Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Posts Earnings Loss But Claims Model 3 Production Will Start In July (bgr.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader shares a report from BGR: Tesla on Wednesday released its earnings report (PDF) for the company's recent fourth quarter. When the dust settled, Tesla posted revenue of $2.28 billion and a loss of 69 cents per share. By way of contrast, Tesla during the same quarter a year-ago posted a loss of $0.87 per share on the back of $1.75 billion in revenue. Notably, Tesla notes that its cumulative 2016 revenue checked in at $7 billion, a 73% increase from 2015. As far as the Model 3 is concerned, Tesla's press release relays that the company is still on track to begin production in July ahead of volume production in September.

Tesla notes in its press release: "Our Model 3 program is on track to start limited vehicle production in July and to steadily ramp production to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in the fourth quarter and 10,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2018. To support accelerating vehicle deliveries and maintain our industry-leading customer satisfaction, we are expanding our retail, Supercharger, and service functions. Model 3 vehicle development, supply chain and manufacturing are on track to support volume deliveries in the second half of 2017. In early February, we began building Model 3 prototypes as part of our ongoing testing of the vehicle design and manufacturing processes. Initial crash test results have been positive, and all Model 3-related sourcing is on plan to support the start of production in July. Installation of Model 3 manufacturing equipment is underway in Fremont and at Gigafactory 1, where in January, we began production of battery cells for energy storage products, which have the same form-factor as the cells that will be used in Model 3."

36 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Apples for apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why can't the article post $xx revenue and $$yy loss. It's much easier to read than adding in the less helpful EPS.

    1. Re:Apples for apples by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      $0.69 per share, about 140 million shares, so it was another $100 million loss. Still burning nearly half a billion per year.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Apples for apples by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      You obviously have no understanding of how business tax deductions work. Companies can be generating huge profits and by some miracle of mathematics declare tax losses (the mathematics being the numbers surrounding campaign donations). Tax depreciation of capital assets is one of those vehicles of tax minimisation for some (the bulk of workers get zip). So before any claims of burning through money you have to look at EBITDA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (from that you can tell how a company is really doing). Excluding of course funky stuff like offshore income shifting and grossly inflated executive salaries and even profitability weirdness versus profit (generating extra debt to make a company look more profitable whilst actually generating less profit).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Apples for apples by SallyBowls · · Score: 1

      Except for investors, earnings per share is far, far more important than earnings. The price of a share of stock is very strongly related to the EPS and has almost nothing to do with earnings.

    4. Re:Apples for apples by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Previous quarter was $130 million in loss. One cannot extrapolate a single quarter to an entire year, especially when there is data for those previous quarters.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Apples for apples by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hi there, I've founded and run - and sold! - several businesses in the US, just did another one. I know how tax deductions work. And I know, too, that if you lose money at the end of the day you don't have to pay income taxes. But you still LOST MONEY. Paying tax means you made a profit; not paying tax means you didn't make a profit. Currently Tesla is spending more than it's bringing in, so it loses money. You don't make "profit" tha way...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  2. Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All this earnings losses doesn't mean anything to a expanding company like Tesla. Do we really want them to stall their growth just to be little bit profitable? They have the advantage with big car companies dragging their feet. They have to do everything they can to gain marketshare now before others catch up.

    There was a big stink about Amazon during the late 90s and early 00s about how they are posting losses. Where are all those shortsighted investors now.

    1. Re:Meaningless by zr · · Score: 1

      Where are all those shortsighted investors now.

      busy making dire predictions about tesla

    2. Re:Meaningless by Gordo_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The list of Tesla's enemies is long. It's very difficult to find a dispassionate analysis of their situation because you have several state governments, possibly the federal government (with it's anti-EPA EPA chief), dozens of state automobile dealership associations, the Big 3 automakers, practically the entire oil and gas industry, hydrogen fuel cell purveyors, wall street short sellers and generally a chunk of uninformed alt-right types -- all with vested interests in seeing it fail.

      Then you have those who believe that the stock is already worth buying at practically any multiple, Musk can make no mistakes and builds golden space chariots.

      The reality is they have a big set of tasks ahead of them, and they've made their share of mistakes along the way, but on the big items, they've proven themselves several times over. Long-term, I think they're in pretty good shape, assuming they can achieve volume manufacturing of the Model 3 (~5k cars per week) within the next 12 months.

      At this point in its history, anyone offering unqualified strongly positive or negative sentiment regarding Tesla's position have vested interests in play or else are simply trolls not to be taken seriously.

    3. Re:Meaningless by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Its called free market capitalism for ya'll socialists out there.

      IE, "real life capitalism" as opposed to the idealized invisible-hand, enlightened-consumer sort of capitalism you'll hear about in business schools.

  3. Staggering disinformation by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All this earnings losses doesn't mean anything to a expanding company like Tesla. Do we really want them to stall their growth just to be little bit profitable? They have the advantage with big car companies dragging their feet. They have to do everything they can to gain marketshare now before others catch up.

    There was a big stink about Amazon during the late 90s and early 00s about how they are posting losses. Where are all those shortsighted investors now.

    The amount of Tesla disinformation in the financial news is staggering.

    I read an article three weeks ago that said that 38% of Tesla stock was shorted, with a due date a couple of weeks from then. I then read another mainstream financial media was reporting that Tesla was expected to hit zero by the middle of the summer, and you should sell your stock right now!

    Sure enough, Tesla inked a deal to sell electric cars to the middle East, and its stock jumped 10% on that news and has held relatively steady.

    One financial news report suggests to sell your Tesla stock and take the profits and invest in Twitter. Of course, Twitter has yet to make a profit and no *clear* way to do so, but hey... Tesla will be burning through cash and be bankrupt real soon now - take your profits out of Tesla and run!

    I think there's a lot of "self interested" reporting going on. Most analysts want to bring Tesla down because a) they've bet heavily on the stock dropping, or b) have clients who would benefit from the stock dropping, or c) have clients heavily invested in oil and natural gas.

    Tesla has been laying a firm foundation on which to build its future, and is posed to dominate a very big section of the economy. It shows every indication of being the next Microsoft or Apple.

    If only those pesky financial analysts would stop and look at it objectively.

    1. Re:Staggering disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Financial news is just a way to manipulate the market.

    2. Re:Staggering disinformation by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I read an article three weeks ago that said that 38% of Tesla stock was shorted, with a due date a couple of weeks from then. I then read another mainstream financial media was reporting that Tesla was expected to hit zero by the middle of the summer, and you should sell your stock right now!

      $TSLA typically had a very large short interest. During the recent quarter that interest, while still not small, has dropped sharply, meaning shorts were capitulating and buying stock/options to cover their short position. That has been a significant part of the reason for the surge in the stock's price.

      When stocks have a large short interest, "dire warning" articles like the one you read are often an indication that some short wants to get out at a better price, and is hoping such an article will give them a few dollars of dip in the price. Journalists always need something to write about, and so it's easy to feed them juicy tidbits that will get the clicks.

    3. Re:Staggering disinformation by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      They don't lie you say. What about Enron? In Teslas case the 10-k shows them operating at a loss. This is fine in the right circumstances, which I wager it is here. As opposed to other situations like Enron where all looked great - on paper.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:Staggering disinformation by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      I don't see how that relates to what I wrote and the context of the thread. I have no position in $TSLA. I have no opinion and no idea if the company is going to succeed or fail.

  4. not surprised by deconvolution · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Owned a Tesla X for a couple of months.

    It has many nice features that other cars should catch up.

    However, it also has tons of issues. As a car manufacturer and dealer, I feel that their service level is below the industry average. Any main stream car dealers have more professional on servicing its customer.

    And, everything to this car is way more expensive than others. And body collision, even small will cost you $5K+ ~ $10K.

    Musk spent too much time on other things. He needs more focus on this factory.

    1. Re:not surprised by geekmux · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And, everything to this car is way more expensive than others. And body collision, even small will cost you $5K+ ~ $10K.

      This is a car that retails for $100 - $150K. Feel free to compare those repair costs to any other car in that same price range.

      You're sure as shit not shopping at Walmart to do body work on a Porsche 911...

    2. Re:not surprised by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You picked one known lemon and generalised over the company. Then you claim an issue would be solved by CEO micro management.

      Can you please list all the stock options you own? I think shorting the companies you invest in will be a sound financial decision.

    3. Re:not surprised by merky1 · · Score: 1

      As someone who evaluated an X vs the competition, the Tesla Model X is a broken car. Too much focus on glitchy, unworkable systems. Take the gas v. electric discussion out of the equation, the Model X just drives horribly for most people. Not to mention the amount of "bugs" (door opening issues, sun visor) I ran into just looking into the feasibility of owning one was very off putting.

      If they stripped 90% of the crap out of the car and focused on the drivetrain it would be a different story. But it seems that they have fallen into an "experience" trap, and have driven away a large segment of the population that could care less about an technology based everything.

      But your right, complaining about the costs of any 100K+ car is self defeating. Scratch a Jagaurus...

      --
      --WooooHoooo--
    4. Re:not surprised by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I've heard similar stories from Tesla X owners. However I have also heard it from owners of other cars, especially when it's the first run of a new model. Volvos with transmission problems. BMWs with tons of small but annoying electrical issues. Leaky Audis. And so on. But yeah, I would sooner buy an S than an X. Or another Jag, we had to sell our lovely '99 XJ, what an incredible drive that was... Silky-smooth 8 cylinders, a body from before the invention of aerodynamics. And cup holders designed for whisky tumblers...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:not surprised by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Owning an early Model S and to an only slightly lesser extent a Model X is being a beta tester, to a much greater extent than other manufacturers who have more experience and existing platforms to build on.

      The Model 3 won't come to the UK before next year anyway, so I'm looking at the end of 2018 to pick one up after they work all the bugs out.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:not surprised by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If they stripped 90% of the crap out of the car and focused on the drivetrain it would be a different story. But it seems that they have fallen into an "experience" trap, and have driven away a large segment of the population that could care less about an technology based everything.

      I'd say a $100K price tag is what drove away a large segment of the population, which is why they're looking to sell a stripped-down $35K model. Given the insane popularity of the "gadget" market today, people love technology based everything.

    7. Re:not surprised by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And, everything to this car is way more expensive than others. And body collision, even small will cost you $5K+ ~ $10K.

      Well, no. You're just new. Honda made the first production car with body repair bills like that, the NSX. It was the first production vehicle with an all-aluminum unibody. I have an Audi A8, which is in exactly the same boat. It's from 1997. Get with the times, youngster.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:not surprised by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      The Model 3 won't come to the UK before next year anyway, so I'm looking at the end of 2018 to pick one up after they work all the bugs out.

      I'm doing the same thing. I'm actually thinking 2019-2020 to get a model 3, specifically because of what you said: Tesla seems to have a lot of problems building a car with good reliability. I tend to like sporty cars that are very reliable (Toyota MR2, Subaru STi). I anticipate a lot of problems with early Model 3s, but am hopeful that Tesla will fairly quickly figure out the problem areas and address them. I already have an electric car, but look forward to one with greater range. A fast 0-60 would be nice. I'm figuring I'm going to have to spend between $50K-70K to get what I want... but I want to be sure it'll be reliable (and that Tesla will be around to fix it when it breaks).

    9. Re:not surprised by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you are going to spend that much then buying a used Model S through Tesla might not be a bad option.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:not surprised by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      Yes, I had thought about that, but I like smaller cars (MR2, STi) and the Model S is a huge car. The Model 3 is just about the size I'm looking for... BMW 300 series size, not Lincoln Continental Ocean Liner ;-) And besides, I'm assuming Tesla will be charging that much for the Ludicrous version with maximum range...

    11. Re:not surprised by deconvolution · · Score: 1

      I am a big fan of electric cars but not the big fan of Tesla ever, so invest nothing to TESLA. The 7 seaters with practical drive range is the main attraction to me.

      However, other experiences is not that good.

  5. After Hours by Jack+Kolesar · · Score: 2

    After hours is up 1.5% so the market appears to have taken it as a net positive. All you really need to know. TSLA has already gained substantially in the past month or so.

  6. Re:I know where the money goes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He's boring a hole to bury it next to SpaceX..

    FTFY

  7. And... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    10-K's don't lie. Just sayin!

    And what do the ones from Tesla say?

    Help me out. How should I, as a smart investor, interpret Tesla's most recent annual report?

    1. Re:And... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I don't know, Tesla currently has over 11 billion dollars in preorders (325,000 model 3 pre-orders x $34,000 adjusted list price), it seems like that's more solid than most companies' projections of future earnings.

    2. Re:And... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Pre-orders for a product that does not yet exist and for which they won't tell how many people have cancelled. I wouldn't base to much on that.

      Like I said, it's at least more certain than most other companies' fanciful projections.

  8. President doesn't affect individual businesses by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    But that is likely because Trump is pro-business instead of a anti-business Democrat.

    It's because Tesla inked a deal to start selling cars in the middle east, along with the support charging infrastructure.

    I'm good with blaming the president for things, but the president really has very little effect on any individual business, and in particular has little effect on a specific business in his first 30 days.

    I think the same can be said about Obama. Anything he did was more of a global long-term effect if it was any effect at all. Taking health care as an example, I don't see Obamacare as having curtailed or encouraged the medical industry or the insurance companies - the economics of health care would probably have evolved to the state we are in now with or without it. Military vendors were similarly unaffected over the last 8 years.

    In economic terms, I don't see the president having much effect on business.

  9. Re:Circling the drain by geekmux · · Score: 2

    ...Shifting from stable except in specific ignition fuels to dangerous at all times lithium batteries that explode violently doesn't improve safety.

    Death by Tesla battery is still very rare when looking at all accidents, battery safety designs are always improving, and the key shift here is EV is set out to replace the "dangerous at all times" gasoline powered cars, a fuel source that all the technology in the world cannot make less flammable or explosive.

    No, I don't own a Tesla. Just stating the obvious.

  10. Re:Circling the drain by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Shifting from stable except in specific ignition fuels to dangerous at all times lithium batteries that explode violently doesn't improve safety. Tesla was a failed business from the start.

    As opposed to gasoline, which first catches fire, then explodes violently.

    If Tesla was a failed business from the start, I presume you've shorted millions of dollars of TSLA. In which case, thank you for your money. Moron.

  11. Let me just decode this for you by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Tesla notes in its press release: "Our Model 3 program is on track to start limited vehicle production in July and to steadily ramp production to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in the fourth quarter and 10,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2018.

    "Limited vehicle production in July" means that they will make a few vehicles by hand and put them in the hands of customers. This is precisely what they did with all prior models.

    "At some point in the fourth quarter" means in December, if then, since Tesla has a perfect record of being late.

    "some point in 2018" means Q4 2018, again, if then.

    This of course assumes that history will repeat itself, but it's been reliable so far.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"