Having watched Friends, that just sounds wrong....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Having watched Friends, that just sounds wrong....
flankspeed8
Member
General Motors Co. on Tuesday posted a net loss of nearly $3 billion in the third quarter compared a net profit of $2.8 billion a year ago, with the bottom line pulled down by hefty costs from the sale of its European business and steep cutbacks in U.S. vehicle production.
Operating profit, however, cruised past analyst expectations.
The nation's largest auto maker by sales said operating profit adjusted for one-time items equaled $1.32 per share, surpassing Wall Street analysts' average forecast of $1.11.
skitown
Member
Agreed, it says they signaled it was going to be a bad quarter, and it was, and they beat the resulting expectations. But it was more than just the sale of the Euro biz that made it a bad quarter. It was a melange. Believe me, I really want GM to become a great EV company - I'm not rooting against them. But I'm also not betting on them.
Operating profit from continuing operations dropped 31% to $2.5 billion, hurt by production cuts in North America. Several factories were idled during the quarter to prepare for new-model launches. GM also has moved aggressively to cut passenger-car production in the face of weak demand, and it continues to trim less-profitable car sales to rental agencies.
GM's third-quarter production in North America fell 25%, according to WardsAuto.com. That included a 9% drop in output of large pickup trucks and related SUVs, GM's most profitable products, according to Barclays.
The production cuts pressured revenue from continuing operations, which fell 14%, to $33.6 billion, better than the average analyst forecast of $32.7 billion.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
All I have to go by is what we've seen so far, when 521 were sighted, we quickly saw 400s follow. When 1088 was sighted, we quickly saw 800s, 900s, other 1000s follow. Based on that, I'm expecting to see other VINs close to 2000 soon now we have 1910. I think it's a more unlikely scenario that Tesla would choose to build 1 single VIN 1910 while they're only making other VINs around low 1000.
Last edited:
yeah, we've seen the "Tesla's better off without a tax credit" argument now for too long. these arguments are total BS and you know it. raising the price of a car by 25% does NOT help sales and profits. it will only hurt sales and profits. What are you guys drinking to take these lines of thought this far into fiction?
Ok, let me put it a different way. Probably represent was not the right word. I did not mean in the sense of "equal to", but as in "a measure of". In both cases there is a fudge factor. For the number of different VINs spotted, you need to factor in that not all VINs are spotted that are delivered, so it it is a conservative estimate. That factor goes into the highest VIN spotted, too, but in addition there is a larger contribution going the other way, as they are delivering out of order. You need to take that into account, too - so the number delivered is definitely smaller that the highest VIN reported, yes. But it still gives you some idea. Like when highest VIN spotted was 1000, there might have been 500 cars deliverd, at 2000, maybe 1000 delivered or something like that.
Reciprocity
Active Member
You must be the one drinking to come up with 25% increase in cost? Using your bad math, how does raising the cost of the bolt 25% help it compete with the model 3? How does raising the cost of the 2020 competitors cars (100 models and growing) help them completed? Are all 100 crappy compliance cars like the bolt? Have you seen the $37500 bolt? Would you say it's more or less appealing then the $35,000 model 3, which has already been proven to compete with a $24k Camry in price when factoring in TCO and residual value?
Tesla could actually do with some lower demand at this point. Demand will double when more people see this car in the wild, even without tax credits, which more then half of the US reservation holders and all of the non US reservation holders were not going to get anyway.
So keep trying to spin this as a Tesla problem when really it's a Tesla benefit. Zev credits just got worth a whole lot more. And my guess is that blue states will replace the Fed tax incentives as a middle finger to the Fed, just like climate change Accord response.
Again, for the uninformed, tax credits are only a demand lever, they put 0 dollars in Tesla's pocket. Tesla has pricing power on the model S/X and has already lowered the price and increased the overall value by including more in the base model at that lower price. Tesla's also had the 2170 conversion that will allow it to cut costs even more and cost savings from the model 3 economies of scale and simplified/automatable design of the model 3 which should make it into the S/X soon. And again, Tesla has already dropped the price to compensate and may not need to drop it again due to growing demand which they cannot fulfill. I cannot stress this enough, Tesla can only make 100,000 S/X per year, period. Demand keeps doing up, they cannot make more cars and model 3 demand is infinite, literally 2-3x what they can produce given the most optimistic ramp time estimates.
Don't let the FUDsters trick you. Twitter will be ablaze with this nonsense. Hopefully the markets will see how this helps Tesla by drastically destroying demand for competitors cars, which will I'm turn increase the value of Zevs, which are about $10,000 a car?
Edit: why your math was dumb.. it's more like 7% of model S/X. Less then 20% for based on a 41,000 asp which is on the very low end, probably closer 15%. Which is still meaningless because demand is out of control and value is already there without incentives. Lastly, this only impacts US reservation holders, about half.
Last edited:
The federal tax credits are really only good for Tesla as long as everyone gets them. In a year, Tesla won't have them any more, and the playing field won't be level any more.
Luckily the tax credits only apply to 200k vehicles before starting the phaseout. That means that if a competitor were to start mass producing electric cars, they'd run out of tax credits quite quickly, just like Tesla.
No. It's a net negative. There is currently no electric competition. At most there is the Bolt but it's sales numbers are irrelevant for Tesla. If it can win 50% of all Bolt sales because of this elimination of the tax cut but it looses just 10% of its own reservation list, then it's a net loss. If another 20% of the reservation list decides to downgrade options (short range, no FSD, etc) it may be even worse.
Remember, Tesla does not compete against other EVs because there are (barely) any. Tesla is competing against ICE cars. And losing a $7500 tax credit in that race is a big deal because now suddenly a 3/S/X is losing competitiveness against a BMW3/5/X5.
For the S/X the effect will be less pronounced. The target buyer is less dependent on $7500 to make an economic case for the car. For the 3, it's not impossible the effect is very large.
What's funny with my investment in Tesla is that I'm normally a pure Ben Graham value investor : Calculate the current assets
, then deduce ALL the liabilities, and if the results show a number at least 50% lower than its market cap. I'll buy it. I'm basically buying the company at a discount based on its liquidative value.
-------------
It still works (I have good results, and a few of my friends still have good results with this method), HOWEVER, because of the digital progress we're gonna make in the next 10-15 years.
I think traditional assets are going to be less and less valuable on an economical level.
Now the only companies I own are : Tesla, Amazon, and Facebook.
, then deduce ALL the liabilities, and if the results show a number at least 50% lower than its market cap. I'll buy it. I'm basically buying the company at a discount based on its liquidative value.
-------------
It still works (I have good results, and a few of my friends still have good results with this method), HOWEVER, because of the digital progress we're gonna make in the next 10-15 years.
I think traditional assets are going to be less and less valuable on an economical level.
Now the only companies I own are : Tesla, Amazon, and Facebook.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
For prospective Model 3 customers who are already accustomed to paying for a BMW 3-Series or equivalent vehicle, the elimination of the tax credit will likely make no difference. The upfront cost between the cars is similar and the Tesla has lower projected TCO.
For prospective Model 3 customers who are stretching their budget from a Honda Civic or Toyota Camry, there will be financial effects from losing the tax credit.
See this analysis:
They are likely weighing the tax credit against (perceived) negatives from an EV, so even if they are financially able to pay sticker price, it will still make a difference in the decision process.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
This assumes that the positives of Tesla EV ownership, like driving experience, convenience of home charging, and Supercharger access, aren't being weighed as much.
The people most affected by the tax credit elimination are Model 3 reservation holders, most of whom I hope did some research before placing a $1000 deposit on the product.
Not necessarily. It's just that $7500 less or more will shift the overall balance.
No, they didn't do some research. The majority of reservations came in at a time many of the crucial details were completely unknown. And since the $1000 was fully refundable, there was no need to either. For most reservations holders, the real research will start once they are invited to configure and asked to pony up another $2500 but now non-refundable.
Given that the tax credit was going to run out 1-2Q 2018, the biggest impact is on the people who reserved M3 on day 1(& maybe 1st week). Day 1 had like 400K reservations of which like 125K -150K were US. The assumption was that not all of the 125K reservation holders would end up getting the tax credit anyway.
So while there might be an impact, there is one more thing that we can assume about the day one reservation holders - most likely to be Tesla fanboys, EV enthusiasts etc etc. So with this skewed biased population in data sample, chances of changes in rule having big impact should be reduced.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
Are we talking about a net loss in reservations? or net loss in sales? Incentives on Tesla cars would only last in 2018 anyway, and Tesla has more than enough reservations to fill in 2018. And IMO after 2018 there will be enough orders continuously coming in, so there will be no impact on Tesla sales. This is basically doing what Elon wanted in anti-selling the M3 for the entire 2017 which is to reduce the backlog for 2018.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
If I understand correctly, Tilburg is only doing some of the final assembly. Still it's such a contrast in the videos we saw of the M3 line at Fremont, how much denser the M3 line is. The video noted room for expansion as well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
