Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Logged $713 Million In Revenue In Q1 and Built 7,535 Cars
cartechboy (2660665) writes "Tesla just announced its first-quarter earnings and the numbers are interesting. It logged revenue of $713 million on deliveries of 6,457 Model S electric cars. It's worth noting that's basically the number of vehicles it said it would sell in the quarter, but that number is slightly down from the prior quarter. It built a total of 7,535 Model S cars in the quarter as it built inventory as shipments began to China where sales just started last month. Net orders in North America grew 10 percent, and production for the second quarter is expected to increase to 8,500-9,000 Model S cars. Tesla expects to deliver 35,000 cars during the 2014 calendar year. Musk told analysts that China's enthusiastic and that government support is crucial. The Model X is delayed until spring of 2015 with production-design prototypes being ready in the fourth quarter. Tesla hopes to possibly break ground as early as next month on its gigafactory, though the location has yet to be announced. Of course, the stock market is already reacting to these numbers and is currently down nearly 3 percent in after hours trading."
Well thank goodness the stock market is such an accurate gauge of a company's fiscal health and true value (right Facebook?) It's all rational investors making carefully considered trades in an open and transparent marketplace.
There is a lot I don't understand at financial reports, but these numbers really strike me as odd.
How can you have a revenue of 731 M$ while producing in the same period about 500 M$ worth of merchandise? Said otherwise, for each car produced in Q1, they have a revenue of about 100 k$. I know the Tesla is not a cheep car, but that seems excessive. Or did I miss something here?
Not mentioned in the post for some reason was the loss of $49.8 million for the quarter compared to an $11.3 million profit in the same quarter last year. Accumulated losses since 2009 are on the order of $800 million.
http://files.shareholder.com/d...
Making cars is hard. Making a profit doing it is harder still.
Just wondering if Tesla sponsor this site in some way, they get a huge amount of stories here.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Oh, sorry, I thought I was on Yahoo! It's hard to tell these days.
Looking at the spec's: a 60 kWHr battery! With that plugged into my house and an array of photovoltaics on the roof, I can tell the electric authority to go **** themselves. (In Western Australia we pay 26c/kWHr, despite having massive natural gas and coal reserves locally. Plus supply charge.)
Figuring that in the Tesla does not look quite so expensive. And as a bonus I can look down on all those carbon-polluting Prius drivers.
So the question: will they allow me to use the Tesla battery while parked, or will that kill the battery as surely as my 8-year warranty?
Thanks, samzenpus, but I'm more interested in quarterlies for Honeywell, General Electric, ExxonMobil, Unilever, and Berkshire Hathaway. How about it, sam? Slashdot Finance is off to a weak start with one lousy NASDAQ start-up.
also buying WMDs on credit for the crown royal defense of us from us.. citizen subsidy of bankrupt spiritless million sellers must be better or we'd do something else? http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=public+funded+corpirate+money+wmd+cabal
How can you have a revenue of 731 M$ while producing in the same period about 500 M$ worth of merchandise?
Because Tesla doesn't just make money selling cars. Read their financial statements and they'll detail their sources of revenue. Nothing particularly surprising there. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised to see Tesla end up making a big portion of their revenue manufacturing battery packs and power trains for other auto makers.
I think they can rest easy. Tesla will ABSOLUTELY break ground or not break ground on their new facility next month.
Looking at the spec's: a 60 kWHr battery! With that plugged into my house and an array of photovoltaics on the roof, I can tell the electric authority to go **** themselves. (In Western Australia we pay 26c/kWHr, despite having massive natural gas and coal reserves locally. Plus supply charge.)
Have you checked the prices of solar panels lately? The cost is certainly going down, but they're not cheap.
It's a matter of paying (a lot) now, or paying later (in smaller increments). Most folks don't have many thousands of dollars lying around for the upfront costs, and most folks also don't have the patience to wait out the many, many years it would take for the ROI for them.
At 26c/kWHr though, you'd probably recoup the costs a lot quicker than most. In North American the price is usually less than 15c/kWHr, and so it takes a long time.
What I see is a goddam good time to invest.
I think Tesla is an interesting company but I wouldn't touch their stock with a barge pole at the current price. The market cap of the company is 12X annual revenue. A reasonable revenue multiple is between 1X and 3X annual revenue. Tesla might be a great company but that doesn't make it a great investment at the current price.
How does a rising stock price affect Tesla's profit?
It doesn't directly. What it affects is Tesla's ability to raise investment funds in the future. More specifically their cost of capital. If the stock price goes up, Tesla can raise more money for the same amount of dilution to existing shareholders. A rising stock price generally means a falling cost of capital. It's more complicated than that obviously but the relationship holds as a general principle.
The stock price also tends to correlate strongly with the happiness of the shareholders who are the owners of the company. Rising stock price = happy investors = continued employment for management team.
The Gigafactory that Tesla is building will be majority owned by Panasonic.
That doesn't necessarily mean much. The important question is who owns the IP that is going into the products produced. Coke and Coke Bottling are/were separate companies. Guess which one makes the bigger profits? Apple outsources their actual manufacturing but they own the product produced. Who actually owns the manufacturing is important but it's often not the most important bit.
Given their debt and cumulative losses, it's a risky strategy. There's possibility that they'll run out of people who will loan them money, and then.... they're shut down and out of business. There's also a chance that they'll start making a profit, but insufficient to both pay off the accumulated debt and to attract further investment, stunting future growth. Etc... etc...
There's lots of CEO's that look beyond the next quarter - but none of them own a fully operational crystal ball.
down from last years 1.3M
They will buy 1 and reverse engineer it.
..other cars of a similar price point?
In my mind, a Tesla is a luxury sedan more or less on par with BMW 7 series, Mercedes S550, Lexus LS460.
It'd be interesting to see how sales compare with those cars.
If you are going to make outrageous claims, at least provide a source for them. Otherwise you may not be believed.
How about the bigger number? The one that says far more than how many fools fit on the head of a pin?
Can you say "Pin Head"? Sure you can.
nanoseconds my dear boy, nanoseconds. Get with the times.
Revenue is important, and so are revenue trends, but where is the P/L?
The link that says "earnings statement" is anything but an earnings statement.
If you look at the TOTAL number, then a number of cars are selling more. However, they are around the globe, with long established dealers and makers.
BUT, for sales in the same regions, Tesla is not only outselling them, but in a number of places actually outsells all of them COMBINED.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.