Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Near-future quarterly financial projections

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Im not really upset that Elon lies, but think aboutt his post combined with ggr's


ggr says "you were told this answer by Elon, you should LISTEN!!!!!'

you say

"Sure, Elon lies, so what, you need to learn to accept it"



Surely you can see the dichotomy there right?
You misunderstand, he doesn’t lie. He’s overly optimistic in timelines. Most of what has been promised has been delivered unless some fundamental situation has changed that would have made the original plan pointless. The delivery times have been almost always later than originally promised and everyone knows it by now. This is a methodology of going with near imposaible timelines and reaching the goal way ahead of the scenario if you’d gone with realistic/conservative timelines. He doesn’t lie, he is just very optimistic.
 
How do you figure this? There is documentation that supports Tesla allocates lots of repairs to "Goodwilll" and i would bet anything that it helps keep the warranty expense (that is extrapolated to COGS/Sales) down. How have I been shown to be incorrect about this?

i had mentioned this before, as a tesla owner i see what gets billed to goodwill when i get my service invoices back. and it has not been repairs that should be covered under warranty. it has been stuff like: free summer/winter tire swaps, alignment checks, car washes, etc. this is also consistent with the experience of multiple owners i know. separately, i have also seen across multiple model years where the cost of warranty service has clearly declined. these are things you couldn't know from the outside, so you're left to speculate on a couple loose data points and what it means for the whole. being an owner would take you a long way from that faulty conclusion.

Huh? You dont agree that they treat them differently than other automakers? Ford has ZERO RD because its all in COGS. I am not even sure what you are asserting here?

so again, because you're not an owner, you don't see how much cost there is to be taken out and being taken out while maintaining quality/adding features. you're focused on the compares with other automakers, who have for the most part optimized the *sugar* out of their costs. from the start, it was obvious tesla could make very large profits on those cars. and even today, there are giant portions of cost that can be taken out. this would be very obvious to you as an owner, as it probably is to many owners reading this thread.

you're so focused on the accounting compares to other automakers and how that must imply some sort of accounting fraud, you don't realize how much room there is to take down as-reported cogs. the recent german dismantling hinted at this for model 3.

probably guilty of confirmation bias here, since i dont personally check all the updates

so again, as an owner you would automatically be checking them and knowing where they were on the development timelines.

I dont know that I have ever commented on 1, but it seems pretty logical given all the threads on TMC about not getting parts for their cars.

i think you missed it entirely here. you had mentioned before that the low service gross margins were probably warranty and rework expenses they had shoved out to the service centers to keep warranty costs down/gross margins on the autos up. however, as an owner occasional visits to service centers would have shown you how they have built out capacity over the last few quarters. you'd be seeing a lot of faces and spaces you had never seen before. and you'd also know you can schedule service pretty much whenever you want (in most metros). service is massively built out right now and has poor utilization, which is why the gross margins are poor. it's not because of expense shifting.

visiting the factory is irrelevant, if anything i think it would lend itself to a forrest::trees situation, some things are better analyzed from a distance and I think this might be one of them.

"irrelevant." i think if you surveyed 100 tesla investors on the most important metric for tesla they would say model 3 production. there's nowhere else you can go *except* the factory to get a firsthand look at production. so leaving aside all the other useful things you can see there, dismissing the value of that firsthand information as irrelevant is a mistake.

i do hope you come to the dark side. i don't want to cut off your hand!
Mod: video deleted for lack of taste. --ggr.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Im not really upset that Elon lies, but think aboutt his post combined with ggr's


ggr says "you were told this answer by Elon, you should LISTEN!!!!!'

you say

"Sure, Elon lies, so what, you need to learn to accept it"



Surely you can see the dichotomy there right?
Your world seems to be black and white.
There are different longs.
I believe in Elon, I am in awe, and he annoys me. Not because he lies. Nope, he doesn't lie, he's overly optimistic. He has a need to prove himself, to dazzle everyone, causes aaah and uhhh... He's emotionally immature, a hard person to work for, with limited sense of empathy, although he thinks he has a lot. But, so what? These are probably things that makes him highly successful. Truly balanced people enjoy family life and don't end up changing the world... If Elon didn't have dady issues he'd never be who he is.

I think Elon's penchant for overpromising and being super confident is what riles many shorts and make them bet against him. But that's ego, both Elon's and short-sellers'. Now, Elon is using ego to drive forward, so that's much better use of the ego.

I don't let my ego stop me from understanding value of Tesla, even-though I have quite a few bones to pick with Elon.

BTW, did you read my whole post before replying, or were you just trying to prove longs' dichotomy?
 
Last edited:
coming back to the topic of this thread, a few interesting things that have not yet shown in street estimates:

1. ongoing salary cuts have reduced q3/q4 opex and thus increase q3/q4 eps estimates by about 40-60c per diluted share (per quarter).

2. there is further upside from the contractor barnacle scrub, which is probably of comparable magnitude to the layoffs. i would estimate that savings at probably 30-120% of the savings from job cuts. a wide range, but further upside to eps and downside to opex. so say another 10-70c per diluted share added to q3/q4 eps (per quarter)

3. the likelihood that some eap features just enabled trigger a bit of revenue recognition will provide tiny upside to q2. this is relevant only to the extent that i am starting to believe an s&p 500 addition will come in may/june 2019 after 19q1 earnings report. lower q2 loss helps that scenario. say another 10c added to q2 eps.

4. the likelihood that some fsd feature enabling triggers revenue recognition in q3/q4 and at 100% gross margin has increased. this would provide some further upside to q3 or q4 earnings, and also help the s&p 500 scenario described above. say another 10-20c to q3 or q4 eps.

in total, these 4 events would imply $1.20 to $2.90 extra earnings from q2-q4 of this year vs existing modeling.

i have not seen analysts update their estimates and models meaningfully yet.
 
coming back to the topic of this thread, a few interesting things that have not yet shown in street estimates:

1. ongoing salary cuts have reduced q3/q4 opex and thus increase q3/q4 eps estimates by about 40-60c per diluted share (per quarter).

2. there is further upside from the contractor barnacle scrub, which is probably of comparable magnitude to the layoffs. i would estimate that savings at probably 30-120% of the savings from job cuts. a wide range, but further upside to eps and downside to opex. so say another 10-70c per diluted share added to q3/q4 eps (per quarter)

3. the likelihood that some eap features just enabled trigger a bit of revenue recognition will provide tiny upside to q2. this is relevant only to the extent that i am starting to believe an s&p 500 addition will come in may/june 2019 after 19q1 earnings report. lower q2 loss helps that scenario. say another 10c added to q2 eps.

4. the likelihood that some fsd feature enabling triggers revenue recognition in q3/q4 and at 100% gross margin has increased. this would provide some further upside to q3 or q4 earnings, and also help the s&p 500 scenario described above. say another 10-20c to q3 or q4 eps.

in total, these 4 events would imply $1.20 to $2.90 extra earnings from q2-q4 of this year vs existing modeling.

i have not seen analysts update their estimates and models meaningfully yet.

On 1), I expect loaded cost to be 100M to 150M per quarter, so 60 to 90c? Assuming it's mostly California employees
2) Agreed, and I feel there is potential it's towards the high end of the number. Tesla was in a 'throw money at the problem', it's easay to have gross inefficiencies in that mode.
3)4) agreed, but no strong opinion

I also don't expect any revenue to be thrown into Q2, I feel they'll make Q2 dog's breakfast, and burry all costs in it. Unless we're already in a squeeze, in which case they may want to put some more pressure by beautifying it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: kbM3 and neroden
Considering Elon a liar is probably one of the more important distinctions in terms of your perspective of Tesla. There's a very important difference between having an inspirational CEO of a company who aspires to accomplish things on timelines that approach the impossible with a slim chance of being successful, and one who lies to make up for incompetence. It's a severe error to view Elon's M.O. as the latter rather than the former. I can understand as a short, viewing Elon from your perspective, but it distorts and underestimates him to the point of absurdity. Obviously, I don't expect you to get it, but it is the backbone error that leads to the rest of your conclusions about Tesla. With his near-impossible aspirational timelines, the point isn't that Tesla nearly always fails to live up to time-based predictions, but that even if they fail to succeed on nailing the near-impossible timelines, they are still consistently achieving remarkable things. It's no different with SpaceX. SpaceX has failed to hit their predicted timelines of achieving numerous goals. Yet, look where they are now and what they have accomplished. That IS the point, not that it took longer than Elon predicted. Same CEO, same approach. You call him a liar. We don't see it that way.
 
Im not really upset that Elon lies, but think aboutt his post combined with ggr's


ggr says "you were told this answer by Elon, you should LISTEN!!!!!'

you say

"Sure, Elon lies, so what, you need to learn to accept it"



Surely you can see the dichotomy there right?
No, I didn't say that. I said that lots of other people had said it; I was referring to the people here who had directly addressed the question. I only wish I was in a position to ignore your postings.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: EVMeister
Based on the latest leaked email from Elon And additional footage it’s clear they are now building additional GA lines for the model 3 in tent structures just to get to 5k. There is no way this was the original plan and there is no way this isn’t driving additional costs. I lowered my margins on M3 for the rest of the year for another additional $50M per quarter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
Based on the latest leaked email from Elon And additional footage it’s clear they are now building additional GA lines for the model 3 in tent structures just to get to 5k.

I don't read it that way. GA4 in the tent appears to be slightly ahead of schedule -- wasn't expected to contribute meaningfully until Q3. GAs 1-3 are for 5K.
 
I don't read it that way. GA4 in the tent appears to be slightly ahead of schedule -- wasn't expected to contribute meaningfully until Q3. GAs 1-3 are for 5K.
I agree. I think that it may have been brought forward to put the cash outflow in Q2 instead, and to bring the dual motor version production forward to earlier in Q3 - both of these should help with being cash flow positive in Q4.
I'm fairly certain that Elon said GA3 would be enough for 5000 in the shareholder meeting.
On the other hand, perhaps bringing GA4 up now will also make it easier to hit 5000 on time, in case GA3 takes a little longer to get fully up to speed.
 
I agree. I think that it may have been brought forward to put the cash outflow in Q2 instead, and to bring the dual motor version production forward to earlier in Q3 - both of these should help with being cash flow positive in Q4.
I'm fairly certain that Elon said GA3 would be enough for 5000 in the shareholder meeting.
On the other hand, perhaps bringing GA4 up now will also make it easier to hit 5000 on time, in case GA3 takes a little longer to get fully up to speed.

OK, I'm quite sure that the original plan was to do 5000 to 10,000/week Model 3 with only 2 GA lines. At the shareholder meeting, Musk made it clear that that wasn't achieved. GA3, the improved line, probably isn't actually doing 5000/week by itself either. My educated, albeit pessimistic, guesses are about 2500/week each on GA1 and GA2 and 3000/week each on GA3 and GA4 (with possibility of improvement on GA3 and GA4). Then I think they will go back and retool GA1 and GA2 to be better than GA3 and GA4, which would get general assembly to 10K/week, while producing 5K/week the whole time.

As a result, I do expect more capex and depreciation from building all the additional GA lines, but I'm not worried at all about that; I think it won't amount to much in the long run. I expect a higher labor cost but I don't think that will be terribly bad either, and I think each subsequent production line version is reducing the labor costs. I figure this is all covered by my use of a long term assumption of 20% gross margin rather than Tesla's goal of 25%.

More worrisome is the apparent bottleneck in the paint shop, which they believed they had already gotten to 5000/week, but apparently they've discovered that they haven't. It's *really slow* to build new paint shop stations, and has regulatory requirements and stuff. This could actually restrict production.
 
This spy shot was taken on Saturday. Gives a much better picture than Elon’s. Clearly this is far from an extensive general assembly line. Just a few stations, probably necessary to bypass some troublesome spots on the real GA lines. As such maybe the impact from this diversion is just some additional labour in getting cars to and from this structure and a much lower fixed cost than in my previous post?

Still sooo many questions around this.
 
Still sooo many questions around this.
Very true...I'd like positive confirmation that the GA3 referenced at the annual meeting is not what is installed in the tent. Also, if the GA4 is indeed the fourth line then I am curious why it was not mentioned in the annual meeting. Why say you are installing a third line when in fact the plan is to install a third and a fourth?

My educated, albeit pessimistic, guesses are about 2500/week each on GA1 and GA2 and 3000/week each on GA3 and GA4 (with possibility of improvement on GA3 and GA4). Then I think they will go back and retool GA1 and GA2 to be better than GA3 and GA4, which would get general assembly to 10K/week, while producing 5K/week the whole time.

If the paint line cannot meet 5k a week now then why install this much GA capacity in Fremont? Perhaps GA4 is a temporary install that will, as you noted, replace GA1 or GA2. Another long shot possibility is that CAPEX was expended on GA4 early to be shifted to China once the building is ready. Utilize the GA4 line for the performance model now to ensure 5k+ is reached. It would seem odd to have a key assembly line permanently placed in a hardened tent over an extended period.

Pure speculation on my part. What is frustrating from a shareholder perspective is how confusing Elon's comments at the annual meeting are turning out to be in comparison with the recent email leak. I am really hoping for a positive surprise for once, but certainly not counting on it.
 
If the paint line cannot meet 5k a week now

After the leaks related to the paint shop fire a while back, I suspect the paint shop was at one point going at 5k but they weren't complying with the full cleaning protocols. Now that they are, this has probably got them running a bit below 5k. They may find a way to speed that up. If not, we may be stuck at 4000 or 4500 until a new paint line is set up. The only thing which worries me is *how long* it can take to set up a paint line. All this other stuff can be done quickly; that can't.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: bdy0627
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden
to bring the dual motor version production forward to earlier in Q3
Seems that dual motor was already produced as of June 16? What am I missing?
- both of these should help with being cash flow positive in Q4.
Agreed, and I would add that accelerating contribution profits from pulling P3D production forward is under-estimated.
I'm fairly certain that Elon said GA3 would be enough for 5000 in the shareholder meeting.
Elon said the first two lines could have been enough, and GA3 gives him additional confidence that 5,000/wk will be achieved by June.
On the other hand, perhaps bringing GA4 up now will also make it easier to hit 5000 on time, in case GA3 takes a little longer to get fully up to speed.
In my opinion, the bigger picture here is that ramping GA3 and GA4 to capacity will allow Model 3 production to move beyond 5,000/wk quicker.