2023 Tesla Model Y Long Range on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Wall Street still irrationally exuberant over Tesla shares

In a world where electric cars are far from the norm, it seems odd to us laypeople that you can't buy a share of Tesla stock (ticker symbol TSLA) for less than $230. But a research note issued Monday from Goldman Sach's respected team of auto industry analysts (seen in PDF form in our gallery) has added fuel to the irrational exuberance fire, guaranteeing that Tesla's stocks should hover at these seemingly unreasonable prices for some time.
Goldman Sachs analyst Patrick Archambault compared Tesla CEO Elon Musk to Apple's Steve Jobs, saying the Model S is a lot like the iPhone. The major difference is that it will take a lot longer for Tesla's electric cars to make a sizable dent in the auto industry, Archambault said, than it took for the iPhone to take over the smart phone world. If Tesla rolls out a non-luxury car in the next few years as is rumored, Archambault predicts the company could be selling 500,000 electric cars a year by 2022 or 2023. Based on those projections, the Goldman Sachs analysts says a fair price for Tesla's stock right now is about $200 a share.
Which, in the upside-down world of Wall Street, means the current share price of around $238 is nearly $40 overvalued. But that hasn't stopped traders from pushing up the price of Tesla's stock today between $3 and $4 a share. Over at Oilprice.com (subscription), contributor Martin Tiller on Friday was already sounding the alarm bells, saying Tesla share's are overpriced, despite the promising technology.

Is Tesla building a new skunkworks facility in Lathrop, California?

Tesla Motors has a secret. The California automaker has leased, and is now renovating, a 431,000-square foot former Daimler-Chrysler distribution facility in Lathrop, CA, but is not saying exactly what it will be using the space for. At least, not yet. About an hour's drive east from its Fremont, CA factory, the property is located just off the north-to-south Interstate 5 (I-5) and has extra acreage to expand the building by another 124,980 sq-ft, if needed. Designed to handle a lot of shipping in and out, one side of the structure is gifted with 32 truck docking bays. With no official word on the type of activities that are planned for the facility, it is only natural that we would want to speculate a bit. There is one clue out there that can aid our hypothesizing. The job section of the company's website lists a number of openings that would indicate manufacturing of some sort is intended for the space. We'll go ahead and rule out serial vehicle production, since the Fremont space still has ample room for that activity to handle the upcoming Model X and the more affordable future vehicle. It's far too small to be a battery gigafactory, so could it be instead a kilofactory ? Probably not. Of course, it could just be a new site for producing components for the Fremont production lines, but that doesn't sound nearly as exciting. It also doesn't seem to be worthy of secrecy. The coolest – though not necessarily most accurate – thing we can come up with is a skunkworks. A secret lair where new concepts are conceived and developed away from the prying eyes of the public. Yeah, we'll go with that. When we contacted Tesla for clues about the facility's purpose we got a boilerplate response, though interestingly, they might have thrown us another mysterious bone in the process. And we quote, "Tesla is continuing to invest and create jobs in California as part of our ongoing infrastructure expansion. In the last two months, we have signed leases for more than 625,000 square feet of Californian real estate, independent of sales and service centers. These recent investments reinforce our commitment to California and will help us continue to bring compelling electric vehicles to market at affordable prices." With a 194,00-sq ft discrepancy between the known Lathrop acquisition and the numbers given by the automaker, it seems that may be yet another decent-sized unknown building in the mix.

Why can't Tesla sell directly to consumers wherever it wants?

Our friends at Engadget, tech-obsessed sister site of Autoblog, have taken an in-depth look at the reason why it's so difficult for Tesla to sell its cars directly to consumers, the same way that Apple, for instance, can sell you an iPad at an Apple Store. As you're probably aware, the whole sordid affair can be traced back to dealer franchise laws, which vary dramatically state to state, all with the stated goal of protecting your local neighborhood car dealers from unfair competition. What sort of unfair competition, you ask? And from whom? Well, that's the heart of the matter, and it seemingly makes very little sense to the average consumer. Engadget puts it pretty bluntly: It's not really about Tesla, or electric cars. It's about money. It's an argument against competition that may or may not even manifest in reality. It's also a complicated issue, and one that doesn't have a simple solution. To wit, just as it seems unfair to keep Tesla from selling directly to consumers, it's also unfair, not to mention illegal, to shrug off and ignore rules and regulations that were concocted, debated and put into law as a protection to dealership owners, many of whom have been operating under said rules themselves for decades. Adding another wrinkle is the fact that nothing is preventing Tesla from using the established franchise-dealer model that every other automaker in the US also uses. Nothing, that is, other than Tesla itself. Want to know more? We can't promise that you'll really understand all the behind-the-scenes minutia and political wrangling that's gotten us to where we are now, but you will, at the very least, have an understanding of the issues at play after reading the article here. And when you're done, feel free to come on back and let us know what you think in the Comments.