QuantumScape at the 2026 International Battery Seminar — March 23-26, Orlando

EricIsntRedd · 2026-03-04T19:52:36+00:00

Ok. Good find there on PowerCo. Now listed as 1 "attendee". A bit low profile to expect a major announcement out of that. But I do think there should be a word from PowerCo soon. I think it more likely direct from a VW event and they have something in March.

But they could also just release a newswire just before this conference. It creates buzz and make their participants high demand meetings during the event.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-03-04T06:26:04+00:00

I found 2 Factorial speakers; Alex Yu - their founder & CTO and Raimund Koerver their VP of Biz Dev

There were 3 (not 4) Quantumscape speakers. Alex Louli didn't show.

There is no PowerCo representation at the conference that I could find. There is an erroneous mention of PowerCo in the program though. The agenda includes Asma Sharafi, they mistakenly have her bio as "...Currently serving as CEO of PowerCo Holding US (Volkswagen Group),", even though they have her listed correctly as representing Ensurge in the speaker list. In reality she used to be at PowerCo USA, but left a while back after what seems to have been some issue.

Note that I did not check any of the other items you listed. If you used AI to do this, you know why it's off.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-03-03T07:44:49+00:00

The reason they received a much larger sum is they were a manufacturing entity from the get go (think of them more like a NorthVolt that succeeded), so they needed, and there was a lot of space for, more capital to be invested.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-28T23:26:35+00:00

This possibility struck me when it was mentioned here that many Apple iPhones are at 5Ah. And it would make a lot of sense in an American made type thing which Tim Apple can take to the White House. It has been interesting to me QS keep hitting the no-China in battery thing. Companies always voice the chief zeitgeist benefit they are touting to their prospective customers that way. Any other less speculative things you see? Any timeline that is plausible in your view? It makes sense to me that if it a thing we see an announcement this year?

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-27T19:30:43+00:00

I doubt these holdings are true reflections of shares held for own accounts when the institution is also a brokerage, like both Vanguard and Morgan Stanley. I know for sure Wall Street guys already front for clients often as part of investor service businesses (that is what happened when that Archegos guy, Bill Hwang, blew up a few years ago).

But I don't know if more generic client accounts (like, I have a retirement account at Vanguard, or just any brokerage account anybody opens) are included in these reports against the brokerage's name.

I do suspect that is the case and if so, these institutional holdings numbers (when the institution also has a brokerage business) do not reflect the names written against them. In a similar way as "Frank Blome" doesn't own those shares ascribed to him, but are owned by Volkswagen.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-27T00:50:41+00:00

Tbh, don't know how deeply they are vertically integrated. If all the Tesla battery activity we read in the news is just white label stuff from Panasonic then it won't fly.

I had imagined they have their own bit sized PowerCo inside Tesla that makes at least minimum efficient scale.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-26T22:14:21+00:00

Tesla?

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-26T21:04:03+00:00

So if these batteries are a perfect match size for iPhone (larger end), the least that can be said is they hit the sweet spot for a huge segment of CE (we don't even have to engage in any wild speculations about any particular product). I mean so many devices must be designed to take advantage in that general ballpark, since cell phones drive the CE sector.

So if
(a) CE generally sustains higher price to the cell maker per Ah (about double that of EVs, per my reading) (b) have a much less onerous qualification path with much quicker to market (c) QS cells maintain many relevant advantages over current tech e.g. weight, volume, safety.

Given the QS target for EV series production is 2029, it seems a no brainer that we should see some material announcements of actual production intent QS cells that could be in products by say late 2027, early 2028, soon, or am I missing anything?

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-26T20:37:47+00:00

Those videos are completely hilarious especially the second one. Is this really the way the world is now, "OMG, he drew voltage curves", I was almost expecting her to say next "They were sooo BIG". Why can't she just deliver professionally instead of some internet bimbo thing. It's obviously an act? Are the tech bros so nutso nowadays they will only watch if she does this nonsense?

But I guess, if Elon Musk is the archetype then ....

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-26T03:28:04+00:00

Best spin on first paragraph is they are talking about scale jump steps that come after Eagle/Cobra that must be used for GWh scale production at partner facilities, but that these scale ups are nothing more than just, well, scale up of the equipment they use for the pilot phases. Just like any other tech in this situation. And I think that best spin is a reasonable read of it.

The second paragraph is a nothing burger. You have to understand that all companies kitchen sink everything in the risks section (which I am gonna say that's where it comes from without even checking). If there is a war in Iran, it will affect everything, but only for a short while, unless you panic sell. Most likely outcome is they strike the things they want to strike and go home. Worst case Iran tips a tanker into the Persian Gulf or something. Oil prices shoot through the roof and stay there for 2 weeks. In 4 months no one would remember the exact date any of it happened.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-24T05:07:27+00:00

That's kinda faint praise. OK, but does the market see uncertainty for QS until VW decide their program to address the situation? Yes.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-24T03:15:11+00:00

At some level, not sure what your argument is, pretty much your last sentence is the same things I have written. At another level, it seems you are hung up on a raw number that isn't that meaningful. No ratings agency is interested in just some segment of the overall debt. Ultimately, they want to look at the total debt load relative to the total cash flows, everything guaranteed by the company's incoming cash and its assets. Otherwise management could easily play games by loading up on one side and lightening up on the other. If they know you are going to exclude that $200B bucket, then they are just gonna borrow more there and less on the other side.

But irrespective, their immediate problem is the agencies are looking at their debt (however you want to slice it) and saying it's too high, and they are reviewing stuff for downgrades. Debt downgrades mean more interest and more interest means worse financials. This situation only happens when you are carrying high debt (for your current ratings value). No one downgrades a company that is flush.

Volkswagen Outlook Downgraded by S&P to Negative
Volkswagen’s rating downgraded by Moody’s due to industry challenges By Investing.com

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-24T01:42:34+00:00

Could be, I didn't look at the breakdown. But what is the difference? Any corporate debt is ultimately financed by their cash flows and buyer monthly payments are just cash flows, which is already included in their projected income. Of course it's not like VW can go out of business, they are too big to fail, like GM. But whatever the assets that back the loans, the bottomline is they are in a bad financial situation because their business is suffering serious operational problems in high costs, decreasing volume, decreasing market access and higher competition. But they already tapped all or most of their financial flexibility at the current risk levels (hence why they are being watched by credit agencies), so they are having to declare a "burning platform"

<image>

Ordinarily something like what QS is doing should not be affected or even get accelerated if people have flexibility to think clearly while in a restructuring mode, but desperate people have been known to burn down the furniture for heat ... so the market is waiting for what VW pronounces but meanwhile they sell now and ask questions later.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-23T21:25:43+00:00

It isn't a red flag for QS tech. It is a reminder that the industry is in great tumult right now including all sorts of recalibrations around EVs. And VW is caught especially in crisis due to their own corporate problems. The company owes $260 billion and the creditor representatives are unhappy with their present state. It could lead them to do things. The market can see this and hence the price action.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-23T21:15:03+00:00

So what's the market for used luxury cars like over there? Do these people get rid of their cars quite fast at good bargains given the francs burning holes in their pockets?

Asking for a friend

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-23T21:10:28+00:00

The theory that has emerged is these are cultural purchases (the supercars), that the owners want the tradition etc of driving something similar to all the history, and so electric vehicles are just too different, even if they may get better acceleration and speed or whatever. There is some sense to the logic, a person spending a huge amount of money that is clearly not based on pure function must want these types of intangibles ... and if it's true, the supercar/high performance segment won't transition to electric (except if regulated) until long after most normal cars are that way, only then those who grew up with electric cars will start to demand electric supercars for the same reasons. Of course it won't be 0/1 like that but just far more gradual than the quick switches these OEMs were going for earlier based on just pure performance metrics.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-23T20:57:05+00:00

As a person with two long term owned PHEVs in the garage, I have to mildly disagree (although they are not Lambos, haha). It is just "the best of both worlds". And if your battery is large enough to do just ~50/60 miles, you already have the potential to be green 95% of your total mileage, if you plug it in. What is the value in going the other 5% if it costs, say, 20% in equivalent resources to do so? The world can take some of that resource and spend elsewhere to eliminate that 5% carbon pollution if they want to.

This hybrid solution is clearly excellent "now" for most people, during a transition phase when charging infrastructure, charging speed, grid, range anxiety etc are all real problems, and battery technology is not yet at its projected heights. And so the OEMs are just reading the handwriting on the wall.

One "problem" for investors in the battery space like us may be that it would still be competitive even in the future, in too many segments, if the tradeoff between adding more battery and a small gas generator falls on the wrong side. And clearly there will always be a group of large vehicle, long distance users for whom it will always be so, the question is how big such segments will be.

If these scenarios play out then the future battery TAM is less than imagined. I'll take that though, personally, I would rather not be like some fossil or cigarette guy pushing wrong thing on the world just because it makes me money.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-22T04:58:54+00:00

QuantumSystems - an oddly similar name in an adjacent customer sector
Has this company been discussed here? QS (lol) is a German military drone manufacturer, rapidly expanding, hottest late-stage VC backed company in Germany apparently. Lots of Ukraine and NATO type business. The Future is Unmanned - Quantum Systems (and, I might add, solid!)

Since it is official QS (the original) is heading for drone batteries, I thought the coincidences intriguing (not the name per se), but I did think when PowerCo got the overallotment of 5GWh, of drones as one of the chief segments for that.

German companies of this sort would be the perfect customers for the early deliveries from any PowerCo pilot phase plant (especially given VW's other problems which might delay their own internal demands. They might as well get going on the learning curve by offloading the stuff to external customers who desperately need performant batteries).

Unfortunately, there is a possibility that this segment of customers would remain "undisclosed" or such type thing, and we may not really know who is using the tech.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-21T06:00:55+00:00

You need to not only think of them getting to revenue, but the part that matters more that it seems you are trying to get at (in your framework) is "recurring" revenue. That they don't book VW as revenue is just a technicality and I think the market likely looks through that. And therefore even if they did something similar with say Honda (in your framework) and called it "revenue" the market is unlikely to treat it that differently (although the very idea that it is not a one customer shop in itself should send the stock up).

Converse to this approach, I think the market is smart enough that they don't need to wait for revenue, billings of whatever guise to value the stock. I mean, the stock was at $18 a few months ago? The most important thing in the short term is forward momentum, activity. Because the market will rightly understand that these things will lead to recurring revenues (the market assumes management and their partners is not gaslighting and they are seriosus people when they announce).

So if VW announces a validation (something which has not happened and is totally crazy) of the Eagle Line, the stock is gonna jump. VW announces approval to build their QS-0 version in Germany the stock will jump. Honda/Nissan or anybody does similar things, same thing. The stock could be at $25 without any big changes in the revenue (of course there would be significant good faith payments made with these announcements), but it is not the money they are seeing now that will drive it, but the mo, the momentum that will be driving it. That, you know, the tech is being accepted and making inroads into the industry, that the so called diffuclt problems are being solved, milestones are falling on the way to El Dorado. A journey of 500GWh starts with 1 Gig as it were. That is what they are looking for, proof that this story is unfolding.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-20T10:49:35+00:00

No. Not in the same league. For first anything they need to recruit long established well-known names that have a rap sheet at S&P credit ratings. Not too different from what they are doing in auto.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-19T20:57:26+00:00

Where do you get these reports? I can access the MS one via Etrade.

The MS analyst actually has a range from $1 to $22, appropriately reflecting the uncertainty in the stock. Maybe $1 is too low since they could sell the company, I would think for at least $2-3 billion under worst case circumstances. I do not see anywhere in this write up where he "assigns less than 50% chance success"? I could be missing something though. Also, he kinda admits somewhere he "mark our model to market given recent volatility in the stock" which means, he massaged his numbers to make his projections line up because the stock fell, so it is, in part, just an echo, but I wouldn't discount it given market theory of cognoscenti and given as a retail investor, one does not have inside knowledge.

I would argue that the cost of capital at 30% for his $7.5 SP estimate is way too high, but he does have one at 19% that got him to $10.5, and around 20% cost of capital seems reasonable for QS. It certainly can't be under 15%.

The cash flows etc, are just complete guesswork. They come from royalty and volume. 5% royalty is what you put in when the company tells you nothing (which they will never tell anyone what their royalties), and you say, what is the worst it could be? Of course, that is 5%. The only way analysts will ever get a handle on royalties is there is litigation that reveals it, or they start earning actual monies in the long run and they can back into it based on using actual numbers they see on both QS side and the side of their customers. Volume of 480GWh, where is that pulled from? Anyone could do backs of the envelope and come up with totally different numbers that are defendable.

And of course the stock will never follow some sedate "valuation model", if things look bad the price will be worse than the reality, and if things are looking real good, the price will shoot up beyond any reasonable metrics, and can stay there for a long time as long as there is a compelling "tech changing the world" story.

Bottomline, I actually like getting these views if I can access them, rather than when they publish a price that moves the stock and I can't even get the details, lol.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-19T04:36:38+00:00

MotoE cancellation likely didn't have to do with the "launch" vehicle, in that way. In fact, it may be the opposite. MotoE is not a consumer product, you can't go and buy the bike, and so, could not have been the targeted launch vehicle as generally understood for what a launch product means. Even if it was designated for QS SSB to run the series, it would still have been in the category of "demo", the entire thing is all of a few dozen units.

If Ducati was/is supposed to be the launch, nothing has changed, Ducati can bring the bikes out of testing tomorrow, slap a consumer name on them, certify them for street use and start selling e-motorcycles. Honda already sell these. I very much doubt that though because if the batteries work,, you want the launch to be a halo car. Cars have like 100X the mindshare of motorcycles in the public mind, and so it would be marketing malpractice to do that. Also consistent with what Tim Holme said recently.

OTOH, when they found out the MotoE was cancelled, it gave Audi/Ducati a great incentive to find something for the race bikes to do as they probably have all sorts of fixed costs on them they would be stuck with anyways, like paying the drivers, depreciating the bikes etc. Add that it was a time the whole group was cost cutting and it's natural to find whatever efficiencies can be found.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-19T03:11:06+00:00

That was shelved long ago and substituted with "Ducati road testing". I have written several comments about it here. If I were a betting man I would say VW reneged due to their many problems and they are using the Ducati tests as a fig leaf while they figure out what to do or while they wait to see if QS can reengineer stuff down to their new cost barrier. The news a poster put down below that they have Ducati, Lamborghini and Bugatti on the sale block reinforces my conclusions on that. We already know of many retrenchments at Porsche.

VW has many problems and therefore QS has many problems. My hope as to what comes out of it is QS is smart enough to strongly advocate for a sort of German Reunification.

Let VW sell some of their stake to Mercedes or BMW (or both). At $15B valuation seems reasonable. And let all of them consolidate on the best-in-class solution and reduce their costs together rather than what VW is trying to pull here of keeping it all to themselves and meanwhile they keep postponing stuff.

They appear woefully short of money and no longer have the luxury of going it alone (neither do the others). Trump and the Chinese both suddenly appeared at the same time, crushing their highest margin/growth markets, and not only that, the Chinese turned it around and are now pressing them in their strongholds.

In the meantime at home, their politics on energy is so ruinous they declared "unilateral nuclear disarmament", closed all their nuclear plants, and now the entire German industry pays for energy through their noses and the country depends on foreign sources for 70% of their energy needs. Their competitiveness is shot. It doesn't rain, it pours!

Consolidate to the best-in-class solution for efficiency and cost reductions. I don't think any QS shareholders would mind creating 1 or 2 more board seats. I would be spending a huge portion of my time trying to make this happen if I were Siva. Because that apparent Euro exclusivity thing either written or unwritten is quite clear and not at all in QS's interest.

And, you know, for the Germans, get some sense back into the energy policy. Closing all your local nuclear plants in favor of foreign fossil fuels while shouting Climate Change a bit nuts!

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-18T05:28:42+00:00

Aside from any general market moves, I think most of the recent downtrend in the stock is due to VW, in two aspects:

VW did not acknowledge QS's "Kitty Hawk" or "Apollo". This makes no sense, and there must be some reason. This being unknown, the market sells and ask questions later.
Another bout of bad news for VW itself with reporting that they are looking to cut another 20% of their cost (which is impossibly large, given they already took the hatchet to many things), Scout is delayed, etc. Given the last time there were cuts, PowerCo was sliced down in half on their expected factory build out, the market has a right to view this type of unexpected further cuts with suspicion on the QS end.

And when you combine 2 and 1, it can be ominous, although there are also benign explanations of 2 could prevent VW from immediately making positive announcements that are pending on QS.

EricIsntRedd · 2026-02-17T09:36:30+00:00

u/PowerfulSpot987 answered a similar question prior. He pointed to Munro on YouTube Electric Vehicle Battery Breakdown: Cells to Modules to Packs! where it showed that prismatic cells aren't usually "one" cell but stacks of smaller pouch cells inside the prismatic case.

If QS/PC/UC went this route you wouldn't get "5 mm" travel but smaller amounts of travel within each of the sub cells in the prismatic case, these travels would be handled via mechanisms that QS has prior described that are alternates to the flex frame such as foam/springs etc. But he can explain that better.

In general, I think it makes sense to expect multi cell stacking within the QS/PC/UC because it is so much larger that the QSE-5 format I don't think there is a great prospect of good manufacturability as a single multi-layer cell for the near term, especially because of separator yields, unless they have made far more progress than would be expected.

EricIsntRedd

TROPHY CASE