Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Burns Through Record Cash To Bring the Model 3 To Market (bloomberg.com)

Dana Hull, reporting for Bloomberg: Tesla's Elon Musk keeps getting the green light to do what it takes to bring electric cars to the masses, regardless of how much it's going to cost. The company burned through $1.16 billion in cash in the second quarter by spending on capacity for its cheapest model yet and boosting battery output. Investors fixated instead on what Musk said is coming next: Hundreds of thousands of Model 3 sedan deliveries, installations of solar roofs and an all-new semi truck to add to the lineup. "This is the best I've ever felt about Tesla's future," Musk said on a conference call. The stock surged as much as 7.4 percent to $349.94 as of 9:45 a.m. Thursday in New York, the biggest intraday gain in four months. The chief executive officer has built a fanatical following of Tesla shareholders who continue to throw their support behind his clean-energy vision. It helps that consumers keep opening their wallets: The Model 3, which starts at $35,000, has racked up almost half a million reservations and is drawing more deposits by the day. The record negative free cash flow Tesla reported for the three months ended in June was almost double the $622 million it went through in the first quarter. With a little more than $3 billion in cash on hand, Musk told analysts the company is thinking about raising money through a debt offering.

42 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. it's not "burning cash" by sxpert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it's buying hardware and services to set up the production facility... big difference burning cash would be spending it on things that don't do anything for the company, such as distributing dividends and cash executive bonuses...

    1. Re:it's not "burning cash" by ranton · · Score: 5, Informative

      it's buying hardware and services to set up the production facility... big difference
      burning cash would be spending it on things that don't do anything for the company, such as distributing dividends and cash executive bonuses...

      Considering the terminology for how much they spend each month is their "burn rate" I don't see how burning cash is that inaccurate of a description. Probably evokes some misleading connotations but these are the terms the industry is using.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    2. Re:it's not "burning cash" by sxpert · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it shows "the financial sector" has it's priorities reversed if they seem to think "investing in production machines" is "burning cash"

    3. Re:it's not "burning cash" by fruey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well the cashflow is negative, for sure, but it's a long term investment strategy. Headlines are getting more clickbait-reinforced by the day.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    4. Re:it's not "burning cash" by OldMugwump · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Burning cash" simply means using up cash reserves, without replenishing them from sales. Cash can be 'burnt' wastefully (throwing parties) or usefully (investing in production machinery), but it's still called 'burning' if you're using it up faster than it's coming in. That's just how the term is used.

      --
      "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
    5. Re:it's not "burning cash" by AlanObject · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's buying hardware and services to set up the production facility... big difference

      Absolutely. This post should be modded up 1000.

      What this also represents is a near perfect case study as to why most Republicans are sheer nonsense when it comes to the economic of taxation. They will try to convince you that if rich people and rich corporations accumulate enough cash they will start to "create jobs." So we need tax cuts or else nobody will create jobs.

      Pure BS. There is one reason and one reason only that a (well run) corporation will spend money to create jobs. It is because they are following a business plan to get customers to buy their service or product. Because they see a market they can win at. Anything else and they will turtle up and hoard cash and lay people off if necessary to stop bleeding.

      In this case Tesla has a $1B backlog. They know the customers are there and they are using a lot of its available cash to employ people. Either directly or by buying stuff from their vendors. Tesla has nowhere near the amount of cash on hand than many companies that are looking for a tax cut.

      So this is why they are not "burning cash." They are generating revenue. Profitable revenue which they will likely spend, not burn, creating the next generation product to expand their market space.

    6. Re:it's not "burning cash" by jimtheowl · · Score: 5, Funny

      "This post should be modded up 1000."

      That would be burning mod points.

    7. Re:it's not "burning cash" by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      $1B backlog? There's nearly half a million reservations on a $35k-base vehicle (average expected sale value after options (luxury, performance, extended range, etc) = $43k). The Model S has a profit margin of about 25% per sale and they expect similar on the 3. You're looking at nearly $20B in sales and $5B in profit just from the already accumulated waiting list, which is increasing by about 1800 new reservations net every day.

      If Tesla manages the "production hell" ramp-up without any serious glitches that cause excessive delay / QA problems / expense, they've got it made.

      --
      So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
    8. Re:it's not "burning cash" by swillden · · Score: 2

      If Tesla manages the "production hell" ramp-up without any serious glitches that cause excessive delay / QA problems / expense, they've got it made.

      I'm betting they will. Literally. I've been buying a little more TSLA every month for some time now. Lots of analysts have been rating it as overvalued on the fundamentals, but I think most of those analysts have one serious deficiency in their understanding: They don't know what driving an electric vehicle is like. Unless the traditional automakers can make the transition much, much faster than I think they can possibly do, Tesla is going to vault from being a niche player to a major automaker, and its value will rise accordingly.

      I have great hopes for the solar roof and home battery businesses as well. It's clear to me that this is the future of residential power, and no one is as well-positioned as Tesla to reap the rewards.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:it's not "burning cash" by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is their cashflow is mixed together with government incentives influencing buyers, and selling ZEV credits to other car manufacturers. It's not at all clear that Tesla's long-term investments actually yield a self-sustainable business model without these external factors. Both have to end at some point.

    10. Re: it's not "burning cash" by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Well consider that majority of American M3 buyers KNOW they will not get 7500 from feds, and are STILL buying M3s. In fact, it appears that M3 may be the highest demand car in America.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    11. Re:it's not "burning cash" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Ford Taurus, in 1980s dollars, cost ONE BILLION DOLLARS. Which is roughly TWO POINT FIVE BILLION DOLLARS today.

      "Development for the first-generation Taurus started in the early 1980s to replace the Ford LTD,[2] at the cost of billions of dollars, with a team led by vice president in charge of car development Lewis Veraldi dubbed "Team Taurus."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Taurus_(first_generation)

      Ford spent more money bringing the Taurus to market than it cost to research, develop, and deliver the first F117 to market.

      Manufacturing cars is expensive. But by historic norms, Tesla is far ahead of the established big boys in bringing an entirely new design to market.

    12. Re:it's not "burning cash" by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      I have to agree with you. I think the car business is great, but I think the real money is in the power business -- solar panels, home batteries, and I'd venture at some point power production from other means.

    13. Re: it's not "burning cash" by uncqual · · Score: 2

      Very few people have actually bought a M3 yet. The deposits are fully refundable and a few negative reports on the M3's reliability, function, or value could cause a rash of cancellations. I wish Tesla the best of luck, but at this point their venture is quite speculative - esp. given that Musk seems to be intent on dividing his attention as many ways as possible across unrelated fields.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    14. Re:it's not "burning cash" by soft_guy · · Score: 2

      > Both have to end at some point. Why?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    15. Re:it's not "burning cash" by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well the cashflow is negative, for sure, but it's a long term investment strategy. Headlines are getting more clickbait-reinforced by the day.

      The difference is that cash flow is real, and long-term investment is hope. There are lots of companies that spend cash to "invest in the future" and that cash is gone when the hoped-for sales don't occur. Tesla has a leg-up on them, given it has deposits for future sales, but not all of those future sales will happen.

  2. Re:Chevy Bolt by sxpert · · Score: 3, Funny

    it actually looks like a car

  3. Re:Chevy Bolt by ranton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Has been out for awhile and nobody is buying it. What's better about the Model 3?

    I can't speak for everyone, but the two reasons I am buying a Tesla Model 3 is the better performance and the over the air updates. Most car models have all their features on day one and any new updates are only for future year models. This is not the case with Tesla. I'll give my money to Tesla for almost no other reason than to support a company which does this.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  4. Re:Chevy Bolt by sxpert · · Score: 5, Informative

    said government money was paid off with interest aeons ago

  5. Re:Chevy Bolt by minogully · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Biggest difference is the supercharger network for the Model 3. The Bolt's options when it comes to road-trips are more limited and where they exist they are inferior since they don't have the same charge rate as the supercharger.

  6. Re:Chevy Bolt by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Tesla isn't built by a company that swallowed a bunch of taxpayer money in a big government shell game to survive...

    Oh wait...

    Every company takes advantage of government programs to exist. Public roads, public education, intellectual property protection, military protection of sea lanes, etc. Tesla probably owes its existence more to our universities for producing its engineers than it does to tax incentives.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  7. Burn Rate by JBMcB · · Score: 2

    The main problem with Tesla is that, as it sells more cars, the expenditure per car sold rises linearly. That means they aren't getting economies of scale. The more they build, the more they have to spend to support existing vehicles on the road. It isn't clear if it's a quality issue or management issue or support issue or whatever, as they aren't entirely transparent on these types of expenditures, but it's worrying.

    https://seekingalpha.com/artic...

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Burn Rate by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Tesla needs to hit a critical mass for their business model to really work and generate positive cash flow. That is clearly more than the ~2-300k cars they have on the roads today, and is likely closer to 1MM cars. They also need to have learned lessons from previous models for the mass-market strategy to actually work.

      From what little I see of the Model 3, my guess is they have worked hard to address complexity issues and design a vehicle that can be manufactured with reasonable complexity, and that is higher reliability than the Model S. They seem to have stayed away from the more ambitious goals of the Model X, which seems to have been a disaster.

      I would say that in 18 months there is a reasonable chance they will be turning a modest profit, although I imagine they will still need $5-10B in financing to get through the next 5-10 years.

      (I own Tesla stock, although I don't consider it a logical investment.)

    2. Re: Burn Rate by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, he and some MontanaSkeptic guy are well known for arguing that Tesla is dead, but Tesla keeps going and selling more. Gut feeling says both are idiot trolls being paid by kock Bros.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Burn Rate by Khyber · · Score: 2

      " the more they have to spend to support existing vehicles on the road"

      Uhhh, nope. Plenty of places like fast food joints and gas stations are putting in electrical charging stations for EVs, on their own dime.

      The McDonald's down the street from me has a PV covered parking structure, with four EV chargers. Hell, the entire building is almost entirely solar-powered, the only thing that isn't are the gas-based deep fryers.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Burn Rate by bobbied · · Score: 2

      It *should* matter to buyers too. Where are you going to get that Tesla serviced if Tesla goes bust? How about getting parts? Do you have any idea how much it costs to maintain a DeLorean? Even WITH being able to time travel, it's expensive...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  8. Re:Chevy Bolt by sxpert · · Score: 2

    you're mistaken, you pass gas stations every 10 miles or so, in normal conditions, except in certain locations in Arizona.
    you have electric plugs just about anywhere. also, the included GPS shows you where the superchargers are located and guide you there

  9. Re:Chevy Bolt by sxpert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that's a budget issue. how about stopping the idiotic, unwinable war in afghanistan, and spend that money on electric car incentives (severa hundred billions a year)

  10. Re:Chevy vs Tesla by avandesande · · Score: 2

    Bolt has that awful instantly out date look that they put on American cars so they age poorly. Tesla has more classic lines that should look good down the road.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  11. Re:Chevy Bolt by avandesande · · Score: 2

    Bolt has that 'aspirational styling' that goes stale as soon as you drive it off the lot. They build the shame right into the design!

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  12. Re:Chevy Bolt by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    Has been out for awhile and nobody is buying it. What's better about the Model 3?

    Lol, okay, let's go down the list. Bolt vs. Model 3. Just the base models (Model 3 is much more upgradeable)

    MSRP: $37500 vs $35000
    0-60: 6,5s vs. 5,6s
    Top speed: 90mph vs. 130mph
    Handling: Read for yourself (start at "What's blanching...")
    EPA range: 238mi vs. 220mi
    Max charge speed: 90mph vs. 260mph
    Fast charge network: Poor (single stall, poorly monitored, big holes) vs. excellent (4-8+ stalls, widespread distribution on almost all major interstates)
    Dealership experience: Famously hard sell and uneducated about EVs, vs. almost humorously soft-sell, behaving instead like museum curators who just want to talk about their exhibit
    Automatic crash avoidance: Optional extra vs. standard
    Climate control: Single vs. dual zone
    Track record for safety: less-than-stellar vs. outright-insulted-if-they-score-less-than-perfect-in-any-test. And this.
    Standard warranty: 3yrs / 36k mi vs. 4yrs / 50k mi (both have the same battery warranty, 8 yrs / 100k mi)
    Company dedication: Makes EVs as a side project to their main business vs. fully invested in EVs.
    Efficiency: heavier & higher drag vs. lighter and lower drag
    Styling: Come on, is there any contest? Even remotely? Bolt vs. Model 3. The interior difference is even worse, with the Bolt being your typical econobox interior (yet at a nearly $40k price point).
    Depreciation of past models: Terrible vs. Low

    I could keep going. I mean, there's just no contest. Unless you're seriously in a rush, or you think Musk is the devil, I can't imagine why anyone would pick the Bolt over the Model 3.

    --
    So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
  13. Re:Chevy Bolt by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    DO NOT BUY A LEAF. The Chevy Volt, Chevy Bolt, Zero S, and Tesla Model S/X/3 all have high-quality battery management systems with thermal management. The Leaf's lack of a TMS causes their battery to degrade rapidly, losing as much as 40% of its capacity in 2-3 years; whereas the Tesla, Volt, and Zero have shown little to no loss of capacity over half a decade and hundreds of thousands of miles.

    Get a used Volt. They're ass-cheap. Just don't buy a Leaf, holy shit dude.

  14. Normal amount by hackertourist · · Score: 2

    It's not unusual for a car company to spend this kind of money developing a new car and getting ready for production. The first time I can remember a company publicizing a figure of over $1B was Volvo for the first generation 850, so about 20-25 years ago.

  15. Re:Chevy vs Tesla by sxpert · · Score: 2

    no, the tesla takes into account the fact that you won't even need a steering wheel and pedals in 5 years, which is withing it's lifetime

  16. re: economics of taxation by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As an Independent (yet a fiscal conservative who is repelled more by most Democratic tax plans than Republican ones), I'd question your assertion that "most Republicans" believe in the theory that rich people and corporations will start to "create jobs" only when they accumulate enough cash.

    That's another way of talking about the "trickle down economics" which were out of the 1980's Reagan era, and were really just based on an untested economic theory at the time. Reagan's cabinet members succeeded in selling him on and supporting, so they could try it. It didn't work, primarily because they underestimated how many successful companies have little or no interest in more growth. (Even giants like Apple exhibit this tendency today. No matter how much money they make? They still cling to a business model that says it's perfectly acceptable to build computers that only cater to a relative niche in the marketplace. Apple doesn't even try to build Enterprise gear for server rooms anymore, leaving that whole sector to other companies. It doesn't even attempt to make its own mail server -- opting instead to build its Mail and Calendar clients around Microsoft's Exchange solution. Sometimes, adding too many new employees and expanding into too many areas just dilutes the formula that makes you successful. So profits aren't sensible to dump back into business expansion.)

    I have no problem with Tesla's business model right now. I think Elon Musk is a very intelligent guy and a pretty decent leader, who really believes in the technologies he's trying to develop and market. That said though? He's definitely operating a company that greatly benefits from government loans, perks, subsidies and initiatives. In a more libertarian society, I'd like to see much less of that happening. But today, it is what it is. We voted for a bigger government than I personally like, and it's one that likes to take a lot of our tax dollars and spend them, directed at specific things it thinks are "best for all of us". So many subsidies have gone to fossil fuel based companies, it makes it really difficult to single out Tesla as the "bad guy" for receiving some now.

  17. Re:Chevy vs Tesla by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Funny

    Which company has more cache?

    caché.

    So this height-challenged Czechoslovakian resistance fighter is trying to escape the Gestapo, who are chasing him. He sees a small farm house, runs to the door, and knocks rapidly. The farmer opens the door and the resistance fighter immediately asks him:

    "Excuse me, but could you cache a small czech?"

    I'll be here all week.

  18. Re:Now that's an OTA update by OFnow · · Score: 4, Informative

    >> Tesla Model 3 is the better performance and the over the air updates.

    Yeah, OTA Updates, so cool. or is it ? Now that's an OTA update : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    While Chrysler/Jeep does a poor job of engineering its in-car computer systems (as shown by the film!) that has nothing to do with Tesla. Proper engineering makes ota updates safe from hackers (witness MacOS, Linux, and part of the time, Windows). Just be careful whose stuff you buy.

  19. Re:Chevy vs Tesla by avandesande · · Score: 2

    The Bolt isn't unconventional, they (US automakers) do this to all their economy cars to shame the driver.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  20. Re:Chevy Bolt by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Leaf's lack of a TMS causes their battery to degrade rapidly, losing as much as 40% of its capacity in 2-3 years

    This depends on where you live. My 2012 LEAF has 50K miles on it and has lost only about 4% of its battery capacity. (I'd go check it right now with my OBDII interface and LeafSpy Pro, but my wife has it.)

    Get a used Volt. They're ass-cheap. Just don't buy a Leaf

    Used LEAFs are much cheaper. You can get one about like mine (note: I'm not selling mine; I like it) for around $6K. Assuming you don't need more than 60 or so miles of daily range, and don't live in an area with a very hot climate (which causes rapid battery degradation), for $6K you can get an EV that will be a great commuter and around-town vehicle for several years, and will cost less than a nickel per mile to operate, including electricity and maintenance.

    Unless you live in Arizona,or the like, they're great little cars, and very, very cheap right now.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  21. Re:Chevy Bolt by Rei · · Score: 2

    Leaf degradation is terrible. And everyone who saw the pack design knew it would be. Passive air cooling? Geez, if you're going to cool your car battery pack like a smartphone battery, expect it to last about as long as a smartphone battery.

    This is what a proper EV pack looks like inside. This is not.

    --
    So, apart from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
  22. Re:Priorities by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

    so people started getting out of the short position. That caused the stock to dip, and more people exited the short strategy, and the stock went from $383 at the end of June to $319 a couple of days ago.

    I'm not following the logic here. A short position is exited by buying the stock, and that causes the stock price to rise, not fall.

  23. Re:Priorities by virtig01 · · Score: 2

    Now maybe we will see some legitimate news and analysis about the health of the company.

    Burning $1.16B, having $3B cash on-hand, and considering a debt offering is legitimate news about the health of the company.

    Tesla does carry very real financial risk: they need to ramp up production higher than ever before, and they're running out of money to do it.