Lackluster numbers

[Mike Strauss]

They issued a press release saying they only delivered about 17,000 Model S's... though guidance was between 17 and 19 thousand. Interesting as to why they guide above their production capabilities quarter after quarter.. analysts are lukewarm about this https://www.tipranks.com/stocks/tsla

 

[Vitold]

They issued a press release saying they only delivered about 17,000 Model S's... though guidance was between 17 and 19 thousand. Interesting as to why they guide above their production capabilities quarter after quarter.. analysts are lukewarm about this

Please explain what is lackluster about meeting their guidance and delivering record number of vehicles, while at the same time developing and troubleshooting 2nd shared production line for Model X?

 

[LetsGoFast]

I dont understand why why you say this:

Interesting as to why they guide above their production capabilities quarter after quarter.

The guidance was 17,000 - 19,000 and they delivered 17,400. That would appear to be pretty accurate guidance. In fact, best I can determine they have only missed their guidance once, Q4 2014 when they had trouble building out the first P85Ds.

- - - Updated - - -

Please explain what is luck luster about meeting their guidance and delivering record number of vehicles, while at the same time developing and troubleshooting 2nd shared production line for Model X?

To be fair, this guidance was revised downwards and people had hoped that X production would have been higher. I see this as a glass half full situation because it implies that they could still get a nice bump when X production ramps up. The stock is off 8% as I type this, so I think it is fair the call the numbers lackluster.

 

[Super_Popular]

There are only so many people in this world that can afford a Tesla. The fact that they are selling that many on a monthly basis is awesome.

 

[Vitold]

I dont understand why why you say this:



The guidance was 17,000 - 19,000 and they delivered 17,400. That would appear to be pretty accurate guidance. In fact, best I can determine they have only missed their guidance once, Q4 2014 when they had trouble building out the first P85Ds.

View attachment 106519

- - - Updated - - -



To be fair, this guidance was revised downwards and people had hoped that X production would have been higher. I see this as a glass half full situation because it implies that they could still get a nice bump when X production ramps up. The stock is off 8% as I type this, so I think it is fair the call the numbers lackluster.

At least 3% of that is due to Asian markets. My takeaway was that Tesla demonstrated that they can tweak production line while still producing record number of cars. That is quite positive because it's likely that they will be making tweaks to 2nd production line probably throughout whole 2016. As to Model X numbers specifically, 2nd production line has a lot more robots and is a shared production line therefore slow ramp up is to be expected.

 

[dirkhh]

I dont understand why why you say this:



The guidance was 17,000 - 19,000 and they delivered 17,400. That would appear to be pretty accurate guidance. In fact, best I can determine they have only missed their guidance once, Q4 2014 when they had trouble building out the first P85Ds.

View attachment 106519

For most companies that give a range, the general assumption is that they will hit about the middle of that range. ESPECIALLY if the range was revised downward. So anything below 18,000 definitely is lackluster.

 

[Vitold]

For most companies that give a range, the general assumption is that they will hit about the middle of that range. ESPECIALLY if the range was revised downward. So anything below 18,000 definitely is lackluster.

Tesla made 1350 cars per week last quarter. That's only 20-30% less than their estimated maximum output. Given that they are tuning 2nd production line that's pretty good in my book.

Of course what's negative is that they are still tuning 2nd production line with no end in sight at the moment.

 

[JonathanD]

So they met guidance, AND produced 75% more vehicles than a year ago.

But of course there will always be someone in the press who wants to make that sound bad.

 

[LetsGoFast]

So they met guidance, AND produced 75% more vehicles than a year ago.

But of course there will always be someone in the press who wants to make that sound bad.

I'm a bull, but this is a bit disingenuous. Their original guidance was for 55,000 cars, which was revised once to 50,000-55,000 cars and then revised again to 50,000 - 52,000. In that light, hitting 50,500 is actually not great news.

I think everyone knew the difference between the two numbers was dependent on how quickly they could ramp up X production and the low numbers meant a low number of X deliveries (in fact, just over 200). There were several leaks that suggested the X buildout would have been ahead of that.

 

[Vitold]

I'm a bull, but this is a bit disingenuous. Their original guidance was for 55,000 cars, which was revised once to 50,000-55,000 cars and then revised again to 50,000 - 52,000. In that light, hitting 50,500 is actually not great news.

I think everyone knew the difference between the two numbers was dependent on how quickly they could ramp up X production and the low numbers meant a low number of X deliveries (in fact, just over 200). There were several leaks that suggested the X buildout would have been ahead of that.

I see your point. I'm more into long term performance, but I agree with your point and in fact I expect (fingers crossed) three more months of production that is below of their 2016 guidance of 1600 units/week.