[tardo99]

Tesla's 10-K shows an accumulated shareholder deficit of $6B. That's over and above money spent to buy factories which are still operating. That's $6k a car at 1M cars sold. Add to that the $7500 rebate the US was providing until recently. That's $13.5k, on average, they lost per car they sold through the end of 2019.

Saying nothing about Tesla cars versus other companies, that's a huge financial advantage against other car companies. This is particularly true given that most of those car sales happened post-Q1-2018, when Tesla had already established a strong brand.

I'm not sure any established player could, at that point, compete with a company that gets to lose $13.5k per car they sell. That would be like if Nissan started building base-model Sentras and selling them for $4500. Yes, they would sell a lot of them.

As markets normalize and Tesla has to compete on a level playing field, my guess is their product is viewed more and more as what it is: a luxury car. Nothing wrong with that, but it's hard to see them owning more than a few percent of the market, especially considering established companies have gone all in on electric at this point.

And, nothing can justify a price-sales multiplier of 20 for the company. Nothing.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Tesla's 10-K shows an accumulated shareholder deficit of $6B. That's over and above money spent to buy factories which are still operating. That's $6k a car at 1M cars sold.

The money was spent on things like R&D and product development. That means you amortize it over the total number of cars they're ever going to make using that technology. They've made 1M already, but why would you expect them not to make any more?

Some of that money went into developing models that haven't been released yet. If you break it down per model using existing sales numbers then those models would have cost infinity dollars per car, but that's now how it works.

[sfblah]

Let’s hope. The question is how relevant the 13.5k subsidy is to whether others can compete. The top comment about luxury cars being irrational purchases is probably the best commentary here.

[kmonsen]

The 7.5k is available for anyone selling electric cars in the US, well except Tesla themselves at this point so right now they are actually fighting an uphill battle and still winning.

[DanCarvajal]

Is it a battle when almost all the other competitors are just producing California compliance cars? They've barely survived financially without competition, I'd be deeply concerned with their ability to compete going forward.

[rconti]

Yeah, there was an article the other day interviewing James Dyson about his new flatiron. The first part of the article asked him about their EV, which was basically ready for production (they spent years on it), but he said there was no way to make it profitably.

That said, Tesla is still selling cars with no federal rebate. So, actually, while you're right about $13.5k (historically), that's no longer correct. (of course, they've lowered prices, so perhaps that $6k number goes up?)

I don't doubt a more efficient automaker could shave thousands off that $6k number. And people would still buy it for a couple thousand more; making up the pricing difference.

Of course, that still brings us "only" to $0 unit profit.

[TotempaaltJ]

How does Tesla lose money on the rebate?

[sfblah]

They don’t. It’s that they get to charge less for their cars than would a competitor.

[mrep]

Those competitors can sell cars with the same rebate as Tesla though.

[sfblah]

Yes, assuming Tesla doesn’t successfully lobby to change the law, which I expect them to do.

[rootusrootus]

They get to charge more, you mean. They have had to steadily lower their prices as the rebate phased out.

[toomuchtodo]

Fiat Chrysler and GM used to build compliance cars. Fiat's CEO was famous for saying not to buy theirs [1] because they lost money on it, but were required to build them to meet emissions mandates so they could sell their polluting combustion cars (fun fact: Fiat has to pay Tesla $2 billion now to continue selling non-EVs in Europe, they are effectively funding Gigafactory 4 in Berlin [2]). These companies have enormous existing manufacturing capacity, and capital market resources. If they didn't have spineless management, or short term shareholders, they could've been the ones to capture the gains from the transition to electrified transportation. Instead, Tesla came along, doing the hard work for a decade performing R&D, building their own manufacturing capacity (GF1, 2, 3, and now 4) and Supercharger network, and most importantly, a desirable and sexy brand. TLDR Tesla spends crazy money on capex but everyone funding Tesla is onboard with it, legacy automakers cannot do so.

Polluting and emissions have a very real cost (climate change, particulate pollution). I am astounded when someone complains that this cost must be paid for, and that it was in some way wrong or economic fraud for Tesla to take advantage of intelligent public policy (ZEV credits, tax credits, etc).

Disclaimer (bigger one in profile): I am a TSLA shareholder, and willing to wait until the heat death of the universe for any return on capital. My investment is in fixing climate change.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/chrsyelr-ceo-evs/fiat-chrysl... (“I hope you don’t buy it because every time I sell one it costs me $14,000,” he said to the audience at the Brookings Institution about the 500e. “I’m honest enough to tell you that.” -- Sergio Marchionne)

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-09/fiat-will... (Fiat Will Effectively Fund Tesla’s German Factory, Baird Says)

[new_realist]

It’s fine that Tesla is a compliance car manufacturer for hire. Just don’t claim buying a Tesla is good for the environment, because it is not. Every Tesla sold just allows for one more gas guzzling SUV to be made. Instead, focus your energy on lobbying the government for stricter emissions regulations.

[toomuchtodo]

> Instead, focus your energy on lobbying the government for stricter emissions regulations.

I focus on solvable problems. Tesla solves problems today that the United States Congress might never solve (a carbon tax is extremely unlikely to pass with the current legislature configuration). Every Tesla sold gets us closer to a zero emissions future. You go to war with what you have, not what you want. Dysfunctional government? Those factories still churn out EVs that generate revenue to scale up battery manufacturing across the world.

[Dumblydorr]

Are you kidding? People here can actually afford Teslas and your idea to support EVs is for HN tech workers to not buy EVs but rather try to convince climate denying Trump administration to tighten regulations they already slashed and wanted to slash even more? That's just silly, the best climate solution may not be EVs but let's not pretend the current admin will listen to climate lobbying.

[tardo99]

Except that's not how public policy works. It's not like Tesla just happened to luck into these policies. They actively lobbied for them. There's a significant amount of "greenwashing" involved there. I think it's instructive to realize that both of Musk's companies have, as critical elements of their success, government policies which favored them at just the right time.

I have nothing against Tesla as a luxury car brand. I do get tired of fanboys suggesting they'll take over the entire industry. Normal people can't afford a $60k Model 3 (and that's what they actually cost). Other companies will do fine in the electric space. I'm quite happy with my used Nissan Leaf. Price? $8500. Let's see Tesla beat that.

[rootusrootus]

> Normal people can't afford a $60k Model 3

That's hyperbole. I paid a little less than $60K out the door for my Model 3, and it is the Performance model. You can order a $40K Model 3 right off the web site that is substantially identical aside from being slower and having a few miles less range (though in practical terms it's probably about the same because the P3D doesn't get anywhere near rated range). AFAIK you can still special order the $35K model.

[toomuchtodo]

The ITC tax credit for solar and storage, the EV tax credit, and the electric vehicle charging station credit all existed before Tesla (and all other solar, storage, and vehicle manufacturers are eligible for these credits, not just Tesla, you just have to build the product). Tesla did lobby for vehicle manufacturers to be allowed to sell directly to consumers, which I cannot see any reason that shouldn't be allowed in a free market. Can you prove they lobbied for these policies?

A Nissan Leaf is a glorified golf cart with an air cooled battery that has no longevity and no fast charge network. There is a reason they are so cheap used. It is not a realistic competitor to an internal combustion vehicle, such that a Model 3, Y, S, or X is. That is why Tesla is successful and has sold their millionth car, and is running at a 400k unit/year run rate (based on Fremont and Gigafactory 3 production data). There is no need for Tesla to meet unrealistic expectations such as your example ("I'm quite happy with my used Nissan Leaf. Price? $8500. Let's see Tesla beat that.") when there is an entire worldwide auto market with consumers ready to pay top dollar for the cars Tesla builds (in the US, average sales prices of a new car in the US is $35K and 17 million cars a year are sold), and Tesla commands roughly 1/3rd of the Chinese EV market as of February 2020.

[marcinzm]

>and that's what they actually cost

They cost $40k, you can try to do whatever random math magic you want to make your argument but that generally won't fly well on this forum.

[dathinab]

But 40k is still unaffordable for a non small amount of people. And buying "old" ones cheap has problems "because batteries" (and Tesla might just recently have found a way to solve that).

To take over they would need to:

- Release a sub 10k car which is focused on in-City only use case but can also handle your grocery shopping and pre-planned inter City treveling to close by cities.

- Solve the logistic problem that everyone wants to charge theire car. (Note: I don't mean the whole bs. about power grid crashing, all this are technically problems with existing solutions).

- One way to solve that would be batteries with a capacity so large that you only charge once in four days _for the cheap sub 10k version_.

- Another would be batteries so small that they are easily exchanged instead of charging. (Tesla did implement that but the way it currently is, is just to unpractical. It would need a industry wide standard solution and a really easy to maintain exchange station.)

So could Tesla take over: yes.

Will Tesla take over: most likely not, they will just probably become well established for the mid/upper marked segment.

Will battery powered electric cars take over: likely but not necessarily. The often overlooked truth is the race is still on and the winner not yet clear as neither batteries not full cells have yet reached a level at which they can widespread replace fossil fueled cars.

Also let's not speak about current battery tech and fire...

[marcinzm]

>But 40k is still unaffordable for a non small amount of people.

The average price of a new car in the US is $37k which gives Tesla access to half the new car market. Used car buyers are meaningless in the metrics as they make car companies no money. Tesla is far far from saturating that part of the market so there's little incentive for them to move to cheaper cars (and dilute the brand in the process). In fact, it's probably better economically for Tesla to let other brands make cheaper electrics, annoy customers due to shortcomings and then swoop in with a superior product down the line (having learned from the mistakes of other companies).

[sfblah]

Sure, with no options. I’d like to hear your response to the $8500 used car comment.

[bananabreakfast]

How on earth can you possibly compare a new Tesla to a used cheap electric go-kart?

[marcinzm]

A new Leaf is $30k base. A car which depreciates that much is going to look really bad to new buyers versus one that doesn't. And without new buyers there are no used cars to sell at $8500. Tesla is affordable to something like 50% of new car buyers and if it sells for $20k more used then paying $10k more is an easy decision if you can afford it.

edit: Or in other words, used cars are irrelevant in terms of market adoption since their supply is limited by the supply of new cars. So you need to look at the demand and sales of new cars.

[rconti]

The cheapest LEAF (don't ask me why they capitalize it) base MSRP is $31,600 vs a Tesla SR+ Model 3 at $39,900.

The LEAF S and SV with a 40kWh battery have 149mi range up to a $34,190 base price.

The cheapest 226mi range LEAF is $38,200.

Nissan offers a cheaper base price for a market segment Tesla is not playing in, which is great.

But if you want to compare apples to apples, the pricing is basically the same.

And then there's depreciation..........

[rootusrootus]

There aren't really any options to select anyway, aside from a few extra bucks for non-white paint.

[toomuchtodo]

New cars don't compete with used cars.

[rconti]

You lose credibility when you try to call Tesla supporters "fanboys", but then you artificially inflate the price of the car by 50%. This is not a mundane detail.

[imtringued]

Why not get a Renault ZOE instead?

[toomuchtodo]

Not sold in the US.

[bananabreakfast]

Nissan Leaf? Have fun in that pile of garbage on wheels. You get what you pay for.