The TSLA melt-up from $418 at year end to a high of $969 on February 4 caused only a moderate loss, as much of our short position was structured in put spreads. Considering our continued negative view of the company, we did a good job maintaining a large exposure to our thesis working while avoiding a large loss in the parabolic move higher. However, in the subsequent market decline, we would have expected to be rewarded in our TSLA puts. TSLA does not have a conservative balance sheet and has all kinds of exposure to the current crisis. Luxury car sales of all types are likely to collapse in a recession. We won’t know right away because TSLA’s plant is closed and the company can claim (without seeing the irony) that demand currently exceeds supply. The closing of the factory is also inopportune because TSLA still enjoys a window in which its Model 3 and Model Y face limited global competition. The window is beginning to close, as TSLA has already lost a lot of share in Europe’s electric vehicle market. By next year, the U.S. market should become similarly competitive. The first quarter (announced Wednesday) raised a host of new questions. For the last several quarters, TSLA has carried accounts receivable balances that are difficult to reconcile with its business model – where customers pay before taking delivery. TSLA has given multiple and contradictory explanations. The most recent version claimed that it takes a few days for payments to clear the banks and a little longer to arrive from Europe. TSLA also claims that because sales are crammed into the end of the quarter, it matters whether a quarter ends on a weekday. The first quarter ended on a Tuesday and unlike prior quarters, TSLA sales were not crammed into the last week of the quarter due to the pandemic.
Had TSLA’s prior explanation been correct, days sales outstanding (DSO) should have plunged. Instead, they rose. The receivables remain a source of mystery. To the extent they exist, it is unlikely that they are explained by TSLA’s responses.
TSLA now produces in two factories, which has increased its overhead costs, while utilization rates are down significantly in Fremont. Despite an adverse product mix, the launch of the Model Y, shutdowns at its factories and currency headwinds, TSLA only had a modest decline in auto gross margin (excluding regulatory credit sales) for the quarter. Given the circumstances, this is hard to explain. Moreover, TSLA opened its factory in China while still somehow reporting reduced depreciation and SG&A expense sequentially. None of this makes sense to us and casts doubt on TSLA’s income statement. TSLA is not a “growth” stock; rather it is a “story” stock. Even as TSLA furloughs its manufacturing workers, fires part of its salesforce, cuts everyone else’s salary, and renegotiates its rents with landlords, Elon Musk is days away from a nearly $1 billion option bonus due to TSLA sustaining an inflated stock price.
The TSLA “story” has resonated strongly with ESG investors. Relating to Governance, the insurance industry seems to get the joke. TSLA seemed unable to obtain D&O insurance on commercially reasonable terms. The Directors are now being insured by Musk. This creates an obvious conflict of interest that cripples the Directors’ ability to curtail Musk’s behavior – as he can now threaten that if the Board brought him down, the insurance may not have value. Making the Directors so beholden to Musk by definition makes them not independent.
Musk’s overhyped response to the pandemic echoes his behavior in previous crises, and is little different from his fake promises to his customers. For example, for the last three years TSLA has sold a vaporware add-on called “full self-driving” for thousands of dollars. A year ago, Musk claimed that when the company’s software was “feature complete,” it could begin to enable TSLA cars to operate as autonomous “robotaxis” starting in mid-2020. On the fourth quarter of 2019 conference call, Musk admitted that “feature complete just means like it has some chance of going from your home to work let’s say with no intervention.”
However, with TSLA’s stock price on the edge of vesting Musk with a windfall, he recently used Twitter to double down on the “robotaxi in 2020” narrative. President Trump has called Musk a “genius” who “needs to be protected,” which is strange since TSLA is shifting its manufacturing to China. The President hasn’t seemed to mind… yet. This could be TSLA’s undoing, as its story increasingly depends on China for both cheaper manufacturing as well as consumer demand, against a backdrop of deteriorating relations between the two countries. TSLA shareholders are assuming enormous political risk in betting on the “TSLA in China” thesis. Perhaps Musk’s flippant behavior around the pandemic – endangering his workforce and calling the government response “fascist” – will reveal his true nature to broader society and be reflected in the share price. Historically, stock promotions like this tend to unwind in economic down-cycles. TSLA advanced 25% in the first quarter and another 49% in April, bringing its year-to-date return to 87%.
Greenlight Capital (David Einhorn) 2T 2020 - TESLA SHORT
Of course, this brings us to Tesla (TSLA).2 A couple years ago, Elon Musk engaged in the most blatant securities manipulation in recent memory. In response, the SEC slapped him on the wrist with a trivial fine and SEC Chairman Clayton declared:
It often is the case that the interests of ordinary shareholders – who had no involvement in the misconduct – are intertwined with the interests of offending officials and the company. For example, corporate fines often are financed with funds that could otherwise benefit shareholders, and the skills and support of certain individuals may be important to the future success of a company [emphasis added].
The potential shareholder loss due to TSLA unravelling is substantially larger today than when Clayton said this. There are so many examples of TSLA abusing its stakeholders that we could write about them for pages every quarter. For the sake of space, we will talk about just one that has not received a lot of attention. here have been more than a hundred documented incidents where drivers have reported that Teslas have sudden unintended acceleration (SUA). It is generally believed that SUA results from driver error for most cars. However, according to a study by Dr. Ronald A. Belt,3 there is a problem with how a Tesla’s braking system interacts with its battery regeneration system. The result is that, in certain instances, pressing the brake pedal causes the vehicle to accelerate, and the harder the driver presses the brake, the faster it accelerates. In January, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced it would investigate the SUA complaints. TSLA, as per custom, denies there is a problem. The reality is that the more technologically sophisticated products become, with complex, intertwined hardware and software systems, the more difficult it is to design them for universal adoption in real-world large scale deployments. The issue may be that the combined software/hardware problem may not be easily fixable. In a way, it’s a similar problem to what Boeing encountered with its new 737 MAX. And as Boeing showed, doing the right thing and recalling a defective product can be financially ruinous to the company and career-ending for management. TSLA’s management cannot be trusted to do this on their own. Rather, it is up to the NHTSA to perform its statutory mandate and order a recall of any Teslas that have safety-related defects. The latest driver of TSLA’s parabolic move is speculation about its inclusion in the S&P 500 index. By rule, until a company is profitable for a year, including in its most recent quarter, it isn’t eligible to be in the S&P 500. Through what appears to be sheer abuse of the accounting rules, TSLA has now contrived reported profits to make it technically eligible. In addition to its routinely questionable accounting maneuvers,4 Tesla appeared to defer employee compensation, depreciation expense on its new plant in China, and research and development spending.
However, the most notable development in the last two quarters came from the enormous increase in sales of regulatory credits. Historically, TSLA’s accounting for regulatory credits included the following sentence:
We recognize revenue on the sale of automotive regulatory credits at the time control of the regulatory credits is transferred to the purchasing party [emphasis added] as automotive revenue in the consolidated statement of operations.
However, in the Q1 ’20 10-Q, Tesla removed this language. In both the March and June quarters, TSLA sharply increased its recognition of regulatory credits. The company reported regulatory credit sales of $782 million in the first half of 2020, compared to $594 million in all of 2019. Historically, TSLA received cash for regulatory credit sales, but this year they have piled up in accounts receivable. TSLA’s primary customer for these credits (and exclusive customer in Europe, where most of the credits are generated) is Fiat Chrysler (FCA), yet TSLA’s recognition of regulatory credits seems inconsistent with FCA’s recognition of expenses for regulatory credits – FCA recognized €327 million (around $370 million) of regulatory credits in the first half of 2020, or less than half of TSLA’s total. Historically, FCA’s accruals closely matched TSLA’s revenue recognition. Moreover, the increase was in the face of TSLA delivering far fewer cars in Europe in the first half of 2020. TSLA reported total GAAP earnings of $120 million so far in 2020, which would have surely been negative without the regulatory credit overaccrual. We question whether TSLA’s accounting, which does not appear to correspond to the creation of regulatory credits through auto sales, transfers of those credits to a counterparty nor payment for those credits, conforms to GAAP accounting. We suspect that TSLA changed its accounting policy during a non-audited quarter to manipulate eligibility in the S&P 500 index. The consensus is that S&P will add TSLA to the S&P 500 index at the next opportunity with a large weighting, forcing millions of passive investors to sell the other 499 stocks to make room for TSLA at whatever the price du jour. We think the S&P 500 Index Committee has a tough decision to make as to how to respond to being gamed like this. As with WDI and the DAX, we expect the TSLA parabola to end around the speculated inclusion in the prestigious S&P 500 index. While we take a value-oriented approach, our investing style is not a closet index of long value and short growth. We look for security-specific differences of opinion and hope to capitalize on being right and the market eventually seeing it our way.
Al contrario que David Einhorn, hay muchos otros fondos con un punto de vista completamente contrario, como son el caso de Baron Funds:
Baron Funds 2T 2020 - Long Tesla
Tesla, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells electric vehicles, solar products and energy storage solutions. Despite significant operational COVID-19-related disruptions, the stock rose on strong first quarter delivery numbers, unit economics of mature and new vehicle programs that beat Street estimates, and significant growth in production from its new factory in Shanghai. With reduced business model risks, the stock is benefiting from Tesla’s investments in growth as evidenced by its opportunities around Model Y and CyberTruck and its localization of manufacturing in China and Europe.
Tesla, Inc. produces its cars with more automation than competitors. Its cars are connected through the cloud and continuously improve with software updates after they have been purchased. Tesla sales occur without physical dealership locations.
The company reported robust first quarter and second quarter vehicle deliveries, solidly ahead of market expectations, despite the impact of the COVID pandemic and plant closures. Indeed, in the first quarter, Tesla delivered over 88,000 total vehicles – with strong unit level economics of 25.5% GAAP automotive gross profit margins – and it just recently announced almost 91,000 total vehicle deliveries for the second quarter. Despite global COVID-19 disruptions, our long-term expectations remain high due to Tesla’s differentiated products and healthy unit economics. We believe Tesla’s China Gigafactory – which has reopened and is scaling up Model 3 production and deliveries – will provide an important growth driver in both the short and long term. Finally, Tesla’s newly released Model Y is its best car ever – according to management and many reviewers – and we believe should continue to support a fast recovery as the current crisis wanes. (Ishay Levin)
Además, también me parece relevante destacar el aporte que escribió sobre Tesla @emerito-quintana-pelayo en el foro de Cobas:
La empresa estadounidense de coches eléctricos Tesla fue sometida a un estudio de la compañía analítica New Constructs y el resultado es demoledor para Elon Musk.
Según David Trainer, director ejecutivo de New Constructs, apostar en Tesla es la inversión más peligrosa para realizar en Wall Street ya que, básicamente está sobrevalorada y todas las expectativas generadas podrían derrumbarse en un futuro no tan lejano.
Trainer señaló, en el programa Trading Nation, de la cadena CNBC, que "cualquiera que sea el mejor de los escenarios que se desee pintar para Tesla, ya sea que produzcan 30 millones de automóviles en los próximos 10 años, ingresen al negocio de seguros y tengan los mismos márgenes altos que Toyota, la empresa de automóviles más eficiente con una escala de todos los tiempos; incluso si cree que todo eso sea cierto, el precio de las acciones sigue implicando que las ganancias son aún mayores que todo el rédito que puedan generar".
Luego de analizar estas variables, el CEO de New Constructs concluyó que las acciones de la compañía de Elon Musk están sobrevaloradas 159 veces en relación con sus futuras ganancias.
Y para graficar la imagen de Tesla, Trainer explicó que "creemos que esto es un gran, gran castillo de naipes, uno de los más grandes de todos los tiempos, que se está preparando para derrumbarse", advirtió.
El CEO de New Constructs fue más allá al señalar que el precio justo para las acciones de Teslasería el 10 % de los indicadores reales que cotizan actualmente.
Y argumentó que "Tesla no se encuentra entre los diez primeros en participación de mercado o en ventas de automóviles eléctricos en Europa ". Trainer tomó en cuenta para su diagnóstico el cambio de leyes en los países europeos que motivaron, entre otras cosas, a que las automotrices aumenten la producción de motores híbridos y eléctricos.
"Lo mismo está ocurriendo en Estados Unidos. Creo que, de manera realista, estamos hablando de algo más cercano a un valor de cincuenta dólares por acción como valor real de Tesla, algo muy lejano a su cotización actual", concluyó.
Mientras tanto, Musk no parece dañado por los duros pronósticos de New Constructs. Mas bien todo lo contrario.
De hecho, el multimillonario, según Bloomberg superó el 1° de septiembre pasado a Mark Zuckerberg como la tercera persona más rica del mundo. Este lugar lo obtuvo como consecuencia del repunte que experimentaron las acciones de Tesla.
La empresa estadounidense de coches eléctricos Tesla fue sometida a un estudio de la compañía analítica New Constructs y el resultado es demoledor para Elon Musk.
Según David Trainer, director ejecutivo de New Constructs, apostar en Tesla es la inversión más peligrosa para realizar en Wall Street ya que, básicamente está sobrevalorada y todas las expectativas generadas podrían derrumbarse en un futuro no tan lejano.
Trainer señaló, en el programa Trading Nation, de la cadena CNBC, que "cualquiera que sea el mejor de los escenarios que se desee pintar para Tesla, ya sea que produzcan 30 millones de automóviles en los próximos 10 años, ingresen al negocio de seguros y tengan los mismos márgenes altos que Toyota, la empresa de automóviles más eficiente con una escala de todos los tiempos; incluso si cree que todo eso sea cierto, el precio de las accione sigue implicando que las ganancias son aún mayores que todo el rédito que puedan generar".
Luego de analizar estas variables, el CEO de New Constructs concluyó que las acciones de la compañía de Elon Musk están sobrevaloradas 159 veces en relación con sus futuras ganancias.
Y para graficar la imagen de Tesla, Trainer explicó que "creemos que esto es un gran, gran castillo de naipes, uno de los más grandes de todos los tiempos, que se está preparando para derrumbarse", advirtió.
El CEO de New Constructs fue más allá al señalar que el precio justo para las acciones de Teslasería el 10 % de los indicadores reales que cotizan actualmente.
Y argumentó que "Tesla no se encuentra entre los diez primeros en participación de mercado o en ventas de automóviles eléctricos en Europa ". Trainer tomó en cuenta para su diagnóstico el cambio de leyes en los países europeos que motivaron, entre otras cosas, a que las automotrices aumenten la producción de motores híbridos y eléctricos.
"Lo mismo está ocurriendo en Estados Unidos. Creo que, de manera realista, estamos hablando de algo más cercano a un valor de cincuenta dólares por acción como valor real de Tesla, algo muy lejano a su cotización actual", concluyó.
Mientras tanto, Musk no parece dañado por los duros pronósticos de New Constructs. Mas bien todo lo contrario.
De hecho, el multimillonario, según Bloomberg, superó el 1° de septiembre pasado a Mark Zuckerberg como la tercera persona más rica del mundo. Este lugar lo obtuvo como consecuencia del repunte que experimentaron las acciones de Tesla.
Según refleja el Índice de Milmillonarios de Bloomberg, Musk contaba con un patrimonio de cerca de 111.300 millones de dólares, frente a los 110.500 millones de dólares del fundador de la red social Facebook.
Musk experimentó un aumento pronunciado de su riqueza durante 2020, ya que las acciones de Tesla se revalorizaron un 475% en lo que va de año, lo que impulsó su riqueza en 76.100 millones de dólares.
Pero eso no es todo. Además, su fortuna podría seguir aumentando, ya que su plan de remuneración por objetivos contempla una compensación total superior a los 50.000 millones.
#709
Invertimos en Tesla o en quien hace baterías para fabricantes de coches eléctricos
The share price of Tesla dropped by almost 18% over 22nd and 23rd September last week. What happened? The electric vehicle manufacturer had its ‘battery day’ on Tuesday 22nd September when it made several announcements. Among the key revelations were the following:
A new high spec ‘Plaid’ trim for its model S – an upgrade on its current Ludicrous model
The aspiration to build a $25,000 car
A new ‘tabless’ battery that would be built in-house and would be expected to improve production efficiencies. It would also use higher loadings of nickel and lower loadings of cobalt.
Source: Bloomberg, Data as of 28 September 2020. Historical performance is not an indication of future performance and any investments may go down in value.
So why did the share price drop? Possibly because the market was expecting the company to announce a new ‘million-mile battery’, i.e. for the company to focus on battery range rather than cost efficiencies. Having said that, the carmaker has had a stellar ride so far this year, defying valuation multiples and leaving the broader US equity market well behind. Tesla’s turbulent rally represents the culmination of the market’s excitement in the sector for electric vehicles – exuberance on the way up and disappointment when new announcements fall short of very high expectations.
Another associated by-product of this excitement is the impact on related companies. For example, Tesla’s plans to vertically integrate its lithium procurement, as part of manufacturing a cheaper battery, pressed the brakes on the share price of the company’s lithium supplier, Albemarle, on the so called ‘battery day’.
Investors have options
Thematic investors excited by the growth in electric vehicles may want to consider the following two factors:
The value chain: Electric vehicles are merely one application of the exciting and growing innovation in battery solutions. The space is represented by an entire value chain which includes raw materials, component manufacturers, emerging technology such as wireless charging and enablers such as grid services. Thematic investors, seeking to benefit from the long-term growth prospects in the sector, may want to look across the value chain. This approach may also provide much-needed diversity and protection from the volatility in single stocks.
Investing in fundamentals: Nickel prices did not jump when Tesla announced that more of the industrial metal will likely be needed in its new battery design. Industrial metals don’t move in the same way as stocks. They tend to move more in line with fundamentals. If a shift in battery technology starts demanding greater quantities of nickel, it won’t get priced in immediately upon the announcement of such technology. The price will probably move gradually as actual demand starts to go up. This is a favourable profile for thematic investors looking to take a long-term view on fundamentals.
Thus, events like battery days are interesting as they give us clues as to where the technology is headed. But investors have the option to look past the volatility in individual stocks and benefit from the poise and promise of a growing technology.
#710
Re: ¿Seguira subiendo Tesla?
steri
Acuerdo con tesla para suministro de niquel
Giga Metals Corporation (GIGA.V)
TSXV - TSXV Real Time Price. Currency in CAD
#711
Re: ¿Seguira subiendo Tesla?
Análisis Tesla Inc (TSLA)
Perfil de la Empresa: TESLA, INC., anteriormente Tesla Motors, Inc., diseña, desarrolla, fabrica y vende vehículos totalmente eléctricos y sistemas de almacenamiento de energía, además de instalar, operar y mantener productos de almacenamiento solar y de energía. La compañía opera a través de dos segmentos: Automotriz y Generación y Almacenamiento de Energía. El segmento Automotriz incluye el diseño, desarrollo, fabricación y venta de vehículos eléctricos. El segmento de Generación y Almacenamiento de Energía incluye el diseño, fabricación, instalación y venta o arrendamiento de productos de almacenamiento de energía estacionarios y sistemas de energía solar para clientes residenciales y comerciales, o la venta de electricidad generada por sus sistemas de energía solar a los clientes. La compañía produce y distribuye dos vehículos totalmente eléctricos, el sedán Model S y el vehículo utilitario deportivo modelo X. También ofrece el Modelo 3, un sedán diseñado para el mercado masivo. Desarrolla productos de almacenamiento de energía para su uso en hogares, instalaciones comerciales y sitios de servicios públicos.
Comentarios: Tesla diseña es alcista para largo plazo. En estos momentos, se encuentra rompiendo su pauta de continuidad y realizando su pull-back. Podría tener un posible objetivo sobre los 550 dólares. El punto a vigilar para este trimestre serían los 270 dólares. Si lo perdiera, indicaría debilidad.
Los datos fundamentales indican un PER negativos por los resultados. Tiene una deuda total del 106%. Su ratio de solvencia se sitúa en 1,2. Mi ratio potencial sale a 4,6, indicando crecimiento económico. Mi fuerza de tendencia sale 100%, indicando crecimiento alcista.
Conclusión: Mantener posiciones alcistas o tomar nuevas posiciones alcistas. Vigilar el punto importante.
Disclaimer de Contenido
Las inversiones en bolsa son de alto riesgo y se puede perder el capital que se vaya a invertir. El usuario debe tener el conocimiento suficiente del funcionamiento y del riesgo de los productos de inversión que vaya a utilizar. Las ideas o análisis no garantiza rentabilidades en las inversiones, ni tampoco garantiza la ausencia de pérdidas que el usuario realice.
