Good reading. There's alot of FUD tone creeping into to this. It not clear how much of this is coming from Jonas and how much from the journalist writing up Jonas's note. In any case, there's alot of innuendo. This happens when a writer wants to cast something in a negative light, but cannot say exactly what the problem is. Then there's the suggestion that if the reader were perceptive or sufficiently aware they would know for themselves what those unstated problems. This is a form of flattery aimed at getting the reader to nod along that surely they are smart enough to have this all figured out and do not need consider any actual data to substantiate the claim. For example, the suggestion that the reader ought to make their own negative FX adjustment. Merely suggests that there may be a problem here, but in stead of working through the assumptions and adjustments, just talks over the head of anyone who might not have the accounting background to make such adjustments. So either you're supposed to pretend that you already know and agree with this or feel humiliated and just take them at their word. The fundamental problem with actually doing the "exposure to a stronger dollar" (more jargon to inflate or put down the reader) is that Tesla bases its international prices on the US price, so that it makes the same margin on a car regardless where it is sold. Granted there can be a time lag between when exchange rates change and when they adjust prices accordingly, but this is a transitory issue entirely within Tesla's timeling and discretion. Moreover, since Tesla remains supply constrained, there is no loss of revenue for Tesla when they price consistently under prevailing exchange rates. So whatever obscenity "exposure to a stronger dollar" may suggest, it really is a small issue for Tesla. Tesla can reset prices anytime it so chooses. So anyway the author here is definitely playing mindgames with the reader. Classic FUD rhetoric, you nailed it.