There's a second end on the ground that hooks the starlink network to the broader internet. Pizza box is for an end user. Ground station in this context would be the other end run by tesla.
-
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
There's a second end on the ground that hooks the starlink network to the broader internet. Pizza box is for an end user. Ground station in this context would be the other end run by tesla.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
You worked for a company that charged their own employees almost 9 times the going electrical rate?? How about some gas for only $22.95/gallon?
I couldn't in good conscience work for someone like that. All the people I know who charge at work use charging stations with no billing whatsoever. It's an employee perk for those who choose electric. At the very most I would expect it to cost enough to maintain the chargers and pay for the electricity. And I would consider that company a cheapskate that didn't value their employees.
woodisgood
Optimustic Pessimist
Carl Raymond
Active Member
Yes. And the cost of administration of the payment system would be comparable to the cost of the electricity and maintenance. Free is by far the best option. Simply a substitute for a pay review.
Edit: and bragging about perks is fine. Bragging about salary is never fine.
Last edited:
Sheesh dude. You're outta control these days.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
How about a Pole sitting on an Elephant?
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
It was 1 year ago today, Oct 23, 2018, that short-seller Andrew Left of Citron Capital reversed his thesis on Tesla. TSLA ended the day up $30 at $294.
Here's his appearance on BBN: (via Youtube - published Oct 23, 2018)
Of course (being shorties by nature), Citron/Left sold out their positions on TSLA earlier this year. Notably (perhaps tellingly) they have not re-entered a short position on TSLA.
Here's his appearance on BBN: (via Youtube - published Oct 23, 2018)
Of course (being shorties by nature), Citron/Left sold out their positions on TSLA earlier this year. Notably (perhaps tellingly) they have not re-entered a short position on TSLA.
Last edited:
and, it was one year ago tomorrow that Consumer Reports released the results of their reliability study based on surveying their subscribers.*
Seems likely we get this year’s results any day now.
* this was the annual survey that gave the Model 3 an average reliability score which allowed the car to be recommended by CR. The unprecedented (I believe over many decades) ad hoc revision to those ratings with more surveying that caused the 3 to be dropped to below average reliability and removed from their recommended list came 3-4 months later.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
I'm wondering at what point they are going to find a good apple among all the UAW bad apples.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
My impression is that the recent run-up is primarily some of the shorts covering before Q3:
- Tesla delivered more cars than a year ago.
- Yes, we all know the lower ASPs and lower S/X and that revenue will be lower and we expect GAAP losses of -$200m (3x deeper loss than FactSet expectations ...),
- but if you are a Tesla short influenced by the TSLAQ information bubble and echo chamber, which predicted gloom and doom during Q3 last year, which calls every sort of official Tesla data "fake", "false" or "fraudulent" - wouldn't you at least be feeling a bit uneasy about this year's Q3?
Could be wrong though.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Seriously.
Like the Teamsters, at some point the US Justice Department needs to take control of the UAW.
This looks more like Organized Mob case than simple corruption case.
I think comments about Q4, and beyond, are much more important than exactly what the Q3 EPS comes out to be.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Here's a recap of recent Consumer reports incidents that were unfavorable to Tesla:
- CR's survey among subscribers found the Model 3 the "most satisfying" car in America:
- CR's survey also found the Model 3 one of the most reliable cars in America:
- But in a poorly specified, ad-hoc decision CR officials overruled all these survey results and called the Model 3 "unreliable" and removed it from the recommended list, based on unscientific anecdotes of sporadic early production flaws that were fixed in all new cars by the time the survey went out, let alone by the time the recommendation was published. (!)
- A CR official in a Reddit AMA gave unsatisfactory answers to @KarenRei's probing questions. The AMA was quickly brigaded by TSLAQ fraudsters from the RealTesla sub.
- CR seemingly also went out of their way to create FUD from this event: both their videos and their online articles showed bias against Tesla and made false, misleading statements. This was done during a highly critical U.S. ramp-up effort of Tesla, and the CR un-recommendation had a big negative effect on the Tesla stock price, with an over $10 (-3%) drop. (Tesla U.S. sales in Q1 showed a big drop - and I'm sure CR's report was one of the factors, although it's unclear to what extent.)
- Recently CR also mislead about Tesla's FSD option, falsely implying that Smart Summon is expensive: "even though they’re paying $6,000 up front for the promised automation". CR's characterization was misleading in two ways:
- $6,000 is the price of the full FSD option bundle with other desirable driver assistance features like Navigate on AutoPilot, lane change and AutoPark - plus future options like city driving, red light and traffic sign recognition.
- Early Smart Summon owners had to opt in to an early testing option to get Smart Summon.
- Also note that in the article above Consumer Reports's Ethan Douglas, "senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports in Washington, D.C." was apparently directly interfering with Tesla's business by pressuring the NHTSA and pushing disinformation: "Asked for comment, NHTSA said it’s aware of the accounts of safety concerns related to Smart Summon."
- In that article about Smart Summon CR was also concern trolling about Tesla battery packs: "Separately, NHTSA published a petition late last week from a group of Tesla owners about an alleged battery defect in the Model S and Model X."
The most generous explanation I have is that gearheads who know little about EVs have taken over CR, who are eager to bend the data from their own subscribers to confirm their anti-EV biases.
I'd love to be wrong about all this, but I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for Consumer Reports to fix their mistakes and to put the Model 3 back on the "recommended" list anytime soon.
Last edited:
Daily FUD piece - (lawsuit) blaming Tesla's presenting-door-handle design for the February Florida accident death, and ignoring that doors get stuck in accidents all the bloody time, something so common that there's a whole host of range of tools specifically designed for ripping and prying cars apart after accidents because the doors don't work.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
The article/lawsuit also claims that the guy "had no internal injuries or broken bones", which would be an amazing claim about Model S safety for a guy who had just hit a tree at highway speeds. I'm not sure how this supposedly in-good-shape individual was supposed to be unable to pull his intact-except-for-defective-non-presenting-door-handles door handle and its (conventional) emergency release.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
The article/lawsuit also claims that the guy "had no internal injuries or broken bones", which would be an amazing claim about Model S safety for a guy who had just hit a tree at highway speeds. I'm not sure how this supposedly in-good-shape individual was supposed to be unable to pull his intact-except-for-defective-non-presenting-door-handles door handle and its (conventional) emergency release.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Not to mention that had he driven a comparable ICE vehicle, the tree he hit at highway speeds might also have rammed a whole engine block into his lower body?
I can really emphasize with the family who lost a loved one in a tragic accident, but this lawsuit is ridiculous, even the NHTSA refused to open an investigation.
FactSet breakdown in more detail, posted last night by Tesla Daily:
Tesla Daily on Twitter
Revenue: $6.425B
GAAP EPS: -$1.61
Non-GAAP EPS: -$0.46
Free Cash Flow: +$32M
Gross Margin: 15.83%
I think that's a fairly reasonable middle-of-the-road revenue estimate, although I know most people here think it's too high. $75M over Q2. Assuming $90M lower automotive revenue (due to leasing) and maybe $50M more in service, this means that a beat roughly equals:
Energy Growth + Credit Growth + FSD Recognition - Lower-ASP Revenue Declines > ~$115M
If there is a meaningful revenue miss, I'm going to immediately suspect a significant ASP miss from guidance. That said, while I wouldn't be surprised with a bit of ASP decline, I'm going into this expecting it to be minor. Guess we'll see.
Margin looks far too low, unless credits are a no-show this quarter. I'd have to run the numbers on the others.
I'm trying to remember here... I know that EPS is net income divided by outstanding shares, which for Tesla (179,13M) would imply:
GAAP income: -$288,4
Non-GAAP income: -$82,4M
(That seems quite low, undoubtedly due to those margin estimates). But I seem to recall that there can be some nuance in that calculation... is there something I'm forgetting - something that adjusts outstanding shares, perhaps?
We of course never know what "one time charges" (which seem to hit like clockwork) there are. Also, consensus for Q4 at present is pretty middling, so anything that affects Q4 guidance will be important for the company's valuation.
Tesla Daily on Twitter
Revenue: $6.425B
GAAP EPS: -$1.61
Non-GAAP EPS: -$0.46
Free Cash Flow: +$32M
Gross Margin: 15.83%
I think that's a fairly reasonable middle-of-the-road revenue estimate, although I know most people here think it's too high. $75M over Q2. Assuming $90M lower automotive revenue (due to leasing) and maybe $50M more in service, this means that a beat roughly equals:
Energy Growth + Credit Growth + FSD Recognition - Lower-ASP Revenue Declines > ~$115M
- I expect meaningful energy growth, and wouldn't be surprised with as much as +$100M or so over Q2 (which was $368,2M). Q3 is generally a strong solar quarter, and the storage market has been showing solid growth, as well as there being a number of announced completions of sizeable projects recently. I could of course be wrong - that said, I'd be surprised if energy growth is minimal, and very surprised if it's down.
- I expect credit growth (credits in Q1 boosted margins a lot more than in Q2, more vehicles delivered, etc), but you never know.
- I think expectations for FSD recognition for Smart Summon here have ranged in the ballpark of $50-100M, if I remember right? Of course, Tesla decides entirely what if any to recognize.
- Guidance for ASP is roughly even "within a few percentage points". We had a small price cut (I forget, US-only or global?), but upsell was supposed to make up for it, and FSD was $1k more this quarter than last. S/X were also a much higher Raven fraction this quarter. Overall, each percentage point of lower ASP might cost $60M or so.
If there is a meaningful revenue miss, I'm going to immediately suspect a significant ASP miss from guidance. That said, while I wouldn't be surprised with a bit of ASP decline, I'm going into this expecting it to be minor. Guess we'll see.
Margin looks far too low, unless credits are a no-show this quarter. I'd have to run the numbers on the others.
I'm trying to remember here... I know that EPS is net income divided by outstanding shares, which for Tesla (179,13M) would imply:
GAAP income: -$288,4
Non-GAAP income: -$82,4M
(That seems quite low, undoubtedly due to those margin estimates). But I seem to recall that there can be some nuance in that calculation... is there something I'm forgetting - something that adjusts outstanding shares, perhaps?
We of course never know what "one time charges" (which seem to hit like clockwork) there are. Also, consensus for Q4 at present is pretty middling, so anything that affects Q4 guidance will be important for the company's valuation.
Last edited:
Ah, unions. Standing up for the hard-working membership every step of the way.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
The nuance is that the FactSet consensus is based on an average (or median?) of estimates, but not all analysts fill in all the figures. Some will only enter revenue and EPS. Some will skip GAAP EPS.
This means the "consensus" numbers can and often are logically and mathematically inconsistent with each other: revenue based on 8 analysts, FCF based on 6 analysts.
Nevertheless -$1.61 GAAP EPS is indeed a GAAP loss of around -$288m - shares outstanding is 179 million, but IIRC diluted shares have to be used (I.e. including all convertibles as if they diluted 100%), which was 179 million shares in @luvb2b's model but might in reality be 185 million shares? (Shout out to @EVNow, @Doggydogworld and @FrankSG.)
Revenue might miss, but the GAAP estimate indeed looks "beatable". FCF looks beatable if GF3 and Model Y cash outflow wasn't too high.
Business media headlines will focus on the worst aspect of earnings though...
Edit: corrected the figures.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
