-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
racer26
Active Member
I'm guessing the whole what is GAAP vs what is non GAAP and which of the two was the expectation for is once again a stumbling block.
If the street was expecting ($2.29) and we got $0.48, that's a gargantuan beat, and we ought to be seeing much more than +0.23 in AH right now.
If the street was expecting ($2.29) and we got $0.48, that's a gargantuan beat, and we ought to be seeing much more than +0.23 in AH right now.
...until the Republicans invoke the "nuclear option" to end filibusters with a simple majority vote. That's coming. There will be complete, unfettered Republican control of the executive and legislative branches (and soon the judicial branch as well).
hockeythug
Active Member
Tesla will be fine. The vehicles sell themselves for being above and beyond any ICE vehicle. I don't believe people only buy them just for the tax credit. The advantages of stationary storage and solar are also obvious once the price and return on investment are right which Tesla has a plan for. I'm not that knowledgeable when it comes to tax credits for solar maybe someone could provide a brief summary. I'm a r-word which is unpopular around here so you can excuse my optimism for the company if you want.
And you can't tell me what the figures will be for who will be hurt by Trump, how much they will be hurt and whether an obstructionist Congress will make it worse. Yet, you speculate.
I just gave you the facts about a group that was hurt.
But since you asked, I will let you know.
First, in the first two years, dems had the house, supermajority in the senate and 60%+ approval ratings, and they did nothing to improve those numbers. In fact, the poverty level peaked during that time to around 29 during their attempts to improve things.
Second, after those two years, the "obstructionists" prevented the uncontrolled spending and irrational budgets, so that helped the poverty level not get worse and is what drove it DOWN after the peak in 2011.
So the numbers without the "obstruction" would have been 29%.
Last edited:
His bio says "science reporter", unfortunately that means he probably does not know the difference between GAAP and non-GAAP expectations.Robert Ferris I like the beard though, remind me of Al from Home Improvement.
it's up to the analysts, right now it's mostly just the quants trading headlines
jgillispie
Member
racer26
Active Member
For those interested in how its changed over time:
SCTY 4Q15 GAAP EPS (diluted): $0.04, Non-GAAP: ($2.37)
SCTY 1Q16 GAAP EPS (diluted): ($0.25), Non-GAAP: ($2.56)
SCTY 2Q16 GAAP EPS (diluted): ($0.56), Non-GAAP: ($2.32)
SCTY 3Q16 GAAP EPS (diluted): $0.48, Non-GAAP: ($2.27)
Looking at those, I have to believe that the consensus estimate of ($2.29) is Non-GAAP.
SCTY 4Q15 GAAP EPS (diluted): $0.04, Non-GAAP: ($2.37)
SCTY 1Q16 GAAP EPS (diluted): ($0.25), Non-GAAP: ($2.56)
SCTY 2Q16 GAAP EPS (diluted): ($0.56), Non-GAAP: ($2.32)
SCTY 3Q16 GAAP EPS (diluted): $0.48, Non-GAAP: ($2.27)
Looking at those, I have to believe that the consensus estimate of ($2.29) is Non-GAAP.
Can you explain more about the nuclear option? I thought, any initiative that needs approval, need to go through debate, before any vote. Democrats can filibuster during the debate stage. What am I missing?
The rules can be changed by majority vote. The filibuster is sort of revered as a right due to the minority party but I can promise you the Republicans will not hesitate to use this option or threaten to use this option (thereby ending any idea of filibustering) if there's something they want to pass. Nuclear option - Wikipedia
You will be hearing much more about this as they move to repeal Obamacare as one of the first major actions of Congress.
This is my take as well. Anytime they feel like it they can repeal. I would think the only hope we have there is that if Trump is doing it on the basis of stopping corporate welfare then we can fight to include the oil tax breaks. That would probably shut it down. But then again maybe not as Trump is going to do as he pleases.
I would actually prefer for all corporate welfare to be repealed. I can handle level playing fields and I am sure Elon too.
That's the thing - Dems no longer have any leverage. It's hard to adjust to this new way of thinking. There's no more need to compromise on Reps' end. If Reps decide to "cut spending" and as a part of it to eliminate all EV and solar incentives, boom, done. No need to give on oil subsidies in return. Reps tend to vote in a bloc, too. Not as many centrists to get on board like with Dems.
They could also screw with autonomous driving, direct auto sales, net metering and a bunch of other stuff if they want to. He will be appointing O&G loyalists and climate change deniers, folks who are openly hostile to all the things TSLA stands for. There will be a LOT of lobbying going on. The future is quite uncertain.
I can see just one thing in favour of the ITC: it is unlikely to be an immediate priority for the Republicans, as it is one of the few things in recent years that they found sufficiently palatable to be able to reach a compromise. So it probably won't be repealed right away. It probably won't even be a priority for the fossil fuel industry compared to many of the other things that they want done.
Even when they do get around to it, I think there is at least limited for it support among Republicans, hence why they approved it in the first place: the solar industry is of course nothing like as influential as the fossil fuel industry, but it is nevertheless now big enough to provide a large number of jobs, and a number of Republicans had been listening to the job-creation arguments for a while before the ITC expansion passed, even though initially their response was rather weak. They probably wouldn't want to risk suddenly cutting the subsidy and almost instantly creating many thousands of job losses across the country - that definitely wouldn't improve their chances in 2 years! After all, the net metering end in Nevada set a job-loss (and bad-press) precedent that they would probably want to avoid.
I imagine that they will change the ITC anyway, but I expect that they would want to give companies some time to prepare to avoid the worst job losses, so I would need legislation to most likely be simply a more rapid phasing out of the ITC, and perhaps near-term reduction, but not a sudden elimination. Furthermore, as it is a somewhat complex issue and not a top priority, I would expect some reluctance to use the nuclear option just over this, unless of course they have already set the precedent of using it for other things...
Depending on the timing and details, this could be good or bad for Tesla and Solar City. If it happens very soon, then it is very bad, as Solar City currently relies heavily on the tax credit. However, that reliance could change in the not too distant future if they are able to rapidly decrease sales costs by using Tesla's stores. They might also be able to bring down the panel/cell costs after the new factory has been operating for a while. In that case, an ITC removal could leave competitors unprofitable, with Tesla/Solar City as the only leading profitable installer; this is probably not too likely though and depends on the timing working out very well.
Having said all of this, if there is some warning of a cut-off date, then business will boom temporarily in advance!
A final thought: an ITC removal will definitely be bad for residential Tesla Energy demand in the US; even if the cost of solar can be reduced to make it competitive, it will be harder to fund the batteries as well. However, I expect commercial, utility, and foreign demand to be more than sufficient for that not to matter very much.
Even when they do get around to it, I think there is at least limited for it support among Republicans, hence why they approved it in the first place: the solar industry is of course nothing like as influential as the fossil fuel industry, but it is nevertheless now big enough to provide a large number of jobs, and a number of Republicans had been listening to the job-creation arguments for a while before the ITC expansion passed, even though initially their response was rather weak. They probably wouldn't want to risk suddenly cutting the subsidy and almost instantly creating many thousands of job losses across the country - that definitely wouldn't improve their chances in 2 years! After all, the net metering end in Nevada set a job-loss (and bad-press) precedent that they would probably want to avoid.
I imagine that they will change the ITC anyway, but I expect that they would want to give companies some time to prepare to avoid the worst job losses, so I would need legislation to most likely be simply a more rapid phasing out of the ITC, and perhaps near-term reduction, but not a sudden elimination. Furthermore, as it is a somewhat complex issue and not a top priority, I would expect some reluctance to use the nuclear option just over this, unless of course they have already set the precedent of using it for other things...
Depending on the timing and details, this could be good or bad for Tesla and Solar City. If it happens very soon, then it is very bad, as Solar City currently relies heavily on the tax credit. However, that reliance could change in the not too distant future if they are able to rapidly decrease sales costs by using Tesla's stores. They might also be able to bring down the panel/cell costs after the new factory has been operating for a while. In that case, an ITC removal could leave competitors unprofitable, with Tesla/Solar City as the only leading profitable installer; this is probably not too likely though and depends on the timing working out very well.
Having said all of this, if there is some warning of a cut-off date, then business will boom temporarily in advance!
A final thought: an ITC removal will definitely be bad for residential Tesla Energy demand in the US; even if the cost of solar can be reduced to make it competitive, it will be harder to fund the batteries as well. However, I expect commercial, utility, and foreign demand to be more than sufficient for that not to matter very much.
sundaymorning
Active Member
They can screw with EV incentives, but this will also expose how corrupt their party stance would be, in regards to oil incentives.. if incentives go away for EVs, they go away for everyone, not just Tesla.
If they screw with autonomous driving, then they end up screwing all manufactures, which includes big auto, Google, mobile eye, etc.. Not just Tesla... In the end, if incentives or ZEV credits are gone, then there is no need for big auto to transition towards EV production, this will only further Tesla's lead in EVs.
As long as Tesla has the data to backup their claim that autonomous driving is safer, then this case goes to the Supreme Court, garnering even more attention towards Tesla. Either way, Tesla wins. Incentives are about to expire anyway. So be gone with it. $35k is more than affordable for the mass.
Last edited:
Sounds like Project Fear , let's keep an open mind for at least 48 hours.
One other thing on the nuclear option: the usual argument against using it is that each party knows they will not hold the senate forever, hence they don't want to introduce the nuclear option on anything except a crucially important issue, in case they need to use filibuster themselves at some point in future. I therefore don't think the ITC alone is important enough to use the nuclear option (as I explained above), unless they have already decided to use it anyway for a related matter.
larmor
Active Member
What are the thoughts on the forum and analysts on solarcity recent 10q? Seems like solarcity was a large cloud over tesla for the greater part of the year, overall macro headwinds not withstanding...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
