Connect with us

Investor's Corner

Tesla critic Bob Lutz vs. Elon Musk: A look back behind the bluster

Source: Revenge of the Electric Car

Published

on

In this corner, the father of the Chevrolet Volt, an auto industry veteran who has held senior positions at Chrysler, Ford and BMW, an unlikely advocate for EVs – a cigar-chomping ex-Marine who has called climate change “a crock.” Bob Lutz!

In the other corner, the mastermind of PayPal, SolarCity, and SpaceX, the archetypal Silicon Valley entrepreneur, who wants to electrify transportation and save Planet Earth – and if that doesn’t work, he’ll take us to Mars to start over. Elon Musk!

Back in the day, Bob Lutz was a champion of Tesla and Musk, citing the Roadster as a major inspiration for the Volt, and saying that he would “always owe them a debt of gratitude for having kind of broken the ice.” After Lutz left GM, he founded Via Motors, which set out to build plug-in hybrid vans and pickup trucks for commercial fleets, but has had a difficult time finding its market. The 85-year-old Lutz has written extensively about the auto industry. For whatever reason, he has evolved into a harsh critic of EVs, and especially Tesla. In 2016, he compared Musk to the leader of a religious cult. (Musk responded on Twitter, saying, “Dear cult members, I love you.”)

Advertisement

Lutz launched his latest salvo against the California upstarts at a forum sponsored by a provider of insurance for collectible cars, suggesting that collectors buy a Model S now before Tesla goes belly-up. He had nothing but praise for the car itself: “A Model S, especially with the performance upgrades, is one of the fastest, best handling, best braking sedans that you could buy in the world today,” he said. “The acceleration times will beat any $350,000 European exotic.”

However, Lutz said Elon Musk “hasn’t figured out the revenues have to be greater than costs…when you are perennially running out of cash you are just not running a good automobile company. I don’t see anything on the horizon that’s going to fix that, so those of you who are interested in collector cars, may I suggest buying a Tesla Model S while they’re still available.”

Above: Bob Lutz starts to discuss Tesla and Elon Musk at the 1:06:19 mark in the video (Youtube: Hagerty via InsideEVs)

“Twenty-five years from now, [the Model S] will be remembered as the first really good-looking, fast electric car,” Lutz told the LA Times. “People will say ‘Too bad they went‎ broke.’”

Advertisement

This time, Musk does not appear to have responded publicly to Lutz’s zinger, but naturally, a number of his disciples have come to his defense. Enrique Dans, writing in Forbes, notes his admiration for Lutz’s writings on the auto industry, but believes that “he has missed something enormously important. In fact, possibly the most important difference between the old and the new economy: fundamentally, timeframes.”

Lutz (along with legions of stock-market analysts) sees Tesla’s ongoing losses as a sign of the company’s inevitable failure. However, according to Dans, “Seeing the bottom line as the be-all and end-all of management is problematic…The principle that revenue must exceed costs is Management 101. The tricky bit is how you define the timeframe in which that has to happen.”

As anyone following the Tesla story knows by now, the company’s stock market valuation has no apparent connection to the number of vehicles it’s producing. Tesla’s market cap, currently around $59 billion, exceeds that of Ford, and rivals those of GM and Honda (which, interestingly, was once the subject of the same sort of criticism now leveled at Tesla). Stock-market pundits tend to see this lofty valuation as madness, proof of the irrationality of Elon Musk’s mindless minions. However, Enrique Dans finds the reason in fundamental differences in the companies’ missions, and the timeframes in which they expect to fulfill them.

If you parse the pedantic “mission statements” on the legacy automakers’ web sites, you’ll find that they basically amount to: “We want to sell cars.” Tesla’s mission statement is very different: “To accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.”

Tesla doesn’t just want to sell cars, it wants to change the world. This massive difference of ambition is reflected in the longer timeframe that Tesla envisions.

Advertisement

“In the economy Bob Lutz and other traditional car industry players understand, the goal and the metrics were clear: the quarterly results,” Dans writes. “If they were below what the analysts expected, bad; if they were higher, good. End of story. But the rules have changed…For today’s companies, profits are not the goal, they’re the cherry on the cake. Because the idea is, in the long term, to move toward an infinitely more ambitious goal, one that entails a whole new level of change. Companies that have grasped this can spend many years, even decades, without making a profit, as long as they are able to create a narrative that shows they are on the right track toward the defined goal.”

Tesla’s long road to ultimate triumph is not unprecedented – it’s a path that’s been trodden by other tech companies that set out to transform an industry. “For how many years did Amazon continue turning in negative quarterly results while its share price rose steadily?” asks Dans. “Did Jeff Bezos…supply his investors with drugs to maintain their confidence? Yes, he did, actually: a powerful substance called growth and clarity in the use of funds obtained. Amazon’s mission was never to sell stuff, but to change the world.”

Amazon is not the only example. In this age of instant communication, in which whole industries can be radically transformed, or even disappear, “reporting a profit each quarter has never been less important.”

“If Lutz is right, if the grand plans for a new economy that will change the world are bullshit, Tesla will go bust,” Dans concedes. “But if Tesla’s plans and strategy make sense, it may well spend a long time in the red, but it will end up as the auto industry’s benchmark.”

Change is taking place ever faster, and humans’ attention spans are growing ever shorter, so it may seem counter-intuitive that the timeline for corporate success should grow longer. However, even in the fast-paced internet era, changing the world, or even one industry, can’t be done in the space of one quarter. Tesla’s mission is a risky one, but so far investors are willing to accept that risk.

Advertisement

Bob Lutz and Elon Musk look at the world in two different ways, and they have very different visions of the future. Which one will prove prophetic? We shall see.

===

Note: Article originally published on evannex.com, by Charles Morris

Source: Forbes

Advertisement

Investor's Corner

xAI targets $5 billion debt offering to fuel company goals

Elon Musk’s xAI is targeting a $5B debt raise, led by Morgan Stanley, to scale its artificial intelligence efforts.

Published

on

(Credit: xAI)

xAI’s $5 billion debt offering, marketed by Morgan Stanley, underscores Elon Musk’s ambitious plans to expand the artificial intelligence venture. The xAI package comprises bonds and two loans, highlighting the company’s strategic push to fuel its artificial intelligence development.

Last week, Morgan Stanley began pitching a floating-rate term loan B at 97 cents on the dollar with a variable interest rate of 700 basis points over the SOFR benchmark, one source said. A second option offers a fixed-rate loan and bonds at 12%, with terms contingent on investor appetite. This “best efforts” transaction, where the debt size hinges on demand, reflects cautious lending in an uncertain economic climate.

According to Reuters sources, Morgan Stanley will not guarantee the issue volume or commit its own capital in the xAI deal, marking a shift from past commitments. The change in approach stems from lessons learned during Musk’s 2022 X acquisition when Morgan Stanley and six other banks held $13 billion in debt for over two years.

Morgan Stanley and the six other banks backing Musk’s X acquisition could only dispose of that debt earlier this year. They capitalized on X’s improved operating performance over the previous two quarters as traffic on the platform increased engagement around the U.S. presidential elections. This time, Morgan Stanley’s prudent strategy mitigates similar risks.

Advertisement

Beyond debt, xAI is in talks to raise $20 billion in equity, potentially valuing the company between $120 billion and $200 billion, sources said. In April, Musk hinted at a significant valuation adjustment for xAI, stating he was looking to put a “proper value” on xAI during an investor call.

As xAI pursues this $5 billion debt offering, its financial strategy positions it to lead the AI revolution, blending innovation with market opportunity.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla tops Cathie Wood’s stock picks, predicts $2,600 surge

Tesla’s future lies beyond cars—with robotaxis, humanoid bots & AI-driven factories. Cathie Wood predicts a 9x surge in 5 years.

Published

on

Cathie Wood shared that Tesla is her top stock pick. During Steven Bartlett’s podcast “The Diary Of A CEO,” the Ark Invest founder highlighted Tesla’s innovative edge, citing its convergence of robotics, energy storage, and AI.

“Because think about it. It is a convergence among three of our major platforms. So, robots, energy storage, AI,” Wood said of Tesla. She emphasized the company’s potential beyond its current offerings, particularly with its Optimus robots.

“And it’s not stopping with robotaxis; there’s a story beyond that with humanoid robots, and our $2,600 number has nothing for humanoid robots. We just thought it’d be an investment, period,” she added.

In June 2024, Ark Invest issued a $2,600 price target for Tesla, which Wood reaffirmed in a March Bloomberg interview, projecting the stock to reach this level within five years. She told Bartlett that Tesla’s Optimus robots would drive productivity gains and create new revenue streams.

Advertisement

Elon Musk echoed Wood’s optimism in a CNBC interview last month.

“We expect to have thousands of Optimus robots working in Tesla factories by the end of this year, beginning this fall. And we expect to scale Optimus up faster than any product, I think, in history to get to millions of units per year as soon as possible,” Musk said.

Tesla’s stock has faced volatility lately, hitting a peak closing price of $479 in December after President Donald Trump’s election win. However, Musk’s involvement with the White House DOGE office triggered protests and boycotts, contributing to a stock decline of over 40% from mid-December highs by March.

The volatility in Tesla stock alarmed investors, who urged Musk to refocus on the company. In a May earnings call, Musk responded, stating he would be “scaling down his involvement with DOGE to focus on Tesla.” Through it all, Cathie Wood and Ark Invest maintained their faith in Tesla. Wood, in particular, predicted that the “brand damage” Tesla experienced earlier this year would not be long term.

Despite recent fluctuations, Wood’s confidence in Tesla underscores its potential to redefine industries through AI and robotics. As Musk shifts his focus back to Tesla, the company’s advancements in Optimus and other innovations could drive it toward Wood’s ambitious $2,600 target, positioning Tesla as a leader in the evolving tech landscape.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Goldman Sachs reduces Tesla price target to $285

Despite Goldman Sach’s NASDAQ: TSLA price cut to $285, Tesla boasts $95.7B in revenue & nearly $1T market cap.

Published

on

tesla-model-y-giga-berlin-delivery
(Credit: Tesla)

Goldman Sachs analysts cut Tesla’s price target to $285 from $295, maintaining a Neutral rating.

The adjustment reflects weaker sales performance across key markets, with Tesla shares trading at $284.70, down nearly 18% in the past week. The analysts pointed to declining sales data in the United States, Europe, and China as the primary driver for the revised outlook. In the U.S., Tesla’s quarter-to-date deliveries through May fell mid-teens year-over-year, according to Wards and Motor Intelligence.

In Europe, April registrations plummeted 50% year-over-year, with May showing a mid-20% decline, per industry data. Meanwhile, the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) reported a 20% year-over-year drop in May, despite a 5.5% sequential increase from April. Consumer surveys from HundredX and Morning Consult also shaped Goldman Sachs’ lowered delivery and EPS forecasts.

Goldman Sachs now projects Tesla’s second-quarter deliveries to range between 335,000 and 395,000 vehicles, with a base case of 365,000, down from a prior estimate of 410,000 and below the Visible Alpha Consensus of 417,000. Despite these headwinds, Tesla’s financials remain strong, with $95.7 billion in trailing twelve-month revenue and a $917 billion market capitalization.

Advertisement

Regionally, Tesla’s challenges are stark. In Germany, the German road traffic agency KBA reported Tesla’s May sales dropped 36.2% year-over-year, despite a 44.9% surge in overall electric vehicle registrations. Tesla’s sales fell 29% last month in Spain, according to the ANFAC industry group. These declines highlight shifting consumer preferences amid growing competition.

On a positive note, Tesla is making strategic moves. The Model 3 and Model Y are part of a Chinese government campaign to boost rural sales, potentially mitigating losses. Piper Sandler analysts reiterated an Overweight rating, emphasizing Tesla’s supply chain strategy.

Alexander Potter stated, “Thanks to vertical integration, Tesla is the only car company that is trying to source batteries, at scale, without relying on China.”

As Tesla navigates these delivery challenges, its focus on innovation and supply chain resilience could help it maintain its edge in the electric vehicle market despite short-term hurdles.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending