IS TESLA the most Over valued, over hyped Stock IN HISTORY??? Convince me I'm wrong!

Non-Running Pop Culture
Reply
Moderation
1 2 3
Next
  • registered

    tlm1959

    Member since 12/09/2013.

    1,132 posts. Last post 1 month ago.
    2 years ago 11/02/2021 8:37pm EDT
    re: bitter fool

    It certainly seems overvalued, even with the debt paydown. (New equity really helped).

    I back out long-term units of 20m a year to justify the valuation. They are going to have to develop many more models as most leading car models seem to top out at 1m in units. But we will see.

    Aside from the valuation, I don't like the percentage of sales that come from energy credits. The government can change this reimbursement and as competitors ramp and mileage improves, there won't be the need for as many of these credits. Their competitors will stop buying them.

    And of course, there are the macro issues-lithium, power grids, power capacity, etc., all of which might become more scarce and expensive in the face of a huge shift in share.

    They have done a great job getting operating margins into the 20s and gross margins into the 30s-due to a nice ramp in Shanghai. The problem here is that if credits are 1/4 of their sales, these are 100% margin sales that are at risk.

    There is also a question aside from environmental credits when it comes to margins: TSLA doesn't amortize warranty expenses like other car makers.

  • registered

    cwarcarblue11

    Member since 11/09/2015.

    317 posts. Last post 2 weeks ago.
    2 years ago 11/03/2021 12:04pm EDT
    re: An Engineer

    An Engineer wrote:

    There is a lot of BS in how they show that wind and solar is cheaper than the other sources.

    Usually, they don't count in government subsidies required to make it viable. Obviously, if it were really so cheap the subsidies wouldn't be needed to get it started.

    The numbers I provided are unsubsidized costs. You can find the real numbers here:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-levelized-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us-by-technology/

    An Engineer wrote:The free market when left alone does what makes economic sense.

    I completely agree with this statement.

    Based on the statista numbers, you would assume that all new energy generation capacity would be wind, solar, and natural gas. Guess what? 97% of new generation last year was wind, solar, and natural gas. Costs correlate directly to implementation.

    Now, are the renewable subsidies skewing the numbers for new capacity additions? Maybe, but the fact is it is still cheaper even without subsidies, and so the free market will do what makes economic sense - wind, solar, and batteries.

    An Engineer wrote:

    It does not account for the fact that other energy sources have 100% or close to 100% uptime while solar and wind may have a fraction of that. So if the solar farms to equal a gas-fired plant cost half as much to build, which it doesn't, it doesn't account for the fact that you only get a fraction of the generation time and solar is generally useless as peak demand time. It also does not account for the cost to backup the unreliable solar with a gas generator which is what we do here in green California!

    You are completely ignoring a huge part of my argument - utility scale batteries. Solar installations have the highest production at solar noon. Coupled with even 3 hours of battery storage, this can be used for peak load, which is later in the evening. Batteries are the killer feature, and they are still getting cheaper every year.

    An Engineer wrote:

    It generally doesn't cost for losses in transmission and cost of said transmission infrastructure. A nuclear plant that can support 3 million humans can fit on an area the size of 3 football fields and be built near a city. Solar and wind take up far more square footage and sometimes must be built in areas far from the end-user. Don't forget the cost of all the extra land those utilities require.

    Most nuclear plants are not built near cities for safety. Perhaps that will change in the future. But note that even commercial rooftop solar shows slightly lower costs per Mw than nuclear plants as of today, and it comes with near zero transmission costs. Plus, they are generally not owned by utility companies so the price is compared to the consumer cost rather than the utility cost of generation. I believe rooftop solar will eventually become the primary method of power generation.

    An Engineer wrote:

    Far more people die on wind farms than at nuclear plants.

    Source?

    An Engineer wrote:

    None of the cost of the disposal crisis coming when all these solar panels and wind turbines need to be thrown away and replaced is included. And yes this will be a disaster. Cost and environmental damage to decommission and dispose of waste from a nuclear or fossil fuel plant cost a fraction.

    You are really saying it is harder to decommission a solar installation than a nuclear plant? Decommissioning a nuclear plant is a very expensive and complex operation. Solar panels and wind turbines could theoretically be recycled after their 30 year lifespan.

    An Engineer wrote:

    So in summary Solar and Wind Power suck at any large scale. They make our grid worse. They would not be viable without government subsidies. Adding more solar and wind vs nuclear will actually increase our dependence on fossile fuels. We should build more nuclear plants.

    On the contrary, solar, wind, and batteries make the grid far cheaper and more reliable. They are not dependent on government subsidies as they are still the cheapest option without subsidies. Solar+Wind+Batteries can 100% replace fossil fuel usage. Nuclear power is one of the most expensive types of energy generation and makes no sense to build today, unless there are significant breakthroughs (which could happen).

  • registered

    jamin

    Member since 09/24/2013.

    8,281 posts. Last post 10 months ago.
    2 years ago 11/03/2021 2:17pm EDT
    re: bitter fool

    Tesla is a luxury car company. The fact that its cars have electric motors is a side point. People don't decide that they want to buy an electric car and then evaluate different options and arrive at a decision that Tesla Model 3 is better than Chevy Volt or whatnot.

1 2 3
Next Last
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
New Forum Moderation Information & Rules Search Troubleshooting

This thread has already been deleted.

Note: We review 100% of reports submitted. Visit our moderation dashboard to view statistics on our moderating activity. If you have a question or concern, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com or call us at our toll-free phone number:

1-844-LETSRUN (1-844-538-7786).

Author
Body
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?

View our Terms Of Service for a complete description of our forum policies.

Provide context for this post report if relevant.

Reply Replying to

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview
By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Help Contribute to a Better Running Shoe Site

We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.

Review A Shoe & Win Free Shoes
Pick Your Shoe
Overall
/10
Comfort
/10
Cushioning
/10
Durability
/10
Appearance
/10
Value
/10
Message Board