RUMOR: Some Reservation Holders Are Receiving Delivery Dates

[Tedacules]

#119209575 I don't expect an email for about 5-6 years from now.

Sponsored

 

[TyPope]

Appreciate the convo.

As an initial matter, I would start by saying "it is well repeated that Ford loses money on every EV," but that the people repeating it seem to have little to no understanding of:

(1) how that conclusion is calculated
(2) even if they had the calculated conclusion, whether that's definitionally a bad thing (from the perspective of manufacturing business planning), or
(3) if it's not necessarily a bad thing, but instead a question of degree, how to remotely begin to compare those degrees between comparisons - such as Tesla
(4) even if they had all of the above, the relative lifecycle of comparison

But absent - seemingly - any of the above information, there are folks who with some hypocrisy are willing to offer "proof" from the very same sources they claim to be biased, uninformed, disingenuous, sources of information.

Here's an example of that, which with some innocence you may be unwittingly and accidentally serving as an example:



Not speaking now directly of you, but the kool-aid brigade around here will feel free to point to this article from the street as the sum total of their proof that they can re-hash this uninformed quip twice a day.

Those very same folks, imagine their (hypocritical) response if instead these articles from thestreet.com were being posted:

Tesla: The Financial Risk of an Unsafe Company - TheStreet​

​

Once an Electric Car Rockstar, Tesla's Quickly Losing Its Spark - RealMoney (thestreet.com)​

​

Tesla's Biggest Problem Is Not Going Away - TheStreet​

I could literally go on, and on, and on.

Fundamentally, when it comes to defending Tesla, people are so eager to consider nuance, strategy, and risk-adjusted facts.

But zero appetite to do anything more than regurgitate unsubstantiated, unnuanced, quips about other automakers.

Despite the fact that, depending on the method upon which one counts "losing money," Tesla also lost significant money on every unit ever sold, for over a decade.

What does that mean? No clue, unless/until people are willing to engage on arriving at shared definitions and apples-to-apples comparisons.

Until then, these unsubstantiated and unexamined quips about Ford are no more interesting than if every day I continued to post links to the MIRIAD of stories like this:

​

Tesla Loses Money On Every Single Car: Here's Where The Profit Hides (motorbiscuit.com)​

​

Tesla's dirty little secret: Its net profit doesn't come from selling cars | CNN Business​

​

Tesla Loses A Lot Of Money Selling Cars, But Makes It All Back On Credits And Bitcoin (jalopnik.com)​

​

Tesla burns cash, loses more than $4,000 on every car sold | Reuters​

​

The point is, depending on how you calculate things, of course Ford is "losing money" on every BEV, exactly as it planned to, because that's how this works ... just ask Tesla.

Whatever the issues may be with Ford, they are not evidenced by a mere apples-to-oranges quip about ... made tirelessly every single day ... about how Ford loses money on BEVs.

You are right that people can find articles to support whatever they believe. But, when Ford's CEO tells me they are losing that money on EV production and sales during the earnings call...

 

[TyPope]

wanted to separately respond to this different, almost unrelated, set of assertions

until you can describe with particularity how Ford calculates its balance sheets, you have no basis for understanding what your assertions mean here

folks here regularly demonstrate they have very little familiarity with not just how financial statements work in general, but in particular the differences between the way Ford's and Tesla's balance sheets work very differently

That's fine.

What's wild though, is the complete disinterest in discussing it, at risk of not being able to regurgitate towards Ford the same FUD they would have a meltdown over if leveled at Tesla.

The most classic example is people regurgitating Tesla's vehicle margins as compared to other manufacturers. Anyone who regurgitates this as meaningful is only demonstrating that they have almost no familiarity with how these two very different companies characterize and book their per-vehicle "margins."

And people who cant manage even that, certainly aren't prepared to understand the relevant differences between the two company's entire business model and financial statements.

none of which is to say Ford's business may not have problems or challenges - it's only to say that noone here appears to be able to describe them in any sensible way

Well. Okay. You are right here. We all assume that just because Ford has been making ICE vehicles, they don't have the same infrastructure, development, sourcing, engineering costs that any other EV startup would have. They have factories but they've sunk a lot of costs into starting up their EV production and we don't know how they account for those costs. While it is probably true that Ford is "losing" $66,000 per vehicle as they said during the earnings call, that may not be much of a big deal because of how they calculate that figure. We know they are making their cars less efficiently than Tesla (Their wiring was WAY too long and when they figured that out, are now saving hundreds per battery). They'll get that figured out and will start reporting more profit" per vehicle. As a Ford stockholder, I definitely am invested in their success. They'll get to profitability. We know they know how to make vehicles in volume.

 

[cvalue13]

We know they are making their cars less efficiently than Tesla (Their wiring was WAY too long and when they figured that out, are now saving hundreds per battery). They'll get that figured out and will start reporting more profit" per vehicle. As a Ford stockholder, I definitely am invested in their success. They'll get to profitability. We know they know how to make vehicles in volume.

Yes and, since we're starting a list, another critical distinction is worth keeping in mind to understand context. Especially if you're a a stockholder:

All of these "inefficiencies" being attributed to Ford are at a time and in a context where Ford has not yet produced a single ground-up BEV platform in a factory purpose-built for BEV production. They wont do that until 2025, at least.

Which is just one more way people aren't comparing apples to apples.

For any number of possible and understandable reasons, Ford got BEV products to market in a dogs breakfast of manufacturing way, by essentially leveraging existing ICE manufacturing facilities, materials, and processes into what amounts to stuffing BEV guts inside ICE platforms.

Does anything seriously think for a moment that Ford did this in order to create it's most efficient, cost-effective, BEV vehicles? As opposed to, for just some examples, over-stretch it's per-vehicle margins in exchange for, e.g.,

• first/early mover (compared to other conventional automakers) marketing and public ESG demand satisfaction?
• R/D early learnings to be carried forward to eventual BEV-platform manufacturing facilities/techniques?
• early establishment of supply chain demand and relationships?
• pure public company posturing against other conventional manufacturers
• software development and algorythem training
• to off-set and adjust the averaged MPG of it's lineup under CAFE laws
• to, for every one BEV sold, avoid the cost of purchasing federal and state carbon credits
• to loss-lead it's positioning in buyer minds once more attainable units are available at volume (see eg every 'Lightning' model made by ford since 1993)
• etc., etc., etc.

That list could go on, and none of it is reflected in the cash-only netting of per-vehicle "profit."

Which understanding is so broadly held, outside the walls of this forum, that it explains why Ford's stock doesn't immediately tank to zero and Ford shut its doors hours after reporting the relatively uninteresting and uninformative point that it wont achieve price/margin parity with it's ICE vehicles for 6 more years.

Because it seems obvious that until you account for the entirety of such a bullet list above, you next have to then attempt to ascribe both the cash and non-cash corporate value of each such bullet to Ford's strategy. Andthen once you've got that valuation, only then can you finally perform the ultimate calculation of comparing it against the net cash value to Ford of "losing" $[X]K on each BEV it's currently selling, at a pure manufacturing level.

Because I'm really procrastinating the real work I don't want to do this morning, there's another key meta-level distinction between Ford and Tesla's current business models and footprints that people either undervalue or misunderstand.

Ford's structural disadvantage to Teslais in this current manufacturing ramp-up phase. No doubt. During this ramp-up phase, we're going to witness the asymmetries in the scaling lifecycle. So at present, "score" several points to Tesla's favor (if that's your game).

But later in this scaling lifecycle, we'll instead possibly see the asymmetries begin to run in the opposite direction: unlike Tesla, Ford already has global supplychain and distribution footprints and history for a varied product lineup, which later in teh scaling lifecycle will lower Ford's friction to scaling where it meanwhile increases Tesla's friction for scaling.

At a cartoon level of analogy: a triathlon goes swim > bike > run

Tesla has been training it's swimming for years now, and so here in the water of R/D manufacturing build-out, we see that advantage with Tesla already on the beach drying off, while Ford's hair is barely wet yet. And yes, poo poo on Ford for not training swimming sooner, harder.

But conversely, Ford has been training biking and running for decades, where Tesla is only starting into those later legs of the race that involve, e.g., the complexities of expanding model line-ups, global distribution and compliance, geopolitical relationship navigation, etc.

Which analogy is in no way meant to suggest that I personally view this as a "race" that either side will "win." It's instead only to emphasize another way that making apples-to-apples comparisons between these companies, and their very different sets of strengths and weaknesses, is so complex that any two-line quip about some headline number, provided out of context, is so misleading as to be anti-persuasive.

It's other people here who keep treating these companies as professional sports teams, where it's a zero-sum game leaving room for only one 'national champion,' and that it's a monolithic, single-event sport, where "early leads" are put forward as though they are determinative of some ultimate outcome. This is a decathlon. You'll have to say a lot more to suggest which athlete is "destined" to come out on "top."

It's just bizarre to me to treat complicated companies like professional sports teams in a single-event sprot in this manner. Even more bizarre is, to in the first half of a breath assert "Tesla's business model is entirely different from other manufacturers," and then in the second half of tha same breath assert "so let's now compare discrete data points out of context in order to suggest reasonable inferences."

There is no possible world where a single manufacturer gains complete market share. So the question is how these very different types of athletes are going to compete across all stages of this decathalon, in order to share a podium that will include several positions.

Everything else is as futile as the "arguments" about whether Lebron or Jordan are the GOAT.

(PS: it's Jordan)

 

[TyPope]

Yes and, since we're starting a list, another critical distinction is worth keeping in mind to understand context. Especially if you're a a stockholder:

All of these "inefficiencies" being attributed to Ford are at a time and in a context where Ford has not yet produced a single ground-up BEV platform in a factory purpose-built for BEV production. They wont do that until 2025, at least.

Which is just one more way people aren't comparing apples to apples.

For any number of possible and understandable reasons, Ford got BEV products to market in a dogs breakfast of manufacturing way, by essentially leveraging existing ICE manufacturing facilities, materials, and processes into what amounts to stuffing BEV guts inside ICE platforms.

Does anything seriously think for a moment that Ford did this in order to create it's most efficient, cost-effective, BEV vehicles? As opposed to, for just some examples, over-stretch it's per-vehicle margins in exchange for, e.g.,

• first/early mover (compared to other conventional automakers) marketing and public ESG demand satisfaction?
• R/D early learnings to be carried forward to eventual BEV-platform manufacturing facilities/techniques?
• early establishment of supply chain demand and relationships?
• pure public company posturing against other conventional manufacturers
• software development and algorythem training
• to off-set and adjust the averaged MPG of it's lineup under CAFE laws
• to, for every one BEV sold, avoid the cost of purchasing federal and state carbon credits
• to loss-lead it's positioning in buyer minds once more attainable units are available at volume (see eg every 'Lightning' model made by ford since 1993)
• etc., etc., etc.

That list could go on, and none of it is reflected in the cash-only netting of per-vehicle "profit."

Which understanding is so broadly held, outside the walls of this forum, that it explains why Ford's stock doesn't immediately tank to zero and Ford shut its doors hours after reporting the relatively uninteresting and uninformative point that it wont achieve price/margin parity with it's ICE vehicles for 6 more years.

Because it seems obvious that until you account for the entirety of such a bullet list above, you next have to then attempt to ascribe both the cash and non-cash corporate value of each such bullet to Ford's strategy. Andthen once you've got that valuation, only then can you finally perform the ultimate calculation of comparing it against the net cash value to Ford of "losing" $[X]K on each BEV it's currently selling, at a pure manufacturing level.

Because I'm really procrastinating the real work I don't want to do this morning, there's another key meta-level distinction between Ford and Tesla's current business models and footprints that people either undervalue or misunderstand.

Ford's structural disadvantage to Teslais in this current manufacturing ramp-up phase. No doubt. During this ramp-up phase, we're going to witness the asymmetries in the scaling lifecycle. So at present, "score" several points to Tesla's favor (if that's your game).

But later in this scaling lifecycle, we'll instead possibly see the asymmetries begin to run in the opposite direction: unlike Tesla, Ford already has global supplychain and distribution footprints and history for a varied product lineup, which later in teh scaling lifecycle will lower Ford's friction to scaling where it meanwhile increases Tesla's friction for scaling.

At a cartoon level of analogy: a triathlon goes swim > bike > run

Tesla has been training it's swimming for years now, and so here in the water of R/D manufacturing build-out, we see that advantage with Tesla already on the beach drying off, while Ford's hair is barely wet yet. And yes, poo poo on Ford for not training swimming sooner, harder.

But conversely, Ford has been training biking and running for decades, where Tesla is only starting into those later legs of the race that involve, e.g., the complexities of expanding model line-ups, global distribution and compliance, geopolitical relationship navigation, etc.

Which analogy is in no way meant to suggest that I personally view this as a "race" that either side will "win." It's instead only to emphasize another way that making apples-to-apples comparisons between these companies, and their very different sets of strengths and weaknesses, is so complex that any two-line quip about some headline number, provided out of context, is so misleading as to be anti-persuasive.

It's other people here who keep treating these companies as professional sports teams, where it's a zero-sum game leaving room for only one 'national champion,' and that it's a monolithic, single-event sport, where "early leads" are put forward as though they are determinative of some ultimate outcome. This is a decathlon. You'll have to say a lot more to suggest which athlete is "destined" to come out on "top."

It's just bizarre to me to treat complicated companies like professional sports teams in a single-event sprot in this manner. Even more bizarre is, to in the first half of a breath assert "Tesla's business model is entirely different from other manufacturers," and then in the second half of tha same breath assert "so let's now compare discrete data points out of context in order to suggest reasonable inferences."

There is no possible world where a single manufacturer gains complete market share. So the question is how these very different types of athletes are going to compete across all stages of this decathalon, in order to share a podium that will include several positions.

Everything else is as futile as the "arguments" about whether Lebron or Jordan are the GOAT.

(PS: it's Jordan)

LOL. Jordan for sure. I like the analogy as well and agree. To me, rooting for either company to fail is akin to hoping my pilot fails the landing because I don't like his mustache. (or hers, I suppose)

And now, we both should get started on that work we are avoiding... ?

 

[Greshnab]

#119209575 I don't expect an email for about 5-6 years from now.

Woot found someone with a higher res number than ME... RN118694195

 

[Almost Mars]

I did it the second Elon said it was up and I’m like 8k or something.

 

[bdmridgeback]

If you have to ask about the price... and the configuration, CyberTruck isn't for you.

?

Everyone in their right mind will ask about price. Hell, I bought a $10k mountain bike sight unseen, I want to know the price of the CT before I buy it. I'm NOT buying it if it's $20k higher than launch price because I'll go buy something else for $70k. And I am roughly 25k in line.

 

[Rutrow]

Everyone in their right mind will ask about price. Hell, I bought a $10k mountain bike sight unseen, I want to know the price of the CT before I buy it. I'm NOT buying it if it's $20k higher than launch price because I'll go buy something else for $70k. And I am roughly 25k in line.

See emoji and Poe’s Law

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

Everyone in their right mind will ask about price. Hell, I bought a $10k mountain bike sight unseen, I want to know the price of the CT before I buy it. I'm NOT buying it if it's $20k higher than launch price because I'll go buy something else for $70k. And I am roughly 25k in line.

Just a gut feeling, you WILL buy it.
Expecting $10K to $15K more for the TRI.
If you are going for the 'DUEL' Motor, expect to pay $8K to $12K more than quoted.
'Good luck Mr. Phelps'
[Mission Possible]

 

[HaulingAss]

Well. Okay. You are right here. We all assume that just because Ford has been making ICE vehicles, they don't have the same infrastructure, development, sourcing, engineering costs that any other EV startup would have. They have factories but they've sunk a lot of costs into starting up their EV production and we don't know how they account for those costs. While it is probably true that Ford is "losing" $66,000 per vehicle as they said during the earnings call, that may not be much of a big deal because of how they calculate that figure. We know they are making their cars less efficiently than Tesla (Their wiring was WAY too long and when they figured that out, are now saving hundreds per battery). They'll get that figured out and will start reporting more profit" per vehicle. As a Ford stockholder, I definitely am invested in their success. They'll get to profitability. We know they know how to make vehicles in volume.

I'm just calling it how I see it, any investment in Ford stock is very risky. I think you over-estimate the benefit of knowing how to make vehicles in volume because the real battle of the future will be to make them efficiently in volume.

Ford and other legacy OEM's have become very inefficient, which is why old tech (ICE) vehicles cost so much money for what you get. The barriers to enter the auto industry are so great that legacy makers grew fat and lazy and failed to innovate to increase volume production while decreasing the cost to make each one. They developed a culture of just doing things the same way they have always done them. But it's a different world now, with newer, better manufacturing teechniques that they are very slow to adopt. Have you seen any Ford's with megacastings? Has Ford brought software in-house? Is Ford becoming more vertically integrated to keep more of the profit themselves?

Tesla knew they could not mass-market EV's unless they could figure out how to build and sell cars for less. Because EV powertrains are inherently more expensive than an ICE powertrain. So Tesla has a massive head start on making cars more efficiently. That's why they have higher profit margins on their EV's than legacy has on their ICE cars. And legacy still loses a ton of money on EV manufacturing. It aint even close and Tesla continues to improve efficiency at lightning speed. Legacy cannot improve as fast as Tesla is improving.

How can Ford compete with an uppity upstart who is determined to make cars more affordable than ever? Answer: They can't, new car buyers look for value with their hard-earned money, Ford will be reduced to selling specialty vehicles in low volumes and at relatively high prices. That will not be very profitable in the big picture, if it is profitable at all, which means that Ford shares will become worth next to nothing by 2030. I'm not rooting for Ford to fail, I'm just describing the slow-motion train wreck that has already started to happen. GM will crash and burn first.

 

[Ogre]

Just a gut feeling, you WILL buy it.
Expecting $10K to $15K more for the TRI.
If you are going for the 'DUEL' Motor, expect to pay $8K to $12K more than quoted.
'Good luck Mr. Phelps'
[Mission Possible]

Lots of people will absolutely not. Particularly not in a market where interest rates have already increased the price of purchasing the truck. Just increasing the cost $10k and adjusting for current interest rates, payments end up increasing about 35%. For a lot of people who ordered the truck because it was affordable, suddenly that goes out the window.

Price/ affordability was a huge part of why many people were drawn to the truck. Not coincidentally, it is one point Musk has repeated over and over.

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

Lots of people will absolutely not. Particularly not in a market where interest rates have already increased the price of purchasing the truck. Just increasing the cost $10k and adjusting for current interest rates, payments end up increasing about 35%. For a lot of people who ordered the truck because it was affordable, suddenly that goes out the window.

Price/ affordability was a huge part of why many people were drawn to the truck. Not coincidentally, it is one point Musk has repeated over and over.

It's true that affordability IS hugely important. So looking into and going with 'Lots of people will absolutely not' then Tesla CYBERTRUCK could well be a 'flop' as it becomes 'unobtainium' to that segment of the market how ever BIG or small it may be.
Elon has said it will not be the 2019 prices....that is for now a given. The numbers above , exist to soften the blow and allow consideration of payment over and we'll above $39,990. So, if you're gonna buy some other truck at $70K, l'm encouraging anyone to look at the numbers and what you actually are buying. But by all means, buy whatever you feel is a fit for you.

ps The assessment for bdmridgeback was in good faith, to keep the faith and not abandon 'S.S Tesla'
( It's not sinking )

 

[Ogre]

Elon has said it will not be the 2019 prices....that is for now a given.

No, he did not say this.

He suggested that the market had changed. Guess what?

The market changed again. When he said that, the base Model Y was $65k. It is now almost the same as it was when the Cybertruck was launched.

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

No, he did not say this.

He suggested that the market had changed. Guess what?

The market changed again. When he said that, the base Model Y was $65k. It is now almost the same as it was when the Cybertruck was launched.

Absolutely on the same page with you.
What he alluded to is constantly 'shifting goal posts' ( my wording borrowed from history)
The price will be what is announced in the coming months. I believe it will NOT be the 2019 low low price. In some cases $5K minimum over. This will hurt, no doubt and potentially see buyers walk.

Sponsored