-
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
I'm doubtful Tesla would recogize revenue related to a limited population release that is revocable based on driver's continued safety score. Else, they would need to record impairment on disablement.
Much cleaner and easier to wait for wide general release. They already have the cash, so it's 'only' an accounting income bump.
petit_bateau
Active Member
Yes yes. I know all that. The problem is the "for many years" bit, both in these graphs and in the previous Lazards ones from ZachF (post #344,669 - the link will take one there despite appearances ....),
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
I hope 2022 doesn’t repeat itself: Your graph labels contain some typo’s. *typos. Plural, not possessive.
teslamotorsclub.com
which (I think) showed a recent 8% CAGR that raised my eyebrow. It looked to my eyes as if they'd gotten the decimal point in the wrong place and 0.8% CAGR was more likely. Indeed looking at these graphs of yours the 8% again looks doubtful, 1/101 is veeeery close to 1% which is basically flatlined within the noise. And I see periodic price increases in some markets from time to time as well.
Remember the soft costs (like the poor) are always with us.
Onshore wind (using the Lazards numbers) also has the same issues, but ways have been found to address that. Onshore turbines were once maxed at at 3MW and 120m dia due to shipping (road/rail transport) constraints, primarily the need to fit underneath standard road bridges and round roadway bends. But now 160m dia and 6MW are becoming onshore market norms for leading developers and manufacturers so the cost decline curve has freshened up (ways were found to break up the lumps into modules that do fit, then get bolted back together at the erection site). Offshore is still driving ahead, 14-16MW is the current trending size and 20MW are in the frame, and the shift from fixed foundations to floating foundations will further change the paradigm.
If we are in 0.8% or 1% or similar CAGR territory with solar PV then I think we can throw away any ideas of hopium that are predicated on the basis of geting an order of magntitude improvement in the cost base for solar PV. For wind I can still see the cost decline curve working OK, and it is in good shape for batteries. But for PV the data is very flat in my opinion. That means that once we add cost of intermittency back in to the renewables solution, then the renewables energy price scenarios we are facing for the next 20-30 years (i.e. the duration of the energy transition we are now within) are going to be the equivalent of an oil price of $40-$80/bbl. So renewables will be not significantly cheaper than oil has been in the last few years (OK, not right now at $110). So if a project won't fly at $40-80/bbl price-equivalent then don't expect a magic wand to come along and make it goodly cheaper, because the evidence is of a flat line on the price/cost curve.
Data driven, that's what I am. Because I have over 30-years of scars in the energy sector.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Wondering if expanding FSD Autosteer on City Streets to 100k cars will release a portion of the Deferred FSD Revenue to Q2 Earnings?
AFAIK they have never recognized revenue for the FSDBeta program despite having sent it to tens of thousands of cars previously.... perhaps in part because it can be taken away completely for bad behavior.
I wouldn't expect them to recognize anything for city streets until it goes to wide release, at least region-wide (ie they might recognize in NA when it's wide in NA despite not being wide in EU or AP or something).
The other tricky part is they ought be able to recognize 100% of remaining for anyone who bought after ~march 2019 (since city streets is the last undelivered promised feature) but they'd still have to leave deferred for earlier buyers since they still owe them quite a bit more functionality....on the bright side, at this point the vast majority of the deferred rev has to be the newer buyers (who all paid much higher prices for it too)
The Accountant
Active Member
To record severance in Q2, communications to those impacted need to happen in Q2.
From memory (have not researched this), severance can only be recorded when:
1. Management has approved a plan for employee reduction
2. The severance costs are quantifiable
3. Impacted personnel have been informed.
In the past too many companies were playing games recording huge severance costs only to reverse a portion in later quarters.
Maybe Tesla has been working on this for some time and they can get this done by month end to record the severance but my guess would be Q3.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
That’s a totally different process, isn’t it?
The hypothesis is that synthesized methane from green H2 and Sabatier reactors will be cheaper than natural gas (or biogas as another poster mentioned). Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is pretty simple fundamentally and produces a wide variety of high-purity liquid hydrocarbons, not just isobutanol.
There already are several large-scale working demonstration plants. I shared an example of a chemical company, Sasol, that apparently can already do this profitably with cheap syngas made from coal at their South African gas-to-liquids plant and from gas feeding their Onyx plant in Qatar. I don’t know of any company profitably producing synfuel with bacteria. Sasol’s coal-to-chemicals plant in S Africa is so big it’s the largest single CO2 emitter on the planet and it’s been operating since the 1950s.
As we all know after the clarifications from Elon, layoffs are indeed not for factory workers, but only salaried employees (office & overhead), and Tesla will continue to expand its overall workforce. It's embarrassing how Reuters left out important information from the email they claim to have without including it in their report. It was used in thousands of other articles and people will remember the Friday headline, but not the correction we saw 2 days later after Elon chimed in. FUD of its finest.
Needless to say how bad this is for the stock, but a PR department is not going to help here. Advertising dollars keep the MSM alive, and I know firsthand that without advertising contracts, editors-in-chief abstract their company, omit positive news, and spread misrepresentation in articles.
Money makes the world go round.
I saw this headline in my news reader app last night - it’s paywalled unless you are under their 5 article limit/mo - and I’m not buying a subscription. So, the correct info is percolating in places.
After emailing employees about job cuts at Tesla, Elon Musk says the total headcount at the company will increase
https://www.businessinsider.com
Big contribution to TMC from the Black Pixel Company.
Thanks for this. Sent it to my sister along with a warning to recognize bias in mainstream media against Tesla, by media’s purposeful omission of facts and slanting of material.
Last edited:
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I haven't been following the timing of FSD revenue recognition very closely at all but, if the 60/40 split is accurate, then Tesla is pushing the boundaries of recognizing FSD revenue as soon as possible, IMO. There is significant grey area here because it's so subjective, but it's "value" that should be recognized here, not percent of functionality. IMO, the value is relatively small until the functionality is sufficient to drive without oversight. However, multiple conflicting interpretations are possible here.
As to when Tesla could recognize 100%, I agree, it doesn't have to be approved by regulators for Tesla to say, "We've completed the work and delivered the promised product, so we are recognizing 100%, it's just a matter of time before people can actually use it without oversight". Of course, they would continue to develop and improve it to make it even safer.
I would suggest that Tesla might be more likely to postpone recognizing the last 10%-20% to strengthen their legal arguments in the lawsuits that will undoubtably exist regardless of how this unfolds. This is because Tesla has never promised a specific date by which FSD would be useable without oversight.
OMG, so short-sellers can recoup their losses then! If they started their short in the morning and closed out their position after the tweet (to limit their losses), then they'll fall right in the scope of the conditions!
Short-sellers Enrichment indeed!
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Q2. Tesla doesn't take a month to evaluate who to layoff, they can figure that out in 5 minutes. Maybe a whole day if they need to wait for responses from multiple people. It's pretty obvious who is moving the mission forward and who is just along for the ride.
Along with hiring litigators, maybe Elon needs to have a few folks who monitor the option market rigorously.
They should give him an update on weekly stakes MM's have on the line, and approx. the naked shorts using some data driven approach. When MM's have a lot to lose, they are more incentivized to distort news.
(+ also announce a buyback ... when ever oversold, naked short conditions arise just buy some stocks per the announced plan ... once MM's lose a few times, they will be less prone to these tactics)
Has anyone released the email to executives regarding the "super bad feeling about the economy" ?
Looking ahead to tomorrow .. maybe my lotto plays will cover upcoming vacation expenses
They should give him an update on weekly stakes MM's have on the line, and approx. the naked shorts using some data driven approach. When MM's have a lot to lose, they are more incentivized to distort news.
(+ also announce a buyback ... when ever oversold, naked short conditions arise just buy some stocks per the announced plan ... once MM's lose a few times, they will be less prone to these tactics)
Has anyone released the email to executives regarding the "super bad feeling about the economy" ?
Looking ahead to tomorrow .. maybe my lotto plays will cover upcoming vacation expenses
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Share buyback is the best way of transferring hard earned cash from the company to short term speculators or worse shorts. Longs will not be the beneficiaries.
On the positive side though, I am guessing it reduces the free float and hence decreases volatility.. maybe. I am sure others can correct me on that.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I think share buybacks are misunderstood by many who appear to think the idea behind them is to create demand for the shares which will boost the share price. What buybacks actually accomplish is to make each share represent a larger percentage of the company. This is a fact. So, to say "longs will not be the beneficiaries" is factually incorrect.
There should be no significant effect on volatility but if I were to argue one way or the other, I would say buybacks decrease the float and therefore increase the potential volatility.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
