2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

[generalenthu]

long post, but about a widespread phenomena effecting TSLA for years, in high gear this week, likely to be with us for years to come, but hardly ever discussed.

I found this article to just be another false narrative attack ad of an advertising blitz this week designed to drum into the public the misperception that it is common knowledge that Tesla's stock price is not rational. This ad campaign floods us with that message through a variety of slogans we've heard for years... Tesla "cannot be valued", is a "cult stock", "story stock", has a "sky high" valuation, is "not being valued by traditional metrics", is "only bought for irrational reasons",..

The repetition of these mantras is just a swift boating move. It at once talks the company and stock down, and leaves no air in the room to actually explore whether a reasonable projection of Tesla in the future can be made, and if so, what it looks like.

The NY Times article goes so far as asserting the gross falsehood that Elon was saying the traditional methods of valuing companies do not apply to Tesla (falsely implying an echoing of misguided claims of the dotcom boom and bust) when he tweeted Walt Mossberg "Tesla is absurdly overvalued if based on the past, but that's irrelevant. A stock price represents risk-adjusted future cash flows." Obviously, Elon was not saying Tesla is new and the old rules don't apply to it... he was saying, the value of any company is about the risk-adjusted estimate of its future financial performance, the past is not the point.

The key nonsense talking points of this misinformation campaign was the subject of a 10 minute segment by Jim Cramer this week, among several sugar-talkers on TV trying to shape opinion of TSLA's new ATH, topping $300 and passing Ford in market cap. A subtler form of this false narrative was used in the Barclay's report today (in this case, substituting the falsehood that there is no rational case for the stock price with the false claim of that the long case rests on 4 implausible assumptions, none of which, in fact, the long case actually rests on).

I'm going to post something I wrote Tuesday in another thread about Cramer's piece on earlier in the week, and it pertains to this NY Times article, and the majority of the media miscoverage of Tesla...

"The stock is valued on projected future earnings or cash flows, derived from what are considered the most probable assumptions and the most reasonable discounting of risk to meeting those assumptions. For many of us, on that basis, the stock remains undervalued. Instead of simply stating this for what it is and debating the assumptions of such models, much of the media tosses out the nonsense like valuation per car, and doesn't allow the real bull argument on air, instead tossing out lame bull arguments like Jesse mentioned "on bulls behalf."

[i.e. it is not that bulls are believing in fairy dust. quite the contrary, bulls are looking at the meat and potatoes of valuation, projected future cash flows and earnings, but the media discussion almost never allows discussion of this meat and potatoes. no, rather than an exploration of the assumptions of various analyst models, and a discussion that would open eyes to thinking about what reasonable assumptions are and what a reasonable valuation would be, the media pulls out the misdirection fairy dust of "cult stock", "story stock", "faith in Elon", "tech stock or car company", "market cap per car", etc]

Jim Cramer had an entire segment today on the false narrative that the TSLA price has nothing to do with valuation, but is simply what growth seeking buyers feel like paying today (for context, for years Cramer has been repeating two falsehood mantras like an ad campaign meant to stick in the public's mind the impression that Tesla's stock price has no rational basis, 1) "You can't value the darn thing", 2) "It's a cult stock")

here's a [my] 140 character rebuttal to Cramer from a tweet to him today,

Research Tesla! Very possible at 2.5 million vehicles, $1500/sh, & 1.5 PEG (way below S&P) in 2026 (w/ nil$ from TE or TNetwork)

and a slightly longer rebuttal from a [my] comment below the video link of his gibberish segment today on CNBC,

This is bullsh.., and it's hard to imagine Cramer doesn't know it. Tesla is at the price it is based on... valuation. There are about 15 Wall Street analysts covering the stock. They do not take a poll of what buyers are willing to pay for the stock, they create financial models of the company's future earnings, and value the company based on that (as analysts do with all covered companies). Again, the analyst VALUATIONS are based on future projected EARNINGS, with a discounting factor for the risk that the future earnings will not hit their targets. The current consensus estimate is a little over $230, despite extremely conservative assumptions for annual vehicles sold (for example, despite a $305 price target, Adam Jonas assumers Tesla will not reach 500,000 vehicles per year until 2024, long after Tesla's projection of 2018. Yes, an analyst with a $305 price target on Tesla arrives at that valuation by assuming Tesla will not hit its 2018 volume target until 2024).

link to video of ten minute Cramer swift boat piece today"

Cramer explains why valuation is not the end-all for indi...

fwiw, there was an article today that pointed out much of what I wrote about above,

Tesla will win out in the end because it’s following the Amazon model

Damodaran is a bear on TSLA with a very well argued valuation model. I highly suggest downloading his model here and put in your own inputs.

I did it and came to very different conclusions than him. In a different podcast this person was bullish on Amazon and bearish on tesla, position I cannot simply understand. There is a point to be made though that Bezos had been telling his story for far longer than Elon and of course, brick and mortar retailing is dying as evidenced by today's jobs numbers.

 

[winfield100]

It wasn't till you posted that link here that I realized the first time I read that article I missed the Deep Blue Metallic picture. That color is lovely. I also noticed differences in the nose. On the silver alpha, the crease down the side extends to meet the bottom of the blinker. On the Black RC the crease down the side looks like it fades out to the side about 1/2 inch above the blinker.

am i hallucinating, or does the "Tesla Fireflies" video look strikingly like the 3?

 

[vgrinshpun]

Speaking of the X, didn't Tesla have like 30k reservations for it? Have they even sold that many to date? It will be the same with the M3 if that car in the photos is the one. The reservation holders will disappear like a fart in the wind.

Yes, they did. During first six quarters of sales Model X delivered 36,983 cars vs. Model S delivering only 25,127 cars after being six quarters on sale. I suspect M3 will be multiples of combined MS and MX.

What is your point again?

May I suggest doing your homework before annoying forum with fart posts?

 

[Bobfitz1]

long post, but about a widespread phenomena effecting TSLA for years, in high gear this week, likely to be with us for years to come, but hardly ever discussed.

I found this article to just be another false narrative attack ad of an advertising blitz this week designed to drum into the public the misperception that it is common knowledge that Tesla's stock price is not rational. This ad campaign floods us with that message through a variety of slogans we've heard for years... Tesla "cannot be valued", is a "cult stock", "story stock", has a "sky high" valuation, is "not being valued by traditional metrics", is "only bought for irrational reasons",..

The NY Times article goes so far as asserting the gross falsehood that Elon was saying the traditional methods of valuing companies do not apply to Tesla (falsely implying an echoing of misguided claims of the dotcom boom and bust) when he tweeted Walt Mossberg "Tesla is absurdly overvalued if based on the past, but that's irrelevant. A stock price represents risk-adjusted future cash flows." Obviously, Elon was not saying Tesla is new and the old rules don't apply to it... he was saying, the value of any company is about the risk-adjusted estimate of its future financial performance, the past is not the point.

Great post SteveG, thanks for taking the time.
The NYT article rouses such disgust in me I have to comment further on two aspects.

First is to note that the writer doesn't try to make his case by excluding all mention of Tesla's accomplishments. He touches on most and then ignores them to arrive at his conclusion. The article sub byline reads "The electric-car maker has become a market darling not for what it has achieved, but for its vision." Apparently to this writer the GigaFactory in Nevada is only a mirage. Designing and building a high end electric car so compelling it has outsold ICE cars in it's class from BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc. is not an achievement. Neither is convincing all of them to see the writing on the wall and shift gears to move toward EVs. Accelerating the advent of augmented and then autonamous driving by five or more years is similarly ignored as an accomplishment.

Second, each time there is some new hit piece published by the NY Times I'm amazed again at the depth of their hatred of Elon Musk for having dared to confront them when an auto writer they used tried to lie and fabricate a negative article about the Model S when it was just being introduced. Elon forced them to back down on that piece, while not admitting any failure to fact check with Tesla before publishing it. How that must have stuck in their collective craw to motivate 4 - 5 years of non or negative coverage, not only of Tesla but of SpaceX. Apparently in the NYT bubble SpaceX also has no real accomplishments only Vision!

 

[kenliles]

Trump taps Lyft executive for transportation post

'The White House said Thursday that President Donald Trump plans to nominate Lyft executive Derek Kan as under secretary of transportation for policy."

 

[Buddyroe]

I guess it's this picture that most reminds me of the ugly a.. Dodge Avenger

Yes, they did. During first six quarters of sales Model X delivered 36,983 cars vs. Model S delivering only 25,127 cars after being six quarters on sale. I suspect M3 will be multiples of combined MS and MX.

What is your point again?

May I suggest doing your homework before annoying forum with fart posts?

View attachment 221621

So that means Tesla sold (6,983 minus <the number of cancelled X reservations>) Xs in 1.5 years since the start of production (beyond the reservations). If we simply take 0 cancellations (which obviously isn't true), then Tesla sold/delivered 23% more than their initial reservations of the X over the first 1.5 years. So the number is something slightly above 23%.

There were 9k S reservations going into production and they sold/delivered 25,127 in the first 6 quarters. That means they sold/delivered about 180% more than their initial reservations of the S over the first 1.5 years (again, assuming now cancellations). And, this is at a time when Tesla was severely production constrained. Had they been able to build 2.2k cars a week like they can now, that number would have been much higher. The wait times were definitely much higher back then. (granted that the 2.2k cars per week is split between the X and S, so 1100 a week wold be a better number to use - but even that is twice the number Tesla could produce in 2013).

Thanks for posting those stats for me to analyze for you.

 

[luvb2b]

i've got the gross margin guidance for next 2 quarters. anyone have any company statements / info on operating expense guidance? thanks in advance.

my confidence is growing that tesla is on track to report record revenue and earnings.

i continue to be amazed at how far offsides the analyst community is as a whole.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I guess it's this picture that most reminds me of the ugly a.. Dodge Avenger


So that means Tesla sold (6,983 minus <the number of cancelled X reservations>) Xs in 1.5 years since the start of production (beyond the reservations). If we simply take 0 cancellations (which obviously isn't true), then Tesla sold/delivered 23% more than their initial reservations of the X over the first 1.5 years. So the number is something slightly above 23%.

There were 9k S reservations going into production and they sold/delivered 25,127 in the first 6 quarters. That means they sold/delivered about 180% more than their initial reservations of the S over the first 1.5 years (again, assuming now cancellations). And, this is at a time when Tesla was severely production constrained. Had they been able to build 2.2k cars a week like they can now, that number would have been much higher. The wait times were definitely much higher back then. (granted that the 2.2k cars per week is split between the X and S, so 1100 a week wold be a better number to use - but even that is twice the number Tesla could produce in 2013).

Thanks for posting those stats for me to analyze for you.

First, apparently your assertion that "reservation holders will disappear like a fart in the wind" is not based on anything else but your attitude.

Secondly, all your "analysis" filled with acrobatics, can't obscure one simple fact - that "disastrous" Model X garnered much more reservations and have sales growing much faster than MS, your assertion of otherwise notwithstanding. Therefore your projection of M3 reservations disappearing does not have any basis whatsoever.

 

[farzyness]

Just finished re-reading Elon's Part 2. Found it to be an excellent reminder of how incredibly out-of-touch analysts today are with TSLA's mission statement.

Master Plan, Part Deux

 

[jbcarioca]

First, apparently your assertion that "reservation holders will disappear like a fart in the wind" is not based on anything else but your attitude.

Secondly, all your "analysis" filled with acrobatics, can't obscure one simple fact - that "disastrous" Model X garnered much more reservations and have sales growing much faster than MS, your assertion of otherwise notwithstanding. Therefore your projection of M3 reservations disappearing does not have any basis whatsoever.

Yes, not to mention that demand for the Model 3 will be highly elastic to exposure, which will begin to be evident only in August or later. I am confident that Model 3 net cancellations % will be fewer than were Model X, mostly because Model 3 is unlikely to have the rough introduction that plagued Model X. That Model X has thrived despite the widely public initial problems is quite strong positive evidence.

That is not to say there are not uncertainties, but I'mm happily wager that the problems will be minor for Model 3, with the notable ones being related to shipping and delivery.

 

[luvb2b]

i got the 2nd update to the consulting report. dissatisfied with some of their forecasting so sending back for a final update. they are saying not to expect final update until next week.

the general gist of it is that these nci's on the solarcity income statement. are likely to repeat. the exact level is hard to predict but there are logical reasons to think it will be similar to what's been seen the last few quarters. as the discussion is getting more and more technical i will move these posts to the 2017 q1 thread.

the most important thing is i got enough from them, comments from here, and research on my own to feel comfortable making some meaningful forecasts for solarcity's contribution in q1.

 

[farzyness]

i got the 2nd update to the consulting report. dissatisfied with some of their forecasting so sending back for a final update. they are saying not to expect final update until next week.

the general gist of it is that these nci's on the solarcity income statement. are likely to repeat. the exact level is hard to predict but there are logical reasons to think it will be similar to what's been seen the last few quarters. as the discussion is getting more and more technical i will move these posts to the 2017 q1 thread.

the most important thing is i got enough from them, comments from here, and research on my own to feel comfortable making some meaningful forecasts for solarcity's contribution in q1.

Will these be significant enough to move TSLA to positive earnings?

 

[Lump]

World’s Biggest Battery Energy Storage Facilities - Energy Business Review

#10 Tesla's . Southern California Edison (SCE) 20MW Mira Loma Battery Storage Facility

 

[SteveG3]

Damodaran is a bear on TSLA with a very well argued valuation model. I highly suggest downloading his model here and put in your own inputs.

I did it and came to very different conclusions than him. In a different podcast this person was bullish on Amazon and bearish on tesla, position I cannot simply understand. There is a point to be made though that Bezos had been telling his story for far longer than Elon and of course, brick and mortar retailing is dying as evidenced by today's jobs numbers.

I almost included some comments about Damodaran in that post above.

Below is a rerun from 2014 on my experiences with Damodaran's blogs, and Tesla model. There's a section of the post bolded just on Damodaran, but the whole post is relevant to the discussion we are having now

tldr; Damodaran's capital requirement assumptions are absurd (and tank his valuation), and after pointing out to him in the comments section of his blog how far far far off base those assumptions are, he suggested that I was more familiar with Tesla and its circumstances than he was, and that he indeed needed to relook at those assumptions, but did not follow through on that.

2014 TMC post (#1677),

"There are various people out there who by reputation and/or having a huge platform to get out their message project starkly misleading ideas about evaluating Tesla's long term fundamentals. I think part of improving as an investor is learning first hand that you have to understand the long term fundamentals of any business you invest in for yourself, and not rely on the "reputation" or "expertise" of someone else.

What were Moody's and Standard and Poor's reputation pre 2008? The "gold standard" in rating debt?

As John Wooden said "your character is what you really are, your reputation is merely what others think you are."

Here's a few quick examples of people, including Damodaran, whose reputation and/or platform have led many off the path with Tesla.

Jim Cramer may have a shaky reputation, but he's got one massive platform. He has engaged in essentially a propaganda campaign of repeating ad infinitum that Tesla is a "cult stock" and "you can't value the darn thing." Both are nonsense, but undoubtably have thrown many off from making the effort to look at the long term fundamentals... realize that Tesla is a rare company you can actually see a highly probable path to tremendous earnings growth 5 and 10 years out; earnings that say the stock was a great buy when he started claiming it can't be valued, and is at a minimum worth holding at current values. I doubt that this man who publicly said in the hedge fund business the last thing you ever want to do is tell the truth (happy to provide the link again to video of him saying this if you like) has accidentally been saying you can't buy this stock on fundamentals over and over and over, when that is simply not the case.

Aswasth Damodaran Implied credibility and objectivity of being an academic, reputation you've suggested of being the top global academic expert on valuation paired with a more modest platform (his blog) which at times becomes a large platform... for example when his Tesla valuation call of ~$65 and months later ~$120 got written up in the Wall Street Journal, led to appearances on CNBC about Tesla being overvalued, and made the rounds of repetition in the other financial media outlets.

What we can now see of Damodaran's output on Tesla tells me I'd take what he says with as much skepticism as I take what Cramer and John Lovallo (see below) say.

When he wrote his blog saying Tesla was worth ~$120 I had a pretty thorough back and forth with him where he explicitly stated his valuation was based on Tesla needing to spend $50 billion on capex in the next 10 years to get up to revenues in his model suggesting 1 to 1.5 million vehicles/year (he never explicitly shared his unit sales assumptions), and that this would mean they'd have to more than double their share count to raise that money; that is, he directly said he saw Tesla's 2024 share count reaching 300 million. I went through with him what they would need in capex through his timeframe (outlining and offering back up on projected costs for additional service centers, stores, vehicle factories and battery factories), and it wasn't even half of the $50 billion he claimed... in fact it was so much smaller, retained earnings are likely to fund the lions share of it.

He wrote back basically a ~"I see what you are saying, looks like you may be right. I'm going to have to look at this some more independently... though I have to look at the competition this opportunity would draw" at the time. When I raised the question again this week, he gave me basically, ~"now that Elon has given away the battery patents, the story of them being an EV company and battery maker has been undercut. I don't know what they are about."

Sleepy, frankly that response is even less appealing than Cramer's "I don't know how to value the darn thing"... do you really think Damodaran doesn't know whether Tesla has an opportunity in EVs and batteries in general because of the patent move? While this current "I don't know now what Tesla's worth" stance is much like what Cramer has done, unlike Cramer, he publicly said in the past that he could value the stock and that it was overvalued. He did this a couple of times, and appeared on CNBC to say it. If his goal was to convey what he thinks about the company, don't you think it would make sense to put out a blog pulling back his earlier valuations? That is saying something like "I was premature in making valuation calls on Tesla in the past... it's not a business I feel confident in determining a valuation for."


I'd say what we've seen from Damodaran is analogous to Alex Rodriguez. Lots of talent, but I wouldn't take what's been produced at face value.


John Lovallo (and the pitfall of wall street analysts in general) their position at large institutions gives both a reputation and platform advantage to all the analysts. Without going into great detail on Lovallo, he's made some statements it's hard to believe anyone having spent more than an hour learning about Tesla's and the potential for EVs as a whole could make. Some have wondered if he's lacking in brain power, some have wondered if he's got an ulterior motive. I think it's more the latter... this could of course be financial, but it can also involve ego. The point is Wall Street analysts are fully capable of writing "bizarro world" reports on the company they cover, and should not be taken at face value. Again, to me what brings it all back to the topic of this thread is you want to understand the long term fundamentals well enough for yourself not to go on someone else's say so who may be presenting a really insightful picture of a stock or a "bizarro world" fakery." "

 

[elasalle]

Tesla Timeline: Tesla Timeline | Tesla

This has events up to March/2015 .. so not sure if it is being maintained these days.
Looking at Apr/13 to Sept/14 entries - we can see what caused TSLA to sky rocket back then.

With M3 on the way, I think we are at the beginning of a similar cycle in Tesla ..

 

[farzyness]

I almost included some comments about Damodaran in that post above.

Below is a rerun from 2014 on my experiences with Damodaran's blogs, and Tesla model. There's a section of the post bolded just on Damodaran, but the whole post is relevant to the discussion we are having now

tldr; Damodaran's capital requirement assumptions are absurd (and tank his valuation), and after pointing out to him in the comments section of his blog how far far far off base those assumptions are, he suggested that I was more familiar with Tesla and its circumstances than he was, and that he indeed needed to relook at those assumptions, but did not follow through on that.

2014 TMC post (#1677),

"There are various people out there who by reputation and/or having a huge platform to get out their message project starkly misleading ideas about evaluating Tesla's long term fundamentals. I think part of improving as an investor is learning first hand that you have to understand the long term fundamentals of any business you invest in for yourself, and not rely on the "reputation" or "expertise" of someone else.

What were Moody's and Standard and Poor's reputation pre 2008? The "gold standard" in rating debt?

As John Wooden said "your character is what you really are, your reputation is merely what others think you are."

Here's a few quick examples of people, including Damodaran, whose reputation and/or platform have led many off the path with Tesla.

Jim Cramer may have a shaky reputation, but he's got one massive platform. He has engaged in essentially a propaganda campaign of repeating ad infinitum that Tesla is a "cult stock" and "you can't value the darn thing." Both are nonsense, but undoubtably have thrown many off from making the effort to look at the long term fundamentals... realize that Tesla is a rare company you can actually see a highly probable path to tremendous earnings growth 5 and 10 years out; earnings that say the stock was a great buy when he started claiming it can't be valued, and is at a minimum worth holding at current values. I doubt that this man who publicly said in the hedge fund business the last thing you ever want to do is tell the truth (happy to provide the link again to video of him saying this if you like) has accidentally been saying you can't buy this stock on fundamentals over and over and over, when that is simply not the case.

Aswasth Damodaran Implied credibility and objectivity of being an academic, reputation you've suggested of being the top global academic expert on valuation paired with a more modest platform (his blog) which at times becomes a large platform... for example when his Tesla valuation call of ~$65 and months later ~$120 got written up in the Wall Street Journal, led to appearances on CNBC about Tesla being overvalued, and made the rounds of repetition in the other financial media outlets.

What we can now see of Damodaran's output on Tesla tells me I'd take what he says with as much skepticism as I take what Cramer and John Lovallo (see below) say.

When he wrote his blog saying Tesla was worth ~$120 I had a pretty thorough back and forth with him where he explicitly stated his valuation was based on Tesla needing to spend $50 billion on capex in the next 10 years to get up to revenues in his model suggesting 1 to 1.5 million vehicles/year (he never explicitly shared his unit sales assumptions), and that this would mean they'd have to more than double their share count to raise that money; that is, he directly said he saw Tesla's 2024 share count reaching 300 million. I went through with him what they would need in capex through his timeframe (outlining and offering back up on projected costs for additional service centers, stores, vehicle factories and battery factories), and it wasn't even half of the $50 billion he claimed... in fact it was so much smaller, retained earnings are likely to fund the lions share of it.

He wrote back basically a ~"I see what you are saying, looks like you may be right. I'm going to have to look at this some more independently... though I have to look at the competition this opportunity would draw" at the time. When I raised the question again this week, he gave me basically, ~"now that Elon has given away the battery patents, the story of them being an EV company and battery maker has been undercut. I don't know what they are about."

Sleepy, frankly that response is even less appealing than Cramer's "I don't know how to value the darn thing"... do you really think Damodaran doesn't know whether Tesla has an opportunity in EVs and batteries in general because of the patent move? While this current "I don't know now what Tesla's worth" stance is much like what Cramer has done, unlike Cramer, he publicly said in the past that he could value the stock and that it was overvalued. He did this a couple of times, and appeared on CNBC to say it. If his goal was to convey what he thinks about the company, don't you think it would make sense to put out a blog pulling back his earlier valuations? That is saying something like "I was premature in making valuation calls on Tesla in the past... it's not a business I feel confident in determining a valuation for."


I'd say what we've seen from Damodaran is analogous to Alex Rodriguez. Lots of talent, but I wouldn't take what's been produced at face value.


John Lovallo (and the pitfall of wall street analysts in general) their position at large institutions gives both a reputation and platform advantage to all the analysts. Without going into great detail on Lovallo, he's made some statements it's hard to believe anyone having spent more than an hour learning about Tesla's and the potential for EVs as a whole could make. Some have wondered if he's lacking in brain power, some have wondered if he's got an ulterior motive. I think it's more the latter... this could of course be financial, but it can also involve ego. The point is Wall Street analysts are fully capable of writing "bizarro world" reports on the company they cover, and should not be taken at face value. Again, to me what brings it all back to the topic of this thread is you want to understand the long term fundamentals well enough for yourself not to go on someone else's say so who may be presenting a really insightful picture of a stock or a "bizarro world" fakery." "

I would actually argue that the whole "cult stock" and "can't value the damn thing" narrative is a great case for longs. This will naturally keep away anyone who follows his advice away from buying $TSLA stock, which will reduce the number of shaky investors that are panic buyers/sellers. This allows long-term investors to do proper research on the stock and go in a buy-and-hold position, which as we all know is a nightmare scenario for shorts.

 

[NicoV]

I guess it's this picture that most reminds me of the ugly a.. Dodge Avenger


So that means Tesla sold (6,983 minus <the number of cancelled X reservations>) Xs in 1.5 years since the start of production (beyond the reservations). If we simply take 0 cancellations (which obviously isn't true), then Tesla sold/delivered 23% more than their initial reservations of the X over the first 1.5 years. So the number is something slightly above 23%.

There were 9k S reservations going into production and they sold/delivered 25,127 in the first 6 quarters. That means they sold/delivered about 180% more than their initial reservations of the S over the first 1.5 years (again, assuming now cancellations). And, this is at a time when Tesla was severely production constrained. Had they been able to build 2.2k cars a week like they can now, that number would have been much higher. The wait times were definitely much higher back then. (granted that the 2.2k cars per week is split between the X and S, so 1100 a week wold be a better number to use - but even that is twice the number Tesla could produce in 2013).

Thanks for posting those stats for me to analyze for you.

I was one of those people who reserved a Model X, and decided to buy a Model S instead because it would be toolong to wait for the 5 seat Model X. Since then, I got 2 reservations for a Model 3. How does that show up in your analysis?

 

[vgrinshpun]

World’s Biggest Battery Energy Storage Facilities - Energy Business Review

#10 Tesla's . Southern California Edison (SCE) 20MW Mira Loma Battery Storage Facility

Rating battery energy *storage* project based on power output is not a proper thing to do. It is analogous to comparing water storage tanks not based on their gallon capacity, but based on the capacity of the pipe which connects the tank to the water main carry certain amount of water.

The proper comparison should be based on battery energy capacity in MWh (analogous to the size of water storage tank in gallons), not on power rating in kW (analogous to the capacity of connecting piping to carry certain amount of water).

 

[luvb2b]

i believe it's a virtual lock that we see record revenue and net income this quarter. if you were around in 2013, i'm not quite *that* confident, but still very very confident.

Will these be significant enough to move TSLA to positive earnings?

 

[Jonathan Hewitt]

i believe it's a virtual lock that we see record revenue and net income this quarter. if you were around in 2013, i'm not quite *that* confident, but still very very confident.

So you aren't going to buy a ton of Jan 2014 $40 calls for peanuts? (was that you? 2013 seems so long ago lol)