저자: WarrenRedlich · 외국인
요약 보기
테슬라 2030년 비관 시나리오를 제시. 차량 1,000만 대·매출총이익률 30%·PER 50 가정 시 시총 약 5조 달러(주가 약 5,000달러). 에너지 저장 2TWh 가정 시 주가 약 1만 달러. 중국의 대만 침공 가능성은 낮다고 봄. 엘론 머스크 부재 리스크는 제한적이며 경쟁 출현은 테슬라에 위협이 아니라고 주장. 현재가(약 1,000달러) 대비 8년간 5배 이상 상승을 최악 시나리오로 제시.
다듬은 글
Hello, I'm Warren Redlich. I want to talk about my pessimistic scenario for Tesla in 2030. I know many call me ultra- bullish, and I have these really high valuations that I predict for Tesla if it achieves, you know, the Tesla bot, the robotaxis, and everything else, but let's talk about my pessimistic scenario.
Are you ready? Let's go. To begin with, in my worst-case scenario, there is no robotaxi. There is no Tesla bot. And there is no AI training, an important point that Ark Invest has made and which I believe is true; If Dojo is successful, Tesla will truly have a business in AI training supercomputers.
None of that exists . I imagine a world with only two terawatt-hours of Tesla products or only 10 million vehicles; I'm going to analyze both scenarios. Tesla has said its goal is 20 million vehicles by 2030. Both Elon Musk and Robyn Denholm, and basically the company's projection, is that they will deliver 20 million vehicles by 2030.
In fact, I think the robotaxi changes that, but we're ruling out the robotaxi. And then, 2 terawatt-hours of products; Tesla's projection at Battery Day, and something they have reaffirmed, is 3 terawatt-hours of products. That is, products that contain 2 terawatt-hours of batteries. A typical Tesla car might have an 80 kWh battery pack.
A Model 3 Long Range or a Model Y Long Range has an 82 kWh battery pack. Some vehicles have 60 kWh packs. My Model X has a 104 kWh battery pack. So, calculating about 80 kWh, if you have 10 million vehicles, that's 800 GWh of product. And then you would have 1.2 terawatt-hours in other products to reach 2 terawatt-hours.
Or perhaps the cars will have a little more than 80 kWh per vehicle at that point. So, those are a couple of ways to think about what a worst-case scenario might look like. Instead of 3 terawatt-hours, only 2 terawatt-hours . Instead of 20 million vehicles , 10 million vehicles, no robotaxi, no bot, no AI training, no other special revenue streams for Tesla, just that, how will Tesla fare in that scenario?
What do you think? Here it comes. I'm going to start this with the scenario of 10 million vehicles and I'm going to make up a figure, let's say the average selling price is $60,000. I believe that the average selling price of Tesla is currently higher than that. It is certainly possible that, in order to achieve 10 million vehicles worldwide, they will have to lower prices and perhaps the average selling price will end up being $50,000 or $40,000.
But I'll stick with 60,000 for now, and we can discuss that later in the video. I predict a gross margin of 30%. Again, I think this is low. I believe Tesla has already demonstrated that it can achieve gross margins exceeding 30%. I think the Shanghai factory might be achieving a 50% gross margin, but let's be conservative and say the maximum is 30%.
$60,000 per vehicle for 10 million vehicles , that's $600 billion in revenue. With a gross margin of 30 %, that amounts to $180 billion in gross profit, which leads to $100 billion in net profit. Approximately. These are estimated figures. These aren't definitive numbers, but it's a good basic approximation of what would happen to Tesla in the worst-case scenario.
And we'll see where this leads the stock price in a minute. And keep in mind that this is without energy products. The only product Tesla sells here is cars. They don't sell solar energy. They don't sell Powerwall. They don't sell Megapacks. They don't sell Powerpack. They don't sell robotaxis. They don't sell robots.
They don't make money with FSD, because the average selling price of $60,000 doesn't include FSD on each car, since it costs $12,000 right now. So this is quite pessimistic compared to the goal of 20 million vehicles and FSD in each one. This falls far short of the goals that Tesla has set. What if we analyze terawatt-hours?
Are you ready for that? At Battery Day, Elon and Drew Baglino talked about 3 terawatt-hours, but the world will need 30 terawatt-hours of production in 2030, and Tesla would make 3 of them. I thought Tesla was really aiming for six. I think the three-person figure was a conservative strategy, but I've heard them reiterate that number ever since.
So let's say they go for 3 terawatt-hours and only achieve 2. I know some will say, " Well, you're not being bearish enough." But CATL is increasing lithium iron phosphate production and Tesla is its biggest customer. LG Chem is increasing its battery production and Tesla is its biggest customer. Panasonic is increasing its production.
Samsung, Panasonic, and LG Chem are manufacturing 4680 cells. There's only one customer for that, and Tesla is ramping up its own battery factories. They are developing or increasing their own battery plants for the 4680. And there are many batteries coming online . I think 2 terawatt-hours is very pessimistic, but let's go with that.
10 million vehicles at 80 kilowatt-hours each is 800 gigawatt-hours. So, this assumes there are 1.2 terawatt-hours in energy products. You can turn this around however you want. I have suggested in this slide an income of $500 per kilowatt-hour. Now, if you look at a hypothetical Model 3 that has a price of $30,000 and a 50 kilowatt-hour battery, that's $600 per kilowatt-hour.
The reality is that a Model 3 currently costs $50,000; A standard-range Model 3 costs almost $50,000 with a 60 kilowatt-hour battery. So it's closer to $800 or $900 per kilowatt-hour. Therefore, I'm being very conservative here with an income of $500 per kilowatt-hour. In addition, the Megapack, $2 million for a package of approximately 4 megawatt-hours, that 's $500 per kilowatt-hour.
I am being completely reasonable by using $500 per kilowatt-hour. I do n't think I'm being crazy here. Now, $500 per kWh is $500,000 per MWh, $500 million per GWh, and $500 billion per TWh. If you calculate 2 terawatt-hours at 500 billion per terawatt-hour, you get 1 trillion dollars in revenue. Again, let's use a gross margin of 30%.
I believe the long-term gross margin of the Megapack will be higher than that. If a Megapack costs $2 million and the lithium iron phosphate cells it contains for 4 MW should really cost $400,000. Even if you manage to produce Megapacks at scale for one million dollars, you get a 50% gross margin on the Megapack.
So, again, I'm limiting the gross margin to 30%, just like I did in the previous example with the vehicles. I think it's very conservative to have a gross margin of 30%. What do you end up with? You have one trillion dollars in revenue, a 30% gross margin, you have 300 billion dollars of gross profit.
Roughly, that 's $200 billion in net profit. Once again, these are approximate figures. I understand that they can be adjusted a little, but you understand where I'm going with this . You can adjust them in the opposite direction. You can say, "Warren, you're being too generous." You can also say that I'm being too conservative.
So let's stick with $200 billion in net profit. What do these figures—the vehicle figures I showed earlier and the terawatt-hour figures I just showed—translate into in terms of Tesla's stock price? So, let's look at the vehicle scenario only: 10 million vehicles, $100 billion in net profit, and assign a price-to-earnings ratio of 50.
This assumes that Tesla continues to grow to 10 million vehicles. It's not that Tesla has reached 10 million and that's the maximum it will achieve. It's just that they didn't achieve the growth rate they expected. And they continue to grow, just not as fast. A price-to-earnings ratio of 50 is not rapid growth compared to where Tesla is now.
But with a 50-to-50 ratio, you see Tesla with a market capitalization of $5 trillion and a share price of $5,000. That's my pessimistic scenario for 2030. If Tesla only makes 10 million vehicles in 2030, zero energy products, zero robotaxis, zero bots, zero AI training, and no other revenue magic, they still have a share price of $5,000.
If you say, "Wait a minute, Tesla will continue selling energy products." And you can see that lithium iron phosphate cells are being produced. You can see that the market is there for the Megapack and the Powerwall. If you say 2 terawatt-hours of products in 2030 and 200 billion in net profit and a price-to-earnings ratio of 50, because again , we have greatly limited Tesla.
They will continue to grow in 2030 if that is where they are located. You end up with a market capitalization of $10 trillion and a price of $10,000 per Tesla share. In other words, my bearish scenario for Tesla in 2030 is about $10,000 per share. Now, I'm willing to say, "Let's be a little more conservative.
Let's lower the price-performance ratio. Let's look for some other limitations." And maybe you'll reach a Tesla share price of $5,000 by 2030. Well, we're trading at $1,000 right now. We're trading at less than $1,000 now. And there are 8 years left, you have a 5x. And that's like the worst possible scenario .
It's like the robotaxi never happened, the bot never happened, they don't even come close to the growth they talked about, and yet you still end up with a $5,000 stock. Even so, you achieve a 5x in 8 years. It remains the best investment you can find in the world. And really, 5,000 is ridiculous. It's really a price of $10,000 per share, and you have a 10x, more than 10x in 5 years .
Tesla is a fantastic investment. But let's talk about something here. What are some hypothetical scenarios that could lead to different conclusions about Tesla? Let's talk about that next. Here are some hypothetical scenarios that I keep hearing people talk about. If you have other hypothetical scenarios, please put them in the comments and maybe we can address them.
And I think I'll do a live stream where I'll invite people to suggest hypothetical scenarios about, you know , if something bad happens. The number one question I keep hearing is, well, what happens if China invades Taiwan? Well, first of all, China is not going to invade Taiwan. This is the United States .
These are Americans projecting American behavior onto another country. China does not have a history of invading other countries. We do. The United States invades other countries. China does not invade other countries. Which country has invaded China in the last 30 years? We have invaded, I don't know, 10, 15, 20 countries in the last 30 years.
Why do we assume that China will behave like us? China has no history of doing that. Their army is really not prepared for that kind of behavior. They lack experience in successful invasions, and that is not how China operates in its international relations. There is a sinister side or a sinister view of Chinese behavior in foreign relations, but it is not invasion.
The sinister story about China—and I 'm not sure I believe it's that sinister—is called soft power. That China gets involved in other countries in other ways. They influence politicians, just as they appear to be influencing some part of the American political sphere . They entrench themselves in other countries.
They take their business interests to other countries. They start buying from local people and begin to gain influence in those countries. You could easily see China doing that in Taiwan. I think it's very likely that Taiwan will resist that . They are probably more likely to succeed by resisting it.
But ultimately, if China wants to get its way somewhere, what they do is insert agents or other people. They start buying people, they use that to develop influence and push policies in the direction they want instead of dropping bombs, which is the American way, not the Chinese way. So I think it's a bit silly to suggest that China is going to invade Taiwan.
And let's continue with this. Most of these scenarios, like the global nuclear war one, I included that one. Most of these scenarios, except for Elon's disappearance, the invasion of Taiwan, the expanding Russian conflict , the global one... All these scenarios are bad for everyone. TRUE? This isn't just bad for Tesla .
You know, the same thing happens with supplies from China. What happens if China invades Taiwan and the supply chain is disrupted? Is that the biggest consequence of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan—supply chain disruptions— or are there worse consequences ? But if China's supply chain is disrupted for any reason, it's a problem for the whole world.
Now, Tesla is working on developing local supply chains for its businesses. So, if Tesla loses Giga Shanghai , but has Giga Texas, Giga Berlin, and adds another two or three Giga factories for when these bad things happen , losing Shanghai would be serious, but Tesla would survive quite well if it builds local supply chains for its factories, which is what Tesla has focused on.
Other companies really aren't doing that. Other companies are much more affected if there is a problem in the supply chain in China. We can see that Tesla is working on building those local supply chains that are much more advanced than other companies. So, if you're choosing an investment, yes, that means Tesla's stock price is n't going up as much as you expected.
But, if you're choosing where to invest and the other companies are going to collapse while Tesla survives, I'd rather be with the company that survives than the one that collapses. It's not like you 're investing in nothing . There are other options for where you're going to invest your money. Another hypothetical scenario I hear a lot , and which we saw Gary Black mention at Tesla's annual shareholders meeting, is: what if Elon disappears?
It is certainly a great risk if Elon disappears. I see Elon as an accelerator. Tesla is already on its way to massive success. The same goes for SpaceX, by the way, and Boring Company. Tesla, SpaceX, Boring Company, I 'm not sure about Neuralink, but those companies are already well on their way to success.
Elon's help is useful. Elon is a driving force for innovation. Elon is capable of making big decisions that other leaders cannot, but the practical reality is that Tesla has figured out how to manufacture cars better than anyone else. They have discovered how to do AI and autonomous driving better than anyone else.
The teams are ready to continue Tesla's success. It is unlikely that Elon's disappearance would stop that. Drew Baglino and Zach Kirkhorn are perfectly capable of running the company together. Perhaps there is someone else in the company who will step forward and participate as well, but they know the game plan.
It's a company with a mission. Everyone is on board with the mission. Everyone works hard. You know, it would reduce Tesla's likely success or slow its progress, but Tesla is already the best automotive company in the world. They are already the best energy company in the world. They are already the best AI company in the world, and they're not going to lose that just because Elon disappears.
It simply won't grow that fast. The last "what if?" What happens if the competition arrives? Well, Tesla is the competition. Internal combustion engines are the competition that Tesla faces in cars. The current energy system with fossil fuel plants, which is a disaster with peak plants causing problems and all that, Tesla is the competition that is intervening and competing against the established industry.
And yes, CATL will probably create something comparable to the Megapack, and LG Chem and perhaps Siemens or another company will make something comparable to the Megapack. Yes, other companies will come along and make decent electric vehicles. Nobody is close to Tesla yet, but there are companies that manufacture decent electric vehicles that are better than internal combustion engine vehicles.
But 98% of the market consists of internal combustion vehicles. So if competition arrives, that's great. We are phasing out internal combustion vehicles faster and breathing cleaner air. This is fantastic. It's no competition for Tesla. If someone else manufactures an electric vehicle, it just has to be better than internal combustion engine vehicles to succeed.
It does n't have to be better than Tesla to be successful. Because even if Tesla manages to reach 20 million vehicles per year, there are another 55 million vehicles per year that need to be replaced. New vehicles per year that need to be replaced. Therefore, there is plenty of room for competition to enter without taking business away from Tesla at all.
The idea that someone else will manufacture an electric vehicle to compete with Tesla misses the point. Tesla is not their competition. Combustion engines are also their competition. And they will take market share from internal combustion vehicles before they take it from Tesla. Yes, in the future, if there are enough competitive electric vehicles , then we can compete in that space, but that's after 2030.
That won't happen before 2030. Nobody else is scaling up electric vehicle production to the level that Tesla is. Who's out there? Who's the competition? Who is this competition? As for the Megapack, the demand for the Megapack is enormous. The demand for Powerwall is enormous. If other companies come along and do that, that 's great.
That moves us away from fossil fuel-powered electricity faster. That leads to a more stable network faster. All of this is good for society. It means a better economy for the United States and for the world; We all win and it does n't affect Tesla's success. In fact, it makes the world a better place.
And indeed, if you have a more stable grid and lower energy costs, this accelerates the economy, increases growth, and creates more opportunities for businesses to succeed. So, those are the hypothetical scenarios I thought about. If you have other hypothetical scenarios, leave them in the comments below or tune in to the live stream this Sunday , where I'll answer your questions and we'll have a great chat.
Please check out my other videos, support this channel on Patreon, on Locals, as a YouTube channel member, and check out the t-shirts at elonbits.com. Please subscribe to the channel and thank you so much for watching the video.
Comments 0