Happily for $TSLA investors, @tim_cook missed the reincarnation of $AAPL when @elonmusk approached him while experiencing “production hell” with the Model3. An #EV is the ultimate mobile device.
#Tesla took a leaf from #Apple’s business plan when it designed its own #AI chip. Apple designed its own smartphone chip when #QCOM was catering to Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson, none of which understood that phones could and would become smart.
#Tesla dropped $NVDA, not because its GPUs missed the move toward #autonomous, but because the design cycle of $GM, $BMW, & #TM was 4-5 years longer than that for Tesla. Catering to large auto manufacturers, Nvidia was not moving fast enough for Tesla.
As first mover, Apple still generates the bulk of profits in the smartphone space globally. In our view, Tesla could do the same in the #autonomous space, certainly in the US and perhaps elsewhere as well.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Predictably, when @elonmusk announced at Battery Day last week that $TSLA would cut the price of a Model 3 to $25,000, several financial analysts panicked, downgrading the stock and/or cutting their price targets. In our view, traditional financial analysts have missed the mark.
Traditional auto analysts are analyzing a mature industry in which lower prices signal trouble: higher inventories and lower sales. Led by #Tesla, electric vehicles (EVs) are in their infancy, and BECAUSE of lower costs and prices, are moving into exponential growth trajectory.
According to Wright’s Law, for every cumulative doubling in the number of EVs produced, costs will drop by 28%, suggesting that EV prices will drop below those of gas powered vehicles on a like-for-like basis during the next two years.
Equity Dutch auctions were designed to democratize initial public offerings. In 2014, I founded @ARKInvest to help democratize investing in the innovation space. Despite best intentions, this week $U went public in a Dutch auction sponsored by $GS that we believe missed the mark.
Some of us who placed bids above the initial 40-44 indicated range, and then raised our bids above the revised 44-48 range, assuming that our bids would be filled, learned the hard way that we would receive nothing. Very few things surprise me in this business, but this one did.
Apparently, $GS introduced a Dutch auction twist that did not require it to inform those who had committed to a price above the “range” that the range had changed, unless the “indicated price range” had increased by 20%+. Excuse me?
Disruption innovation typically gains traction during tumultuous times: cheaper, faster, more convenient, more productive, more creative. Consumer and businesses are more willing to change behavior during setbacks.
This period is nothing like the GFC, but while tech budgets were slashed and consumers retrenched during 2008-09, delivered 20% revenue GROWTH and +14% during their worst quarters in that crisis.
Many industries and companies in the crosshairs of disruptive innovation - like autos, energy, banks, pharma, old tech - have attracted investors with high dividend yields in a yield-starved market and share repurchases financed with leverage. Those companies are in harm’s way.
The #invertedyieldcurve is the latest brick built into the wall of worry which is great for this bull market. While it has foreshadowed every recession in post WWII experience, during the 50 years ended in the Roaring 20’s, the yield curve was inverted more than 60% of the time.
The average inversion during the 50 years ended 1929 was 100 basis points, with the steepest occurring during periods of very strong growth. Short rates averaged 4.9%, and long rates 3.9%.
We have been expecting this flat to inverted yield curve for some time, thanks to good deflation and strong unit growth associated with disruptive innovation. The last time the economy experienced this kind of deflationary boom was in the 50 years which ended in the Roaring 20’s
The 50 years ending in the Roaring Twenties also spawned more transformational innovation than any other period except now: yield curves were inverted more than 50% of the time, with the steepest inversions during periods of most rapid growth thanks to “good deflation”.
How will banks respond to inverted yield curves that will crush their net interest margins, not to mention online services like the #CashApp by and #Venmo by nipping at their heels and #Marcus by with high interest-bearing accounts aiming for their heads?
Banks could activate the $3 trillion+ in fiat “kindling” that has accumulated in reserves at the Fed during the past 10 years. With an aggressive push into variable rate loans, they could arrest the decline in money velocity and raise the specter of inflation once again.
Negative responses to our open-source $TSLA model focus on changes we made to PP&E and R&D while maintaining our price targets. Those responses highlight the short term time horizon of analysts in the public markets and their unwillingness/inability to model exponential growth.
Based on #Tesla’s stunning results year-over-year in the first quarter relative to the $GM Bolt - the Model 3 sales up 6-fold from a base more than 50% higher than the Bolt’s, while the Bolt’s sales were flat - $TSLA should go full throttle in EV production.
The shift in our model from spending from R&D to PP&E during the next five years is based on the demand metrics for #Tesla’s EVs that are surfacing around the world Check out not only the US but also Norway which the bears wrote off after subsidies lapsed last year.