Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Thinking about Q1 2013 earnings

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
If the $30/month predictions are accurate then I think most people will choose to not get 3G.

I think most people will bite the bullet and get 3G because they don't want to lose all the cool factors (web browser/Google maps). I'm assuming it's month to month and cancelable once wifi tethering is activated.


To your friends in the car: "Yea I paid $102,000 but the $30/month was just too much, so the browsing doesn't work, the Google maps don't work, the app doesn't work, etc..."

Yes $30 is too much, if this is the price, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the price of the car, service plans, etc...
 
Regardless of whether the sign-up rate is high or low, currently Tesla is paying the 3G charges for everyone. After the 3G program is in place, Tesla will, at a minimum, no longer be paying customers' 3G costs (except for Sigs, who get the first year free). To the extent that they are marking up the 3G pricing, they might make some profit on top of this cost-savings, but I'm thinking that Tesla will be setting the 3G rate at something close to break-even.
 
my research has uncovered some recent public information of moderate reliability which indicates production this quarter was 5400 units. i can't share the source unfortunately, but those who dig enough should find it.

there were 450 units produced but undelivered at the end of last quarter. so this quarter has 5850 units available to deliver. assume 700-900 are in transit. then sales should be 5000-5200 units.

$500 million revenue for the quarter clearly in play with the enviro credits.
 
I think most people will bite the bullet and get 3G because they don't want to lose all the cool factors (web browser/Google maps). I'm assuming it's month to month and cancelable once wifi tethering is activated.
I certainly won't. None of it matters to me.


To your friends in the car: "Yea I paid $102,000 but the $30/month was just too much, so the browsing doesn't work, the Google maps don't work, the app doesn't work, etc..."
Don't use it, don't use it, don't use it. Also the car only cost $80-something thousand.

There will be a fair number of us who will not pay for the 3G. Tesla, however, is stuck paying for 3G connections to our cars for service purposes. I would expect Tesla's 3G bill to remain pretty much constant, and for Tesla to simply have to eat the cost.
 
refined q1 2013 model results

using the data point i mentioned earlier and some of the other inputs on this thread i have refined my model a bit further for q1 2013 earnings:

on production and delivery:
5,400 model s produced in q1
plus 450 model s which were in delivery backlog as of 2012 q4
equals 5,850 total model s available for delivery in q1

i am modeling delivery of 5100 units, with delivery backlog of 750 units

on revenues:
model s avg price $89000 x 5100 = $454 million (updated average price slightly higher based on survey data)
enviro credits $10000 x 5100 = $51 million (lowered credits to $10k per vehicle)
add development services = $5 million

total revenue = $510 million (lowered vs my prior estimate of $525 million)

on gross margin:
assuming they get automotive gross margin excluding enviro credits to +7% (raised slightly based on known higher production levels)
model s: $31.8m
enviro credits: $51m
dev services: $3m

total gross profit = $87.8 million

on operating expenses:
now figure $63m in r&d (declines from prior q as they projected) and $47m of sg&a (increase from prior q), gives you $110m in gaap expenses. take out the non-cash items, about $13m in stock based comp and $7m in depreciation and amortization... you got $90m in non-gaap expenses.

on ebitda:
implies ebitda of $-2.2m, or about -2c per share. although no longer positive, the street has non-gaap eps at -7c. there's some upside to my numbers from better gross margin and credits. my estimate may not be comparable to the street if the non-gaap they are using excludes depreciation. i have a feeling elon will be a couple cents better than i'm forecasting, but i could only get there thru higher margin or credits.

on incremental upside:
i'm not expecting much more unit upside than this as i now feel my unit numbers are pretty well nailed down.
each extra point of gross margin adds about $5m net profit.
each additional $1000 of credits per car also adds about $5m net profit.
if credits came in at q4 levels the upside would be almost $25m and eps would be nearly 20c per share. so basically what's happened is the upside in earnings this quarter will come largely from the credits, which are tough to gauge.

on reservations
with a lot more favorable press and users getting cars in march i think new reservations could be closer to 3400. cancels likely uptick due to the large number of configuration requests and negative nyt press. i am estimating 10,700 end of quarter reservations after cancels/deliveries.

my reservations model looks like this for the rest of the year... bold/italic = forecasts

Prior CountPlus NewMinus SoldMinus CancelsEquals End Count
2012Q311500290025095013200
2012Q41320060002400180015000
2013Q11500034005200250010700
2013Q2107004000550018007400
2013Q374004500560014004900
2013Q449005000560014002900
on future quarters
in light of the above, the comments on the call about future quarters start to make sense too. musk had said that the impact of enviro credits would decline, but margin would increase to compensate. so just hypothetically if you were to assume for q2:

5500 units x $82000 sale price = $451m sales plus
5500 units x $5000 enviro credits = $27.5m credits equals
$478.5 million total revenue

gross margin improve to 15% on automotive, then gross profit:
on model s: 15% x 451m = $68m plus
enviro credits: $27.5m plus
dev services: $3m equals
$98.5m gross profit
and once again you'd be talking about positive ebitda, maybe even 7c per share? incremental upside for each additional 100 units would be around 2-3c per share i'd guess.

q3 should be very good considering average prices will likely be better due to european deliveries of higher models. i've got numbers in the range of 20-30c per share ebitda.
for now q4 shapes up to be the worst as selling prices declines, unit volumes go up, and credit impact is minimized. even so, slightly profitable ebitda.
for the year maybe 30-40c ebitda i would guess. the reservations increasing is the most important thing in the later quarters.

summary
q1 2013 estimate: 5100 units delivered, 5400 units produced, $510m revenue, $87.8m gross profit, -2c ebitda, 3400 new reservations, 10700 end of quarter reservations
 
Q4 could be more positively impacted (on a per unit price standpoint) if Asia sales start ramping then- not sure how Tesla is modeling that market penetration, but seems like that would be about the right timing;
thanks for the great effort on the numbers.. very helpful
 
One item that I am curious about is revenue from selling the battery and drive train to other car manufacturers such Toyota and Mercedes Benz. I read that even these little Smart Cars I see around are now being outfitted with Tesla drives. I don't see any of this being included in your revenue calculations. Perhaps the data on this is not available or difficult to ascertain at this point. Maybe it is not even really a significant revenue source yet. Although, since MB and Toyota are both selling and/or introducing in short order vehicles equipped with Tesla electric drive tech, this will surely also become a significant revenue source over time, especially as the larger market for EVs opens. Wondering if there is any way to get a picture of this side of Tesla's business plan and partnerships.
 
That accords closely with the data I gathered for the blog I posted today. I didn't include March data because by its nature these self reported delivery dates suffer from a lag before they get into the spreadsheet. But when I was doing my projections earlier in the week ~2,200 March deliveries seemed likely, with initial data from the shift in the trend that happened in early March pointing to delivered VIN clusters @~8,000 by April 1st.

With ~3,000 deliveries by March 1st anything in the range of 5,200 deliveries for Q1 is likely. I'd put a non-scientific +-200 (ie. educated guess) to that number.

my research has uncovered some recent public information of moderate reliability which indicates production this quarter was 5400 units. i can't share the source unfortunately, but those who dig enough should find it.

there were 450 units produced but undelivered at the end of last quarter. so this quarter has 5850 units available to deliver. assume 700-900 are in transit. then sales should be 5000-5200 units.

$500 million revenue for the quarter clearly in play with the enviro credits.
 
One item that I am curious about is revenue from selling the battery and drive train to other car manufacturers such Toyota and Mercedes Benz. I read that even these little Smart Cars I see around are now being outfitted with Tesla drives. I don't see any of this being included in your revenue calculations.

i included $5m of development services revenue. none of the other vehicles seem to be selling meaningfully. if they were you could include more.

- - - Updated - - -

That accords closely with the data I gathered for the blog I posted today... in the range of 5,200 deliveries for Q1 is likely. I'd put a non-scientific +-200 (ie. educated guess) to that number.

great blog post you had. we used the same source data to some extent so your blog helped confirm my calculations.

there are 4 sources i used to estimate production/deliveries:
1. tmc reports just like you. these point to about 5600-5800 cars produced and 5200-5400 deliveries.
2. elon video from march and tweet pointing to 500/wk deliveres and production, assuming 425/wk in other weeks and 500/wk for march gets you to 5400 cars made and delivered. 425x8 + 500x4 = 5200
3. tesla blog which confirms elon. some may consider this the same source as number 2.
4. one public source i kept secret that confirms production of 5400 units. assuming a number of vehicles in transit gets you around 5100 deliveries.

i started out with 5200 deliveries two weeks ago. think that's well within reality but decided to be a bit more conservative based on 4 above. even so, all signs point to the street estimates being handily beaten.
 
i have been thinking a lot about the guidance the past few days. here are the comments from cfo ahuja on the call:

"Deepak Ahuja - CFO: I think if you consider the combination of Model S sales of our powertrain sales, our development revenue and mid-teens gross margin, I think the guidance would probably lead you to somewhere along those lines close to something in the breakeven range to slightly positive, should be close to break-even. We were hoping to beat that."

i've been going over the numbers a few times, and it's very hard to make it work. but ahuja seems to indicate that yes, clearly the guidance should get you to breakeven. The biggest missing piece in the equation would be the credits. i created a table comparing the income statement in q4 with guidance and management projections for q1 (see below). i used aggressive reductions in expenses and put gross margin at the high side of mid-teens. i used $10 million for development services revenue. and i still couldn't get to positive non-gaap on my spreadsheet.

so fine, then i started taking up the average revenue per vehicle. $90k to $100k? not enough. $105k? still not positive non-gaap. average revenue per car has to be $110k to get to positive non-gaap earnings. i think there's been reasonable consensus that the average selling price is only about $90k. the implication is that the remaining $20k per vehicle is coming from credits.

i had been struggling to figure out how they could go from $15k per vehicle last year to $20k per vehicle this year in credit sales. all along i had assumed that tesla had sold credits for all 2,650 vehicles sold last year. but considering they were closing sales furiously in the last weeks of the quarter, did they have time to sell all the credits before the end of the year? for example, let's say they only sold credits for 2,100 cars produced in 2012. in that case the average credit revenue per vehicle would be $19,500 per car. yikes.

in that case they have an additional 550 credits they could sell built into they guidance for q1, on top of the 4,500 from current quarter forecasted sales. could the credits this quarter be closer to $20000 per vehicle on average? that's what the guidance seems to imply... how else can they reach $110k average revenue per car to make the guidance consistent with their statements of breakeven non-gaap?

i can't emphasize how important this question is, because if that $20,000 number is correct it will be almost $100 million contribution to revenues and gross profit with 5,000 units sold. if they could swing the automotive gross margin ex-credits positive then earnings will be... gasp! breathtaking.

any comments? maybe i will make on more revision to my model, which is currently assuming $10k in credits per vehicle. also i should note tesla's non-gaap earnings includes amortization. my q1 model was for ebitda, so there will have to be another adjustment i make there too.


Revenues2012Q4Guidance2012Q4
AAuto Sales294,3774500 x 110k????495,000
BDev Services11,955Assume $10 million10,000
C=A+BTotal306,332
505,000






Cost of Sales


DAuto Sales278,710

EDev Services3,765

F=D+ETotal282,475
419,150
G=F-CGross Profit (loss)23,85717% of revenue85,850






Operating Exp/Income


HR&D68,832lower 15%58,507
ISG&A45,908down 5%43,613
J=H+ITotal114,740
102,120
K=G-JOperating Income(90,883)
(16,270)





LInterest Income85
-
MInterest Expense(27)
(100)
NOther Income746
500
P=K+L+M+NIncome before Tax(90,079)
(15,870)
QProvision for Taxes(147)
(150)





T=P-QNet Income(89,932)
(15,720)






Reconcile to Non-GAAP







TNet Income(89,932)
(15,720)
UStock-based Comp14,416
15,000
VWarrant Liability Chg958
1,000
W=T+U+VNon-GAAP Income(74,558)slightly positive280

 
I'm guessing the Q1 delivered Model S number is closer to 4500 than 5000, given the first week off in January. Also, I saw the owner of a high 7000 VIN with multi-coat red in another thread here saying he is waiting for the delivery button to appear. Once again, just because there are VINs in the 8000s being delivered does not mean that all of the VINs prior to that number have been delivered.
 
I'm guessing the Q1 delivered Model S number is closer to 4500 than 5000, given the first week off in January. Also, I saw the owner of a high 7000 VIN with multi-coat red in another thread here saying he is waiting for the delivery button to appear. Once again, just because there are VINs in the 8000s being delivered does not mean that all of the VINs prior to that number have been delivered.

No it doesn't, which is why I only looked backwards to January and February so I could include the outliers.

By March 1st there had already been a solid 3,000 deliveries and the increase in delivered cars (which shadows production) was already visible and shifting the trendline. This data was with VIN's in the 6,000 range and the outliers were visible and accounted for. Those 3,000+ deliveries included 1,300+ deliveries in January (low because they took a week off) and 1,700 in February.

In early March the pace of deliveries increased relative to the previous trend, and we have anecdotal evidence that Tesla increased production to 500+ cars per week at that point. We are a month away from that data now, and the outliers are accounted for.

So there are at least three lines of evidence suggesting you are wrong. The one that you address (the inaccuracy of estimating current deliveries based on VIN number) points to 5,000+ deliveries by the end of the quarter, but is inaccurate for the reasons you state. In a few weeks the outliers in that data will resolve and it will become more reliable.

But the delivery data pointing to an acceleration in deliveries at the beginning of March is solid and the trend line it established supports the current delivery data. The 500+ car per week production rate in March is also solid. We have supplier reports from February which foreshadowed it, personal observations from folks on the factory tour reading messages congratulating the staff for the new production rate, and blog posts from Tesla itself boasting of it.

3,000+ cars were already delivered by March 1st. That is as close to a factual statement as we can make without an official announcement from Tesla. Tesla would have had another 400-500 cars being processed for delivery at that point. At a 400 unit/week production rate they would have produced another 1,600+ cars in March and ended the month with ~4,600-4,700 delivered cars and another 400-500 cars in process.

However, at the actual production rate of 500 cars (which began in late February) they would have delivered a minimum of 2,000 additional cars by the end of the quarter, with another 500+ in process.

Here is what George Blankenship wrote on March 21st -

During the past three weeks we have averaged MORE than 500 Model S DELIVERIES per week, and it looks like we’ll be setting another record this week.

Again, 3000+ cars were delivered by March 1st. You can see the acceleration that week, which would correspond to the first week of the three that Blankenship is referring to. He refers to another record for deliveries anticipated for the week he wrote the blog. If you do the math, Tesla would have delivered 4,500+ cars by the end of that week. They still would have had a full week still remaining in March, at a time when they are flowing 500+ deliveries per week.

Every line of evidence points strongly towards Tesla delivering more than 5,000 cars in Q1 and your concern only addresses one of those lines of evidence.

Here is one more line of evidence. Accounting for the week off in January, Tesla spent 7 weeks at a 400 unit/week rate and by the end of March would have spent another 5 weeks at a 500 unit/week rate. That is 5,300+ vehicles based on public reporting, with the only assumption being that Tesla continued at the 500 unit rate for the week following Blankenship's announcement. Because of the + in every week, I find reports of 5,400 total units in Q1 to be highly credible.

There were several hundred units in transit at the end of Q4 last year. I can see the delivery spike that they created at the beginning of January, and simple physics dictates that they existed. That is 5,600-5,800 cars available for delivery in Q1. At a minimum 500 of those will likely still be in transit at the end of the quarter, which leaves us with 5,100-5,300 cars likely to be delivered. 5,000 is a very conservative number and 4,500 just is not credible.
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't, which is why I only looked backwards to January and February so I could include the outliers.

By March 1st there had already been a solid 3,000 deliveries and the increase in delivered cars (which shadows production) was already visible and shifting the trendline. This data was with VIN's in the 6,000 range and the outliers were visible and accounted for. Those 3,000+ deliveries included 1,300+ deliveries in January (low because they took a week off) and 1,700 in February.

In early March the pace of deliveries increased relative to the previous trend, and we have anecdotal evidence that Tesla increased production to 500+ cars per week at that point. We are a month away from that data now, and the outliers are accounted for.

So there are at least three lines of evidence suggesting you are wrong. The one that you address (the inaccuracy of estimating current deliveries based on VIN number) points to 5,000+ deliveries by the end of the quarter, but is inaccurate for the reasons you state. In a few weeks the outliers in that data will resolve and it will become more reliable.

But the delivery data pointing to an acceleration in deliveries at the beginning of March is solid and the trend line it established supports the current delivery data. The 500+ car per week production rate in March is also solid. We have supplier reports from February which foreshadowed it, personal observations from folks on the factory tour reading messages congratulating the staff for the new production rate, and blog posts from Tesla itself boasting of it.

3,000+ cars were already delivered by March 1st. That is as close to a factual statement as we can make without an official announcement from Tesla. Tesla would have had another 400-500 cars being processed for delivery at that point. At a 400 unit/week production rate they would have produced another 1,600+ cars in March and ended the month with ~4,600-4,700 delivered cars and another 400-500 cars in process.

However, at the actual production rate of 500 cars (which began in late February) they would have delivered a minimum of 2,000 additional cars by the end of the quarter, with another 500+ in process.

Here is what George Blankenship wrote on March 21st -



Again, 3000+ cars were delivered by March 1st. You can see the acceleration that week, which would correspond to the first week of the three that Blankenship is referring to. He refers to another record for deliveries anticipated for the week he wrote the blog. If you do the math, Tesla would have delivered 4,500+ cars by the end of that week. They still would have had a full week still remaining in March, at a time when they are flowing 500+ deliveries per week.

Every line of evidence points strongly towards Tesla delivering more than 5,000 cars in Q1 and your concern only addresses one of those lines of evidence.

Here is one more line of evidence. Accounting for the week off in January, Tesla spent 7 weeks at a 400 unit/week rate and by the end of March would have spent another 5 weeks at a 500 unit/week rate. That is 5,300+ vehicles based on public reporting, with the only assumption being that Tesla continued at the 500 unit rate for the week following Blankenship's announcement. Because of the + in every week, I find reports of 5,400 total units in Q1 to be highly credible.

There were several hundred units in transit at the end of Q4 last year. I can see the delivery spike that they created at the beginning of January, and simple physics dictates that they existed. That is 5,600-5,800 cars available for delivery in Q1. At a minimum 500 of those will likely still be in transit at the end of the quarter, which leaves us with 5,100-5,300 cars likely to be delivered. 5,000 is a very conservative number and 4,500 just is not credible.


Thanks for writing the blog, I wasn't sure what you were talking about at first until I checked the blog link at the top of the page. The data points to your estimated numbers being correct. Have you done the same regression for 2012 Q4 to see if it checks out? It seemed like Tesla was going to make 2500 deliveries easily, but came up short.
 
Thanks for writing the blog, I wasn't sure what you were talking about at first until I checked the blog link at the top of the page. The data points to your estimated numbers being correct. Have you done the same regression for 2012 Q4 to see if it checks out? It seemed like Tesla was going to make 2500 deliveries easily, but came up short.

Actually I did that in February when I was trying to come up with my prediction for Q4 earnings here -

TSLA Investor Discussions - Page 484

Here are the relevant passages -

I think they'll have been lucky to have hit the bottom end of the range for Q4 which was ~2,500 units. ~2,750 for 2012.

So if I had to make a bet right now on the conference call, I'd bet on a low end report on 2012 deliveries that came close to, or just surpassed their minimum goal based on the September guidance.

Actual numbers were ~2,400/~2,650.

Honestly when I did the calculation for 2012 deliveries my numbers were very close to the final numbers. However, if you look at the graph I posted on the blog you can see that the data points in 2012 almost all looked like "outliers" because their processes were so messed up. Because the points were all so far from the implied trend I decided to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt by assuming they barely made it, only because I knew they were making a massive effort to do just that. The actual analysis showed them coming up short though, but not by a huge amount. (actually just below 2,400.. I find it interesting that Tesla reported "approximately" 2,400.. lol)

Actually, I am still very happy with my predictions in that post. I just completely forgot to factor in the ZEV credits, which pissed me off in retrospect because those were a big part of my initial research and reason why I invested so much money in July 2012. If I had utilized my own research I think i would have come close to actual Q4 revenue.

The only parts that I feel squishy on are are the cancellation rate and when Tesla would become profitable. Here is what I wrote about cancellations -

A high cancellation rate (WAG, 50%+) amongst the 11,000 or so U.S. customers who had reserved before the Q3 results. ~7,000ish new U.S. reservations (going from memory, so don't shoot me for not looking it up) in Q4, with awards and the stores being the big drivers of sales.

Reservation list will be knocked down to a typical 2 month wait by the end of Q1 2013.

The interesting thing here is that actual experience is conforming with my predictions, but thus far Tesla denies that there have been substantial cancellations. I suspect that if there have not been cancellations, there have at least been substantial deferrals that don't count as cancellations only because they have not been refunded their money.

Hopefully we get some resolution in the next conference call, but I suspect we wont know for certain until Q3. As it is though, even with 5,000 additional deliveries Tesla has not sold enough cars to be able to turn around new orders in 6 weeks (as they are doing) unless there have either been substantial cancellations or else the majority of people on the wait list want 40kWh, standard suspension or multi-coat red.

As to profitability, I am anticipating a big quarter for revenue, and major reductions in production costs. I've never been accountant enough to translate that kind of info into GAAP/non-GAAP profits or however its booked. Certainly quite a bit of profit on operations though, ie much more actual cash coming in than going out. When you do that usually the accounting works out in the end, so I am looking forward to them reporting a profitable quarter.

One thing folks need to be aware of on ZEV credits is that there is a quota each year. With as many credits as Tesla is generating, its entirely likely that they will saturate the market and thus not be able to sell all of the notional credits that they are generating. They are right not to count on that for profitability going forward. But around 2017 the quota will rise dramatically, which is likely one reason that Tesla is delaying Gen 3 until then.

Here is the graph from the blog btw. I should mark it up with the 2012 trend and the new trend starting in March. But you can see visually that 2012 was a mess, and it got a bit messy again in February with the introduction of the 60kWh but then started to improve as their production and delivery processes dialed in. You can also see a distinct curve to the right (below trend, which indicates faster deliveries) starting around the 5,800-6,000 VIN mark and heading generally in the direction of that lone outlier on the far right.

Tesla-Deliveries.gif
 
<lots of calculations based on various data points, VIN numbers, titbits from George Blankenstein, etc.>

5,000 is a very conservative number and 4,500 just is not credible.

I guess we know now and won't have to wait till next earnings report:

Tesla Motors announced today that sales of its Model S vehicle exceeded the target provided in the mid-February shareholder letter. As customers who note their Model S serial number this weekend will realize, vehicle deliveries (sales) exceeded 4,750 units vs. the 4,500 unit prior outlook.
 
yes, and add to that gaap profitability:

"As a result, Tesla is amending its Q1 guidance to full profitability, both GAAP and non-GAAP."

Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target | Press Releases | Tesla Motors

this is what i predicted in my first post in this thread. estimates have to go up. can't get to gaap profits even with $500 million in revenue at 20% margins.

the highest street estimate is for 2c non-gaap. this guidance implies at least 11-12c non-gaap eps.
 
Last edited:
yes, and add to that gaap profitability:

"As a result, Tesla is amending its Q1 guidance to full profitability, both GAAP and non-GAAP."

Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target | Press Releases | Tesla Motors

this is what i predicted in my first post in this thread. estimates have to go up. can't get to gaap profits even with $500 million in revenue at 20% margins.

the highest street estimate is for 2c non-gaap. this guidance implies at least 11-12c non-gaap eps.
This also explains tomorrows announcement. He had to wait for this before he could announce exercising the options without claiming to reach performance goals
 
I guess we know now and won't have to wait till next earnings report:

Tesla Motors announced today that sales of its Model S vehicle exceeded the target provided in the mid-February shareholder letter. As customers who note their Model S serial number this weekend will realize, vehicle deliveries (sales) exceeded 4,750 units vs. the 4,500 unit prior outlook.

We still don't know the actual delivery number. Any number higher than 4,750 would satisfy this press release. Based on the language and timing of this release it makes me question whether our VIN analysis in this thread helped forced this announcement somehow.

Also clearly seems related to Tuesday's announcement by Elon. Any lawyers know if he needed to legally announce this in order to exercise his options? There were stories last week that he had run afoul of the SEC with his tweet regarding the announcement, so does this fix that? The argument is that he provided material non-public info with his tweet, so maybe making the non-public info public before his Tuesday announcement will keep him from getting fined?

Interesting tweets -

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk 26m
First profitable Q for Tesla thanks to awesome customers & hard work by a super dedicated team

and

Elon Musk ‏@elonmusk 17m
To be clear, Tesla is in California, so it is not April Fool's yet! Also, some may differ, but imo the Tues news is arguably more important.

How would exercising options be arguably more important than having their first profitable quarter, and cancelling the 40kWh model? Those both seem like bigger announcements than Elon pumping ~$40 or $50 million into the company by exercising options that will make him a richer man. Those options are payment for services rendered. Will seem super odd to call his pay package more important than the company being profitable.
 
Last edited: