Tag Archives: Tesla

Is This The Tesla Killer? by Tyler Durden

A new battery may be on the horizon that is so much better than Testla’s that it will put the company out of business. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

We all know the story behind Fisker, it was one of the world’s first plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in 2008, and even had a legal spat between Tesla, but shortly after in 2012 the company crashed and burned in bankruptcy. Last year, Henrik Fisker decided to relaunch his brand. He thought that one failure wasn’t enough—-just like Elon Musk’s SpaceX rockets. During Fisker’s relaunch, he made a shocking comment that caught the attention of Musk and it was on the claims of a new breakthrough in battery technology using graphene-based hybrid material that would revolutionize battery storage and make Musk’s batteries appear obsolete.

Thirteen months passed, and Musk wrote off Fisker’s claims, as Musk decided to focus on other things like his Boring company. That might of been Musk’s fatal flaw, because Fisker just came out and dropped a bombshell on the electric vehicle (EV) industry: ‘New Fisker Batteries 2.5x Density, 500 Miles Per Charge & Charging in 1 Minute’..

Musk will shortly developed uncontrollable convulsions with the understanding his Gigafactory producing thin-film lithium batteries could be obsolete.

Autoblog reports the new breakthrough, calling it a solid-state battery revolution:

 It seems that we’re on the cusp of a solid-state battery revolution. The latest company to announce progress in developing the new type of battery is Fisker. It has filed patents for solid-state batteries and it expects the batteries to be produced on a mass scale around 2023.

In the game of electric vehicles it’s all about batteries. Musk’s technology would be considered legacy when compared to solid-state. Here is why:

  • Greater energy density
  • Rapid charging times

Fisker claims the batteries underdevelopment have a density of 2.5x when compared to the standard EV batteries. This should give the range of a Fisker vehicle well over a 500-mile and recharging capabilities in as little as a minute.

Here’s what Dr. Fabio Albano, VP of battery systems at Fisker Inc. claims:

This breakthrough marks the beginning of a new era in solid-state materials and manufacturing technologies.

We are addressing all of the hurdles that solid-state batteries have encountered on the path to commercialization, such as performance in cold temperatures; the use of low cost and scalable manufacturing methods; and the ability to form bulk solid-state electrodes with significant thickness and high active material loadings. We are excited to build on this foundation and move the needle in energy storage.

To continue reading: Is This The Tesla Killer?

Advertisements

The Udder Runs Dry? by Eric Peters

The electric car industry has been sucking at the government teat, but at least for Elon Musk and company, the milk of human subsidies may be running out. From Eric Peters at ericpetersauto.com:

There must be a rube in the House.

A recent Republican who does not understand how the game is played – much less why it is being played the way it is played. He and perhaps some of his fellows not-yet-initiated publicly wondered why the federal government is underwriting the sale of luxury-performance cars that happen to be electric.

It is a curious thing.

They suggested rescinding the $7,500 tax inducement which the government has been using to “help” electric car manufacturers like Tesla, which sell electric cars that start around $40,000 and which emphasize not economy but performance and style and technology.

Some might look upon the robbing of Peter – who probably drives an eight-year-old Camry in need of front end work – so that Paul can drive a brand-new, $40,000 electric luxury-performance car – as somewhat obnoxious.

But not everyone.

There is, for example, Genevieve Cullen – who is the head shill for the electric luxury-performance car lobby, styled the Electric Drive Transportation Association. She practically squealed the collective indignation of her clients, who are alarmed very much by the prospect of having to make an honest dollar:

She and they “ . . .continue to believe that a reformed tax code should include a robust set of incentives to support the electrification of transportation,” Cullen wrote to House Republican Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, who is the chair of the Ways and Means Committee – which is the government gaggle which weighs how to dispose of our means.

But Cullen is not being straight with Brady – or with the means providers (who haven’t got much choice about that).

The issue on the table is not whether Uncle should “support the electrification of transportation,” as she shysterishly misdirects. It is whether wealth transfers from working people to affluent people ought to be continued.

Elon Musk, for instance, is a billionaire. The idea that anyone who files a W2 ought to be made to fund his operations is haltingly offensive.

To continue reading: The Udder Runs Dry

When Will The Tesla Stock Promote Finally Fail??? by Harris Kupperman

The wheels may finally be coming off the long running scam known as Tesla. From Harris Kupperman at adventuresincapitalism.com:

The history of industry leading consumer tech products has not been kind to investors who overstay their welcome. You need look no further than all the hundreds of notable recent failures, to realize that these companies almost always flame out. The list below (in no particular order) is a nice trip down memory lane of former favorites, that are now either bankrupt or shells of their former selves—often consumed by some other entity that fortunately put them out of their misery. Of course, the list below, is just from the past decade or two;

Palm, Gateway, Research In Motion, GoPro, FitBit, Heelys, Handspring, Compaq, BlueRay, Garmin, Delorean, Casio, Sega, Tamaguchi, TiVo, Betamax, AOL, Walkman (Sony), Set Top Boxes (Scientific American), Kodak, Atari, Napster, Netscape, Polaroid, etc.

Let’s just say, it’s hard at the top. You must guess each change in technology, each generation of improvement and design it for fickle consumers, while constantly outlaying capital for research and development that may never go anywhere. All the time, others are constantly trying to overtake you.

If you look at the lifecycles of these companies, they often follow a similar trajectory from ingenious creation with huge margins, to a few generations of new products with smaller margins, to massive competition as deep pocketed competitors and venture capitalists try and emulate your product, to missing a product cycle, to becoming obsolete. These consumer product companies rarely last more than a decade; often just a few years. In the end, consumer focused tech is vicious and Darwinian, with very few long-term competitive advantages.

Of course, Tesla (TSLA – USA) is something of an anomaly here. While the companies in the above list, all produced prodigious cash while they were industry leaders, Tesla seems to incinerate cash while in the lead—using repeated equity and now debt offerings to plug the hole. While other companies had a huge stash of cash to fall back on when others overtook them, Tesla’s cash balance leaves it only a few quarters from insolvency. Add in a host of questionable related party transactions, convoluted financial statements (what the hell is pro-forma revenue?), the inability to ever hit company guidance, deceptive disclosures and a business that seems to lose more money with each vehicle it produces, is it any wonder that Tesla is one of the most shorted large-cap stocks today? If I had to choose the most obvious pending bankruptcy of a large-cap stock, it is clearly Tesla.

To continue reading: When Will The Tesla Stock Promote Finally Fail???

Tesla Shareholders: Are You Drunk On Elon Musk’s Kool-Aid? by Michael Lewitt

A Tesla short excoriates the longs. From Michael Lewitt at forbes.com:

Tesla shareholders (and bullish Wall Street analysts) are either geniuses or delusional and I am betting on the latter. Typical of the lack of gray matter being applied to this investment is a recent post on Seeking Alpha, often a place where amateurs go to pump stocks they own.

Someone calling himself “Silicon Valley Insights” issued an ungrammatical “Strong Buy” recommendation on October 11 based on the following syllogism: (1) “Tesla CEO Elon Musk has stated very firmly that they can and will reach his goal of producing 5,000 cars per week by the end of this year.” (2) “Musk has a history of setting aggressive targets (more for his staff than investors) [Editors’s Note: That is a lie.] and then missing them on initial timing but reaching them later. [Editor’s Notes: That is another lie–Musk has NEVER reached a production target.] (3) “Reaching anything [sic] significant portion of that 5K target (say 1-2K) by the end of December could drive TSLA shares significantly higher.” This genius then suggests that investors stay focused on the Model 3 ramp as the key price driver over the coming weeks and months and argues that the announcement that only 260 Model 3s were produced in the third quarter leaves “much of the risk…now in the stock price.” He is correct– there is a great deal of risk embedded in a stock trading at infinity-times earnings with no prospect of profitability , a track record of breaking promises, a reluctance to sell equity to fund itself even at price levels above the targets of most analysts, and a market cap larger than rivals that are pouring tens of billions of dollars into putting it out of business.

Undeterred, he offers two investment strategies. The first he terms a “reasonable and conservative” one that waits to invest in TSLA shares until the early November third quarter earnings call. In my world, a reasonable and conservative strategy would be to run for the hills or short the stock (as I am doing). A “more aggressive and risky strategy” (compared to skydiving or bungee jumping) would be “to buy shares before that third quarter report and call on the bet that the Model 3 production update will be taken positively.”

To continue reading: Tesla Shareholders: Are You Drunk On Elon Musk’s Kool-Aid?

How California Enabled Tesla By Forcing Competitors To Subsidize A Losing Business Model, by Tyler Durden

Elon Musk seems to exercise a Rasputin-like hold on the minds of many politicians and bureaucrats. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

It is no great surprise that Tesla hemorrhages cash.  As we pointed out last month when they reported Q2 earnings, making products that actually generate a return on capital for shareholders isn’t a strong suit of the Silicon Valley powerhouse.  In fact, Elon Musk managed to burn through a record $1.2 billion of cash in Q2 alone, or roughly $13 million dollars every single day.

But, as Bloomberg points out today, the one ‘product’ which Tesla is actually able to sell for a profit is one which was created out of thin air by the state of California and is perhaps the only reason that Elon Musk even has a business to manage.  Of course we’re talking about the ever controversial “Zero Emission Vehicle” credits which are less of “product” and more of a subsidy provided by Tesla’s competitors, or more accurately the consumers of those competitors who are forced to pay higher prices for their Ford Focus all so Elon Musk can practice digging tunnels.

Tesla Inc. has generated nearly $1 billion in revenue the last five years from an unlikely source: Rival automakers. The payments are part of an unpopular system in California that’s poised to proliferate elsewhere.

California requires that automakers sell electric and other non-polluting vehicles in proportion to their market share. If the manufacturers don’t sell enough of them, they have to purchase credits from competitors like Tesla to make up the difference.

Tesla, which exclusively sells battery-powered models, sold $302.3 million in regulatory credits last year alone. China and the European Union — two of the world’s biggest auto markets — are considering mandates and credit systems similar to California’s. If California is any guide, automakers will resent having to buy from peers, including the electric-car maker led by Elon Musk.

“It really makes them mad that Tesla got so much of a boost out of being the only purely electric car manufacturer out there,” Mary Nichols, the chair of the California Air Resources Board, said in an interview Friday at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York. “In effect, they helped to finance this upstart company which now has all the glamour.”

To continue reading: How California Enabled Tesla By Forcing Competitors To Subsidize A Losing Business Model

Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor? by Wolf Richter

Knowing California and knowing Tesla, it’s not even a spoiler to say the answer to the title questions is: Sure looks like it. From Wolf Richter at wolf street.com:

Tesla will lose federal subsidies; so something big needs to be done.

The California state Assembly passed a $3-billion subsidy program for electric vehicles, dwarfing the existing program. The bill is now in the state Senate. If passed, it will head to Governor Jerry Brown, who has not yet indicated if he’d sign what is ostensibly an effort to put EV sales into high gear, but below the surface appears to be a Tesla bailout.

Tesla will soon hit the limit of the federal tax rebates, which are good for the first 200,000 EVs sold in the US per manufacturer beginning in December 2009 (IRS explanation). In the second quarter after the manufacturer hits the limit, the subsidy gets cut in half, from $7,500 to $3,750; two quarters later, it gets cut to $1,875. Two quarters later, it goes to zero.

Given Tesla’s ambitious US sales forecast for its Model 3, it will hit the 200,000 vehicle limit in 2018, after which the phase-out begins. A year later, the subsidies are gone. Losing a $7,500 subsidy on a $35,000 car is a huge deal. No other EV manufacturer is anywhere near their 200,000 limit. Their customers are going to benefit from the subsidy; Tesla buyers won’t.

This could crush Tesla sales. Many car buyers are sensitive to these subsidies. For example, after Hong Kong rescinded a tax break for EVs effective in April, Tesla sales in April dropped to zero. The good people of Hong Kong will likely start buying Teslas again, but it shows that subsidies have a devastating impact when they’re pulled.

That’s what Tesla is facing next year in the US.

In California, the largest EV market in the US, 2.7% of new vehicles sold in the first quarter were EVs, up from 0.4% in 2012, according to the California New Dealers Association. California is Tesla’s largest market. Something big needs to be done to help the Bay Area company, which has lost money every single year of its ten years of existence. And taxpayers are going to be shanghaied into doing it.

To make this more palatable, you have to dress this up as something where others benefit too, though the biggest beneficiary would be Tesla because these California subsidies would replace the federal subsidies when they’re phased out.

To continue reading: Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

Is It March of 2000? by Karl Denninger

Financial markets are never rational, but sometimes they are especially irrational. From Karl Denninger at theburningplatform.com:

There was a little company called “Micro Strategy” (by the way they still exist.)

In the first week of March the stock had skyrocketed by over 50%.  The next week it “checked back” most of those gains.

The following week the stock collapsed.

A couple of weeks later, the Nazdaq cracked big.  I was house-shopping, in a hotel, woke up to CNBC full of crying babies and chuckled.

I will note that MicroStrategy was a little dogsqueeze company.  In terms of market cap it was a nothing – literally.  Even today, 17 years later, it’s a little $2 billion firm — granted, much smaller today in market cap than it was then.

In the run-up of the previous weeks and months there had been plenty of indications of trouble.  Many companies had reported slashing prices, increasingly-saturated markets were well-understood and of course there was the “burn rate” nonsense of the period.

It’s arguable that it was that MSTR collapse that upset the apple cart.  You see, when people are buying stocks of companies that have nothing but negative free cash flow as far as the eye can see or sky-high P/Es of 60, 80, 100 or more they’re betting with their eyes taped over on exactly one thing: Indefinite exponential growth of the business and, of course down the line, profits.

The problem is that this is an impossible premise.  There is no way for that to ever happen because it is mathematically impossible.

Today we have Amazon, Facebook and Apple all priced in this way.  Of the three only Apple has some argument for its valuation, but even there given the recent run of almost 50% it’s priced for indefinite exponential growth of a saturated product — iPhones.

To continue reading: Is It March of 2000?