$561.8 million in revenue.. WTF???

[gregincal]

CapOp: I think you might find today's SEC filing interesting. There is an interesting discrepancy between the "management's discussion" and the "risks" part. Here is from the former, mentioning only ZEV (p. 22):


Here is from the latter, which acknowledges Q1 sales of other credits (p. 40):

I'm not sure what you mean. The first part seems to answer the question conclusively. In addition to the $68 million in ZEV credits, there were an additional $17.1 million in other credits buried in the revenue.

 

[DonPedro]

I'm not sure what you mean. The first part seems to answer the question conclusively. In addition to the $68 million in ZEV credits, there were an additional $17.1 million in other credits buried in the revenue.

{Sheepish grin}

Yes. So, proving that even a squirrel can find a nut. :-/

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

{Sheepish grin}

Yes. So, proving that even a squirrel can find a nut. :-/

Lol.. I read it and saw the $17m and was gonna call you on it, but someone beat me to it. More important (from my point of view) here is the relevant entry from my regulatory credit post -

11. EPA has listed the "Social Cost" of CO2 at ~$23/Mg. By itself, that likely means something like $1,800 per Model S for 2012 GHG credits. But the cost on this small regulatory market is likely much higher, with plenty of potential buyers, and few sellers. The EPA has itself recognized an implied multiplier of 2 by 2017 (the most critical phase of the ramp up). The marginal cost for automakers who have yet to develop and deploy compliant fleets is likely higher yet. With a multiplier of just 2 and ~2,400 sales in Q4 you get about $8.6m GHG revenue, while assuming 4,750 Model S's in Q1 that represents ~$17M in GHG revenue.

Ok, so now we know the big missing item in revenue. And we know that the current market value of ZEV credits is ~$7,000 (which has been quoted elsewhere) as opposed to the statutory minimum of $5,000, and we can infer that there were likely ~1,700 credits generated in Section 177 States, or else a larger number of Section 177 credits and they have a smaller value (which might make sense if you interpret the travel rules as diluting the value of Section 177 ZEV).

It should be straight forward to really characterize the rest of the "missing" revenue (which we already know can be filled little chunks of revenue from different places). And likely we can translate that knowledge back to Q4 (which also had unexplained revenue) and maybe give us a basis for really accurate forcasting.

Not bad for a couple days work.

- - - Updated - - -

Edit: Let me also add that my guess is that the $17m in credits is actually 1/2 GHG and 1/2 CAFE. I had indications that I should double GHG revenue (hence the multiplier of 2), but my current interpretation is that GHG and CAFE are essentially two sides to the same coin, as both are contained in the same rule and there is a direct regulatory relationship between GHG and MPG.

Edit2: Of course pure blind luck as a factor is still in play. Better to be lucky than wrong though

 

[DonPedro]

You called that info pretty good (first post in this thread). Thank you for sharing these insights!