-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Near-future quarterly financial projections
- Thread starter luvb2b
- Start date
-
- Tags
- elon is an ass
This may be the last 5+ year estimate anyone has posted here. It's, unfortunately, going to need a lot of revision.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Simple first run at earnings:
(Have not broken out leasing revenue)
(Have not broken out leasing revenue)
Are Elon’s cancelled options still included in diluted share count? Or will that only occur after all appeals are exhausted?
You have Energy & Storage losing ~$200m. I think those days are over.
I am in that range for GAAP EPS, but most of the media runs with non-GAAP, which backs out stock based comp.
Thanks for that - had reduced my revenue for energy after the P&D report, but forgot to adjust the COGS for energy.
Updated as follows:
Some very minor notes:
-Without looking at the leasing breakout, you have ASPs going up ~$1k/vehicle delivered vs 4Q23. I don't think that occurred because a) the number of CTs delivered was small (I've read anywhere from 1k to 4k) and b) continued inventory discounting.
-You have Energy & Storage revenue increasing 4.3% QoQ but COGS up 1.4% QoQ. I know many have touted the future margins of Megapacks, I'm just not sure we see it that drastically this quarter. We'll see.
-You have revenue for Service & Other up QoQ ever so slightly but COGS down almost $200m. Maybe they got more efficient, I don't know.
-You have the COGS/vehicle going up ~$1k/unit. Is this due to the CT line starting or the underutilization of the factories (thus, the fix costs per unit are a bit higher)? The company said on the last call that the were reaching the natural limit of bringing costs down -> right around $36k/vehicle sold by my calculations.
Like I said, very minor and I do think you'll end up pretty close (pending unexpected deferred FSD revenue recognition or something like that).
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Breaking out leased cars and assuming ASP and margin carry over from Q4, I get
Auto Sales Revenue: 16.5b, COGS 13.75b
Leasing: 500m Rev, 300m Exp
Reg credits a crapshoot, as usual, so 500m
ASP is helped by CT but hurt by a slight mix shift away from S/X/CT toward 3/Y. Discounting maybe picked up a little, too
Average COGS helped by ongoing commodity price declines, hurt by CT
Net/net I think constant ASP and unit COGS is a good assumption
Energy at 1500m and 1150m sounds reasonable, it's mostly POC accounting now so pretty steady
280m Service gross profit sounds way too high. Q4 was 59m and best quarter was 166m. Used cars are in here, and values keep falling. I'd say 100m.
@Thekiwi 's other numbers look fine, so unless CT costs are through the roof I see ~1.6b net profit
Auto Sales Revenue: 16.5b, COGS 13.75b
Leasing: 500m Rev, 300m Exp
Reg credits a crapshoot, as usual, so 500m
ASP is helped by CT but hurt by a slight mix shift away from S/X/CT toward 3/Y. Discounting maybe picked up a little, too
Average COGS helped by ongoing commodity price declines, hurt by CT
Net/net I think constant ASP and unit COGS is a good assumption
Energy at 1500m and 1150m sounds reasonable, it's mostly POC accounting now so pretty steady
280m Service gross profit sounds way too high. Q4 was 59m and best quarter was 166m. Used cars are in here, and values keep falling. I'd say 100m.
@Thekiwi 's other numbers look fine, so unless CT costs are through the roof I see ~1.6b net profit
I think Q2 is when earnings reverse the trend. Limiting production to boost gross margin and laying off staff to cut overhead is going to help net profit and net cash flow recover. Eliminating inventory discounts will motivate potential buyers to jump the fence rather than wait for further discounts. FSD revenue will also receive a boost. The long-term impact of these short-term fixes is unclear, but the immediate impact on the bottom line for Q2 will be quite pronounced.
James Cat is out with his 2Q24 Income Statement estimate. He has a couple different threads on it if you want more detail.
$.48 non-GAAP EPS. Current WS consensus is at $.49.
I'm not an accountant, but I am under the impression that the charge is a short term cost and a long term savings. All the costs will be in Q2, but the savings will take a few quarters to even out.
Staff salary drops right away, but severance payments will incur a one-time cost.
Doing the layoff in Q2 will add costs to Q2 for severance packages and restructuring. I think deliveries > production in Q2 as they had lots of cars in transit in Q1 which will add a benefit. I have a feeling they will recognize a lot deferred FSD revenue in Q2 as sFSD is no longer Beta.
In all my hunch is that Q2 will improve margins but it will be a messy quarter with lots of pluses and minuses making it easy to argue either side.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Why?
Beta is not a term with any meaning in GAAP (or in the law either). Removing it doesn't permit any additional revenue recognition at all.
The only deferred FSD money is from the following things:
The pre March 2019 buyers who are owed L4 or better-- that's unrecognized and staying that way till L4.
The post March 2019 buyers who hadn't received city streets-- this was already recognized for all NA customers when Tesla allowed all NA FSD owners to request the beta without any other gates so it's gone (recognized)--- this is still owed to outside-NA buyers, but take rates in EU and AP are VERY low so it's not a lot of $... and it's not going to be recognized for sure in the EU this year based on regulations, and unlikely in AP this year either since AFAIK they still lack a ton of local datacenter compute there (and you can't export customer data from China, so FSD in china has to be trained in china)
The post-USS removal people who paid for, but had not received, autopark and summon... this is the ONLY category of revenue that will see recognition-- and it'll be in Q1 for autopark since that went out already in Q1 (late March). Summon might come in Q2. But I don't expect either to be especially large amounts as these were a minority of the features and thus a minority of the FSD cost would go it them.
They have a list of milestones when they will have certain % in deferred revenue. Going from beta to no longer beta likely happened as they thought that they had accomplished some goals which likely correspond to the goals for recognising deferred revenue.
The Accountant
Active Member
I agree with this assessment. The only thing I would add as an aside is that it is likely that the $199/$99 monthly subscriptions are recognized 100% in revenue and nothing deferred. With outright FSD purchase, I think it is about 60%-65% recognized to income and 35%-40% deferred until FSD is feature complete.
The Accountant
Active Member
You could be correct. I'm leaning toward no significant deferred revenue recognition but there is a bit of judgment in making this assessment. Tesla could make some case for recognition that PwC (their auditors) may sign off on. Tesla has usually been conservative in their accounting.
