A CNBC article John Peterson Wouldn't Put His Name Onhttp://www.cnbc.com/id/101455878

[SteveG3]

I think the errors in this CNBC article are both massive and nearly impossible to have been inadvertent.

it is by a contributor in CNBC, and I have confidence that if CNBC itself was aware of the grossly flawed nature of the article they would retract it.

I put this in a separate thread because I think added comments to the article on CNBC's website will improve the likelihood someone at CNBC realizes there is an article on their website that does not belong there.

Does Tesla have more room to run? That's the $30B question

Phil Lebeau does very solid work. I think some tweets to him calling attention to this work would have it corrected (he's listed as editor, but I guarantee he wouldn't have let this go up if he saw it).

@Lebeaucarnews

 

[sleepyhead]

My favorite part of the article is where he says that Tesla and Panasonic were looking to invest $1b to build the GF and then says that Elon dropped a bomb on us that it actually costs $4b-$5b. Or that Tesla barely sells 4,000 cars per quarter.

What an ignorant person wrote this artcle.

 

[SteveG3]

My favorite part of the article is where he says that Tesla and Panasonic were looking to invest $1b to build the GF and then says that Elon dropped a bomb on us that it actually costs $4b-$5b. Or that Tesla barely sells 4,000 cars per quarter.

What an ignorant person wrote this artcle.

that was indeed quite a whopper. fwiw, I do not think the person contributing the article is ignorant of the facts in regard to the various grand errors in the piece.

 

[The Blue Owl]

Following recent reports that Musk met last year with the head of [Apple's] mergers and acquisitions department, Tesla's stock has surged more than sevenfold.

Wow, I missed that rally.

 

[lolachampcar]

It is all soooo humorous. I remember discussing where Tesla was going to get the $5B it was going to take to build this factory almost a year ago when Elon mentioned the need to double the world's Li-ion capacity to support G3. I think it was in the Q1 call and I was amazed that all the "analysts" let it just float on by without a second thought.

 

[ggr]

that was indeed quite a whopper. fwiw, I do not think the person contributing the article is ignorant of the facts in regard to the various grand errors in the piece.

He could probably claim he was referring to US sales.

 

[DJ Frustration]

I get the feeling that the article was updated as a result of SteveG3's comments. Take a look at how the 4,000 monthly sales number magically changed to around 5,000. Anyone else notice a change?

 

[The Blue Owl]

I get the feeling that the article was updated as a result of SteveG3's comments. Take a look at how the 4,000 monthly sales number magically changed to around 5,000. Anyone else notice a change?

Yeah, he changed it. He now says "sales averaging 5000 per quarter", the average for 2013, conveniently ignoring the big uptrend.

At first it said "barely reaching 4000" a quarter.

He's still claiming that the stock surged sevenfold because of the Apple rumour.

 

[SteveG3]

I get the feeling that the article was updated as a result of SteveG3's comments. Take a look at how the 4,000 monthly sales number magically changed to around 5,000. Anyone else notice a change?

you're right DJ, though even 5,000 quarterly sales is still off 6,900 (though I guess a reasonable estimate of average for 2013). didn't see any changes to the 3 other very major errors.

I did notice something else. the contributor, Paul Eiesenstein has his contact information at the end of the "article." turns out he works for the Detroit Bureau, the self proclaimed, "Voice of the Automotive World." pieces coming together.

Detroit Bureau homepage if anyone is curious, TheDetroitBureau.com | The Voice of the Automotive World

 

[DJ Frustration]

Officially, the average number of Model S vehicles sold in 2013 was as follows (data pulled from quarterly shareholder letters located here (http://ir.teslamotors.com/events.cfm):
6892 in Q4 2013
5500 in Q3 2013
5150 in Q2 2013
4900 in Q1 2013

That averages 5,610.5 vehicles per quarter.