-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
This is a perfect example of an unwarranted drop. Personally I have used it to sell a couple puts for Friday at $200 and $197.50. We'll see how it goes.
The shares available to short at Fidelity drew down to 385,952, with interest rate steady at 14%.
racer26
Active Member
Calvin.K
Member
Average share outstanding in 3Q16 will be around 149 million. A GAAP profit of $0.28 EPS would be a $41.7 million profit. GAAP loss in 2Q16 was $293.2 million. That would be an improvement on the bottom line $335 million in one quarter.
If it is instead a non-GAPP projection and the add backs for stock based compensation ($67.3 million) and non-cash interest ($31.8 million are held constant, it would indicate a GAAP loss of $57 million --still a bottom line impressive improvement of $236 million.
We'll see in a month.
sundaymorning
Active Member
Don't listen to what GS says, just observe what they do. My guess is that they'll buy up every single available share when tesla raises a secondary soon.
Tesla as a public company delivered the Model S on time. When Tesla went public in June 2010, it had only one alpha prototype of the Model S, no real production experience and did not even have possession of the Fremont factory yet.
Nonetheless, it announced a target production date of 2012 with an ultimate production goal of "up to approximately 20,000 cars per year." TESLA MOTORS INC (Form: 424B4, Received: 06/29/2010 06:12:24). It launched the Model S in mid-2012, as predicted, and beat its production goal of "up to 20,000" vehicles in the first full year (2013). In other words, once Tesla had adequate funding from the IPO, it was off to the races.
I believe Tesla is very likely to repeat this result and meet or beat its 2018 vehicle production goals.
Last edited:
Imagine if GS upgraded TSLA instead, then there would have been all the chatter about upgrade before equity raise. So, one could argue that GS has been left out of equity raise this time.
Last edited:
Edit: I was going to post this:
This posting makes a claim of doubt about the level of improvement. Your first posting made a claim of interpretation of GS's estimates. Two different things. Your previous posting was internally inconsistent with the interpretation that GS's positive Q3 EPS (and slightly negative 2016 EPS) were non-GAAP, especially given that 1H 2016 was non-GAAP positive and you were expecting Q4 non-GAAP to be positive as well. If ALL 4 quarters of non-GAAP is positive, how can you conclude that GS's numbers are non-GAAP?
But after reviewing your previous posting for the numbers, I see that 1H 2016 was changed from positive to negative. Typo'd and I responded sooner than the correction? Sorry about that. Your posting is consistent now.
racer26
Active Member
That's only quasi true. Tesla Motors to Manufacture Sedan in California (NASDAQ:TSLA)
In June 2008, Tesla said they were targeting late 2010 serial production of MS.
I did not edit anything. Any chance you responded before reading it carefully?
TrendTrader007
Active Member
What I said is actually 100% true. "Tesla as a public company delivered the Model S on time." Tesla was not public until mid-2010 and still did not even have possession of the factory (it only had a contract with Toyota). As I said in my earlier post, once Tesla raised $ from the IPO, it delivered on time and beat its production targets in the first full year.
So investors had nothing whatsoever to complain about from the Model S launch. Especially when the stock price went up over 10x from the IPO price since virtually no one thought Tesla could deliver as they predicted in their IPO.
Until TM proves otherwise one has to consider that being late with the M3, while not a certainty, is a possibility given past history.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
