Text |Toretto
When we are used to Tesla's self-made batteries, it is really a terrible thing for the automobile industry.
Almost everyone is concerned about Tesla Battery Day (Battery? Day) With high expectations, before the mystery was revealed, the media analyzed the silicon nanowires from the poster details to expose the new battery "cookie box", and there were millions of miles of batteries that were constantly guessed, and the heat was hard to drop.
This moment has finally arrived. On the morning of September 23rd, Beijing time, it was a sunny afternoon in California. In the "open-air drive-in cinema" composed of hundreds of Tesla, Musk took the stage to open the curtain of Battery Day.
only in the eyes of some people, this is a "futures conference": the "468" battery is launched, but it will take several years for mass production; Tesla will bring $25, in new products, but it will be three years later.
until the end, the shareholders at the scene and the audience in front of the screen didn't wait for the "million-mile battery".
Wall Street doesn't buy it. What they want to see is Tesla's more subversive innovation, not only in the automobile industry, but also in the battery industry. The release effect of battery day failed to meet expectations, and Tesla closed down 5.6% that day. The next day, superimposed with the unfavorable news of Tesla's network interruption, the company's share price fell more than 1% to close at $38.36.
But few people care. The premise of all this is that this American star company should naturally take on the heavy responsibility of reforming or even subverting the battery industry, although its self-label is "pure electric vehicles, solar panels and clean energy storage".
when talking about Tesla, many people still classify it as a new energy automobile company, even though it acquired Solarcity. On the other hand, whether it is capital or industry, or consumers, everyone is used to the pioneering and innovation of Musk and Tesla in other fields.
So looking back at Tesla, it is actually a technology company with the goal of "accelerating the transformation of the world to sustainable energy".
At present, almost all car companies, including parts suppliers, are trying to transform themselves into "technology companies". However, most management members have reservations when they make their statements, and the final goal will return to the word "manufacturing".
The manufacturing ability that car companies are proud of limits their imagination. Now, many car companies will return to the main business of "manufacturing" in the short term due to technological transformation.
In today's auto industry, the capital of Wall Street and the technological innovation of Silicon Valley are at the two ends of the smile curve, while many auto companies just indulge in the bottom of the curve and are busy in manufacturing.
Recently, the customized car D1 jointly designed by Didi and BYD was spoiled. According to media reports, this model will invest 1, vehicles this year and reach 1, vehicles next year. According to the data released by BYD, the company sold more than 45, vehicles in 219. If the news of 1, vehicles next year is true, it can account for nearly a quarter of its annual sales at once.
I talked about this topic with a partner of an investment company as early as 217. At that time, I imagined that the volume was even larger-suppose you are the head of a car company, and you have the right to enjoy the car platform and give an order for millions of cars. Will you accept it?
"Don't answer, miss a big order. And if you pick it up, it's stupid. " For millions of orders, we need to invest in research and development, and the car price has also dropped very low. Finally, the standard and the right to speak are not in our own hands. In his view, the travel platform can give you the order today and give it to others tomorrow. It was a precedent that some bicycle factories at that time became the foundries of bicycle giants.
"So the combination of Wall Street and Silicon Valley makes sense." An executive from a traditional car company who is now investing in Silicon Valley feels that these two parties firmly grasp the two ends of profits.
Musk built a bridge between Wall Street and Silicon Valley, so that Tesla did not fall to the bottom of the curve.
on the basis of first principles, Tesla, located in Silicon Valley, solves the problems encountered by users through continuous innovation, and Wall Street gives capital returns. Especially this year, Tesla's share price has soared, and its market value has surpassed traditional car companies such as Volkswagen and Toyota, and even exceeded 4 billion US dollars at one time.
As early as May 1st this year, before share split, Tesla's share price exceeded $8. Musk said on Twitter, "In my opinion, Tesla's share price is already too high." However, the company's share price still couldn't stop. On August 28th, the share price exceeded $2,3. After that, share split was conducted at a ratio of 1: 5, and the share price continued to rise.
capital is crazy, but it is also rational. On the battery day in September, Musk brought "futures", electrodeless ears and CTC(cell? to? Chassis (that is, integrating batteries into chassis) technology is not exclusive, and Wall Street's response is a 5.6% drop in share price.
After the battery day, I talked to the aforementioned Silicon Valley investor about this matter. In his view, Tesla cannot exist in Detroit, and "tradition and innovation can't be born".
Fang Yinliang, a global partner of Roland Berger Consulting, believes that the new independent company will help attract external financing. Because the electric business and the fuel car business are cut, the two companies have two tables. The market will use PE to calculate the valuation for traditional car companies, while PS will be used to calculate the valuation for brand-new electric car companies, which may bring better valuation.
Some companies have begun to try. Lantu of Dongfeng Motor is an independent subsidiary, but the system seems to have no essential change.
The Silicon Valley investment executive mentioned a rumor that a European and American car company, one of the world's top 5 companies, did consider splitting the electrification business at the beginning of this year, and the new company focused on the new energy field.
However, I happened to talk about this topic with the relevant people of this company a few days ago. They bluntly said that the company should consider the inheritance. Now many people are still proud of the name of the company. If the new company is getting better and better after the split, even surpassing the parent company, how can the parent company handle itself? It's just that this reason is not sufficient. IBM sold its personal computer business to Lenovo, and it is still IBM.
Although many companies now know that they will face the "innovator's dilemma", they have set up independent subsidiaries to do autonomous driving or other new businesses, and they will also dig people from Silicon Valley, but "it is useless to just dig people, and it is useless to be independent. A century-old shop is a system, and it is easy to be assimilated when entering it."
"The key for car companies to transform into technology companies is sacrifice." An auto business executive of a China technology giant told me that it is easy to sacrifice one person, but it is difficult to sacrifice a group of people, and touching the interests of the group is bound to be countered by the other side.
the reason why tradition and innovation are incompatible lies in that automobile manufacturers "want everything". It is not easy to walk on two legs, hoping that traditional business will bring profits, but they can't make up their minds to "all? In "new business. Between the swings, it is the opportunity for Tesla and Didi.
Looking for flaws with a magnifying glass, Wall Street is more tolerant of the vibrant Silicon Valley than Detroit's lethargy. In their eyes, this is the future.
on the other hand, unlike large enterprises influenced by the board of directors and shareholders, innovative enterprises controlled by founders or powerful managers have less worries, and are more able to stick to the future and resolutely implement them.
Let's take batteries as an example. GM has invested a lot in battery research and development. Without the early support of BMW, Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited could hardly become a global lithium battery giant, but none of them chose to build their own batteries.
As Han Kaite, CEO of Ford Motor Company, said, there is no advantage in terms of cost or procurement, while the product development and procurement director of the company said that it needs to produce 1, to 15, electric vehicles every year to justify the establishment of a battery factory. He believes that no car company except Tesla has enough scale to justify the expenditure.
in other words, it is a loss in investing in the future. Volkswagen is more radical in this respect, investing in Northvolt, QuantumScape and Forge? Nano and other battery industries, at the same time, became the largest shareholder of Guoxuan Hi-Tech. It's just that radical Edith is having a hard time in public now.
the disadvantages of the principal-agent system of modern enterprises are more obvious in the period of change. Among Japanese car companies, family enterprises with centralized power, such as Toyota, are promoting the transformation in an orderly manner, while Nissan with diversified shares needs to find ways to get out of the predicament.
Back to Tesla, as a listed company, Musk's influence and control over this company is extremely powerful. The "Iron Man in Silicon Valley" who emphasizes first principles just keeps moving in the direction of recognition and according to the established steps.
In p>26, Musk released "Tesla's Secret Grand Plan", which is divided into four steps: the first step is to build an expensive sports car, the second step is to develop a model with moderate output and relatively low price with the money earned, the third step is to create a mass-produced and lower-priced car with the money created, and finally provide clean energy.
This sense of mission makes Musk and his Tesla aim at the goal, so even in Model? 3 During dystocia, Musk still has the confidence to go on because he knows that this is the only way.
GM also has the grand vision of "zero accident, zero emission and zero congestion", and is willing to invest in the direction of electrification and autonomous driving, but it is also an inevitable choice to take into account its main business, and its pace is relatively slow.
sometimes the pace is slow, of course, car companies also have the opportunity to catch up.
After all, market competition is a marathon with no end, and the game between Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Detroit continues.
-END-
This article comes from the author of Chejia, car home, and does not represent car home's standpoint.