[hazmazlaz]

You are right that the intrinsic value hasn't changed, but wrong about the cause of the price movement. When an auto manufacturer trades at a 67 P/E ratio that's a sign that the stock is way overvalued. Competitors with far more successful and profitable operations trade at a much more reasonable 8-10 P/E. Plus the insane amount of debt that Tesla holds, and the inherent fragility of its financials (Tesla would not be profitable if not for Carbon Credits, which could be revoked by an act of government at any time), suggests that the valuation of Tesla is pure hype and hope. A correction was always inevitable.

[sundaeofshock]

Carbon credits might become a real problem for Tesla. They have all those credits to sell to other companies due to their own car sales. Fewer car sales, means fewer carbon credits, resulting in lower revenues.

[unsupp0rted]

Tesla isn't an auto manufacturer. It just so happens that cars are the things it uses to bootstrap the business.

[Tadpole9181]

Since they almost exclusively make money from auto sales and have never had substantial income from anything else, I sure do think they are an auto company.

[unsupp0rted]

They’re still not an auto company.

A lot of tech companies make no money at all for the first years or even a decade of their existence. This one decided to make some money, giving themselves a longer runway to do very hard things (like building gigantic automated factories that can build automated things that can build automated things).

You’re right that a company that sells cars is a car company. But investors tend to invest in future prospects, and Tesla’s future is not as a car company.

The adage goes, “you can be right or you can be rich”.

I’m not saying Tesla will succeed or even that it’s a good bet.

I’m saying there’s a valid investment thesis that posits P/E for Tesla is a poor metric.