[Aloha]

I suspect I hold a minority opinion - but I think Tesla is woefully overvalued for what it is, and what it sells - yes, it has interesting new technology, but I have doubts about its ability to execute at the scale required to dominate the market as they wish.

Tesla has a market cap of 56 billion dollars - compared to Ford at 45 billion, and GM at 61 billion.

Tesla I believe sold around 100,000 cars in 2017, and 76,000 in 2016, in the US alone Ford and GM sold 2.5 and 3 million respectively in 2016 - to give you scale GM sold 10 million worldwide (again, in 2016).

Scaling manufacturing operations is one of the hardest things to do - so I dont see it to be possible for Tesla to chase after the mass market, or do anywhere near the sales of the other manufacturers.

[panarky]

Nobody is buying Tesla shares based on 2017 sales. They're buying an option on the future.

You may think the company's future isn't worth a $56 billion present value, but comparing Tesla's historical production against Ford and GM is completely missing the point.

That would be like comparing Google's revenue in 2004 against its competitors in the advertising industry.

Investors who bought Google's IPO were valuing the company's potential in 2014 and 2024, not its minuscule market share in 2004.

Google's 2004 IPO valued the company at $23 billion, twice as much as WPP Group even though WPP had much higher revenue than Google.

Today Google is worth 35 WPPs, and Tesla investors think it could be worth multiple GMs and Fords ten years hence.

[Aloha]

How does it make sense that Tesla could be worth several Fords, or General Motors in ten years?

The automotive market is stable, something on the order of 80 million cars a year, and I don't see Tesla vanquishing one of the incumbents either.

I guess my argument is that an Electric Car is not a whole new category of vehicle (like a flying autonomous car might), anymore than diesel cars are looked as a separate market than gasoline ones. Whereas Google created an entirely new category of advertising, that didn't even really exist before they arrived and the market grew by two or three orders of magnitude.

[sumedh]

> I don't see Tesla vanquishing one of the incumbents either.

People didn't see that RIM and Nokia would be destroyed either.

[Aloha]

Both Nokia and RIM were vanquished because they failed to invest in their future - the big three are investing, and buying technology companies to fill in what doesnt make sense to build themselves.

[sumedh]

Nokia was doing that as well (pretty sure RIM would be too).

Just because you are buying new tech does not automatically mean you will succeed.

[Aloha]

In this case, I see no big paradigm shift that would presuppose me that any of the big global auto manufacturers would go away.

Building good cars, is a game of logistics and supply chain, something Tesla is largely still learning - the thing about building a good electric car is, it only changes one aspect of an otherwise concept, and you can buy the technology you need for that.

RIM, Nortel and Nokia, are not good example cases, because they didnt loose on their ability to manufacture shit - and Tesla likely will.

[razorunreal]

Don't think about the cars, look at the charging network. I think it's plausible that all the big car companies realise that nobody will buy their electric models unless they license Tesla's charging infrastructure. They can try to replicate that infrastructure but they are already behind, and it would be very painful to do if nobody is buying your cars while you build it out. So there's your (literal) network effect.

[dirtyaura]

I assume battery sales for energy producers will play a big role in Elon’s plans. Is he right? Maybe, if there is political will to fight climate change.

[Aloha]

If batteries go like you suppose they will, they will quickly become a race to the bottom, battery packs are not terribly complex to make.

[thisisit]

You are right about Google's future valuation back in 2004. But we also have to think about the comparison here - we are comparing a software and manufacturing company.

Even if we ignore different sector we need to look at the financials. Google dint have much debt. Tesla on the other hand has lots of debt. Their financial leverage is 5.97 which is high.

Then there is also about the interest rate climate. We have seen years of unprecedented low interest rates. Feds now have started to increase it slowly. If it rises too high Tesla's interest obligation will balloon as well. If they are not building cars fast and selling them even faster, they might be a deep hole and hence overvalued.

[jryle70]

I don't have the crystal ball to tell if Tesla's market value is justified, but they are at the forefront of 2 exciting and explosive areas of growth: electric transportation and battery. You only need to count the announcements of established car makers of electric vehicles in recent time to tell how dynamic the market is. They are not compete in a typical stable manufacturing sector.

[lenley]

Absolutely. Also, Tesla doesn't really have the network effects that other industries have (like search). Companies with similar cultural cache are also catching-up like BMW...

[traviswingo]

I feel like too many people hold a short sided “stock market only” view of Tesla. Its not, long term, an auto maker. Its solar panels, energy storage, energy management...everything that will be necessary to survive somewhere coal wont be available to burn. There is a long term vision that is funded by capitalizing on short term markets along the way. That vision is much larger than P/E ratios...

Thus I’m not surprised when i hear about Elon being sad or annoyed with “shareholders” and the board, because he holds a vision for our future that Wall Street just cant comprehend, and thats depressing.

[prklmn]

His vision is highly dependent on levering up the company even further and selling more equity in the future. What happens when their cash flow dries up during the next recession, which by the way last happened nearly 10 years ago, and they can’t meet their debt obligations?

When there is chatter that PE ratios don’t matter, it’s time to run for the hills as irrationality has set in. Also, Tesla doesn’t have a PE ratio because they don’t generate profit. The stuff that gets companies trough difficult economic times.

Also, on the batteries and solar endeavors - sure it’s a growth opportunity but does Tesla really have that much of a competitive advantage beyond their brand name?

One final thing. Don’t forget that Musk does not have shareholders’ best interests in mind. He bailed out solar city, which was heading for bankruptcy, using Tesla as his piggy bank. And then got shareholders to drink the kool aid that it was a smart move when in reality he could have simply bought it out of bankruptcy - but that would have cost him personally, so he didn’t. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/01/teslas-solarcity-b...

EDIT: Levering, not leveling

[meritt]

Ford does ~$150B in revenue per year and they are worth $46B. Ford's P/S is 0.31

GM does ~$166B in revenue per year and they are worth $61B. GM's P/S is 0.37.

Tesla does ~$12B in revenue per year and they are worth $56B. Tesla's P/S is 4.67

I'd argue that Wall Street has an extremely optimistic view of Tesla's future since they are worth 12-15x more than Ford and GM on a revenue basis. I can't really compare on a profit basis since Ford and GM are profitable and Tesla has never made a profit and their production/delivery numbers have been basically flat (~25k units) per quarter for a year and a half.

[dmode]

What’s the EBITDA comparison ?

[meritt]

F=15.7B, GM=20.9B, TSLA=0.26B

[snuxoll]

I see Tesla’s vision, and I think it’s where we as a species need to be headed - but their ability to execute is sorely lacking and that goes far beyond P/E ratios.

[erikpukinskis]

Who is executing better in large scale batteries?

[andars]

Tesla, the car company, probably will never come close to the market caps thrown around in the article.

Tesla, the energy company, might.

[qaq]

I don't think you are alone on the other hand I view holding Tesla stock not so much as an investment but as a way to support a "brighter" version of the future :)

[snuxoll]

Especially now that Tesla has the bolt to compete with, which has been selling well and it seems GM has been able to keep up with production.

Tesla needs to get production capacity on track fast, or they will get left in the dust as other major players hop on board the EV wagon.

[wonder_bread]

https://electrek.co/2017/12/01/chevy-bolt-ev-us-sales-record...

When I initially read your comment I was inclined to disagree with another automaker incumbent-smashing opinion but upon researching, I have to say, 2,000 units a month in the nascent mainstream market for EV's is definitely impressive. Kudos to GM there

[elihu]

Like Tesla, I think the other manufacturers are constrained by the supply of battery cells. In order for GM or Ford or Toyota or whoever to "leave Tesla in the dust", they would need to fix that somehow.

Maybe some of the major car manufacturers will build their own battery plants or some new supplier will fill the market demand, but that takes time. Until then, the incumbent manufacturers will continue to sell mostly gas cars because they have no alternative.

[ggm]

I too find the notional valuations confusing for Tesla, and other entities. Comparing net worth, listed worth against industrial titans like Ford or GM is very hard for me because they are involved in supply chain logistics and dynamics of goods sold and bought on a scale which justifies their apparent net worth, when Tesla is a giant speculative 'maybe' play.

But the thing is, I'm just as confused understanding how IBM is worth anything any more, now that it has no core central logic except "do stuff, for money, for big clients"

Or why any of this matters, when Chinese state enterprises are worth more than all of this put together. CNOOC, the state oil company, is 1.17 trillion in 2014 CNY terms. thats $180b US for a shipping company alone. That, I can relate to.

I can't conceive of enough uses for things in space, to justify Tesla rockets being so valuable but then I can't conceive of that many creme eggs, bought with that much money either.

[andars]

> Tesla rockets

Tesla is distinct from SpaceX.

[ggm]

good call. unsay those rocket words. on the up side his roof tile PV thing is a clean slate (hah) which has a huge market out there, irrespective of the supply chain dynamic questions behind EV. And his batteries are going gangbusters attached to solar and wind farms so there are sound, large business models behind tesla. But.. making them add up to the same net worth as GM which has factories and dealerships and side deals in ship engines, energy, military, worldwide... I am still adrift. Tesla is talking about gigafactory sites outside of the USA. GM owns factory sites worldwide.

[tedsanders]

Market cap is not the right comparison. Ford has a substantially higher enterprise value than Tesla: like 157B vs 66B. The reason Tesla has a higher market cap is that Ford is carrying more debt (which has little to do with expected future production and sales).

[aphextron]

>Tesla I believe sold around 100,000 cars in 2017, and 76,000 in 2016, in the US alone Ford and GM sold 2.5 and 3 million respectively in 2016 - to give you scale GM sold 10 million worldwide (again, in 2016).

And I'm certain Casio sold millions more watches than Rolex last year. The fact is that consumers are rational in their choices with respect to not just actual utility, but perceived social value. High end brands have an undeniable, albeit intangible, value.

[Aloha]

It's a luxury brand that has yet to reach profitability. If you cant be profitable in a luxury good market, you're doing it wrong.

[jryle70]

This is short sight. Their goal is to make EV affordable for the mass. Doing this requires huge investment.

They aren't content to stay in luxury segment. If they were models S and X would have been enough.

[kumarvvr]

Tesla has pretty big moats around it's business.

1. Tesla can always enter into the ICE market with ease, not that they will do it, but they can and probably will succeed. The big 3 have had a lot of difficulty in getting into the EV market. Sure, they have competing vehicles, but lack the marketing power of Tesla. 2. Tesla is the new cool factor. Undeniably. People get mocked for driving a Prius. Owning a Tesla evokes a more positive response. 3. Tesla has it's supercharging network, which I think is a very smart move. That's a pretty big moat. 4. Tesla's marketing machine is immense and enormously efficient. I remember Elon writing a blog article about a journalists negative review of their car and the discussion about Tesla dominated social media for a few weeks. No one even bothers about the management at the big 3, but Elon is a celebrity who is given geek god like status.

[gamblor956]

1. Tesla can always enter into the ICE market with ease, not that they will do it, but they can and probably will succeed. ICEs are much harder than electric engines.

2. Tesla is the new cool factor. Undeniably. Tesla had the cool factor. Now they're 2 years away from being just another electric car.

4. Tesla's marketing machine is immense and enormously efficient.

99% of car buyers don't pay attention to social media when buying a car. Tesla has one of the smallest marketing machines in the industry; it's heavily reliant on social media to bring in buyers, which limits its customer base. Moreover, the reliance on social media is also its weakness, as it is subject to the whims of the online mob.

I remember Elon writing a blog article about a journalists negative review of their car and the discussion about Tesla dominated social media for a few weeks. No one even bothers about the management at the big 3, but Elon is a celebrity who is given geek god like status.

I remember that coverage as well. It was uniformly negative about Elon's blustering response to the review, and raised significant concerns in the market. If a single negative review is enough to tank Tesla, it's got no chance of surviving Model 3 mass production.

[calvinbhai]

Social media is good to generate and sustain hype, especially when Tesla itself is unable deliver the number of vehicles that have already been ordered.

Once Tesla has enough capacity to manufacture, more than what social media presence can consume, that is when traditional marketing mechanisms will make sense.

[Aloha]

It doesnt matter how cool their marketing is, if they cant scale their product manufacturing. You can't really sell a box of air, that is supposed to be a car.

[rjbwork]

I've been looking into buying an EV recently. The only thing comes close to anything I want is the Chevy Bolt. But, they don't seem to have launched a 2018 yet, it's a hatchback (which I don't want), and it's wildly expensive for the value delivered. I'd rather just get a Model 3/S honestly, even with the expense differential.

[brookside]

I wouldn't want a 3 because it isn't a hatchback. Hatchbacks are just so wonderful for transporting large items and even for sleeping the occasional night!

[snuxoll]

I love my Prius for this very reason, fold the back seat down and it’s got plenty of room for moving stuff around (being mindful of the max weight the car can reasonably haul) - if it wasn’t for my semi-purist nature when camping I’d seriously consider camping in it instead of pitching a tent.

[rjbwork]

Hmm you make a good argument...

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

What was "cool" to the parent's generation is often considered "uncool" to the children's generation. That is why it is very dangerous to build a business on "cool".

[mschuster91]

> What was "cool" to the parent's generation is often considered "uncool" to the children's generation.

Yeah but the "parent generation" is the one which has the cash to buy a Tesla. My generation, unless made rich by bitcoin trading or stocks? Lol used VW junker it is.

For my generation, I'd bet that access to (autonomous?) car sharing will be the cool thing - and, guess what, Tesla has the upper hand there. Every vehicle transmits data back to homebase... and that data is why Tesla is so hyped and highly valuated, not the cars or the patents, probably not even Elon Musk himself.

They may sell the car at a hardware loss, but gain so much data for which they'd have to pay test drivers instead and still get a dime of the percentage they now get. Hell Tesla could close down shop today and I bet there would be waaaaay more than enough cash from companies willing to buy that data.

The only exception I can think of is Google with its Maps/Streetview cars as these have enormous, probably even better, sensors by design and in theory Google could get by just fine - but the amount of data is a blip compared to the miles already driven by all the Teslas out there.

Further adding to the value of Tesla is that they are trying (and often have succeeded) in breaking down the "dealership" structures... while the "old" car makers are more or less stuck to that structure (they don't want to piss off existing dealers), Tesla can react way quicker to demand.

edit: oh, and "modern" infotainment? App connections? Nothing the big car makers have to show comes even remotely close to what Tesla can do - their entire model is different. Digital services are at the core of any Tesla, so deep in fact that Tesla can dynamically "unlock" more capacity in the batteries, with frequent software updates - while even a top-notch VW has to visit a dealer to get a de-stinker firmware update. And don't get me started about the quality of the software in any non-Tesla car. No one comes remotely close to that level, and no one comes close in development speed/agility.

[Aloha]

Have you driven a Modern FCA, Ford or GM product? Their infotainment system is extremely impressive, and reliable (mostly).

[elchief]

Everyone I know says their current car is their last gas car. Ford can't yet compete on electric cars

[llsf]

I am not sure it completely accurate to compare Tesla with GM or Ford. Tesla is not a car company (they removed the word "Motors" from the original "Tesla Motors", like Apple removed "Computers" earlier). They do sell some vehicles (electric ones), but they also sell batteries, and solar panels. And they sell those just to show what their main product can do. Tesla main product is the Gigafactory. The factory is the product. Tesla is in the business of building factories, new generation of factories. Now, is it business worth ~$56B ? And what could it be worth in one year, 5 or 10 years ?

[mtgx]

And Nokia used to sell 300x as many phones as Apple did at one point. Giants don't tend to adapt well to paradigm shifts in the industry, and make no mistake, switching to EVs is a huge paradigm shift. Everything from factory tools, supplier partnerships, type of employees, and even business model is different here.

[Aloha]

Everyone keeps saying that EV's are a huge paradigm shift, but they don't explain how - in the end its a car - and not much more inherently high tech than many other cars - replacing the method of propulsion, does not fundamentally alter how you build it, or how you source the parts to build it.

[mschuster91]

> replacing the method of propulsion, does not fundamentally alter how you build it, or how you source the parts to build it.

There are fundamental changes in car design. No need for a huge tunnel and axle in RWD cars, and no huge, loud, hot and vibrating engine in the front. In addition the battery pack shifts down the centre of gravity (thus making the car way better in handling curves), and the now free space in the front (what Tesla calls "frunk") is a huge crumple zone.

Also, with the engine there goes a huge complex part with many different highly specialized suppliers - granted, it's replaced by another set of parts, but fundamentally it's orders of magnitude less parts, and easier to install.

[Aloha]

It's a big change - but neither fundamental or a paradigm shift.

I replace one set of complimented parts from specialized suppliers, with another set, we've had flat panned cars before, both rear engined, and front wheel drive, both the Corvair and the Beetle had a frunk, and the Prius has a big heavy battery under the floor, changing the center or gravity.

I'm not downplaying the significance of the technology, but its a evolutionary development, of early electric cars, rather than a sea change.

[gamblor956]

Nokia still sells millions of phones...

The market got bigger. Nokia did not.

[dirtyaura]

This is not true. Nokia sold over 450M phones per year in 2007-2010, but started to lose marketshare quickly, and from 2010 onwards the number of phones sold dropped fast. Then Nokia sold it’s phone business to Microsoft.

Now it is returning, but it’s not anymore core focus of the business and the numbers are small.

[MarkMc]

How many vehicles do you think Tesla will sell in 2021?

[Aloha]

I don't know.

But I know without a second factory, they're unlikely to make more than 500,000 a year.

[MarkMc]

OK, but it seems likely that Tesla will have a second factory by 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-07/tesla-pla...