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

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2015

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
True, but max capacity is the issue. For industries downstream the penalties are crippling for exceeding limits at peak periods.

You might be confusing profile of load with the and generation profile. If some industrial enterprises have highly peaky load, they would need deployment of the storage due to the nature of their consumption. In another worlds, highly peaky load would ideally require deployment of batteries, regardless of the generation source.

Grid storage associated with power generation on another hand, is designed to complement generation that is intermittent and can't be easily controlled.
 
You might be confusing profile of load with the and generation profile. If some industrial enterprises have highly peaky load, they would need deployment of the storage due to the nature of their consumption. In another worlds, highly peaky load would ideally require deployment of batteries, regardless of the generation source.

Grid storage associated with power generation on another hand, is designed to complement generation that is intermittent and can't be easily controlled.

Not confused. Just trying to keep it simple. I used to work in heavy industry. :wink:
 
Keep in mind many hydropower stations have no use for batteries as they already have pumping storage. They simply use excess power on the grid to pump the water back behind the dam. Norway already have a few dams with pumps and is considering adding more to work as Europe's batteries. Though they are limited by the capacity of the transmission lines to the continent. In essence until Norway goes for wind power for real there will be very little use for Teslas battery storage on the grid. We do have many remote cabins though which might like the Powerpack combined with solar array.

Cobos
 
You raise an important point: not all the capex is committed; some parts could be ramped down to modulate cash flow, allowing Tesla more time to decide whether and when to raise more cash from either the debt or equity markets.

I just take it for granted when they talk about being free cash flow positive in Q4 that is what they are talking about. They will freeze some categories of spending. If they wanted they could just turn off investment and have Porsche-like results, show profits and such. That would be kind of bad for the company in that its a distraction, but wall street would lose its mind thinking how great it is. In a way, that is what Q1 2013 was, a moment where they allowed profits to flow in from investments they had made. The could sort of schedule such periodic "breathers" to remind the investment community that the company is profitable, they just happen to be reinvesting profits (and beyond, since they are using capital they raised a well). I think that is what Q4 2015 is.

having said that, can we model such quarters? If they froze capital expenditures what is the EPS?
 
Yeah, seriously. With or without raising capital, does any analyst seriously think Tesla will allow itself to run out of cash? Not a chance...

I'm sure Elon is none too happy with AJ (MS) trying to ruin the great Q1 ER results and EC by focusing on this cash burn theme.
 
Analyst Recommendations - Goldman Sachs !

have a look at the latest ANR. Very interesting to see Archambault's PT increase of $233 with an innocent "neutral/neutral" recommendation.
also - I changed the timeframe to 6months chart for the 12M PT movement....we're now above $265...a beautiful number.
 

Attachments

  • ANR TSLA 05_08.JPG
    ANR TSLA 05_08.JPG
    141.3 KB · Views: 495
Thank you Andrea, at least someone sees through the crap. She always has been one of my favorites :D

Andrea James is one of the only analysts covering TSLA that is in touch with reality, does her job properly and is clearly not paid off by anyone.

Goldman Sachs is reiterating their neutral rating and moving up their price target from $214.00 to $224.00.

Although an upgraded PT is always good, I never really understood the point of raising a PT by such a small margin (4.7% in this case). Why even bother?

So, if Tesla raised 800 million while burned through 500 million 'eye watering' cash reserves, and both are on a train heading south at 45 mph....how long until they run out of cash?

The bears argument of "cash burn" is completely unfounded. These shorts don't understand the obvious difference between "losing cash" and "reinvesting" for growth. There's also no need to raise cash (share dilution) because their battery pack products will help generate revenue that will cover any need for extra cash. Tesla already has $800M worth in reservations in its first week: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-battery-grabbed-800-million-131055499.html. It's one of the reasons to launch this product now rather than later (plus laying groundwork for Model 3).
 
Last edited:
You raise an important point: not all the capex is committed; some parts could be ramped down to modulate cash flow, allowing Tesla more time to decide whether and when to raise more cash from either the debt or equity markets.

True, but I'd much rather they just raise more money if they need it to continue to execute their strategy as planned. A small dilution of 3% to raise $1bn would get them easily into Q3 2016 (at which point I expect near-complete MX ramp and possibly cash from M3 deposits) and into first GF output and would send a much better message than seeing cash on hand approach zero and capex drop off, which would appear as a very bearish sign and make it more difficult to raise more money later.
 
Not exactly news but this may be the first reported Model 3 clay sighting, from Elon Musk: The Worlds Raddest Man | Wait But Why

From the same article:
he refuses to advertise for Tesla, something most startup car companies wouldn’t think twice about—because he sees advertising as manipulative and dishonest.

There are quite a few great gems in this article that I hadn't heard presented in that fashion or little tidbits of new information that I feel make the whole thing worth a read over (although you could likely skip over his biography piece as I am sure you have heard that one time and again)

Edit: PS: There was a really great caption bubble that had me laughing quite hard:

I did an odd but kind of a hilarious thing and [messed] with him at the very beginning. I knew from watching interviews with him the certain things he absolutely hates being asked about because he thinks the topics are impossibly stupid and impractical. I picked the three that seemed to bother him most, and right in the beginning of the interview, said: “So by the way, since we spoke on the phone, I’ve altered the plan a bit, and I’m going to focus on three main things in these posts: hydrogen fuel cells, solar panels in space, and the space elevator.” He looked at me with horrified disappointment and after a pause, said, “Really??” Then I told him I was just messing with him and he exhaled hugely and said, “Oh thank god.” Fun.
 
having said that, can we model such quarters? If they froze capital expenditures what is the EPS?

By nature CapEx isn't counted against your EPS. You are totally expected, as a company, to take your profits and either A: Reinvest them into the company (capex) or B: Give the money back to the shareholders (dividends). Anything else and you are likely to just make shareholders upset.

I think the problem/question is, what is the cost of their rapid expansion to cover the globe and the R&D associated with keeping ahead of the curve? Sadly, R&D does count in your OpEx which was 167,154 the last Q. If you assume Tesla has a moat so wide they could just sit on their laurels and do nothing for just 1 quarter. They would post a GAAP profit of 64,708 thousand (64.7M$). This would be 0.51 EPS. Is this perhaps what you are seeking?

Current quarter on GAAP numbers they had an OpEx of 362.5M and a CapEx of 426M. This is where I think everyone is getting that their burn rate per quarter is at 500M$ (roughly) and why they say Tesla will be "dead" at the end of the year.

Just for fun, looking though another lens: Non-Gaap GP was 311M$ with 324M$ OpEx (147M$ R&D and 176M$ SG&A) with the same 426M$ CapEx. So if you dump out the R&D they would have been 311M$ - 176M$ = 135M$ in Profit. Then their EPS would have been 1.08$.

If you could somehow pullout their SG&A that is being done today for future growth (like opening up new stores and employees at the factory which wouldn't be needed if they were to just do their 50k a year number instead of growing into 100k+ cars) then they would look even better. Heck if you did that you could likely keep some of the R&D costs in there as you would be able to afford to burn through that since you aren't having all these employees eating through your money.

If you apply this thought to Q4, let's assume 17k deliveries (pretty much the bottom number of what they need to do to hit 55k this year), and 106k ASP (I think with the X and being all the Signature and Performance deliveries first, those will hold the ASP high), and keep the 28% GM would come out to 504.6M$ GP. If SG&A stays relatively flat (let's assume that while they continue to add more stores, they get far more efficient at the factory with their employees to counter balance) that would be 176M$ and let's also say that R&D returns to the Q1/2014 levels at 81.5M$ (Since they won't have the X burdening them anymore this would strictly be R&D costs on minor improvements to current products... Storage, S, X, and the small R&D spending going on to bring forward a Model 3 Prototype which is still sort of cheap at this point), that will keep your OpEx at 257.5M$. Now, let's take CapEx (because we are looking for Free Cash Flow) and assume that it is cut in half. Still some costs happening on the Gigafactory, although it should be almost finished at this point, since they are moving equipment in there Q1 of 2016, but no major costs happening on the Model 3 and the S and X was all invested up through Q3. So CapEx in half would be 213M$. Total Cost is 470.5M$.

So all said: 504.6M$ GP - 470.5M$ Spending = 34M$ in Free Cash.

The scary thing... in order to make Free Cash while not totally stopping CapEx, will mean that no matter how you slice the GAAP vs Non-GAAP numbers, could we possibly be in for a GAAP profit surprise come Q4??? So much for 2020... All this taken from one statement regarding "free cash flow"... hrmmmm... Might be time to bet the house on cheap shares today, to sell come Feb next year...

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I did totally just pull numbers out of thin air, I will admit this, and please don't assume that these are going to be their numbers as Q4 is still a ways off (maybe too far for the short term thread???), but I am continually perplexed by the "Free Cash" comments made by the Company, and even if they totally tank their CapEx spending... if you are cash flow positive, you are going to be either very close to, or right at GAAP profitability. Even if this only lasts for 1 quarter's results, I think the affect it will have on the short term shareprice is quite dramatic. I don't believe it will last, as Wall Street will end up totally mad at the company come Q1 earnings when they go right back into the negatives as they ramp up spending for Model 3, but for just 1 quarter, I think the shock and awe is going to be immense.

If I wanted one last capital raise in order to fund a multi-factory expansion, this is how I would time it. Not saying they will do a capital raise, just that if I were to try to do it, that is when and how I would execute.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.