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

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
A Path to S&P Inclusion ....NOW:
@Fact Checking - your comment above was related to the potential that Tesla's Call options gains could bring sufficient GAAP profits in Q4 to ensure S&P inclusion with the Q4 filing. In a separate post I commented that the gains would not likely be counted as income.
However:
There is an obscure item on Tesla's Balance Sheet that could bring huge upside to Q4....enough to achieve full year 2019 GAAP Profits and inclusion into the S&P. I have hesitated to bring this up in the past because it could easily be a big Nothing Burger and also because it is a very technical tax accounting issue. But since this is the weekend and your post touched on early S&P inclusion, I thought I would share it.

TL;DR: Tesla has deferred the recognition of $1.8B in tax benefits on the P&L because they could not conclude it was likely that they would have income in the future to take advantage of these benefits. Once profitability is likely (and supported by the auditors), this $1.8B (or a portion thereof) gets recognized immediately to GAAP profits. If Tesla concludes now that profitability is likely in 2020 and thereafter, $1.8B (or a portion) gets included in Q4 profits.

The Long Version
When a company incurs a loss, they record a tax benefit because they can reduce taxes in the future by offsetting future tax income with these tax losses. It's called a "Net Operating Loss Carryforward" (a Tax Asset).
So you would typically see a P&L as such:

$(100,000) - Pretax Income (Loss)
$ 30,000 - Tax Benefit (Expense)
$ (70,000) - Net Income (Loss)

However, the accounting rules state that you can only record this benefit if "it is more likely than not" that you will be able to use this benefit (tax asset) in the future.
Tesla has not recognized any of these benefits over the past 15 years because they could not confidently conclude and support to the auditors that profitably in the future was "more likely than not".
Here is Tesla's wording from the 2018 10K:
As of December 31, 2018, we recorded a valuation allowance of $1.81 billion for the portion of the deferred tax asset that we do not expect to be realized.....Management believes that based on the available information, it is more likely than not that the U.S. deferred tax assets will not be realized, such that a full valuation allowance is required against all U.S. deferred tax assets.

You can see this deferred benefit (valuation allowance) on their deferred tax asset schedule from the 2018 10K below:
View attachment 501942

Tesla's position on this tax accounting is correct.

Here is the important point: As soon as Tesla can support to the auditors, that "it is more likely than not", that profitability will be achieved in 2020 and beyond, this tax benefit comes back to earnings immediately. If not all of the $1.8B a substantial amount would.

Points Against Recognition in Q4
  • Since Tesla has never had a full year profit in its history, they and their auditors may take a conservative approach and deem future profits unlikely.
  • Despite 2 profitable Qtrs in 2018, Telsa still concluded (as seen in the 2018 10K) that it was "more likely than not" they would not be able to recognize the tax benefits with future profits.
Points For Recognition in Q4
  • Tesla has been profitable in 4 of the last 6 Qtrs
  • With Model 3 fully ramped, GF3 producing vehicles and Model Y entry assured for 2020, profitability is "more likely than not".
  • Elon will likely state during the Q4 earnings call that Tesla expects a full year profit in 2020. Telsa can't state this publicly while simultaneously stating in the 2019 10K that future profits cannot be assured for taking the tax benefits.
  • Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) needs to be applied consistently. You can't take the position: "profits are more likely than not but let's not take the earnings benefit just to be conservative". Profits are either "more likely than not" or they're "more unlikely than not". If it is the former, you take the benefit to earnings.
I'm not sure which way this will go. If the huge benefit is not taken in Q4 2019, it's certain we'll see it in 2020.
My brain tells me that they will take the huge benefit in Q4 2019 but my gut says they won't.

TeslaQ has been all over the Balance Sheet pushing questions on Warranty Reserves, Accounts Receivables, etc.......but they're not talking about this one.

Let's see how this plays out.

This is fascinating, thanks so much for sharing!

It also looks like part of the tax benefits are due to SolarCity losses, and these appear to be subject to approval?

As of December 31, 2018, we had $7.30 billion of federal and $5.37 billion of state net operating loss carry-forwards available to offset future taxable income, which will not begin to significantly expire until 2024 for federal and 2028 for state purposes. A portion of these losses were generated by SolarCity prior to our acquisition in 2016 and, therefore, are subject to change of control provisions, which limit the amount of acquired tax attributes that can be utilized in a given tax year. We do not expect these change of control limitations to significantly impact our ability to utilize these attributes.
 
More rumors. Will Fred leak?

Screenshot_20200118-211023_Twitter.jpg
 
There will never be enough self driving cars to take everyone where they want to go when they want to be there. These vehicles will have to have provisions for wheelchairs. You put your Tesla on the robo taxi fleet. Your car drops off a person and goes to pick up more people. A Mom and her kids get in the car. The kid puts his hand down the seat and gets stabbed by a used Heroin needle. You get sued. Tesla says that it is not our job to keep the cars clean. Will there be enough cars for a Hurricane evacuation if no one owns cars? What happen to the thousands of cars after rush hour that are not needed until the next rush hour? All of cars will have to get cleaned daily some more than once. What about deadhead miles? Will the cars be able to travel down a muddy rural road ?
 
A Path to S&P Inclusion ....NOW:
@Fact Checking - your comment above was related to the potential that Tesla's Call options gains could bring sufficient GAAP profits in Q4 to ensure S&P inclusion with the Q4 filing. In a separate post I commented that the gains would not likely be counted as income.
However:
There is an obscure item on Tesla's Balance Sheet that could bring huge upside to Q4....enough to achieve full year 2019 GAAP Profits and inclusion into the S&P. I have hesitated to bring this up in the past because it could easily be a big Nothing Burger and also because it is a very technical tax accounting issue. But since this is the weekend and your post touched on early S&P inclusion, I thought I would share it.

TL;DR: Tesla has deferred the recognition of $1.8B in tax benefits on the P&L because they could not conclude it was likely that they would have income in the future to take advantage of these benefits. Once profitability is likely (and supported by the auditors), this $1.8B (or a portion thereof) gets recognized immediately to GAAP profits. If Tesla concludes now that profitability is likely in 2020 and thereafter, $1.8B (or a portion) gets included in Q4 profits.

The Long Version
When a company incurs a loss, they record a tax benefit because they can reduce taxes in the future by offsetting future tax income with these tax losses. It's called a "Net Operating Loss Carryforward" (a Tax Asset).
So you would typically see a P&L as such:

$(100,000) - Pretax Income (Loss)
$ 30,000 - Tax Benefit (Expense)
$ (70,000) - Net Income (Loss)

However, the accounting rules state that you can only record this benefit if "it is more likely than not" that you will be able to use this benefit (tax asset) in the future.
Tesla has not recognized any of these benefits over the past 15 years because they could not confidently conclude and support to the auditors that profitably in the future was "more likely than not".
Here is Tesla's wording from the 2018 10K:
As of December 31, 2018, we recorded a valuation allowance of $1.81 billion for the portion of the deferred tax asset that we do not expect to be realized.....Management believes that based on the available information, it is more likely than not that the U.S. deferred tax assets will not be realized, such that a full valuation allowance is required against all U.S. deferred tax assets.

You can see this deferred benefit (valuation allowance) on their deferred tax asset schedule from the 2018 10K below:
View attachment 501942

Tesla's position on this tax accounting is correct.

Here is the important point: As soon as Tesla can support to the auditors, that "it is more likely than not", that profitability will be achieved in 2020 and beyond, this tax benefit comes back to earnings immediately. If not all of the $1.8B a substantial amount would.

Points Against Recognition in Q4
  • Since Tesla has never had a full year profit in its history, they and their auditors may take a conservative approach and deem future profits unlikely.
  • Despite 2 profitable Qtrs in 2018, Telsa still concluded (as seen in the 2018 10K) that it was "more likely than not" they would not be able to recognize the tax benefits with future profits.
Points For Recognition in Q4
  • Tesla has been profitable in 4 of the last 6 Qtrs
  • With Model 3 fully ramped, GF3 producing vehicles and Model Y entry assured for 2020, profitability is "more likely than not".
  • Elon will likely state during the Q4 earnings call that Tesla expects a full year profit in 2020. Telsa can't state this publicly while simultaneously stating in the 2019 10K that future profits cannot be assured for taking the tax benefits.
  • Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) needs to be applied consistently. You can't take the position: "profits are more likely than not but let's not take the earnings benefit just to be conservative". Profits are either "more likely than not" or they're "more unlikely than not". If it is the former, you take the benefit to earnings.
I'm not sure which way this will go. If the huge benefit is not taken in Q4 2019, it's certain we'll see it in 2020.
My brain tells me that they will take the huge benefit in Q4 2019 but my gut says they won't.

TeslaQ has been all over the Balance Sheet pushing questions on Warranty Reserves, Accounts Receivables, etc.......but they're not talking about this one.

Let's see how this plays out.
If this is true. Can I expense a bottle of blue label when we are together?
 
I can't imagine Tesla could buy significant quantities of derivatives without disclosing them in a timely manner.
Maybe. Again, I'm not a securities lawyer, but I don't remember Microsoft ever disclosing their derivatives transactions duirng the '90s. At least not in advance before they were claimed as Income. It'd have to be an asset class buried in the public filings though, I'd think.

More to the point, who gives a RAT'S AZZ now about unattended inceleration, wot? What a stupid way to burn $560k BEFORE the long weekend... :p

Cheers!
 
These probably are non-standard contracts so they may well have terms that we don't know; for example perhaps they can't exercise early etc.
Doubt that Tesla would ever agree to that. That effectively would prevent them from 'rolling forward' these CALLS if TSLA starts to run up beyond the bounds of their 'bull spread'. That would cost them big time if their overall intention is to limit dilution going forward.

60K contracts isn't that much in the scheme of Wall St. We saw 250K+ PUT contracts below the $250 strike price expire worthless just yesterday. Surely if a particular broker didn't want to write those contracts, Tesla could go across the street to find one that would. Those Brokers all hedge their contracts anyway, so they likely don't have any direct exposure.

Cheers!
 
Must admit I can´t add much of value here, but Elon tweeting about a meteor hitting reminds me of him tweeting about a tsunami a while ago... This all sounds too good to be true, proably just a coincidence. Elon Musk on Twitter

Oh, man! Tuesday's looking good unfrickenbelievable!

I've been looking forward to a mass-extinction. And if it happens to involve dinosaurs, even better!

First, some of the dinosaurs saw the meteor and became afraid, but the extinction didn't happen until after the impact. I bet some dinosaurs never even saw it coming.
 
I was thinking 2020 profits would be a slam dunk with the monies from the FCA deal. But, that may be tied up in Europe. So couple of questions for you.

  1. How much flexibility do you think is there between recognizing income in US vs Europe, by adjusting the transfer price
  2. Given most of the R&D and SG&A is in US, can they allocate this to the European or Chinese entities, or will they have to continue recognizing this in the US entity.

you can’t just adjust transfer pricing Willy-billy. There has to be economic substance and basis - many companies hire consultants or do in house pricing analysis to support potential future audit on this. However, you can hire good tax planners and restructure for optimal tax position, given local country tax laws and treaties.
 
There will never be enough self driving cars to take everyone where they want to go when they want to be there.

People probably first said that about regular cars too when they first came out. People probably first said that about airplanes and horses too. This argument makes no sense.

These vehicles will have to have provisions for wheelchairs.

Why would people with wheelchairs be able to use non-autonomous cars, but not autonomous cars?

You put your Tesla on the robo taxi fleet. Your car drops off a person and goes to pick up more people. A Mom and her kids get in the car. The kid puts his hand down the seat and gets stabbed by a used Heroin needle. You get sued. Tesla says that it is not our job to keep the cars clean.

Could happen in taxis today, yet taxis still exist.

Will there be enough cars for a Hurricane evacuation if no one owns cars?

Carpool. More people per car. And most parts of the world do not have hurricanes.

What happen to the thousands of cars after rush hour that are not needed until the next rush hour?

Transport cargo. Groceries, packages, etc.

What about deadhead miles?

Included in the cost of operating a robotaxi. And current Uber drivers have this too.

No offence, but it sounds like you're just looking for reasons to back up your believe that robotaxis will never exist in large numbers, rather than reasoning from the ground up about what is most likely to happen. Most of your arguments would also stop taxis/Uber from being widespread, but clearly they haven't.
 
My wild hunch that it is insider trading of some sort. Insider trading is allowed with conditions and with reasonably short time reporting requirements. Are you sure that in this form this is allowed? I am pretty sure they did not do anything like that before the last days of December and they certainly have not reported it. I emphasize again that I do not know the relevant laws this is only my hunch.
Sure, for Officers of the company or other insiders, they are restricted in the type of trading they can do based on material non-public information to benefit themselves personally. They are also subject to more stringent reporting rules, such as the 3 day reporting period we see when an Insider excercises their stock options.

But these restrictions do not apply to the company itself, or its Board of Directors when acting on behalf of the corporation. Otherwise, and again I have to repeat this, Tesla COULD NOT have bought the 60K CALLS in question back in May 2019. Since this DID happen (and TSLAQ didn't lose their *sugar*) it is trivial to assume ITS LEGAL!

Here's some more reading on the subject:

How Companies Use Derivatives to Hedge Risk

Cheers!
 
Here is proof that the Tesla unintended acceleration issue is NOT under investigation by NHTSA (as has been suggested in this thread). On their site they show it as an investigation which has been 'open' since Jan 13, but that's just when they started evaluating the petition, and they will later decide whether to start a formal investigation. Here is what a NHTSA official told Consumer Reports:

NHTSA Reviewing Tesla Sudden Unintended Acceleration Claims

'NHTSA told CR that, if warranted, it would open a formal defect investigation into the Tesla vehicles after it carefully evaluates the petition. At that point, the petition would be posted on NHTSA's website.

“As is the agency’s standard practice in such matters, NHTSA will carefully review the petition and relevant data,” the agency said in a statement. “NHTSA encourages the public to contact the agency with safety concerns.”'

Edit: Here is the petition summary. Note that they call it an investigation from the date the petition was received.

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2020/INOA-DP20001-6030.PDF
The NHSTA lead investigator for this petition follows Joe Rogan and SpaceX on Twitter. He also follows some guy named Elon :)You know TESLAQ will file a complaint :oops: maybe the moderator should delete this before TQ finds out o_O p.s. he also follows Tesla and Greta Thunberg
 
Last edited:
@ammulder , @Thumper
Before I address your robotaxi concerns, let's start with this. I don't believe Elon's claim that Tesla Energy has the potential to be bigger than its automotive business because...
You're completely missing the opportunity for TE. It's in grid scale storage, like the mega-projects in S.Australia and now at PG&E in California (a $1B scale project).

TE has the inside info on their cost structure. Using a IEA or other 3rd party to estimate the growth and costs of batteriesby 2040 is just silly. ;)

Every SINGLE NG PEAKER plant in the US, Europe and China is at risk economically because of Tesla's currently shipping product, the MEGAPACK. Do you think Tesla will acheive ZERO improvement in technical specs or costs between now and 2040?

This isn't just a bigger opportunity than Auto, its bigger than THE ENTIRE ELECTRICAL grid, since it can literally provide an alternative for customers. There's a reason Elon's starting with Islands and working up: MICROGRIDS the size of continents/continents broken down into a series of connected microgrids.

It's gonna get a 1 TWhr per year energy infusion from Tesla right quick. Have your run the numbers as to how that scales when deployed to replace NG peakers? If you do, I think you'll realize how big an opportunity this is. The S. Australia public utilities commission has made some interesting info publicly available. There last decision was to DOUBLE the size of the Tesla battery at the Hornsdale Power Reserve near Adelaide.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Sure, for Officers of the company or other insiders, they are restricted in the type of trading they can do based on material non-public information to benefit themselves personally. They are also subject to more stringent reporting rules, such as the 3 day reporting period we see when an Insider excercises their stock options.

But these restrictions do not apply to the company itself, or its Board of Directors when acting on behalf of the corporation. Otherwise, and again I have to repeat this, Tesla COULD NOT have bought the 60K CALLS in question back in May 2019. Since this DID happen (and TSLAQ didn't lose their *sugar*) it is trivial to assume ITS LEGAL!

Here's some more reading on the subject:

How Companies Use Derivatives to Hedge Risk

Cheers!
When was the 60K call purchase disclosed? I do not see any rules in your link relating disclosure. Tesla has clearly disclosed it. Was in Q-10 or earlier?
 
I was thinking 2020 profits would be a slam dunk with the monies from the FCA deal. But, that may be tied up in Europe. So couple of questions for you.

  1. How much flexibility do you think is there between recognizing income in US vs Europe, by adjusting the transfer price
  2. Given most of the R&D and SG&A is in US, can they allocate this to the European or Chinese entities, or will they have to continue recognizing this in the US entity.
I'm not a tax/financial/whatever guru, but ...

Similar to profits in China being "trapped" in China, there's probably a lot of places they can spend that money "locally" instead of transferring money there from the US, which is effectively the same as if they continued to transfer the money from the US then transferred the profits back to an extent. So this shouldn't be a real problem long term.

I.e., costs of Supercharger network operation and expansion in EU, sales and service operation and expansion, building and operating of GF4, paying any suppliers in EU (regardless of destination of the items being paid for, probably), etc... Similar to using GF3 profits to pay suppliers in China (including items shipped out of China), expanding / operating GF3, etc etc...

There might be a point where they're making more money from GF4/EU than they're able to spend locally, and same for GF3/China, but that's a "good" problem to have. They can just leave the money there for further expansion (some day there'll be new GF's and product lines in those regions, for example) since by the time that's a "problem" the other regions (including NA) should also be doing well enough that there's not a need to move money from one region to another to afford ongoing expansions/operations and such...
 
You're completely missing the opportunity for TE. It's in grid scale storage, like the mega-projects in S.Australia and now at PG&E in California (a $1B scale project).

TE has the inside info on their cost structure. Using a IEA or other 3rd party to estimate the growth and costs of batterys by 2040 is just silly.

Every SINGLE NG PEAKER plant in the US, Europe and China is at risk economically because of Tesla's currently shipping product, the MEGAPACK. Do you think Tesla will acheive ZERO improvement in technical specs or costs between now and 2040?

This isn't just a bigger opportunity than Auto, its bigger than THE ENTIRE ELECTRICAL grid, since it can literally provide an alternative for customers. There's a reason Elon's starting with Islands and working up: MICROGRIDS the size of continents/continents broken down into a series of connected microgrids.

It's gonna get a 1 TWhr per year energy infusion from Tesla right quick. Have your run the numbers as to how that scales when deployed to replace NG peakers? If you do, I think you'll realize how big an opportunity this is. The S. Australia public utilities commission has made some interesting info publicly available. There last decision was to DOUBLE the size of the Tesla battery at the Hornsdale Power Reserve near Adelaide.

Cheers!
They won't scale to 1TWh/year overnight. So I am looking forward to various coal/NG/etc operators fighting each other for allocation to convert their plants as TE ramps initially. Converted shuttered coal plants and operational NG peaker plants might be first, but eventually I expect many other non-coal, non-peaker plants to start trying to convert as well.

For example, aging nuclear plants could fill their exclusion zones with solar panels and batteries. At some point it might be cheaper to convert such a plant than to continue operations, even when they haven't reached their designed life yet... and even the possibility of just running them at reduced load, and ramping up if the weather is bad enough long enough as a standby power source, with the batteries providing plenty of buffer for a nice slow and safe ramp up.
 
Oh, man! Tuesday's looking good unfrickenbelievable!

I've been looking forward to a mass-extinction. And if it happens to involve dinosaurs, even better!

First, some of the dinosaurs saw the meteor and became afraid, but the extinction didn't happen until after the impact. I bet some dinosaurs never even saw it coming.

I just want to point out that Elon’ Dinosaur doom meme has a double meaning

Obvi - Dinosaurs are GM, VW, BMW, etc...

But Tesla’s rise is also hastening the end of the dinosaur juice business!
 
When was the 60K call purchase disclosed? I do not see any rules in your link relating disclosure. Tesla has clearly disclosed it. Was in Q-10 or earlier?
I think it was disclosed in the initial offering back in May. It's the same structure that they used for the $900M convertible bonds which they payed off in Jan 2019. BAU for a Cap raise.
 
A Path to S&P Inclusion ....NOW:
@Fact Checking - your comment above was related to the potential that Tesla's Call options gains could bring sufficient GAAP profits in Q4 to ensure S&P inclusion with the Q4 filing. In a separate post I commented that the gains would not likely be counted as income.
However:
There is an obscure item on Tesla's Balance Sheet that could bring huge upside to Q4....enough to achieve full year 2019 GAAP Profits and inclusion into the S&P. I have hesitated to bring this up in the past because it could easily be a big Nothing Burger and also because it is a very technical tax accounting issue. But since this is the weekend and your post touched on early S&P inclusion, I thought I would share it.

TL;DR: Tesla has deferred the recognition of $1.8B in tax benefits on the P&L because they could not conclude it was likely that they would have income in the future to take advantage of these benefits. Once profitability is likely (and supported by the auditors), this $1.8B (or a portion thereof) gets recognized immediately to GAAP profits. If Tesla concludes now that profitability is likely in 2020 and thereafter, $1.8B (or a portion) gets included in Q4 profits.

The Long Version
When a company incurs a loss, they record a tax benefit because they can reduce taxes in the future by offsetting future tax income with these tax losses. It's called a "Net Operating Loss Carryforward" (a Tax Asset).
So you would typically see a P&L as such:

$(100,000) - Pretax Income (Loss)
$ 30,000 - Tax Benefit (Expense)
$ (70,000) - Net Income (Loss)

However, the accounting rules state that you can only record this benefit if "it is more likely than not" that you will be able to use this benefit (tax asset) in the future.
Tesla has not recognized any of these benefits over the past 15 years because they could not confidently conclude and support to the auditors that profitably in the future was "more likely than not".
Here is Tesla's wording from the 2018 10K:
As of December 31, 2018, we recorded a valuation allowance of $1.81 billion for the portion of the deferred tax asset that we do not expect to be realized.....Management believes that based on the available information, it is more likely than not that the U.S. deferred tax assets will not be realized, such that a full valuation allowance is required against all U.S. deferred tax assets.

You can see this deferred benefit (valuation allowance) on their deferred tax asset schedule from the 2018 10K below:
View attachment 501942

Tesla's position on this tax accounting is correct.

Here is the important point: As soon as Tesla can support to the auditors, that "it is more likely than not", that profitability will be achieved in 2020 and beyond, this tax benefit comes back to earnings immediately. If not all of the $1.8B a substantial amount would.

Points Against Recognition in Q4
  • Since Tesla has never had a full year profit in its history, they and their auditors may take a conservative approach and deem future profits unlikely.
  • Despite 2 profitable Qtrs in 2018, Telsa still concluded (as seen in the 2018 10K) that it was "more likely than not" they would not be able to recognize the tax benefits with future profits.
Points For Recognition in Q4
  • Tesla has been profitable in 4 of the last 6 Qtrs
  • With Model 3 fully ramped, GF3 producing vehicles and Model Y entry assured for 2020, profitability is "more likely than not".
  • Elon will likely state during the Q4 earnings call that Tesla expects a full year profit in 2020. Telsa can't state this publicly while simultaneously stating in the 2019 10K that future profits cannot be assured for taking the tax benefits.
  • Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) needs to be applied consistently. You can't take the position: "profits are more likely than not but let's not take the earnings benefit just to be conservative". Profits are either "more likely than not" or they're "more unlikely than not". If it is the former, you take the benefit to earnings.
I'm not sure which way this will go. If the huge benefit is not taken in Q4 2019, it's certain we'll see it in 2020.
My brain tells me that they will take the huge benefit in Q4 2019 but my gut says they won't.

TeslaQ has been all over the Balance Sheet pushing questions on Warranty Reserves, Accounts Receivables, etc.......but they're not talking about this one.

Let's see how this plays out.

Nice contribution Zachary