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 - 2016

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dude, c'mon now you are outright trolling. Can you stop it.

If you have well thought out analysis or remarks, some original stuff, yes post it.

Posting some Jack's opinion as some sort of vindication is just low class. Who gives a sh!t about Dough Kass or his opinion? I don't. Most people here don't.
 
Well, yes we are....it's called Opportunity Cost. And it can be appreciable if you have other investment ideas.

I think this must be the same rationale that Ichabod is taking issue with, but it fails to consider the huge lending premium that longs are getting for their TSLA shares. 6% for retail holders, and %16 for the fund managers. For doing nothing other than waiting to see when model 3 pans out, a fund could get a return of 16% (assuming the shorts have enough liquidity to hold out til the end)? Why wouldn't they hold out?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30seconds
There is more to the story, and that more is wrapped up in the future. The problem I see is that the future keeps moving away. Eventually, the success must be defined as "today."

We as investors, collectively, do not want success defined as today yet. We want Model 3 and we want a lot of them as fast as possible. We have no problem investing to make this happen. There are reasons the financials are the way they are, you can't waive those away and claim failure or broken promises.
 
  • Love
Reactions: neroden
I think this must be the same rationale that Ichabod is taking issue with, but it fails to consider the huge lending premium that longs are getting for their TSLA shares. 6% for retail holders, and %16 for the fund managers. For doing nothing other than waiting to see when model 3 pans out, a fund could get a return of 16% (assuming the shorts have enough liquidity to hold out til the end)? Why wouldn't they hold out?!

this is so important. thanks for pointing out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoTslaGo
GM for TE accounts for COGS. Tesla on record indicated that their current all-in battery cost is less than $190/kWh. Assume that greater cost of the pack for stationary storage and cost reduction at the GF is a wash, the GM based on the list price of stationary storage ($470/kWh) is 60%. I assumed that on average stationary storage will be sold at 10% discount, which yields 50% GM. It is high, and that is the whole allure of TE. Revenue of $500M/year is just the beginning.

I doubt that stores will be growing more than 20% from the current base. Majority of CapEx is actually in the COGS, not the OpEx.
When talking about labor I was talking about the labor cost of installing the TE products, not just building them. There's also the inverter and other supporting hardware that may not make high margins as the battery packs themselves and drags down the overall GM of TE.

Tesla said they will expand stores to 441 by the end of 2017, compared to 215 at the end of March this year (during model 3 reveal). So yeh, 20% growth in stores is a massive underestimate.

Majority of CapEx reflected in cost (as in depreciation) as of now would be in OpEx not in COGS. The dominating part of GF is not contributing to current COGS nor majority of COGS next year (maybe in Q4) because there's no revenue generating activity happening there (except small amount of TE and wiring of the motors). The Fremont factory still got huge space empty. The 500k/year capacity paint shop and close to that capacity pressing machines have only about 80% sitting there idle. So I don't think majority of CapEx would be in COGS this year nor next year. And we also have SC as CapEx not included here.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: EinSV
CapEX does not accrue D&A until the asset is placed in service.

"1. Manufacturing overhead(also referred to as factory overhead, factory burden, and manufacturing support costs) refers to indirect factory-related costs that are incurred when a product is manufactured. Along with costs such as direct material and direct labor, the cost of manufacturing overhead must be assigned to each unit produced so thatInventoryandCost of Goods Soldare valued and reported according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Manufacturing overhead includes such things as the electricity used to operate the factory equipment, depreciation on the factory equipment and building, factory supplies and factory personnel (other than direct labor). How these costs are assigned to products has an impact on the measurement of an individual product's profitability.

2. Nonmanufacturing costs(sometimes referred to as "administrative overhead") represent a manufacturer's expenses that occur apart from the actual manufacturing function. In accounting and financial terminology, the nonmanufacturing costs includeSelling, General and Administrative (SG&A)expenses, andInterest Expense.Since accounting principles do not consider these expenses as product costs, they are not assigned to inventory or to the cost of goods sold. Instead, nonmanufacturing costs are simply reported as expenses on the income statement at the time they areincurred.

Nonmanufacturing costs include activities associated with the Selling and General Administrative functions. Examples include the compensation of nonmanufacturing personnel; occupancy expenses for nonmanufacturing facilities (rent, light, heat, property taxes, maintenance, etc.); depreciation of nonmanufacturing equipment; expenses for automobiles and trucks used to sell and deliver products; and interest expenses. (Note thatfactoryadministration expenses are considered part of manufacturing overhead.)"

Manufacturing Overhead Costs | Explanation | AccountingCoach
Thanks for this info. So you're saying the majority of Fremont factory (about 90% empty as I heard from someone did a tour half a year ago), the paint shop (500k/year capacity, only using less than 100k/year), the pressing machines (also capable of at least 300k/year, but used less than 100k/year), and almost all GF does not accrue D&A?
 
When talking about labor I was talking about the labor cost of installing the TE products, not just building them. There's also the inverter and other supporting hardware that may not make high margins as the battery packs themselves and drags down the overall GM of TE.

Tesla said they will expand stores to 441 by the end of 2017, compared to 215 at the end of March this year (during model 3 reveal). So yeh, 20% growth in stores is a massive underestimate.

Majority of CapEx reflected in cost (as in depreciation) as of now would be in OpEx not in COGS. The dominating part of GF is not contributing to current COGS nor majority of COGS next year (maybe in Q4) because there's no revenue generating activity happening there (except small amount of TE and wiring of the motors). The Fremont factory still got huge space empty. The 500k/year capacity paint shop and close to that capacity pressing machines have only about 80% sitting there idle. So I don't think majority of CapEx would be in COGS this year nor next year. And we also have SC as CapEx not included here.
I agree that there is near doubling of stores by end of 2017. I see no problem in Capex on that. A growing company needs to increase stores/service centers. Remember, stores replace expensively commissioned sales reps for SolarCity with museum curator type folks.

Service centers are recurring revenue/profit centers in the long run. A model S/X owner spends about $50/60 per month on maintenance costs, with annual plan or a la acarte. This is recurring revenue stream for the life of the car with hefty profit margin for Tesla. Imagine 2M model3's on the road one day in future spending about $25/30 per month on maintenance. That revenue could be very significant.

However, I care more about Opex increase. Tesla guidance is about 20% increase in Opex by end of 2016, I guess it could be as much as 30% increase next year. Do you see higher increase next year?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: gigglehertz
I agree that there is near doubling of stores by end of 2017. I see no problem in Capex on that. A growing company needs to increase stores/service centers. Remember, stores replace expensively commissioned sales reps for SolarCity with museum curator type folks.

Service centers are recurring revenue/profit centers in the long run. A model S/X owner spends about $50/60 per month on maintenance costs, with annual plan or a la acarte. This is recurring revenue stream for the life of the car with hefty profit margin for Tesla. Imagine 2M model3's on the road one day in future spending about $25/30 per month on maintenance. That revenue could be very significant.

However, I care more about Opex increase. Tesla guidance is about 20% increase in Opex by end of 2016, I guess it could be as much as 30% increase next year. Do you see higher increase next year?
I'm not sure how much the service centers make for the company. I thought they are not aiming to make any money out of service.

One metric you can use is OpEx/car. This metric has been on the rise and never showed increased efficiency. So if this trend continues into H2 this year, and Tesla delivers ~50k cars, then it would be increased 67%. And if they can do 120k S+X, it would be 50% increase compared to this year.

I was very worried about this metric, because, if this holds, then yes, Tesla is never going to make a net profit on cars they sold. The more they sell the more they lose. Then I thought the depreciation from CapEx they spend accrues the loss in OpEx. And if these are taken out, the cost/car could be on a declining trend. So I was happy. But today @brian45011 educated me more on this topic and if OpEx really had no D&A in it, I don't know how to explain S+X alone be profitable.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: TMSE and Matias
Thanks for this info. So you're saying the majority of Fremont factory (about 90% empty as I heard from someone did a tour half a year ago), the paint shop (500k/year capacity, only using less than 100k/year), the pressing machines (also capable of at least 300k/year, but used less than 100k/year), and almost all GF does not accrue D&A?

The factory is not 90% empty. I toured Monday and asked several times. They don't like giving straight answers but they suggested it was nearly full. The model 3 line will be installed in a long narrow strip in the front of the factory currently used for part warehousing. The upstairs is used but sort of underused with things that could be moved like electronics manufacturing.

I think once the m3 line is in it would make more sense to find another factory.

More factory observations:

o it is a giant busy stuffed place. It is a real deal factory. Grubbier and busier than I expected. None of this gleaming white and red perfection I was expecting. Still pretty as factories go but a seriously massive operation

o the stamping capacity is way higher than they need now. The stampers work fast and they had a huge supply of parts.

o the paint shop has a high capacity too. They say 500k. I also got the impression the original paint shop is there too but not sure.

o for those that don't know a car is stamped parts-> body in white line-> paint shop-> final assembly-> testing. There is the original BIW line that does only model S and the new BIW line that can do both but is currently only doing X. Then one final assembly line that is a mix of S and X. Final assembly is the limiting factor now.

o I got the impression that the model 3 line will be a BIW line and also final assembly.
 
Last edited:
I agree that there is near doubling of stores by end of 2017. I see no problem in Capex on that. A growing company needs to increase stores/service centers. Remember, stores replace expensively commissioned sales reps for SolarCity with museum curator type folks.

Service centers are recurring revenue/profit centers in the long run. A model S/X owner spends about $50/60 per month on maintenance costs, with annual plan or a la acarte. This is recurring revenue stream for the life of the car with hefty profit margin for Tesla. Imagine 2M model3's on the road one day in future spending about $25/30 per month on maintenance. That revenue could be very significant.

However, I care more about Opex increase. Tesla guidance is about 20% increase in Opex by end of 2016, I guess it could be as much as 30% increase next year. Do you see higher increase next year?
Q2 letter says OpEx will actually be 30% higher for full year 2016 over 2015. Reasons given were design/engineering/testing of Model 3 and higher sales/service costs associated with intl expansion. I think the former will decrease but the latter is here to stay (and probably increase). OpEx will continue to grow with sales/revenue, but the key is whether they will grow at a reduced rate as they scale. If Tesla hits the bottom end of guidance for 2016 (80k cars, 60% growth) and OpEx increases 30% during the same period I'm OK with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMSE
Didn't see anyone mention this yet: Tesla Model X popular on gray market in China – going for a 40% premium ($240k US). That's the best evidence I've seen lately that we're not going to have a demand problem even at 2k+ weekly production. Beijing pollution + more than 4 million Chinese millionaires = plenty of demand for status-elevating, lung-saving, non-polluting cars with biohazard HEPA filters.
Should be noted a 40% premium is quite low if you want to buy an imported premium car in China from the official maker of that imported car. Automakers sometimes charges a 100% premium of the car to Chinese customers, that's on top of import duty and other stuff. Tesla is really doing charity compared to these other companies.
 
I'm not sure how much the service centers make for the company. I thought they are not aiming to make any money out of service.

Pretty sure I saw this answered in the shareholder letter: http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...-8C2A53A86B6D/Q2_16_Update_Letter_-_final.pdf

"Q2 Services and other revenue was $88 million, up 15% from a year ago but down sequentially. The decline was primarily due to having fewer pre-owned cars to sell because of the need to use them to expand our service loaner fleet. Q2 Service and other gross margin was 2.5%, down from 4.7% in Q1, but generally in line with our expectations."

Granted that number included other things like CPO, but with development services for Toyota and MB over, it should mostly be CPO's or from the service centers.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: TMSE
I'm not sure how much the service centers make for the company. I thought they are not aiming to make any money out of service.

One metric you can use is OpEx/car. This metric has been on the rise and never showed increased efficiency. So if this trend continues into H2 this year, and Tesla delivers ~50k cars, then it would be increased 67%. And if they can do 120k S+X, it would be 50% increase compared to this year.

I was very worried about this metric, because, if this holds, then yes, Tesla is never going to make a net profit on cars they sold. The more they sell the more they lose. Then I thought the depreciation from CapEx they spend accrues the loss in OpEx. And if these are taken out, the cost/car could be on a declining trend. So I was happy. But today @brian45011 educated me more on this topic and if OpEx really had no D&A in it, I don't know how to explain S+X alone be profitable.

The right comparison is increase in revenue (#cars * ASP) vs. increase in OpEx. Increase in revenue is consistently higher than 60%, more likely 70 to 80%. OpEx on the other hand is rising at around 30%.
 
Pretty sure I saw this answered in the shareholder letter: http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...-8C2A53A86B6D/Q2_16_Update_Letter_-_final.pdf

"Q2 Services and other revenue was $88 million, up 15% from a year ago but down sequentially. The decline was primarily due to having fewer pre-owned cars to sell because of the need to use them to expand our service loaner fleet. Q2 Service and other gross margin was 2.5%, down from 4.7% in Q1, but generally in line with our expectations."

Granted that number included other things like CPO, but with development services for Toyota and MB over, it should mostly be CPO's or from the service centers.
Yes I'm aware Tesla is making money in that "service & others" line. Because that's mostly CPO sales, stuff they sell to other companies, and TE. What I meant for not making money in "service" was servicing their own customers. Like maintenance and stuff.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: TMSE
Thanks for this info. So you're saying the majority of Fremont factory (about 90% empty as I heard from someone did a tour half a year ago), the paint shop (500k/year capacity, only using less than 100k/year), the pressing machines (also capable of at least 300k/year, but used less than 100k/year), and almost all GF does not accrue D&A?

No, I think it is close to just the opposite. There are various methods of calculating depreciation, most based on the asset's useful life--usually that's time related; but, as you noted, such things as tool & die assets can be depreciated on a per-use basis. To my knowledge, no depreciation method takes into account percent utilization of the asset. Either the asset has been placed in service or it hasn't been.

Parts of real property like buildings can be placed in service in phases as they are completed and productive use begins. The giga-factory apparently has three sections (A,B, &C) completely constructed. I suspect the entire part of those sections used by TE has been placed in service and is being depreciated, and none of the Panasonic space has been placed in service.

I thing better use of the relatively fixed annual expense for depreciation of assets previously placed in service that goes into "manufacturing overhead" and hence COGS is part of what Jason was referring to when he said:

"I'm going to add just a little bit of color onto the 60 kilowatt-hour gross margin numbers, too. We're aspirational on this. But the way to think about this is very important. Those cars are gross margin positive and they're producing cash. So if you think about from an overall operating leverage perspective, even if the gross margin profile on those is less than our other variants, it's still producing contribution margin to pay for the fixed cost of the business. So I think it's the right economic thing to do."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DrJohnM and TMSE

We now take you to an unauthorized addition to the Doug Kass article, written by a Tesla bull who studies the daily trading trends very carefully:

"Despite significant short-selling at critical times during the day, TSLA has recovered from its morning low, has worked its way into the green, and will be in a tug-of-war with shorts until closing. Low volume today allowed relatively small selling pressure, lumped into 2 to 4 minute periods, to drive TSLA down at times, but the insatiable appetite of longs keeps pulling TSLA back higher. Although the market maker tractor beam may adversely affect TSLA during these final 20 minutes of trading, the stock is positioned for a possible "super Monday" after the weekend. Kass is out of shorting TSLA for good reason, and other shorts would be wise to follow his example."
 
No, I think it is close to just the opposite. There are various methods of calculating depreciation, most based on the asset's useful life-usually that's time related; but, as you noted, such things as tool & die assets can be depreciated on a per use-basis. To my knowledge, no depreciation method takes into account percent utilization of the asset. Either the asset has been placed in service or it hasn't been.

Parts of real property like buildings can be placed in service in phases as they are completed and productive use begins. The giga-factory apparently has three sections (A,B, &C) completely constructed. I suspect the entire part of those sections used by TE has been placed in service and is being depreciated, and none of the Panasonic space has been placed in service.

I thing better use of the relatively fixed annual expense for depreciation of assets previously placed in service is part of what Jason was referring to when he said:

"I'm going to add just a little bit of color onto the 60 kilowatt-hour gross margin numbers, too. We're aspirational on this. But the way to think about this is very important. Those cars are gross margin positive and they're producing cash. So if you think about from an overall operating leverage perspective, even if the gross margin profile on those is less than our other variants, it's still producing contribution margin to pay for the fixed cost of the business. So I think it's the right economic thing to do."
But if all those machines and buildings incurred D&A are accounted as COGS now 100%, even if they are heavily underutilized. Does that mean if they jump from 80k/year to 500k/year, the COGS from these D&A simply stays the same and shrunk 6 times (excluding tooling which is on a unit production based and additional CapEx in the future)?

Also if none or very little of the D&A goes into OpEx, this does mean Tesla hasn't been able to increase their efficiency in selling cars and no benefits from scaling so far right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.