The analyst in question, David Tamberrino, ranks 10,337 out of 10,667 on TipRanks, meaning he is one of the worst analysts and has been wrong all the time. Link: https://www.tipranks.com/analysts/david-tamberrino
Those who keep repeating that Tesla stock is "overvalued" should understand that a stock's "value" is based on the current value of all future cash flows. Ford and basically all the other incumbent car companies are generating profits now, but are stagnant and waiting to be disrupted. Meanwhile Tesla's revenue is $7B last year, will be $10B+ this year, $20B+ next year, and $60B in 2020. Which companies are overvalued and which would you rather own?
There's a reason Wal-Mart's top and bottom lines are both several times that of Amazon, yet Amazon is now worth twice as much as Wal-Mart. It's about growth and future addressable market.
"A few common fallacies about valuation of public and private technology companies: First, ask any MBA how to value tech companies, she'll say "discounted cash flow, just like any other company!"
Problem: For new & rapidly growing tech companies, up to 100% of value is in terminal value 10+ years out, so DCF framework collapses. You can run as many DCF spreadsheets as you want and may get nothing that will help you make good tech investment decisions.
Related to fact that tech co's don't have stable products like soup or brick companies; future cash flows will come from future products.
Instead, smart tech investor thinks about: A future product roadmap/opportunity, B bottoms-up market size & growth, C talent and skill of team. Essentially you are valuing things that have not yet happened, and the likelihood of the CEO and team being able to make them happen.
Finance people find this appalling, but investors who do this well can make a lot of money. Spreadsheet investing is often disastrous. Doesn't mean cash flow doesn't matter, in fact opposite: this is the path to find tech companies that will generate tons of future cash."
Tesla is a technology company that also happens to make cars. Ford is an automotive company, that also happens to make technology.
Lets talk about models - Tesla doesnt make a mass market car - even their basic sedan, starts at 35k - I can buy a nicely equipped Taurus, Fusion, Malibu , Impala, Camry or Avalon for less than that - and from a size perspective its far closer to a Prius or Volt (23k or 33k starting respectively).
Secondly, Brand Cachet - Tesla appears to be positioning itself from a branding perspective closer to where BMW or Audi does.
I'm more hopeful for Ford figuring out technology, than I am with Tesla figuring out how to be a really good mass market car company.
The reason I consider Tesla overvalued has to do with potential market share, as well as the traditional margin on cars - if they try to be a mass market manufacturer, I don't see Tesla capturing more than 10% of the (very crowded) marketplace nor do I see them easily besting the historic 5% margin most (mass market) automakers have, if they decide to be more like BMW or Audi - their margin could go up by a rather large amount - but their volume would go down by an almost an large amount... they might however have a bright future as a technology licensing company - that remains to be seen.
In short however, if you measure it by the "car company yardstick" its drastically over overvalued - if you measure it by the "technology company yardstick" however the numbers start to look a little friendlier. Consider though that the technology company yardstick seems to be mostly based on hype, rather than actualized returns basis.
Consider for a moment that Tesla isnt pioneering a new market here, it's trying to produce a better dohicky (thats really cool, but not revolutionary) in an already crowded market - this alone says that the technology yardstick shouldn't apply - you should instead measure it like its peers in that industry.
The other car companies are rapidly developing their own electric cars. See the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf for mid-level and entry-level examples. Who says they will not disrupt themselves? These are huge incumbents with large R&D budgets who always look for ways to one up the competition. There is a very limited window of opportunity from an outsider where the insider industry misses something obvious, but that isn't frequent.
In most cases, what is called disruption is either breaking laws or ignoring some fundamental problem the incumbents think too important to ignore. They test assumptions, and (rarely) prove them invalid, but the intent to disrupt alone shouldn't make for such enormous PIs.
I don't think many of the major car companies are going to be disrupted too badly. They have massive scale compared to Tesla. Electric car technology is already mostly commoditized, and once these companies scale up production, they will manufacture huge numbers of electric cars.
Self-driving technology is going to become commoditized also -- it may be Google/Waymo/Apple who invent the technology, but the large established car companies are going to be the ones cranking out millions of self-driving cars.
The car companies that are going to be in trouble are the smaller ones who are still committed to old-school gasoline cars, such as Mazda and Subaru. They don't have the engineering resources to keep up with the others. Most of the other major companies know what is coming and are preparing to deal with it.
> Those who keep repeating that Tesla stock is "overvalued" should understand that a stock's "value" is based on the current value of all future cash flows.
I'm pretty sure all the people saying it's overvalued understand precisely that.
Just an aside, but why am I never hearing about RBC capital? 10 of the top 25 analysts (on TipRanks) come from there, with the second place (Oppenheimer) only coming in with 3. That's a mammoth gap!
It'll be pretty incredible if Tesla gets close to $50B in rev in 2020. I'm a huge homer for Tesla and I'm thinking they'll be like $50B in 2020. Many people still won't be convinced of Tesla's place. But that's how things go.
It is not manipulation. The stock is tremendously overvalued and has been basically forever, but that doesn't mean it will go down. Unfortunately "fundamental value" doesn't mean shit in a popularity contest where you have a lot of retail money investing in whatever they happen to like.
Although equities historically are the asset class providing the best return over the long-run, this is why I prefer bonds. With a bond, if your analysis is right, you get paid at maturity. With a stock, you can be right, and it doesn't matter. Stock is only worth what somebody will pay for it, and that can largely be determined by sentiment.
> It is not manipulation. The stock is tremendously overvalued.
This. I was going to say even $180 is still ridiculously overpriced.
Teslas statements are not good by any means when compared to GM and are even poor when compared to a company in problem times like Ford. Tesla even has massively less capital expenditures than both GM and ford. For instance, Fords after tax income was 4 billion, they had capex of 1.7 billion, and an EPS of +0.2. Compare this to Tesla at -0.6 billion revenue, 0.7 billion capex, -4.8 EPS (and they are issuing new shares each quarter for financing). Yet Ford cost $11 a share while paying out a 5% dividend - and this is all from a company in rough patch.
I have no idea why anyone is putting so much money into Tesla. You have to give Musk credit for great marketing and creating a cult around his image and ideas.
The same is more or less true of bonds though, no? Bond value is determined by perceived credit risk and people's feelings about the future direction of interest rates in general. Of course, eventually if you're correct you do indeed get paid by the borrower with a bond. However, the stock market will eventually fall in line with realized earnings. The only real difference is that the bond market's time horizon is fixed, whereas the stock market can stay irrational for a finite, but arbitrary amount of time.
I just don't see Tesla becoming mainstream before traditional manufacturers fill the potential market opportunity. Volvo just announced they will only produce Hybrids in the future. [1] All the major manufacturers have hybrid programs they are bringing to the mass market.
It's not that Tesla will or won't be successful, it's just that as it succeeds, it's changing the ecosystem around it. Traditional manufacturers offerings are becoming more and more attractive.
I think Tesla is appealing to the tech/gadget market right now. For me, everything about Tesla cars and its buying process feels new and fresh. But..
When it comes time to buy my next car I'll probably end up going to traditional car dealerships, looking around, test driving, and picking something through a traditional channel. It's just the path of least resistance and there's a lot more variety.
I've been invested in TSLA since 2012. And there's always been people saying it's "over-valued", especially the media or folks who don't believe in Tesla's mission or potential. The best thing I've found is to work the numbers a few years out and see what you come up with. Sure, each person's forecasts will be different, but I base my numbers off of company forecasts and also Tesla's track record.
2020 deliveries: 1M vehicles (according to company guidance)
Average sale price per vehicle: 900k Model 3 and Model Y x ASP $42k = $37.8B. Plus 110k Model S/X x ASP $90k = $10B. Total revenue $47.8B
Gross margin = 25% (company guidance is 30%+ for Model S/X and "mid-20s" for Model 3/Y).
Gross profit = $12B
Operating expenses = $6B (note: It's difficult to predict operating expenses 3 years out, but Tesla will likely experience a lot of operating leverage as their sales will grow much faster than R&D and sales.)
EBITDA: $6B
P/E multiple: 30 (note: If targets are achieved in 2020, Tesla likely to be growing 50% year in revenue and would likely fetch a 30-40 P/E multiple.)
1. The above are my forecasts based on my beliefs that Tesla can reach their own forecasts of # vehicles delivered in 2020 and gross margins.
2. Each person has their own beliefs/ideas of Tesla. So, I'm not trying to convince anyone.
3. This model can be tweaked based on changes in # vehicles delivered, gross margin, or operating expenses... to name a few factors. So, it's not perfect but it gives the basics.
4. If you find someone bearish on TSLA and who thinks it's "overvalued", ask them to give you numbers like I have. Chances are they won't be able to.
5. The Model 3 will be the iPhone moment for autos. A sexy car that redefines transport and brings in high margins. This is why Tesla has potential to be the most valuable company in the world by 2025.
6. Tesla's moat grows as they execute faster than any other auto company. It's not appropriate to value TSLA based on other auto makers. It's like valuing AAPL in 2007 based off of Nokia and Blackberry.
Looks like you might be using EBITDA wrong up there ('operating profit'). just fyi. This approach is essential but most casual investors seem to overlook it. I find it also useful to contemplate worst case and best case scenarios and orthogonal scenarios and kind of work it all together in the intuition blender. For instance, by the time your 2020 rolls around I think it will be 100% obvious that ICEs are the walking dead (who is gonna buy a new one hoping to sell it ever when 5 years down the road there's far fewer buyers?), and that autonomous ride sharing is gonna become huge, and that Tesla may not produce a lot of profit in manufacture but in software\revenue sharing, and that they may never hit high manufacture numbers at all (or may literally detach that part).
I guess Goldman knows better how to value a young car company that moves 5 times faster than the rest of the industry, makes mind blowing products that people want to buy without even seeing them, has an unprecedented cult following with many betting their entire 401k on the company, and has survived many near death moments and came out strong... I wonder what gives such armchair analysts conviction to comment on companies like Tesla, Amazon and Netflix who are driven by irrationality and ambition.
Excellent point. What's interesting about it is that a stock price contains all sorts of assumptions and information and blends it all together into one number, which is simply the last price that a share traded at based on supply and demand.
Surely Goldman has baked a lot of assumptions about market expectations into this assessment, and surely Goldman is wrong about many of those assumptions and right about others. A more nuanced analysis would be a probability distribution of possible price bands at various future dates.
Surely by Goldman's logic it is irrational to buy (or perhaps even to hold) Tesla stock at above $185. But Goldman's analysis would also likely have discouraged investment in many other successful firms over the years.
One doesn't listen to Goldman because the advice is true, one listens to it simply to reduce the probability of major deviations from the mean across a portfolio.
Something not really mentioned here is that many of Telsa's investors aren't in it necessarily because of what the financial statements show. They're pouring money into a company they fundamentally believe in -- into a movement which they feel obligated to contribute to.
The stock price is probably overvalued by the books, but for humans desperate to embrace a company who's making an attempt to make a better, cleaner world, there likely isn't a value too high. Ecological returns > monetary returns?
Quoth A. Gary Shilling: The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
TSLA is simply not responding to the market like most stocks in its sector do. That can screw with any model based on previous data, which is really the best we can do.
"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." [1]
Classic unfolding of buy on rumor and sell on news. Before solid news came out, the hype drove the stock high. Now that the Model 3 news has been steadily coming out, it's time to sell. GS is just following the basic sentiment swing.
And even if you believe that the stock price should be $500, it pays to sell on something that is widely perceived by others as a sell signal and then buy back in when the stock price is lower. Very little long term information is provided by this short term drop.
For everyone in this "it's overvalued camp" - I've owned TSLA since a little after the initial IPO when Jim Cramer advised everyone to sell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nYPhi0LwO0). I have heard analysts and everyone under the run yelling sell over this last 7 year run. It was overvalued at 50. It was overvalued at 100. Oh, so fair value according to GS is now 180?
It's really incredible to me when everyone gets on HN and puts on their equities analyst hats. You guys get it wrong time and time again - and the same applies for REAL equity analysts who actually post analysis that people pay for. Let's not forget AMZN was a junk stock going to 0 in the nineties. In recently memory, CRM, NFLX and FB were all considered stocks that could go to 0 and no one had any business owning.
I'm not even going to offer any analysis of why I'm continuing to hold my TSLA stock in this post - I'll just say that my bull thesis on the company remains true. If anything, Elon has finally kept a promise with Model 3 production. If you want the company's long history of missing promises, go watch Revenge of the Electric Car (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_of_the_Electric_Car_). Once again, the company blew past every imaginable deadline, was left for dead, and is now the highest-valued automaker in the country.
The solaxun comment that was #1 when I posted this is fundamentally correct - if you want to talk valuation, go trade bonds and please leave your BS end of the world market analysis to Zerohedge.
Also remember that AMZN went on to lose 90% of its value in the early 2000s.
At what point would you consider TSLA to be overvalued? Do you have an idea of where your personal alarms start buzzing? Anyone can say the naysayers are wrong on the climb but the problem with bulls is their optimism and it would be interesting to see your working that justifies a particular price for TSLA.
I love Tesla, but I'm reminded of this quote from Scott McNealy during the first tech bubble:
"[T]wo years ago we were selling at 10 times revenues when we were at $64. At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking!"
> At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends
Or you spend 10 years growing revenues by 10x and then, at the end of your 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th years, pay a dividend equal to 5% of revenues and earn your investors a 9.3% IRR. Or grow revenues 20x and yield them almost 25% of IRR. (Both analyses assume you close down shop at the end of Year 15 and so represent lower bounds.)
High-multiple plays rely on growth. Whether that growth assumption is rational depends on the context.
I don't see this being mentioned anywhere, but the biggest reason I'd be wary of _any_ consumer vehicle manufacturer's high stock price is that the demand for cars will decline in the following decades as self-driving vehicles dramatically reduce the demand for ownership.
It's back to where it was in June, still almost 2x from where the stock was in December.
I had my entire net worth in Tesla for a while (financial advisors do not recommend this - http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-to-the-guy-who-in...), and even I thought the current price was a little bullish for my taste. This price is still high but a little more back-to-reality than toying with $400/share was.
Unless such financial advisor is Warren Buffet, who said "Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes little sense if you know what you are doing."
Ok, two major events just happened that could influence Tesla stock -- the Goldman Sachs report and the Volvo statement about ceasing production of pure fossil-fuel cars. Why is the drop attributed exclusively to the former?
[+] [-] tonylo|8 years ago|reply
Those who keep repeating that Tesla stock is "overvalued" should understand that a stock's "value" is based on the current value of all future cash flows. Ford and basically all the other incumbent car companies are generating profits now, but are stagnant and waiting to be disrupted. Meanwhile Tesla's revenue is $7B last year, will be $10B+ this year, $20B+ next year, and $60B in 2020. Which companies are overvalued and which would you rather own?
There's a reason Wal-Mart's top and bottom lines are both several times that of Amazon, yet Amazon is now worth twice as much as Wal-Mart. It's about growth and future addressable market.
[+] [-] austenallred|8 years ago|reply
"A few common fallacies about valuation of public and private technology companies: First, ask any MBA how to value tech companies, she'll say "discounted cash flow, just like any other company!"
Problem: For new & rapidly growing tech companies, up to 100% of value is in terminal value 10+ years out, so DCF framework collapses. You can run as many DCF spreadsheets as you want and may get nothing that will help you make good tech investment decisions.
Related to fact that tech co's don't have stable products like soup or brick companies; future cash flows will come from future products.
Instead, smart tech investor thinks about: A future product roadmap/opportunity, B bottoms-up market size & growth, C talent and skill of team. Essentially you are valuing things that have not yet happened, and the likelihood of the CEO and team being able to make them happen.
Finance people find this appalling, but investors who do this well can make a lot of money. Spreadsheet investing is often disastrous. Doesn't mean cash flow doesn't matter, in fact opposite: this is the path to find tech companies that will generate tons of future cash."
[+] [-] Aloha|8 years ago|reply
Lets talk about models - Tesla doesnt make a mass market car - even their basic sedan, starts at 35k - I can buy a nicely equipped Taurus, Fusion, Malibu , Impala, Camry or Avalon for less than that - and from a size perspective its far closer to a Prius or Volt (23k or 33k starting respectively).
Secondly, Brand Cachet - Tesla appears to be positioning itself from a branding perspective closer to where BMW or Audi does.
I'm more hopeful for Ford figuring out technology, than I am with Tesla figuring out how to be a really good mass market car company.
The reason I consider Tesla overvalued has to do with potential market share, as well as the traditional margin on cars - if they try to be a mass market manufacturer, I don't see Tesla capturing more than 10% of the (very crowded) marketplace nor do I see them easily besting the historic 5% margin most (mass market) automakers have, if they decide to be more like BMW or Audi - their margin could go up by a rather large amount - but their volume would go down by an almost an large amount... they might however have a bright future as a technology licensing company - that remains to be seen.
In short however, if you measure it by the "car company yardstick" its drastically over overvalued - if you measure it by the "technology company yardstick" however the numbers start to look a little friendlier. Consider though that the technology company yardstick seems to be mostly based on hype, rather than actualized returns basis.
Consider for a moment that Tesla isnt pioneering a new market here, it's trying to produce a better dohicky (thats really cool, but not revolutionary) in an already crowded market - this alone says that the technology yardstick shouldn't apply - you should instead measure it like its peers in that industry.
[+] [-] zanny|8 years ago|reply
The other car companies are rapidly developing their own electric cars. See the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf for mid-level and entry-level examples. Who says they will not disrupt themselves? These are huge incumbents with large R&D budgets who always look for ways to one up the competition. There is a very limited window of opportunity from an outsider where the insider industry misses something obvious, but that isn't frequent.
In most cases, what is called disruption is either breaking laws or ignoring some fundamental problem the incumbents think too important to ignore. They test assumptions, and (rarely) prove them invalid, but the intent to disrupt alone shouldn't make for such enormous PIs.
[+] [-] twblalock|8 years ago|reply
Self-driving technology is going to become commoditized also -- it may be Google/Waymo/Apple who invent the technology, but the large established car companies are going to be the ones cranking out millions of self-driving cars.
The car companies that are going to be in trouble are the smaller ones who are still committed to old-school gasoline cars, such as Mazda and Subaru. They don't have the engineering resources to keep up with the others. Most of the other major companies know what is coming and are preparing to deal with it.
[+] [-] pdog|8 years ago|reply
I'm pretty sure all the people saying it's overvalued understand precisely that.
[+] [-] dis-sys|8 years ago|reply
If that is the case, then his comments is actually consistently reliable - you can always take the opposite of what he says and pocket the money.
[+] [-] was_boring|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samstave|8 years ago|reply
Don't you think that GS could be artificially ensuring the stock drops so they can buy it lower??
I've never seen a GS dealing I didnt think shady shit was going on...
They farked FB, they farked greece, and the rest of the woorld in 2008-09, etc...
GS are not known for giving a shit about the financial well-being of anything other than their own...
</tinfoil>
[+] [-] jorvi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skinnymuch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solaxun|8 years ago|reply
Although equities historically are the asset class providing the best return over the long-run, this is why I prefer bonds. With a bond, if your analysis is right, you get paid at maturity. With a stock, you can be right, and it doesn't matter. Stock is only worth what somebody will pay for it, and that can largely be determined by sentiment.
[+] [-] jfaucett|8 years ago|reply
This. I was going to say even $180 is still ridiculously overpriced.
Teslas statements are not good by any means when compared to GM and are even poor when compared to a company in problem times like Ford. Tesla even has massively less capital expenditures than both GM and ford. For instance, Fords after tax income was 4 billion, they had capex of 1.7 billion, and an EPS of +0.2. Compare this to Tesla at -0.6 billion revenue, 0.7 billion capex, -4.8 EPS (and they are issuing new shares each quarter for financing). Yet Ford cost $11 a share while paying out a 5% dividend - and this is all from a company in rough patch.
I have no idea why anyone is putting so much money into Tesla. You have to give Musk credit for great marketing and creating a cult around his image and ideas.
[+] [-] darawk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redm|8 years ago|reply
It's not that Tesla will or won't be successful, it's just that as it succeeds, it's changing the ecosystem around it. Traditional manufacturers offerings are becoming more and more attractive.
I think Tesla is appealing to the tech/gadget market right now. For me, everything about Tesla cars and its buying process feels new and fresh. But..
When it comes time to buy my next car I'll probably end up going to traditional car dealerships, looking around, test driving, and picking something through a traditional channel. It's just the path of least resistance and there's a lot more variety.
[1] http://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/money/business/2017/07/05/...
[+] [-] dave1619|8 years ago|reply
2020 deliveries: 1M vehicles (according to company guidance) Average sale price per vehicle: 900k Model 3 and Model Y x ASP $42k = $37.8B. Plus 110k Model S/X x ASP $90k = $10B. Total revenue $47.8B
Gross margin = 25% (company guidance is 30%+ for Model S/X and "mid-20s" for Model 3/Y).
Gross profit = $12B
Operating expenses = $6B (note: It's difficult to predict operating expenses 3 years out, but Tesla will likely experience a lot of operating leverage as their sales will grow much faster than R&D and sales.)
EBITDA: $6B
P/E multiple: 30 (note: If targets are achieved in 2020, Tesla likely to be growing 50% year in revenue and would likely fetch a 30-40 P/E multiple.)
Market cap: $180B
# shares outstanding: 185M shares (currently 164M outstanding)
2020 stock price = $972
A few comments:
1. The above are my forecasts based on my beliefs that Tesla can reach their own forecasts of # vehicles delivered in 2020 and gross margins.
2. Each person has their own beliefs/ideas of Tesla. So, I'm not trying to convince anyone.
3. This model can be tweaked based on changes in # vehicles delivered, gross margin, or operating expenses... to name a few factors. So, it's not perfect but it gives the basics.
4. If you find someone bearish on TSLA and who thinks it's "overvalued", ask them to give you numbers like I have. Chances are they won't be able to.
5. The Model 3 will be the iPhone moment for autos. A sexy car that redefines transport and brings in high margins. This is why Tesla has potential to be the most valuable company in the world by 2025.
6. Tesla's moat grows as they execute faster than any other auto company. It's not appropriate to value TSLA based on other auto makers. It's like valuing AAPL in 2007 based off of Nokia and Blackberry.
[+] [-] pdq|8 years ago|reply
To put that into perspective, that's more annual production and sales than the Toyota Camry plus Toyota Corolla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Camry#Sales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corolla#Sales
[+] [-] tcoppi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aron|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilyagr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mvpu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|8 years ago|reply
Surely Goldman has baked a lot of assumptions about market expectations into this assessment, and surely Goldman is wrong about many of those assumptions and right about others. A more nuanced analysis would be a probability distribution of possible price bands at various future dates.
Surely by Goldman's logic it is irrational to buy (or perhaps even to hold) Tesla stock at above $185. But Goldman's analysis would also likely have discouraged investment in many other successful firms over the years.
One doesn't listen to Goldman because the advice is true, one listens to it simply to reduce the probability of major deviations from the mean across a portfolio.
[+] [-] matwood|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdns33|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deedubaya|8 years ago|reply
The stock price is probably overvalued by the books, but for humans desperate to embrace a company who's making an attempt to make a better, cleaner world, there likely isn't a value too high. Ecological returns > monetary returns?
[+] [-] hinkley|8 years ago|reply
Well, I like the status quo. If you don't like it, vote with your wallet and quit complaining.
<six months later>
Hey, everybody, look at the stupid people voting with their wallets!
[+] [-] Qub3d|8 years ago|reply
TSLA is simply not responding to the market like most stocks in its sector do. That can screw with any model based on previous data, which is really the best we can do.
[+] [-] jayd16|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samsonradu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProAm|8 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american...
[+] [-] keketi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ww520|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _rpd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gogotsla|8 years ago|reply
It's really incredible to me when everyone gets on HN and puts on their equities analyst hats. You guys get it wrong time and time again - and the same applies for REAL equity analysts who actually post analysis that people pay for. Let's not forget AMZN was a junk stock going to 0 in the nineties. In recently memory, CRM, NFLX and FB were all considered stocks that could go to 0 and no one had any business owning.
I'm not even going to offer any analysis of why I'm continuing to hold my TSLA stock in this post - I'll just say that my bull thesis on the company remains true. If anything, Elon has finally kept a promise with Model 3 production. If you want the company's long history of missing promises, go watch Revenge of the Electric Car (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_of_the_Electric_Car_). Once again, the company blew past every imaginable deadline, was left for dead, and is now the highest-valued automaker in the country.
The solaxun comment that was #1 when I posted this is fundamentally correct - if you want to talk valuation, go trade bonds and please leave your BS end of the world market analysis to Zerohedge.
[+] [-] nonoamzn|8 years ago|reply
At what point would you consider TSLA to be overvalued? Do you have an idea of where your personal alarms start buzzing? Anyone can say the naysayers are wrong on the climb but the problem with bulls is their optimism and it would be interesting to see your working that justifies a particular price for TSLA.
[+] [-] almost_usual|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inthewoods|8 years ago|reply
"[T]wo years ago we were selling at 10 times revenues when we were at $64. At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes. What were you thinking!"
http://blog.huncap.com/?p=34
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|8 years ago|reply
Or you spend 10 years growing revenues by 10x and then, at the end of your 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th years, pay a dividend equal to 5% of revenues and earn your investors a 9.3% IRR. Or grow revenues 20x and yield them almost 25% of IRR. (Both analyses assume you close down shop at the end of Year 15 and so represent lower bounds.)
High-multiple plays rely on growth. Whether that growth assumption is rational depends on the context.
[+] [-] namuol|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregjw|8 years ago|reply
GS complaining about a price dropping is always a self-fulfilling prophecy and hopefully, Tesla can very quickly bounce back.
[+] [-] austenallred|8 years ago|reply
I had my entire net worth in Tesla for a while (financial advisors do not recommend this - http://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-to-the-guy-who-in...), and even I thought the current price was a little bullish for my taste. This price is still high but a little more back-to-reality than toying with $400/share was.
[+] [-] antaviana|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aron|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgudkov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skinnymuch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tcskeptic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] solomatov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DeBraid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sova|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oxryly1|8 years ago|reply