Of course, you're right. Next time I'll drink coffee before reading news directly upon waking up :biggrin:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Of course, you're right. Next time I'll drink coffee before reading news directly upon waking up :biggrin:
CyberDutchie
Active Member
Probably enough said about this, but I do agree with Curt and the only reason I posted the Model X falcon wing door speculation from analyst Jonas in the short-term thread is that his research notes almost always move the stock. Not sure about this time, as there actually weren't that many news outlets who picked up on it, but he has that ability to move the stock price with his opinion.
His notes usually get sent out to clients at 3am, before market opens. Sometimes I wished I had read them sooner as it would have provided an opportunity to react with a short-term play based on whatever he is writing.
jhm
Well-Known Member
The language is a bit vague on timing. The latest pause to upgrade seems to be motivated by high demand for dual motors. Either this is in anticipation of demand or after the unveiling. So Q3 or Q4.
I wonder if the basic motivation for this blog post is to head off FUD when bears might catch wind of a Q4 pause. In any case, management affirms a current 1000/week run rate and reiterates 35k guidance for the year.
I also like that they have improved facilities for employees. That's class.
I wonder if the basic motivation for this blog post is to head off FUD when bears might catch wind of a Q4 pause. In any case, management affirms a current 1000/week run rate and reiterates 35k guidance for the year.
I also like that they have improved facilities for employees. That's class.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
1 million per day, but yes, unless they are doing a lot of MS 60's that's barely 1K a week running 7 days a week.
I believe that the battery pack assembly area is, and have been in operation for 7 days a week. Assuming about 10% of 60kWh packs yields slightly above 1000 cars/week.
chickensevil
Active Member
Even if it is, they are now essentially making two (maybe three?) different motors in the shop. As in, even if the ditched the rear wheel drive option from the cars, they would still be making *at least* two different motors (maybe three?) since the P85D has 2 different motors in it and the S85D both motors are different from the standard motor. So they needed the expanded capacity in order to make these new motors.
The general view seems to be that there are exactly 2 motors in production: the larger rear motor found in the 60, S85, and P85D; and the smaller motor used in the front of both the S85D and P85D as well as the rear of the S85D. I expect that the model ex will have the same motor set ups. Many speculate that this smaller motor will be the motor in the Model 3. If so, it would be pretty great to see Tesla turning out three different models with only two motors across the entire line--it would keep costs down and gross margins up.
chickensevil
Active Member
There was a discussion a while back where some were insisting that the motor (as well as the inverter... as that was never in question) was different between the S85 and the P85. While I would wager that the motor is not different, the issue got muddied when someone had a chat with a tech who was replacing their drive unit because of a failure and after the replacement happened they were being strangely power limited. As the claim went, the tech ended up discovering that the motor was somehow swapped with the wrong part although it had the correct inverter in it. Since no one could contest that data point and no further information was gleaned on the subject... *shrugs* I am left wondering if there were two different motors already in play between the 60/85 and the P85.
chickensevil
Active Member
Well, here we go! Fully recovered from yesterday and going higher! It seems that Benzinga is only just picking up on the MS note as of this morning, and I am not seeing anything special other than all the markets are in the green today which is pretty nice.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
I really don't understand the Motivation behind the AJ MS note. Especially coming out with it on top of the TM factory blog post. I wish I had insight into AJs playbook. Very strange.
chickensevil
Active Member
It looks like the big players are trying to keep it from going north of ~259 since its initial rise this morning. I was holding off posting this because I thought we might just be following the Nasdaq, but it seems like they are suppressing TSLA a bit today to keep if from going too high. Mostly I am just happy to be back recovered from yesterday's drop ready to continue the rise for the rest of the week (hopefully)
Perfectlogic
Member
Where Are Tesla’s 12,000 `Missing’ Cars?: Video - Bloomberg
Apparently every delivery not going to NA is "missing", what the ****? Are they implying Tesla is lying about their sales to other regions? Where is this coming from?
I can't believe how biased some stories are, Cory must be recieving money under the table, it's ridiculous.
Apparently every delivery not going to NA is "missing", what the ****? Are they implying Tesla is lying about their sales to other regions? Where is this coming from?
I can't believe how biased some stories are, Cory must be recieving money under the table, it's ridiculous.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
I feel like whenever I watch Cory Johnson I feel this empty sense of loss afterward... like I completely wasted that time and I can never, ever get it back.
I'll skip this video.
This won't move the TSLA charts but found it interesting. Paul Graham is silicon valley's premier startup investor/advisor.
Paul Graham on Twitter:
Paul Graham on Twitter:
Yeah it's probably only notable for those who are Paul Graham fans. He doesn't comment on public companies often but when he does he's usually spot on. When Facebook's stock was sub-30s he said that Facebook was undervalued and could turn on the monetization switch anytime they wanted but that they hadn't chosen to do so yet (at that time they were focused on user growth). Not too long after that, Facebook turned on the monetization switch.
The Bloomberg Businessweek article drove me bonkers yesterday, but the video piece is just asinine. Thankfully, the nonsense isn't taking -- the market didn't react to the written article yesterday and don't seem to be reacting to the video either.
After hearing news of the video, I finally vented in the Comments section of the written article. Beating my head against the wall, I realize, but cathartic nonetheless...
Here's my comment:
This article is basically accusing Tesla of securities fraud by stating that Tesla's statement regarding the majority of 3Q sales inside of NA doesn't jive with the Euro missing cars hypothesis (and thereby implying that there is no explanation).
It is actually accusing Tesla of securities fraud by claiming that its revenue and deliveries numbers are false.
Simple fact with Tesla: Deliveries = Sales. The following statement is from Tesla's 10-Q. It is either a lie or this Bloomberg article is:
"We recognize revenue when: (i) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (ii) delivery has occurred and there are no uncertainties
regarding customer acceptance; (iii) fees are fixed or determinable; and (iv) collection is reasonably assured. "
Tesla does not book a sale until the car is delivered to a customer. Unlike traditional auto manufacturers, there are no dealer intermediaries.
Tesla has recognized $2.2 billion of automotive revenue for the first 9 months of 2014. That's entirely consistent with 22,000 cars sold.
Bloomberg is accusing Tesla of fraud.
Back it up, Bloomberg.
- Give us actual registration data for all 50 states, not just changes in data.
- Give us actual registration data for California, instead of merely citing percentages.
My guess:
- Registration data doesn't show any drop at all. Hedges and Co. either failed to account for a large data source (e.g., California) or the author didn't understand the report.
- Or worse, the author colluded with Hedges to willingly spread yet another mis-informed rumor about Tesla.
Simple fact with Tesla: Deliveries = Sales. The following statement is from Tesla's 10-Q. It is either a lie or this Bloomberg article is:
"We recognize revenue when: (i) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (ii) delivery has occurred and there are no uncertainties
regarding customer acceptance; (iii) fees are fixed or determinable; and (iv) collection is reasonably assured. "
Tesla does not book a sale until the car is delivered to a customer. Unlike traditional auto manufacturers, there are no dealer intermediaries.
Tesla has recognized $2.2 billion of automotive revenue for the first 9 months of 2014. That's entirely consistent with 22,000 cars sold.
Bloomberg is accusing Tesla of fraud.
Back it up, Bloomberg.
- Give us actual registration data for all 50 states, not just changes in data.
- Give us actual registration data for California, instead of merely citing percentages.
My guess:
- Registration data doesn't show any drop at all. Hedges and Co. either failed to account for a large data source (e.g., California) or the author didn't understand the report.
- Or worse, the author colluded with Hedges to willingly spread yet another mis-informed rumor about Tesla.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked