Tesla Gigafactory Investor Thread

[Newb]

tftf, Tesla will be cash flow breakeven to positive when the Model X reaches steady state production. this is expected to happen in Q1, perhaps it does not happen until Q2 if new production challenges arise for the X. Yes, that's further out than what was said at the beginning of the year (getting out of cash flow negative by Q4). Tesla already raised ~$700 million in August of this year to compensate for this delay.

you are correct that Tesla will need billions to finish the GF. what you do not seem to have realized is that those billions will come from their ongoing business selling the Model X and Model S and eventually the Model 3. perhaps you've come to believe that Tesla loses money with incremental vehicle sales. that is completely false. be careful, there are many people who do not want Tesla to succeed and some write and say things about Tesla that are completely false. inform yourself and you will not fall prey to this nonsense.

+1

I'm getting tired of the repetition of the same old arguments against Tesla which aim to spread fundamental doubt and uncertainty (overvalued, toys for the rich, overpromising). It's all blind to the reality. Blind to what's been happening in the past 3 years. Tesla went from 500 cars produced per year to 500 cars produced in 2 days as of today. If you'd look back what tftf and similar posters have been predicting about Tesla's future 1.5-3 years ago, you'd feel ashamed for them. And the worst thing is, that they don't seem to learn, nor would they admit being wrong or acknowledge Tesla's success story. And this is frustrating. Sometimes I wish mods could do something about this - obviously repeating nonsense is in the gray area somehow and therefore they continue to macerate our nerves. I don't care what their intentions/motives are, I just wish they would just stop it.

 

[SteveG3]

The "easy money" in Tesla was made from mid/late 2012 to early 2014.

so you are saying not only did you get it wrong when you called Tesla overpriced at $70 in the middle of that timeframe... you are also now saying it was easy to see TSLA was a great buy during that period.

look tftf, I don't want to get in a personal back and forth with you... the point is, we're not going to be passive when you post intellectually dishonest gibberish (garnished with a false air of "authority" despite your track record of getting TSLA predictions wrong). do you want me to link the two TMC threads in the past year where I provided evidence which thoroughly debunked your intellectually disingenuous claims for what they were?

 

[The Blue Owl]

+1

I'm getting tired of the repetition of the same old arguments against Tesla which aim to spread fundamental doubt and uncertainty (overvalued, toys for the rich, overpromising). It's all blind to the reality. Blind to what's been happening in the past 3 years. Tesla went from 500 cars produced per year to 500 cars produced in 2 days as of today. If you'd look back what tftf and similar posters have been predicting about Tesla's future 1.5-3 years ago, you'd feel ashamed for them. And the worst thing is, that they don't seem to learn, nor would they admit being wrong or acknowledge Tesla's success story. And this is frustrating. Sometimes I wish mods could do something about this - obviously repeating nonsense is in the gray area somehow and therefore they continue to macerate our nerves. I don't care what their intentions/motives are, I just wish they would just stop it.

I sympathize, but the last thing this forum needs is to silence the naysayers. It would be just as misguided as those governments who blame short sellers and speculators when their stock markets or their currencies collapse. Bearish views play an important role, just like wolves in the forest: they help the market weed out the loser stocks. I'm sure many GTAT investors regret not having been more exposed to skeptical viewpoints.

Different people look at things in different ways, and place their bets accordingly. Of course you will get a lot of disagreement. This is how information gets disseminated and processed to the benefit of all.

 

[SteveG3]

I sympathize, but the last thing this forum needs is to silence the naysayers. It would be just as misguided as those governments who blame short sellers and speculators when their stock markets or their currencies collapse.

Different people look at things in different ways, and place their bets accordingly. Of course you will get a lot of disagreement. This is how information gets disseminated and processed to the benefit of all.

I agree. I want objective analysis, not cheerleading. However, in the case of someone who has a longstanding and voluminous track record of intellectually dishonest posts, isn't it appropriate to call attention to this? Beyond what he's done here, tftf has literally posted about 3,000 (yes, 3,000) comments on Seeking Alpha about Tesla... all negative since the first ten or twenty. How probable does it seem that someone with nearly 3,000 consecutive negative comments on Tesla since May of 2013 could be intellectually honest given Tesla's successes between then and now.

Pointing out tftf to the unsuspecting is similar to pointing out John Petersen or Corey Johnson.

Tales From The Future's Comments on TSLA: Tesla Motors (Page 2) | Seeking Alpha

 

[Svetlin]

You forgetting the rise in inventory needed to build a lot more units per years. 2017 volume will probably raise inventory by a billion. So even a billion in profit is not a billion available for capital expenditures. And of course there won't really be a billion in profit over the next two years.

I don't need Tesla to make a profit. I just want to know the capital budget, and where the money is coming from. This isn't the software business where the bet is on a product taking off. Tesla has to build stuff with very capital intensive inputs.

Inventory is on the balance sheet, not the income statement, or am I totally wrong... I am not a finance guy. But thanks for pointing out that omission, I guess it does decrease the available cash to throw in the cash incinerator.

But when you say "of course there won't really be a billion in profit", what are you saying: Revenue will be less than 25B for the two years, gross margin will be less than 20%, R&D & SG&A will be more than 4B? All of the above?

 

[The Blue Owl]

However, in the case of someone who has a longstanding and voluminous track record of intellectually dishonest posts, isn't it appropriate to call attention to this? tftf has literally posted about 10,000 (yes, 10,000) comments on Seeking Alpha... all negative since the first ten or twenty.

I dunno. Where do you draw the line? I may be wrong, but to me it seems that tftf believes what he says. I think this forum has done a good job so far in rejecting drive-by posters like those that are rampant on the Yahoo finance forums. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of open exchange of info.

 

[austinEV]

I dunno. Where do you draw the line? I may be wrong, but to me it seems that tftf believes what he says. I think this forum has done a good job so far in rejecting drive-by posters like those that are rampant on the Yahoo finance forums. Personally, I'd rather err on the side of open exchange of info.

I invite TFTF to create a "bear cave" thread or a "TFTF bear case" thread where the best bear case is presented, edited and discussed. The bears can discuss and hammer out their best case. That way all the best arguments would be in one place, and it might incentivize Bulls to do the same. If we don't change the structure we are going to have an endless bickerfest because TFTF is presenting a case methodically and with repetition and we end up just bickering about it. Bulls respond piecemeal and the responses are lost in long threads and then we stop responding and the bear case gets restated. (If I see that cash burn chart one more time...)

This burden falls on Bears, being a minority. Make a thread, where your case is the focus and we can address it there instead of EVERY thread becoming a bickerfest.

 

[The Blue Owl]

I invite TFTF to create a "bear cave" thread or a "TFTF bear case" thread where the best bear case is presented, edited and discussed. The bears can discuss and hammer out their best case. That way all the best arguments would be in one place, and it might incentivize Bulls to do the same. If we don't change the structure we are going to have an endless bickerfest because TFTF is presenting a case methodically and with repetition and we end up just bickering about it. Bulls respond piecemeal and the responses are lost in long threads and then we stop responding and the bear case gets restated. (If I see that cash burn chart one more time...)

This burden falls on Bears, being a minority. Make a thread, where your case is the focus and we can address it there instead of EVERY thread becoming a bickerfest.

I can't believe I'm coming to tftf's defense , but I think it's better for us to tolerate a certain amount of irritation than to create a "free speech zone" for the bears. (And I'm printing the Bloomberg TSLA cash burn chart right now and I'm sticking it to the wall. I'm crazy that way.)

Edit: to be clear, I hope tftf takes you up on your challenge and starts his own thread. I was just pushing back on the moderation calls.

 

[dakh]

Don't forget that some of the investments needed for Model 3 have already been made: paint shop, stamping, some of the R&D. Like was mentioned in a call, they're now looking at improving on the 2 year design to manufacture timelines for future models.

I get the point that stock already has a lot priced in. But success begets success and a lot of what we don't know haven't been priced in. To me the attraction is in the fact that this company can move quicker than anybody during disruptive times, and that's not something one can replicate by throwing more resources in.

 

[SteveG3]

I invite TFTF to create a "bear cave" thread or a "TFTF bear case" thread where the best bear case is presented, edited and discussed. The bears can discuss and hammer out their best case. That way all the best arguments would be in one place, and it might incentivize Bulls to do the same. If we don't change the structure we are going to have an endless bickerfest because TFTF is presenting a case methodically and with repetition and we end up just bickering about it. Bulls respond piecemeal and the responses are lost in long threads and then we stop responding and the bear case gets restated. (If I see that cash burn chart one more time...)

This burden falls on Bears, being a minority. Make a thread, where your case is the focus and we can address it there instead of EVERY thread becoming a bickerfest.

this seems like a reasonable compromise. you've cited good reasons to have the comments be in one place, and it would avoid completely blocking comments.

fwiw, my mistake going on memory and writing that tftf has 10,000 TSLA comments on Seeking Alpha... the correct number is roughly 3,000. they have been, however, since the first handful, all negative since tftf called Tesla overpriced in the spring of 2013. again, how probable is it that someone who was being intellectually honest would have commented 3,000 times on Tesla, and not have had one positive thing to say about Tesla's accomplishments between then and now.

 

[Newb]

I agree. I want objective analysis, not cheerleading. However, in the case of someone who has a longstanding and voluminous track record of intellectually dishonest posts, isn't it appropriate to call attention to this? Beyond what he's done here, tftf has literally posted about 3,000 (yes, 3,000) comments on Seeking Alpha about Tesla... all negative since the first ten or twenty. How probable does it seem that someone with nearly 3,000 consecutive negative comments on Tesla since May of 2013 could be intellectually honest given Tesla's successes between then and now.

Pointing out tftf to the unsuspecting is similar to pointing out John Petersen or Corey Johnson.

Tales From The Future's Comments on TSLA: Tesla Motors (Page 2) | Seeking Alpha

couldn't agree more. @Familial Rhino: I'm not saying we should silence the naysayers, just silence the obvious manipulators who are not interested in any informative discussion at Tesla Motors Club. And the moderators and people running the TMC forums should ask themselves if they want this place to become a battle arena of cheerleaders vs. manipulating perma-bears. I'm just saying that balanced people could stay away from this place in the future if reading through increasingly more posts from posters like tftf or electracity are just a waste of time. Why would balanced people continue to come here for sharing valueable information if tftf and others conquer this place with their nonsense and just frustrate us?

 

[tftf]

so you are saying not only did you get it wrong when you called Tesla overpriced at $70 in the middle of that timeframe... you are also now saying it was easy to see TSLA was a great buy during that period.

I didn't mean "easy" to spot, I meant "easy money" as momentum drove TSLA from about $20-35 in 2012/early 2013 to $250 by the end of February 2014. I simply pointed out that the stock is still slightly down compared to that date (Feb 2014) - all the talk about retail trading "Teslanaires" buying their car with TSLA stock profits is gone. TSLA has been flat till today, with a few spikes to $180 and $280 in between.

Unfortunately, only a few of the past replies have been about the content/arguments I presented, such as various links (Bloomberg FCF chart etc.), internal battery competition with supplier Panasonic or the fact that only 14% of the "full GF" is currently being built and ready by 2017 for EV cell production - with all of the $2bn "GF money" raised in early 2014 already gone and mostly used for other business purposes.

So I'm going to retire from this thread and the forum for a while since this discussion isn't on-topic (GF investor thread) and therefore not very productive imho.

Everybody can return safely to the bull echo chamber

 

[The Blue Owl]

couldn't agree more. @Familial Rhino: I'm not saying we should silence the naysayers, just silence the obvious manipulators who are not interested in any informative discussion at Tesla Motors Club. And the moderators and people running the TMC forums should ask themselves if they want this place to become a battle arena of cheerleaders vs. manipulating perma-bears. I'm just saying that balanced people could stay away from this place in the future if reading through increasingly more posts from posters like tftf or electracity are just a waste of time. Why would balanced people continue to come here for sharing valueable information if tftf and others conquer this place with their nonsense and just frustrate us?

I see where you're coming from, but I think we stand to lose more, as participants on this board, if any one person's standard of objectivity or balance is enforced via moderation. I prefer the chaos of the bazaar; yes, bazaars are full of tricksters, but I'm more afraid of any top-down enforcement of "balance". Besides, as I said, the signal-to-noise ratio in this bazaar of ours seems quite healthy to me.

Anyway, I'm not a moderator. I'll let them make their call without any more input from me.

 

[BriansTesla]

I didn't mean "easy" to spot, I meant "easy money" as momentum drove TSLA from about $20-35 in 2012/early 2013 to $250 by the end of February 2014. I simply pointed out that the stock is still slightly down compared to that date (Feb 2014) - all the talk about retail trading "Teslanaires" buying their car with TSLA stock profits is gone. TSLA has been flat till today, with a few spikes to $180 and $280 in between.

I wonder how many of the bears on this forum today are still very pissed that they missed the easy money. I think it would leave a bad taste in my mouth. Fortunately, I was early on the wagon.

 

[chickensevil]

I didn't mean "easy" to spot, I meant "easy money" as momentum drove TSLA from about $20-35 in 2012/early 2013 to $250 by the end of February 2014. I simply pointed out that the stock is still slightly down compared to that date (Feb 2014) - all the talk about retail trading "Teslanaires" buying their car with TSLA stock profits is gone. TSLA has been flat till today, with a few spikes to $180 and $280 in between.

Unfortunately, only a few of the past replies have been about the content/arguments I presented, such as various links (Bloomberg FCF chart etc.), internal battery competition with supplier Panasonic or the fact that only 14% of the "full GF" is currently being built and ready by 2017 for EV cell production - with all of the $2bn "GF money" raised in early 2014 already gone and mostly used for other business purposes.

So I'm going to retire from this thread and the forum for a while since this discussion isn't on-topic (GF investor thread) and therefore not very productive imho.

Everybody can return safely to the bull echo chamber

I think the reason you don't get responses on the actual subject is because people are tired of repeating the same things over and over again as this line of commenting hasn't changed nor has the responses... But you know what... I'm bored, so why not?

Huge negative cash burn -> Well, they did raise a heck of a lot of money, right? Shouldn't they be spending it? I would be more worried if they were hoarding it up until a rainy day. It has been pulled up before but what they claimed they would spend the 2B$ on was cleverly worded such as to allow them to basically spend it on whatever they wanted to. Thus far the comments about needing additional funding beyond that have been to support *other* growth, not directly related to the gigafactory (granted I don't think anything is restricting them from using the 750M$ on the gigafactory... but that wasn't the focus of the claim.)

That being said it has also been stated that the numbers on Construction don't tell the full story on the cost of the gigafactory. Someone has already recently pointed out that R&D so that the cells are fit to be used in that factory is a part of the cost of building that factory. Tesla doesn't (and shouldn't) itemize every little thing they spend their R&D/CapEx/OpEx on. Now that they have moved into the factory (at least on some level) there is likely to be costs associated with the bringing this factory online that fall under OpEx finance lines.

And why do you say it is "already gone" Last I saw they had 1.4BN in cash, if you add in 750M$ raised for "other purposes" that puts them back over 2BN$ of funding they had to allocate toward the factory. Because really, you can say that they got ambitious with the X, and had to lay the groundwork for it, plus the Model 3 growth, and the 750M$ raised was basically paying back on that cash burn they already spent. So now they are back to a healthy cash pool that can be funded toward the Factory.

To put it another way, total cash raised was roughly 3BN, they "spent" at least 750M$ of that toward expansions at Fremont, and I would argue they have probably dumped a decent amount toward the gigafactory.

They have spent (as of June 30) a little more than 200M$ on stated construction of the factory. If as you say that is "all they have spent" and we know they have already moved in some services into the building (meaning that it would have to be at least mostly finished being built for that section, in order to stick people and machinery in there...) then one could start to estimate that all 7 sections being completed should cost them around... what? 1.4BN... Let's throw an extra 100M$ on top of that for "other expenses" so it is 1.5, subtract off the 200M already spent, leaving about 1.3BN left to go. Huh, how much cash do they have left? Oh, right! 1.4BN...

So where is this cash problem of which you speak? They back funded the 750M$ from the spending they already did to grow the business in a way that if things go like they are looking will be returning dividends to the company (for future growth and investments) starting Q1 of next year. So if you had the choice, slowly invest 750M$ in cash over the next few years to have it paying back by 2020, or invest it all this year and have it paying back by Q1 of 2016? I would have to say you would be stupid to go with the slow route.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and one more note, it had been pointed out that if you take off the CapEx and the R&D they would be easily in the green. If they wanted to sit back now and stop growth (maybe even tailor back on some of the OpEx since you are going to stop growing there is a lot of pointless OpEx if that was your goal... Fire like 2,000 some odd employees at least) such that you could keep a reasonable R&D budget going and be in the green. But noone wants that... That is why investors in general are not panicing over the numbers on your bloomberg chart. That is a good thing since that spending is contributed to 3 major things:

Growing your market footprint so you can service a global market (They are just trying to get to the level of where MB and BMW is at, nevermind trying to go any further in global coverage, we aren't even to BMW numbers yet as far as footprint goes)
R&D spending to continue to keep yourself ~10 years ahead of the competition (maybe further... don't know... noone has made a real Model S killer yet... which was released in 2012 and shown to the public in 2010... I think someone might have one to market by what? 2017 is the current timeframe... who knows? they keep saying "in three years" for the past 3 years...)
CapEx to grow the business to make not just 100k cars, not just 500k cars, but eventually millions of cars by 2025 (If they keep making products as they already have with the Roadster, the S, the X, and Stationary storage, then they will have no issue selling everything they can make so I fine with growing to millions of cars, because they have never yet made even remotely a crappy product or concept a crappy thing.

So spend the money. Spend it as fast as you can, but as smart as you can.

 

[austinEV]

Thanks Chicken for doing the work! You are my hero.

By the way, my earlier comment about making a "bear cave" thread was not meant to be disrespectful of TFTF nor was it intended to "rope off" critical commentary. I am not attempting to create a positive comment only zone. If we bulls are so thin skinned that we cannot hear disagreement without shedding tears then you know it is time to sell!

I was genuinely trying to create some better *organization* of this bull vs bear conversation that has started. The "short term" catchall thread famously addresses anything and everything and it is by definition a lousy place to contain an important thread. So, break out the Bear chatter in its own thread not to silence it but to focus it. And, if we bulls are so smart we should be able to refute stuff there and not have it swamped by 20 pages of "yay the stock moved" chatter.

 

[The Blue Owl]

Thanks Chicken for doing the work! You are my hero.

By the way, my earlier comment about making a "bear cave" thread was not meant to be disrespectful of TFTF nor was it intended to "rope off" critical commentary. I am not attempting to create a positive comment only zone. If we bulls are so thin skinned that we cannot hear disagreement without shedding tears then you know it is time to sell!

I was genuinely trying to create some better *organization* of this bull vs bear conversation that has started. The "short term" catchall thread famously addresses anything and everything and it is by definition a lousy place to contain an important thread. So, break out the Bear chatter in its own thread not to silence it but to focus it. And, if we bulls are so smart we should be able to refute stuff there and not have it swamped by 20 pages of "yay the stock moved" chatter.

Understood and agreed!

 

[jesselivenomore]

I didn't mean "easy" to spot, I meant "easy money" as momentum drove TSLA from about $20-35 in 2012/early 2013 to $250 by the end of February 2014.

It was not "momentum" that drove TSLA from 20 to 200, it was the 30% in short interest who were forced to liquidate by their brokers as they saw their accounts evaporate. In the mean time, TSLA capitalized on this by raising capital at an elevated price level caused by the forced buying. TSLA was "overvalued" in this period, as Elon Musk admitted himself.

But, by taking advantage of the short squeeze and elevated valuation, TSLA was able to raise money and accelerate their initial plans. When before the gigafactory and model 3 were goals far off in the future, the shorts allowed TSLA to bring that to reality much much sooner.

With the acceleration of TSLA's progress, and the value created by the capital raised, including the gigafactory, TSLA is now fairly valued again. But in the meantime, shorts like tftf have once again piled into TSLA, up closed to 30% in short interest once again. While many longs in this thread like to argue and correct them, what we really should do is thank them. It is the shorts that have accelerated TSLA's progress, and it is the new shorts who have yet to be burned who will fuel the next phase of expansion.

It was not longs who bought TSLA through 200 the first time around. Think about it, what investor would buy a stock who just rallied 500% in the straight line? No, it was insolvent shorts who were forced to closed down their trading accounts who bought TSLA through 200. And tftf, I know guys like you will never concede that you are wrong, and I genuinely hope you stick to your guns. All the luck to you. Because it will be people like you who will buy TSLA through 400 and 500 as your accounts are liquidated.

 

[Electroman]

There is a reason why bears like TFTF don't get any respect here. The fact that he has not acknowledged a single thing that Tesla has done right and always looking for FUD and glass half-empty outlook, gives the impression that they want Tesla to fail and fail badly.

 

[tftf]

Huge negative cash burn -> Well, they did raise a heck of a lot of money, right? Shouldn't they be spending it? I would be more worried if they were hoarding it up until a rainy day. It has been pulled up before but what they claimed they would spend the 2B$ on was cleverly worded such as to allow them to basically spend it on whatever they wanted to. Thus far the comments about needing additional funding beyond that have been to support *other* growth, not directly related to the gigafactory (granted I don't think anything is restricting them from using the 750M$ on the gigafactory... but that wasn't the focus of the claim.)

That being said it has also been stated that the numbers on Construction don't tell the full story on the cost of the gigafactory. Someone has already recently pointed out that R&D so that the cells are fit to be used in that factory is a part of the cost of building that factory. Tesla doesn't (and shouldn't) itemize every little thing they spend their R&D/CapEx/OpEx on.

And why do you say it is "already gone" Last I saw they had 1.4BN in cash, if you add in 750M$ raised for "other purposes" that puts them back over 2BN$ of funding they had to allocate toward the factory. Because really, you can say that they got ambitious with the X, and had to lay the groundwork for it, plus the Model 3 growth, and the 750M$ raised was basically paying back on that cash burn they already spent. So now they are back to a healthy cash pool that can be funded toward the Factory.

(...)

So spend the money. Spend it as fast as you can, but as smart as you can.

Let me just address that because I don't like open questions or wrong numbers floating around when I leave a discussion:


- Of course Tesla could spend the $2bn on any business-related purpose. I never accused them of doing something illegal. The issue is however communications to investors because they made it sound iike the $2bn were mainly supposed to cover Tesla's portion of the GF project (read the various press reports back in Feb 2014)

- And yes, that $2bn is gone/spent in my opinion (that's the main reason I came back to this thread to respond):

Let's keep things simple, disregard items like A/R and A/P and just look at rounded cash numbers from the quarterly reports:

In Dec 2013, Tesla had around $ 0.85 billion in cash
In June 2015, Tesla was again down to $ 1.15 billion in cash
In Sept 2015, Tesla had around $ 1.42 billion in cash (but of course raised another $700+ million earlier in that quarter, August 2015)

You can't add the $750 million again at the end of the quarter. As of Sept 30, 2015 the remaining portion of the money raised in the quarter is already included on the balance sheet. This means the small remaining rest of the $2bn in cash raised in early 2014 was burned (or "wisely invested for future ROI" if you prefer that term) during Q3 2015.

I estimated that only 10-20% of these funds were used for the GF by summer 2015. Yes, the $206 million is only about GF construction costs as of June 2015 (the next 10-Q will show how much they spent this quarter and hopefully correct the 2015 GF-related numbers) - but even if we add machinery/tooling already used in CA and then moved to Nevada, eg. for battery cell/module assembly, I have a hard time seeing how more than about 20% (that's why I used 20% as the upper limit) of the $2bn were used on the GF so far.

That leaves 80% spent on other business purposes - again, nothing wrong with that, but this means more fresh money will be needed to complete the full GF going forward..

Summary: Tesla spent most of money it raised in 2014 (the full $2bn, not chump change...) on other items while the GF in Nevada is still an unfinished hull at just 14% of the projected total size/output.

14% matches "one of seven buildings" very well, so the different reports add up (people claiming that the "full" GF will encompass seven buildings. At the moment the first building is being finished: http://bit.ly/1MeyT9S ).

Meaning there's no way Tesla can ever get close to 35GWh/50 GWh on cell/pack level output in the current building (maybe 5-7GWh for now?). For the full GF, Tesla needs the remaining six buildings going up in the desert until 2020. That progress will be easy to check thanks to drone videos etc.

Looking at the cash balance (even if cash burn is reduced in the coming quarters) Tesla will need a lot of additional funding* to complete the full GF between 2017-2020 (even if Panasonic chips in their part until 2020).

Now of course you say that this was money well spent and Tesla should spend more asap to reach its long-tem goals. We differ on the outlook/risks and the general strategy such as a need for a Model3 etc. (I don't need to repeat this portion in detail. I just wanted to clarify the numbers I used before leaving this thread for the time being).

_____
* The Model 3 R&D and tooling will also require additional billions between 2016-2020, the above was just for the GF. That's why I think a substantial amount of fresh funds will have to be raised in 2016 or 2017.