[_X]

Curious to know the thoughts of the EV folks here. Do you all think the EV car market will be viable beyond 10-15 years? I ask because at CES last year there were a lot of drone companies and several that could already accommodate passengers. As we move towards automation within smart cities, flight paths for drones are much easier than current infrastructure.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by _X

Curious to know the thoughts of the EV folks here. Do you all think the EV car market will be viable beyond 10-15 years? I ask because at CES last year there were a lot of drone companies and several that could already accommodate passengers. As we move towards automation within smart cities, flight paths for drones are much easier than current infrastructure.

Electric civil aviation is out there (eviation, quantum, even Airbus), but battery densities aren't yet at a cost (below ICE) or energy density (>400wh) to make it a thing - probably 5 years off.

Electric vehicles will continue to get cheaper and more advanced until an inflection point in about 3 years where ICE vehicle TCO will no longer make sense for new cars. At this point, xEV new car sales will start to clearly j-curve and any legacy auto makers without a path will get eaten or die.

Interesting side note:
TSLA clearly has the capital to buy any (or most) of the legacy ICE auto makers so why don't they? Because why take on legacy assembly plants that need to be refitted, increasingly valueless patents for legacy technology, legacy labor contracts, etc that are all deadweight? There is simply no reason for TSLA (or any native xEV manufacturer) to buy a legacy ICE "Big" - which is also how and why we know most of the ICE Bigs will get eaten or die. E.g., VAG looks increasingly vulnerable (clearly VAG's starting to panic, i.e, "Mission T", catch up to Tesla) and will likely get broken up - you could see TSLA and Porsche EVs forming a new unit ...

Anyway, America will continue to be the xEV technology leader, but the adoption laggard; while global xEV sales will J-curve, US adoption will be slower with xEV dead zones in most of rural America > 100 miles from an interstate freeway. Farming will likely move all electric though due to energy deregulation and V2G technology which will enable farms to drastically cut costs as well as create a new revenue source.

[GrussGott]

Why Telsa will roll over the Bigs:

"Diess, a former BMW AG executive, has ruffled feathers across a sprawling organization known for its complex governance... Diess wrote a newspaper op-ed in which he referred to the German industrial giant still having “old, encrusted” structures that must be broken up. "

“VW has a truly fascinating opportunity to shape the future of electric, digital and fun mobility,” Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Arndt Ellinghorst, who rates the stock the equivalent of a sell, said in a note earlier this week. “What it appears to be lacking is the right corporate governance to effectively and sustainably tackle these opportunities.”

While VAG pulls a blockbuster/Blackberry/Nokia, Tesla keeps building factories with brand new patented assembly machines and putting the latest battery technology into the latest architecture run by best-in-class management software.

Even if Tesla didn't sell another vehicle, its chassis, batteries, and software will power the bulk of xEVs sold over the next decade.

[Fly320s]

Originally Posted by _X

Curious to know the thoughts of the EV folks here. Do you all think the EV car market will be viable beyond 10-15 years? I ask because at CES last year there were a lot of drone companies and several that could already accommodate passengers. As we move towards automation within smart cities, flight paths for drones are much easier than current infrastructure.

Yes, I think EVs are here to stay. They won't take over as the majority vehicle for 20+ years, but EVs and personal vehicles, including ICE cars, will be around for a long time.

As for passenger carrying drones... I don't think that will happen for a long time. Probably not in my lifetime. I'm a commercial airline pilot. The thought of an autonomous drone flying passengers around seems like science-fiction. Maybe it can happen one day, but there are a ton of technical, regulatory, and safety hurdles to jump over first.

[KRS_SN]

now that Polestar rivian lucid etc are here and the so called legacy automakers are upping their game and will do so in the next few years despite being ahead in the drivetrain,(battery part ) its going to be make or break for TESLA(cars) no wonder they are talking about merging (sign of weakness).
The game changer is that ,governments are legislating for Full Non ICE cars so there is going to be a lot of competition in this field driving prices down. So far Teslas haven't really faced competition from non ice cars this will change dramatically.

[freakystyly]

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3...road-12-years/

New vehicles made up 6.1 percent of vehicles on the road last year.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Fly320s

I'm a commercial airline pilot. The thought of an autonomous drone flying passengers around ...

But isn't that what an Airbus is?

sadly that's now an utterly outdated Boeing vs Airbus joke

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

the FAA is even further behind. The FAA is very cautious and that translates in to glacial adoption of new technology.

Not really, 737 MAX. The FAA is a disaster right now and completely captured by industry / corporate interests - most of the people who actually understood aircraft design and operations left 10 years ago (when they realized they had no power except to go on airframe-paid boondoggles), and the 737 MAX is the crowning jewel to that failure - first time in history the FAA has lost the confidence of global aviation. The FAA will likely never recover that trust.

With that, the speed of regulatory changes will come down to the market size and profitability - if there's a lot of money in it, lobbyists will write those regs and jam them through congress (if needed) licketysplit. I used to work for the ATA and helped write and implement a major spec change to a 40 year old standard across all military and civil aviation for US, and civil aviation globally, and we did it in ~18 months. That change created a multi-billion $ industry with lots of DoD and government contracts Washington loves money.

If autonomous drones mean big corporate $$, unless we see some large government regulatory body reform, I'd be surprised if took more than 2 years. Probably < a year.

Example: space shit? no problem

WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao today announced the publication of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements Final Rule (PDF) for commercial space transportation launches and reentries.

“This historic, comprehensive update to commercial space launch and reentry licensing requirements facilitates greater growth in this industry and helps America to maintain our #1 position in the world,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao.

This rule modernizes the way FAA regulates and licenses commercial space operations and allows the burgeoning aerospace industry to continue to innovate and grow, while maintaining public safety.

Elon wants to fire off orbital rockets from Boca Chica Texas? Cool, cool.

[GrussGott]

Speaking of regulatory questions, Future Tense comes out swinging for Elon

The electric carmaker’s approach to autonomous vehicles is far too risky.

Safety and automotive leaders condemned Tesla for exposing its customers—and everyone else who shares the roads—to unnecessary risk. PAVE, a nonprofit providing education about autonomous vehicles, blasted the company for “using untrained consumers to validate beta-level software on public roads,” calling this “dangerous and inconsistent with existing guidance and industry norms.” An association representing truckers warned that “while [FSD] may be a fun experiment for Tesla’s customers, public roads are our members’ workplace.”

Faced with an obvious safety hazard and seemingly false advertising, you might expect federal officials to step in. Nope. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration promised merely to “monitor the new technology closely.” With an apparent regulatory green light, Tesla CEO Elon Musk claimed that FSD would be available nationwide by the end of this year.

ADAS nevertheless requires drivers to keep their eyes on the road and be ready to turn the steering wheel or apply the brakes if a problem arises. ... That kind of vigilance doesn’t jibe with a term like “Autopilot,” which suggests a vehicle that can operate independently. Indeed, European regulators bluntly concluded that “Tesla’s system name Autopilot is inappropriate as it suggests full automation.” Musk disagrees; he recently called the idea of changing it “idiotic.”

NHTSA should finally launch an investigation into Autopilot and FSD. The central question is whether the pattern of driver misuse of those technologies represents a defect, which could prompt a recall. The principle of “predictable abuse”—outlined in NHTSA guidance issued in 2016—provides a framework for such an investigation

How much do consumers want this stuff vs slap it on as a why-not option?

E.g., BMW has tons of these features - fairly close if not almost exactly like Tesla ... but if they didn't would people care? Is BMW a totally different market? Doesn't seem like it ... lots of people cross-shop BMW and Tesla and lots of people have both ...

Porsche, for example, kinda shies away from all this stuff, though granted Porsche sells fewer cars and may be more niche than Tesla.

Anyway, as someone config'ing a Porsche (I've almost given up on ordering the X5 45e) I can say I'm glad to be able to option it all off, though I would get it on the 45e if I go that route just to try it. My 2015 BMW had it all and I hated it, so my 2018 had none of it and I never missed it. That said, the auto-reverse stuff and the auto-park stuff seems pretty cool - highly unlikely I'd use any of the highway stuff.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Grussy, not everything is on the internet.

Instances of falling space hardware are not equivalent to unmanned flying drones. Lol.

From an FAA regulatory perspective, how so?

Also, heads up, Virgin Galactic may need your regulatory expertise ...

[KRS_SN]

I watched elon musks axel springer interview.(my first time watching musk speak)
I was very impressed by his intelligence and honesty. I did secretly wonder if he was an Alien in a human body though.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

NOTAMs

As I said, if there's lots of money for multiple industries in pilotless drones, the regs will be updated to accommodate in ~18 months and the lobbyists will write them.

A great example is driverless vehicles, and you don't even have to talk about Tesla, Amazon, or the other Bigs:

Long-Haul Trucking

Alphabet subsidiary is now expanding its geographic footprint into Texas and New Mexico. ... Tests will be primarily along Interstates 10, 20, and 45 and through metropolitan areas like El Paso, Dallas, and Houston ... Demand for driverless trucks is strong. They are predicted to reach 6,700 units globally, totaling $54.23 billion this year, and stand to save the logistics and shipping industry $70 billion annually while boosting productivity by 30%

Retail

GM-backed autonomous vehicle startup Cruise today announced a partnership with Walmart to deliver orders from a Scottsdale, Arizona store to customers’ homes. As part of the pilot, which is scheduled to begin in early 2021, customers will be able to place orders from a Walmart store and have them delivered via one of Cruise’s electric self-driving Chevy Bolts. Earlier this year, Cruise announced a deal with DoorDash to test food and grocery delivery in San Francisco for select customers ... In November [2019 Walmart] teamed up with Postmates and Ford to deliver food, personal care items, and other goods from Walmart stores in Miami-Dade County, Florida using prototype self-driving cars. Walmart stores in Surprise, Arizona briefly trialed Udelv’s self-driving vans for deliveries. Nuro, which this week raised $500 million, collaborated with Walmart to deliver groceries to customers in Houston, Texas following a pilot in Scottsdale. And Walmart is working with Gatik to ferry customer orders between select store locations in Bentonville, Arkansas.

You can find a nice table of the current laws by state here.

The point is, all of those states (AZ, CA, TX, FL, etc) are all in on self-driving vechicles as are the feds and not only are these vehicles on the roads, but some companies like Nuro already have paying customers.

It's not lost on retail that the next battle will be over local retail self-delivery (long-haul trucking to local DCs to last-mile), and it's a place where Wal-Mart realizes it could beat Amazon ... and Nuro has already begun deliveries.

I've seen them around Mountain View delivering Walgreens stuff.

[GrussGott]

Back to Tesla, I think it's worth pointing out how far ahead their technology is ... and before anyone claims Tesla isn't that far ahead, don't take my word for it, listen to the CEO of VW:

31 senior executives from Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche were involved in ‘Mission T’, as it was dubbed. The event revolved around how we can catch up with Tesla – a company focused exclusively on the future, without a traditional car business. Its Silicon Valley-style ecosystem is influenced by software capabilities, focus on technology and risk culture. The workshop was held over three days – under special constraints with masks and social distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The opening question was: “What do we have to achieve in the next six months to catch up with Tesla in terms of technology by 2024?”

So the CEO of VAG pulled 31 execs from Audi, VW, Porsche together for THREE DAYS to ask how VAG can catch up to Tesla IN FOUR YEARS!

Yes, TSLA's stock price is batshit, but not THAT batshit! The VAG CEO thinks Tesla's technology is 4 years ahead of them.

Seems like a big deal.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

None of that crap has to do with airplanes. You have no idea what I am talking about regarding launching or falling space vehicles and airplanes.

In my defense, this is Tesla thread - also, I know what you're talking about (at least as much as you've posted about, which ain't much) and it seems to misunderstand how and why regulations are created, and how business works ... but I get we're not writing formal research papers here, just BSin

With that, an example:

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

One of the largest companies in the world, owned by the most wealthiest man in the world, has not yet made one such commercial drone delivery

(1.) Air drone delivery has to be needed, reliable & profitable - It's not yet proven to be any of those things!
And I don't think it will in our lifetimes, and that's why Nuro is focused PURELY on street-vehicles and already has paying customers. For example, last mile delivery on small orders can use sidewalks and those drones are cheap so even if they take 3 hours to make 1 delivery it's profitable - fairly soon you can see a delivery funnel: drone trucks are interstate to city DCs, drone vans are intracity, drone cars are inter-neighborhood for large or multiple deliveries, and drone bots are intra-neighborhood at the home-level. And the bots could even hand-off deliveries bot-to-bot neighborhood-to-neighborhood. Like I said, drone delivery bots are all over Mountain View - putting them in the air doesn't add any value:


(2.) Regulations aren't made based on someone's wealth or the size of a single company
As previously described - I worked on a team that changed global regulations (FAA+) across the military and civilian aircraft ops in ~18 months (note: that's really fucking fast) because the changes impacted 1000s of companies globally (and it's currently a multi-billion $ industry); everyone from Precision Screw in Milwaukee to Rolls-Royce in the UK to ANA in Japan. When a business in most congressional districts gets a big benefit, regs pass.

SpaceKaren (Elon) is able to push regulatory changes not because of his wealth or his company's size, but because SpaceX work will impact 1000s of companies, many industries, and national security; not to mention a giant benefit to consumers. That's what gets shit done: lots of winners, lots of dipped beaks.

Further:
Self-driving cars & delivery vehicles will have no regulatory problems for the same reason: 1000s of companies will prosper across multiple industries (all?) as well as massive consumer benefits. Have you seen any states backing off despite accidents? Fuck no, they're all in. For good reason.

And autonomous air drones would be exactly same ... EXCEPT, that assumes the profitability is there (which is isn't), and the benefits dip a lot of beaks (which they don't), and consumers want and/or need it (which they don't).

Air-drone delivery is noisy, disturbs wildlife (and people), has limited size, and 1hr vs 1 day isn't valuable to hardly anyone. In short, air-drone delivery is a solution looking for a problem, so not even sure why it comes up in conversations

As far as school buses go, when's the last time you saw one of these?



Despite many ICE schoolbus accidents that have killed many children, nobody's advocating we go back to slower horse-drawn school buses (are you?) to save the children.

Hell, at this point, most parents would put their kids in a drone spaceship if it got them out of the house and off zoomschool.

Regulations just haven't ever been a barrier to profits in the history of mankind.

The thing with progress is, it's progressive.

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Yet when I point out Amazon and it's drone delivery investments, you poo poo it like it's not a legitimate business endeavor. When I point out the real investments it will take to enable a US national drone delivery service you make a statement that no company is investing in drone delivery (even though Amazon is) because it's not profitable and post pictures of horse-drawn school buss wagons.

Efthreeoh I think you must've missed the first & key point:

(1.) Air drone delivery has to be needed, reliable & profitable - It's not yet proven to be any of those things!

I didn't say air drone delivery "isn't legitimate", mostly since I have no idea what that means, rather I said air drone delivery hasn't proven to be needed, reliable, or profitable. <- Key business point

That's really important from a regulatory perspective because, as I said, each Congressperson and/or regulator has to see why, where, and how said thing will benefit them and/or their constituents. For emphasis, air drone delivery cannot show that (other than hand-wavy speculation obvs, which ain't good enough).

To your point, air drone delivery very well may turn out to be a big deal (i doubt it tho maybe), but until it definitively is, whatever "investments it will take" are totally irrelevant.

That's like saying I have a sweet idea for an automated blow dryer for bald guys and it'll require HUGE investments so everyone should be all in right? No, one has to prove need, *want*, a business model, and reliability of a solution first. (using startup lingo for this-business-is-going-to-fail let's call air drove delivery "pre-revenue")

Lastly, I'll presume after some further thought it'll be self-evident why 3 decades of successful and profitable sale of natural disaster reinsurance financial products would be more predictive of environmental trends, than a trillionaire retail company investing in whirligigs nobody yet wants would be predictive of revolutionary new business models.

OH! almost forgot!
lol

[GrussGott]

Separate topic since Efthreeoh and I are holding down this thread:

There's a new even-though-it's-obvs-Tesla-is-wrapping-up-the-auto-market-it's-really-not-you-guys argument out that's, as usual, wrong, but it's also unusually interesting:



What's interesting is the framing: lumping PHEVs with BEVs.

On the one hand those are completely different categories and many don't cross-shop them; I'd be an example of that given I'm considering an X5 45e but wouldn't consider the iX (though maybe the iX3, but still) and I'd certainly not consider any Tesla. Anyway, if you restricted this to BEVs only, Tesla crushes it ... so what's interesting?

Lumping PHEVs & BEVs shows BEVs creeping into ICE territory, something that'll definitely continue to happen in Europe and China, but more slowly in the US.

That's important because whenever I talk to North American Tesla-haters it doesn't occur to them what'll happen to the new car ICE market if & when the EU and China get rolled into xEVs. If the World's largest auto manufacturer is shitting their pants about Tesla's technology they must see an existential GLOBAL threat ...

So suppose NA new car BEV sales stopped right where they are today and never increased. Does anyone believe that will happen in Europe and/or China? No way. So then the question would become how many resource any auto manufacturer would be willing to put into ICE R&D, factories, etc for the much smaller North American market ... given their existential fear of xEVs it doesn't seem like much, especially for a small market ... and if the fanciest new cars are xEVs will North American consumers really stay peaked out? I doubt it.

Anyway, I guess we can include Japan in the xEV market now too

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You don't understand the depth of the commerical, non-passenger drone flight market.

Probably not, I rely on publicly available data and some private data services, so if it's more secret than that, I wouldn't see it.

It sounds like we've been conflating 2 points:

(1.) Is/will commercial, non-passenger flight drones be a good business?
(2.) Will that business dip enough beaks to impact regulation speed?


(1.) Is/will commercial, non-passenger flight drones be a good business?
Unless you have better info to share, objectively, yeah, looks like a nice business, with lots of growth, though the data is all over the place with all kinds of estimates, but the use-cases seem solid (engineering, security, farming, etc) and there's lots of investment by tons of companies and venture both large and small.

That said, still seems arm-wavy to me in many industries - e.g., security seems solid, but will there really be ROI in farming or engineering? And if so, at what level of use? Speciality or widespread? and in all of these cases there are less desirable existing alternatives ... If you have answers, I'd love to hear them!

And, since you've encouraged me, here's an example of global market size & investment estimates out there on the webs - if you have better, post up!:




So, as you said, most definitely a good business today, likely growing fast, and lots of investment! But ...


(2.) Will that business / investment dip enough beaks to impact regulatory speed?

Much harder question to answer ... the question there would be how widespread is the impact and what government contracts? Seems like it could be large, but even that might not be enough because there's already solutions to these problems: whatever they're doing today. Businesswise that's important, because it means *there's no real urgency*, at least not yet that I see, which means no need to rush regulatory reform.

Comparatively, the thing I worked on with the FAA, military, and civil aviation *replaced* existing operations - meaning a date was set and everything had to be in place by that date or no money. Delivering revenue on date X with no turning back is a big motivator. So in that case dollars+deadline=delivery

Further, something like SpaceX is in the same place: once the military contracts are signed, there's no turning back *and there's no alternative*

So you tell me:
Are there contracts like this in the commercial UAV market? I might speculate border patrol and building security, however both of those have less desirable but available alternatives: foot patrols. So it would seem $ may be there, but urgency and deadlines aren't.

And bringing this all back around to Tesla

Once Tesla's battery factories with their proprietary technology come online, it's quite feasible the batteries in all of these UAVs will be made by Tesla ... as well as the firmware and possibly the energy management system. And now multiply that across every product that uses rechargeable batteries.

Which is why I've been saying since 2018:

Tesla is tech company - they build energy storage & management software and they're using auto sales to fund development of their technology, and eventually that technology will be in most things with a battery which eventually will be most powered things. Thus their stock price.

And we've seen this movie before with Amazon - in the 90s they were derided as a shitty book retailer with slow fulfillment who didn't make a profit. People didn't recognize they were a retail logistics management software company using book sales to fund development of their technology. Not only did they take over retail, but cloud: on the amazon site each retail category next to the search box was managed as its own product with its own dev team and they need a way to integrate all that code, so they developed tools to do it and AWS was born. Last week they announced sale of "Monitron", a commercial product based on their in-house software that manages their warehouses. As Amazon continues to develop logistics management software they'll use it to dominate retail and also sell it commercially.

And with Google - In the 90s Google was derided as a featureless search engine company without even an internet directory like Yahoo had. People didn't realize they were a 2-sided network online advertising management software company using search to deliver the 3rd side of their value chain, i.e., people who want to place ads, people who want ads on their online property, and search to attract consumers searching for stuff to buy.

And with Apple - iPhones, 'nuff said. Took 2 tries though, anyone remember the Newton from the early 90s?



And this software-consumes-industries model isn't new - it more/less started in insurance on the 70s, especially health insurance (claims adjudication, revenue cycle management, payment integrity, etc) - at a certain size, like Amazon, Google, and soon Tesla, a large insurance company can start selling their in-house software externally even while they consume their originating market and industry ... once consumed they move on to other markets & industries (e.g., Amazon uses movies/music like Google uses search: to attract customers to retail, so they don't need to make a dime in the entertainment industry)

The trick is, it requires unique leaders who build a unique culture: strong top-down leadership modeled daily by the leader. E.g., both Bezos and Elon (and Jobs) *HATE* meetings ("meetings are what people do when they're not working", 2 pizza rule, etc) and drive high productivity cultures with zero ambiguity of mission, purpose, or goals. Everybody shows up every day knowing exactly what they have to do and they're individually and uniquely empowered to do it.

VAG's 3 day, 31 exec "Mission T" meeting to catch up to Tesla is a great example of why they'll never catch up to Tesla. That meeting alone probably took 100s of VAG staff offline to prepare, and will result in very slow changes if any. While they were doing that, 100s of Tesla employees were designing the next evolution of battery technology.

I'm thinking Porsche and Tesla eventually merge with Tesla being the volume/value play and Porsche being luxury/brand play. (no, Tesla won't "buy" Porsche because as Porsche showed us with VAG, if anyone's doing the buying, it's Porsche, but they don't need to advertise that fact).

[KRS_SN]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-jpmorgan-says

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-jpmorgan-says

Yeah JP Morgan, making the wrong call on TSLA for at least 3 years - JP Morgan is like the Swiss watch of wrong:

June 2020 - pre-split

JPMorgan keeps an Underweight rating on Tesla (TSLA +0.1%), while nudging the price target up to $275 from $240."We see Tesla as by far the most overvalued stock in our coverage group (apart from Hertz, which we also rate Underweight and for which we previously withdrew our price target prior to its bankruptcy)," updates analyst Ryan Brinkman.[Note in June TSLA was trading >$1000/share]

October 2020 - post-split

Analyst Ryan Brinkman at J.P. Morgan, who has had an underweight rating on Tesla's stock for at least the past three years, raised his price target to $75, which is 82% below Friday's closing price of $415.09, from $65.
"We remain underweight-rated on [Tesla] shares, on what we see as lofty valuation coupled with high investor expectations and high execution risk," Brinkman wrote in a note to clients. Of the 37 analysts surveyed by FactSet, Brinkman is one of 11 who are bearish on Tesla's stock.

Just to review, in June JP Morgan had it at $275 and it was $1000 and then split. In Oct JP Morgan raised their price target to $75, and note today it's $627.

Who wants to bet on JP Morgan's TSLA advice? anyone? anyone? ECHO ... echo ... echo ... ...


In other news, Elon continues to poop in haters cheerios by moving to Texas to build pickup trucks and hate on government regulations:

[GrussGott]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-jpmorgan-says

Important JP Morgan update:

Holy moly is their "analysis" totally fucked - a few summary details:

(1.) Their target is only based on 2 years of revenue, i.e., 2022 uhhhh isn't investing (vs trading) supposed to have a longer window than that? You know, cause TSLA will be earning revenue AFTER 2022? So maybe that future revenue should be calc'd into the valuation?

(2.) They assume 1M vehicles - TSLA is already at 800k globally and Berlin is est at 500k - even if capacity at Shanghai doesn't grow (it will) this is massively conservative (or ridiculous might be the more neutral term)

(3.) JPM claims TSLAs regulatory credit revenue will fall because ... governments will ban ICE vehicles! That's right, JPM says TSLA is too high because as the leading BEV brand and sales leader, when govs ban ICE, TSLA will lose that regulatory credit revenue and ... that ban wouldn't increase their auto sales I guess?

Fun Quote:
"We concede it is possible the rise in shares could be grounded in an analysis of the fundamentals other than those reflected by consensus estimates through 2024 ... After all, are Toyota, VW, GM, Honda, BMW, and Mercedes, et. al., simply going to sit back and watch this happen?"

Translation:
Some investors believe Tesla will exist after 2024 and value them as such, but we don't because the Bigs will certainly have killed TSLA's BEV business before that .... won't they? I mean they haven't yet, but they're gonna ... right? RIGHT??


This JP Morgan recommendation almost climbs to the level of irresponsible - unless you read through it all you don't realize how stupid it is ... which brings up another question: how short is JPM TSLA? Or are they defending Chase? Something else is at play here, because JPM can't be this stupid and irresponsible ....

Side note: invest in index funds.



-3% in 2019-2020! (S&P index is up 17% over that time)

[GrussGott]

And in a related story to Tesla's BEV production capacity coming online in Europe ...

European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association calculates if EU targets of 30 million EVs by 2030 are to be met, their numbers must rise by almost 5,000%

The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) highlights that last year, just 0.25 per cent (615,000) of the 243 million cars in the EU are zero-emission electric models.

To meet the target, set for just nine years in the future, that those 615,000 EVs rise in number to 30 million, the ACEA highlights that close to a 50-fold increase in numbers would be required.

[KRS_SN]

gruss

your quote
(3.) JPM claims TSLAs regulatory credit revenue will fall because ... governments will ban ICE vehicles! That's right, JPM says TSLA is too high because as the leading BEV brand and sales leader, when govs ban ICE, TSLA will lose that regulatory credit revenue and ... that ban wouldn't increase their auto sales I guess?

I said so too in a post above.
The game changer is govt legislation
even dacia is coming out of the woodwork with ev
so far Teslas sold as others weren't offering a choice
there is about to be an explosion of choice because govts are banning ICE and tesla eats a part of the common pie.
Shares are valued at tesla eating the pie alone.

I know you like examples
think of ev and batteries as a drug.
when it comes out on patent it has a very high price
Once patent expires its usually very cheap.

govt mandates have just dwindled that patent the company had from 2 decades to 5 years. The profits that company would have made for 20 years unchallenged now will last only for 5 years.

Tesla a victim of its own success? Time will tell.