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

TSLA Market Action: 2018 Investor Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
From a bear on twitter (click at your own risk)

"Today $tsla removed 68% of open positions from its job board. From 2,461 to 796 available jobs. It appears that only 23 open Energy Services Jobs remain. All mention of it as business unit have been removed and headers changed."

Comment from Reddit:

"I just checked and now they're up from 796 to 1045 jobs. It seems like they're migrating to a new site for the jobs board. The design is brand new (as of today), and some of the infomation isn't filled in yet."
"$tsla is officially in shrink mode."

Yeah, wishful thinking, it is the brains of Tesla shorts which is officially in shrink mode. :D
 
Comment from Reddit:

"I just checked and now they're up from 796 to 1045 jobs. It seems like they're migrating to a new site for the jobs board. The design is brand new (as of today), and some of the infomation isn't filled in yet."


Yeah, wishful thinking, it is the brains of Tesla shorts which are officially in shrink mode.

So within a few hours, they added 249 new jobs? Extreme growth mode!
 
As TT007's unofficial fill-in, I gotta posit that the longer the judge takes to make a statement on the joint letter, the better I feel about it. Tesla didn't say almost anything, in pimpish fashion. I expect the judge to dismiss the case or otherwise rule strongly in Elon and Tesla's favor.

TSLA todamoon, probably tomorrow, this is an advice

The Judge cannot dismiss this case. There is no motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The only thing in front of her is the Complaint (which she must assume is correct because EM has not filed an Answer) and a proposed settlement. If she refuses the settlement as not in the public interest it is back to square one and trial. I still think she is very unlikely to reject the settlement.
 
Hmm, that’s a little strange... the deposits were $1k a piece, and they’ve never had anything close to 942,000 deposits...

" Prepayments on contracts that can be cancelled without significant penalties, such as vehicle maintenance plans, have been reclassified from deferred revenue to customer deposits. Refer to the Automotive Revenue and Automotive Leasing Revenue sections below for further discussion of the impact on various categories of vehicle sales.

Customer deposits primarily consisted of cash payments from customers at the time they place an order or reservation for a vehicle or an energy product and any additional payments up to the point of delivery or the completion of installation, including the fair values of any customer trade-in vehicles that are applicable toward a new vehicle purchase. Customer deposit amounts and timing vary depending on the vehicle model, the energy product and the country of delivery. Customer deposits are fully refundable; in the case of a vehicle, up to the point the vehicle is placed into the production cycle, and in the case of an energy generation or storage product, prior to the entry into a purchase agreement or in certain cases for a limited time thereafter (in accordance with applicable laws). Customer deposits are included in current liabilities until refunded or until they are applied towards the customer’s purchase balance. As of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we held $942.1 million and $853.9 million, respectively, in customer deposits. Due to the adoption of the new revenue standard, customer deposits now include prepayments on contracts that can be cancelled without significant penalties, such as vehicle maintenance plans, which were previously reported as deferred revenue. As a result, $58.5 million of the increase in the customer deposits balance was from the adoption of the new revenue standard.

Tesla collects the amount of tariffs as an "additional payment" before it ships a vehicle to a country that imposes tariffs, particularly China.

 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCash
The Judge cannot dismiss this case. There is no motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The only thing in front of her is the Complaint (which she must assume is correct because EM has not filed an Answer) and a proposed settlement. If she refuses the settlement as not in the public interest it is back to square one and trial. I still think she is very unlikely to reject the settlement.

She also has the option to make (careful) observations in her order, yet still approve the settlement.
 
The Judge cannot dismiss this case. There is no motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The only thing in front of her is the Complaint (which she must assume is correct because EM has not filed an Answer) and a proposed settlement. If she refuses the settlement as not in the public interest it is back to square one and trial. I still think she is very unlikely to reject the settlement.

IMHO, it would have been smarter (more tactical) if Musk's lawyers first filed a motion to dismiss before accepting the settlement. That would have forced a very different negotiation point on the SEC. A few extra days would not have made much difference in SP considering that it has dropped down anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lklundin and EVNow
Even that is only $2500. 942 million / 2500 is still 377,000. Still seems way too high...

Next gen roadster deposits are $200K or $250K a pop, Semi deposits are also pretty high (don't remember the figure, but at least 25K maybe 50K). I do not know how many of those they have but they certainly contribute.
 
She also has the option to make (careful) observations in her order, yet still approve the settlement.
Absolutely! I have seen judges hold their nose and approve an order. An arrogant judge (think Manafort) is more likely to do that. No indication here. She might remark that the SEC's case of harm to the public seems weak but I dont think so. She is reviewing to see that the settlement is in the public interest not that it is fair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.