People should be clear what they mean when they say "loss" - GAAP or non-GAAP?
I'm inclined to put the odds of there being a small nominal non-GAAP profit at ~70%. But I'd put the odds of a GAAP profit at ~20%.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
People should be clear what they mean when they say "loss" - GAAP or non-GAAP?
I'm inclined to put the odds of there being a small nominal non-GAAP profit at ~70%. But I'd put the odds of a GAAP profit at ~20%.
You are correct. Talking GAAP. Anything else will be trumpeted as a loss and a disaster by the fudsters. A GAAP profit will be seized upon as evidence of accounting fraud in the ponzi scheme that is TSLA. Odds of Tesla SP not taking a hit over earnings are slim. If it does not, we will be in the 300s again pretty fast.
X Fan
Active Member
Both Yahoo and Forbes allow "guest" articles on their site.....inevitably, they parrot shortie noise.
I just ignore the chaff.....
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Tesla's new Chairwoman Robyn Denholm appears to have picked up 8,000 shares of TLSA yesterday according to SEC filings, but she didn't sell any: (obviously participating in TMC's "buy-a-share" day)
SEC Filing | Tesla, Inc.
Demand problems, my sweet aunt fanny.
Cheers to the Longs!
SEC Filing | Tesla, Inc.
Demand problems, my sweet aunt fanny.
Cheers to the Longs!
Just to correct what ReflexFunds posted, it's not a huge _new_ incentive. It's an adjustment to what's coming. Before the update, it would have been 2% for BEVs from 2020-2021. So it's -2% 2020-2021 and -1% 2021-2022.
The generous break has been waiting for the manufacturers. Just another reason for HyunKia to continue to starve the UK of BEV supply.
Xenius
Active Member
Put in an order for 20 this morning, will see price direction before grabbing more. At this point in this account I'm raising my avg sp, which I never like
We should start a block list that way we can avoid any news or opinions that run counter to our reality.
dc_h
Active Member
The Moody’s upgrade to lease values eliminates this as an issue. If there was any impact, which I doubt, it would be Q3, when the pricing/value change occurred.
dc_h
Active Member
I think you’re being sarcastic and agree. I think the tslaq blocklist is a sign of weakness, not strength.
Xenius
Active Member
Agreed, I don't even block known fudsters. I want to know what those basement dwelling knuckle draggers are up to!
I am far from a Form 4 expert, but it looks like she just got 8000 stock options awarded with an exercise price around $238? She did not actually pick up any stock.
I can't wrap my head around these price cuts. I still believe world-wide demand > production for the Model 3. So why lower margin?
Yes, one of Tesla's goals is to get as many EVs out there as quickly as possible, but lowering price won't speed that up if demand > production.
Another side of the above goal is to expand manufacturing as quickly as possible, but no matter how I look at it, lower margins means less capital for expanding.
Not to mention that Tesla must want to shut down the FUD, so any additional margin that can go towards FCF/profitability would be really helpful for public image, S&P 500 inclusion, etc.
The only rational reason I can think of to lower prices would be if production > demand.
The only way that would be great for us longs is if production radically increased. Or maybe Tesla's not as confident about demand as I've been (they of course have better visibility).
I guess that's my conclusion: there's still a *sugar*-ton of demand (100k/quarter for one car model is a *sugar*-ton), but with the previous pricing there wasn't enough excess demand to guarantee they could sell everything they made in the countries where the cars ended up.
Yes, one of Tesla's goals is to get as many EVs out there as quickly as possible, but lowering price won't speed that up if demand > production.
Another side of the above goal is to expand manufacturing as quickly as possible, but no matter how I look at it, lower margins means less capital for expanding.
Not to mention that Tesla must want to shut down the FUD, so any additional margin that can go towards FCF/profitability would be really helpful for public image, S&P 500 inclusion, etc.
The only rational reason I can think of to lower prices would be if production > demand.
The only way that would be great for us longs is if production radically increased. Or maybe Tesla's not as confident about demand as I've been (they of course have better visibility).
I guess that's my conclusion: there's still a *sugar*-ton of demand (100k/quarter for one car model is a *sugar*-ton), but with the previous pricing there wasn't enough excess demand to guarantee they could sell everything they made in the countries where the cars ended up.
Xenius
Active Member
Maybe it's a move to capture even more market share?
Well that was one of my points. Market share wouldn't grow if demand > production. It only grows if you have excess production. Which I didn't think we were very close to, but I guess we are. Apparently I was overestimating demand at the current price points.
I am with you on small non-GAAP profit. GAAP profit seems unrealistic.
I don't know. I think the rumored Tesla sponsorship of that Disneyland driving thing would be a much better use of resources. I don't have kids yet, but from what I've gathered they're incredibly hard to ignore when they want something. An army of persistent children who won't shut up about their parents buying a Tesla might drown out even the most insidious and pervasive FUD. Kids are louder than CNBC.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what their exact motivation was here, but Tesla has a decade long track record of growing aggressively by investing efficiency gains either into better products, or lower prices.
It's not a bad strategy to grow:
"There are two kinds of retailers: those folks who work to figure how to charge more, and companies that work to figure how to charge less, and we are going to be the second." - Jeff Bezos
Here's why I think Tesla keeps reducing prices at the expenses of profits.
Elon hates short sellers and fearmongers, obviously. He'd like to prove them wrong and regain Wall Street's support. However, Tesla's mission matters more than personal/business success, and that one top objective of short sellers is just to distract the company from following its master plan. So Elon has to make sure the company focuses on the very long term goal of making all terrestrial transportation go electric.
The best way to do that is for Tesla to produce as many EVs as possible and get people to buy them instead of an ICEs.
The problem is that Elon knows it's taking too long for Tesla and other EV manufacturers to scale up production, sales, deliveries, charging and services:
ICE manufacturers will be forced to follow ("oh, we can do that too, our cars are good, we're efficient, we're strong, we friends...") but they won't be able to match Tesla speed. Margin will shrink, executive will resign, roadmaps will change, employees will doubt, supplier will go bankrupt, alliance will break, and assembly lines will stop.
That's disruption.
Elon hates short sellers and fearmongers, obviously. He'd like to prove them wrong and regain Wall Street's support. However, Tesla's mission matters more than personal/business success, and that one top objective of short sellers is just to distract the company from following its master plan. So Elon has to make sure the company focuses on the very long term goal of making all terrestrial transportation go electric.
The best way to do that is for Tesla to produce as many EVs as possible and get people to buy them instead of an ICEs.
The problem is that Elon knows it's taking too long for Tesla and other EV manufacturers to scale up production, sales, deliveries, charging and services:
- Tesla's sales and growth are strong but have little effect in a world where ICE are selling at ~100 million units/year
- Competitors are still reacting very, very slowly
- Day by day, the climate crisis keeps worsening,
ICE manufacturers will be forced to follow ("oh, we can do that too, our cars are good, we're efficient, we're strong, we friends...") but they won't be able to match Tesla speed. Margin will shrink, executive will resign, roadmaps will change, employees will doubt, supplier will go bankrupt, alliance will break, and assembly lines will stop.
That's disruption.
dc_h
Active Member
I think the price adjustments are designed to impact the product mix and maximize demand without impacting overall margins. Increasing sales of LR SX cars should reduce total demand for SX, but maximize the use of batteries. That helps Panasonic and probably is an overall wash on SX margins. It also seems they want to keep SX demand around 20k per quarter, which implies to me, that they are running assembly on a single line to make room for some sort of other production changes (likely Jerome's big machine).
The price changes on the Model 3 should keep SR production up, maximizing car production and using fewer cells and using the latest most automated pack assembly system. The SR pack should have high margins due to the big Grohmann machine.
I don't have a crystal ball or even a magic 8 ball, but I would guess the price adjustments are designed to adjust demand to maximize overall sales with a neutral impact to margins. Assuming they are on track to meet Q3 target of ~100,000 cars, I think margins will be higher in Q3 then Q2 as they continue to push down the cost of production.
*I'm glad they did this before earnings. It will give them insight on demand impact and help affirm guidance for production and possibly note the impact of the price change on margins.
The price changes on the Model 3 should keep SR production up, maximizing car production and using fewer cells and using the latest most automated pack assembly system. The SR pack should have high margins due to the big Grohmann machine.
I don't have a crystal ball or even a magic 8 ball, but I would guess the price adjustments are designed to adjust demand to maximize overall sales with a neutral impact to margins. Assuming they are on track to meet Q3 target of ~100,000 cars, I think margins will be higher in Q3 then Q2 as they continue to push down the cost of production.
*I'm glad they did this before earnings. It will give them insight on demand impact and help affirm guidance for production and possibly note the impact of the price change on margins.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
