Pras
Member
That is a relief to know. I mean we all want Tesla to make money..right?
-
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
Stepping back and looking at the big picture: Tesla lost 700M$. What is Tesla's fundamental problem in getting to profitability?
They had +215M$ in regulatory credits (pure margin) this last quarter. They have 3 extremely well selling vehicles with essentially no apples to apples competitor worth talking about. They have extremely high brand enthusiasm. They have a vertical sales structure where they don't share profits with dealers and also do most service work. They get revenue from the refueling component. They don't spend on advertising. They get thousands of revenue per unit from high-margin SOFTWARE. Most buyers have tax incentives that are worth 4k+$.
They've got so many huge advantages yet 700M$ loss. Tesla has screwed something up along the way here.
They had +215M$ in regulatory credits (pure margin) this last quarter. They have 3 extremely well selling vehicles with essentially no apples to apples competitor worth talking about. They have extremely high brand enthusiasm. They have a vertical sales structure where they don't share profits with dealers and also do most service work. They get revenue from the refueling component. They don't spend on advertising. They get thousands of revenue per unit from high-margin SOFTWARE. Most buyers have tax incentives that are worth 4k+$.
They've got so many huge advantages yet 700M$ loss. Tesla has screwed something up along the way here.
I don’t mean to sound like a bear, but I’ve read that line from many here every month/quarter since last year.
If Tesla is targeting 7k/week model 3’s by end of this year, which would include production from China, you can’t expect much difference from month to month. As long as Tesla doesn't regress from one month to next, it should be taken as satisfactory. I mean there hasn’t been much change from monthly numbers going back to last year. And we haven’t heard anything that indicates increased battery production (assuming Musk is telling the truth as that being the bottleneck) this month.
IMO, even a monthly production total that calculates to a weekly average of over 5k would be a gigantic surprise.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Not true at all. $2.50/W is a great price in the US, but average install prices are around $2/W almost everywhere else in the world. Germany, Australia, others.
If this first online effort gains traction, I could see Tesla lowering prices each year to match the loss in tax credit step down.
I don't know why Tesla won't bundle solar with Model 3 as a package.
They should offer a bundle discount bundling the Model 3, Solar, and the charger.
They should offer a bundle discount bundling the Model 3, Solar, and the charger.
Well considering 50% of all cars delivered were during the last 10 days of March, many are hoping these numbers insideEV projecting to be very lumpy. I can't imagine comes April 1st, deliveries go back to normal.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
I guess the short interest can rise even though the %age activity on any given day is less, if no-one is covering.
Edit: stupid graphics uploading bug on this site!!!
View attachment 402533
Interesting bit.
If 50% of the volume is short selling and the price is stable, then it means that no investors were selling.
CyberDutchie
Active Member
Adam Jonas new narrative:
Can negative sentiment around the stock begin to impact the actual business? We are increasingly concerned about the impact that investor concerns over Tesla’s financial strength and forward looking liquidity position could potentially have on employee morale, customer perceptions and standing with key stakeholders and suppliers.
(Just asking the question feels more like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.)
Other negatives offered by Adam Jonas this morning that may explain the downward move today:
10-Q reveals regulatory credits added much more to 1Q19 results than first appeared. Tesla disclosed and its 10-Q filing the addition of $200.6 million worth of non-ZEV regulatory credits which was an increase of roughly $170 million versus the prior year. We were surprised that this material amount of 100%-drop-through-revenue contribution was not disclosed or discussed during the analyst conference call. When excluding both ZEV and non-ZEV regulatory credits from Q1 results, this reveals an underlying Tesla auto gross margin close of 15.2%, which was well below our 18.4% forecast... materially changing the tone of the report, in our opinion.
Customer deposit movement and forward demand. We were surprised to see customer deposits decline modestly on a sequential basis and a quarter where unit deliveries fell nearly one-third. All else equal, this would suggest that forward reservation momentum was not sufficient to offset the delivery of vehicles to final customers which trigger a reduction in deposits. This movement in deposits in the face of a disappointing delivery quarter has raised investor concerns around forward demand.
Inventory. The $700 million increase in sequential inventory is commensurate with 14k unit gap between production and deliveries during the first quarter, on our calculations. We urge investors to continue to watch the gap between production and inventory going forward as the international roll-out continues.
Can negative sentiment around the stock begin to impact the actual business? We are increasingly concerned about the impact that investor concerns over Tesla’s financial strength and forward looking liquidity position could potentially have on employee morale, customer perceptions and standing with key stakeholders and suppliers.
(Just asking the question feels more like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.)
Other negatives offered by Adam Jonas this morning that may explain the downward move today:
10-Q reveals regulatory credits added much more to 1Q19 results than first appeared. Tesla disclosed and its 10-Q filing the addition of $200.6 million worth of non-ZEV regulatory credits which was an increase of roughly $170 million versus the prior year. We were surprised that this material amount of 100%-drop-through-revenue contribution was not disclosed or discussed during the analyst conference call. When excluding both ZEV and non-ZEV regulatory credits from Q1 results, this reveals an underlying Tesla auto gross margin close of 15.2%, which was well below our 18.4% forecast... materially changing the tone of the report, in our opinion.
Customer deposit movement and forward demand. We were surprised to see customer deposits decline modestly on a sequential basis and a quarter where unit deliveries fell nearly one-third. All else equal, this would suggest that forward reservation momentum was not sufficient to offset the delivery of vehicles to final customers which trigger a reduction in deposits. This movement in deposits in the face of a disappointing delivery quarter has raised investor concerns around forward demand.
Inventory. The $700 million increase in sequential inventory is commensurate with 14k unit gap between production and deliveries during the first quarter, on our calculations. We urge investors to continue to watch the gap between production and inventory going forward as the international roll-out continues.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Cool - I didn't think of calculating this way.
The delivery report says how small the US 3 inventory is - just 2 weeks. This makes me think they'd happy with a higher level - let's say one month. So, about 8k s+x and 30k of 3.
This means, they need to cut s+x by 7k and increase 3 by about 10k. The good news is reduction in S+X will pay for increase in 3. This will probably happen over a couple of quarters.
Should also help with:
We have an agreement with the SUNY Foundation related to the construction of a facility in Buffalo, New York, referred to as Gigafactory 2, where we have housed the development and production of solar products and components. The terms of such agreement require us to comply with a number of covenants, including that specified portions of the total jobs required to be employed directly by Tesla in the state of New York and the total cumulative investment required to be made by Tesla be met by April 30, 2019, the first anniversary of the SUNY Foundation’s substantial completion of its construction work at the facility. We fully expect to meet these covenants on time and will report our current status to the SUNY Foundation following such anniversary.
Joe F
Disruption is hard.
Than is not his entire segment on CNBC today. He was on far longer, and this bit of video does not include his positive thoughts on Tesla, sadly.
Will be interesting if CNBC does put his Tesla comments online...
They wouldn't be able to make enough of these for Europe, these tiny city cars are phenomenally popular over her - and rightly so with the old city streets.
sundaymorning
Active Member
So he wants to buy more Tesla at a cheaper price? I hope Elon raises money in China instead.
I don't understand his logic here. In my impression, FCA deal was not included in q1 financial. Am I wrong?
tinm
2020 Model S LR+ Owner
Because you can't resist outrageous, snarky, light-on-facts, heavy-on-FUD Tesla hit pieces, can you:
https://dealbreaker.com/2019/04/tesla-needs-money-willing-to-ask-for-it
A sample, if you dare:
"Tesla stock is doing a Hindenburg impression because the company still can't make cars and Elon Musk is agreeing to let a judge tell him what he can tweet about, like -- you know -- an adult."
https://dealbreaker.com/2019/04/tesla-needs-money-willing-to-ask-for-it
A sample, if you dare:
"Tesla stock is doing a Hindenburg impression because the company still can't make cars and Elon Musk is agreeing to let a judge tell him what he can tweet about, like -- you know -- an adult."
dc_h
Active Member
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
