Thứ Ba, 22 tháng 11, 2016

Nonsense from John Petersen part 2

  • Aug 8, 2013
    mkjayakumar
    I bet the next article from JP is about how Tesla's Model S demand has peaked. He will sift through the production numbers and target for this year and such, and come up with a gem like he has always done. Another possibility is how battery supply constraints will send Tesla to bankruptcy.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    bonnie
  • Aug 9, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    What!? He didn't argue that demand will drop?

    So now we're left with:
    - the "lessees" of the Model S are all going to hand it in after 3 years so they can get a newer, shinier Model S, or a Gen 3 (which will diminish the resale value of the Model S).
    - the share value doesn't reflect current value.

    However, I'm really disappointed he didn't go further and do a projection of what will happen to the ratios and where the share value should be when Tesla releases it's Model-S-resale-value-killing $35k Gen 3.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    gregincal
    As I predicted he argues that the non-GAAP profit is meaningless, all that counts is the GAAP loss. In his view the lease accounting is really necessary because of course Tesla is going to go bankrupt buying back all those worthless cars in three years.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    EarlyAdopter
    Sigh. His new argument is that Tesla won't be able to resell turned in financed vehicles 3 years from now for 50% because of competition from new Gen 3 cars. So they should be on the hook for that entire 50% as debt.

    Right, just like Mercedes should value their S Class leases at turn-in in light of "competition" from sales of new C Classes but doesn't, so they must be in a "fairy tale" too.

    It baffles me that after his long string of being completely wrong on Tesla that SA still gives this guy a platform for misinforming. I feel truly sorry for all the people that have heeded his advice and lost millions in aggregate. SA is should be held accountable for that.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    dsm363
    He was asked if his advice was followed and someone invested $20,000 in Axion in 2011 and not Tesla, what the difference would be. He didn't answer but the delta is over $130,000.
    Considering this is his area of expertise, his answer 'the market is not rational' is kind of weak.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    vfx
    Elon said that the Genlll battery demand will exceed the entire laptop market. Will JP invest in those batteries? Not that bitter old man.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    ckessel
    I'm debating if it's worth investing in battery companies as a super long term (10-15 year) investment since clearly the growth in demand is going to skyrocket, but the big companies (Samsung, Panasonic) do way more than batteries so I'm not sure how much sense that makes.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    EnergyMax
    Yeah. This is way off the mark by John. I don't have enough resources to get a new Model S, but in 3 years, I'm seriously considering getting a used S rather than a new GenIII. The S will always be a fantastic vehicle. In fact, I think GenIII's primary competitor will be a used Model S. So John actually has it backwards.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    sullitf
    Do we know at this point that Samsung or Panasonic would be the supplier for the GenIII? It sounds like battery supply is still a big bottleneck, if there's a chance they would switch to a different supplier that investment could go out the window.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    sleepyhead
    You guys are overthinking it. Instead of investing in battery suppliers, invest in TSLA. If Tesla fails, then so will the battery suppliers. If Tesla succeeds than you should have simply invested in TSLA.

    If you want to make big returns then find a lithium miner or something like that that has the proven reserves and is only waiting for demand to catch up. That is too much work for me (and risk), so just stick to TSLA.


    As far as Peterson goes, he is an idiot, because he keeps focusing on the little picture with TSLA. It doesn't matter in the long run if they earned $0.20 non-GAAP or lost -$0.20 GAAP in Q2. The only two things that matter from Q2 is that gross margin on Autos improved by 8% after improving 9% in Q1; and that they guided towards additional 12% improvement by year end. Second, is that demand is strong and they are actually trying to stall out demand growth until capacity catches up. Once supply side issues get resolved, this stock is going to take off.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    ckessel
    I'm not thinking about Gen3, I'm thinking about the move to EVs in general of which Gen3 would be part of the genesis.

    As for investing in TSLA, I have, but putting every egg into one basket isn't generally wise. In a long term, Tesla could very well have a catastrophic failure while the EV movement overall has succeeded. There were numerous ICE manufacturers when ICE technology was replacing horses. It's clear ICE succeeded but most of those individual manufacturers died off. Investing in gasoline production would have been a win, investing in an individual company that made an ICE manufacturer might not have been.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    Citizen-T
    Agreed. Derivative play doesn't make sense here.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    PV4EV
    Hey John, I'm sure you take a sneaky peek on this forum from time to time, but I just wanted to say thanks for stoking up shorts as much as you did, we're all very grateful.

    If it wasn't for the Q1 TSLA squeeze caused by you and your disciples, Tesla might not have so easily raised $750m from them and repaid the DOE loan 9 yrs early.

    Maybe if you carry on, they will be forced to loose some more allowing another cap raise, and for Gen3 roll-out to be accelerated. Maybe the company can send you one in gratitude.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    brianman
    Wasn't someone on TMC (nick was it?) in personal contact with Mr. Petersen? I think it would make an interesting article for him to honestly and deeply answer the question: "What would it take for you, personally, to change your opinion of TSLA to the point of being a cheerleader rather than finding any excuse to be unhappy with it like an ex-wife?"

    If he can honestly answer that question in a useful way, then an interesting discussion could build from there. Otherwise, he's just publicly trolling for page hits and it's difficult to have any respect for him at all.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    Citizen-T
    If I remember correctly, I think he said 4 quarters of profit. I guess he means GAAP profit.
    �
  • Aug 9, 2013
    JRP3
    Since he sees EV's in general as wasteful and evil I doubt anything could make him take a positive look at TSLA, unless they start using the Axion PbC of course :biggrin:
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    NigelM
    Maybe JP can be a speaker at Teslive next year.....that would really be entertaining!
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    TSLAopt
    Ha! I agree, We should really invite him and offer to pay for his ticket....I'd chip in
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    EarlyAdopter
    By that point, with the way AXPW has been going, you'll probably need to offer to pay for his food, too.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    bonnie
    I think not. I sent him a friendly note yesterday, saying 'why not just take a test drive, you have nothing to lose, you'll understand where many of the comments are coming from'. Here is his reply:

    Must be an absolute joy to be around. My satisfaction doesn't come from cool stuff. But I'm not opposed to riding a roller coaster every day.

    And of course this explains why he is so negative on the company. The numbers don't add up and he doesn't factor in why people buy the product and will continue to buy the product.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    vfx
    Right. The emotional aspect of the Tesla's success has been the component has has baffled him from the very beginning.

    The sentiment statistic that John should embrace (and never will) is the one that says 25% of people who test drive a Tesla, buy one.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    SebastianR
    Yep, he states that several times in the comments on his post, too. I feel for him when he says:

    I think he simply does not understand what's going on and how Tesla is successful.

    By the way: the 25% "test-drive to purchase" rate is heavily contested in the comments on the post. People seem to have a very hard time grasping the magnitude of the Tesla phenomenon...
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    dmckinstry
    I've reinserted part of the quote Bonnie.

    Obviously, the expensive toys that he's owned are nowhere near as exciting to own as a Tesla.
    Although I expect that if he did own one, he'd dislike it on general principles.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    vfx
    JP
    Funny he knows it. Like Spock or Sheldon incarnate.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    Krugerrand
    Have you not seen his picture? Clearly he takes satisfaction from walking around with a pickle stuck up you-know-where.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    dsm363
    JP must be on to something. People never buy expensive things like $1,000 shoes, jackets....especially when $40 versions would serve the same purpose.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    SebastianR
    Yep. And I can feel his pain if these "irrationalities" are actually causing a lasting success eventually. I mean, I can totally see the frustration of watching "irrational crowds" buying "expensive toys" that no "rational" human being should ever buy and thus making the company producing expensive toys a success in terms of "business fundamentals". :)
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    gym7rjm
    What a bitter old man. I wonder at what point will he concede? When Tesla sells 1 million Gen 3 cars will he still be preaching market irrationality and doom for Tesla?
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    dsm363
    He will never concede. He can always say he will be right in 5 years and repeat that every year until he hopes he is right.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    JRP3
    Anyone who's heard his coma inducing speaking voice should not be surprised by his lack of enthusiasm for a Model S. After all a lead carbon battery seems cutting edge to him. One if his Axion followers, Rick Kremetz, did drive a Model S and managed to convince himself that it wasn't all that impressive. Confirmation bias in full force, I'm sure Petersen would be the same.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    brianman
    I would go further than that. He has an emotional disinterest in Tesla and it's coloring his view.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    Causalien
    Anyway, has anyone met John Petersen? Does he do his own writing or did he hire a ghost writer. It always seems weird to me that a Director would spend so much time writing and divulging so much company information. I am just looking at it through my own perspective. I never have free time and if I do, it's spent trying to convince people with decision power to do things my way.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    jeff_adams
    Nico says he has met him
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    hcsharp
    The funny part is that "the irrationality of the crowds" and "my ability to analyze the business fundamentals" are inseparable in many respects. You can't be any good at the latter without understanding the former. It's also a bit of a "everybody's marching out of step except me" mentality when he dismisses the popularity of the product as simply irrational behavior.

    When Q2 beat his predictions, he simply writes it off by suggesting that he was actually right, and that Tesla's accounting was just fraudulent. He'll never concede.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    AudubonB
    Excuse my ignorance, but other than this gentleman being a legend in his own mind, has he any credentials? Any background? Any accomplishments?
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    mkjayakumar
    To start with he lost a ton of money in Axion. That is an accomplishment.
    �
  • Aug 10, 2013
    clmason
    And an insatiable taste for crow. Turns out, it's a lot like chicken.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    Larken
    I have been reading many of JP's articles on SA since last year, and you know.... it really makes me wonder after seeing his arguments being picked apart one by one in the comment section, if JP is not just having a good laugh and/or has another agenda. Maybe he is long TSLA and just wants to help create a short squeeze. It just does not make sense how someone who is proven wrong in so many ways can be so persistent with his "thesis". After all, he is making a complete fool out of himself in the investing community and if I were him I would just shut up. Who knows though, far more stranger things have happened...
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    TSLAopt
    I agree, and could be trying to keep the price low for as long as possible so he (or whatever institution is paying him to write those articles more likely) can keep accumulating shares for as low of a price as possible before an eventual short squeeze.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    pGo
    A simple request: can we close this thread now?
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    imherkimer
    Why should this thread be closed? As long as J. Petersen keeps spouting indefensible nonsense, there is adequate reason to debate and rebut said nonsense. When he stops the thread will stop, right?
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    JRP3
    Yeah, why stop the fun? :biggrin:
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    gg_got_a_tesla
    Yeah, I'd actually invite him to post over here on TMC :)
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    jerry33
    The main problem is that if threads such as this one cause more people to click on his site, that is just paying him to write more nonsense.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    bonnie
    I see this thread as a place to keep all the conversation about JP in one place, rather than popping up in different threads. I hate seeing him get more clicks, too ... but little guy needs the money. His investments aren't doing so well.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    blakegallagher
    the penny a click truly is worth seeing the FUD he is spouting .... while his FUD use to actually be damaging to company now I selfishly love it. I do feel bad for those that short based on his advice but that makes me more money .... I know .. .not the best way of thinking but hard not to enjoy his post at this point ....
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    Julian Cox
    Dreams are wonderful and should be encouraged whenever possible. Businesses, on the other hand, are valued on the basis of accomplishment rather than aspiration and while Tesla has accomplished a lot, it's not even close to meriting the current market value of its stock.

    Whenever management of a company has to fluff up their performance by resorting to the sophistry of reporting corporate borrowings as corporate revenues you know the problems run deep.

    Tesla's non-GAAP numbers are a fairy tale that butchers generally accepted accounting principles and several fundamental tenets of accounting theory.
    Aug 10 04:47 AM | 2 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Libel. The company is clearly adhering to a Tech Adoption Curve model and justifies its stock price on that basis. Reporting of results confirms it. Correctly removing the pure technicality of lease accounting from management accounts and NON-GAAP numbers is absolutely correct. It is financially irrelevant. If anything converting a residual guarantee to the recovery of a half-price Model S is a profit event in combination with selling a new car and reselling the old one with value added in the forms of factory refurbishment and upgrades.


    The risks investors assume away as trivial are usually the ones that come back to bite them.
    Aug 10 04:43 AM | 2 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Lease accounting is not assumed away, it can be demonstrated to be meaningless.


    Tesla delivered more cars in Q2 than they did in Q1.

    The reason their revenues fell by over 20% is that a big chunk of those sales were under the finance program where Tesla and Musk effectively co-signed the customer's note and promised to assume all the back-end risk on the contract.

    When a manufacturer leases a product instead of selling it GAAP requires the manufacturer to recognize revenue as it's received from the customer. Tesla's fairly tale accounting compressed all future customer revenue and about $75 million of their borrowings into the current period and called them both non-GAAP revenue.
    Aug 10 04:39 AM | 3 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    This is simply not true. The customer is entirely responsible for his or her obligations to Well Fargo and US Bank without reference to Tesla, unless it be in a short window of 3 months mid contract.

    The vehicle is entirely sold in cash to the customer in full and final, and the banks thank Tesla for the referral to them as a finance customer by paying Tesla a finance referral fee. Tesla is not owed a penny by the customer nor does it owe a penny to the banks unless it gets an object of equal or greater value in return for it during a 3 month window. If the object is devalued in any way then the liability for that rests with the customer and his insurers. The statements above are a serious (malicious) misrepresentation of the facts.


    I think you missed the point.

    I've never had a short position in Tesla or any other company.

    This article is all about Teslas's cynical willingness to ignore centuries old accounting standards to make their quarterly numbers look better for naive stockholders who seem willing to accept the sophistry that lease accounting is an optional formality rather than a fundamental requirement. Fairy tale accounting is a very bad thing in a public company, particularly in a public company that's as grossly overvalued as Tesla.
    Aug 10 04:24 AM | 19 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    It is an entirely appropriate representation of management data that matters and investment data that relates to cash flow. It is impossible to discern an impact of lease accounting using DCF modelling for example, precisely because it is irrelevant. Repeatedly stating otherwise is to mislead.


    Their warranty provisions are generally in line with the major automakers, which may well become an issue. Unfortunately it's a minor issue in a company that has many larger and far more interesting fundamental problems.
    Aug 9 09:00 PM | 4 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Libel. No such issues exist.


    It's pretty obvious that many commenters disagree with my opinion of the likely resale value of a 2013 Model S three years from now.

    I have no interest in debating who's opinion is right or wrong because the resale market won't give a damn what we say in the comment section to this article.

    Investing is all about weighing potential gains against potential risks and as long as investors have enough information to make up their own minds, my opinion doesn't matter.
    Aug 9 06:06 PM | 2 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Speculating damage to the business as a result of honouring the resale guarantee is just that. The only thing that could possibly harm the business in this case is that the value of the asset in 3 years is substantially below the residual guarantee, and that a significant quantity of customers will chose to exercise that option. If the value is higher and/or the conversion rate is negligible then the issue is entirely irrelevant. Speculating otherwise with assertion that damage is likely, is dishonest.


    Successful investing requires an honest and skeptical look at all the facts, whether we like them or not. I offer my observations of fact and one man's opinion of what those facts should mean. While I've never been any good at predicting when an inherently irrational market will wake up and smell the coffee, I'm batting a thousand when it comes to identifying stocks that are irrationally over-valued.
    Aug 9 05:40 PM | 4 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Irrelevant, and contradictory to an appalling track record (dump Tesla, buy Exide and Axion is not a source of credibility), whilst arguing with delusion of grandeur against folk with genuine understanding and an exemplary track record: http://www.liionica.com/Julian_Cox_R...A_Analysis.jpg


    Axion's market is irrationally pessimistic to the same extent that Tesla's is irrationally optimistic. In time both securities will find their true value and the long suffering Axion longs will be rejoicing while obnoxiously arrogant Tesla longs are licking their wounds.

    In the short term markets act like voting machines and Tesla clearly has voter appeal for an information light audience. In the long run markets act like weighing machines and Axion will so just fine.

    The essence of successful investing is buying stocks when they're obscenely under-valued and selling them when they become obscenely over-valued. You might want to give it a try ;-)
    Aug 9 05:35 PM | 3 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    This is an opinion that is not aided by the authors track record at all having ridden over valued AXPW from 40 to 14 cents, a loss almost as significant at TSLA gains in the same duration.


    Many thanks for the kind words. I don't generally expect many when I write about Tesla.
    Aug 10 11:23 AM | 3 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    And never learn.


    I take a more cynical view of the pricing changes. Their guarantee is 50% of the base price plus 43% of options. So cutting the base price and allocating more to options reduces their exposure on the residual value guarantee. It's not much on a per car basis, but when you start thinking in terms of 1,500 to 2,500 financed cars per quarter every little bit counts.
    Aug 10 11:23 AM | 2 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    It is common sense to do what it takes to satisfy customers and banks to make finance available while retaining the ability to generate shareholder value from the residual transaction if any customer is interested during the window of opportunity to use it.


    Tesla's Non-GAAP Fairy Tale [View article]
    I don't disagree that supply constraints will change prices and give rise to substitutions where possible. I will observe, however, that cost increases from supply constraints flow through the entire value chain and end up being reflected in the final cost to the consumer.

    The dynamic you're arguing is antithetical to popular urban legend respecting plummeting battery cost and skyrocketing performance.

    I don't care what you choose to believe but you should make sure your beliefs are logically consistent.
    Aug 10 11:20 AM | 5 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    The kind of desperate nonsense that is not worth dignifying with a response.

    Tesla�s pricing is purely demand-lead. As is the pricing for the Volt and Leaf, the latter being discounted past the point of losses because unlike Tesla, the premise for their existence is flawed.


    Non-GAAP adjustments have historically been used to eliminate the impact of non-cash expenses like stock options and depreciation.

    They have never before been used to classify corporate borrowings as corporate revenue. Fairy tale is the kindest word I can imagine to describe my view. When the stock price tanks and investors who bought at $150 based on fairy tale numbers file a lawsuit, the class action lawyers will use far less polite terms.
    Aug 10 11:15 AM | 6 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Libel. Tesla is not a borrower in connection to Tesla Finance, it is merely a second in line guarantor of a residual value that is in the first instance guaranteed by the customer to the bank. Nor is there any cause for TSLA to tank because it is progressing without mis-step along an exponential Tech Adoption Curve.


    The GAAP numbers were most certainly in the Form 10-Q Tesla filed with the SEC. Oddly enough, the fairy tale non-GAAP numbers were not in that report. I guess the non-GAAP fairy tale is only good enough for press releases directed at the hopelessly naive.
    Aug 10 11:06 AM | 6 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    You have to admire it, why go looking for trouble with the IRS. If the GAAP lease accounting rules are so poorly written that it is not possible to exclude businesses that neither lend assets nor money, then why not take the tax loophole that is forced upon you.


    I assume nothing. Tesla is loudly trumpeting their planned Gen3 car that will sell in six digit annual volumes at a price in the $35,000 range with only minor sacrifices in size, range and appointments.

    The issue on the table is what will the resale value of a 2013 Model S be in 2016 if EV technology advances quickly enough to make the Gen3 a reality? If it happens the 2016 Model S will be awesome, the Gen3 will be semi-awesome and the 2013 Model S will be oh so yesterday.

    I don't care what you choose to believe, but make sure your beliefs are logically consistent.
    Aug 10 11:04 AM | 4 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    The awesome advances will be in peripherals (such as the battery) that are just as applicable to the 2013 Model S as it is to the 2016 Model S. It�s the same car, suggesting otherwise is misleading past to point of dishonesty.


    The last time I checked the guarantee it was 50% of base plus 43% of options. The guarantee runs to both the purchaser and the bank that's providing the financing and it's backed up by both Tesla as an entity and Mr. Musk individually.

    When Tesla properly uses lease accounting it recognizes a little better than 50% of the vehicle price spread over 36 months. The rest of the revenue will be realized when Tesla sells the used car.

    The non-GAAP report moved all 36 months of customer revenue into the current quarter and threw in the balance Tesla hopes to receive in three years when it sells the used car and repays the lenders.

    Under the circumstances I think "Fairy Tale" is a generous description.
    Aug 10 06:55 PM | 0 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Of course. Tesla receives all of the revenue immediately. One can speculate whether or not anyone will sell Tesla a car at 36 months, if they do and then Tesla sells it on at par � then at all times Tesla had all the money including the profits on it on day 1, and the turn around of the residual deal is of no value or relevance. The only likely relevance is that Tesla will actually turn a profit on the residual deals and also sell a lot of new cars at the same time.


    Many thanks for the kind words. They're few and far between when I write articles like this one that tell the unvarnished truth.
    Aug 10 06:49 PM | 2 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Unadulterated horse **** more like.


    • Axion Power Concentrator 259: August 10: Two Axion Forbes Articles By Tom Konrad; John Petersen On The PIPE Mechanics And Incentives [View instapost]
    And a steamy afternoon on the Florida gulf coast.
    Aug 10 05:48 PM | 1 Like [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Irrelevant.


    At June 30th Apple had $199.9 billion in assets, $76.5 billion in liabilities and $123.4 billion in equity. Their market cap was $412.9 billion.

    To calculate BS to Book you subtract equity from market cap ($412.9-$123.4) which gives you a blue sky value of $289.5 billion. When you divide blue sky by stockholders equity, you get a BS to Book of 2.34.

    I sure hope this calculation matches the one I did earlier.

    EDIT: The two numbers are off by a couple tenths of a point but it's not a big enough difference to make me eager to run down the error.
    Aug 10 05:43 PM | 1 Like [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Put the intellectual property and brand value on the books and the situation changes rather dramatically. A company like this runs profitably and lean on its core cash generation cycle, while spending hard on things that add value instead of piles of inventory. That is the whole idea.


    A few paragraphs up I told you:

    "I don't know the intricacies of accounting between automakers, dealers and financiers, but unless other automakers are effectively signing the customer's note as a co-maker where the customer is responsible for paying the first three years and the automaker is responsible for paying the balance and selling the used car, then the issue doesn't exist for them."

    In my response to Don I was talking about manufacturers of durable goods as a class, not automakers in particular. If an automaker is doing what Tesla is doing then they're using lease accounting to report their results.

    What nobody else on the planet is doing is presenting non-GAAP numbers that assume away essential accounting principles, compress future lease revenues into the current period and magically convert corporate borrowings into revenue.
    Aug 10 04:53 PM | 2 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    This is a poor performance even as a bean counter. If one cannot understand that the money is in the bank on day 1 and that the back end of the lease account can be recycled for an irrelevant zero-sum-gain (at worst most likely), then one has truly missed the point.


    Stock prices are like pendulums that swing slowly back and forth between under-valued and over-valued. In very rare cases the swings are so massive that they're fairly classified as irrational bordering on psychotic. Tesla is at that borderline between irrational and psychotic over-valuation. Axioin is at that borderline between irrational and psychotic under-valuation. In the fullness of time Tesla's price will collapse to an objective fair value and Axion's will rocket to an objective fair value.

    In the interim I'll have to continue to endure digressions from fanboys who refuse to address the subject matter of this article; Tesla's Fairy Tale non-GAAP earnings.
    Aug 10 04:46 PM | 2 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Petersen has such a poor track record of forecasting the behaviour of stocks that he should be constrained from commenting on the subject. The question of non-GAAP earnings is answered.


    My all time high is over 1,000 comments so I know that it can happen. Since I haven't worked with any mining clients for over 20 years I'd be real reluctant to wade into the morass of their accounting.
    Aug 10 04:40 PM | 3 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    Irrelevant.


    Tesla's business model falls squarely within the requirements of the leasing rules which recognize that the customer has responsibility for the first three years of payments and the manufacturer has responsibility for the balance of the loan and disposing of the collateral. It's nothing new. Manufacturers have done it for years. The only thing different about Tesla is the fiction that it can ignore the requirements of lease accounting and treat everything as a sale.

    The SEC doesn't throw flags like a football referee. They take their time to read and ponder before acting. Unless they're completely brain dead, this will be a topic of conversation in the office of the SEC's Chief Accountant.
    Aug 10 03:36 PM | 2 Likes [?IMG]|Report Abuse |Link to Comment

    The obvious point is that the Sale for cash is factual and the uptake on the residual is in the realms of pure speculation.

    To expand on this for the avoidance of all doubt:

    The obvious point is that the Sale for cash is factual, Tesla is never the recipient of any lending, the debtor is the vehicle customer and the customer is the owner of the security on which the bank has a lien. Not Tesla (you cannot look through the customer or double count this). Secondly uptake on the residual is in the realms of pure speculation. At the limit it is possible that nobody sells a vehicle back to Tesla. In addition to these obvious points, the financial relevance of the residual is more than likely to be nil to positive in Tesla�s favor. It is therefore irresponsible to promote it as fact that damage will result when that is not true.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    Julian Cox
    " SA FAN,

    " To cite a GAAP liability without full disclosure of the speculative nature of that having any relevance in terms of percentage of execution and without full disclosure of the fact that in each instance there is an equal and opposite asset (if not a profit to be made) is fundamentally misleading. "

    PLease expand on what you are trying to say here. The asset is the cash received, offset by a liability for cash received which may have to be paid back to the lessee. Please expand on what you are saying. At this point, I'm not getting what's "fundamentally misleading". "


    Someone just asked this question on JP's thread and I think it gets to the heart of the confusion JP is trying to create.


    1. Tesla sells car for 100% cash and the customer owns the car 100% (with a lien to the bank).

    2. Tesla set's up a contingent liability for circa 50%.

    3. Regards "may have to be paid back to the lessee" - Yes, but of course contingent upon the customer giving the Asset of the 3 year old car that he owns to Tesla.

    4. Unlike a normal lease, it is not a case of Tesla owning the car until it is paid in full. As correctly identified in Non-GAAP, the car is sold to the customer on day one at full whack.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    tslafan123
    Julian, SA FAN lost write access on SA.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    Julian Cox

    Yup, like that wasn't going to happen. Please note I did not put him up to it and I did try to warn him. Having said that I am sure he knew what he was doing - and I salute him for it.

    Hopefully they will switch him back on in a week if that is what he wants.

    I find it absolutely incredible that Seeking Alpha would risk its reputation supporting Petersen to the extent of banning folk who correct him.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    Julian Cox


    BTW this is the check mate:


    NON-GAAP purchase = Actual auditable behavior of a customer.
    GAAP repurchase = Hypothetical behavior of a customer three years in the future (faced with a 3 month window of opportunity half way through a 72 month lease to sell to the market's lowest bidder).

    NB: "I assume nothing about the future": Really? Then why the attempt to persuade others to do so.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    sub
    I find the comment sections on Petersons SA articles to be highly entertaining. At this point, he has nothing more to lose so why would he admit he was wrong? Better to stick to his opinion and hope one day a miracle happens and he is proven even slightly correct so he can gloat.
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    mkjayakumar
    Unfortunately JP is going to have the last word, because he is having a monologue.

    At this time I am fairly convinced that he himself is sure that no one takes his views seriously and all the page hits and hundreds of comments are the prime motivation for him to churn out the gibberish month after month. Seeking Alpha is happy as long as they get the people to spend time on their forums and get their platform a more
    wider reach. In short JP is just trolling and baiting by making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Remember the nonsense he wrote in Q4 on how the $40k Sig deposits are double counted and the SEC is going to come heavily on them and the house of cards is going to fall !!
    �
  • Aug 11, 2013
    Discoducky
  • Aug 11, 2013
    electrictorque
    He keeps supporting AXION power. Looks like as per his Linkedln page, he used to work for AXION and may have some stock and it tanked.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    dsm363
    Even comments simply saying JP picked the wrong stock and gave bad advice are considered a violation of the policy there and get deleted.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    Julian Cox
    That is actually the whole point. He got a large holding in Axion Power when he worked there and hung on to it as it declined while heavily promoting that others should consider it a buying opportunity. Particularly egregious is the 3 year (maybe more) use of the BMW name as a prospective large customer for the technology with a deal perpetually "almost in the bag".

    Axion is a State-Grant funded play to develop PBC technology for use in automotive, it is effectively a lead acid battery technology with enhanced fast charging capability, the neat trick is that carbon plates can be substituted on a lead acid battery manufacturing line effectively not requiring a novel manufacturing process. The downsides are low energy density, self-discharge and not particularly good cost per KWh. Of these, self discharge makes it unsuitable for anything that needs to work after a user's discretionary period of rest. For example a car. The competitor to PBC is Lithium Ion and anything that makes Lithium Ion look like a better choice for automotive than PBC. It is a typical case of asking the wrong question, instead of asking what is the best way to power an EV, PBC is a solution in search of a problem it can solve. There may be other examples but to my knowledge the Laser is a pretty unique example of a technological solution that went on to find a market for problems it could solve in that order.

    That brings us to Tesla. Tesla did ask the right question, they looked at supercaps, supercap LiIon combinations, prismatics (soft pouch cells) and round-cells and they chose wisely in the form of first generation Lithium Cobalt 18650s for the Roadster and second generation NCA 18650s for the Model S, the latter offering a stunning combination of price, power density, energy density, cycle life and manufacturing capacity. The 18650 is a form factor that lends itself to automation in production as well as pack assembly and is much easier than prismatic cells to incorporate into a point-source fire-suppression matrix because each cell has a physical structure that does not require more than two points of mechanical support within the pack assembly. Owing to the standardization of 18650 assembly lines, there is supply chain flexibility and price competition in the market and process automation lends itself to consistency of product properties and quality. Cost efficiencies are gained in prismatic cells towards the limits of cell size before yield-loss and variability become the constraining factor. It is also the case that ever-present manufacturing yield-pressure in the production of prismatics lends itself to an unhealthy dynamic between the manufacturer's production-line management and outbound QA pushing for the geographically distant customer to accept product that did not quite meet the intended specification and inbound QC requiring the manufacturer to accept the expense of yield-loss for faulty batches as well as liability for business delays and costs associated with customers waiting for goods built with cells that should have been perfect but were found not to be. The end result is a never-ending management task to resist supply chain pressure to pass the risk of reject-discovery on to the customer where reputation stands to be lost, not of the cell manufacturer but the EV producer. Six-Sigma methodology is served by automated cell production and low cost of discrete rejects, not large cells with low internal prevalence of problems with high degrees of economic pressure to pass them to the end user.

    I digress. Tesla is a demonstration that Lithium Ion soundly trumps PBC in a commercial EV setting. That is what the whole JP fuss is all about. I think the best one can hope for is that AXPW actually folds and the catalyst for that is most probably BMW publicly stamping out the abuse of their company and brand name for luring investors into loss making investments in AXPW stock, something I am confident John Petersen does not have BMW's blessing to do.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    Dan5
    Julian,
    I think you forgot something... AXPW also has competition with lead-carbon batteries too.

    Have you ever heard for Firefly energy?

    http://fireflyenergy.com/

    Also AXPW went into PIPE funding and JP tried to spin it like it's a good thing. I would not consider a 10% chance of a death spiral a good thing.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    clmason
    What goes around comes around, Peterson is accruing quite a load of bad karma if you ask me. If he is not careful with his actions, a boat load of Teslanaires may buy up controlling interest in his coveted AXPW for pennies and liquidate the company just for the fun of it. Stranger things have happened.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    JRP3
    Firefly looked promising and had a lot of hype a few years ago but they never seemed to make it and I guess the batteries did not deliver as promised.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    Dan5
    Firefly is still around- resurrected by some investor after it filed for bankruptcy.

    Yeah, i have a really funny idea. When axpw tanks completely, we should all throw in 100 buy the company, badge the batteries with a "lotus" with a T emblem on it running over the axpw logo. I'd pay $100 just to see the look on JP's face or just buy the facility and make it a Tesla owners club hangout.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    jerry33
    Yup. Another company that didn't learn a thing from the tire industry. This is basically the battery equivalent of the bias-belted tire. Fail.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    CapitalistOppressor
    LOL. This +100000
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    vfx
    For the record the idea of using small lithium cells as from Allen Cocconi at AC Propulsion. Martin Eberhard funded the first prototype the T-Zero and Elon drove it.
    �
  • Aug 12, 2013
    Julian Cox


    I guess he liked it.

    Truth is I also liked the AC Propulsion + lotus combination (at the same time).

    Elon was in the right place with the right abilities, motives and resources at the right time.

    The idea of Tesla (all of it) is to my mind simply the product of not being confused.
    �
  • Aug 13, 2013
    LST


    In regards to JP an interesting thought, but hey, we don't need that, and then, there must be some jobs in the play no ?
    �
  • Aug 21, 2013
    Julian Cox
    This has to take the biscuit:

    Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA): Tesla's Non-GAAP Fairy Tale - Seeking Alpha

    small_pic.png Bryce_in_TX Comments (1243)


    CPAs are required to obtain so many continuing professional education credits (CPE) a year to maintain their certificate. For the state of Texas it is a minimum of 20 CPEs a year, with at least 120 every 3 years. At least 50% of those credits must be obtained from technical courses pertaining to accounting, tax, auditing or management advisory services.

    http://bit.ly/14zr4Ga

    http://bit.ly/14zr3lB


    small_pic.png John Petersen Comments (23883)



    [?IMG] Since I do not practice accounting I do not comply with the CPE requirements to keep my license current. It's one of those things that was more important to earn than maintain. 20 Aug, 05:08 PMReply


    ___



    Mr Petersen's concerns with "fairytale" Non-GAAP reporting come down to the notion that GAAP is playing strictly by the rules and how dare Tesla promote the obvious fact that they know what they are doing with Non-GAAP to make a fair representation of the numbers that matter in management accounting terms.


    Strictly speaking under GAAP rules, it would appear to be a valid question of Mr Petersen whether he is not in fact throwing stones from the standpoint of a "fairytale CPA".
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    GlennAlanBerry
  • Aug 26, 2013
    Jonathan Hewitt
    I'm wondering if we can just let this guy disappear into the ether? Or is it better to keep tabs on him for humor sake? He was wrong before, is wrong now, and will forever be wrong (unlike a broken clock ;) ).
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    NigelM
  • Aug 26, 2013
    Citizen-T
    Let us not get complacent. We need to understand the bear argument as well (if not better) than the bull argument.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    ElSupreme
    Well the automobile industry is surely not going to be able to grow with only a few places selling fuel. And when consumers are more willing to pay a nickel more, for use while heating.

    If there is a market, and there is profit to be made someone is going to make that giga-factory! Or drill for that oil. Or whatever.

    Short/Mid term Tesla may battery cell limited. But not long term. Someone will make those battery cells.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    MikeC
  • Aug 26, 2013
    Alpha
    In my humble opinion, Tesla should strike again. Take advantage of this huge over valuation to issue a massive secondary offering in order to fund the construction of the largest battery plant every conceived. It would be massive, incredible and awesome.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    NigelM
    You're probably right and I wouldn't bet against it; but it is a risk significant enough that even Elon has talked about it. That said, JP calling it a "crushing" problem is kinda his usual silliness.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Please don't. As frustrating as it might be we should respect SA/JP's copyright the same way we expect ours to be respected.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    theganjaguru
    Is it just me, or is Seeking Alpha overly censor reader comments? I replied to Mr Petersen's article on battery constraints only to have it deleted for a "personal attack"

    below is my SA comment on the article: Is this really a personal attack?

    Nonsense Mr. Petersen. More facts and less opinion would make for a more useful analysis. You make it appear as though battery tech is stagnant and thus lithium ion is the be all and end-all to power EV's. The fact is that battery tech is constantly improving. Not on par with Moore's law. But still improving quite a bit. Graphene and Zinc-Air are two categories you should research. I don't understand why you'd assume that Tesla's mass market vehicle would use the same battery chemistry. Nor would I expect battery chemistry to be the same in 2017. Even if battery tech remained the same, what about the massive lithium deposits in CA? Thus, your article is a moot point at best.

    When a new disruptive product enters the market place there is usually a need to build new factories to meet demand, is there not? And why do you have such a defeatist mentality towards addressing climate change? By your standards nothing can be done so we have to continue to subsidize big oil and legitimize all the war and instability that goes along with it?! No thanks. Change has to start somewhere.

    BTW, you do realize that panasonic lost all that money in the middle of one of the greatest economic downturns in history. It was due to a reckless banking sector and not because people didn't need batteries.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    techmaven
    I am actually cheering for Mr. Petersen in this article, but not for the reasons he might think. It is time to start thinking about lithium ion battery recycling and production, including possibly production in the U.S.

    For Mr. Musk's dream of large scale EV production, we are talking about consuming more lithium ion batteries than the entire industry currently produces each year. Right now, the entire industry is producing enough cells, if they were all 18650's of the right chemistry, for roughly 650,000 Model S's. Obviously Panasonic is not in a position to produce 650,000 Model S's worth of batteries for Tesla today.

    According to this press release:

    Panasonic Presents First Electric Vehicle Battery to Tesla | Press Releases | Tesla Motors

    Tesla is getting cells from Panasonic's Suminoe plant which can produce 300 million cells a year in phase 1. That's roughly 42,500 Model S's worth a year.

    According to this press release:

    Panasonic Enters into Supply Agreement with Tesla Motors to Supply Automotive-Grade Battery Cells | Press Releases | Tesla Motors

    Panasonic agreed to provide over 80,000 vehicle's worth of batteries over 4 years (2012-2015). Now, Panasonic just announced that they will invest $204 million by March 2014 to increase battery production, including adding a line in Osaka and firing up an idled line. That probably means that Panasonic is seeing that their 80,000 vehicle's worth is going to be used up sooner rather than later. I presume adding a line is increasing the capacity beyond the 300 million cells per year for phase 1.

    Panasonic had decided to expand their Suzhou, China plant and not expand their Osaka plant in 2011: Panasonic Scraps Battery Plant Expansion - WSJ.com

    Obviously Tesla has changed that calculus. Interesting that they wanted to invest $1.31 billion in two phases and only 1 was completed. Now they are only putting in $204 million into the Osaka plant which probably means they are still not building out to total phase 2 capacity. It makes sense to not overbuild capacity, as Tesla is unlikely to reach hundreds of thousands of cars level of annual production for some time yet.

    What is interesting is that Panasonic invested $30 million into Tesla at $21.15/share or roughly 1.42 million shares. At $160, they are worth $227 million dollars, or a gain of $197 million. That's pretty close to the amount Panasonic is investing into the Suminoe Osaka plant. Of course, no idea when and if Panasonic divested of those shares. Would hate to have been Panasonic's portfolio manager and to have sold out at $35.

    Panasonic and Tesla may very well want to invest into a plant in the U.S. There are lithium deposits in the U.S. that can be utilized for that plant. Further, it hasn't been economically feasible to recycle lithium ion batteries so far. Maybe this will change that thinking and we will stop throwing our old lithium-ion batteries into the landfill.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    gregincal
    Of course he sprinkles in a lot of nonsense and off the point doom and gloom, but his main point that Tesla is currently getting a great deal on batteries because they are taking advantage of oversupply, and if they get to the point where they need more factories to be built they may need to pay more might have some validity. Of course getting to that point implies that Tesla is a big success.

    This is my favorite quote of the article:

    "Tesla's stock has been a ton of fun for investors over the last three years as it rocketed from an IPO price of $17 in June of 2010 to a current price in the $170 range. Now the story is starting to unravel as analysts, bloggers and the financial media start pulling loose threads in the emperor s new clothes that are invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent."

    Now the story is starting to unravel??? Yes, because just now we are starting to see articles like this questioning Tesla's valuation. It's going to unravel any second now. No wait, any second ... now. No wait another second, unraveling is about to begin. Waaiiiit, now. Oh, damn, hold on.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    He's been going on about supply constraints for ages. Lithium's not a problem, cobalt is really the big one, right? As is often the case, of course, the supply constraint issue conveniently ignores the fact that relative abundance breeds complacency, so you should naturally expect

    I'd also question the battery oversupply issue, Cells are research-intensive so while they've been able to use free capacity, the fact is that Tesla's volume will be giving rapid amortization. It's also heavily automated, so adding lines shouldn't be a big deal. As CapOp has noted, Chinese knock-offs are available at relatively low prices, so the fundamentals can't be all that excessive.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    teslasguy
    I think Elon is dumb like a fox. He openly talked about the future strain on growth for Tesla as being the need for a lot more battery factories. Why do you think he's spreading that word? Seems to me a smart move to whip up the potential manufacturers interest in building more capacity. And also has the potential benefit of lowering costs due to additional competition.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    JRP3
    It's just classic Petersen, grasping at any straw, while TSLA hits another ATH. Cell supply won't be an issue until after G3/E hits high volume production which means 2018 at the soonest. Meanwhile cell production capacity is already being increased. Also worth mentioning that contrary to what he claims you shouldn't need "significant refurbishing" to use different chemistries:
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    haid
    Q: What is a doomsayer to do after the hour of prophecy passes uneventfully?
    A: Make another prediction.

    Or in JP's case, about 6 more.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    JRP3
    It's not just you. SA seems to be quite random as to what is deleted and what is allowed, though they also do seem to be extra protective of Petersen. He is the page click meister after all.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    vfx
    I wait waiting for this one to be pointed out. For the hundreds of vocal Tesla doubters that jump all over this stated battery shortage, there are a handful of quiet people who see opportunity.
    �
  • Aug 26, 2013
    Robert.Boston
    Just for the record:

    AXPW is down 53% YTD, with the company now at $16m market cap
    TSLA is up 385% TYD, with the company now at $20,000m market cap

    If Petersen is so wise, why has the foolish company quadrupled in value while his has halved? And why is TSLA now 1000x more valued than AXPW?

    Honestly, I've put a small pile of chips on AXPW because I think they've got an interesting opportunity to save money for large rig operators. But Petersen really should be devoting more of his intellectual focus to Axion rather than sniping at Tesla.
    �
  • Aug 27, 2013
    JRP3
    His standard canned response is that AXPW is as irrationally valued on the downside as TSLA is valued on the upside.
    �
  • Aug 27, 2013
    ggr
    That's enough to make it, technically, a personal attack. Also 2nd sentence. (Note: I agree with you! But you have to be careful how you phrase it.)
    �
  • Sep 1, 2013
    Curt Renz
  • Sep 1, 2013
    stopcrazypp
    Basically he's saying Tesla would certainly default on the Leverage Ratio in Q4 2013 if they didn't repay the loan because of the Tesla Model S loan program's impact on their liabilities. But then as he pointed out, Tesla was able to renegotiate a delay two separate times, so why would Tesla not just renegotiate a third time? The only way Tesla would default for sure even after renegotiation is if they never hit their target profit.
    �
  • Sep 1, 2013
    lorih
    He also forgot to point out that the media kept hitting hard on the "Tesla would be out of business if weren't for US subsidies, and loans" story. In fact, he mentions timing 8 days after conference call. Well, I'm not chronologically challenged, and I remember that shortly before Elon announced he was going to raise funds with secondary offering, Palin went crazy on social media about Tesla and Obama government support.

    If you ask me, the finance round had more to do with Elon and Tesla being tired of always having to correctly point out that the loan wasn't a government bailout like GM and other car dealers got, but a DOE loan initiated during Bush administration.

    During secondary offering, Elon raised funds to expand infrastructure, got rid of some of these ignorant complaints in the media, purchased more shares himself to insure he kept primary control of Tesla, and freed himself from government oversight on how to grow and manage his business. If you ask me, paying off the DOE loan early was among the first of a long series of positive and well timed media strikes. From May on, we had some kind of positive announcement in the Media about every 3 weeks which is what I believe is responsible for the large Market Cap it has today.
    �
  • Sep 1, 2013
    JRP3
    My new favorite quote from Mr. P :biggrin:
    �
  • Sep 2, 2013
    Dan5
    Heres why I think he his so anti-Tesla

    If Tesla succeeds, it kicks the legs out from under axion

    Here's why

    1. The other OEMs will follow Tesla's suite and put out EVs, lowering the market for microhybrids

    2. The "backup" power, such as their powercube is rendered useless due to aftermarket being flooded with 15-20 yr old Model S batteeies

    3. The trucking industry gets involved with hybrids, again, huge, 1000 lb model S used battery is used instead of new lead carbon.

    There is absolutely no way out for Axion if Tesla succeeds.

    I liken Axion to those companies that made advances in CRT screens circa 2000. Yes, you get a few year run, but its battle that has been lost.
    �
  • Sep 2, 2013
    stopcrazypp
    Fact is no one cares about micro-hybrids, and with Tesla bringing enthusiasm for EVs higher, even less people will care. The only way they will be able to make any mark in the market is if they are included in cars as standard. Plus, given the low unit costs, the only way lead-carbon companies can make money is with huge contracts.

    Plus supposedly the new EPA cycle doesn't show much of a fuel economy advantage for micro-hybrids compared to the Euro cycle (may be a side effect of adjustments made in order to address overestimation of hybrid fuel economy), so there's little incentive to offer them in the US.
    �
  • Sep 3, 2013
    Citizen-T
  • Sep 3, 2013
    Jonathan Hewitt
  • Sep 3, 2013
    Robert.Boston
    FWIW, Axion's focus seems to have shifted entirely to big rigs, shifting them to serial hybrids. Probably a better strategy than pursuing micro-hybrids, but as @Dan5 notes carrying around lots of heavy PbC batteries may not be as cost-effective as carrying the bulkier but lighter equivalent in LiIon -- especially used LiIon from EVs. We'll see -- I've still got a small bet on AXPW that I expect will become valueless, but there's a tiny possibility of a big payoff. It's my chip on the roulette table, betting on 00.
    �
  • Sep 3, 2013
    JRP3
    Why would the more energy dense lithium be bulkier than the PbC, which has worse energy density than lead acid?
    I'm in the same boat, though I've been thinking of dumping my AXPW and using my loss to offset some of my gains in TSLA. I can always buy back into AXPW at a lower price point :biggrin:
    �
  • Sep 3, 2013
    Nicu.Mihalache
    In some applications like serial hybrid trucks and trains (diesel / gas engine always on), the power density is much more important than energy density.

    Not for long, it seems. There are no guarantees, of course.
    �
  • Sep 3, 2013
    JRP3
    LiFePO4 and Li titanate can put out as much or more power than PbC, with a flatter discharge curve.
    �
  • Sep 3, 2013
    Nicu.Mihalache
    I know, I have even looked at some 40C discharge / 12C charge LFP recently as I plan to build an electric go kart at some point in the future. But it costs $2 / Wh (retail) and its cycle life is about 1000. Compare that to $0.5 / Wh or so and more than 2500 cycle life for PbC. There may also be other differences in robustness, but I do not know specific details.

    The price of PbC may decrease even further as Axion does not use any expensive material and early this spring they have managed to automate the last bottleneck in manufacturing (the carbon sheeting process). Once they have the electrodes (their assembly was already automated two years ago), they are plug-in elements in standard AGM batteries.
    �
  • Sep 4, 2013
    Dan5
    $2 per wh seems very high. There was something on green car reports for NCA which puts the assembled price at around $400 assembled with the circuit boards included.

    Did you consider common form factor batteries?
    �
  • Sep 6, 2013
    gg_got_a_tesla
    When will we see more FUD from JP, this time about the alleged diesel generators at Supercharger sites?

    (I know, I'm just trying to bait him; he's surely egomaniacal enough to be avidly following this thread)
    �
  • Sep 6, 2013
    marvinat0rz
  • Sep 6, 2013
    Zythryn
    I didn't think he would be so easily baited, looks like he was though.

    We will see if my comment gets posted. But claiming a supplier is going to stop making 18650 cells, or not build more manufacturing plants, while at the same time can't supply enough product is rather backwards.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2013
    JRP3
    As Julian Cox said that frees up a lot of 18650 capacity for Tesla, actually helping to solve the supply issue for them.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2013
    Theshadows
  • Sep 6, 2013
    Dan5
    According to good old JP it costs $1.50 in raw materials to make a 18650 battery. I am calling complete and utter baloney on this. Cant see them selling to the public below cost.

    Again JP shows he knows nothing about batteries attempting to completely twist logic

    Lets take apart a NCA 18650 battery

    Its about 45 grams per battery

    1 gram is steel
    Few grams of plastic
    Few grams of carbon
    1 gram lithium

    So now, we have 40 grams left, absolute worst case, but keep in mind its really a coated aluminum foil with the active material. The active battery material is roughly 1/3 of remaining weight.

    Half if Nickel; 13 grams- thats going for $8/lb/ 454 grams

    So 23 cents in Nickel

    Lets assume the rest is all Cobalt since its expensive, thats going for $16/lb

    47 cents worth of cobalt

    So when all is said and done, roughly 70 cents, NOT 150 cents, and i may add that 70 cents in the worst case.

    As we all know, the battery also has aluminum and oxygen, both cheaper than cobalt.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2013
    JRP3
    Dan, one thing I don't know how to price, is the separator material, which is a highly specialized plastic membrane, and could be the most expensive item by weight, though I don't expect it's a high percentage of actual cell weight. You also left out the electrolyte.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2013
    ppl
    He has posted so many articles of which all are out there and in error. Why does sa still let him publish under their banner. It's gotten to the point I don't read sa anymore. It reflects on their name. When will they cut him off or does it go on forever.
    �
  • Sep 6, 2013
    Dan5
    JRP3
    Quite right about the membrane and electrolyte.

    I took apart a regular lithium battery, the separator is polypropylene/polyethylene, scaled up looks to me to be about 3 cents worth. (3 grams)

    Electrolyte is about 10 cents total- the one I took apart had LiB(C2O4)2 as the electrolyte. (2 grams)

    In reality, the breakdown is
    1 cent for steel
    10 cents for electrolyte
    3 cents for the separator
    57 cents for the metals

    71 cents, not bad from the nickel/cobalt estimate

    Perhaps someone should ask good old JP to back up his statement with industrial numbers, and not have him go to Sigma Aldrich for inflated numbers for chemical costs
    �
  • Sep 7, 2013
    ppl
    Funny but Jp does not write articles on axion anymore. Funny but sa editor favorite pick of Jp articles is the one about tesla delay of report. Remember that one and the dire predictions in that one. Clearly editors bias is against tesla
    �
  • Sep 7, 2013
    Robert.Boston
    My guess is that Axion articles attract 1/1000 of the hits that Tesla articles attract. Go where the money is....
    �
  • Sep 7, 2013
    Norbert
    I don't think JP is a good source for understanding actual risk. Although he often points at things that are actually problems, usually these problems are solved well. But he describes them all as if they are a disaster waiting to happen. Which means the information content in that regard is zero, even if some day he might be "right".

    It's like someone pressing the fire alarm each time the temperature goes up a little bit. Yes, he might be right some day. And maybe sometimes it is good to check. But calling the fire truck each time would mean they won't come when you actually need them.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2013
    rolosrevenge
    So I'd like to share my problem with JP's articles. I'm not an expert on the battery tech, but I am a Ph.D. in Power Systems Engineering and have spend the bulk of my research studying distribution grids and EV interactions with them. I am also a reviewer for the IEEE and review conference and journal articles to see if they are fit for publication. One of JP's articles attacked Tesla saying that there was a serious shortage on distribution system capacity and his source was an article from Power and Energy Magazine, a publication of the Power and Energy Society of which I am a member. Note that this magazine does not have the same level of technical content as the PES Journals. I was very familiar with the article in question, and the conclusion of the article was that EVs had the potential to cause problems if no new solutions are developed, but then it also listed the many different solutions that were currently under development to solve these issues. I myself have published numerous articles on the solutions to the potential problem of lots of EVs on the distribution grid.

    JP's article went so far as to claim the IEEE was agreeing with him and his conclusions that EVs could not be adopted on the distribution grid. I took his assertions to task in the comments based on my background in full technical reviewer mode, I told him that he had misquoted the article, the article didn't mean the IEEE agreed with him, but rather they allowed it to be printed, his own analysis was woefully ignorant of the current state-of-the-art of distribution grids and research and lacked adequate citations to back up the conclusions.

    His response was to delete and modify some of the comments that I took him to task on so my comment looked out of context, and then mock me in his reply to mine.

    After that I stopped reading, for I realized that on some subjects he was completely ignorant of, he would rather attack the experts in the field to save face than actually get to the truth of the matter. Note I didn't attack him, but the particular article he wrote, since he was misrepresenting the society of which I am a member and reviewer. If he was so wrong about that, I imagine he could be equally wrong about everything else he says.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2013
    sleepyhead
    ...and that is all you need to know about JP. He is a worthless human being.
    �
  • Sep 8, 2013
    Dan5
    Yes, rolosrevenge,

    I did my thesis on life cycle assessments, and found his use of the hawkins, i.e. norwegian study appalling to say the least.

    While the paper had some merits, if you read the paper, even a layman would find huge shortcomings.

    JP on the other hand, not only used the paper, but decided to extrapolate data based on the paper without any concept of environmental chemistry or implications related to it, then he went onto to say in his comments that it's not his job to check the veracity of the paper... Again, why use it.

    I can even give him the fact of reprinting it verbatum, BUT it is your job to check the truthfulness of your own work, and to be knowledgable if you do decide to use an analysis. Either he fails to understand basic environmental science, and wrote an analysis which he has bo business writing OR he fully understands it and did it anyway. Make a choice.
    �
  • Sep 15, 2013
    NigelM
    Mod Note: The weekly conversation with Nicu took on a life of it's own and moved here - Friend(s) of JP - Conversations with Nicu

    The split may have been a teensy bit messy but this thread can continue to talk about JP's nonsense. Please use the other thread for conversations with Nicu.
    �
  • Sep 15, 2013
    dsm363
    Thank you Nigel!
    �
  • Sep 20, 2013
    JRP3
    Here is some ammo to use against Petersen and others if they try to claim the aluminum construction of the S makes it a "dirtier" vehicle:
    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/09/20130920-das.html

    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)