[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Mr D

No idea why that picture was posted - this is the pic I meant to post



And that number has risen to 400k - also Musk has said he believes avg price will be about 42.5k after basic features/options. They've also changed some small details - such as the possibility that super charging stations might not be free for Model 3's.

I am not saying there won't be a market for the Bolt (hell there is a market for the i3) - I am just saying that market is tiny in general considering the small overall size of the EV market and it's slow growth.

Tesla's Model 3 is changing all that and will take consumers from gas markets at a much deeper impact.

This goes back to you saying Tesla will fail to its competitors because you think it's competitors will beat it with faster/better production - and I'm saying that's a flawed POV based on the variables under which Tesla is operating in and the unique characteristics of the company.

The Tesla Model 3 will have performance models - do any of the EVs currently in the same market as the Tesla 3 have performance models? Better yet - what is the least expensive performance EV you can get?

Like I said - you can very well short the company NOW (as it is completely overvalued based on present day financials) and make a fortune if you genuinely believe what you say.

I guess you don't realize that the pics you post of the Bolt are the concept car from 2015 and not the production version of 2016. IMO the Concept looks much better than the Production version, but that's neither here nor there for this discussion. Or the fact that from what I've read, the Bolt has the same interior space as the Tesla S, so that's significant in my mind, as the T3 will be smaller than the S, with less interior space. If the T3 is not smaller than the S regarding interior space, than the T3 is going to steal sales away from the S. And I've not yet mentioned that out of all those 400,000 (I'd love to see a citation on that number) implied T3 buyers, how many S buyers has Tesla now lost for real-time today S sales? Isn't the S now the profit generating product that is funding the development of the T3? Nor the fact that Musk indicates his NUMMI factory can pump out 500,000 cars a year, which is possible, but those numbers were based on GM/Toyota production of one model, the Matrix/Vibe. Building 500,000 units of three entirely different cars (yup the X and S use the same basic platform), is not the same as building a single model with different trim levels. If the T3's base price is based off of that level of unit production, then it's possible Tesla will miss its profit margins or need to make an adjustment in the base price. That is what happened with the Model X.

Not everyone wants a performance car as far as driving dynamics is concerned, other's POV of performance is how much stuff can they carry to soccer practice, or how easy is it to carry the wet dog, or can I get my new big TV in this to take it home. Tesla has stated the $35K base car will have a 5 sec. 0 - 60 time with a 200-mile range. It's all a paper exercise at this point. The average transaction price is stated by Tesla as more near $42.5K, so considering the first 100,000 or less T3 buyers will get the $7,500 rebate (bringing the price back down to $35K) the value of the T3 is not going to be what you or they think. The T3 will still have some stiff competition from the rest of the ICE "C" class cars. At $45K the total ownership costs of an EV need to match the total ownership costs of a comparable ICE sports sedan. I'll have to run the numbers to prove that to myself. When I compared the estimated total ownership costs of the lowest priced S to the actual ownership costs of my E90 (through 200,000 miles), the S lost the comparison by about $15K, and that didn't include a possible battery replacement for the S at the +100,000 mile mark. At the time I looked at the Model S 2 years ago, Tesla was selling a pre-purchase replacement battery package at $10,000 (you could add it into the loan) when the battery needed replacement. I've read where the battery life is expected to be 300,000 miles. I hope that is true. Maybe Tesla needs to up the battery warranty to 20 years/200,000 miles just to go rouge and prove a point.

It's great to have this concept of the supercharger network, but in reality if you need a charge during a long distance trip and you need to wait for the Tesla owner in front of you to charge his car and end up waiting an hour or more to get another 120 - 180 miles, that'll get long in the tooth right quick. And if the T3 gets the option of supercharging it will be an expensive option (it was on the S). It's more hardware and heavier hardware. So while the supercharger concept is good as an academic exercise, we'll see how it works in the real world when there are hundreds of thousands of Teslas roaming the road.

So it sounds like I'm pissing all over the Tesla EV business model, but I'm just being realistic. I'm skeptical a $21B startup car company can do all that Musk has set out to do. Throw in a few rocket crashes over at Space X, and I see it getting real dicey. And I'm no stranger to early adoption of EVs. Go Google something called the "GE Electrak". It was an electric garden tractor produced by General Electric in the early 1970's. My father bought one in 1973 (I still have it - not running at the moment), but it was a fantastic product, blew away any ICE equivalent garden tractor of it's day. Only problem was it was twice as expensive as it's ICE competition. I used it to cut grass for 12 years or so.

[David70]

With the people getting in line now for the 3, does Tesla even give them an estimated or hopeful delivery date? Assuming everything goes perfectly and they start production in late 2017 (most don't think this will happen), then they build 100k in 2018, 200k in 2019, many of the deposits are looking at 4 years from now in 2020 for a car that they don't know what it comes with, the final price or what else is on the market.

I can honestly say I don't know what I want 4 years from now and am really skeptical of how many of these deposits will be around 3 years from now. We don't really even know how many of them are in a financial position to lease/loan the money as I don't believe anything more than $1000 is required.

Tell everyone it is turning to non refundable a year from the initial deposit and see how real the numbers are.

[zer0cool]

The thing is this, I never thought of buying an EV until I drove a Model S. I am not interested in EV, I am interested in a good car. I drove the Volt (as a potential car for wife), and it's shitty (got a new 3 series again instead). I look at the Bolt, and it looks like an ugly Prius, and according to reviews, probably drives like a Camry.

I currently have a Model 3 on order. If another company comes up with a better product (I don't care about what fuel it uses, as long as it can handle daily commutes and occasions trips, is quicker than Model 3 in real life, handles better, has superior technology) for the same price or reasonably greater price (if the car is better then it's worth more), then I will buy that.

We have had 2 3 series in the past 4 years; I have driven 320i, 328i, 335i, M3, and none of them now or in the foreseeable future would satisfy my above conditions.

As of now, such a product is not even on the horizon (I follow car news all the time).

[Mr D]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I guess you don't realize that the pics you post of the Bolt are the concept car from 2015 and not the production version of 2016. IMO the Concept looks much better than the Production version, but that's neither here nor there for this discussion. Or the fact that from what I've read, the Bolt has the same interior space as the Tesla S, so that's significant in my mind, as the T3 will be smaller than the S, with less interior space. If the T3 is not smaller than the S regarding interior space, than the T3 is going to steal sales away from the S. And I've not yet mentioned that out of all those 400,000 (I'd love to see a citation on that number) implied T3 buyers, how many S buyers has Tesla now lost for real-time today S sales? Isn't the S now the profit generating product that is funding the development of the T3? Nor the fact that Musk indicates his NUMMI factory can pump out 500,000 cars a year, which is possible, but those numbers were based on GM/Toyota production of one model, the Matrix/Vibe. Building 500,000 units of three entirely different cars (yup the X and S use the same basic platform), is not the same as building a single model with different trim levels. If the T3's base price is based off of that level of unit production, then it's possible Tesla will miss its profit margins or need to make an adjustment in the base price. That is what happened with the Model X.

Not everyone wants a performance car as far as driving dynamics is concerned, other's POV of performance is how much stuff can they carry to soccer practice, or how easy is it to carry the wet dog, or can I get my new big TV in this to take it home. Tesla has stated the $35K base car will have a 5 sec. 0 - 60 time with a 200-mile range. It's all a paper exercise at this point. The average transaction price is stated by Tesla as more near $42.5K, so considering the first 100,000 or less T3 buyers will get the $7,500 rebate (bringing the price back down to $35K) the value of the T3 is not going to be what you or they think. The T3 will still have some stiff competition from the rest of the ICE "C" class cars. At $45K the total ownership costs of an EV need to match the total ownership costs of a comparable ICE sports sedan. I'll have to run the numbers to prove that to myself. When I compared the estimated total ownership costs of the lowest priced S to the actual ownership costs of my E90 (through 200,000 miles), the S lost the comparison by about $15K, and that didn't include a possible battery replacement for the S at the +100,000 mile mark. At the time I looked at the Model S 2 years ago, Tesla was selling a pre-purchase replacement battery package at $10,000 (you could add it into the loan) when the battery needed replacement. I've read where the battery life is expected to be 300,000 miles. I hope that is true. Maybe Tesla needs to up the battery warranty to 20 years/200,000 miles just to go rouge and prove a point.

It's great to have this concept of the supercharger network, but in reality if you need a charge during a long distance trip and you need to wait for the Tesla owner in front of you to charge his car and end up waiting an hour or more to get another 120 - 180 miles, that'll get long in the tooth right quick. And if the T3 gets the option of supercharging it will be an expensive option (it was on the S). It's more hardware and heavier hardware. So while the supercharger concept is good as an academic exercise, we'll see how it works in the real world when there are hundreds of thousands of Teslas roaming the road.

So it sounds like I'm pissing all over the Tesla EV business model, but I'm just being realistic. I'm skeptical a $21B startup car company can do all that Musk has set out to do. Throw in a few rocket crashes over at Space X, and I see it getting real dicey. And I'm no stranger to early adoption of EVs. Go Google something called the "GE Electrak". It was an electric garden tractor produced by General Electric in the early 1970's. My father bought one in 1973 (I still have it - not running at the moment), but it was a fantastic product, blew away any ICE equivalent garden tractor of it's day. Only problem was it was twice as expensive as it's ICE competition. I used it to cut grass for 12 years or so.

The Bolt is still extremely ugly relative to the Model 3.

At this point - you're just responding just to respond and choosing to ignore the foundation of my POV. You're talking about "not everyone wants a performance car" - well NO SHIT captain - the point is there is an OPTION in which NO OTHER COMPANY PRODUCING AN EV is providing at price point.

The poster above me is part of the demographic I'm referencing to in which you are completely ignorant to. You absolutely do not understand the large market with the variables presented in this situation. The DEMAND of Tesla as a brand alone means that it is in the best interest of many people to make sure they succeed.

At the end of the day if you believe in what you believe in then you'd short Tesla. But you won't.

I ask you one more time - in the HISTORY of economics - when has a company failed or been beaten out by competition when their DEMAND is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the competition?

And I had no idea what your point of your "GE Elektrak" story is as it is completely unrelated to this scenario. I just showed you numbers in another post how, in March - Tesla Model S outsold Leaf + Volt (+ I3 + I8) all combined - yet average model sold is likely more, if not, just as much as a Leaf + Volt COMBINED considering their base MSRP's COMBINED is less than the least expensive Tesla.

Your whole thought process and theories are absolutely meaningless when looking at real world current numbers.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Mr D

The Bolt is still extremely ugly relative to the Model 3.

At this point - you're just responding just to respond and choosing to ignore the foundation of my POV. You're talking about "not everyone wants a performance car" - well NO SHIT captain - the point is there is an OPTION in which NO OTHER COMPANY PRODUCING AN EV is providing at price point.

The poster above me is part of the demographic I'm referencing to in which you are completely ignorant to. You absolutely do not understand the large market with the variables presented in this situation. The DEMAND of Tesla as a brand alone means that it is in the best interest of many people to make sure they succeed.

At the end of the day if you believe in what you believe in then you'd short Tesla. But you won't.

I ask you one more time - in the HISTORY of economics - when has a company failed or been beaten out by competition when their DEMAND is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the competition?

And I had no idea what your point of your "GE Elektrak" story is as it is completely unrelated to this scenario. I just showed you numbers in another post how, in March - Tesla Model S outsold Leaf + Volt (+ I3 + I8) all combined - yet average model sold is likely more, if not, just as much as a Leaf + Volt COMBINED considering their base MSRP's COMBINED is less than the least expensive Tesla.

Your whole thought process and theories are absolutely meaningless when looking at real world current numbers.

I guess if I wanted to take time away from my real life I could go find at least ONE instance in the HISTORY of economics that a company FAILED when it had the most popular product in it's field. But it is true that companies fail all the time and the reasons are quite varied including their product being popular. There are thousands of failed companies so there's got to be ONE, but since I don't have a vast knowledge of failed companies and why they failed, doesn't mean it never happened and can't happen.

But, how companies can fail with popular product is if the product it too expensive to produce, or support in the field, and the popularity of the company is based on promises, while possibly achievable, are not profitably possible. It's been widely published that a lot of Tesla's revenue (and "profits" - mind you the stock has never yet returned a dividend) has come from selling Al Gore's "carbon credits", which are merely made-up revenue stream by the Government and have no connection to the profitability of selling an EV let alone the most popular one. It's quite possible Tesla would not have made it this far without revenue from carbon credits. So your contingency that 350,000 - 400,000 sales of refundable reservation Agreements does not constitute real vehicle sales and real profit, but yup, it sure does convey popularity.

So to address your sales numbers (which I didn't do last time because you posted them as I was writing my last response and didn't see your post), when the Model S is compared to the rival cars in its class, those being the Mercedes S-class, Audi A8, BMW 7-Series, etc., the economics (total cost of ownership) of owning a Model S compare very well to those cars, since the purchase prices are relatively equal between those cars and the Tesla's fuel costs are much less. However, compare the total cost of ownership of the Model S to say an E90 325/328, the Model S is far more expensive. I know your response will be but the Model S is not in the same class as an E90 (the 3-Series is $40K less - which buys a lot of gasoline), which is exactly the case with the sales numbers you posted. Looking at the March '16 sales figures the Model S is about twice as much better selling than the Volt. But two things, (1) the Model S is taking sales away from its class rivals (those cars mentioned above) and not taking sales away from the $35K Volt. (2) As you can see the Volt is relatively on par with other EV/hybrid cars in it's price class, which is the point of this whole discussion, the Volt and its rivals don't offer value to the owner in terms of total cost of ownership, which is why the sales numbers for EVs, as compared to the total market are low, about 1% of market sales. What the Bolt and the T3 are trying to do is change that equation. 350,000 or so $1,000 refundable reservation Agreements transacted over the internet, while conveying popularity of the T3 now, they may not translate into real vehicle sales, when the T3 finally reaches the public.

And what is the source of your sales numbers? I'd like to understand what the asterisk (*) means.

Here's the sales data from Good Car Bad Car, which is the site I use to get car sales data. The Volt's sales numbers track straight up between your source and GCBC; the Tesla Model S numbers don't and seem rounded to the nearest hundred.

[Mr D]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I guess if I wanted to take time away from my real life I could go find at least ONE instance in the HISTORY of economics that a company FAILED when it had the most popular product in it's field. But it is true that companies fail all the time and the reasons are quite varied including their product being popular. There are thousands of failed companies so there's got to be ONE, but since I don't have a vast knowledge of failed companies and why they failed, doesn't mean it never happened and can't happen.

But, how companies can fail with popular product is if the product it too expensive to produce, or support in the field, and the popularity of the company is based on promises, while possibly achievable, are not profitably possible. It's been widely published that a lot of Tesla's revenue (and "profits" - mind you the stock has never yet returned a dividend) has come from selling Al Gore's "carbon credits", which are merely made-up revenue stream by the Government and have no connection to the profitability of selling an EV let alone the most popular one. It's quite possible Tesla would not have made it this far without revenue from carbon credits. So your contingency that 350,000 - 400,000 sales of refundable reservation Agreements does not constitute real vehicle sales and real profit, but yup, it sure does convey popularity.

So to address your sales numbers (which I didn't do last time because you posted them as I was writing my last response and didn't see your post), when the Model S is compared to the rival cars in its class, those being the Mercedes S-class, Audi A8, BMW 7-Series, etc., the economics (total cost of ownership) of owning a Model S compare very well to those cars, since the purchase prices are relatively equal between those cars and the Tesla's fuel costs are much less. However, compare the total cost of ownership of the Model S to say an E90 325/328, the Model S is far more expensive. I know your response will be but the Model S is not in the same class as an E90 (the 3-Series is $40K less - which buys a lot of gasoline), which is exactly the case with the sales numbers you posted. Looking at the March '16 sales figures the Model S is about twice as much better selling than the Volt. But two things, (1) the Model S is is taking sales away from its class rivals (those cars mentioned above) and not taking sales away from the $35K Volt. (2) As you can see the Volt is relatively on par with other EV/hybrid cars in it's price class, which is the point of this whole discussion, the Volt and its rivals don't offer value to the in terms of total cost of ownership, which is why the sales numbers for EVs, as compared to the total market are low, about 1% of market sales. What the Bolt and the T3 are trying to do is change that equation. 350,000 or so $1,000 refundable reservation Agreements transacted over the internet, while conveying popularity of the T3 now, they may not translate into real vehicle sales, when the T3 finally reaches the public.

And what is the source of your sales numbers? I'd like to understand what the asterisk (*) means.

Here's the sales data from Good Car Bad Car, which is the site I use to get car sales data. The Volt's sales numbers track straight up between your source and GCBC; the Tesla Model S numbers don't and seem rounded to the nearest hundred.

You are being resistent and show incapability of understanding and learning throughout this discussion.

But it's quite clear that you have more on your agenda, or you're just being stubborn as shit, when you're talking about "taking time away from my real life to find an instance" when you're sitting here typing long posts. Tesla just doesn't have the most popular product - their COMPANY is high in DEMAND...you realize there is a difference right? It's not just about the car - it's the brand. Like I said, you don't have enough knowledge or understanding of the multiple variables involved in this discussion to have a valuable thought.

And as far as your 3rd paragraph - yes the Tesla isn't competing with the Volt, yet it's STILL outselling those cars in the EV market yet being significantly more expensive. That tells you the HEALTH of the business.

The Model 3 is going to absolutely DEMOLISH the competition and it won't even be CLOSE. 400k reservation. How many total EV cars have been sold to date ACROSS THE WHOLE INDUSTRY?

You can continue to push the, "they don't equate to sales" which is true - but you have to understand THOSE ARE RESERVATIONS - meaning there will ABSOLUTELY be demand from the public that haven't reserved. Reservations aren't even a representation of the bare minimum you expect to sell. You understand the car will be sold to people who don't reserve it too?

Do you understand this? Do you understand how business works? Point blank - your take on reservations doesn't = sales is pretty damn stupid considering you're attempting to insinuate they won't sell that many units. (when the correct thought is, they might not sell all those reservations, but they WILL sell that many units at minimum)...unless something entirely goes wrong.

Your original thought of Tesla not surviving has no valid foundation considering these other companies don't even show the capability of luring demand from gas car consumers over.

Studies suggest a driverless Tesla Model 3 fleet could be highly profitable, obtain significant market share

Again, go SHORT Tesla. Buy some short options for the future if you really believe what you type.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Mr D

You are being resistent and show incapability of understanding and learning throughout this discussion.

But it's quite clear that you have more on your agenda, or you're just being stubborn as shit, when you're talking about "taking time away from my real life to find an instance" when you're sitting here typing long posts. Tesla just doesn't have the most popular product - their COMPANY is high in DEMAND...you realize there is a difference right? It's not just about the car - it's the brand. Like I said, you don't have enough knowledge or understanding of the multiple variables involved in this discussion to have a valuable thought.

And as far as your 3rd paragraph - yes the Tesla isn't competing with the Volt, yet it's STILL outselling those cars in the EV market yet being significantly more expensive. That tells you the HEALTH of the business.

The Model 3 is going to absolutely DEMOLISH the competition and it won't even be CLOSE. 400k reservation. How many total EV cars have been sold to date ACROSS THE WHOLE INDUSTRY?

You can continue to push the, "they don't equate to sales" which is true - but you have to understand THOSE ARE RESERVATIONS - meaning there will ABSOLUTELY be demand from the public that haven't reserved. Reservations aren't even a representation of the bare minimum you expect to sell. You understand the car will be sold to people who don't reserve it too?

Do you understand this? Do you understand how business works? Point blank - your take on reservations doesn't = sales is pretty damn stupid considering you're attempting to insinuate they won't sell that many units. (when the correct thought is, they might not sell all those reservations, but they WILL sell that many units at minimum)...unless something entirely goes wrong.

Your original thought of Tesla not surviving has no valid foundation considering these other companies don't even show the capability of luring demand from gas car consumers over.

Studies suggest a driverless Tesla Model 3 fleet could be highly profitable, obtain significant market share

Again, go SHORT Tesla. Buy some short options for the future if you really believe what you type.

Seriously, what agenda do I have? And why would I have one? I have a high level of understanding things automotive and business. There is nothing you've said that translates to learning. Tesla hasn't built nor sold a production T3. And just to show that other professional investors share some of my thoughts; from an article by Alessando Bruno... [just found this article this morning while researching Tesla's stock - it was published yesterday, April 15th - Perhaps Bruno is reading me... LOL]

"Rather than emulating Tesla, Marchionne wants to warn Musk that Tesla, like any other car company, electric or not, will not escape the intensive capital demands required to launch new models and the “shabby” shareholder returns. Marchionne described this as the car industry’s “value-destroying addiction to capital.” (Source: Ibid.) For Tesla investors, it means that the company will have difficulty competing against the auto giants once they decide that the timing is right to switch production in favor of EVs and away from internal combustion." Marchionne - The businessman that saved both Fiat and Chrysler.

"Now, Tesla Motors stock is hinging much more on the company’s cool factor than its finances or actual market impact. Tesla cars will have a market but it won’t be as rosy or as practical as fans of the company and its guru, Musk, would suggest. As automobile industry leaders like Marchionne have pointed out, building a car requires billions of dollars of investment over long periods."

And here's more, also from an article published yesterday, April 15th, by another professional market analyst, John Divine - again maybe he's reading me too...

"Let’s take a look at why the Tesla Model 3 is, in many ways, crushing its largest competitor … and later, why that doesn’t really matter....

Well, actually, there are some major caveats here. And from the point of view of an investor, they cannot be overlooked.

The numbers are not comparable

Tesla Model 3 reservations are just that: reservations, not sales or preorders. All you have to do is plunk down $1,000 and boom, you’ve made your reservation. It’s fully refundable. College students can reserve one (or five) with their student loans to impress girls, and cancel it before the end of the semester. (Good luck with that strategy.)

Meanwhile, the 100,000 Chevy Volts that have been sold are Chevy Volts, not Bolts. The Volt is a plug-in hybrid, while the Chevy Bolt is a pure all-electric vehicle with a range upwards of 200 miles.

Bolt will be first to market — perhaps by years

GM’s VP of global propulsion systems boasts that the Chevy Bolt,

'… will be the first to market as a long-range affordable battery electric vehicle…it will have more than 200 miles of range and it will be in production by the end of 2016, so it’s not necessary to put down $1,000 and wait until 2018 or sometime after that.'

Shots fired! And mighty accurate shots, too. While TSLA says that Model 3 deliveries will begin in late 2017, it has almost zero credibility when it comes to following a timeline. The unbelievably delayed Model X was postponed by two years; I myself received emails from people who had preordered and cancelled out of frustration after years of waiting.

The fact that a leaked slide from a Tesla PowerPoint last year listed the Model 3 release date as 2018 also doesn’t help Tesla’s credibility here. My own theory is that the company is knowingly putting out a “late 2017” release date to appease investors in the short-term, then, sometime around mid- or late-2017 we’ll get the real 2018 date.

Right now, 2018 sounds too far away. Conceding a 2018 release date would almost certainly cause some people to cancel their Model 3 reservations; I think it would also spark a TSLA stock selloff.

Asymmetric Risk/Reward

If the Model 3 dramatically outsells the Chevy Bolt, taking an early and dominant lead in the EV industry, that’s great for TSLA. The stock will almost surely rocket higher. GM shares, though, will hardly be affected — the Bolt is one of dozens of models GM plans to release across the Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac and GMC brands in coming years.

However, if the opposite happens and the Chevy Bolt soaks up EV demand before the Model 3 can even hit the market, TSLA stock is in major, major trouble. So much of Tesla’s current valuation assumes high demand and great execution in the future, a fact that Elon Musk himself has acknowledged in regards to the TSLA stock price.

The moral of the story here is don’t be too jubilant celebrating Tesla’s early “success.” It’s proving that demand is there, sure … for a $1,000 “cancel anytime” reservation fee.

And not only is Tesla’s perceived early lead against the Chevy Bolt illusory, the high number of early reservations actually raise three additional risks for TSLA; specifically, the disappearing tax incentives, additional fulfillment risk and the possibility of stock dilution to raise capital."

So you said in your reply above, "Like I said, you don't have enough knowledge or understanding of the multiple variables involved in this discussion to have a valuable thought." Really? LOL. Maybe the two men I just quoted from, who are professional market analysts, and who just yesterday wrote the same thoughts I did starting over a week ago (e.g. my posts in this thread from 4/2, 4/4, 4/5, and 4/11), lack the same understanding of the multiple variables involved in this discussion as I do. Maybe Mr. Marchionne is the same too, he doesn't understand of the multiple variables involved. Yeah, he only runs the 5th largest car company in the world and produces more cars in one day than Elon Musk has sold in his entire life.

But go a head, keep calling us idiots, because we don't understand what we are talking about....

[Pparana]

Originally Posted by Mr D

I've read every word you've typed - and I understand your POV - however you've yet to address with any valuable thought of how your theory works against the DEMAND of Tesla.

I ask you again -

In the history of economics - when has a company ever failed when their demand was sky high?

You can keep comparing this car



to this car



But we both know the Tesla Model 3 is operating in a different universe in terms of desirability. As much competitors as they might be due to price range and EV - I doubt the % of people Tesla would lose to settling on the Bolt due to want/need of a EV is significant.

Tesla is operating within a demographic of people who would rather get any other gas car outside the model 3. A car like the Bolt isn't capturing that demographic with such impact as Tesla.

GM is already trying to take the "you can get yours this year" strategy -

http://www.freep.com/story/money/car...el-3/82979392/

Doubt it really makes an impact as I've seen this time and time again in history. It's the strategy of someone who knows they're behind in desirability.

Model 3 will take marketshare for entry level luxury sedans (3-series, C-class, A4) as many these owners are intrigued by the Model 3 - and I doubt you'll find many intrigued about the Bolt.

I agree with you in the sense that - all this is hinged on Tesla's production and manufacturing capability on every level. I too hold doubt of what they can do considering they haven't produced a car at the mass quantity of the reservations. Not just production - but to provide support for all these cars and the pressure to create a car with 0 major issues that don't require recalls is a deal in itself. I get it.

However - looking at the BIG picture -

As a company - when you have huge demand as Tesla - that has taken 10 years or so to create - I believe in that more than any other underlying factor.

The demand is so high, because the price is too low, economics.

That car will never be built for that price within the next 5 years. Certainly not by tesla and certainly not by tesla at that volume. Just read there latest earnings, they are struggling on the model x supply chain. Which is 2 years behind.

Musk takes that money and it is basically booked as an interest free on demand note. Good for the financials, because frankly they were crumbling.

[Mr D]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Seriously, what agenda do I have? And why would I have one? I have a high level of understanding things automotive and business. There is nothing you've said that translates to learning. Tesla hasn't built nor sold a production T3. And just to show that other professional investors share some of my thoughts; from an article by Alessando Bruno... [just found this article this morning while researching Tesla's stock - it was published yesterday, April 15th - Perhaps Bruno is reading me... LOL]

"Rather than emulating Tesla, Marchionne wants to warn Musk that Tesla, like any other car company, electric or not, will not escape the intensive capital demands required to launch new models and the “shabby” shareholder returns. Marchionne described this as the car industry’s “value-destroying addiction to capital.” (Source: Ibid.) For Tesla investors, it means that the company will have difficulty competing against the auto giants once they decide that the timing is right to switch production in favor of EVs and away from internal combustion." Marchionne - The businessman that saved both Fiat and Chrysler.

"Now, Tesla Motors stock is hinging much more on the company’s cool factor than its finances or actual market impact. Tesla cars will have a market but it won’t be as rosy or as practical as fans of the company and its guru, Musk, would suggest. As automobile industry leaders like Marchionne have pointed out, building a car requires billions of dollars of investment over long periods."

And here's more, also from an article published yesterday, April 15th, by another professional market analyst, John Divine - again maybe he's reading me too...

"Let’s take a look at why the Tesla Model 3 is, in many ways, crushing its largest competitor … and later, why that doesn’t really matter....

Well, actually, there are some major caveats here. And from the point of view of an investor, they cannot be overlooked.

The numbers are not comparable

Tesla Model 3 reservations are just that: reservations, not sales or preorders. All you have to do is plunk down $1,000 and boom, you’ve made your reservation. It’s fully refundable. College students can reserve one (or five) with their student loans to impress girls, and cancel it before the end of the semester. (Good luck with that strategy.)

Meanwhile, the 100,000 Chevy Volts that have been sold are Chevy Volts, not Bolts. The Volt is a plug-in hybrid, while the Chevy Bolt is a pure all-electric vehicle with a range upwards of 200 miles.

Bolt will be first to market — perhaps by years

GM’s VP of global propulsion systems boasts that the Chevy Bolt,

'… will be the first to market as a long-range affordable battery electric vehicle…it will have more than 200 miles of range and it will be in production by the end of 2016, so it’s not necessary to put down $1,000 and wait until 2018 or sometime after that.'

Shots fired! And mighty accurate shots, too. While TSLA says that Model 3 deliveries will begin in late 2017, it has almost zero credibility when it comes to following a timeline. The unbelievably delayed Model X was postponed by two years; I myself received emails from people who had preordered and cancelled out of frustration after years of waiting.

The fact that a leaked slide from a Tesla PowerPoint last year listed the Model 3 release date as 2018 also doesn’t help Tesla’s credibility here. My own theory is that the company is knowingly putting out a “late 2017” release date to appease investors in the short-term, then, sometime around mid- or late-2017 we’ll get the real 2018 date.

Right now, 2018 sounds too far away. Conceding a 2018 release date would almost certainly cause some people to cancel their Model 3 reservations; I think it would also spark a TSLA stock selloff.

Asymmetric Risk/Reward

If the Model 3 dramatically outsells the Chevy Bolt, taking an early and dominant lead in the EV industry, that’s great for TSLA. The stock will almost surely rocket higher. GM shares, though, will hardly be affected — the Bolt is one of dozens of models GM plans to release across the Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac and GMC brands in coming years.

However, if the opposite happens and the Chevy Bolt soaks up EV demand before the Model 3 can even hit the market, TSLA stock is in major, major trouble. So much of Tesla’s current valuation assumes high demand and great execution in the future, a fact that Elon Musk himself has acknowledged in regards to the TSLA stock price.

The moral of the story here is don’t be too jubilant celebrating Tesla’s early “success.” It’s proving that demand is there, sure … for a $1,000 “cancel anytime” reservation fee.

And not only is Tesla’s perceived early lead against the Chevy Bolt illusory, the high number of early reservations actually raise three additional risks for TSLA; specifically, the disappearing tax incentives, additional fulfillment risk and the possibility of stock dilution to raise capital."

So you said in your reply above, "Like I said, you don't have enough knowledge or understanding of the multiple variables involved in this discussion to have a valuable thought." Really? LOL. Maybe the two men I just quoted from, who are professional market analysts, and who just yesterday wrote the same thoughts I did starting over a week ago (e.g. my posts in this thread from 4/2, 4/4, 4/5, and 4/11), lack the same understanding of the multiple variables involved in this discussion as I do. Maybe Mr. Marchionne is the same too, he doesn't understand of the multiple variables involved. Yeah, he only runs the 5th largest car company in the world and produces more cars in one day than Elon Musk has sold in his entire life.

But go a head, keep calling us idiots, because we don't understand what we are talking about....

You do a very good job and avoiding most of the points I bring up while going on your own tangent of new points that get weaker over time.

Mr. Marchionne also said this

"If Elon Musk "can show me that the car will be profitable at that price, I will copy the formula, add the Italian design flair and get it to the market within 12 months," Marchionne told Automotive News Europe during FCA's annual meeting in Amsterdam."

Meaning - He's a competitor so it's obviously not in his best interest to go out there and say anything good about Tesla - come on man you can't be this ignorant.

This is the man - you call a "professional market analyst"



I laugh that term, the real professional market analyst are the ones making the trades, not the ones writing articles that hold no risk for being wrong. How many market analysts were right/wrong every single day of the year?

And you? Once again, you're WRONG - you cannot preorder 5 Tesla 3's as crappy as that example was.

Oh and this man John Divine? This is his internet title "InvestorPlace Assistant Editor" - and you turn this into "professional market analyst"? That's an absolute joke of an attempt by your to increase the validation of your sources and thoughts.

This is the internet, anyone can find an article to validate their thoughts by a random internet writer. You understand that is part of their professional? To give support for BOTH SIDES?

The article your post is based on is an absolute joke and I can find 100 articles that give a thought against it.

What do you mean "if" Model 3 dramatically outsells the Bolt? There is no IF. With extremely high probability, it will outsell the Bolt - the ONLY reason it doesn't is if the company completely explodes and goes under. Tesla can produce 25% of the Model 3's they wish they aim for and still outsell the Bolt.

In no reality is this happening, and if this is your prediction you are buying a lottery ticket.

Understand this and get it through your mind and LEARN - the Model 3 is competing with Gas vehicles with the Model 3, and that's how far ahead they are in the competition with the rest of the industry. There is NO OTHER COMPANY IN THE WORLD DOING THIS.

The TSLA stock is overvalued right now based on their finances - but that tells you how the market feels about their demand.

You sit here and do research about these joke "professional market analysts" and yet won't "take time out of your real life" to try and find a company that has failed with their WHOLE company was higher in demand than the competition in their niche market.

You ask me what your agenda is - your agenda is your ego and your incapability of admitting that your thought process is flawed and learning from this.

You're still sitting here trying to discredit 400k reservations as if they don't mean anything or mean very little. It shows extremely high interest in the car - how many products in the WORLD do people take $1k out and go plunk it down somewhere with no product for 2-3 years, little details on the cars, and no ROI? That shows how high the demand is in the BRAND.

This is the joke of a thought you had before all this

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I don't see Tesla surviving it in competition with GM, Toyota, and Nissan.

And yet your best job is sitting here quoting "Assistant Editors" and dubbing them "Professional financial analysts" to support your thought.

Go short TSLA or you're just full of shit.

[Mr D]

Oh and let me update the picture of the Bolt - because it looks a shit ton better than the picture I originally posted





This design is no visually aesthetic to most - and cannot compete with the Tesla 3.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Mr D

Oh and let me update the picture of the Bolt - because it looks a shit ton better than the picture I originally posted





This design is no visually aesthetic to most - and cannot compete with the Tesla 3.

I did already inform you that the Bolt pics you posted were the concept from 2015; so no update needed. And I noted I liked the concept design better. I could have implied that you didn't know what the fuck a production Bolt looks like and that you're running your mouth about a car design you apparently haven't even seen; and infer a credibility problem with all your yapping, but I didn't.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Mr D

You do a very good job and avoiding most of the points I bring up while going on your own tangent of new points that get weaker over time.

Mr. Marchionne also said this

"If Elon Musk "can show me that the car will be profitable at that price, I will copy the formula, add the Italian design flair and get it to the market within 12 months," Marchionne told Automotive News Europe during FCA's annual meeting in Amsterdam."

Meaning - He's a competitor so it's obviously not in his best interest to go out there and say anything good about Tesla - come on man you can't be this ignorant.

This is the man - you call a "professional market analyst"



I laugh that term, the real professional market analyst are the ones making the trades, not the ones writing articles that hold no risk for being wrong. How many market analysts were right/wrong every single day of the year?

And you? Once again, you're WRONG - you cannot preorder 5 Tesla 3's as crappy as that example was.

Oh and this man John Divine? This is his internet title "InvestorPlace Assistant Editor" - and you turn this into "professional market analyst"? That's an absolute joke of an attempt by your to increase the validation of your sources and thoughts.

This is the internet, anyone can find an article to validate their thoughts by a random internet writer. You understand that is part of their professional? To give support for BOTH SIDES?

The article your post is based on is an absolute joke and I can find 100 articles that give a thought against it.

What do you mean "if" Model 3 dramatically outsells the Bolt? There is no IF. With extremely high probability, it will outsell the Bolt - the ONLY reason it doesn't is if the company completely explodes and goes under. Tesla can produce 25% of the Model 3's they wish they aim for and still outsell the Bolt.

In no reality is this happening, and if this is your prediction you are buying a lottery ticket.

Understand this and get it through your mind and LEARN - the Model 3 is competing with Gas vehicles with the Model 3, and that's how far ahead they are in the competition with the rest of the industry. There is NO OTHER COMPANY IN THE WORLD DOING THIS.

The TSLA stock is overvalued right now based on their finances - but that tells you how the market feels about their demand.

You sit here and do research about these joke "professional market analysts" and yet won't "take time out of your real life" to try and find a company that has failed with their WHOLE company was higher in demand than the competition in their niche market.

You ask me what your agenda is - your agenda is your ego and your incapability of admitting that your thought process is flawed and learning from this.

You're still sitting here trying to discredit 400k reservations as if they don't mean anything or mean very little. It shows extremely high interest in the car - how many products in the WORLD do people take $1k out and go plunk it down somewhere with no product for 2-3 years, little details on the cars, and no ROI? That shows how high the demand is in the BRAND.

This is the joke of a thought you had before all this



And yet your best job is sitting here quoting "Assistant Editors" and dubbing them "Professional financial analysts" to support your thought.

Go short TSLA or you're just full of shit.

You don't even understand what Marchionne said.

"Mr. Marchionne also said this

'If Elon Musk can show me that the car will be profitable at that price, I will copy the formula, add the Italian design flair and get it to the market within 12 months," Marchionne told Automotive News Europe during FCA's annual meeting in Amsterdam.' "

And, all the yapping you're doing above is against what the writers said in their articles, not what I've written, so relax and try to comprehend a bit better (i.e. I didn't write college students could purchase 5 reservation agreements with their student loans; perhaps Divine was using a bit of sarcasm to make his point...).

And in reality the only reason we are having this discussion is because the Bush Administration created the EV tax credit in the first place. No company would have any success at EV production unless the Government (i.e. US tax payers) takes up to $7,500 off the sale price to try and get the EV vs. ICE value equation even close to being reasonable. The save the planet crap only goes so far. The majority of the market realizes that EV's (and most hybrids) as of yet are more expensive at a total lifetime cost than their ICE counterparts. That is why the EV market, even with the great Model S is just 1% of the market. And Mr. Marchionne understands 1% and 2% market share since he also controls Ferrari, so when he discusses profitability of EVs I'll listen to him rather than you, sorry that's just life.

And I'll put forth the idea that had GM and others figured out how to wrap the $7,500 (max) tax incentive into the sales transaction at the dealership, rather than at April 15th the take up rate for Model S's, Volts, Leafs et. al. may have even been better. I gave this idea to the finance guy at Koons Chevrolet in Tyson's Corner, Virginia around August 2104 when I was close to buying a Volt. You could see the light bulb go on in his brain. I didn't necessarily need that for my financing a Volt, but to most of the buying public it would be significant. The issue is when you buy a qualifying EV, unless you put $7,500 down as up front payment, you end up financing that $7,500 tax rebate in the loan, only to get it back at tax time. $7,500 is almost 1/5 of the Volt's/Leaf's price. A significant chunk especially to people who are buying the car with the perception it is saving them in fuel costs.

Have a good evening.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Mr D

Oh and let me update the picture of the Bolt - because it looks a shit ton better than the picture I originally posted





This design is no visually aesthetic to most - and cannot compete with the Tesla 3.

Funny how the Bolt pic says "Available Late 2016", and all of the T3 pics you've posted say.... Available.... Bupkiss.

[Efthreeoh]

And just to be a dick (because I like to hear myself write). So I did a little analysis of the sales numbers from GoodCar BadCar I posted earlier (remember the Jan '16 - March '16 data for the Volt was exactly the same for both charts... so don't go off about I have crap data). These are US sales figures.

The Tesla Model S from Jul '12 through March '16 sold 70,503 units. The Volt from Dec '10 through March '16 sold 92,738 units. Wait, relax, yeah the Volt had a head start (it's unfair, it's unfair!!!), but the Volt sold 75,924 units for the same time period July '12 - March '16. Looks to me when you evaluate all the data - just not March 2016 - the Volt and the S have the same popularity, with the Volt being 5,421 units better.

And again the Model S numbers seem to be estimates since they are rounded off to the nearest hundred. The Volt sales have slowed, perhaps a combination of the Volt Gen 2 coming out and the news of the Bolt's release in late 2016. And who knows with the Model S. Maybe Musk is reporting re-sales of traded in units to new buyers. The sales guy at the Tyson's Corner Mall Tesla Store told me just a month ago there were a lot of Model S's coming in from the 3-year leases that were available for sale.

My point about this is that you look at 400,000 reservation Agreements (sold as a credit card transaction over the internet) as sales of Model 3's like it is a tide change in the state of the car business and Tesla is taking over the car market as buyers have finally converted from gasoline to electric as their fuel of choice. In a few years it will be Tesla, the only EV producing car company "that is doing it right." And all the major ICE producing car companies world wide will wither away. What Marchionne is saying, and Divine has said, (and what I've said) is the EV market is pretty much insignificant to the major producers, but it is totally significant to Tesla. The success of the Bolt is a major issue for Tesla as it could seriously alter the finances of Tesla, where as success of the Model 3 will bump the total EV market percentage by a decimal point or two, but will have no real impact on GM or Chrysler/Fiat, or Toyota, Ford... you get the point.

Tesla, at $21B in value is not generating profits from the sales of it's current EV's and hasn't been, so it is relying on financing that can easily disappear and quite quickly, where as the major automakers can survive a small increase to the EV market share (assuming the EV market is taking away sales from the ICE market). Marchionne has stated correctly that the car business is highly capital intensive and Tesla will struggle to find the capital if things don't go ideally for it, even with 400,000 reservations Agreements in hand, since none of that $400M is capital, and as Pparana stated is just "basically booked as an interest free on demand note." The popularity of the Model 3 has nothing to do with the financial health of Tesla; it's not real money, he may have to give some of it back...

And some analysis from Barrons:

[harendre7201]

I have a deposit

[Mr D]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I did already inform you that the Bolt pics you posted were the concept from 2015; so no update needed. And I noted I liked the concept design better. I could have implied that you didn't know what the fuck a production Bolt looks like and that you're running your mouth about a car design you apparently haven't even seen; and infer a credibility problem with all your yapping, but I didn't.

The 2 cars have similar shapes - and they're ugly - that is the point.

The 2 designs do not have dramatic differences so whatever point you're trying to make shows that you are clueless to the actual point originally being made.

[Mr D]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Funny how the Bolt pic says "Available Late 2016", and all of the T3 pics you've posted say.... Available.... Bupkiss.

The majority of people waiting for the T3 are not the same people waiting for the Bolt. So what is your point?

Your knowledge on the demands of the cars is poor.

[Mr D]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And just to be a dick (because I like to hear myself write). So I did a little analysis of the sales numbers from GoodCar BadCar I posted earlier (remember the Jan '16 - March '16 data for the Volt was exactly the same for both charts... so don't go off about I have crap data). These are US sales figures.

The Tesla Model S from Jul '12 through March '16 sold 70,503 units. The Volt from Dec '10 through March '16 sold 92,738 units. Wait, relax, yeah the Volt had a head start (it's unfair, it's unfair!!!), but the Volt sold 75,924 units for the same time period July '12 - March '16. Looks to me when you evaluate all the data - just not March 2016 - the Volt and the S have the same popularity, with the Volt being 5,421 units better.

And again the Model S numbers seem to be estimates since they are rounded off to the nearest hundred. The Volt sales have slowed, perhaps a combination of the Volt Gen 2 coming out and the news of the Bolt's release in late 2016. And who knows with the Model S. Maybe Musk is reporting re-sales of traded in units to new buyers. The sales guy at the Tyson's Corner Mall Tesla Store told me just a month ago there were a lot of Model S's coming in from the 3-year leases that were available for sale.

My point about this is that you look at 400,000 reservation Agreements (sold as a credit card transaction over the internet) as sales of Model 3's like it is a tide change in the state of the car business and Tesla is taking over the car market as buyers have finally converted from gasoline to electric as their fuel of choice. In a few years it will be Tesla, the only EV producing car company "that is doing it right." And all the major ICE producing car companies world wide will wither away. What Marchionne is saying, and Divine has said, (and what I've said) is the EV market is pretty much insignificant to the major producers, but it is totally significant to Tesla. The success of the Bolt is a major issue for Tesla as it could seriously alter the finances of Tesla, where as success of the Model 3 will bump the total EV market percentage by a decimal point or two, but will have no real impact on GM or Chrysler/Fiat, or Toyota, Ford... you get the point.

Tesla, at $21B in value is not generating profits from the sales of it's current EV's and hasn't been, so it is relying on financing that can easily disappear and quite quickly, where as the major automakers can survive a small increase to the EV market share (assuming the EV market is taking away sales from the ICE market). Marchionne has stated correctly that the car business is highly capital intensive and Tesla will struggle to find the capital if things don't go ideally for it, even with 400,000 reservations Agreements in hand, since none of that $400M is capital, and as Pparana stated is just "basically booked as an interest free on demand note." The popularity of the Model 3 has nothing to do with the financial health of Tesla; it's not real money, he may have to give some of it back...

And some analysis from Barrons:

Didn't I already address this? Didn't I say Tesla is already overvalued based on financials? You made this long ass post to elaborate on a point I agreed on so you can feel right about something?

At this point - you don't even know what my point is and you're literally sitting there typing random gibberish with no coherent focus in your thoughts.

Like I said - go short Tesla or you're full of shit.

[Mr D]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

You don't even understand what Marchionne said.

"Mr. Marchionne also said this

'If Elon Musk can show me that the car will be profitable at that price, I will copy the formula, add the Italian design flair and get it to the market within 12 months," Marchionne told Automotive News Europe during FCA's annual meeting in Amsterdam.' "

And, all the yapping you're doing above is against what the writers said in their articles, not what I've written, so relax and try to comprehend a bit better (i.e. I didn't write college students could purchase 5 reservation agreements with their student loans; perhaps Divine was using a bit of sarcasm to make his point...).

And in reality the only reason we are having this discussion is because the Bush Administration created the EV tax credit in the first place. No company would have any success at EV production unless the Government (i.e. US tax payers) takes up to $7,500 off the sale price to try and get the EV vs. ICE value equation even close to being reasonable. The save the planet crap only goes so far. The majority of the market realizes that EV's (and most hybrids) as of yet are more expensive at a total lifetime cost than their ICE counterparts. That is why the EV market, even with the great Model S is just 1% of the market. And Mr. Marchionne understands 1% and 2% market share since he also controls Ferrari, so when he discusses profitability of EVs I'll listen to him rather than you, sorry that's just life.

And I'll put forth the idea that had GM and others figured out how to wrap the $7,500 (max) tax incentive into the sales transaction at the dealership, rather than at April 15th the take up rate for Model S's, Volts, Leafs et. al. may have even been better. I gave this idea to the finance guy at Koons Chevrolet in Tyson's Corner, Virginia around August 2104 when I was close to buying a Volt. You could see the light bulb go on in his brain. I didn't necessarily need that for my financing a Volt, but to most of the buying public it would be significant. The issue is when you buy a qualifying EV, unless you put $7,500 down as up front payment, you end up financing that $7,500 tax rebate in the loan, only to get it back at tax time. $7,500 is almost 1/5 of the Volt's/Leaf's price. A significant chunk especially to people who are buying the car with the perception it is saving them in fuel costs.

Have a good evening.

Here you go again continuing to steer the conversation into a completely different direction after your previous posts are completely ripped apart that expose your lack of understanding and your clueless POV.

Look at all the words you've typed, and this is what you've said...

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I guess if I wanted to take time away from my real life I could go find at least ONE instance in the HISTORY of economics that a company FAILED

You're a joke.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Mr D

Here you go again continuing to steer the conversation into a completely different direction after your previous posts are completely ripped apart that expose your lack of understanding and your clueless POV.

Look at all the words you've typed, and this is what you've said...



You're a joke.

Insults are proof of a lost discussion and inability to offer substantive retort.

[Mr D]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Insults are proof of a lost discussion and inability to offer substantive retort.

That would be relevant if I didn't already prove my ability to offer substantive retort.

But I did - over and over again through this thread. You have shown the inability to adapt and learn over a discussion while staying focused on each point.

You've also shown such desperation to find someone with the same thoughts as yours that you labeled an assistant editor of a website as a "professional market analyst" and taking the words of A COMPETITOR'S CEO as forms of valid support.

My insults of you being an absolute joke and you thoughts of being nothing short of the very definition of stupidity - are 100% valid and backed up by this whole discussion in which you've actually proved yourself.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Mr D

That would be relevant if I didn't already prove my ability to offer substantive retort.

But I did - over and over again through this thread. You have shown the inability to adapt and learn over a discussion while staying focused on each point.

You've also shown such desperation to find someone with the same thoughts as yours that you labeled an assistant editor of a website as a "professional market analyst" and taking the words of A COMPETITOR'S CEO as forms of valid support.

My insults of you being an absolute joke and you thoughts of being nothing short of the very definition of stupidity - are 100% valid and backed up by this whole discussion in which you've actually proved yourself.

LOL