Near-future quarterly financial projections

[EVNow]

Not sure if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but if majority of the pre-Ravens was sold in Q2 (at discount), that means S+X ASPs and margins should trend up in Q3, right?

There was a big price cut of S&X in Q3. What that means in not only the Raven S&X ASP is lower, the pre-Raven would have to be discounted even more to sell - and they probably sold only ~60% of pre-Raven (that is what majority would imply, if they sold > 75%, they would say most).

 

[Doggydogworld]

updating model with latest deliveries, gotta bring estimates down vs my last post.

a big problem is the higher than expected lease percentages which reduce realized revenue this period. cash flow could be better due to inventory draw on model s/x.

…

…

s deliveries

x deliveries

s+x deliveries

3 deliveries

3 production

lease 3s % veh

lease s/x % veh

avg price s+x (calc'd)

avg price model 3 (set)

revenue

auto sales ex 3

auto sales mod 3

auto leasing

zev+nonzev credits

1 time revenue

total auto

energy storage

solarcity

grohmann

services/other

total revenue

cost of revenue

auto sales ex 3

auto sales mod 3

auto leasing

1 time cogs

total auto

energy storage

solarcity

grohmann

services & other

total cost of rev

gross profit

auto ex 3 ex credits gm

auto gaap gm

auto lease gm

auto gaap ex 3 gm

model 3 gm ex credits

auto-credits incl 3 gm

storage gm

scty gm

maxwell/grohmann

services gm

opex

tesla r&d

tesla sg&a

1 time costs

solarcity r&d

solarcity sg&a

total opex

op income

interest inc

interest exp

scty interest

other income exp

1time scty gain

pretax income

income tax

net income

non-cont int.

net inc to common

basic shares

diluted shares

diluted gaap eps

gaap net income

+ stock based comp

+ one time scty

non-gaap net income

non-gaap diluted eps

[TD2] luv est [/TD2][TD2] tsla [/TD2][TD2] tsla [/TD2][TD2] tsla [/TD2] [TD2] Sep-19 [/TD2][TD2] Jun-19 [/TD2][TD2] Mar-19 [/TD2][TD2] Dec-18 [/TD2] [TD2]8,700[/TD2][TD2]8,787[/TD2][TD2]6,000[/TD2][TD2]13,500[/TD2] [TD2]8,700[/TD2][TD2]8,935[/TD2][TD2]6,091[/TD2][TD2]14,107[/TD2] [TD2] 17,400 [/TD2][TD2] 17,722 [/TD2][TD2] 12,091 [/TD2][TD2] 27,607 [/TD2] [TD2] 79,600 [/TD2][TD2] 77,634 [/TD2][TD2] 50,900 [/TD2][TD2] 63,359 [/TD2] [TD2] 79,837 [/TD2][TD2] 72,531 [/TD2][TD2] 62,950 [/TD2][TD2] 60,000 [/TD2] [TD2] 0.08 [/TD2][TD2] 0.06 [/TD2][TD2] - [/TD2][TD2] - [/TD2] [TD2] 0.15 [/TD2][TD2] 0.10 [/TD2][TD2] 0.11 [/TD2][TD2] 0.13 [/TD2] [TD2] 93.00 [/TD2][TD2] 97.21 [/TD2][TD2] 113.65 [/TD2][TD2] 108.65 [/TD2] [TD2] 49.00 [/TD2][TD2] 50.00 [/TD2][TD2] 54.00 [/TD2][TD2] 54.30 [/TD2] [TD2]1,375,470[/TD2][TD2]1,545,857[/TD2][TD2]1,219,184[/TD2][TD2]2,604,255[/TD2] [TD2]3,484,642[/TD2][TD2]3,575,051[/TD2][TD2]2,574,076[/TD2][TD2]3,374,248[/TD2] [TD2]211,093[/TD2][TD2]208,362[/TD2][TD2]215,120[/TD2][TD2]249,748[/TD2] [TD2]126,400[/TD2][TD2]111,219[/TD2][TD2]215,981[/TD2][TD2]94,968[/TD2] [TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]-64,100[/TD2][TD2]-500,500[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2] [TD2] 5,197,605 [/TD2][TD2] 5,376,389 [/TD2][TD2] 3,723,861 [/TD2][TD2] 6,323,219 [/TD2] [TD2]265,000[/TD2][TD2]244,850[/TD2][TD2]129,094[/TD2][TD2]131,497[/TD2] [TD2]103,208[/TD2][TD2]123,358[/TD2][TD2]195,567[/TD2][TD2]240,000[/TD2] [TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2] [TD2]645,000[/TD2][TD2]605,079[/TD2][TD2]492,942[/TD2][TD2]531,157[/TD2] [TD2] 6,210,813 [/TD2][TD2] 6,349,676 [/TD2][TD2] 4,541,464 [/TD2][TD2] 7,225,873 [/TD2] [TD2]1,127,885[/TD2][TD2]1,264,570[/TD2][TD2]1,051,304[/TD2][TD2]1,908,505[/TD2] [TD2]2,927,099[/TD2][TD2]3,038,793[/TD2][TD2]2,213,705[/TD2][TD2]2,750,012[/TD2] [TD2]109,768[/TD2][TD2]106,322[/TD2][TD2]117,092[/TD2][TD2]127,731[/TD2] [TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]-49,600[/TD2][TD2]-408,800[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2] [TD2] 4,164,753 [/TD2][TD2] 4,360,085 [/TD2][TD2] 2,973,301 [/TD2][TD2] 4,786,248 [/TD2] [TD2]235,850[/TD2][TD2]224,369[/TD2][TD2]159,456[/TD2][TD2]160,706[/TD2] [TD2]84,631[/TD2][TD2]101,154[/TD2][TD2]157,431[/TD2][TD2]168,000[/TD2] [TD2]11,000[/TD2][TD2]11,000[/TD2][TD2]11,000[/TD2][TD2]11,000[/TD2] [TD2]735,300[/TD2][TD2]732,022[/TD2][TD2]674,533[/TD2][TD2]657,019[/TD2] [TD2] 5,231,534 [/TD2][TD2] 5,428,630 [/TD2][TD2] 3,975,721 [/TD2][TD2] 5,782,973 [/TD2] [TD2] 979,279 [/TD2][TD2] 921,046 [/TD2][TD2] 565,743 [/TD2][TD2] 1,442,900 [/TD2] [TD2]18.0%[/TD2][TD2]18.2%[/TD2][TD2]13.8%[/TD2][TD2]26.7%[/TD2] [TD2]19.9%[/TD2][TD2]18.9%[/TD2][TD2]20.2%[/TD2][TD2]24.3%[/TD2] [TD2]48.0%[/TD2][TD2]49.0%[/TD2][TD2]45.6%[/TD2][TD2]48.9%[/TD2] [TD2]27.7%[/TD2][TD2]26.6%[/TD2][TD2]33.9%[/TD2][TD2]31.0%[/TD2] [TD2]16.0%[/TD2][TD2]15.0%[/TD2][TD2]14.0%[/TD2][TD2]18.5%[/TD2] [TD2]17.9%[/TD2][TD2]17.3%[/TD2][TD2]15.6%[/TD2][TD2]23.2%[/TD2] [TD2]11.0%[/TD2][TD2]8.4%[/TD2][TD2]-23.5%[/TD2][TD2]-22.2%[/TD2] [TD2]18.0%[/TD2][TD2]18.0%[/TD2][TD2]19.5%[/TD2][TD2]30.0%[/TD2] [TD2]-100.0%[/TD2][TD2]-100.0%[/TD2][TD2]-100.0%[/TD2][TD2]-100.0%[/TD2] [TD2]-14.0%[/TD2][TD2]-21.0%[/TD2][TD2]-36.8%[/TD2][TD2]-23.7%[/TD2] [TD2]293,898[/TD2][TD2]293,898[/TD2][TD2]295,174[/TD2][TD2]306,297[/TD2] [TD2]557,261[/TD2][TD2]557,261[/TD2][TD2]573,929[/TD2][TD2]522,452[/TD2] [TD2]25,000[/TD2][TD2]117,345[/TD2][TD2]43,471[/TD2][TD2]5,615[/TD2] [TD2]30,000[/TD2][TD2]30,000[/TD2][TD2]45,000[/TD2][TD2]50,000[/TD2] [TD2]90,000[/TD2][TD2]90,000[/TD2][TD2]130,000[/TD2][TD2]145,000[/TD2] [TD2] 996,159 [/TD2][TD2] 1,088,504 [/TD2][TD2] 1,087,574 [/TD2][TD2] 1,029,364 [/TD2] [TD2] -16,880 [/TD2][TD2] -167,458 [/TD2][TD2] -521,831 [/TD2][TD2] 413,536 [/TD2] [TD2]10,362[/TD2][TD2]10,362[/TD2][TD2]8,762[/TD2][TD2]7,348[/TD2] [TD2]-118,979[/TD2][TD2]-118,979[/TD2][TD2]-104,453[/TD2][TD2]-121,723[/TD2] [TD2]-53,000[/TD2][TD2]-53,000[/TD2][TD2]-53,000[/TD2][TD2]-53,000[/TD2] [TD2]-20,000[/TD2][TD2]-40,756[/TD2][TD2]25,750[/TD2][TD2]-14,205[/TD2] [TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2] [TD2] -198,497 [/TD2][TD2] -369,831 [/TD2][TD2] -644,772 [/TD2][TD2] 231,956 [/TD2] [TD2]20,000[/TD2][TD2]19,431[/TD2][TD2]22,873[/TD2][TD2]21,878[/TD2] [TD2] -218,497 [/TD2][TD2] -389,262 [/TD2][TD2] -667,645 [/TD2][TD2] 210,078 [/TD2] [TD2]20,000[/TD2][TD2]19,072[/TD2][TD2]34,490[/TD2][TD2]70,595[/TD2] [TD2] -238,497 [/TD2][TD2] -408,334 [/TD2][TD2] -702,135 [/TD2][TD2] 139,483 [/TD2] [TD2]179,000[/TD2][TD2]176,654[/TD2][TD2]172,989[/TD2][TD2]172,026[/TD2] [TD2]179,000[/TD2][TD2]176,654[/TD2][TD2]172,989[/TD2][TD2]179,026[/TD2] [TD2] -1.33 [/TD2][TD2] -2.31 [/TD2][TD2] -4.06 [/TD2][TD2] 0.78 [/TD2] [TD2]-238,497[/TD2][TD2]-408,334[/TD2][TD2]-702,135[/TD2][TD2]139,483[/TD2] [TD2]209,863[/TD2][TD2]209,863[/TD2][TD2]208,378[/TD2][TD2]205,313[/TD2] [TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2][TD2]0[/TD2] [TD2]-28,634[/TD2][TD2]-198,471[/TD2][TD2]-493,757[/TD2][TD2]344,796[/TD2] [TD2] -0.16 [/TD2][TD2] -1.12 [/TD2][TD2] -2.85 [/TD2][TD2] 1.93 [/TD2]

Thanks again for sharing your model. I just took another look and noticed your Model 3 sales revenue of 3485m is 103m lower than my calculation:

79,600 deliveries * (1.00 - 0.08 lease fraction) * 49k ASP = 3588.4m​

Do you include some other factor?

 

[EVNow]

Would be interested to see the rest of your income statement, because I have about same revenue as your mid est (6,301M), but bottom line similar to your low est of -1.62$ GAAP EPS.

Here is the P&L. Cash flow is at the bottom.

 

[FrankSG]

There was a big price cut of S&X in Q3. What that means in not only the Raven S&X ASP is lower, the pre-Raven would have to be discounted even more to sell - and they probably sold only ~60% of pre-Raven (that is what majority would imply, if they sold > 75%, they would say most).

They still had pre-Ravens left at start of Q3? I thought they got rid of all of those in Q1 and Q2? Did I miss something, or is this an assumption you're making?

 

[FrankSG]

These are mine. I feel like my restructuring costs are too high and should be more like 40k actually, but even then I'm slightly more pessimistic than EVNow.

There are a bit more thoughts and explanation about my choices in my blog.

I'd be curious to hear what people think about my model for Tesla Leasing that I recently created. I basically calculate leasing revenue from operating lease vehicles value taken from the balance sheet. And I try to predict how operating lease vehicles value will change by adding the COGS of leased cars to it, and estimating quarterly depreciation of operating lease vehicles as a %.

 

[EinSV]

Yes, as @Doggydogworld points out the last line in the chart is FCF (+ capex). Since capex has been around $250M in Q1 & Q2 - and will likely be less than $500M in Q3, Tesla will have a large positive FCF in Q3.


Yes - I'm just using the heading Tesla uses for reference.

Tesla is estimating $1.5B-$2B CapEx in 2019 and has only spent ~$0.5B, which leaves $1-$1.5B for Q3 and Q4. $500M would be at the lower end of that range for Q3. I have no idea where they’ll end up but since they did a large amount of work to finish GF3 I would not be surprised if it exceeds $500M.

 

[Fact Checking]

Here is the P&L. Cash flow is at the bottom.

View attachment 467255


View attachment 467257

One detail that stood out to me was that you increase SG&A from $347m only to $350m, while Tesla expanded to about a dozen new countries which I'm pretty certain created an uptick in capex but also opex either via SGA, or service cost of goods.

There was also a focus on and an expansion of service, which you did approximate via an uptick in service opex from $743m to $800m. But this effect seems extremely hard to pin down - I suspect you went with assuming the Q1->Q2 CoGs expansion rate in Q3 as well?

An interesting potential upside might be that due to TSLA spending much of June and July around and below $200, stock comp might scale down a bit? But we've never seen this happen in the past, stock comp was remarkably stable for the past 4 quarters - but maybe ...

What's your thoughts on capex levels? With operating cash flow of $909m, if capex is Q2's $249m then FCF is $660m, which is decent. But I have the feeling that both the sales and service expansion, and the Model Y and GF3 activities will almost certainly have significantly higher capex than $249m.

Tesla's 2019 guidance is a total capex of $1.5b-$2.0b, of which they have spent $530m in Q1+Q2, so the remaining guidance for Q3 and Q4 capex is $970m-$1,470m - which is $485m-$735m if we split that into half for Q3 and Q4.

This suggest a Q3 FCF range of $174m-$424m. Of course Tesla could, if they so wish, further reduce (or increase) capex levels.

So FCF seems the most uncertain metric of them all.

 

[trentbridge]

I am close to the EVNow numbers myself but I have a better scenario for "Services" - three reasons.

1. CPO sales are probably more profitable as the revalued used cars from the January new car price drop has probably been flushed out of the system.
2. Servicing/Repair efficiency has probably improved if parts are arriving quicker than before plus the mechanics are getting more experience with Model 3 issues..
3. Merchandise - I really think Tesla is making $10 million a quarter profit from selling everything from wall connectors to key cards to floor mats to the 90,000 plus new owners each quarter.

I dropped the negative margin on "services" at -18% (Q3) from -23% (Q2). That makes a $138 million loss on Q2 - become a loss of $118 million.

 

[Doggydogworld]

View attachment 467296 View attachment 467297 View attachment 467298 View attachment 467299

These are mine. I feel like my restructuring costs are too high and should be more like 40k actually, but even then I'm slightly more pessimistic than EVNow.

There are a bit more thoughts and explanation about my choices in my blog.

I'd be curious to hear what people think about my model for Tesla Leasing that I recently created. I basically calculate leasing revenue from operating lease vehicles value taken from the balance sheet. And I try to predict how operating lease vehicles value will change by adding the COGS of leased cars to it, and estimating quarterly depreciation of operating lease vehicles as a %.

I like the way you split out sales, leasing and emissions revenue and I really like the way you show COGS separately for S/X and 3.

I approach leasing the same way as you. Your "Op lease depreciation" line item combines two terms:

1. Actual depreciation of cars in the lease pool (which feeds into leasing COGS)
2. Value of cars which drop out of the pool when leases end (or are terminated early)​

The second term feeds into Service COGS, though it's too small to extract from that black hole. I've thought about calculating it from the 3 years prior "Value into operating leases" minus a depreciation factor, but Tesla's lease disclosures were pretty spotty 3 years ago and they don't give enough info on depreciation rates to make this approach much better than a guess.

 

[EVNow]

They still had pre-Ravens left at start of Q3? I thought they got rid of all of those in Q1 and Q2? Did I miss something, or is this an assumption you're making?

They said in Q2 they have sold majority of pre-ravens.

 

[EVNow]

One detail that stood out to me was that you increase SG&A from $347m only to $350m, while Tesla expanded to about a dozen new countries which I'm pretty certain created an uptick in capex but also opex either via SGA, or service cost of goods.

They have managed expansion in most of US & EU with barely any change in SGA. Infact in Q2 '19 SGA was lower than Q1 '18. This could be because of winding down of Salarcity sales staff. Anyway, that is the reason for not increasing SGA.

There was also a focus on and an expansion of service, which you did approximate via an uptick in service opex from $743m to $800m. But this effect seems extremely hard to pin down - I suspect you went with assuming the Q1->Q2 CoGs expansion rate in Q3 as well?

Yes - I'm just using the trend on items we can't figure out well, like Service.

An interesting potential upside might be that due to TSLA spending much of June and July around and below $200, stock comp might scale down a bit? But we've never seen this happen in the past, stock comp was remarkably stable for the past 4 quarters - but maybe ...

I've no idea what Tesla does specifically - but I know in a lot of companies stock comp is a fixed budget. The distribution to individuals / groups depends on performance. So, if TSLA is at $200 a person might get 100 shares and if it is at $400, the person would get 50 shares.

What's your thoughts on capex levels? With operating cash flow of $909m, if capex is Q2's $249m then FCF is $660m, which is decent. But I have the feeling that both the sales and service expansion, and the Model Y and GF3 activities will almost certainly have significantly higher capex than $249m.

Tesla's 2019 guidance is a total capex of $1.5b-$2.0b, of which they have spent $530m in Q1+Q2, so the remaining guidance for Q3 and Q4 capex is $970m-$1,470m - which is $485m-$735m if we split that into half for Q3 and Q4.

This suggest a Q3 FCF range of $174m-$424m. Of course Tesla could, if they so wish, further reduce (or increase) capex levels.

So FCF seems the most uncertain metric of them all.

Similar question by @EinSV as well.

I don't think they will hit 1.5/2B in Capex. For various reasons they don't need to spend that much on Capex.
- GF3 structuring is different with the state owning he land etc. This reduces Capex.
- Building Y in Fremont probably costs them quite a bit less

Ofcourse forecasting cash flow is very difficult. But the main difficulty is in things like customer deposits, payables, inventory etc.

 

[FrankSG]

Similar question by @EinSV as well.

I don't think they will hit 1.5/2B in Capex. For various reasons they don't need to spend that much on Capex.
- GF3 structuring is different with the state owning he land etc. This reduces Capex.
- Building Y in Fremont probably costs them quite a bit less

Ofcourse forecasting cash flow is very difficult. But the main difficulty is in things like customer deposits, payables, inventory etc.

FCF should definitely come in significantly lower than Q2 though. Even if they don't quite reach 1.5B$ for the year, I can't imagine no increase in Capex at all in Q3. And another factor is that a large part of positive FCF in Q2 was due to the large reduction in inventory of cars that spilled over from Q1. 450M$ of the FCF in Q2 was due to a reduction in inventory. There may have been a slight further reduction of inventory in Q3, but it won't be anywhere near 450M$.

Totally agree with you that it's very difficult to estimate on a quarter by quarter basis. So many small items can impact it one way or another.

 

[EVNow]

FCF should definitely come in significantly lower than Q2 though. Even if they don't quite reach 1.5B$ for the year, I can't imagine no increase in Capex at all in Q3. And another factor is that a large part of positive FCF in Q2 was due to the large reduction in inventory of cars that spilled over from Q1. 450M$ of the FCF in Q2 was due to a reduction in inventory. There may have been a slight further reduction of inventory in Q3, but it won't be anywhere near 450M$.

Totally agree with you that it's very difficult to estimate on a quarter by quarter basis. So many small items can impact it one way or another.

Yes, to the extent they spend more on Capex than in Q2, FCF will reduce. But I think the net cash from operations will be similar to Q2. Cash flow because of inventory reduction will be offset by lower gaap loss, not that much reduction in customer deposits ($135M in Q2), higher payables (production improvement) and better account receivables (Monday close). But, I won't be surprised if the cash flow varies as much as +/- $200M. We need better disclosure from Tesla (and a better model !).

 

[dc_h]

Moody’s upgraded Tesla based on high lease valuations. Will this result in a write up to improve GAAP results? No impact to cash flow, but seems like it should cause Tesla to account for an increase in book value of leased cars.

 

[EVNow]

Moody’s upgraded Tesla based on high lease valuations. Will this result in a write up to improve GAAP results? No impact to cash flow, but seems like it should cause Tesla to account for an increase in book value of leased cars.

No way they will increase book value based on Moody's ratings. They have already accounted for sale price - COGS as profit. After lease end, if they sell for higher price than residual, they make a profit otherwise they make a loss.

 

[luvb2b]

correct - the asp is inclusive of zev/non-zev credits. since i include credits on a separate line, the pro-rata share has to be backed out to get model 3 revenue excluding credits.

hope that made sense. the 103m difference is the proportionate share of the 126.4m total credits. i did notice that this methodology is applied inconsistently, and so model s/x revenues should come down about 23m (i've double counted credits there by including s/x credits in the credit line and failing to exclude them from auto sales ex 3 revenue).

i'm not sure if this is the best way to do it, but it's what i have for now. maybe a better way would just be to set the asp excluding credits.

Thanks again for sharing your model. I just took another look and noticed your Model 3 sales revenue of 3485m is 103m lower than my calculation:

79,600 deliveries * (1.00 - 0.08 lease fraction) * 49k ASP = 3588.4m​

Do you include some other factor?

 

[Antares Nebula]

So I would have thought S,X ASP would be higher in Q3 vs Q2 due to pre-Raven discounts in Q2. But you folks are saying that even though Raven sales dominated Q3, Tesla significantly lowered their price (that is lowered S,X prices) in Q3.

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Antares Nebula]

Also, from looking at some of the spreadsheets, it seems that even though net unit volumes are higher, the big reason for flat to declining revenues (YoY) are due to the ASP of S,X coming down by about $14k (about $243M in potential/lost revenue) and M3 ASP coming down by about $6k ($470M revenue), in addition to about a 10k drop in S,X unit sales ($910M revenue). (Total about $1.6B in potential revenue.)

In other words, gains in net unit sales were offset by significant declines in ASPs across the board and a significant decline in the high end S,X unit sales.

I guess some of these declines are expected, particularly M3 ASP (as lower trim models were introduced), but the significant S,X ASP and unit sales declines is what I think was not unexpected (especially if we were looking forward from last year).

 

[JohnnyEnglish]

correct - the asp is inclusive of zev/non-zev credits. since i include credits on a separate line, the pro-rata share has to be backed out to get model 3 revenue excluding credits.

hope that made sense. the 103m difference is the proportionate share of the 126.4m total credits. i did notice that this methodology is applied inconsistently, and so model s/x revenues should come down about 23m (i've double counted credits there by including s/x credits in the credit line and failing to exclude them from auto sales ex 3 revenue).

i'm not sure if this is the best way to do it, but it's what i have for now. maybe a better way would just be to set the asp excluding credits.

Excluding the ZEV credits (and any deferred revenue that has been recognised) from ASP and automotive gross margin certainly provides a better ability to see the true trend of these measures from one quarter to the next. This is likely to be even more difficult over the next few quarters due to the FCA payments adding to ZEV credits and the release of smart summon and components of FSD leading to deferred revenue recognition (perhaps one-off, perhaps spread due to HW3 retrofits) plus an ongoing increase in ASP and automotive gross margin.

I would like to model how this 'modified' automotive gross margin varies with production. The 10% increase in production in Q3 should lead to improvement in gross margin but I do not have any figures for the materials cost as a % of cost of revenues. If anyone has a good estimate of what this is that would be greatly appreciated

 

[FrankSG]

So I would have thought S,X ASP would be higher in Q3 vs Q2 due to pre-Raven discounts in Q2. But you folks are saying that even though Raven sales dominated Q3, Tesla significantly lowered their price (that is lowered S,X prices) in Q3.

Am I understanding this correctly?

EVNow is predicting this yes. I asked him about this a few posts up, so you can find his response in this thread. I believe he said he heard Tesla say there are still some leftover pre-Raven S+X, and that he got the new S+X ASP from some research that was done.

My model has MS+X ASP recovering in Q3 compared to Q2. I feel like it's definitely higher than the 87.5k that my model believes it was in Q2, but the 93.5k I'm estimating is kind of a guess tbh. Could definitely be a bit too high.