Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Posts Second Profitable Quarter Ever (bgr.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the spare-some-change dept.

anderzole writes from a report via BGR: Tesla on Wednesday posted its earnings report for the quarter gone by and investors will have a lot to cheer about. While analysts on Wall St. were expecting Tesla to post a loss, Tesla during its September quarter actually posted a profit, and an impressive profit at that. When the dust settled, Tesla posted a quarterly profit of $22 million and EPS of $0.71. Revenue for the quarter checked in at $2.3 billion. Illustrating how impressive Tesla's performance was this past quarter, Wall St. was anticipating Tesla to post a loss amid $1.9 billion in revenue for the quarter. As far as deliveries are concerned, Tesla during the quarter boasted that it achieved record vehicle production, deliveries and revenue. More importantly, Tesla reaffirmed via a shareholder letter that the Model 3 is still on track for a late 2017 release. You can read Tesla's shareholder letter here.

136 comments

  1. That is not actually very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To not forecast the profit very accurately, is a sign that the business is not in control.

    1. Re:That is not actually very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      A profit for one quarter where you consolidated revenue and withheld ongoing cost payments isn't that impressive. Keep doing it for consecutive months then call us. Next quarter will be a larger loss than the previous.

    2. Re:That is not actually very good news by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      To not forecast the profit very accurately, is a sign that the business is not in control.

      Of course, businesses are not in control. They're subject to what happens in the world around them, just like everybody else.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:That is not actually very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that the outcome didn't take them by surprise.

      But when looking ahead, you have to plan for the worst.

    4. Re:That is not actually very good news by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      Yes - making and selling more product than you "forecast" and therefore making more profit is a horrible, horrible thing! How dare you piss on the God of Forecast?

    5. Re:That is not actually very good news by khallow · · Score: 2

      To not forecast the profit very accurately, is a sign that the business is not in control.

      What makes you think they didn't forecast the profit accurately? Public guidance is not forecasting and it is traditional to guide low.

    6. Re:That is not actually very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your -> You're.
      Doosh -> Douche.

      Sincerely,
      Spelling Goebbels

    7. Re: That is not actually very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Sinserally.

    8. Re: That is not actually very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was wall st forecasting, not tesla.

    9. Re: That is not actually very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stop complaining it could have been signed

      Sensuously Goebbels

    10. Re:That is not actually very good news by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

      A little bit low!

    11. Re:That is not actually very good news by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was horrible - but it is not what forecasting is supposed to do. Investors have more confidence in a business that is under control.

    12. Re:That is not actually very good news by khallow · · Score: 1

      They are, actually. There's not much difference between the supposed forecast and the reported profit. It's something like $40 million different in profit on $2.3 billion in revenue.

    13. Re:That is not actually very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's a good point.

    14. Re:That is not actually very good news by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Which is why a former employer would let contract workers go for the last couple of months of the year, so it could make its numbers. Then, come January, a lot of those people got brought back. They were really a good choice; they already knew the computer systems they had been working on.

      It's not the best possible thing for *actual* shareholder value, but apparently Wall Street doesn't pay much attention to the actual business, just numbers that relate to the actual business, and calls the numbers derived from them "shareholder value".

      That employer is hardly unique, of course.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    15. Re:That is not actually very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Often, boosting production to meet unexpected demand is more expensive than oversupply, especially when you're looking at big fabs (electronic components, cars, heavy machinery) with a deep production pipeline that needs to be tooled, tested and staffed before anything comes out you can sell.

  2. Three Accountants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A businessman was interviewing accountants he asked each one:
    "What is two and two?"

    The first said, "Four." He wasn't hired because he was honest.

    The second answered, "Five". He wasn't hired because he was incompetent.

    The third said, "Whatever you want it to be." and was hired on the spot.

    1. Re:Three Accountants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong! He hired the one with the biggest tits.

    2. Re:Three Accountants by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      C'mon, Hillary's not a businessperson...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Three Accountants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately for him, that was an overweight 48 year old man named Steve

  3. Wow ! A real company making real things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost makes me feel back in the 00's when companies made real things and added real value and then were rewarded appropriately.

    I have no idea what the hell is going on with the markets anymore. I was honestly expect Tesla stock to drop for *cynical wall st reasons*

    -K

    1. Re:Wow ! A real company making real things... by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Almost makes me feel back in the 00's when companies made real things and added real value and then were rewarded appropriately.

      I have no idea what the hell is going on with the markets anymore. I was honestly expect Tesla stock to drop for *cynical wall st reasons*

      -K

      Back then, it was probably just tech companies still making real things. Everything else had probably already been shipped overseas.
      Of course soon after, it seems like all the big tech companies just spun-off, outsourced, or divested their "actually building products" divisions to transform themselves into nebulous "enterprise solutions providers."

  4. Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Tesla during its September quarter actually posted a profit, and an impressive profit at that. When the dust settled, Tesla posted a quarterly profit of $22 million and EPS of $0.71. Revenue for the quarter checked in at $2.3 billion.

    $22 million profit on 2.3 billion revenues is impressive? I guess by Silicon Valley standards where showing any sort of profit is "impressive".

    1. Re:Impressive? by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In steady state - no. While plowing a large amount of money into massive factories to pump out the next generation of products - absolutely, yes.

    2. Re:Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In steady state - no. While plowing a large amount of money into massive factories to pump out the next generation of products - absolutely, yes.

      While taking money for cars they haven't started producing or buying components for: No.

    3. Re:Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're building out the massive factory with that money: Yes.

    4. Re: Impressive? by orlanz · · Score: 2

      Go back to Accounting 101, that's doesn't add much to "profit".

    5. Re: Impressive? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      How so? It counts as revenue, does it not? It might not help the balance sheet if it's offset by liabilities, but I don't see why it doesn't improve their statement of cash flow.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re: Impressive? by orlanz · · Score: 4, Informative

      It helps for working capital, cash flow, and for usage of cash but isn't recognized as revenue. It would be noted as a liability called Deferred Revenue.

      Upon partial or full delivery, it is partially or fully converted to Revenue. The cost of said delivery would be netted to obtain Profits.

      So if they invested in marketing or gave some sort of paperwork about the contract and those are considered costs for delivery of vehical, then a very small part of that DR can be recognized as Rev. It can be netted against the costs and the minor profit can be recognized.

      There is a little bit of wiggle room here on the business deciding how much of the liability was fulfilled. But it's not much, and all you accomplish is shifting pennies between quarters.

    7. Re:Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that they will remain profitable when they start doing that. Even now they would not have been anywhere near profitable had they not employed every trick in the book (and then some) to appear profitable for one quarter. They needed that to lure new investors in the coming months to fund the Solar City bailout, but they cannot continue doing that indefinitely. Most of the costs postponed in the past quarter have to be paid early in this quarter. If Tesla ever actually starts doing the major investments needed for the production ramp up they have been announcing for a while, they will need a lot of additional cash, much more than any realistic number of interest free loans from Tesla believers who want a Model 3 if and when it ever comes.

    8. Re: Impressive? by shilly · · Score: 1

      Oooh, do tell us about this special world in which margin is evaluable as a free-floating number, without reference to either company growth stage or industry sector.

    9. Re: Impressive? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That's an honest to goodness informative post.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Impressive? by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Uh, Tesla IS making the major investments to ramp up both existing production and getting ready for the Model 3. This is precisely why they've been marginally profitable for so long, they are plowing just about every cent into capital investments. Does anyone even look at the financial statements before spouting off and offering their uninformed opinion?

    11. Re:Impressive? by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      When a loss is expected by literally everyone? Yes. You did read the article right? Or even the single paragraph here?

    12. Re:Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, Tesla IS making the major investments to ramp up both existing production and getting ready for the Model 3.

      Great, which major investments have they made recently? I only know about the new paint shop that has an environmental permit to spray only slightly more cars than the one it has to replace as per that permit.

      This is precisely why they've been marginally profitable for so long

      They have been 'marginally profitable' for exactly one quarter in a row. Before that, they were making a loss every quarter but one, usually even before capital investments.

      Does anyone even look at the financial statements before spouting off and offering their uninformed opinion?

      Sadly, the press is often to lazy and the members of the cult of Musk either repeat the rose-tinted summaries produced by his Elonness or actually read the statements and digest it into what fits their views.

    13. Re:Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which major developments?
      Developing the Model 3
      Expanding the factory to make hundreds of thousands of cars instead of just tens of thousands
      Developing autonomous driving
      Expanding the Supercharger infrastructure

      Is that enough?

    14. Re: Impressive? by nephilimsd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cash flow does not indicate profit. Profit is revenue minus expenses and short term liabilities. Accepting cash for services you are promising in the future will increase your cash flow, it will increase your revenue, but it will also add a new short term liability called "unearned income" (revenue for which you have a future obligation) and your profit will not be impacted by the transaction. Once you start purchasing the materials to satisfy the unearned income, you add expenses (negative cash flow) but remove an equivalent portion of the unearned income until you eventually satisfy the liability and can then report the remainder as profit.

    15. Re:Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I asked for investments that they have already made, not things that they are going to do some time. Claiming that you will do something does not cost a cent, especially if you keep postponing when.

    16. Re:Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who followed the news on Tesla knew that they were making an effort to make this quarter seem profitable for a while.

    17. Re:Impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that different to any other pre-order? Would you gripe about putting a deposit on a house, because you don't get to live in it yet?

  5. fun fact by prof_robinson · · Score: 0

    Tesla doesn't make money by selling cars. They lose almost $7,000 average on each. They make money selling the carbon credits they earn by building the cars. It's a fake market; heavily subsidized.

    1. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Fake Market", just as fake as the absurdly low gasoline tax in the US that promotes the use of gasoline, or the absurdly high subsidies for corn to be grown and then converted into ethenol?

      I'm perfectly fine with industries being subsidized, especially new tech, especially tech that helps with energy independence (for security), especially tech that helps with (yes I know, not "solving") slowing and then stopping carbon emissions, especially tech that has socio-economic potential benefits to society at large and not just the employees and shareholders of a company(s).

      Just admit that you don't like the fact that 19 of the 20 solar companies that the DOE gave grants to succeeded, so you like to grasp onto the one who didn't.

      Just admit that you don't like the fact that a company ran by a guy you don't like is succeeding. I admit my biases, but do you?

    2. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, not true. As a company, they have lost money, and I guess if you divide how much they lost (in previous quarters) by how many cars they sold, you could come up with $7000 loss per car.

      Of course that's false accounting. If they were a mature company, perhaps such calculations would sort of make sense. But Tesla is growing, investing heavily in new factories and expanding current factories.

    3. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tesla doesn't make money by selling cars. They lose almost $7,000 average on each

      Only if you dishonestly count expenses not related to building the cars.

    4. Re:fun fact by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      Tesla doesn't make money by selling cars. They lose almost $7,000 average on each. They make money selling the carbon credits they earn by building the cars. It's a fake market; heavily subsidized.

      Interestingly enough, they still sell cars in other markets where the subsidy you speak of does not exist. And demand still outstripping supply.

      So it is not a fake market, it is a distorted market, (artificially shifted supply curve) but it will still be a market if the subsidy is removed (due to the seemingly inelastic demand curve due to people's desire to own status symbols etc).

    5. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. What is fake is ignoring a whole stack of vitally important negative outcomes (and occasionally positive ones) as "externalities" based on an arbitrary set of rules we call economics. Carbon credit schemes etc are simply an attempt to fix this by retro-fitting externalities into the so-called "real" economy by attaching a monetary value to them.

    6. Re: fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you argue against "economics" and still use the word "externalities"? lmao

    7. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla doesn't make money by selling cars. They lose almost $7,000 average on each. They make money selling the carbon credits they earn by building the cars. It's a fake market; heavily subsidized.

      You don't know what you're talking about.

    8. Re:fun fact by batkiwi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it still a fun fact if it's neither fun nor a fact?

      For the 9 months ending Sep 30 2016, they made $1,150,984,000 (1.1 billion) in revenue selling cars, of which $195,592,000 (0.1 billion) was from ZEV carbon credits.

      In fact, they take OUT the carbon credits from their GAAP reporting numbers (what this article refers to) so that their results aren't skewed.

      It's right there in black and white in the results: http://files.shareholder.com/d...

    9. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you talking to?

    10. Re:fun fact by Alomex · · Score: 2

      This is false. The car industry likes to say as a joke that the first car costs 1 billion to make, and every other car thereafter costs $1,500 in parts and labor. This is so because design and factory tooling are ultra expensive, but once the line is up and running the costs drop precipitously.

      Now, this expression comes from the early 80s, so you need to adjust the figures for inflation, but you get the picture.

      What this means is that it takes years to amortize the cost of car design and factory tooling and only in later years of production do you start making money from each model. Tesla's model S has already amortized it's design costs, but not yet their factory tooling costs as until very recently they were still growing by leaps and bounds their plant to meet enormous demand.

      In the meantime accounting ignoramuses like yourself can get to say that they are losing $7K per car. Nothing further from the truth.

    11. Re:fun fact by runningduck · · Score: 1

      It helps if you understand how to read financial statements instead of just repeating the statements of others who have an ax to grind.

      The per vehicle loss that is often mentioned takes total expenditures minus total revenues and divides by cars sold. While this seems reasonable it does not take into account that much of the expenditures are being invested in growth.

      This is sort of like telling your kid to quit their part-time job because the cost of raising them (feeding, housing, educating, etc.) is too high and your family is losing money on every hour they work. The fact of the matter is that they make money at their part-time independent of the cost of raising them. Kids having a part-time job means they may no longer need an allowance and will help prepare them for a full-time job.

      The fact of the matter is that Tesla earns a healthy margin on every car they sell, but that margin is not sufficient to cover the investments they are making in building factories need to accelerate growth of the company. If Tesla really lost money on every car sold no institutional investor would include Tesla in their portfolios becasue Tesla would have no path profitibaily. Institutional investors know how to read financial statements and are very intersted in Tesla's potential. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/t...

      --
      -rd
    12. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that is how you own someone.

      I think Prof_robinson has a degree from Trump University.

    13. Re:fun fact by prof_robinson · · Score: 0

      It hardly matters where they sell them; it's where they are made that matters. That's where the credits come from. If I get subsidized to build a car in CA, it hardly matters if I sell it in CA or Europe. The subsidy has been given and the manufacturing done...that is the only transaction that matters.

    14. Re:fun fact by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      hahahaha as if the shareholder data isn't skewed to make the shareholders happy with their investment, and attract more of it. These things get complicated once you start factoring in the loans and the credits and the cost curve and the development and the depreciation...but if I make a widget that costs $10, and I sell it for $7, and you give me $5...that doesn't mean that it's a $3 profit, no matter how you juggle the numbers and depreciate the costs and invest in new factories. At the end of the day, you'll just have more factories churning out more cars you have to sell for less than they cost to make.

    15. Re:fun fact by prof_robinson · · Score: 1

      I admit that industries that are subsidized to make a profit are not actually profitable and we should stop pretending that they are, simply so you can feel good about it in the morning. Are you capable of an honest evaluation of reality?

    16. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who listened to the earnings call disagree.

      Automotive gross margin was 25.0% excluding SBC and $139 million of ZEV credit revenue.

    17. Re:fun fact by _merlin · · Score: 1

      I dunno. Tesla seems to be doing pretty well selling to rich people in Shanghai, but electric cars are heavily subsidised there. They're ridiculously expensive in Australia and apparently not very popular.

    18. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are also extremely popular in Norway. It could be because their energy production is 100% hydroelectric so the remaining emissions is from transportation.

    19. Re:fun fact by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      hahahaha as if the shareholder data isn't skewed [...]

      When presented with facts, complaining that the facts are rigged? Fuck off to Infowars or wherever you morons hang out, but STFU here and let the adults have a conversation.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    20. Re:fun fact by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We spent 2 trillion dollars and 4000 lives to protect the oil industry. Heck, overthrowing democratically elected leaders for oil companies is one root cause of the radicalization of the middle east.

      I think I can cut clean solar/electric industries a little slack when i consider what we spend t help the oil industry.

      Their subsidies are buried so deep in the government, they don't even look like subsidies any more.

      But imagine if 5 years from now, Oil demand had dropped another 10% due to electric cars? We'd be a lot less tempted to get involved in foreign entanglements.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    21. Re:fun fact by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Troll

      Awww how cute, a conservative idiot who can't tell the difference between a cleverly poetic way of calling him an idiot and 'namedropping'.

      If you spread bullshit theories that are supported by your ideology but disputed by the actual facts - you must be a conservative. Whether it's creationism, climate-change-denial, tax cuts for the rich, the relationship between gun-laws and mass shootings, the impact of race on police shootings, what REALLY happens when you deregulate things, how to get the best healthcare outcomes for the lowest investment, which race is most likely to kill each other (hint: it's white people, white-on-white murder outstrips all other races by a huge margin), what things actually cost (so they want to cut or avoid things for having a high price despite those things having a NEGATIVE cost [the ROI is higher than the price] and they end up actually cutting revenues when they attempt to cut costs - as with UBI and single payer healthcare), or how a company that is successfully doing something the company's they like told them can't be one is actually making it's money... if you do all that, you must be a conservative.

      Which is not to say that there aren't bullshitters and idiots on the left - Jill Stein sadly has gone full retard this year for example, but at least there it's a fringe group - not the fucking party platform !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    22. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make money selling cars, they just lose what they make thanks to R&D and CapEx. And that's before counting the carbon credits (ZEV credits) you speak of, which help offset the losses from R&D and CapEx. What you're saying is a little misleading.

      Source (an article on their Q3 statement):
      Tesla’s Q3 gross margin was 27.7%, up from 21.6% during Q2. That’s without ZEV credits.

    23. Re:fun fact by svirre · · Score: 1

      Well, no they are hugely popular due to beeing excempt from VAT and tax, they are allowed to drive in the bus lane, are allowed free parking in public parking spaces and are exempt from toll charges. For somone who drives 20000 miles annually including through Oslo on a daily basis a tesla model S can be cheaper than a skoda octavia here. The cost of energy (Wether it is gasoline or electricity) is very minor compared to other charges

    24. Re:fun fact by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      "Fake Market", just as fake as the absurdly low gasoline tax in the US that promotes the use of gasoline, or the absurdly high subsidies for corn to be grown and then converted into ethenol?

      OK, subsidies I get - those are fake. The Government is artificially covering the costs of something to make it cheaper to buy. But a fake market from taxes? What - the Government is not adding enough EXTRA costs to slow down the market? Adding a cost doesn't make something more attractive to buy...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    25. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if I make a widget that costs $10, and I sell it for $7, and you give me $5...that doesn't mean that it's a $3 profit

      Inapt analogy for Tesla.

      A better one would be, I make a widget that costs $10, I sell it for $13. But, my company is investing in upgrading our widget making tools for another $10, and you've given me $5 to help out with the costs... So on the making and selling of the widget (gross margin), I have a profit of $3, but as a whole the company has a net loss of $2 because of R&D and CapEx.

    26. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla doesn't make money by selling cars. They lose almost $7,000 average on each. They make money selling the carbon credits they earn by building the cars. It's a fake market; heavily subsidized.

      Just like the $50-100 BILLION a year the US Government spends on "protecting" Middle East oil supplies, yes?

    27. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We spent 2 trillion dollars and 4000 lives to protect the oil industry. Heck, overthrowing democratically elected leaders for oil companies is one root cause of the radicalization of the middle east.

      I think I can cut clean solar/electric industries a little slack when i consider what we spend t help the oil industry.

      Their subsidies are buried so deep in the government, they don't even look like subsidies any more.

      But imagine if 5 years from now, Oil demand had dropped another 10% due to electric cars? We'd be a lot less tempted to get involved in foreign entanglements.

      Your figures are wrong - multiply that 2 trillion number by 4 and you'll get the cost of military operations in the Middle East since the Oil Crisis.

      Oil dependence has been a disaster for the United States.

    28. Re:fun fact by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Yes, more or less. Gasoline is not taxed NEAR enough to cover all the hidden costs associated with using it. Electric cars would be more attractive and need less subsidy if gasoline cars were paying enough fuel tax to cover all the things government does to provide hydrocarbon fuels. Some time ago a left-leaning publication had an interesting article stating EU taxes on fuel were TOO LOW and they really needed to be sending $1 a gallon to the USA to cover some of the cost of keeping the sea lanes open for oil imports to the EU.

    29. Re:fun fact by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      I bet you can't provide a single shred of proof to either of those claims.

    30. Re:fun fact by chispito · · Score: 1

      We spent 2 trillion dollars and 4000 lives to protect the oil industry.

      I think the cost of US policy in the Middle East over the last half century is much higher.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    31. Re:fun fact by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I know lots of people that would like to have a Tesla. Not a single one because it's a status symbol. People who want status symbols want something that looks flashier and growls. People want Teslas because they are tech geeks, and it's an early taste of the cars f the future.

    32. Re:fun fact by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What a turd. Faced with the facts that prove his claim completely wrong, he calls the facts lies.

    33. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know lots of people that would like to have a Tesla. Not a single one because it's a status symbol. People who want status symbols want something that looks flashier and growls.

      Like it or not, for many people a Tesla is a status symbol. It brands them as 'environmentally conscious'.

      People want Teslas because they are tech geeks, and it's an early taste of the cars f the future.

      I vehemently hope that cars of the future will be a lot more reliable and better built than Teslas.

    34. Re:fun fact by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I know right? And if we didn't NEED the oil, the knockon effects would be tremendous.

      The price of oil would plummet.
      The funding backing terrorists would plummet.
      We would lose interest in fighting over it.

      Sure- oil will continue to be a valuable resource indefinately, but no more so than other resources like iron, aluminum, and copper.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    35. Re:fun fact by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I know lots of people that would like to have a Tesla. Not a single one because it's a status symbol

      Yeah, I want one and not because it's a status symbol.

      It's because I could sell it and buy a house instead.

    36. Re:fun fact by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      An AC said:

      Your figures are wrong - multiply that 2 trillion number by 4 and you'll get the cost of military operations in the Middle East since the Oil Crisis.

      Oil dependence has been a disaster for the United States.

      ---

      I couldn't agree more but I was focusing ONLY on the most recent waste of lives and taxpayer dollars.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    37. Re:fun fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is typical of those who are into a cult. The Cult of Musk is no exception.

    38. Re:fun fact by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Is it still a fun fact if it's neither fun nor a fact?

      For the 9 months ending Sep 30 2016, they made $1,150,984,000 (1.1 billion) in revenue selling cars, of which $195,592,000 (0.1 billion) was from ZEV carbon credits.

      You may wish to review basic mathematics. $1,150,984,000 rounds to $1.2 billion, $195,592,000 rounds to $0.2 billion.

    39. Re:fun fact by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      I was truncating out of laziness, not rounding, but you are correct. Thanks!

    40. Re:fun fact by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Not that it matters - the difference in precision does not reduce your argument's overall validity.

  6. Grid Scale Batteries by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Letter also indicates they installed a 20MW/80MWh battery at SCE's Mira Loma substation. (I think there is a 100 MW gas peaking plant there too though...)

    Would be impressive if it wasn't for the fact that Edison was the only place I ever saw Solyndra solar cells before. (Looking at the installation, no wonder they went bankrupt...)

    1. Re:Grid Scale Batteries by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Solyndra was a bet that silicon prices would remain high. It was a way to get more power out of less silicon. The bet was wrong. With the drop in price in silicon, their death was inevitable. They also had a weird design decision, going for the concentrator. It made sense (in the economics of the time) to go for either concentrators or CIGS, but not both.

      That said, the government took way too much flak - politically motivated - over Solyndra. With any diverse profile of startup investments, you expect some to fail. Economists analyzing the ARRA post-facto have been by and large given it quite positive evaluations for its effects on the economy. The loans program office had already wiped out the Solyndra loss just two years later.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    2. Re:Grid Scale Batteries by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The problem with the Solyndra system I saw was the white roof was a dark grey due to dirt and dust, and it had been washed down a few days before our visit. Agree on the political aspect... but I think they were so screwed up that success was never likely.

    3. Re:Grid Scale Batteries by gander666 · · Score: 2

      Bingo. When Solyndra was formed (and to be honest, my company at the time made process equipment for CIGS deposition), solar grade polysilicon was in short supply, and was spiking in price to almost $600 per Kg. Investment in thin film amorphous silicon cells (Applied Materials and Oerlikon bet heavily here too) and CIGS (CuInGaSe) cells as the solution. Until the wild growth of the solar cell industry, spot prices for polysilicon was ~$30 - $50 Kg (from memory, all sites that have historical data seem to demand a subscription to access it).

      Of course, making CIGS cells was difficult. Extremely difficult. The deposition processes are tricky, and even small variances in the composition cause great fluctuation of efficiencies. There were probably 100 players chasing the CIGS dream, including 10 or so well funded players. But at the same time, the foundries who had the ability to tool up for producing crystalline silicon saw the $600 per Kg with dollar signs (or, more accurately renminbi signs) in their eyes, and began building capacity.

      Starting in 2011, much of this new capacity was coming online, and prices for polysilicon ingots plummeted. Today it is around $26 - $30 per Kg, really close to the price needed for the magical $1/W for a solar installation. Solyndra went tits up, Applied Materials and Oerlikon left the business (I have some interesting stories there as well) and the world is dominated by panels made in China.

      Fun fact, in 2008, QCells, a German company was the number one producer of solar panels. Before that Japan's Sharp was #1, now most of the top 10 are Chinese companies.

      Solyndra was a bet, a bet that Silicon prices would remain high, but in hindsight, a foolish bet for depending on a source raw material that can be refined from beach sand.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
    4. Re:Grid Scale Batteries by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      The loans program office had already wiped out the Solyndra loss just two years later.

      The loan program was actually profitable for the government.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:Grid Scale Batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solyndra investment was made, over the objection of the DoE, to pay back a large Obama campaign funds aggregator. He was under water on his investment and called in the chit with the DNC.
      It would be a 'conspiracy theory' if there were not SO many other similar actions from Hillary and Obama in the past 8 years.

  7. 1% by wisnoskij · · Score: 0

    Wow, less than a 1% return on investments. Hell, I make several times that in my investments.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:1% by InfiniteBlaze · · Score: 2

      And how old are the funds in which you invest? Most are older than Tesla, I'd imagine. Give 'em a few years. There will be a tipping point soon, and they've got a good position to take advantage.

    2. Re:1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely missing the point of Tesla right here.

    3. Re:1% by Rei · · Score: 1

      Are your investments undergoing literally exponential production and sales curves? Are you unaware that scaleup costs tremendous amounts of money?

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    4. Re:1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck yeah. In my book you're several times more impressive Elon Musk.
      You go girl!

    5. Re:1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla's "sales curves" are pretty far from "exponential", although their cars do seem to cost "tremendous amounts of moneys" to make, Mr. Trump.

    6. Re:1% by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Tesla sales curves are growing at a factor of 1.5x annually, which is the definition of exponential.

      However this will no longer be the case when they ship the Model 3 in late 2017, since at that point sales are expected to grow by a factor of 2x for a couple of years.

    7. Re:1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teslas costs may be rising exponentially, but their sales and production numbers sure aren't. Tesla is (generally) unprofitable because its production is inefficient and its overhead is large, not because of R&D spending or production investments, which are small compared to those of the more established car manufacturers.

    8. Re:1% by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      No; exponential growth means that the growth rate increases as the sales base increases. "...growing at a factor of 1.5x annually" implies a steady, not exponential, growth rate.

    9. Re:1% by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Dude, check wikipedia:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      For this case we have r=0.5

    10. Re:1% by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Your stated formula was 1.5x , which is a linear formula - there are no exponents. Are you using a different formula now?

    11. Re:1% by Alomex · · Score: 1

      1.5x every year. So first year your sales are 1.5x, next year they are 1.5 * 1.5 = 1.5^2.

      The year after is 1.5 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 1.5^3

      In year n, your sales are 1.5^n

      That's how growing sales by a factor of 1.5x every year is exponential growth.

    12. Re:1% by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

  8. The real story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Tesla changes their accounting methods. Dumb money is excited that TSLA is profitable. Smart money has no idea what to make of these numbers but know something smells musky.

    As far as I can tell (Yes, I am a forensic accountant) they sold a lot of now-obsolete cars at a big discount and did some other tricks to prop up sales and push Q4 revenue into Q3, Q3 expenses into Q4, etc.

    Now, it really doesn't matter if they're profitable or not because they have plenty of money in the bank and $22 million is a rounding error. Except Tesla is trying to buy Solar City. Why? Basically to bail out Elon Musk since Solar City is a turd circling the drain and Elon has a lot of money tied up in it (directly and indirectly through his other company, Space X). A lot of Tesla stock holders recognize this shit for what it is. But if Tesla can eek out a profit, dumb money thinks Elon is a fucking genius and let him buy up Solar City.

    1. Re:The real story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the reason musk is doing this now is because he is fast running out of cash(with rocket explosions and all).

      how is it for the past year? quite a loss actually. and that was already with questionable accounting.

      also $860 million of stock was sold by insiders in past 12 months who should know if it is in a healthy state or not.

    2. Re:The real story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart money has Tesla stock short on 31% of float. That is a huge percentage for such a high market value company. From my experience, they are almost always right. Whatever you think the longer term payoff might be, now is not the time to invest.

    3. Re:The real story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is happening to this site?

      *Apple posts loss* /. posters like OP: oh dont worry theyre fine tim will save us all. btw wheres my iphone 8

      *Tesla posts profit* /. posters like OP: THEYRE OBVIOUSLY COOKING THE BOOKS LOL MUSK SUX

      What a strange world we live in.

    4. Re:The real story: by minogully · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell (Yes, I am a forensic accountant) they sold a lot of now-obsolete cars at a big discount and did some other tricks to prop up sales and push Q4 revenue into Q3, Q3 expenses into Q4, etc.

      From electrek reporting on the Q3 Statement:

      The automaker disclosed that it expects to also be profitable next quarter

      If Tesla's right about Q4, and your theory on changing their accounting methods is correct, then they would have had to pull next year's Q1 revenue back to Q3+Q4 and/or push Q3+Q4's expenses to next year. Your theory is appearing unlikely. Or perhaps you're wrong and they're actually just making money.

    5. Re:The real story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's revenue and profits were less than anticipated (and less than same quarter last year) but they were still making money hand over fist.

    6. Re:The real story: by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Glad you pointed to the proof of this. Oh wait...

  9. Re:More phony accounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like Mr. MUST (as in mold)

  10. Re:More phony accounting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weren't you guys around last quarter saying they'll never make a profit?

  11. Meh, if it gets me clean air by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and the end of smog days I'll take it. Namby-pamby environmentalism is all well and good, and I'm all for doing something about climate change; but I think the tree huggers distract too much from immediate environmental concerns like clean air and water.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Meh, if it gets me clean air by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Even more directly, it'd be nice to be able to walk along a city street without being smothered in exhaust fumes and deafened by ICE noise. Unfortunately that's several decades away still.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  12. Just want to point out by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tesla changes their accounting methods. Dumb money is excited that TSLA is profitable. Smart money has no idea what to make of these numbers but know something smells musky.

    As far as I can tell (Yes, I am a forensic accountant) they sold a lot of now-obsolete cars at a big discount and did some other tricks to prop up sales and push Q4 revenue into Q3, Q3 expenses into Q4, etc.

    Now, it really doesn't matter if they're profitable or not because they have plenty of money in the bank and $22 million is a rounding error. Except Tesla is trying to buy Solar City. Why? Basically to bail out Elon Musk since Solar City is a turd circling the drain and Elon has a lot of money tied up in it (directly and indirectly through his other company, Space X). A lot of Tesla stock holders recognize this shit for what it is. But if Tesla can eek out a profit, dumb money thinks Elon is a fucking genius and let him buy up Solar City.

    I just want to point out that the OP is:

    1) Claiming to be a forensic accountant
    2) online
    3) as AC.
    4) Framing his position in emotional terms (dumb money, smart money)
    5) While showing no specifics. (Tesla changed accounting methods? Using nebulously-defined "tricks"?)
    6) For a company whose analysis is largely partisan.

    I don't know why people bother reading up on Tesla, news and analysis is all over the map. Price points from $150 to $400 per share, negative/positive outlooks, baldfaced lies about specs, dangers, and recalls, and all absolutely certain of their analysis.

    It's almost as if there are large groups of people who would personally benefit from Tesla's success or failure, and who are willing to lie and mislead to bring about that result.

    1. Re:Just want to point out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can throw ad hominems at GP all you want, but none of that changes anything about the fact that Tesla has artificially made a profit this quarter by moving sales into it and expenses out of it and would have made a loss otherwise.

      It's almost as if there are large groups of people who would personally benefit from Tesla's success or failure, and who are willing to lie and mislead to bring about that result.

      There are plenty of those, including Mr Musk himself, but interestingly, there is also a whole army of cult followers who will defend Tesla and spread misleading information and lies to support it without any personal interest. Every time someone on the Internet writes something level headed about the company with the world's most overvalued stock, people come in to cast doubt on the credibility of the messenger and claiming she/he would personally profit from spreading a more sane view on the finances and the future viability of Tesla or other parts for Musk's empire. Even Musk himself is not above this. He has attacked journalists multiple times.

    2. Re:Just want to point out by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Nobody knows what to make of them. Car reviewers don't know how to review electric vehicles, and end up making cringe-worthy statements or obvious n00b mistakes while not presenting any of the really valuable information buyers need as a result. The markets are the same, e.g. no other mass market car company has ever sold so many pre-orders so far from production and before a finished model has even been shown, and they don't know how to value it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Just want to point out by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I remember people saying the same things about AAPL all the way up to them being the world's most valuable tech stock.

    4. Re:Just want to point out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I don't. Apple wasn't hyped by the media until it actually became successful. Most of the criticism by people who haven't drunk the Tesla Kool-Aid was never applicable to Apple.

    5. Re:Just want to point out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People buying into a hype. That's all there is to it.

  13. Well let's be clear by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    Amazon still hasn't had one.
    So I would advice backing SpaceX over whatever Bezos's rocket company is called.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    1. Re:Well let's be clear by swillden · · Score: 2

      Amazon still hasn't had one.

      Huh? Amazon has had many profitable quarters. It's had five straight and the next quarterly report (to be announced today) is expected to show a profit as well.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  14. I think they missed the word "most"... idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As in "MOST profitable year ever"...

    "Tesla Posts Second Profitable Quarter Ever" doesn't mean anything... American idiots.

    1. Re:I think they missed the word "most"... idiots by Stickybombs · · Score: 1

      No...it is the second quarter, EVER, in which Tesla reported a profit. They don't mean second "most" profitable, they mean the second with any profit at all.

  15. GAAP compliant profit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that an ACTUAL profit, including all the stock option expenses and 'buy back after 36 months' liability they're incurring? Or a fake Hollywood style profit, to bump up the share price before the next inevitable funding round dilutes it again.

  16. backlash by prof_robinson · · Score: 0

    I am amazed at the responses to my post about Tesla making more money off carbon credits than selling cars. I have gotten more responses to this simple fact than virtually anything else I have ever posted on Slashdot, ever. Which leads me to ask one simple question: why? What is it about Tesla that it is such a sacred cow, that no one can point out the elephant in the room? It's *just* a corporation. I like Teslas, and like electric cars...I just believe the battery technology isn't really there yet. I like Musk, and his space programs. I'd love to go to Mars. But what is so special about this car that everyone needs to bend over backwards to "adjust reality" to make it work? Despite all the fancy talk about amortization and depreciation and investments in new factories and pushing costs into different years and accounting gimmicks, the fundamental truth never changes: if there were no carbon credits, there would be no "success". And since carbon credits are essentially a fantasy - this is all smoke and mirrors. It's really that simple. Call me when an electric car company can make a car that can compete with all the other cars in the market fairly, and doesn't need fantasy credits and subsidies to make the math work. Is that too much to ask?

    1. Re:backlash by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should ask Consumer Reports who rated it the best car they have ever tested and recommend you buy one?

    2. Re:backlash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...before they discovered just how shoddy it is put together and how many flaws there are in the perennial beta software. Then, they wisely retracted their recommendation.

    3. Re:backlash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can this be modded -1? Whether facts posted in a message are compatible with one's religion shold not be a moderation criterion.

    4. Re:backlash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can this be modded -1?

      It wasn't moderated at all. The user posts at -1 now, due to excessive trolling and flaming here on slashdot. He's now attempting to karma-whore his way back up to a civilized 0 or a respectable +1 before he goes off on another barrage of angry and fact-free tirades.

      For more information read up on slashdot karma and how it impacts the starting scores of posts.

    5. Re:backlash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see. In this thread he seems to be pretty spot-on, though, while some of the Tesla fanboy trolls have received high marks for obvious lies and nonsense. It still seems there is a bit of partial moderation going on...

    6. Re:backlash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's factual - for a change - in this thread to build up his karma so he won't post at -1. it's called karma-whoring in these parts. he has dug himself a big hole with a history of flaming and trolling so this discussion on its own almost certainly won't be enough.

  17. Just like... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Of course, businesses are not in control. They're subject to what happens in the world around them, just like everybody else.

    ...which they drive with envelopes filled with money delivered to congresscritters. Just like everyone else can.

    Oh.

    Wait...

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  18. You're in truffle now... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    More like Mr. MUST (as in mold)

    Always trying to cap someone. What does your angst stem from, you spoor fellow? Lichen or not, you're looking a little green around the gills these days.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.