It will make the cash number better, but likely won't affect bottom line. Deposits usually show up in the cash line of assets and the deposit line of expenses, so it cancels out. Unless being non refundable make them non-liabilities.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
It will make the cash number better, but likely won't affect bottom line. Deposits usually show up in the cash line of assets and the deposit line of expenses, so it cancels out. Unless being non refundable make them non-liabilities.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Can not accommodate without complete rearrangement of the inside of the pack.
No need to reconfigure the exterior pack casing nor the car.
Tesla does not want to Osbourne the current Model S with potential buyers waiting for a 2170 Model S.
I know there are some people that think the constraints of real world economics and marketing don't apply to Tesla. But at the end of the day Tesla has a payroll and vendors to pay.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Valuations are not only about sales. Tesla sales are a fraction of Daimler sales.
It is about present value of projected profits.
I believe it does make them non liabilities. Can anyone confirm?
Waiting4M3
Active Member
I think a major factor in (not) updating MS/X is the tax incentive phase out. They will want to build as many MS/X in Q3/4 and sell them in the US, focusing on the higher priced models. Doing a major redesign in 2H 2018 would be really bad timing for that.
andrewt3000
Member
1101011
Proud TSLA/SCTY shareholder since 2013.
johnnybgood888
Member
Agreed with this, I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago that comparing Tesla's marketcap to the traditional automakers at this point is not really apples to apples.
My WAG estimate of Tesla's current core carmaking business when I wrote that post was about $30 billion if I remember correctly, so a market cap between FCA and F. I think that is a perfectly fair value since I also included the supercharger and service networks in that valuation.
The rest of the valuation I bucketed into the Autonomous systems, Tesla Energy, future car products, etc, with the majority being attributed to the Autonomy business (based on the $15 billion valuation of GM Cruise by Softbank)
I read that article, but I couldn't decipher whether it was actually affecting Tesla or not, or if the media just wanted to spin it that way. Isn't it possible that Panasonic was actually saying that due to the demand of Tesla 18650 cells, they may have had to push off orders by other buyers/manufacturers? I didn't read anything in the article that actually said they weren't able to produce enough cells for Tesla. In fact, wasn't it just 1 month ago that Panasonic noted an overstock of Tesla cells?
(as a response to general discussion of a short squeeze here more so than jhm’s specific comment)
or
-the majority of the short position is about a much bigger game than actually believing/betting that Tesla is overvalued,
-which would be consistent with the fact that there was no short squeeze in 2013,
- and the prediction that there will be no short squeeze in 2018,
-and the hypothesis that those holding the bulk of the short position in Tesla are not crazy or foolish, but rather, working their ultra concentrated wealth network to keep the river of falsehoods about Tesla gushing so as much of the public as possible thinks crazy foolish things about TSLA, Tesla, and its products (ie, media miscoverage of Tesla is far from simply “clickbait” pressures).
Last edited:
not at all the ravings of a madman, just a very good phrase, “news nullification,” for what many of us have experienced repeatedly. thanks for spelling it out so nicely for those who’ve not lived through it enough to see it on their own yet.
Great data.
Has anyone seem a more complete roll up?
Tesla includes sales centers, while all legacy car companies rely on dealers.
Example: ~4000 GM dealers in US, estimated $11M invested per dealership, so ~$45B. This is outside GM’s value, but not outside Tesla’s.
This is only one piece.
Are there other, perhaps larger examples?
EDIT: Curt already posted with a better and more complete response.
Toyotas net income in 2017 was north of $22 billion and they are trading on a PE ratio of about 9. They sold ~9 million cars to achieve that. VW Group had to sell more than 10.5 million cars in 2017 to generate a net income of less than $15 billion and is currently trading at a PE ratio of 6 or something like that. VW still has problems because of dieselgate, is struggling with WLTP and has lower net margins. This also means the chance to run into more trouble when the automotive cycle is ending is bigger, since this usually hits margins.
More or less similar reasons can be found for the other car makers. Daimler is working on it's own dieselgate and is selling much less cars, Fords margins are pretty small and so on ...
I had the same thought. This is non-refundable. A lot of people report ordering.
Does anyone have a guess as to how many?
For example, 20,000 orders could become $50M immediate cash. Could this be part of a 2Q cash surprise?
dc_h
Active Member
W
would be great if they can. make a 90 or 100 the base and 120 with 2170 cells the high end. A 400 mile range car in 2018 would really hurt those 2022 Tesla killers.
Elon on twitter just now
“Appreciate all the good wishes. First bday I’ve spent in the factory, but it’s somehow the best.”
“somehow the best” may or may not be on topic for this thread.
“Appreciate all the good wishes. First bday I’ve spent in the factory, but it’s somehow the best.”
“somehow the best” may or may not be on topic for this thread.
j0hn
Member
dumping most likely because of this :
Tesla lagging on Model 3 production, workers say
wishing it is a bear trap... would that be legal ?
Tesla lagging on Model 3 production, workers say
wishing it is a bear trap... would that be legal ?
There are no "extra" 2170 cells available right now...
If there is so much big money being used against Tesla, I don’t get why they wouldn’t just buy the company in a hostile takeover and then kill it?
With ~$40 billion (correction: $12 billion) short, that was about the same as the market cap of the company not that long ago. Seems like a more rational use of anti-Tesla money than conspiratorially pouring more and more money in just to temporarily hold the share price down for a little longer.
Edit: Appreciate the correction from members on the dollar value of short, I got mixed up with the 40 million shares short.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
