>Ford's market cap is $52B
>Tesla's market cap is $29B
>Ford sold 226,000 cars last month (May 2016)
>Tesla is projecting to sell 80,000 cars ALL YEAR (2016)
>accounting for car sales, Tesla is valued at roughly TWENTY TIMES Ford's current market cap
So why aren't you shorting TSLA into the trashcan, Veeky Forums?
Fuck off tripshit
Don't ever fucking reply to one of my threads again unless you're going to contribute, kid
>>pol
> "Hip" Stock
> "semi-tech" Stock
> 2000 bubble
> 201X Bubble?
Of course some hip, bullshit stock is going to be over valued. Ride the wave, don't give a fuck.
>one of the few capitalists bringing about actual innovation and change
>lmao scammer xD
There hasnt been a wave to ride for 3 years.
Who cares about Musk? You cant hide numbers under strawmen.
They are currently valued against peers as if they are selling TWENTY TIMES as many cars as they are in reality.
Musk himself has said that the stock is probably overvalued atm, I dont get why you are so butthurt.
Also, you are fucking stupid if you think sales alone determine the stockprice. Its called investing for a reason, because they are in a massive growth phase and developing tech that might worth a lot in the future.
Not to mention that they have 400 000 preorders for model III, shit is ridic
Stock prices embody the current value of all future earnings discounted back to the present day.
The simple statement here is that investors think
1. The present value of all Ford's future cash flows equals 52BB, and
2. The present value of all Tesla's future cash flows equals 29BB
You are free to disagree with either the projected cash flow nominal amount or the discount rate used to bring the numbers into a present value, in a nutshell that is the concept behind beating the market
I doubt you are smarter than the average investor though, remember like 70% of the day's volume is institutional investor movement and not just some people on Veeky Forums
I'm not butthurt, fanboy. I'm evaluating a stock on a business and duckposting board
The point is they are already valued as if their sales are 20 times higher than they currently are. Where is the room for growth there?
>400,000 cars is less than Ford or GM sells in a month and a half
I dont think any cashflow model is going to give accurate figures here, due to Musk's expansion strategy. Car sales figures are the only true numbers here. I don't buy the "everybody is smarter than me" meme, but go ahead and look at the chart The share price hasnt really budged since the initial hype, even though car sales have increased around 2.5 times from 2014 (35k) to the projections for 2016 (80 to 90k). Once again, where is the room for growth?
>thinking stocks are based on a car sold per year metric
thats not really how stocks work man
>I don't buy the "everybody is smarter than me" meme
>Used literally only 1 other comparative firm for his analysis
Know how I know you don't have a real job?
Also, fine if you don't want to talk about cash flows (which account for expansion and growth) but you didn't even touch on operating margin or their direct-sales channels which directly affect measuring a firm based on revenue and revenue growth.
You are the epitome of a Veeky Forums neckbeard m9, all talk and no actual sustenance. You've been raised by these blue boards to think you can just spew some articulate words and think that takes the place of actual analysis.
>I dont think any cashflow model is going to give accurate figures here, due to Musk's expansion strategy. Car sales figures are the only true numbers here.
>Because the firm is growing we can only use revenue to value the company
This is so inane I don't even know where to start. You justify a wildly ridiculous claim with only "because the firm is expanding" which applies to almost 90% of the firms in the world today
Guess how car companies create cash flows. Selling cars, idiot. Car sales figures are a widely accepted method of comparing car companies (I wonder why)
But we can talk about cash flows all you want. Start talking.
I've started the conversation with a sound observation on how Tesla stacks up against Ford . Do you have anything to add? Because your posts so far have zero substance. All empty criticism and no contribution
Oh god the butthurt is so strong in your post
>Guess how car companies create cash flows. Selling cars, idiot.
Thats how every other firm in every other industry creates cash flows, they sell products or services. Why then are all other firms valued based on cash flows but car companies should not be?
>All empty criticism and no contribution
See
>you didn't even touch on operating margin or their direct-sales channels which directly affect measuring a firm based on revenue and revenue growth.
What you want me to do your research for you? How can you make a thread on Tesla and not even know about their direct-sales method?
If you actually want learning, go figure out why the cash flows method is used to value public firms. Hint: It's used because cash flows are the only reason people invest.
After that, go research why people don't DCF it to value private firms (this lack of understanding on your part of valuing private vs public is probably why you think it's ok to use revenue to value Tesla)
>capitalist
>gets millions and millions in subsidies from the state
wow, such a great "capitalist" you have there senpai desu.
If you want to talk cash flows, discuss the cash flows. If you want to ramble on about strawmen, do so in a coin thread.
Kids like you are killing Veeky Forums. More interested in sounding smart than putting actual substance in your posts
what is the profit on the average ford sold and what is the profit on the average tesla sold?
most mass car manufacturers to my knowledge sell at a negative profit and they make profit on the service side.
sheer numbers are really not that interesting in this case imo.
Greater fool theory dumbass
Tesla doesnt profit yet. And, no car manufacturers do not sell at losses. You're thinking of dealers. They often make a minimal profit. For example, Ford makes $13k off each F-150. The dealership makes $70.
All the major automakers have systems and infrastructures set up that make it much easier to evaluate their business model. Tesla's business model is purposely confusing IMO. That's why I started looking at sales volumes, which speaks measures by themselves
Tesla is going to be making big big money soon but it won't be from the cars. The big next gen batteries they made and are continuing to develop for their cars are going to revolutionize the world's electrical grids as they start being sold and used as home batteries. Tesla is in the prime position to be in every home right next to the water heater.
>car companies arent valued by how many cars they sell
y do i even come here
Tesla is a dead man walking
>used as home batterie
>giant lithium panel that will burn with 2000 degrees if shorted
>in my home
no
That's the American definition of capitalist, rich people that need to be coddled by government or else abloobloobloo victim.
Another reason why Tesla stands to have their batteries in every home, the ridiculously tight safety standards they've had to face to produce for cars mean what you're describing is actually ridiculous for their batteries.
No, I'm pretty sure kxdpnG4Y fucking savagely rekt you m8. But feel free to damage control this post.
Obviously means that ford is undervalued and should be worth 1k PPS
Go check out Tesla's cash flows:
ca.finance.yahoo.com
If you can guess why DCF is a shit method here, I'll give a dick-flavored cookie.
The raw numbers alone don't always matter
I know it sounds crazy but its like that sometimes
I have seen companies with great cash flow, great assets and low debt stock price go nowhere while meme companies with loads of debt stock price skyrockets. The market isn't efficient and that is a good thing, it creates opportunity.
Look at Theranos, 4.5 billion dollars what scammed away all with the power of hype.
What a time to be alive
You're right short term, but in the long run things tend to correct. That's kind of the point. Meme companies skyrocket all the time, but eventually fall flat if they can't deliver numbers.
Negative profit? You mean a loss, you fucking retard?
I am shorting this shit. Been doing so since 225 and going to hold this until I cover at 180.00 (182 maybe). I still love the cars, but the stock will lose momentum as TSLA needs money, and dilution is inevitable.
Eventually, I want to be a long, but I'm really not sure if they'll be able to produce within the time frames that Musk gave on the Model 3 and giga factory. If you want to know why I'm not shorting this to less than 180? I think 20% further downside here is a lot more likely than seeing 140-170 imo. They'd have to really screw up with a major delay, but it's not unlikely with TSLA. We will see where this plan takes me.
>Stock prices
>More than tangentially tied to product moved