Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Posts 13th Straight Loss, Says On Track For Second-Half Deliveries (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Tesla Motors Inc reported its 13th straight quarterly loss as a rise in sales of its Model S and Model X electric cars failed to make up for the huge cost of ramping up production. The company, run by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Elon Musk, said on Wednesday it was on track to deliver about 50,000 new Model S and Model X vehicles during the second half of 2016. Shares of Tesla, which has offered to buy solar panel installer SolarCity Corp for $2.6 billion, were volatile in after-hours trading. They were last up 1 percent. Tesla delivered 14,402 vehicles in the second quarter, missing its goal of 17,000. It delivered 14,810 vehicles in the first quarter, which was also less than its expectations. Tesla said its net loss widened to $293.2 million, or $2.09 per share, in the second quarter, from $184.2 million, or $1.45 per share, a year earlier. Total revenue rose 33 percent to $1.27 billion in the quarter ended June 30. In addition to acquiring SolarCity, Tesla has unveiled its massive $5 billion Gigafactory in Nevada last week and announced its "Master Plan, Part Deux" not too long before that, which includes manufacturing electric trucks and buses, as well as a ride-sharing program.
And when Tesla announces a model at a price people do want, they do 325,000 pre-orders in a week. At $1000 per, that is $325M in deposits in a week.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/7/11385146/tesla-model-3-preorders-375000-elon-musk
So the truth is there is a demand for a low cost Tesla, now we wait and see if Elon and Co can deliver.
The truth of the matter is that at the prices they're being sold for, most people want a Ford or GM far more than they want a Tesla.
Early adopter costs are high. Then, production of commodity items ramps up and they're sold at a more reasonable price. There are intermediate steps along the way with progressively larger prouction, lower cost, less flashy models.
This isn't just a modern high-tech phenomenon. The internal combustion automobiles went through it, too. They started as rich-people's playthings/status symbols and worked down through things like country-doctor housecall vehicles before Ford's commodity "A" and "T" vehicles put them within reach of the mass of the population. Why should new-tech battery-electric cars be any different?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Yes, but as an anonymous coward, you are nobody in particular.
And when Tesla announces a model at a price people do want, they do 325,000 pre-orders in a week.
Yes, sort of. Tesla announces a free car because there is absolutely zero commitment to buy the car. That free price is pivotable. Who know how many people would have put down a non-refundable $1000 deposit. The number of pre-orders would have been lower, and probably much lower.
That's not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme promises great immediate returns, and uses investors money to pay off other investors to fool people into thinking they are. Nobody is buying into Tesla to make a quick buck. I doubt people invested large sums because they expected every car to be electric by 2020.
They are sold at a loss because it takes continued R&D to bring the costs down. To short sighted people like yourself, R&D is a considered a waste of money. However refining the world's most advanced car manufacturing plant, developing and integrating the software and battery technologies, all takes time and money. In the mean time building up a significant patent portfolio. See the sale of the patent portfolios of Motorola or Nokia to see how much this can be worth.
Starting from scratch is expensive. We all hope they can make it. Mobile phones were sold at a loss for a long time after they came out, but I wouldn't like to be without mine now.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France