저자: Jason · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 테슬라는 아직 교통산업을 파괴한 '파괴적 혁신가'는 아니지만, 배터리 원가 하락 곡선(라이트의 법칙)에 따라 향후 3년 내 대중시장 전기차로 교통산업을 재편할 경로에 있다. [파괴적 혁신 이론 해설] 클레이 크리스텐슨의 파괴적 혁신은 저가·접근성 확대에서 출발하는 이론이며, 고성능 제품의 점진적 개선과 혼동되기 쉽다. 아크인베스트 캐시 우드는 이 원리를 원가 하락 곡선 관점에서 이해하고 있다는 점에서 평가받았다. [테슬라의 전략 경로] 테슬라는 2008년 로드스터 10만 9천 달러, 2009년 모델S 5만 7,400달러 등 고가 시장에서 출발했다. 이는 파괴적 혁신 이론과 반대 방향이지만, 배터리 원가를 낮추기 위해 고가에서 대중시장으로 내려오는 것이 불가피했다는 설명이다. [배터리 원가 근거] 리튬이온 배터리 원가는 2010년 kWh당 약 1,160달러에서 2019년 약 153달러로 하락했다. 2020년 1분기 테슬라 배터리는 kWh당 110~130달러로 추정되며, 배터리데이 발표 기준 셀 원가는 48~57달러까지 낮아질 수 있다. 내연기관 가격 동등점은 kWh당 약 100달러 수준으로 제시됐다. [가격 시나리오] 현재 모델3 기본형 약 3만 6,200달러 기준, 배터리 원가가 48~57달러로 내려가면 3만 1,500~3만 2,400달러까지 인하 여력이 있다고 주장. 대중형 신차는 현재 달러 기준 약 2만 4,000달러 수준까지 가능하다고 봤다. 마진을 5% 추가 확보해도 2만 5,000달러대에 공급 가능하다는 계산이다. [마진과 내연기관 전망] 테슬라 모델3 매출총이익률은 약 39%로 제시됐다. 발표자는 향후 10~15년 내 자동차 제조사들이 수익성 때문에 전기차로 전환하면서 내연기관 차량을 찾기 어려워질 것이라고 전망했다. [리스크·경쟁] 테슬라 우위는 미래에도 보장되지 않는다. VW, BYD, 토요타, 니오, 베이직 등 경쟁자가 부상 중이다. 대량생산 확대(스케일링)가 가장 어려운 과제로 지목됐다. 원가 인하가 수요 방어를 위해 실제로는 지연될 수 있다는 점도 언급. [기타 파괴 경로] 자율주행 택시, 공유 소유, 차량 구독 서비스가 자동차 소유 개념을 바꿀 수 있는 추가 경로로 제시됐다. 발표자는 교통산업 전반이 향후 10년간 큰 변화를 겪을 것으로 봤다. [종목·자산 언급] 테슬라: 장기 긍정(교통산업 재편 주도 가능성). 모델의 배터리 원가 하락에 따른 수익성 개선 기대. 구체적 가격 목표나 기간별 방향 예측은 없음.
다듬은 글
hey folks welcome back to the channel this is jason certified financial planner and host of fighting words financial today in this video let's talk about the theory of disruptive innovation how tesla really doesn't fit into that theory very well and the brilliant ceo of arkhanvest kathy wood before we get started though please let me remind you to give this video an early thumbs up as it does help with the youtube algorithm and if you haven't done so please hit that subscribe button one thing that i can give away in the first few seconds of this video is that the story we're going to talk about today is probably not what you think i should disclose right off the bat that i am long tesla stock and therefore not unbiased at all now there is no question that tesla is a wildly innovative company but it is not the disrupter of the transportation industry at this point at least not at this point it still has yet to deliver on the one or two things that would truly transform the entire transportation sector and make it the disruptive innovator that most of us who are along the stock think it will be in reality tesla is so far ahead of any other car maker today but that still doesn't make its success guaranteed and the advantages that it has today are certainly not future proof so cathy wood ceo of arkhanvest how did kathy wood go from being a ridiculed outsider just a few years ago whose own friends thought that her company arkhanvest would fail oh and maybe you think that ridiculed is too strong of a word it's definitely not yes she was definitely a ridiculed outsider i encourage you to go back and look at how she was treated in interviews only a year ago people interviewing her had no respect for her and neither did people commenting on videos online so how did she go from ridicule to being called by some the best investor you've never heard of and from very quickly being called the best investor you never heard of to where she is today which is essentially a celebrity in the investment world what does she understand what does she get about the world today that your friends your financial advisor and wall street doesn't what she understands at a deeper level than the general public does is the commonly misunderstood theory of disruptive innovation now most people watching this video have probably heard of the theory of disruptive innovation you may even have pretty strong opinions about the theory even though you might not have read any of the academic literature that underpins disruption theory you probably think you have a pretty good understanding of what disruption theory is disruptive innovation is a phrase that seems to be on the lips of everyone from wall street to silicon valley introduced by a man named clay christensen of harvard business school in 1995 the theory of disruption has proven to be a really powerful way of thinking about innovation-driven growth many business leaders and executives at large well-established organizations praise it as their guiding principle it seems to be something that everyone in the investment world is talking about unfortunately as noticed by many in the academic community and the harvard business review disruption theory is becoming a victim of its own success despite the fact that there seems to be broad general knowledge of disruptive innovation the theory's core concepts have been widely misunderstood and its basic tenets frequently misapplied there have also been a lot of changes to the original concept since 1995 mostly because the last 20 years has provided academics plenty of opportunity to observe disruption theory in real time and make refinements unfortunately those refinements now collectively folded into the theory of disruptive innovation have been overshadowed by the popularity of the original concept as a result the theory is sometimes criticized for shortcomings that were addressed and refined in the theory over the last 20 years according to the clay christensen institute and i paraphrase here disruptive innovation is one of the most misunderstood and misapplied terms in the business lexicon disruptive innovations are not breakthrough technologies that make good products better rather they are innovations that make products and services more accessible and affordable thereby making them available to a larger population this is the core of what kathy wood and arkhamvest understands that the rest of us don't look at making up this statistic on the fly but i would suspect that somewhere close to 90 percent of the client facing folks that you meet in finance are little more than frat boys and suits and ties who really don't know much about technological innovation and probably don't even think about it very much disruptive innovation is just the latest industry buzz word and they're good at saying the right things to get you to sign on the dotted line they don't get the significance of what is happening in our society at all so when kathy wood tweets things like technologically enabled innovation follows declining cost curves and prices that enable exponential growth opportunities for mass markets stay on the right side of chain most people hear what they want to hear when they read this and not what she's really saying the cost decline curve that she is tweeting about is absolutely the principle that defines the arkhan invest conviction in companies like tesla in vitae and square and the outrageously bullish predictions that arc invest has made about tesla's future valuation the cost decline curve is derived from wright's law which was first formulated by a gentleman named theodore paul wright an american aeronautical engineer who works in aircraft manufacturing and features prominently in the theory of disruptive innovation while studying airplane manufacturing wright determined that for every doubling of airplane production the labor requirement was reduced by 10 to 15 percent in 1936 he detailed his full findings in the paper factors affecting the cost of airplanes what wright's law did was provide a reliable framework for forecasting cost declines as a function of cumulative production basically it states that for every cumulative doubling of units produced costs will fall by a constant percentage so why is it called wright's law and not rights hypothesis or rights theory well first of all i'm not really sure that the same level of rigor is attached to the terminology in the business world as it is in the scientific community but another reason is the fact that we have 110 years of auto production that confirm wright's law along with confirming data from airline manufacturing and from the manufacturer of many other technologies in the last century namely lithium-ion batteries which ties directly into why arkhanvest is willing to bet the farm on tesla and why it is willing to do it right now at this moment the electric car isn't new they've been around at least since 1881 and lithium-ion batteries aren't new either they've been around since at least 1985.
the moment matters though and this moment is important there have been many companies with incredibly innovative technologies that failed to disrupt for one reason or another and a lot of times it had something to do with timing and cost declines remember at the beginning of this video when i came out and stated that tesla is not yet the disruptive innovator in the process of wrecking everything connected to the internal combustion engine from car dealerships big oil companies gas stations smog stations and oil change places all the way to wild counters lee sounds rough necks and deckhands and oil barges tesla isn't there yet they're not quite that disruptive innovator yet and here's why according to a harvard business review article that i'm going to paraphrase disruption as it pertains to the theory of disruptive innovation describes a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge and establish incumbent business specifically as incumbents focus on improving products and services for their most demanding and usually most profitable customers they exceed the needs of some market segments and ignore the needs of others entrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments gaining a foothold by delivering more suitable functionality frequently at a lower price incumbents chasing higher profitability and more demanding segments tend not to respond vigorously entrants then move up market delivering their performance that incumbents mainstream customers require while preserving the advantages that drove their earlier success when mainstream customers start to adopt the entrance offering and volume disruption has occurred the implication here is that disruptive innovations originate in low end or new market footholds the problem with trying to fit tesla into the theory of disruptive innovation is that this doesn't describe the history of tesla at all when the tesla roadster rolled out to the public in 2008 the base price was 109 000 definitely not low in the next model vehicle produced by tesla in 2009 the model s was much less expensive but still carried an eye-popping 57 400 base price once again not low end at all no it seemed that the first offerings that tesla had were aimed at loaded gadget geeks flush early adopting virtue signalers and wealthy weirdos actually this shouldn't be a surprise at all given elon musk's background and technology tesla's product release strategy from the very beginning has emulated the typical technological product life cycle and initially targeted those affluent buyers succeeding vehicle models have since moved into ever larger markets at ever lower price points culminating in the tesla model 3 which is not far at all away from being a mass market vehicle so this strategy is common in the technology industry for sustaining innovators for those incumbent companies not disruptors so what the heck is elon musk doing what is he trying to accomplish now from the beginning elon musk has consistently maintained that tesla's long-term strategic goal was to create affordable mass-market electric vehicles and a sustainable energy economy according to an old elon musk blog post new technology in any field takes a few versions to optimize before reaching the mass market in this case it is competing with 150 years and trillions of dollars spent on gasoline cars so basically elon is attempting to become a disruptive innovator in a manner that is basically the opposite of that which is prescribed in the theory of disruptive innovation tesla is entering at the high end and optimizing his technology by working his way down market to the masses now why the heck would he do that the answer is pretty simple uh because he had to do it that way and it all has to do with the declining cost curve of lithium-ion batteries that can be so wonderfully predicted by wright's law in fact that is also the answer to the other big question i asked which is why is ark invest willing to bet the farm right now at this moment here i'm going to refer to some of arkhan vest's own research now if you take a look at this first graph here most folks familiar with technology cycles or something called moore's law would probably conclude that lithium-ion battery technology matured by around 2005 after two decades of declining by roughly 10 uh per year on average lithium-ion battery costs reductions started to flatten out by then and don't seem to be improving very much however these 10 annual declines push the unit cost of lithium batteries across a critical threshold by 2005 and that critical threshold basically enabled the production of the first electric vehicles at scale it's hard to illustrate what this does to battery demand and as far as i know arc invest is the only company out there that's done this research one 200 plus mile range vehicle has as much battery power as 5 000 iphones according to arc invest research so if just one percent of auto sales were to convert from gas power to electric they would more than double the demand for lithium-ion batteries relative to those required for smartphones globally if one were able to recognize that batteries were about to hit this tipping point analysts could have forecasted that the time required for the cumulative doubling of production would drop precipitously and that the decline in costs would begin to re-accelerate as they did and as they're shown in these charts the decline in prices has opened up new market segments of the auto market to lithium ion batteries which in turn is pushing them towards an even larger market because of cost declines and that is the utility scale stationary energy storage market and of course for every cumulative doubling of units produced costs will fall at a predictable rate and the cost of ev battery packs certainly has fallen according to wright's law since 2010.
going from around 1160 per kilowatt hour in 2010 all the way down to a weighted average of about 153 dollars per kilowatt hour in 2019 and possibly as low as between 130 and 110 dollars per kilowatt hour for tesla by the end of first quarter 2020. according to sandy monroe of monroe associates inc a firm that specializes in tear down benchmarking and manufacturing cost estimation that's pretty amazing but yet actually utterly predictable by wright's law so couple that historical cost decline with someone who is well-versed in disruption theory and familiar with the drop in lithium-ion battery prices and combine that with the absolute deluge of information released by tesla on battery day 54 improvement range a stunning 50 reduction in the cost per kilowatt hour a totally mind-boggling 69 reduction in capital costs to scale production per gigawatt hour of new battery cells and the intention to diversify their cathode approach to address nickel supply constraints and eventually eliminate the politically problematic cobalt from tesla's cathode chemistry you have a pretty compelling argument forming that all of the technology hurdles have been crossed any giant milestone has been achieved the cost per kilowatt hour for battery cells has been reduced to somewhere between fifty seven dollars and forty eight dollars per kilowatt hour that goes way beyond the price parity point with internal combustion vehicles which is somewhere right around a hundred dollars per kilowatt hour the only thing left to do at this point since all the technology has been figured out is to scale battery production this is not an easy feat by itself in fact tesla has said that the scaling is the hardest thing to do but tesla has proven over and over that it can deliver on these promises so what does this mean let me put this in the dollars and cents that you as a potential consumer or investor can understand easily in february of 2020 that seems sandy monroe of monroe associates estimated that the power train was about 51 of the cost of an electric vehicle and the cost of the battery alone represents half of that 51 percent total battle train cost let's just round it down and say it's 25 of total vehicle cost which by the way it represents a giant decline in the share of battery cost for an ev vehicle over time it's basically been reduced by half in the last 10 years as well currently the cost per kilowatt hour for a tesla battery pack for the 75 kilowatt hour model 3 vehicle might be between a hundred and thirty dollars per kilowatt hour and 110 dollars per kilowatt hour and the purchase price is right around thirty six thousand two hundred dollars for the absolute base model which includes the delivery fee if the cost of the battery pack is cut to somewhere between fifty seven dollars and forty eight dollars per kilowatt hour the cost of the tesla model three could be reduced to between thirty two thousand three hundred ninety nine dollars and thirty one thousand four hundred ninety four dollars which absolutely makes it the least expensive luxury vehicle in its class now that cost cut probably won't happen for a variety of reasons and a lot of it is to preserve demand for the model 3.
but if we apply that same reduction in cost per kilowatt hour and we assume that the car tesla makes for us regular mass market folks can be reduced in cost in terms of everything but the battery by at least 25 over the model 3 and that of course is because it's much less of a luxury car than the model 3 it is intended for the mass market after all and corners can be cut that new mass market car would cost in today's dollars somewhere between 24 637.
and twenty three thousand nine hundred and sixty two dollars if no changes to tesla's margins are demanded by management or investors i do think that there's going to be some changes demanded by management or investors in terms of margin even though on the tesla model 3 they have one of the largest margins if not the largest margin of any vehicle manufacturer in the world at this point but if there are demands to increase margins i think it's actually going to occur mostly in the higher end models for the most part meaning that tesla probably won't reduce the price of the model 3 or the model y or the model x by much in order to keep future demand from collapsing but it would rather raise the margin on those vehicles on those higher end vehicles as the cost of battery packs drop to increase overall company profitability but let's say that investors demand that the margin in this new mass-market vehicle is increased by let's just pull a random number five percent over the current model three which by the way gross margins are reported to be a whopping 39 percent that's absolutely incredible the new mass-market vehicle with an additional 5 margin theoretically will cost buyers between 25 868 dollars to 25 160 and that includes the 1200 delivery fee it's actually going to be possible to make electric vehicles that are not just comparably priced but actually a lot cheaper than internal combustion vehicles in the same class with a higher gross margin all of this is going to occur sometime in the next three years as tesla builds more factories and scales production actually the margin part is super important i can do an entire video just on margin and why margin alone is going to kill the internal combustion engine basically 10 or 15 years from now it's going to be very very hard to find an internal combustion engine because auto manufacturers at least the ones that survive won't want to make them just because they're profit driven entities and margins are going to be much much higher on battery electric vehicles alright so tesla can't really claim the title of disruptive innovator yet and they really haven't disrupted the transportation industry yet basically because they haven't delivered on taking that complicated and expensive technology and making it available to the mass market but they are clearly on the path to make that happen sometime in the next three years you know something it doesn't just have to be scaled production of a 25 000 mass-market vehicle that disrupts transportation as we know it there's more than one way for this to happen we haven't even talked about things like autonomous taxis shared ownership which is a possibility or vehicle subscription services to tesla that could disrupt the idea of vehicle ownership completely especially in places where car ownership isn't so common to begin with let's be clear though the transportation industry and everything connected to it even marginally is about to be disrupted by someone that someone is likely to be tesla at this point but that dominance certainly isn't future proof tesla has some serious competition rising around the world for companies like vw byd toyota neo and baic and numerous other upstart companies one thing that's for certain in my mind though everything about the transportation industry and everything related to it is going to go through massive changes in the next decade alright folks these are just my thoughts let me know how wrong you think i am in the comments below i look forward to hearing from you thank you and have a nice day you
Comments 0