants), self driving (including media services to passengers) and a "cheap" Model 4.
At $100bn a steady state net profit margin of high single digits seems possible. Let's say 8%. At that point would a 30x valuation multiple for a company with such high growth potential really be unreasonable?
This seems overvalued to some people because it's at the inflection point in its growth story. It will seem obvious in 3 years.
Robert you seem to be concerned about Tesla for the fact they've only got 4 models but surely in the future they have the potential to create more models and/or other marques within their company in the same way that Volskwagon certainly has many more models within the company than the VW brand alone.
Getting 4 brands operational, mass produced and profitable is a good starting point and diversity can be added later if needed.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
The mob have got their hands of a picture of him with Jeffrey Epstein.. and Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins etc. Guilt by association, he's a...
...non believer!
God I hate god!
Not sure why God is the target for your ire?
Oh not especially. I mainly disapprove of his associates.
He clearly doesn't exist so there's limited point in disapproval, but his associates are both unpleasant and virulent.
I had a soft spot for the Pope, but alas.
Are Steven Pinker, Jeffrey Epstein, or Dan Dennett are practising God-botherers (Dawkins is vocally not)? Are the people attacking them? In most cases I'd assume not.
I think the true belief Isam referred to was the new bigotry of the woke. Who are both unpleasant and virulent, but again, nothing to do with God, or his associates.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
The mob have got their hands of a picture of him with Jeffrey Epstein.. and Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins etc. Guilt by association, he's a...
...non believer!
They have my sympathy, which makes a change. Dennett and Dawkins both being slightly annoying types who trade extensively on not believing in a god which most believers in God don't believe in either.
Panasonic is weirdly unmentioned in the Tesla story here.
Panasonic manufacture the cells that Tesla builds into batteries. Saying they are leaders in battery tech when they don't manufacture the key component of their batteries is a reach.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
And the power industry ?
I disagree about Tesla not being tech (they design their own chips; they are potential leaders in battery tech; they are heavily involved in industrial automation). Whether that justifies the current valuation is quite another matter.
(& it’s entirely possible, though only possible, that they take 50% of the electric vehicle market within a decade.)
... by which time the 'electric vehicle market' will be most of the 'vehicle market'.
Easy path to $100bn annual revenues within 3 years, when you tot up Model 3,Model Y and Cybertruck programme. This is without considering growth potential from logistics (Semi trucks, delivery trucks, port services), energy (solar, storage, grid services including taking out gas peaker plants), self driving (including media services to passengers) and a "cheap" Model 4.
At $100bn a steady state net profit margin of high single digits seems possible. Let's say 8%. At that point would a 30x valuation multiple for a company with such high growth potential really be unreasonable?
This seems overvalued to some people because it's at the inflection point in its growth story. It will seem obvious in 3 years.
Tesla is clearly wildly over-valued. The reality has to do a lot of catching up for that to change.
The company is almost 100% 'pipe-dream'. I don't quite see it, but I have some investments in companies that are in a similar place in their evolution.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
Why do you feel the need to keep posting statistics to imply Scotland and Wales have performed poorly throughout the life of the pandemic? It seems a really peculiar thing to want to do.
Just saying.
Surely the 'Wales is in a much better position than England' comment in that tweet deserves to be refuted if it is false. Or are you only happy with news when it makes Westminster look bad?
The figures generally in Wales have been pretty poor as they have been compared to our European neighbours, in the rest of the UK. The figures quoted should be contextualised by three meat processing plants in Anglesey, Merthyr and Wrexham. My issue isn't with calling all domestic government's out for a total failure, it just seems odd that someone living in Guernsey would feel the need to keep posting negative stories about Scotland and Wales specifically. I wouldn't get any particular pleasure from from learning that over the course of the pandemic, more people have passed away in England per 100,000 than in any of the other home nations. It's mawkish!
I’ve been critical of all the governments’ efforts - and in particular of partisan nationalists trying to claim that “our nationalism is superior to your nationalism - look at our results”.
All of them have made mistakes. Wales’ testing has been poor, Scotland made a mess of Care Homes (as did Guernsey) and the U.K. government has muffed quarantine and international travel.
I think we should learn from all of those - don’t you?
I see you forgot England won the premier league for care homes
Nat gloating over OAP deaths.
I thought Nats were for clearing out bed blockers?
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
The mob have got their hands of a picture of him with Jeffrey Epstein.. and Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins etc. Guilt by association, he's a...
...non believer!
God I hate god!
Not sure why God is the target for your ire?
Oh not especially. I mainly disapprove of his associates.
He clearly doesn't exist so there's limited point in disapproval, but his associates are both unpleasant and virulent.
I had a soft spot for the Pope, but alas.
Are Steven Pinker, Jeffrey Epstein, or Dan Dennett are practising God-botherers (Dawkins is vocally not)? Are the people attacking them? In most cases I'd assume not.
I think the true belief Isam referred to was the new bigotry of the woke. Who are both unpleasant and virulent, but again, nothing to do with God, or his associates.
It was god's associates I disapproved of. If you wear a silly hat and call yourself by a silly name because you wish to participate in one of history's great non-senses then that'll be up to you.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
Completely Off Topic Tesla stock going wild 1,331.30 + 122.64 (+10.15%) I bought a few at 820 six weeks ago, last October they were 250.
Can anyone explain why Tesla is now valued at ~$250 billion?
1) Because they figured out how to make the Model 3 profitably. 2) They are selling cars with no advertising, and selling everything they can make 3) This means that every time they build another factory - more profit. 4) They seem to be ahead of all the other car makers on electric vehicles 5) They are ahead on battery power storage 6) Most of the western world in heading full tilt to get rid of ICE vehicles 7) The legacy car makers are trying to catch up - and not doing especially well
All of the above may not add up to $250 billion, but these are the reasons that it has gone that way.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
They need to find a way of being cheaper. I *really* want a model X but they are so bloody expensive and hard to even find second hand here. Such a beautiful car though.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
And the power industry ?
I disagree about Tesla not being tech (they design their own chips; they are potential leaders in battery tech; they are heavily involved in industrial automation). Whether that justifies the current valuation is quite another matter.
(& it’s entirely possible, though only possible, that they take 50% of the electric vehicle market within a decade.)
... by which time the 'electric vehicle market' will be most of the 'vehicle market'.
Easy path to $100bn annual revenues within 3 years, when you tot up Model 3,Model Y and Cybertruck programme. This is without considering growth potential from logistics (Semi trucks, delivery trucks, port services), energy (solar, storage, grid services including taking out gas peaker plants), self driving (including media services to passengers) and a "cheap" Model 4.
At $100bn a steady state net profit margin of high single digits seems possible. Let's say 8%. At that point would a 30x valuation multiple for a company with such high growth potential really be unreasonable?
This seems overvalued to some people because it's at the inflection point in its growth story. It will seem obvious in 3 years.
I think your profit margin expectations are a little high, but I agree with your general outlook. Here's how I'd think about this.
Around 60 million new cars are sold each year. In a decade, two thirds of these will be electric. So that's about a 40 million car opportunity. Average revenue per unit will be $25,000. So that a $1 trillion market.
Tesla will probably have 25% of that market, and be the leading player. So that's a $250bn sales opportunity (albeit in a decade).
The highest operating margin in the auto world in 16%, at Porsche. Tesla is mass market so will probably be a little lower, say 13-14%. But we do need to apply tax to this, which means we get to a c. 8-9% net profit margin. Which is $20bn.
At this point, the market will be largely ex-growth so we wouldn't want to pay too much for it - say 15x. Which means that the car part of Tesla is probably worth $300bn, in 2030.
Add in the other parts of the Tesla puzzle - like the batteries and the solar, and you might get to add another $50bn.
The problem is that you're paying an awful lot now for $350bn in a decade.
Now, could Tesla do better than that? Sure, of course. But it could also end up with 20% of 50% of the car industry on a 10% operating margin. Suddenly, we've found ourselves not looking so clever.
Completely Off Topic Tesla stock going wild 1,331.30 + 122.64 (+10.15%) I bought a few at 820 six weeks ago, last October they were 250.
Can anyone explain why Tesla is now valued at ~$250 billion?
1) Because they figured out how to make the Model 3 profitably. 2) They are selling cars with no advertising, and selling everything they can make 3) This means that every time they build another factory - more profit. 4) They seem to be ahead of all the other car makers on electric vehicles 5) They are ahead on battery power storage 6) Most of the western world in heading full tilt to get rid of ICE vehicles 7) The legacy car makers are trying to catch up - and not doing especially well
All of the above may not add up to $250 billion, but these are the reasons that it has gone that way.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
They need to find a way of being cheaper. I *really* want a model X but they are so bloody expensive and hard to even find second hand here. Such a beautiful car though.
In a year or so the Model Y should be around, once the initial US demand is satisfied.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
The mob have got their hands of a picture of him with Jeffrey Epstein.. and Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins etc. Guilt by association, he's a...
...non believer!
God I hate god!
Not sure why God is the target for your ire?
Oh not especially. I mainly disapprove of his associates.
He clearly doesn't exist so there's limited point in disapproval, but his associates are both unpleasant and virulent.
I had a soft spot for the Pope, but alas.
Are Steven Pinker, Jeffrey Epstein, or Dan Dennett are practising God-botherers (Dawkins is vocally not)? Are the people attacking them? In most cases I'd assume not.
I think the true belief Isam referred to was the new bigotry of the woke. Who are both unpleasant and virulent, but again, nothing to do with God, or his associates.
It was god's associates I disapproved of. If you wear a silly hat and call yourself by a silly name because you wish to participate in one of history's great non-senses then that'll be up to you.
No gods.
Funny you should choose a post about twattish atheists to make your point then.
"The Woke are after Pinker again, and if he’s called a racist and misogynist, as he is in this latest attempt to demonize him, then nobody is safe. After all, Pinker is a liberal Democrat who’s donated a lot of dosh to the Democratic Party, and relentlessly preaches a message of moral, material, and “well-being” progress that’s been attained through reason and adherence to Enlightenment values. But that sermon alone is enough to render him an Unperson, for the Woke prize narrative and “lived experience” over data, denigrate reason, and absolutely despise the Enlightenment."
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
Completely Off Topic Tesla stock going wild 1,331.30 + 122.64 (+10.15%) I bought a few at 820 six weeks ago, last October they were 250.
Can anyone explain why Tesla is now valued at ~$250 billion?
1) Because they figured out how to make the Model 3 profitably. 2) They are selling cars with no advertising, and selling everything they can make 3) This means that every time they build another factory - more profit. 4) They seem to be ahead of all the other car makers on electric vehicles 5) They are ahead on battery power storage 6) Most of the western world in heading full tilt to get rid of ICE vehicles 7) The legacy car makers are trying to catch up - and not doing especially well
All of the above may not add up to $250 billion, but these are the reasons that it has gone that way.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
I saw last week an article that said Tesla was valued at more than the next 17 top manufacturers.
I think there was a point in 2009 where the most valuable car maker in the US was Hasbro.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
From the little I have heard about him and from him in this thread, the Woke are welcome to him. Hopefully there's a way they can both lose?
Completely Off Topic Tesla stock going wild 1,331.30 + 122.64 (+10.15%) I bought a few at 820 six weeks ago, last October they were 250.
Can anyone explain why Tesla is now valued at ~$250 billion?
1) Because they figured out how to make the Model 3 profitably. 2) They are selling cars with no advertising, and selling everything they can make 3) This means that every time they build another factory - more profit. 4) They seem to be ahead of all the other car makers on electric vehicles 5) They are ahead on battery power storage 6) Most of the western world in heading full tilt to get rid of ICE vehicles 7) The legacy car makers are trying to catch up - and not doing especially well
All of the above may not add up to $250 billion, but these are the reasons that it has gone that way.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
They need to find a way of being cheaper. I *really* want a model X but they are so bloody expensive and hard to even find second hand here. Such a beautiful car though.
In a year or so the Model Y should be around, once the initial US demand is satisfied.
Tesla will deliver a Model Y to you *faster* than a Model 3 these days.
For a custom build, a Tesla Model Y is 4-8 weeks, while the Model 3 is 8-12 weeks.
Which suggests to me that they underestimated Model 3 demand, and overestimated Model Y.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
I went to see Pinker speak (invite from a friend) to promote his last book. He was utterly facile. Perhaps I am missing something.
Completely Off Topic Tesla stock going wild 1,331.30 + 122.64 (+10.15%) I bought a few at 820 six weeks ago, last October they were 250.
Can anyone explain why Tesla is now valued at ~$250 billion?
1) Because they figured out how to make the Model 3 profitably. 2) They are selling cars with no advertising, and selling everything they can make 3) This means that every time they build another factory - more profit. 4) They seem to be ahead of all the other car makers on electric vehicles 5) They are ahead on battery power storage 6) Most of the western world in heading full tilt to get rid of ICE vehicles 7) The legacy car makers are trying to catch up - and not doing especially well
All of the above may not add up to $250 billion, but these are the reasons that it has gone that way.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
They need to find a way of being cheaper. I *really* want a model X but they are so bloody expensive and hard to even find second hand here. Such a beautiful car though.
In a year or so the Model Y should be around, once the initial US demand is satisfied.
Tesla will deliver a Model Y to you *faster* than a Model 3 these days.
For a custom build, a Tesla Model Y is 4-8 weeks, while the Model 3 is 8-12 weeks.
Which suggests to me that they underestimated Model 3 demand, and overestimated Model Y.
Only if “you” happen to live in the US. Not open for orders in UK or ME regions yet.
I was looking to get one for wifey as a commuter daily, maybe next year.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
And the power industry ?
I disagree about Tesla not being tech (they design their own chips; they are potential leaders in battery tech; they are heavily involved in industrial automation). Whether that justifies the current valuation is quite another matter.
(& it’s entirely possible, though only possible, that they take 50% of the electric vehicle market within a decade.)
... by which time the 'electric vehicle market' will be most of the 'vehicle market'.
Easy path to $100bn annual revenues within 3 years, when you tot up Model 3,Model Y and Cybertruck programme. This is without considering growth potential from logistics (Semi trucks, delivery trucks, port services), energy (solar, storage, grid services including taking out gas peaker plants), self driving (including media services to passengers) and a "cheap" Model 4.
At $100bn a steady state net profit margin of high single digits seems possible. Let's say 8%. At that point would a 30x valuation multiple for a company with such high growth potential really be unreasonable?
This seems overvalued to some people because it's at the inflection point in its growth story. It will seem obvious in 3 years.
I think your profit margin expectations are a little high, but I agree with your general outlook. Here's how I'd think about this.
Around 60 million new cars are sold each year. In a decade, two thirds of these will be electric. So that's about a 40 million car opportunity. Average revenue per unit will be $25,000. So that a $1 trillion market.
Tesla will probably have 25% of that market, and be the leading player. So that's a $250bn sales opportunity (albeit in a decade).
The highest operating margin in the auto world in 16%, at Porsche. Tesla is mass market so will probably be a little lower, say 13-14%. But we do need to apply tax to this, which means we get to a c. 8-9% net profit margin. Which is $20bn.
At this point, the market will be largely ex-growth so we wouldn't want to pay too much for it - say 15x. Which means that the car part of Tesla is probably worth $300bn, in 2030.
Add in the other parts of the Tesla puzzle - like the batteries and the solar, and you might get to add another $50bn.
The problem is that you're paying an awful lot now for $350bn in a decade.
Now, could Tesla do better than that? Sure, of course. But it could also end up with 20% of 50% of the car industry on a 10% operating margin. Suddenly, we've found ourselves not looking so clever.
There’s said to be circa 2bn functional autos on the planet. Come 2030 there will be a flood to replace them with EVs given a) the economics, b) legislative direction. Far quicker than 60m per year.
Perhaps we won’t need 2bn autos because of advances in ride sharing mixed with autonomy. But if that ever takes off, Tesla are likely to be the ones leading it and that takes them to a multi trillion valuation.
Missing piece is supply of batteries. Let’s see what they say about that later this year. They need to become a mining company in my opinion.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
I went to see Pinker speak (invite from a friend) to promote his last book. He was utterly facile. Perhaps I am missing something.
Like Gladwell he's got a shallow un-threatening message package up as "big thoughts" that chimes with what people want to hear.
He confirms people's pre-conceived notions and makes them feel good about themselves.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
And the power industry ?
I disagree about Tesla not being tech (they design their own chips; they are potential leaders in battery tech; they are heavily involved in industrial automation). Whether that justifies the current valuation is quite another matter.
(& it’s entirely possible, though only possible, that they take 50% of the electric vehicle market within a decade.)
... by which time the 'electric vehicle market' will be most of the 'vehicle market'.
Easy path to $100bn annual revenues within 3 years, when you tot up Model 3,Model Y and Cybertruck programme. This is without considering growth potential from logistics (Semi trucks, delivery trucks, port services), energy (solar, storage, grid services including taking out gas peaker plants), self driving (including media services to passengers) and a "cheap" Model 4.
At $100bn a steady state net profit margin of high single digits seems possible. Let's say 8%. At that point would a 30x valuation multiple for a company with such high growth potential really be unreasonable?
This seems overvalued to some people because it's at the inflection point in its growth story. It will seem obvious in 3 years.
I think your profit margin expectations are a little high, but I agree with your general outlook. Here's how I'd think about this.
Around 60 million new cars are sold each year. In a decade, two thirds of these will be electric. So that's about a 40 million car opportunity. Average revenue per unit will be $25,000. So that a $1 trillion market.
Tesla will probably have 25% of that market, and be the leading player. So that's a $250bn sales opportunity (albeit in a decade).
The highest operating margin in the auto world in 16%, at Porsche. Tesla is mass market so will probably be a little lower, say 13-14%. But we do need to apply tax to this, which means we get to a c. 8-9% net profit margin. Which is $20bn.
At this point, the market will be largely ex-growth so we wouldn't want to pay too much for it - say 15x. Which means that the car part of Tesla is probably worth $300bn, in 2030.
Add in the other parts of the Tesla puzzle - like the batteries and the solar, and you might get to add another $50bn.
The problem is that you're paying an awful lot now for $350bn in a decade.
Now, could Tesla do better than that? Sure, of course. But it could also end up with 20% of 50% of the car industry on a 10% operating margin. Suddenly, we've found ourselves not looking so clever.
That's reasonable but there's also another element. Yes your $250bn may be worth $350bn from existing predictions now but with some "known unknowns" but there is also the "unknown unknown" element.
Tesla like Alphabet (Google), Amazon etc are "disruptors" who don't follow the normal rules of business. They evolve their businesses and move into other sectors too.
Who would have guessed a few years ago that the niche car company that can't turn a profit would be making successful inroads into the energy industry? Who would have guessed 20 years ago that the new search engine would be behind much of the worlds most popular devices. Or that the online book retailer would be a trillion dollar company that is not just the worlds largest retailer and distribution company but is the backend for much of the internet?
Buying Tesla stock now doesn't just get you a share of the $350bn in a decades time - if Tesla move into other sectors rather than 'just' cars and energy then buying shares now gets you shares in that too.
Completely Off Topic Tesla stock going wild 1,331.30 + 122.64 (+10.15%) I bought a few at 820 six weeks ago, last October they were 250.
Can anyone explain why Tesla is now valued at ~$250 billion?
1) Because they figured out how to make the Model 3 profitably. 2) They are selling cars with no advertising, and selling everything they can make 3) This means that every time they build another factory - more profit. 4) They seem to be ahead of all the other car makers on electric vehicles 5) They are ahead on battery power storage 6) Most of the western world in heading full tilt to get rid of ICE vehicles 7) The legacy car makers are trying to catch up - and not doing especially well
All of the above may not add up to $250 billion, but these are the reasons that it has gone that way.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
They need to find a way of being cheaper. I *really* want a model X but they are so bloody expensive and hard to even find second hand here. Such a beautiful car though.
In a year or so the Model Y should be around, once the initial US demand is satisfied.
Tesla will deliver a Model Y to you *faster* than a Model 3 these days.
For a custom build, a Tesla Model Y is 4-8 weeks, while the Model 3 is 8-12 weeks.
Which suggests to me that they underestimated Model 3 demand, and overestimated Model Y.
Only if “you” happen to live in the US. Not open for orders in UK or ME regions yet.
I was looking to get one for wifey as a commuter daily, maybe next year.
Supposedly Model Y is the first model that will be built in the Europe (Germany) factory so Europe and co won't be seeing them until that factory starts work.
We can fly what ever flag we want - do you think the countries/states that currently have the Union flag as part of their flag are going to change theirs? It's a strong brand. Keep it.
The Czech Republic kept the flag of Czechoslovakia. There's no reason the United Kingdom of England and Wales could not cling to the butcher's apron if they wanted.
It would be akin to a divorced husband continuing to wear his wedding ring, long after his wife had left him and the marriage had been dissolved.
It would be incredibly sad and pathetic.
Happens quite a lot though. However I'm assured by certain parties below that hubby wouldn't want faithless bitch Scotland back.
Quick question - if the Border Counties and Orkney and Shetland both stated they wanted to remain part of the UK after a Yes vote, what would be your view?
Not trying to be snide, I'm genuinely interested in how it would be viewed.
The question or similar has come up quite a few times over the years and my answer has always been the same: if these counties want to organise a party that could get sufficient support for a referendum (eg get an msp elected) on the issue they should certainly be allowed to have one.
There was an O&S independence party but afaik it dissolved like snow of a dyke several years ago.
They'd need the approval of the Scottish parliament to hold a vote?
We're in the realms of hypothetical bolleaux, so if you've an alternative scenario please feel free to indulge in it.
Seeking the break up of Scotland - or indeed England - is every bit as legitimate as seeking the break up of the UK. There is likely to have been so much inter marriage over the centuries that a significant proportion will now feel only partially Scottish , Welsh or English.
Of course given the Scottish borders would almost certainly vote strongly No to independence if Yes won indyref2 in the next decade then it is possible it could push to stay in the UK with England and Wales and Northern Ireland much as Scotland pushed to stay in the EU when the UK as a whole voted Leave
You’re right. Northumberland should attempt to join an Independent Scotland.
Of course not given every MP in Northumberland represents a Unionist Party and every seat in the Scottish Borders is held by the Tories both should stay in the UK
By your logic Scotland and London should still be in the EU.
Not London as all its seats are still held by Unionist parties despite Brexit, however if Scotland were granted an independence referendum and voted Yes areas like the Scottish Borders which still have Unionist MPs and would likely vote No to independence should stay in the UK
Scotland and NI voted to Remain in the EU, but I cannot recall you saying that their wishes should be respected.
This is the tipping point state IMO. Whoever wins it wins the election, most likely.
For me that's not too bad for Trump, given corona, unemployment et al.
Mmmm, Trafalgar has been showing numbers with swing states closer for Trump so I would argue that is not so great for him.
Of the 4 closest swing states won by Trump in 2016 Trafalgar group has Biden up in Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump up in Wisconsin and Florida tied.
Given Trafalgar group was the most accurate pollster of the US swing states in 2016 that means it is literally neck and neck in the EC with Biden with the narrowest of edges
Just been for a walk around leafy north London in the evening sun.
Pubs open, restaurants open, people dining outside, happy chatter. And the park was pleasant as you’d expect, full of groups and couples picnicking, singing, playing footie
It’s the first time London has felt vaguely normal, neither edgy nor anarchic, since lockdown.
This is the tipping point state IMO. Whoever wins it wins the election, most likely.
For me that's not too bad for Trump, given corona, unemployment et al.
Mmmm, Trafalgar has been showing numbers with swing states closer for Trump so I would argue that is not so great for him.
The most recent example I can find is with Wisconsin, where Trafalgar had Trump +1, while other companies had Biden +11, +17, +9 and +8.
That said there were a couple of other polls recently in PA with Biden at +6 and +5, compared to the earlier set of polls which were Biden +10, +10 and +12 - so mayhap that PA is closer than generally thought.
If Biden is +5 in PA, compared to +8 nationally, say, and PA ends up being the tipping point state, then it's consistent with Trump winning the Electoral College with a 3-point national vote share deficit, which doesn't seem too unlikely. That's only a small shift in the polls and a small polling error away. Not impossible if matters both Covid and economic are improving by October.
Just been for a walk around leafy north London in the evening sun.
Pubs open, restaurants open, people dining outside, happy chatter. And the park was pleasant as you’d expect, full of groups and couples picnicking, singing, playing footie
It’s the first time London has felt vaguely normal, neither edgy nor anarchic, since lockdown.
Perhaps the city won’t implode after all
Is it possible that you or some of your previous incarnations were over-reacting a tad?
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
I went to see Pinker speak (invite from a friend) to promote his last book. He was utterly facile. Perhaps I am missing something.
Like Gladwell he's got a shallow un-threatening message package up as "big thoughts" that chimes with what people want to hear.
He confirms people's pre-conceived notions and makes them feel good about themselves.
He’s a very fluent writer tho, very readable, hence his success. I sometimes enjoy his insights, other times they seem banal.
Most of all he is utterly unobjectionable, he just doesn’t espouse hardcore BLM Marxism. Which means the mob could literally come for anyone outside that core, crazy clique of theirs
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
Just been for a walk around leafy north London in the evening sun.
Pubs open, restaurants open, people dining outside, happy chatter. And the park was pleasant as you’d expect, full of groups and couples picnicking, singing, playing footie
It’s the first time London has felt vaguely normal, neither edgy nor anarchic, since lockdown.
Perhaps the city won’t implode after all
Is it possible that you or some of your previous incarnations were over-reacting a tad?
I lead a quiet life limning the beauty of the newt. I never overreact
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
The mob have got their hands of a picture of him with Jeffrey Epstein.. and Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins etc. Guilt by association, he's a...
...non believer!
They have my sympathy, which makes a change. Dennett and Dawkins both being slightly annoying types who trade extensively on not believing in a god which most believers in God don't believe in either.
They don’t believe in any god. That’s kind of their whole point.
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
And the power industry ?
I disagree about Tesla not being tech (they design their own chips; they are potential leaders in battery tech; they are heavily involved in industrial automation). Whether that justifies the current valuation is quite another matter.
(& it’s entirely possible, though only possible, that they take 50% of the electric vehicle market within a decade.)
... by which time the 'electric vehicle market' will be most of the 'vehicle market'.
Easy path to $100bn annual revenues within 3 years, when you tot up Model 3,Model Y and Cybertruck programme. This is without considering growth potential from logistics (Semi trucks, delivery trucks, port services), energy (solar, storage, grid services including taking out gas peaker plants), self driving (including media services to passengers) and a "cheap" Model 4.
At $100bn a steady state net profit margin of high single digits seems possible. Let's say 8%. At that point would a 30x valuation multiple for a company with such high growth potential really be unreasonable?
This seems overvalued to some people because it's at the inflection point in its growth story. It will seem obvious in 3 years.
I think your profit margin expectations are a little high, but I agree with your general outlook. Here's how I'd think about this.
Around 60 million new cars are sold each year. In a decade, two thirds of these will be electric. So that's about a 40 million car opportunity. Average revenue per unit will be $25,000. So that a $1 trillion market.
Tesla will probably have 25% of that market, and be the leading player. So that's a $250bn sales opportunity (albeit in a decade).
The highest operating margin in the auto world in 16%, at Porsche. Tesla is mass market so will probably be a little lower, say 13-14%. But we do need to apply tax to this, which means we get to a c. 8-9% net profit margin. Which is $20bn.
At this point, the market will be largely ex-growth so we wouldn't want to pay too much for it - say 15x. Which means that the car part of Tesla is probably worth $300bn, in 2030.
Add in the other parts of the Tesla puzzle - like the batteries and the solar, and you might get to add another $50bn.
The problem is that you're paying an awful lot now for $350bn in a decade.
Now, could Tesla do better than that? Sure, of course. But it could also end up with 20% of 50% of the car industry on a 10% operating margin. Suddenly, we've found ourselves not looking so clever.
That's reasonable but there's also another element. Yes your $250bn may be worth $350bn from existing predictions now but with some "known unknowns" but there is also the "unknown unknown" element.
Tesla like Alphabet (Google), Amazon etc are "disruptors" who don't follow the normal rules of business. They evolve their businesses and move into other sectors too.
Who would have guessed a few years ago that the niche car company that can't turn a profit would be making successful inroads into the energy industry? Who would have guessed 20 years ago that the new search engine would be behind much of the worlds most popular devices. Or that the online book retailer would be a trillion dollar company that is not just the worlds largest retailer and distribution company but is the backend for much of the internet?
Buying Tesla stock now doesn't just get you a share of the $350bn in a decades time - if Tesla move into other sectors rather than 'just' cars and energy then buying shares now gets you shares in that too.
The inverse is it assumes the Chinese state hasn't stolen all your IP and manufacturing blue prints. And aren't pumping out twice the volume at half the price under a subsidised shell i.e NIO
This is the tipping point state IMO. Whoever wins it wins the election, most likely.
For me that's not too bad for Trump, given corona, unemployment et al.
Mmmm, Trafalgar has been showing numbers with swing states closer for Trump so I would argue that is not so great for him.
Of the 4 closest swing states won by Trump in 2016 Trafalgar group has Biden up in Michigan and Pennsylvania, Trump up in Wisconsin and Florida tied.
Given Trafalgar group was the most accurate pollster of the US swing states in 2016 that means it it literally neck and neck in the EC with Biden with the narrowest of edges
Its the economy, s----
Can Trump dredge up enough of a recovery to stay in the game? Dunno.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
The mob have got their hands of a picture of him with Jeffrey Epstein.. and Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins etc. Guilt by association, he's a...
...non believer!
They have my sympathy, which makes a change. Dennett and Dawkins both being slightly annoying types who trade extensively on not believing in a god which most believers in God don't believe in either.
They don’t believe in any god. That’s kind of their whole point.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
I went to see Pinker speak (invite from a friend) to promote his last book. He was utterly facile. Perhaps I am missing something.
Like Gladwell he's got a shallow un-threatening message package up as "big thoughts" that chimes with what people want to hear.
He confirms people's pre-conceived notions and makes them feel good about themselves.
He’s a very fluent writer tho, very readable, hence his success. I sometimes enjoy his insights, other times they seem banal.
Most of all he is utterly unobjectionable, he just doesn’t espouse hardcore BLM Marxism. Which means the mob could literally come for anyone outside that core, crazy clique of theirs
I happen to be friends with the wokest person alive. She also happens to be a maths grad.
Someone posted on here the other day a video about maths being racist, and I shared with her to see if she would actually agree to this seeming insanity.
Yes, she said, it is very racist...and she shared some story about how a poor Iranian chap on her degree was unfairly discriminated against because he would come up with “different, but not wrong” answers to problems.
At which point I gave up.
She happily confesses to being an anarcho-communist tho.
Just been for a walk around leafy north London in the evening sun.
Pubs open, restaurants open, people dining outside, happy chatter. And the park was pleasant as you’d expect, full of groups and couples picnicking, singing, playing footie
It’s the first time London has felt vaguely normal, neither edgy nor anarchic, since lockdown.
Perhaps the city won’t implode after all
Is it possible that you or some of your previous incarnations were over-reacting a tad?
I lead a quiet life limning the beauty of the newt. I never overreact
Limning the beauty of the newt?
Is that a euphemism for something?
Edit - Oh turns out it is a euphemism for rimming tramps.
Why do you feel the need to keep posting statistics to imply Scotland and Wales have performed poorly throughout the life of the pandemic? It seems a really peculiar thing to want to do.
Just saying.
Surely the 'Wales is in a much better position than England' comment in that tweet deserves to be refuted if it is false. Or are you only happy with news when it makes Westminster look bad?
The figures generally in Wales have been pretty poor as they have been compared to our European neighbours, in the rest of the UK. The figures quoted should be contextualised by three meat processing plants in Anglesey, Merthyr and Wrexham. My issue isn't with calling all domestic government's out for a total failure, it just seems odd that someone living in Guernsey would feel the need to keep posting negative stories about Scotland and Wales specifically. I wouldn't get any particular pleasure from from learning that over the course of the pandemic, more people have passed away in England per 100,000 than in any of the other home nations. It's mawkish!
If the Welsh numbers should be massaged like that, shouldn't the English ones be treated the same way?
What do you mean massaged? Johnson has said we need to focus on local lockdowns so of course one needs to be able to highlight specific hotspots and analyse that localised data. I wasn't saying that the figures from these meat plants should be removed from the national figures, but it might be helpful to add caveats.
You were saying the Welsh figures had to be contextualised, but nothing on the English figures.
Well, one set are Labour figures and the other set are Tory figures. So the first are obviously “better”.
I have gone up and down the thread to see where I have even implied this. I haven't because it is patently absurd.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
I had a feeling he wouldn't be your cup of splosh
Not heard of him before but having read his wiki entry I think I need to order some of his books. They sound exactly my cup of tea.
Just been for a walk around leafy north London in the evening sun.
Pubs open, restaurants open, people dining outside, happy chatter. And the park was pleasant as you’d expect, full of groups and couples picnicking, singing, playing footie
It’s the first time London has felt vaguely normal, neither edgy nor anarchic, since lockdown.
Perhaps the city won’t implode after all
Is it possible that you or some of your previous incarnations were over-reacting a tad?
I lead a quiet life limning the beauty of the newt. I never overreact
I must have been mistaking you for someone else.
(And thanks for 'limning' - that's a new one on me.)
After discovering that the Economist appear to have forgotten about Nebraska and Maine splitting their Electoral College Votes I had a brief look around for other modelling efforts. Not sure yet which I will put my trust into, but before making that judgement I wanted to give a shout-out to the most favourable to Biden and the Democrats. Take a bow Princeton!
They have Biden on 409 Electoral College Votes - with Arkansas in the balance - and the Republicans down to 47 Senators.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
The mob have got their hands of a picture of him with Jeffrey Epstein.. and Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins etc. Guilt by association, he's a...
...non believer!
They have my sympathy, which makes a change. Dennett and Dawkins both being slightly annoying types who trade extensively on not believing in a god which most believers in God don't believe in either.
They don’t believe in any god. That’s kind of their whole point.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
I went to see Pinker speak (invite from a friend) to promote his last book. He was utterly facile. Perhaps I am missing something.
Like Gladwell he's got a shallow un-threatening message package up as "big thoughts" that chimes with what people want to hear.
He confirms people's pre-conceived notions and makes them feel good about themselves.
He’s a very fluent writer tho, very readable, hence his success. I sometimes enjoy his insights, other times they seem banal.
Most of all he is utterly unobjectionable, he just doesn’t espouse hardcore BLM Marxism. Which means the mob could literally come for anyone outside that core, crazy clique of theirs
People keep forgetting the first rule of Woke Club. It’s impossible to be too woke, and eventually they will turn their sights on you.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
The mob have got their hands of a picture of him with Jeffrey Epstein.. and Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins etc. Guilt by association, he's a...
...non believer!
They have my sympathy, which makes a change. Dennett and Dawkins both being slightly annoying types who trade extensively on not believing in a god which most believers in God don't believe in either.
They don’t believe in any god. That’s kind of their whole point.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
If you think hating on Steven Pinker is a new thing by "the left" then there is approximately a decade+ of "Fuck Steven Pinker" blog posts for you to discover.
I can believe it, I take your word for it; the idea of a Blank Slate would obviously be too much for them to handle.
The biggest critics of Pinker are the scientist and philosophers in the fields which his books are purportedly about who review his books and give them an utter kicking.
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
I went to see Pinker speak (invite from a friend) to promote his last book. He was utterly facile. Perhaps I am missing something.
Like Gladwell he's got a shallow un-threatening message package up as "big thoughts" that chimes with what people want to hear.
He confirms people's pre-conceived notions and makes them feel good about themselves.
He’s a very fluent writer tho, very readable, hence his success. I sometimes enjoy his insights, other times they seem banal.
Most of all he is utterly unobjectionable, he just doesn’t espouse hardcore BLM Marxism. Which means the mob could literally come for anyone outside that core, crazy clique of theirs
I happen to be friends with the wokest person alive. She also happens to be a maths grad.
Someone posted on here the other day a video about maths being racist, and I shared with her to see if she would actually agree to this seeming insanity.
Yes, she said, it is very racist...and she shared some story about how a poor Iranian chap on her degree was unfairly discriminated against because he would come up with “different, but not wrong” answers to problems.
At which point I gave up.
She happily confesses to being an anarcho-communist tho.
Why do you feel the need to keep posting statistics to imply Scotland and Wales have performed poorly throughout the life of the pandemic? It seems a really peculiar thing to want to do.
Just saying.
Surely the 'Wales is in a much better position than England' comment in that tweet deserves to be refuted if it is false. Or are you only happy with news when it makes Westminster look bad?
The figures generally in Wales have been pretty poor as they have been compared to our European neighbours, in the rest of the UK. The figures quoted should be contextualised by three meat processing plants in Anglesey, Merthyr and Wrexham. My issue isn't with calling all domestic government's out for a total failure, it just seems odd that someone living in Guernsey would feel the need to keep posting negative stories about Scotland and Wales specifically. I wouldn't get any particular pleasure from from learning that over the course of the pandemic, more people have passed away in England per 100,000 than in any of the other home nations. It's mawkish!
I’ve been critical of all the governments’ efforts - and in particular of partisan nationalists trying to claim that “our nationalism is superior to your nationalism - look at our results”.
All of them have made mistakes. Wales’ testing has been poor, Scotland made a mess of Care Homes (as did Guernsey) and the U.K. government has muffed quarantine and international travel.
I think we should learn from all of those - don’t you?
So have I got this right? Wales and Scotland have failed in their control of the Covid-19 pandemic on many fronts. I don't really disagree. Guernsey too have failed, of which I can't really comment. Fortunately all this has been overseen by an almost inch-perfect Westminster government whose only real shortcoming has been that they put in place a 14 day quarantine to limit the spread of Covid-19 from incoming international travellers. It's a theory I suppose.
Steven Pinker the latest to be objected to. I had him down as a real progressive liberal type from watching his interviews/lectures and reading... the first few pages of his books
I've no financial background so you might have to forgive this but....
How many cars would a mature low growth Tesla have to sell to justify that valuation?
What percentage of the total EV market is a mature Tesla going to occupy?
To my financial illiteracy this parabolic valuation seems to assume limited competition from all the other established auto makers.
Proposition one: in the future, all cars will be electric. Proposition two: in tech, the winner (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) utterly dominates returns. Proposition three: the electric car industry is part of the tech industry.
If you believe all three, then Tesla is worth $250bn.
I am sceptical about proposition three, which means proposition two doesn't apply.
I'd say proposition two applies to most industries.
I don't think so.
In telecoms, the best returns (i.e. multiple of profits to capital invested) often went to the niche players, rather the big ones. In pharmaceuticals, it's a similar story . Traditional auto had a bunch of (modestly) profitable firms, none of which had dramatically different margins: Ford, GM, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, VW etc.
Tech is one of a very few industries where the advantages of standardization are such that de facto monopolies exist because scale begets scale.
Its worth thinking that traditional auto did coalesce into a few big companies though too. Just how many brands are actually part of a larger organisation?
Tesla have also thought smartly about scaling up. Their "Gigafactories" are being built on a bigger scale than traditional auto factories and it's entirely possible that in the future traditional auto is going to find it very hard to compete with Tesla.
I have absolutely no doubt that Tesla will be one of the leading auto manufacturers in the world a decade from now, and may even be the largest single firm by number of cars delivered.
But they won't be on 40-50% market share, with 80% of industry profits.
They will be on a 15-20% share, with 20-25% of industry profits.
And the power industry ?
I disagree about Tesla not being tech (they design their own chips; they are potential leaders in battery tech; they are heavily involved in industrial automation). Whether that justifies the current valuation is quite another matter.
(& it’s entirely possible, though only possible, that they take 50% of the electric vehicle market within a decade.)
... by which time the 'electric vehicle market' will be most of the 'vehicle market'.
Easy path to $100bn annual revenues within 3 years, when you tot up Model 3,Model Y and Cybertruck programme. This is without considering growth potential from logistics (Semi trucks, delivery trucks, port services), energy (solar, storage, grid services including taking out gas peaker plants), self driving (including media services to passengers) and a "cheap" Model 4.
At $100bn a steady state net profit margin of high single digits seems possible. Let's say 8%. At that point would a 30x valuation multiple for a company with such high growth potential really be unreasonable?
This seems overvalued to some people because it's at the inflection point in its growth story. It will seem obvious in 3 years.
I think your profit margin expectations are a little high, but I agree with your general outlook. Here's how I'd think about this.
Around 60 million new cars are sold each year. In a decade, two thirds of these will be electric. So that's about a 40 million car opportunity. Average revenue per unit will be $25,000. So that a $1 trillion market.
Tesla will probably have 25% of that market, and be the leading player. So that's a $250bn sales opportunity (albeit in a decade).
The highest operating margin in the auto world in 16%, at Porsche. Tesla is mass market so will probably be a little lower, say 13-14%. But we do need to apply tax to this, which means we get to a c. 8-9% net profit margin. Which is $20bn.
At this point, the market will be largely ex-growth so we wouldn't want to pay too much for it - say 15x. Which means that the car part of Tesla is probably worth $300bn, in 2030.
Add in the other parts of the Tesla puzzle - like the batteries and the solar, and you might get to add another $50bn.
The problem is that you're paying an awful lot now for $350bn in a decade.
Now, could Tesla do better than that? Sure, of course. But it could also end up with 20% of 50% of the car industry on a 10% operating margin. Suddenly, we've found ourselves not looking so clever.
There’s said to be circa 2bn functional autos on the planet. Come 2030 there will be a flood to replace them with EVs given a) the economics, b) legislative direction. Far quicker than 60m per year.
Perhaps we won’t need 2bn autos because of advances in ride sharing mixed with autonomy. But if that ever takes off, Tesla are likely to be the ones leading it and that takes them to a multi trillion valuation.
Missing piece is supply of batteries. Let’s see what they say about that later this year. They need to become a mining company in my opinion.
Two billion divided by 60 suggests that the average car lasts 33 years on the road, that seems... very high. Now, I know that car sales peaked at 80m a couple of years ago, but even so that number suggests that cars have much greater longevity than is actually the case.
But let's go with a little more than a billion, which is probably about right. And I am a believer that in the future *all* cars will be electric - I just am sceptical about the time horizons required for TSLA to be a screaming buy here, given that there's an inevitable pull in the other direction. A diminishing number of cars on the road lowers the price of oil, which makes petrol powered vehicles more economic. This means those (mostly poorer) people with old petrol cars aren't going to be in any hurry to move to new electric ones.
Comments
https://twitter.com/HadasKotek/status/1279202372355416065?s=20
https://twitter.com/JtuckerJames/status/1279222613311664133?s=20
Natural gas 'peaker' plants are in their sights.
https://electrek.co/2020/06/17/tesla-massive-megapack-projec-replaces-gas-peaker-plant/
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/05/19/tesla-to-let-owners-be-utility-peaker-plants-make-money-speculates-gali/
They are also moving into UK energy.
If the I-Pace was better engineered, it would fill the spot held by the Tiguan/Macan as a midsized SUV. Sadly, it just feels cheap inside.
But looking at 538 the lead is 7.5 to Biden in PA.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/
https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1279936590236790784
Musk has the potential to be a modern JD Rockefeller.
...non believer!
He clearly doesn't exist so there's limited point in disapproval, but his associates are both unpleasant and virulent.
I had a soft spot for the Pope, but alas.
At $100bn a steady state net profit margin of high single digits seems possible. Let's say 8%. At that point would a 30x valuation multiple for a company with such high growth potential really be unreasonable?
This seems overvalued to some people because it's at the inflection point in its growth story. It will seem obvious in 3 years.
Getting 4 brands operational, mass produced and profitable is a good starting point and diversity can be added later if needed.
I think the true belief Isam referred to was the new bigotry of the woke. Who are both unpleasant and virulent, but again, nothing to do with God, or his associates.
Panasonic manufacture the cells that Tesla builds into batteries. Saying they are leaders in battery tech when they don't manufacture the key component of their batteries is a reach.
The company is almost 100% 'pipe-dream'. I don't quite see it, but I have some investments in companies that are in a similar place in their evolution.
No gods.
Around 60 million new cars are sold each year. In a decade, two thirds of these will be electric. So that's about a 40 million car opportunity. Average revenue per unit will be $25,000. So that a $1 trillion market.
Tesla will probably have 25% of that market, and be the leading player. So that's a $250bn sales opportunity (albeit in a decade).
The highest operating margin in the auto world in 16%, at Porsche. Tesla is mass market so will probably be a little lower, say 13-14%. But we do need to apply tax to this, which means we get to a c. 8-9% net profit margin. Which is $20bn.
At this point, the market will be largely ex-growth so we wouldn't want to pay too much for it - say 15x. Which means that the car part of Tesla is probably worth $300bn, in 2030.
Add in the other parts of the Tesla puzzle - like the batteries and the solar, and you might get to add another $50bn.
The problem is that you're paying an awful lot now for $350bn in a decade.
Now, could Tesla do better than that? Sure, of course. But it could also end up with 20% of 50% of the car industry on a 10% operating margin. Suddenly, we've found ourselves not looking so clever.
https://www.nst.com.my/world/world/2020/07/606440/hk-govt-tells-schools-remove-books-breaching-security-law
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/07/05/the-purity-posse-pursues-pinker/
He consistently and repeatedly mis-characterise or ignores research to fit his narrative. He's Malcolm Gladwell with white hair.
For a custom build, a Tesla Model Y is 4-8 weeks, while the Model 3 is 8-12 weeks.
Which suggests to me that they underestimated Model 3 demand, and overestimated Model Y.
Perhaps I am missing something.
I was looking to get one for wifey as a commuter daily, maybe next year.
Perhaps we won’t need 2bn autos because of advances in ride sharing mixed with autonomy. But if that ever takes off, Tesla are likely to be the ones leading it and that takes them to a multi trillion valuation.
Missing piece is supply of batteries. Let’s see what they say about that later this year. They need to become a mining company in my opinion.
He confirms people's pre-conceived notions and makes them feel good about themselves.
Tesla like Alphabet (Google), Amazon etc are "disruptors" who don't follow the normal rules of business. They evolve their businesses and move into other sectors too.
Who would have guessed a few years ago that the niche car company that can't turn a profit would be making successful inroads into the energy industry?
Who would have guessed 20 years ago that the new search engine would be behind much of the worlds most popular devices. Or that the online book retailer would be a trillion dollar company that is not just the worlds largest retailer and distribution company but is the backend for much of the internet?
Buying Tesla stock now doesn't just get you a share of the $350bn in a decades time - if Tesla move into other sectors rather than 'just' cars and energy then buying shares now gets you shares in that too.
Given Trafalgar group was the most accurate pollster of the US swing states in 2016 that means it is literally neck and neck in the EC with Biden with the narrowest of edges
Pubs open, restaurants open, people dining outside, happy chatter. And the park was pleasant as you’d expect, full of groups and couples picnicking, singing, playing footie
It’s the first time London has felt vaguely normal, neither edgy nor anarchic, since lockdown.
Perhaps the city won’t implode after all
That said there were a couple of other polls recently in PA with Biden at +6 and +5, compared to the earlier set of polls which were Biden +10, +10 and +12 - so mayhap that PA is closer than generally thought.
If Biden is +5 in PA, compared to +8 nationally, say, and PA ends up being the tipping point state, then it's consistent with Trump winning the Electoral College with a 3-point national vote share deficit, which doesn't seem too unlikely. That's only a small shift in the polls and a small polling error away. Not impossible if matters both Covid and economic are improving by October.
Most of all he is utterly unobjectionable, he just doesn’t espouse hardcore BLM Marxism. Which means the mob could literally come for anyone outside that core, crazy clique of theirs
Can Trump dredge up enough of a recovery to stay in the game? Dunno.
Someone posted on here the other day a video about maths being racist, and I shared with her to see if she would actually agree to this seeming insanity.
Yes, she said, it is very racist...and she shared some story about how a poor Iranian chap on her degree was unfairly discriminated against because he would come up with “different, but not wrong” answers to problems.
At which point I gave up.
She happily confesses to being an anarcho-communist tho.
Is that a euphemism for something?
Edit - Oh turns out it is a euphemism for rimming tramps.
https://twitter.com/ODDSbible/status/1280228314041458695
(And thanks for 'limning' - that's a new one on me.)
https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1280223823468601352
They have Biden on 409 Electoral College Votes - with Arkansas in the balance - and the Republicans down to 47 Senators.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl3HnU0HOhk
Papa Smurf Abel Xavier did something similar at Euro 2000.
She’d have to be Woker than THIS person
https://twitter.com/pxlitic/status/1279499709669834752?s=21
Should we wait a week, or so, in case they have to retract it, before getting too worried?
We are on at least a lie a day these days from this charlatan.
But let's go with a little more than a billion, which is probably about right. And I am a believer that in the future *all* cars will be electric - I just am sceptical about the time horizons required for TSLA to be a screaming buy here, given that there's an inevitable pull in the other direction. A diminishing number of cars on the road lowers the price of oil, which makes petrol powered vehicles more economic. This means those (mostly poorer) people with old petrol cars aren't going to be in any hurry to move to new electric ones.