最多再過兩年，特斯拉汽車公司就要推出經(jīng)濟(jì)型電動(dòng)車Model 3，它的客戶早在翹首期盼。但是，盡管這款新車造勢(shì)很好，但一位優(yōu)秀的對(duì)沖基金經(jīng)理去說，Model 3會(huì)遭遇慘敗。他甚至認(rèn)為，Model 3可能讓特斯拉破產(chǎn)。另一句話說，他認(rèn)為特斯拉的股價(jià)將歸零。

對(duì)沖基金Stanphyl Capital Partners的創(chuàng)始人馬克?斯皮格爾（Mark Spiegel）說，Model 3可能來不及問世就把特斯拉搞破產(chǎn)。特斯拉的CEO伊隆?馬斯克承諾，這款車的售價(jià)將低至3.5萬美元。

在上周的一次投資者會(huì)議上，斯皮格爾展示了一份15頁(yè)的演示文稿，解釋他為何在看空特斯拉。他還說，如果考慮負(fù)債因素，這家公司的價(jià)值應(yīng)該為負(fù)。《財(cái)富》雜志拿到了他在今年11月給投資者的信。他在信中說：“我一直認(rèn)為，特斯拉是當(dāng)前最大的公司股票泡沫?！?

在斯皮格爾周二上午做完演講后，這個(gè)“泡沫”小了一些，至當(dāng)天收盤時(shí)，特斯拉的股價(jià)下跌超過3%，而大盤上漲。這個(gè)會(huì)議不對(duì)媒體開放，他的演講內(nèi)容直到周四才公開，特斯拉股價(jià)當(dāng)日又跌了4%。

斯皮格爾的Stnaphyl Captial管理著900萬美元，比起大牌對(duì)沖基金，這一規(guī)模可謂微不足道。不過，該基金自斯皮格爾在5年前創(chuàng)辦以來，資產(chǎn)已經(jīng)翻番，今年至11月創(chuàng)造的收益接近35%。

近來，已經(jīng)有不只一位對(duì)沖基金經(jīng)理公開看空特斯拉。Kynikos Associates的投資人吉姆?查諾斯（Jim Chanos）曾因做空安然賺得盆滿缽滿，他在9月透露，正在做空特斯拉，認(rèn)定這家公司必死無疑，尤其是在完成與SolarCity的爭(zhēng)議并購(gòu)之后。特斯拉的股價(jià)自他講話以來下跌了25%左右。

公司的現(xiàn)金流失過快，車主使用自駕駛功能導(dǎo)致車禍，與SolarCity的合并存在利益沖突（馬斯克是SolarCity董事長(zhǎng)，與公司CEO是表兄弟），這些是人們批評(píng)特斯拉的主要內(nèi)容，但斯皮格爾關(guān)注的是另一個(gè)問題。

他在上周二的會(huì)議說，能讓投資者相信特斯拉的估值的“真正原因”，是其售價(jià)3.5萬美元“大眾型”汽車Model 3的前景。相比公司的價(jià)格至少高出一倍的其他車型，這款車要便宜很多。但斯皮格爾判斷：“這個(gè)價(jià)格絕不會(huì)出現(xiàn)?！币?yàn)檫@個(gè)價(jià)位將給公司帶來“巨虧”。他估計(jì)，虧損幾乎相當(dāng)于客戶的購(gòu)買價(jià)。

他是這樣算出來的：

? 在最近一個(gè)季度，特斯拉意外實(shí)現(xiàn)2,200萬美元的利潤(rùn)，這是多年來頭一次。但盈利情況的大幅好轉(zhuǎn)主要是因?yàn)檎畬?duì)電動(dòng)汽車的一次性補(bǔ)貼。沒有政府補(bǔ)貼，特斯拉在三季度實(shí)際虧損1.17億美元，相當(dāng)每臺(tái)車虧損4,710美元。

? 斯皮格爾計(jì)算，每臺(tái)特斯拉汽車的制造成本為81,000美元。銷售這些汽車目前能實(shí)現(xiàn)盈利。但它們的平均價(jià)格是105,900美元，這位價(jià)位只有為數(shù)不多的高收入家庭買得起。

? Model 3售價(jià)低至3.5萬美元，特斯拉要想實(shí)現(xiàn)盈利，必須將生產(chǎn)成本降低一半以上。

? 特斯拉上哪去省這些錢？公司沒有明說，但斯皮格爾估計(jì)，公司可以采用它花了50億美元蓋起來的巨型電池工廠生產(chǎn)的新型電池，省下6,000美元；在Model 3上使用較便宜的零部件，比如以鋼件代鋁件，再省下5,000美元；想辦法提高生產(chǎn)效率，比如采用自動(dòng)化程度更高的生產(chǎn)線，還可以省下5,000美元。當(dāng)前汽車成本為81,000美元，省下這些費(fèi)用后，成本仍然高達(dá)65,000美元，遠(yuǎn)高于特斯拉計(jì)劃銷售的價(jià)格。斯皮格爾假定，馬斯克還有其他方法可以節(jié)省成本，但他認(rèn)為，最多也只能有1.5萬美元的節(jié)省空間，這也只能使Model 3的價(jià)格降到5萬以下，最低可以到4.8萬美元。

? 特斯拉只說Model 3最低售價(jià)是3.5萬美元，但馬斯克預(yù)計(jì)，算上客戶可能添加的各種升級(jí)和功能，平均售價(jià)將為4.3萬美元。按照這個(gè)價(jià)格和上面估出的4.8億美元最低價(jià)計(jì)算，特斯拉每賣一掉Model 3，就會(huì)虧損5,000美元。

明顯的解決辦法，就是特斯拉必須提高M(jìn)odel 3售價(jià)。斯皮格爾認(rèn)為，每部裸車的價(jià)格至少應(yīng)為5萬美元，這比公司目前承諾的價(jià)格高出了43%。他對(duì)《財(cái)富》說：“如果馬斯克宣稱3.5萬美元的價(jià)格是基礎(chǔ)價(jià)，而公司交付的每臺(tái)車都都比這個(gè)價(jià)格高得多，我不會(huì)奇怪?！?

特斯拉不只一次提高它承諾的價(jià)格。2012年，特斯拉開始交付Model S高檔電動(dòng)車的最早訂單，基礎(chǔ)價(jià)是5.74萬美元。僅僅過了5個(gè)月，特斯拉就將價(jià)格提高到5.99萬美元。又過了4個(gè)月，特斯拉取消了最低配的Model S，新車售價(jià)提高了1萬多美元，達(dá)6.9萬美元，比它最初用來吸引客戶的低價(jià)高出了20%。

但對(duì)于“大眾市場(chǎng)型”的Model，為避免虧損而提價(jià)無異于判特斯拉死刑。斯皮格爾預(yù)計(jì)，如果特斯拉到時(shí)候?qū)r(jià)格抬到5萬美元，與那時(shí)市面上其他很多電動(dòng)車比，就不再具有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)了。很多分析師預(yù)計(jì)，Model 3要到明年底才開始發(fā)貨，大部分訂單在2018年底之前都無法完成交付。

如果Model 3售價(jià)達(dá)到5萬美元，Model 3的價(jià)格將比通用汽車公司的Chevy Bolt高出33%。Chevy Bolt已經(jīng)在一些經(jīng)銷商那里有售，已經(jīng)比Model 3早一年甚至兩年上市，價(jià)格卻只有37,495美元。

Model 3的價(jià)格超高，馬斯克的經(jīng)濟(jì)型電動(dòng)車之夢(mèng)就越渺茫。斯皮格爾認(rèn)為，沒有主流市場(chǎng)的需求，特斯拉的未來不容樂觀。

特斯拉未做出及時(shí)回應(yīng)。 （財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：天逸

Tesla Motors customers are lining up to wait as much as two years to own the company’s eagerly anticipated cheaper electric car, the Model 3. But while the new car has created a lot of buzz for Tesla , one high-performing hedge fund manger says the Model 3 will end up being a total wreck for the company. In fact, he says it will likely put Tesla out of business. Put another way: His price target for Tesla’s stock: $0.

Mark Spiegel, founder of hedge fund Stanphyl Capital Partners, says the Model 3—which Tesla CEO Elon Musk has promised to sell for as little as $35,000—may put Tesla on a path to bankruptcy before it even comes out.

Speaking at the Robin Hood Investors Conference this week, Spiegel laid out his case in a 152-slidepresentation on why he is shorting, i.e. betting against, Tesla stock. Factor in the debt, and he thinks the car company is worth less than zero. “I continue to believe that it’s the market’s biggest single-company stock bubble,” Spiegel elaborated in his November letter to investors, obtained byFortune.

That so-called bubble deflated a bit after Spiegel’s presentation Tuesday morning, with Tesla stock falling more than 3% by the end of the day, while the broader market rose. Tesla shares fell another 4% Thursday after Spiegel’s presentation from the conference (which was closed to the media) was shared publicly.

Spiegel’s Stanphyl Capital manages $9 million. While that’s tiny in comparison to other hedge funds whose managers also presented at Robin Hood, from Jeff Smith’s Starboard Value to David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital, Stanphyl’s assets have quintupled since Spiegel launched the fund about five years ago. This year, the fund has returned nearly 35% through November.

It isn’t the first time that a hedge fund short-seller has publicly attacked Tesla recently. Jim Chanos, the Kynikos Associates investor who lucratively shorted Enron before its scandalous demise, said in September that he is also shorting Tesla, believing the company is doomed, particularly after its controversial merger with SolarCity ? is completed. Tesla’s stock price is down about 25% in 2016 so far.

But while other Tesla critics have emphasized the company’s rapid cash bleed; recent controversy over crashes seemingly related to drivers’ use of its autopilot feature; and conflicts of interest with SolarCity, of which Musk is chairman and his cousin is CEO, Spiegel focused on a different problem for Tesla.

The prospect of a $35,000 “mass-market” Tesla Model 3—much more affordable compared to Tesla’s other vehicles, which cost at least twice as much—is the “real reason” investors have bought into Tesla’s stock, Spiegel said at the conference Tuesday. But “that will never happen,” asserts Spiegel. That’s because at that price Tesla would be selling the Model 3 at “a gigantic loss”—indeed, it could lose nearly as much on each car as the price customers are paying for it, Spiegel estimates.

Here’s how he got there, by the numbers:

? In Tesla’s latest quarter, it reported a $22 million surprise profit, its first in years. But much of the boost came from a one-off sale of government subsidy credits for electric vehicles that Tesla had been collecting. Without that, the company actually lost $117 million in the third quarter—ora loss of $4,710 per car.

? Each car Tesla currently sells costs $81,000 to build, Spiegel estimates. Those cars are currently profitable on their own (excluding leased cars and other unrelated company expenses)—but they sell at an average of $105,900, a price point that’s only affordable for a higher-income segment of consumers.

? In order to sell the Model 3 at as low a price as $35,000 and still make a profit, Tesla would have to cut its production costs by more than half.

? Where will Tesla find all those savings? The company hasn’t said specifically, but Spiegelestimates that it can cut about $6,000 off the $81,000-per-car cost by using its new batteries produced at its so-called gigafactory (which also cost $5 billion to build), another $5,000 by using cheaper parts for the Model 3—substituting steel for aluminum, for example—and $5,000 on top of that by finding ways to make its manufacturing more efficient (perhaps with greater automation). Still, that only brings the cost to build each Model 3 down to $65,000, much more than Tesla plans to sell it for. But Spiegel gives Musk some benefit of the doubt, and allows for what the investor calls a “cost savings fudge factor” that’s “extremely generous” and “probably undeserved” but which could knock off as much as $15,000 or so off the cost—bringing the cost per Model 3 down to just under $50,000, say $48,000 at the lowest.

? While Tesla has said the Model 3 will be available for as little as $35,000, Musk has predicted that the average sales price of the car will be $43,000, once customers add various upgrades and features. At that price and a minimum of $48,000 in costs per car, Tesla would lose at least $5,000 for every Model 3 it sells.

The obvious solution? Tesla needs to raise the price of the Model 3—to at least $50,000 for a bare-bones model, or 43% higher than the price currently promised, Spiegel predicts. “I wouldn’t be surprised if Musk claims a $35,000 base price but then never delivers any even CLOSE to that number,” Spiegel tells Fortune in an email.

It wouldn’t be the first time Tesla hiked the base price of one of its cars after promising it would be lower. When Tesla began delivering initial ordersof its Model S electric sedan in June 2012, it sold them at a base price of $57,400. Just five months later, however, Tesla raised the car’s starting price to $59,900. About four months after that, though, Tesla cancelled the lowest-end Model S version, making the car’s new starting price $10,000 higher, at $69,000—20% higher than the low price it initially teased.

Yet with the “mass-market” Model 3, selling the car for more could be just as fatal a sentence for Tesla as selling it at a loss. If Tesla raised the base price of the car to $50,000 or more, as Spiegel expects, the Model 3 would no longer be competitive with the many other electric cars that will be on the market by then—as the Model 3 won’t start shipping to customers until the end of next year, and likely not before the end of 2018 for most orders, analysts predict.

For example, at a price of $50,000, the Model 3 would be about 33% more expensive than the cheapest Chevy Bolt, an electric car from GM ? that’s already on the market starting at $37,495 at select dealerships—more than a year (or two) earlier than the Model 3.

And the higher the price of the Model 3 goes, the more Musk’s dream of a cheap and affordable Tesla disappears. And without that mainstream demand, Spiegel thinks Tesla’s future doesn’t look so bright at all.

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.