Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So I sat down and made some assumptions and did some calculations to try to predict the coming ER. Here are the assumptions and results

1. S and X deliveries as reported yesterday, S 12700 and X 9500
2. ASP for S at $87 k. This is based on in Q3 ER they said ASP for S decreased QoQ by 6.5% due to late introduction of P100D (4.5%) and the discounts (2%). I simply added these back because we had a full Q of P100D and no widespread discount happened. In addition the price hike of AP 2.0 would also contribute here. Note that I am accounting $1.5 k for this because out of the full 8k price of AP 2.0, I am assuming half of it (AP 1.0 function parity not achieved at end of year) got recognized. And not all deliveries in Q4 got AP 2.0 (it came out in Oct after all). The result is $87k.
3. ASP for X at $104 k. Same approach as above, only not including adding 2% back for discounts because there were few in Q3 to begin with.
4. Gross margin of S increased to 31%. Aside of a flat 2% due to no discounts, the high margins of P100D, AP 2.0, and continue improvement of supply chain/manufacture efficiency all contributed for another 2%.
5. Gross margin of X increased to 28%. Mainly due to similar reasons except for the 2% discount but more gains from manufacture efficiency.
6. Regulatory credit contribution to gross margin balanced out with the strong dollar. This is because Tesla have no horded ZEV to sell so the positive impact on gross margin would be far less. No net impact on overall automotive gross margin.
7. A nice increase in the revenue from services and others to $200 m in total mainly due to TE initial ramping up. However, I still consider gross margins on TE in Q4 very poor (around 0) so gross profit for this section is still very low - $10 m.
8. Overall I think expansion of stores and superchargers was on a similar pace with Q3, so OpEx increase the same rate QoQ, $593 m compared to $551 m in Q3.
9. No idea on the interest side but made similar assumptions in OpEx, net loss $62 m compared to $56 m in Q3.
10. Same provision for income taxes of $8 m.

With these assumptions, total revenue would be $2,295 m with $2,095 m coming from automotive. Gross profit $630 m compared to $638 m in Q3. After deducting OpEx, interest expenses, and income taxes, net loss is $33 m. However, this number is very small and could easily swing $100 m to either side. But overall I would expect to see a small loss of EPS for Q4.

As for cash flow, since in my calculation, gross profit is stable thanks to higher gross margins, I continue to assume cash flow provided by operating activities be about the same as in Q3, or $424 m. Deducting $1 b of predicted CapEx results in a negative $576 m. Full AP 2.0 could provide at least $50 m additional cash in Q4. In addition, Tesla said 2750 cars were not delivered but already paid in full. These won't count into income but I think goes in to cash flow. A nice $250+ m. Now we're at about $275 m negative on the free cash flow. However, there's also the increase of $500 m in ABL and accounts payable to soak up cash drain so maintaining a positive free cash flow is too out of this world I think. Even if SolarCity part didn't do great, the small size of this segment of the company won't make things too bad.

TL;DR. I expect close to breaking even on the EPS and slightly negative free cash flow for Q4.

If I remember correctly you were almost spot on for q3.

I'm expecting your asp assumption for q4 is low however. I think there was an increased mix of p100d in both s and x driving asp's up for both.

Edit: I did notice that you bumped up asp's I'm just expecting it to be higher based on my crude attempts at tracking deliveries.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fallenone
Thanks to those who answered my questions. I suppose, the $5B GF investment mentioned originally includes both building cost and equipment. So, 30% of building is complete, but not clear how much of the required equipment is installed.
(Basically, I'm trying to guess the capex needed for GF in the next year or so.)
 
2 (and 3?). When the pack designers become idle and have nothing better to do they'll redesign the S/X packs, and the timing should line up nicely with the Gigafactory ramping up to produce more batteries than are needed for Model 3 and Powerpack/Powerwall production, and for the contracts with Panasonic to run out.

You mean when GF 2 or more come on line, don't you?
 
the bulk of the shorts might just be an investment by the fossil fuel industry to slow down the replacement of their cash cow. "losing" $5 billion or even $100 billion on a short position in exchange for shifting out the transition to sustainable fuel a few years is a great return on investment if all you are thinking about is money.

Wouldn't/won't there be a paper trail of their losses somewhere in someone's quarterly reports?
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Thanks to those who answered my questions. I suppose, the $5B GF investment mentioned originally includes both building cost and equipment. So, 30% of building is complete, but not clear how much of the required equipment is installed.
(Basically, I'm trying to guess the capex needed for GF in the next year or so.)

Cannot edit my post now. Here is some additional info on the original plan for GF (from Oct 2014). This was planned when M3 launch was scheduled for 2019(?), before it was brought forward by 2 years to mid 2017.

Panasonic Reveals Plans for Tesla's Gigafactory Investment
Tesla signed a formal agreement with Panasonic for the Gigafactory partnership in June. Under the agreement, Panasonic will invest in production equipment for the manufacture of lithium-ion battery cells, while Tesla will invest in land, buildings and utilities for the Gigafactory as well as production equipment for battery module and pack production. Moreover, Tesla will be responsible for the management of the Gigafactory. Other partners will also be involved in the Gigafactory for manufacture of the required precursor materials.

Tesla plans to finish the Gigafactory construction by 2017. By 2020, the company expects the annual lithium-ion battery production of the Gigafactory to exceed the global production of 2013.
 
Wouldn't/won't there be a paper trail of their losses somewhere in someone's quarterly reports?
Depends how you funnel it. Could be a trade group expense that would normally be advertising and lobbying.

I know shorting theoretically lowers the price of a stock but doesn't it only move it a percentage lower then if it was less shorted? It is lower but the short position shouldn't continue to decrease the stock price over time if the overall size of shorting doesn't increase. If someone is willing to hold a short position artaficialy long and continue to do so doesn't it just at some point allow Elon to use it as source of cash flow? If your not interested in raising capital from the market and own a controlling interest in a company at what point would it make more sense to just loan out your shares and use the interest to buy back more stock? Is it even legal to lend for shorting if you are a board member of a company?
 
Out of 1000 senior automotive executives surveyed, 78% believe fuel cells are the future of clean vehicles, 62% think BEVs will fail.

Majority of automotive execs still believe battery-powered cars will fail and fuel cells are the future

I find this to be absolutely mind boggling.

I guess they don't realize those fuel cell vehicles are also BEVs since they use electric motors to move and have batteries for extra propulsion on acceleration. The fuel cell is just an expensive range extender.

Edit: should have said "inefficient and expensive range extender".
 
  • Like
Reactions: erthquake
...I find this to be absolutely mind boggling.

From the article: "For fuel cell hydrogen cars, you have to build both the equivalent of the gas stations, the hydrogen refueling stations, but you also have to build the entire backend infrastructure of electrolysis and transport, which could be considered the equivalent to the refineries and pipelines for petrol transport."

Exactly! Please keep our business exactly as it is, because we don't know if we can do anything else![/QUOTE]
 
Out of 1000 senior automotive executives surveyed, 78% believe fuel cells are the future of clean vehicles, 62% think BEVs will fail.

Majority of automotive execs still believe battery-powered cars will fail and fuel cells are the future

I find this to be absolutely mind boggling.

I find it to be all but certainly intellectually disingenuous. they simply don't want to legitimize the transition from their ICE businesses to EVs. They want this to occur as slowly as possible. Collectively their sales will grow about 20% between now and 2020 whether Tesla sells 1 million or 0 vehicles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.