Intercontinental Exchange Inc
52 Week High
52 Week Low
7 Days Mentions
85% SI of float checks out!! Listen Linda, this will only hurt for a sec. 50M shares outstanding with months before ICE's class V convert into class A. PIPE shares (locked until April) are 32.5M of those 50M. Short interest is 13.5M of the remaining 16.5M(minus other institutions) Shorts R Fuq!!!!!
DD / Gain - $0.29 calls turned into $20+ and this is just getting started. Bakkt has all the ingredients necessary - politicians, majority owned by Intercontinental Exchange, Mastercard deal, Fiserv+Google partnerships and 100% share utilization with 500%+ CTB.
DD / Gain - $0.29 calls turned into $20+ and this is just getting started. BKKT has all the ingredients necessary - politicians, majority owned by Intercontinental Exchange, Mastercard deal, Fiserv+Google partnerships and 100% share utilization with 500%+ CTB.
So much smart money has invested in this company. 90 different institutions. ICE owns 65%!!! Microsoft and Starbucks?! Invesco has millions of shares at an $11.50 avg. You know some of them have taken some profits along the way but there's good support at $35 where last week it was $25. Next week?!!
Once the pent up demand goes away( I think it mostly did) supply chains are back to normalish, people spent their stimulus and rates start to rise a bit imo most things will cool off.. Services probably not but materials, cars ( just think of EV making ICE redundant) should fall.. probably not to pre pandemic levels but stabilize and we are back to low inflation period.... I mean without population boom I dont see demand skyrocketing.... inflation is a problem for emerging world not the US as its the global reserve currency and everyone still wants it...
Your argument only works if every person drove an EV right this second. Than yes likely the US infrastructure will suffer. But they can’t and won’t. It’s going to be an adoption process that happens over 20-30 years. Anyone buying stocks in ICE companies or oil for that time frame is stupid. My thesis to you is that these companies prices are being pumped artificially to drive retail to liquidate the bags of institutions while they pivot into EV and clean energy companies. They’ve tapped the well of Ford, GE, Exxon, etc.
That's the hammer drop meeting . 10 year treasury will be at least 3.00 to 3.5% within a year... All the "sin stocks" Cigarettes', Oil , Utilities ,booze , financials ,even Telecoms, Are at or close to 52 week highs . Why ?? one word DIVIDENDS .And one sentence : a flight to safety and real sustainable earnings. I dont make the rules but I have seen this movie before. Check out BP, XOM, MRO, WFC ,T, VZ ,BAC ,CVX,OXY,RF. I am not shilling shit . I own some of these but I already caught the big move. Anyone who thought the new Administration was going to make oil and ICE obsolete because they said so was ill informed .They actually did the exact opposite they drove prices higher. I own EV stocks( and have one on order right now) and they are long term holds but.... If every person was given an EV for free in California tomorrow they all would all be WALKING. California cant even keep the air conditioning on in the summer time. You think you can charge millions of EV,s with the current power grid . Oh lets build some windmills:)![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|joy)! The only sane person who actually knows something about EVs Elon Musk will tell you it cant be done without nuclear power and of course everyone is against that. So what's left? clean energy for the near term.
The only thing the lightning will cut into are ICE F150 sales. The people who would normally buy their luxury pick up will switch to an electric one that they’ll drive to their office. People using work trucks are unlikely to be in the first wave of switching and a lot of F150 sales are fleet vehicles. BMW, Mercedes, and any other car brand will spend years just catching Tesla from a production of battery and EV standpoint. Until every car maker is switched to a 100% EV line at every factory Tesla will have the advantage. Then consider that Tesla expects to release a 25-30k vehicle in the next couple years that will eat into the market of compact ICE vehicles. Automakers will have trouble cutting into Tesla’s market share for a long time, its more likely EV pivots will help preserve their own share. Lastly, automakers still have very rigid research and development timelines and a business structure oriented on the legacy design, prototype, test, and build. Tesla operates much differently and makes software and design updates constantly. Tesla isn’t going anywhere. The lowest PE ratio TSLA has had in 13 yes is 237. At the peak of the split it was 1396. Expect another run this year when the factories open. Trillion is the 21st century Billion.
OP is actually retarded but you clearly know nothing about the industry, the roadster is not for sale and hasn’t been for years. The new roadster won’t be in production for years. And the f150 lightning will sell well just like every other EV right now, but they won’t be selling millions like the do with the ICE f150 for a long time. They still only have production estimates of ~200k by 2026 which is nothing. More than the CT, but still nothing. Once CT hits production (if 2023) they will be doing 450k by the end of year 2 production guaranteed. Tesla understands EV demand, something no other company is doing properly
So far they are, after all, only a car company with some overpriced solar options (compared to the market). As for batteries Tesla don't even make their car batteries themselves, it's all Panasonic. Even if Tesla, by some miracle, did become market leader on batteries twhyd still face severe competition. Unlike the car market where ICE companies has a "Kodak moment" there is no tech-suppression amongst battery manufacturers. On the contrary, they're working overtime to find the next generation of batteries, which means Tesla won't have as strong first mover advantage (if they manage to enter the market in the first place, which is currently doubtful).
Despite being largely constrained by availability of raw materials and much less complex that ICE vehicles, somehow EVs are going to maintain massive margins. This will persist even when most cars sold are EVs and every manufacturer is competing for the same resources and customers and cars historically commanding very low margins. Moving from an effective monopoly on EV sales and monopsony on auto batteries to a competitive market is going to double margins for Tesla.
They are fine now until the next recession. ICE cars are going to be history. It is like investing in VHS tape companies in the 90s. The writing is on the wall. The real opportunity is in the companies solving for climate change (not those contributing to it) https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/breakthrough-that-could-reverse-climate-change-with-scaling-investments-800e617ff334
I went to Dairy Queen a while ago; you know, Dairy Queen? Well anyways there was an insane number of people there, and I couldn't get in. Then, I looked at the banner hanging from the ceiling, and it had "Free ice cream" written on it. Oh, the stupidity. Those idiots. You, don't come to Dairy Queen just because there is free ice cream, fool. It's only free ice cream, FREE ICE CREAM for crying out loud. There're even entire families here. Family of 4, all out for some Dairy Queen, huh? How fucking nice. "Alright, daddy's gonna order the sundae." God I can't bear to watch. You people, I'll give you free ice cream if you get out of those seats. Dairy Queen should be a bloody place. That tense atmosphere, where two guys on opposite sides of the U-shaped table can start a fight at any time, the stab-or-be-stabbed mentality, that's what's great about this place. Women and children should screw off and stay home. Anyways, I was about to start eating, and then the bastard beside me goes "Cone, extra fudge." Who in the world orders extra fudge nowadays, you moron? I want to ask him, "do you REALLY want to eat it with extra fudge?" I want to interrogate him. I want to interrogate him for roughly an hour. Are you sure you don't just want to try saying "extra fudge"? Coming from a Dairy Queen veteran such as myself, the latest trend among us vets is this, blizzard with extra Kit-Kat. That's right, extra Kit-Kat. This is the vet's way of eating. Extra Kit-Kat means more Kit-Kat than ice cream. But on the other hand the price is a tad higher. This is the key. And then, it's delicious. This is unbeatable. However, if you order this then there is danger that you'll be marked by the employees from next time on; it's a double-edged sword. I can't recommend it to amateurs. What this all really means, though, is that you should just stick with the banana split. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I don't know that I'm necessarily "bullish" on Ford at the current stock price and I'm certainly not thinking of adding any shares at this point. It's basically a "hold" for me at this point. I had intended to buy and hold for the long haul from the beginning or I might be leaning towards "sell" and it is certainly tempting to take some profits at the current price. My thought is that they have the momentum for at least a few more good quarters and the results from that should at least maintain the current price level, if not give it a slight boost. That mainly buys time to figure out what the future holds, how the debt has been further addressed (which they have been doing a good job with so far), how they've done with expanding the EVs without cannibalizing the ICE sales, etc.. I mentioned in a different reply to someone that I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing consolidation happen in the EV space, just because of all the challenges involved with scale, and a legacy brand with a solid EV foundation like Ford seems like they'd be a great candidate for a merger with someone, which could send the stock through the roof. I also think a company with a solid foundation in both ICE vehicles and EVs will be in a better position to handle the ups and downs as the transition to EVs occurs over the next 10+ years. The power grid has a long way to go to support a full transition over to EVs and there will be times when the price of electricity will scare buyers back to ICE.
Well, 9 years ago, when batteries were still $650/KWh, it would be a pretty reasonable assumption to think EVs would be a luxury item. In fact, they still are today. If you think about it, the Nissan Leaf should be the best selling economy car in America. It's 60 KWh, 230 mile EV that's less than $25,000 after the tax credit. The operating costs of a Nissan leaf are significantly lower than any ICE car, but no one, including poor people, buys them. You need to own a house to install a charger that costs thousands of dollars, and you should probably have a second car anyways in case you need to go a long distance. A Chevy Bolt or Nissan Leaf is too impractical for the tranche of consumers the brand is marketed to, and to austere for the people who can actually use it. Infrastructure in most of the country isn't sufficient to make an EV practical, hence they tend to be a neat toy for the top 30% of Americans. I digress. As an extreme Tesla bull myself, I take every word out of Elon's mouth as gospel. That's Why I think I'll take my 2019 Tesla Roadster with feature-complete since 2018 FSD to my local Fidelity office to collect my $420 per share tomorrow.
Ford’s sales are currently 98% ICE vehicles. In this all EV future they are proposing they will see significant sales declines overall during the next decade. The multiple isn’t pricing in massive growth imo. Its pricing in cannibalization of their current market share to their own EVs. I agree a fully mature Tesla won’t maintain a PE of 50, but I think we are a long, long way from a mature Tesla, and other mature tech sees multiples close to 30, so I think a multiple of 10 would be very unrealistic given their innovative potential and sector.
There are a few problems on first sight. If Tesla produces 12M cars, they would be the biggest car company ever. In that case, the company would be ex-growth. So 50 P/E is unlikely. It would be more among the lines of VW and Toyota. So 10 PE. That would bring the price down significantly. The second problem is your $12,000 gap earnings per EV. Assuming a 20% margin (which would be double of Toyota - the most efficient car maker in the world). That would assume an average car price of $60,000. As VW average price per car is $30,000 and Toyota's is $27,000, that number is unlikely baring huge inflation (which would decrease the margins). You can't sell that many cars. $60,000 is just too a high of a price for most of the world to pay. The third problem is the 50% growth rate. Once you hit a certain number it is incredibly hard to scale up as many factories and production lines. ​ >2aii) Dropping battery costs is basically Wright's Law (Cathie was right about this). That is wrong. Batteries efficiency does not increase as fast as the Wright's Law would suggest. If input costs rise (and they do, cobalt etc are getting more expensive), battery prices will increase. Also sinkinig battery costs will not benefit Tesla, but the consumer - as companies will pass on savings to the consumer, if it allows them to take market share. ​ ​ >2aiii) "Tesla isn't profitable!" we heard for years. This is because they were burning cash for R&D. They've made their manufacturing incredibly efficient, and with 2 new factories we'll see even more benefits from Economies of Scale: They are a car company. They don't benefit from the Economies of Scale in the same vein as other companies do. They are profitable at the moment. But look at the R&D costs of Tesla. VW alone is spending 10x yearly as Tesla. Sure Tesla is ahead, but it is difficult to beat a competitor who can spent 10x your money. ​ ​ > 2bi) Competition. Tesla has always had competition. They had competition in 2013 to their Model S, and the have competition today. It's the ICE car, and Tesla is winning. A couple points to make here: They had no competition until 2019. EVs were to unprofitable and unliked. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ > My next point is that the EV market is expanding.. rapidly. New EV models will not take sales from Tesla. They will take sales from the Toyota Corolla, RAV4, Camry, Honda Civic, Accord, Hyundai cars, Volkwagen cars, etc. BTW: we've already begun to see this :) whispers Tesla IS the chip shortage Look at the numbers from Europe. You will see that they do take sales from Tesla. EV market is expanding, but Volkswagen already sells more EVs in Europe then Tesla (even if Tesla has the best selling models). Tesla didn't have the chip shortage, because they produce much fewer cars. GM produced 4x times the cars in 2021 as Tesla did. Of course they are more affected by the chip shortage. ​ ​ ​ ​ > I believe (assuming a bull market) that there will still be enough frenzy surrounding Tesla to see a 100 P/E in 2027. The conservative side of me calculates these numbers with 50. By the time the S-Curve flattens, the P/E could be 30.. or maybe 60 like Amazon? It's hard to say where Tesla will be in 2030, but I have a feeling they will be selling things we're not talking about today. I don't think so. Tesla has shown nothing that would suggest a dominance in solar (they don't even produce solar panels, they just install them) or energy. Being conservative would put that number at 10, as they would be ex-growth and would trade more in line with other car companies. ​ > > >I do know one thing though; Tesla should never be trading at Toyota, Ford, or GM's P/E ratios. The ICE car is a dead technology, not dropping in price like the EV, and is proving to be far inferior to EVs in every way. It just took Elon investing billions in a company that burned cash for a decade to bring down those battery costs. The world will see soon enough. They will if they sell 12m cars. There is a upper bound for demand. Please go into any other country other than Europe and the US. There is no chance in hell that they have the infrastructure to support a lot of EVs. Hell even in Europe the infrastructure isn't there. Many people don't have houses were they can change their cars, and with how slow goverments operate atm, they wouldn't have built out the charging structure needed. Elon did not bring down battery costs alone. Investments from Panasonic and other companies did as well. To be honest, I don't think that we will even see 50% in EV. ​ $12,000 gaap earnings per EV \* 12,100,000 EVs delivered \* 50 P/E = $7260/share ​ Here is my more realistic counter point. Keep in mind. It would still require Tesla to become the biggest car company in the world. $6,000 gaap eearnings per EV (assuming a $30,000 price point per car. Either you have high prices per car or high sales, both are not possible) \* 12,100,000 \* 10 P/E (they would be ex growth) = $897.40/share. Again. That assumes that they become the biggest car maker in 5 years. (and i doubt it).
The funniest things about these kind of EV Utopian Futures is that they rarely even attempt to tells us WHY the ICE is dead, destined to be replaced by EVs. EVs definitely have a meaningful niche--warm places where driving distances are short and there is enough of a concern about air pollution that governments are willing to subsidize moving emissions to outside urban areas. (They are somewhat greener over the life of the car, the extent depending on the source of the electricity, but not anything close to what is needed to keep Florida above water, for instance). A map of the Earth's surface that showed where EVs are better or just equal to ICEs would have much of California and cities in China bright red, with Western Europe also lit up pretty well...and not a whole lot else. There are areas where EV use certainly could be expanded pretty easily, but there are A LOT more areas (including in the U.S.) where EVs, at least based on current technology and infrastructure, are either very impractical compared to an EV, or simply not viable.
A couple questions: 1. When in history has there been a company that achieved a 50% CAGR in its second decade? How many more gigafactories would they have to build and is that in your analysis? 2. Have you considered what is the cost floor on batteries? Lead acid (ICE car starter) batteries have been around since the 1800s, so you can reasonably conclude manufacturing processes for those are optimized. Lead acid batteries cost about 1.2x the cost of raw materials. The cost of lithium, nickel etc are going up, and enough raw materials to produce 1MWh cost more than $50. Of course, technology can make batteries more efficient, different chemistries etc, but they are still physical things that are always going to cost some money. You can’t just keep cutting your cost model in half based on trends.
Tesla isn't a typical auto company though... Yes, they "make automobiles" but these are different than the traditional vehicles that we have grown to expect in the auto industry. Tesla vehicles seem to be on the forefront of tech. They are always updating the features in their vehicles which is new to the industry on the level they are at. They're consistently making changes and improvements to their vehicles and are able to implement something in a matter of weeks, days or even hours as opposed to legacy auto makers taking years to push design changes through. Tesla is literally changing the manufacturing techniques used in the industry and others can't keep up and can't change fast enough. It's not a typical auto maker like you're inferring. Not to mention the other arms of the company that haven't even begun to mature... Solar and energy storage has a lot of potential as the world shifts away from non-renewable energy. Tesla doesn't even need to have a big chunk of this industry for it to match its auto revenues. SaaS is already beginning for them with subscription models tied to their FSD beta. If they are able to solve the FSD problem this will be huge. Other companies are sort of trying this but their approach has been different and I don't think reliance on HD maps is the answer. Tesla insurance could be another revenue stream that traditional auto makers haven't ever used. They have Tesla bot aspirations but I personally don't see that becoming a reality any time soon, if ever. Regardless of all of this, it's hard for me to take anyone seriously when they are comparing a company that's changing not only the auto industry, but manufacturing, power among other things to companies who has just been making ICE vehicles and staying in their comfort zone for decades upon decades.
I think the PE issues people have is mostly due to a false comparison with legacy auto. Legacy auto built a nuts and bolts ICE vehicle that has an engine and a lot in common with a washing machine. Roughly the same level of software sophistication as well. Teslas (and other EVs from up and coming EV names) have no engine, and rely on very sophisticated batteries to power the other components. They are also increasingly sophisticated with their software. It might be more accurate to think of “cars” as giant iPads that you can drive. In this sense they command a PE more in line with other tech stocks. It looks like the market largely agrees, since if you look at GM and F since they started going “all in on EVs” (at least in the media lol) their PE has absolutely soared. F has never traded this high in its history, and they just had a pretty objectively horrible year.
I applaud your efforts and transparency in the calculation. I think your estimates are, however, hopelessly optimistic. 12.1 million vehicles is not credible.It is very easy to say they’ll grow at a CAGR of 50% for half a decade, but it’s a wholly different matter in practise. Assuming 100 million total global vehicle sales in 2027, which seems realistic to me given about 85 million per year today, and based on various other forward projections I’ve seen: your 12.1m vehicle sales would mean Tesla would be the largest car maker on planet earth and would have around a 12% share of total global vehicle sales (Including ICE, PHEV, BEV). What percentage would this be of BEV sales? Say BEV sales are 50% of vehicle sales by 2027 (McKinsey projects 2030 so 2027 is incredibly bullish for Tesla). That would mean Tesla having a 24% market share of BEV sales, globally. Tesla had approximately 19% to 21% BEV market share in Q4 2021 (Tesla sold approximately 309k cars. Globally BEV sales from all manufacturers aren’t yet known, but as they were at 400k in total in October and 500k in November, and month 3 of a quarter is highest sales month, I think we’re safe to say 1.4m-1.6m BEVs were sold in Q4 2021. That gives Tesla a 19% to 21% market share). 19% to 21% is lower than the 24% required - even with the incredibly bullish 50% BEV market share by 2027 - for Tesla to sell 12.1 million vehicle. So Tesla’s market share needs to climb. Is Tesla’s market share climbing? No. It is quickly falling. Tesla currently has a declining BEV market share globally. Zooming in, it is declining in Europe. It is declining in Asia. It is declining in North America. It isn’t the market leader in Europe anymore. Nor is it the market leader in Asia anymore. So something doesn’t stack up. Another way to look at it. The total global BEV market by 2027 is estimated to be $143bn. You have Tesla making 12.1m vehicles at $13k net earnings per vehicle which means more than $145bn in earnings. In other words, you have Tesla making more profit from BEV’s by itself in 2027 than the projections of the entire BEV industry has revenue. When the market for BEVs is mature, let’s say in 2045, I believe Tesla *might* be making 12 million vehicle per year. 50 p/e in 2027 also makes no sense in a mature business (and being the biggest car maker on planet earth is certainly mature, in my eyes). It wouldn’t give a positive ROI in any DCF analysis. If Tesla was the *only* car maker on earth, selling 100 million vehicles and making $12k net net on each, it would make 1.2 trillion dollars earnings. Assume the car market grows at 2% a year, that’s what’s Tesla’s auto business would grow at. If you want a 10% return on investment annually (and who would be satisfied with 10% for such a cyclical industry?) for owning Tesla, you’d need an 8% earnings yield (10% total yield minus 2% growth yield). Which would imply a market valuation of 15 trillion. 15 trillion if they owned the entire global market, 100%. Your numbers imply they own 12% of the market. 100% is 8.3x 12%. Granted, a lucrative 12%, but not 8.3x more lucrative than the rest. You can bring in Tesla’s other lines of business, sure, but we are specifically trying to value the autos line of business here. What would I say Tesla would be worth in 2027? Well, I’ll jump to 2028 instead, to make the maths easier for me. I can see what I would view as an extreme bull case of them selling 8 million cars in 2028, making $10k on each in real terms, which would be $80BN earnings, and having an industry leading P/E of - say - 25x, assuming they’d still be growing quite fast. That would make the auto business worth $2TR. Assuming you want to earn 10% on your Tesla investment, that would make them worth $1Tr today. The P/E in your auto industry case is the main issue, for me. We can make up any numbers we want for the sales figures and net income, but that isn’t going to justify a 50 P/E under any reasonable discount rate assumption, in a DCF. The mathematics don’t add up.
I agree that Ford has a huge potential to grow their EV portfolio and that is certain to rise substantially over the coming years. That will surely be tempered by a collapse of their ICE sales though. There is zero chance they maintain what they have on the ICE side while adding EVs. Also, they already have massive debt and need to spend billions to build out their EV capacity. During this time, what will happen to their revenue? Will they make and sell enough EVs to make up for declining ICE sales? Hard to say but the pure EV companies don’t have this transition problem. They have plenty of other problems, most notably trying to figure out how to manufacture at scale and global distribution. So I’m not as bullish on Ford as you but do like their EVs. I may even buy a Lightning. Good luck.
>ASP will drop quite a bit to meet demand as many competitors enter. I typed above why I don't think competitors will affect Tesla sales. If you disagree, that's fine.. it's your right. However, we simply disagree here. Assuming that competition doesn't affect Tesla sales (I don't think it will. You and many others do), then I modeled the ASP dropping exponentially based on previous data points (albeit, not many points. hopefully it'll improve with time). So at least there's some objective reasoning behind how I see ASP dropping What's wrong with free money (credits)? heh.. I think Tesla will be fine without the creds. >50% per year sales growth simply won't happen for too much longer. This is a fair point too. I see 50% YoY growth happening until they hit about 20M a year though. That's my opinion. There's pleeeeenty of ICE car sales to steal away.. and they *will* be stolen away.
It’s got nothing to do with standard type but rather accountability for ensuring operability and reliability. There’s little incentive for manufacturers to replicate Tesla’s network because of the cost involved, and there’s little reason for a third party to operate on price parity with the Supercharger network because the margins would be ridiculously small. What’s more likely is that Tesla will end up opening up their network eventually. Ford has sold expensive trucks. However, that’s only a piece of their sales. It’s doubtful Ford or any other brands are going to be able to replace their ICE range for BEV at remotely close to a similar ASP. That you acknowledge Ford is not competitive on the global stage is very telling to the reality they’re not going to have a chance of overtaking a company that has local production in the three largest car markets in the world. You can call me all the names you want if it makes you feel better. You can buy whatever car you fancy. No issue. So can other people. Many people you’d call a “Elon nut rider” are buyers of the cars. This feels like Apple all over again when the iPhone came out and people were mocking others for supporting the concept saying no one wants a $700 phone with no buttons.
They have one major special advantage over their competitors. Jim Farley and his vision of what Ford will look like as a company in the future. Hint (ICE is not part of that future vision)…it’s not just about the auto industry. Ford is reinventing itself as a company. Give it time.
Ford stock is doing so well because they are making vehicles people want both ICE and EV. Bronco, Maverick, Mustang Mach E, F150 Lightning, Transit EV all sold out for the foreseeable future. They are currently the smartest company in the auto industry. They traded high interest bonds for zero percent bonds last year. Fords bond debt is all associated with the financing division and is profitable. They invested Rivian, Argo Ai and Solid Power. The only piece they are missing is the supercharger network. At least in the short term Ford is in better position for growth and stock price appreciation than GM or VW.
You appreciate the quote regarding 600k vehicles does not in any way mean they’re making 600k electric cars in 2 years, right? It clearly states that within two years they’ll have the “capacity” to produce 600k cars. So in year three they’ll have the capacity to produce 600k cars. This is an important distinction. Next, let’s consider margins. Ford is not selling anywhere near the same volume of Lightning trucks for the same margins as it’s ICE F-150 range unless it sells them at significantly higher prices. It remains to be seen just how many trucks they can sell at $80k+ a year. Tesla’s position in China with the Model Y over Ford and the Mach E is pretty hilarious. That you genuinely think the Mach E is going to compete globally against Tesla with the Model Y being produced in Austin, Shanghai, and Berlin is pretty amazing - good luck with that. The prevailing reason for buying a Tesla is because it’s the best electric platform for customers. No one else offers the software side that Tesla has from the perspective of cars being a computer on wheels not the charging network reliability. Further, you underestimate the strong disdain many people have for interacting with dealers. Guess Ford needs to get in line after GM. Mary has clearly stated GM is going to be the leader.
Fords production of electric F150s isn’t 150k. It’s currently 0. In July, August and December each had a doubling of their F150 *goal*, which so many doublings in 6 months doesn’t seem strategic or visionary. It’s reactionary to demand they hope to meet with these numbers. But again, goals does not equal production, without more batteries they will make 150k bricks like the semi conductor shortage all over again. The Mach E had an interesting first year. I wonder if they could have made more should more batteries be available, which begs the question again. What’s their battery availability the next few years? Not enough to magically replace every ICE sale for an EV.
A lot of people say Ford is overvalued because debt and they sell ICE. But 90% of that debt is the financial arm that makes money off auto loans. GM even had one too. But spun it off during the GFC. It is Ally financial now. Not to mention their Rivian stake. I think it will be a $40 stock by 2024. Only way they don't get that is if they can't keep their production timeline. If they can make 200,000 F150 Lightnings like they promise. Easily get there with their ICE sales.
Right, why would they go down when they are facing the most competition they have from new automakers in 50 years? This isn’t just Ford, but the whole automaker market should be getting depressed valuations from EVs coming in, not expanding. What makes investors think people will pay more now for a vehicle that does (nearly) the exact same thing as before? Why does that support margins being expanded by 2x-3x long term? Especially with all these new competitors, that will suppress margins. Then balance that in that their manufacturing/inventory has to guess completely correct the balance of demand for both ICE/EVs in the next decade. If they underproduce on one, their market share will be eaten up by competitors. If they over produce, their margins drop quickly. I don’t short companies individually, but sector shorts can make a lot of sense. Automobiles are in a bubble right now, clear as day.
Most don’t understand that with an EV the primary source of recharge is the home Charger. The charging network for most owners is for long trips and most have both EV and ICE vehicles in their homes to accommodate for all situations.
Not a chance in hell I'd touch either Ford GM. People are greatly understanding how expensive it'll be to transition while simultaneously overestimating their tangible/intangible assets. Looking back on this decade I think this [2007 cover page](https://i0.wp.com/nokiamob.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Nokia-Forbes.png?fit=1000%2C1299&ssl=1) questioning if anyone can catch Nokia will be a stark reminder that technology changes faster than we think. I'm not convinced legacy ICE manufacturers will successfully transition (unless the government bails them out).
What is the % of EV for Ford/GM out of their sales? I can tell you...nothing...but for sure their ICE sales can only go down. If you buy GM now for sure you will be 6-12m ahead.... of the rug pull. Tesla just opened two new factories. What do you think will be the inpact of that?
That’s the thing, legacy companies are having a hard time switching to EV. It’s not a question of switching an ICE engine with an electric one. Anyone can do that. Chevy had a little fire issue with their cars. Total recall. It’s about how the cars are designed and improved even after the car is sold. VW is still lagging by 10 hours in the manufacturing process. Diess is trying to catch up.
I find this daily in my thread. Keep this short Legacy companies - Deal with ICE car sales decreasing and must sell more EV cars to compensate losing ICE cars sales, including dealing with debts/legacy infrastructure of ICE cars Telsa - Only EV car focus + many other area's they are looking besides just producing cars. Telsa profit margins are really healthy for a car company. They are talking about increasing their profit margins. ​ Bull case is Tesla with their increased capacity plants for EV cars + technology/experience will continue to grow in market control. This is the same case with Apple and their smartphone. Where is Apple today? 3 trillion dollar company..selling iphones/ipads, this is what Apple is known for. But we know Apple has a ton of other money making departments. Which is what Telsa is recreating Apple App store - Telsa App store (for car entertainment) Apple patent accessories (mifi cables) - Telsa supercharger (opening to EV cars for sales) + FSD subscription Apple finance plan - Tesla has their own insurance/finance plan List goes on and on.... Telsa isn't just focused on making a car, unlike Legacy car companies who are buried with old employee mentality and legacy ICE on going expenses...
Literally have worked in the auto industry my whole life so that’s a crazy assumption to make to a stranger that you know little about it. I hardly ever comment on Reddit and the fact that I did was because of confidence that I am not in the wrong. And you are right that ICE vehicles aren’t going away anytime soon… but the manufacturing of said vehicle will be.. they will still be on the roads but will not be made anymore.. OG companies will need to invest heavily into this tech. And yes also they have been around forever. But you know creating engines and transmission is very different then creating software to run cars right? The induction motors and thermal management is all fairly different as well.Totally different knowledge and totally different “engineering” And let’s say they do learn “quickly” how to develop.. they are still going to bleed money shutting down engine/transmission plants and ramping up manufacturing,(which also btw Tesla manufacturing is totally new to how the og companies do it with their castings) hiring new talent in software development, And other new concepts to them lol. I’d like to print out your comment and frame it for future chuckles if that’s alright?
To Ian needs no help going down the shitter trust me . They made a couple of dozen trucks . 72 billion valuation come on people??? Btw the Rivian truck is an overpriced POS The lightning is going to rule the pickup EV space . Just like the F150 ICE pickup has for the last 40!years. I love Elon and own TSLA but cybertruck? No Redneck, cowboy, farmer etc etc is going to buy it . But they will buy the lightning
VWAG - 159,800 BEVs and 63,500 PHEVs I don't think that TSLA is worth 8x the valuation of VW considering that VW group shows a faster EV growth and on top sells 2 million ICE cars a quarter. Cannibalization is a slow process and there will be people that still buy ICE cars in 2030.
You got it bro! and The dividend starts up again for all share holders of record 1/30/22 so we get paid to wait for our 3X! I am a long term holder I bought ford as low as $1.68, $3,4,5 ,6,12,18,and bought 450sh at 24... the other day. More than 7000 total .the dealerships are jammed ,total transformation , MACh E sold out and waiting list , LIGHTNING ditto , MAVERICK sold out hybrid till 2023 and 4 month waiting list for ICE Maverick. also building electric motors for folks that want to transform their hot rods cutting edge!! My buddy is a sales guy at F made 185K selling cars last year and he is not a super salesman he is a low key dude.
Ford plans to produce 650,000 EV cars by 2024. And that’s if they can actually upgrade their capacity and produce it as moving from ICE to EV vehicle manufacturing isn’t easy. TSLA did around a million EV sales in 2021. TSLA will be the company to dominate the auto and EV market.
EVs are not green as many try to say When Tesla crashes/ignites you have TON MORE problems than with ICE No battery recycling Distance it can drive is still laughable Charging is slow Quality problems Margin increases - really? You think that clever accounting is increase? And on and on and on.....
Awful balance sheet, shitty cost of capital. Probably paying more on their 9% junk bonds each year than they make in net EV earnings. Mediocre products and limited product line. Fairly poor safety record. Loyal buyers for ICE F-150s keep them afloat. Not sure any of their loyal ICE buyers will stick with them when Ford abandons them. There you go.
You got it bro! and The dividend starts up again for all share holders of record 1/30/22 so we get paid to wait for our 3X! I am a long term holder I bought ford as low as $1.68, $3,4,5 ,6,12,18,and bought 450sh at 24... the other day more than 7000 total .the dealerships are jammed ,total transformation , MACh E sold out and waiting list , LIGHTNING ditto , MAVERICK sold out hybrid till 2023 and 4 month waiting list for ICE Maverick. also building electric motors for folks that want to transform their hot rods cutting edge!! My buddy is a sales guy at F made 185K selling cars last year and he is not a super salesman he is a low key dude.
Are you kidding me, these jokers have been at it for years… Chevy Bolt has been closed… and Tesla is new to market but still we have had a decade for these jokers to compete… most of these guys are contracting even in ICE markets
I didn’t ‘cite the outcome of years of policy decisions and systemic decisions and say it’s just facts.’ I guess you can put words in my mouth but it makes you sound dumb as fuck. Read what I said again. And I didn’t say people trying to put themselves in a better situation are entitled either. The only time I used that word was in reference to wages. I don’t think people are entitled to make $30 an hour at a fast food restaurant. Im sorry but I just think it’ll suck when you need to be a millionaire to be in the middle class. I don’t even understand what your point is. I feel like you’re arguing just to be a troll. All I’m hearing is basically ‘we’re all gonna die eventually so kill me now.’ You couldn’t possibly so stupid as to think a little thing like people quitting their jobs is going to force systemic change and close the class divide. Do you really think they’ll pay out or will they just give those low paying jobs for unskilled workers to undocumented people? You should consider that the current administration has banned ICE from making worksite raids and is not enforcing laws that prevent employers from hiring undocumented people before you answer. I’m sure some people will be able hold out and get a few more bucks an hour or get a job that they’re happier in, but quitting your job in protest is going to blow up in most peoples faces eventually.
The eclectic motors themselves are not hard to build. A random factory in China can undercut the price. They don't have an edge in battery manufacturing(compared to ICE car manufacturers). They lack design talent. Best case I see they make a high end brand that gets sold to a bigger fish, but at a market of 74.86B ?
I'm not sure used prices will drop much when inflation will raise the price of new cars bigly over the next 2-5 years. Semis are gonna stay fucked for this year. Automakers have to be wary about overproducing and wary of adding capacity for ICE engines when they might only have 10 more years in the mainstream.
Yeah but Ford has a ton of legacy manufacturing that they will have to scale down and eventually write off. That will come at huge cost to the company. Not to mention that their profit margins will come down as they transition from a manufacturing model they are experts at (ICE) to one they are much less familiar with (electric). Their EV sales will then cannibalize their existing sales which means revenue doesn’t grow either. In other words, the trend for Ford is sideways but the trend for a new EV manufacturer is up
Lol, then why was Tesla shorted so drastically for years? A company that really has pretty small downside when you consider countries are now banning ICE vehicles in favour of EV lol. I’ll agree shorting has a legitimate purpose, the reality is that if your a millionaire or are controlling millions in shares you can easily create the perception of a “failing company”.
Saying Ford has production capacity to EVs is like saying a Microwave manufacture has production capacity for refrigerators. EVs are different in EVERY WAY compared to ICE vehicles minus the body and the wheels. Ford does not have production at all. The technology inside an EV is completely different than ICE. No oil, no gas, new components, new production line, new parts, different factory machines needed, different footprint, different development team, different engineers that are versed in EVs. People seem to still not understand this.
I have a financial advisor, he works for one of the major brokerages. Met with him this morning to talk about 2022 outlook. Here are some of the Cliff notes: * He likes financials, industrials and energy for 2022. * Current thinking is the supply chain issues will be largely resolved by end of summer, including chips. * Small cap value and small cap blend ETFs are underpriced rn. * He suggested I look into the following financial tickers, some are individual equities, some ETFs: WTFC, CADE, SYF (which has a P/E of 6), CME, ICE and IYF. * He observed that the top 10 stocks in the S&P have a P/E of 33.2 on average, whereas the remainder of the S&P's P/E is 19.7. Take that for what it is worth, if anything.
>Reading between the lines suggests that she believes that electric is the future and she has low confidence in Ford’s and GM’s future electric vehicle sales. It makes sense in a way — most people who want electric cars don’t want a Ford or GM truck, and most people who want a Ford or GM truck don’t want an EV. Here is the real issue. All of the profit, equipment, staffing, patents, etc. come from internal combustion engine development. The plants and businesses are set up to build so many million per year. If they build half as much, they don't make "half the profit" they more likely lose money in a MULTIPLE of the profit they used to make. Idle labor and equipment is an expensive sonofabitch. So the REAL trick for Ford and GM and the like is to make enough EVs, quickly enough, and profitably enough, to not just survive the massive coming losses on stranded ICE assets, dodge labor disputes as unions get PISSED that Ford and GM are firing Engine designers and oil pumps and etc. left and right. They need to make profits doing the new stuff even with the old stuff weighing them down. To make matters worse, they are "value" stocks, so the primary investors count on their dividends and continued, consistent profitability. If those go away, many of their investors go away, putting downward pressure on their stock, making it harder to raise money through equity offerings. To make things STILL worse, all those stranded ICE assets and collateralized leases and such mean MASSIVE piles of debt. Like, 10 years of revenue, ignoring profit and loss to pay it off kind of debt. So, they have to get good enough at a new tech, very fast, and while learning how to build it, but still make so much profit on it that while it's still a supply constrained supplier environment, they can handle the debt obligations, keep their investors on board, keep the unions happy enough while the total work force size declines, keep their DEALERS happy with lower maintenance vehicles, when dealers make the majority of THEIR profit on maintenance not sales, and overcome the decreasing demand for ICE vehicles, both real and regulation forced, all at the same time. They must do this while being behind on battery supply, battery cost, iterations of EV tech, installed charging infrastructure, semi conductors and market positioning to brands like Tesla. I wish them the best of luck. Hopefully when they emerge from restructuring, the price is attractive and I can pick up some nice, cheap, new GMEV shares when the dust settles.
I’m big into TSLA and bought my first shares in July 2020 and have been reading deeply into their growth over the next ten years as well as other companies. In my opinion Ford and VW are taking EVs the most seriously of all the ICE manufacturers, but they are still significantly behind Tesla in a lot of ways, so for this I’m just going to kind of ignore Tesla as they have been working on their supply chain and production methods for over ten years now while most legacy automakers just started taking EVs seriously over the past few years. So in terms of supply chain and production, legacy automakers won’t be where Tesla is today until around 2025-2027, even if you look at their goals, they aren’t trying to get massive production numbers until then. I disagree with Cathie when it comes to branding and using old gas guzzlers as new EV brands. I think that it makes a lot of sense to use your strongest brands as the new EV flagship models and I think that Ford will be able to convert a lot of the almost “rolling coal” people to EVs. Once people realize that they can just leave their truck plugged in at home and always have enough juice, nobody will care about range because it really doesn’t matter for 90% of people. No gas station means saving a lot of time, most people won’t have to go to a charging station and wait 30 minutes because like I said, they’ll be charging at home, or even at a job site if possible. Most people just need to get past all the anti EV propaganda that’s been pushed over the decades. Most people need to understand that EVs are a huge threat to the existing ICE industry and that’s why there is so much negativity around them. I’m all in on Tesla and holding for 10+ years, but even if Tesla achieves their goal of 20 million deliveries per year, that leaves 40-60 million units that need to be sold every year by other EV manufacturers. It’s just a question of how Ford, VW, GM and others will be able to compete against all the Chinese EV manufacturers. Again, Tesla is standing on its own with a 5-7 year lead, so they are irrelevant to everything else going on in the industry. Right now it’s a battle between legacy ICE manufacturers and all the other new EV companies that have strong software development teams and so on. It’s a very exciting time for all of this and there is a lot of room for many EV makers. It’s just a matter of how seriously and honestly these legacy automakers are taking EVs. I think GM is the most screwed because of how in denial they are about the whole situation. GM is not the leader they think they are, not even close…
>it's dead weight It's a big complaint of buying a Tesla let alone some of these other lesser known brands. >which skips all of the unnecessary bloat of dealers Clearly they don't think that as they still have shops/service centers >In addition, 5+ years into the future when self-driving is reliable, Big if, and 5 years is a long time away in these markets. That's a lot of potential downside without much upside. Currently EV combined market cap is almost 2X ICE combined market cap while only 1/30th of the annual vehicle sales. Bubble - lots of sector downside ahead, VC and PE was able to price high in the IPOs and people bought in and are taking loses. Look at the % decline for 52 week highs - ICE are like -5%, EVs are -30-50% while still having higher market caps!
The infrastructure will continue to see improvements due to investment fueled by EV demand. Just as gas stations emerged due to demand for ICE vehicles so will charging networks. The technology does not need to improve vastly even though I believe it will. ICE engines started around 20 mpg and haven’t gotten much better. I see teslas driving around my town getting around just fine. Most people do not need to commute 3000 miles on a regular basis, they’ll take a plane if they want to go to Florida or whatever for the holidays. Gasoline will run out one day and that’s the bottom line. Long term EVs is the play my dude. You’ve seen Teslas stock price correct?
>This is so dumb you’re making an assumption that there will never be EV infrastructure. You're talking about buying a stock based on infrastructure that doesn't exist and technological advances that people have been working on for decades, but haven't been able to crack. And you call me dumb? Lol. >You’re making investments based on current conditions and not future outlook, lol. Future outlook? The issues I raised cover, what? >>good range (300+ miles), 4WD, don’t take a half hour or more to fill up, which won’t get bogged down off-road, and that can run in cold weather. EVs fail on all but one of those benchmarks due to current battery limitations and weight. We're not just talking about building a few charging stations. EV technology is going to have to improve vastly for them to practically compete with ICEs, and we're talking about improvements that researchers have been working on for decades and which may not be physically possible. Significant improvements to battery power density, longevity, and charging times is not *inevitable.* It's optimistic at best, and even if you can get there, Ford's customers have shown that they're not interested in EVs. >Do you think people drove cross country in gas vehicles before Eisenhower created the interstate system ? Dafuq are you on about? Do you think people flew in planes before they were invented? Do you think people used anything before it was built or invented? Of course not. But d'you know what people *don't* do? They *don't* leave better working, more convenient products for worse ones, solely in the name of environmentalism. The interstate system was an improvement to existing road systems. There are no drawbacks to using it over smaller roads. Any EV is currently a shorter-range, heavier, lower-clearance vehicle that takes 30-120 minutes to fully charge. Functionally, it's a downgrade from an ICE, across the board. This goes beyond inconvenience; it is downright unsafe to use a vehicle like that in remote areas; they're more likely to get stuck, and, if stuck, you're more likely to be unable to get your vehicle unstuck. Weight and clearance are serious issues.
What market share are you talking about? Youd do realize that the EV market is eating into the ICE market...and that THAT is the market we're talking about, right? And that particularly Ford, GM and all the other legacy automakers are just cannibalizing their own market share with each EV they sell (because it means onw less iCE they sell) while Tesla is just eating their lunch? Tesla is scaling their production (and sales) in a way the others aren't even dreaming about.
Brand loyalty and service network are important. EV market penetration will be by segments other than pickup trucks for a long while yet. Regional businesses that tow equipment or haul cargo, trailer pulling farmers and RV’ers, need range with load that is still out of reach at a reasonable price. Lightweight urban errand-runners and commuters is the market that will tilt heavily EV. The big US automakers will continue to lean into ICE pickup trucks and full size SUV’s as big margin sales for many years to come. Infrastructure and engineering improvements to extend range and capacity will still take decades. Until flux capacitators come down in price that is.
Yes, I've been watching the debate for a while now - [Sandy Munro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Munro) has some [interesting insights.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63SJwFdGTQ&t=1350s) His experience in just about every sector of manufacturing has given him some strong opinions - I do not agree with all of them, but he seems fairly unbiased, and his thoughts worth considering at least. Not to say he might not be missing something too, but the likelihood of ICE manufacturing assets becoming stranded capital is no small risk.
>Ford & GM have about 2% EV sales and 98% ICE sales. As times goes on, the EV sales % will increase for each of these companies but the ICE sales % will decrease, which will even out to a net zero (if they're lucky). So lets say that happens over the next 10 years. In 10 years, GM will be selling 7+ million electric vehicles per year. Tesla currently sells 1M electric vehicles per year. Even if that is "stolen market share", all that really matters is how many cars you sell per year and what your profit is on each of those vehicles. Tesla needs to grow car sells >Ford and GM are at a large disadvantage with all the baggage of a century of producing ICE vehicles. It's way easier to build an electric car company from scratch (like Nio) rather than trying to transition an ICE company into an EV company. What evidence do you have of this? We have one successful electric car company started in history (Tesla) and it still only produces about 10% of the vehicles that a major ICE car company does. Nio, which you hold up as an example, produces about as many cars per year as a major ICE company does per month.
First comment I've seen that addresses what Cathie said. Ford has a ton of debt from the ICE car manufacturing. Add all of the new EV production debt needed to scale and you have more debt. Throw in the low profit margins they traditionally have and the stock doesn't smell so rosy.
> If they spend a lot because they're building up their electric fleet, it'll negatively impact their revenue and profit And if they refuse to introduce any EV models? How will going all-in on ICE negatively impact their revenue and profit? Cannibalizing sales of their legacy products is a *good* thing for the company if you believe that those legacy products aren't going to sell after 2030 anyway.