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.
CNBC out with a glowing article on Ford's earnings.

Dear lord Ford loves their "company adjusted" metrics. Company adjusted numbers sound off the chart......until you look at net income. From 560 million net income in the same quarter in the year prior all the way to............667 million! Way to go Ford. Your numbers are blowing my mind 🥱

Btw, its very amusing to me that Teslaq always reverts back to Tesla putting out fraudulent numbers when you have Ford earnings, where numbers are buried with numbers and allocated to this and that through "company adjustments"
 
CNBC out with a glowing article on Ford's earnings.

Dear lord Ford loves their "company adjusted" metrics. Company adjusted numbers sound off the chart......until you look at net income. From 560 million net income in the same quarter in the year prior all the way to............667 million! Way to go Ford. Your numbers are blowing my mind 🥱

Btw, its very amusing to me that Teslaq always reverts back to Tesla putting out fraudulent numbers when you have Ford earnings, where numbers are buried with numbers and allocated to this and that through "company adjustments"
Hmm… GM $1.7 billion. Ford $667m

1.7 + 0.667 = $2.367b

Tesla Net Income $2.3b

1658954895256.gif
 
I can’t control the macros. If the macros pop up 5% then that changes things for obvious reasons. I have zero clue how anyone is happy about TSLA vastly underperforming it’s beta today after an entire quarter of wall st bashing the hell out of Tesla’s image

But even with the Nasdaq up 4%, not even remotely difficult for MM’s to keep the stock in check. In fact, I’ll say TSLA still closes at 805 for the week even with the macros rallying. MM’s can cap TSLA on a day where the Nasdaq is up 4%? They can easily walk it down from 822 to 805 over the next two days
Patience my friend. Stop looking so short term and wait to see what happens after Q3 and Q4 delivery and earnings reports. My strategy is to collect chairs while the music is still playing.

P/E under 100 and 50% growth per year is just not mathematically sustainable. Either share price goes up or growth slows and I'm not betting any money on growth slowing.
 
Cheer up folks! I know we would all prefer to be at 12 or 1400 but odds are the pain is behind us. Economy is settling in to the new normal, FED looks like they are planning to chill out, Elon is likely going to play it cool on Twitter etc.

The steady march towards getting filthy rich while helping to save the planet will go back to trend.
Btw, its very amusing to me that Teslaq always reverts back to Tesla putting out fraudulent numbers when you have Ford earnings, where numbers are buried with numbers and allocated to this and that through "company adjustments"
It's because they are stupid and/or crazy.
 
CNBC out with a glowing article on Ford's earnings.

Dear lord Ford loves their "company adjusted" metrics. Company adjusted numbers sound off the chart......until you look at net income. From 560 million net income in the same quarter in the year prior all the way to............667 million! Way to go Ford. Your numbers are blowing my mind 🥱

Btw, its very amusing to me that Teslaq always reverts back to Tesla putting out fraudulent numbers when you have Ford earnings, where numbers are buried with numbers and allocated to this and that through "company adjustments"
Is there a thread where people want to talk about Ford's Q2 2022 financials? (serious question). I'm reading over their release and it looks like they lost a heck of a lot of money this Q2 2022 and only the financing part of the company saved them but I am not a CPA or anything else close. Looking at the 'number salad' that they released it almost looks like they tried to make it very difficult to read.

1658956645208.png
 
Shanghai reportedly being updated to a capacity of 1,241,000/year, which is higher than the previously reported 1.1 million. As this is capacity, production will be less due to down time.

No auto plant will quote capacity based on running 365 days per year. There is always some planned down time.

I get annoyed with all the people on the internet that just think you can multiple a daily run rate by 365 or weekly by 52.

Tesla is not sand bagging, it's being realistic based on already planned downtime and a factor for unplanned downtime.
 
View attachment 833503

Paywalled but thought i would pass it along.
Not sure if I can post the article here. If not, please delete it.


Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) on Wednesday reached a deal with Democrats on legislation that aims to lower health-care costs, combat climate change and reduce the federal deficit, a massive breakthrough for President Biden’s long-stalled economic agenda.

The new agreement opens the door for party lawmakers to try to advance the measure as soon as next week, capping off months of debate, delay and acrimony that some Democrats came to see as detrimental to their political fate ahead of this fall’s elections.

Under the deal, announced late Wednesday afternoon, Manchin and Democrats have agreed to support roughly $433 billion in new investments, much of which is focused on climate change and energy production. In total, Democrats say their proposal — now known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 — could lower energy costs, increase clean energy production and reduce carbon emissions roughly 40 percent by 2030.


Manchin’s support for such spending marked a dramatic reversal from only two weeks ago, when he informed his party’s chief negotiator, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), that he could not support climate-related investments in any package moving through the chamber this month.
But Democrats appeared to prevail with Manchin, whose objections were fiscal in nature. Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Biden agreed to seek and pass new legislation targeting permitting for pipelines and other infrastructure in the coming months.
The deal with Manchin also paves the way for Democrats to pursue plans that could lower healthcare costs for Americans, chiefly by allowing Medicare to begin negotiating the price of select prescription drugs on behalf of seniors. And party lawmakers agreed on a critical provision that essentially would spare about 13 million Americans from seeing insurance premium increases next year, by continuing subsidies for people who buy coverage on exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act.


To pay for the package, Manchin and top Democrats settled on a flurry of changes to tax law that would raise $739 billion — enough to offset the cost of Democrats’ proposed spending while securing more than $300 billion for cutting the deficit. The funding comes from policies including a new minimum tax on corporations and new investments in the Internal Revenue Service that will help it pursue tax cheats.
Taken together, the package amounts to far more than Democrats thought they might win from Manchin, who repeatedly has raised fiscal concerns with his own party’s spending ambitions. But it still totals significantly less than the more sweeping, roughly $2 trillion overhaul to the country’s healthcare, education, climate, immigration and tax laws known as the Build Back Better Act — a package Manchin described in no uncertain terms as a relic of the past.
“For too long, the reconciliation debate in Washington has been defined by how it can help advance Democrats political agenda called Build Back Better,” Manchin said in a lengthy statement, referring to Democrats’ initial, larger spending package that bore Biden’s 2020 campaign slogan.
“Build Back Better is dead, and instead we have the opportunity to make our country stronger by bringing Americans together,” Manchin said.
This is a breaking news story. It will be updated.
 
Is there a thread where people want to talk about Ford's Q2 2022 financials? (serious question). I'm reading over their release and it looks like they lost a heck of a lot of money this Q2 2022 and only the financing part of the company saved them but I am not a CPA or anything else close. Looking at the 'number salad' that they released it almost looks like they tried to make it very difficult to read.

View attachment 833499
I don't need to, but to your question, they had a $2.4B writedown due to their Rivian holdings in Q2, $7.9B down for first half.
 
Shanghai reportedly being updated to a capacity of 1,241,000/year, which is higher than the previously reported 1.1 million. As this is capacity, production will be less due to down time.

Regardless of what the actual “installed annual capacity” in Shanghai is, if what they’ve been able to do in the Chinese factory translates into German and ‘Murican, then we just might have something here, boys.
 
Patience my friend. Stop looking so short term and wait to see what happens after Q3 and Q4 delivery and earnings reports. My strategy is to collect chairs while the music is still playing.

P/E under 100 and 50% growth per year is just not mathematically sustainable. Either share price goes up or growth slows and I'm not betting any money on growth slowing.
I'm looking forward to seeing how we did in July too in just a few days now, this should start to give the less dim witted analysts a clue as to just how well things are going to look within a quarter or two.
 
Dang - that is impressive.

Just as impressive is how Worm managed to distill this thread into just 90 pages. Well done!

If anybody has a back channel to Worm, a small point and a big request.

Small point: please make more of the EV convenience aspect. Home charging v driving off track to hold a pump nozzle and breathe fumes. On road trips, park n walk. Designed for minimum servicing. Brake pads that last thanks to regen.

Big request: please now do 90 slides on the overall economic effect. I‘m tired of the arg that quitting fossil fuels is detrimental to jobs and the economy. The balance sheets of Tesla v GM (say) prove otherwise. NOT quitting fossil fuels is detrimental.
Imho Tesla will rise on a rising economy, buoyed by cheap transport, cheap energy and more efficient use of labour.

The reason I ask is that Australia’s PM is using the economy as a rationale, a fear weapon, to green light many new coal n gas projects (for export markets - bypassing Paris obligations). No new fossil fuel projects is the rational approach. It would help to show he is wrong ASAP.

Cheers
 
Last edited: