Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Meets Self-Imposed Deadline For Model 3, Rolls Out 7,000 Cars In a Week (cnbc.com)

Elon Musk tweeted on Sunday that the company produced 7,000 cars last week, including 5,000 Model 3 electric sedans. "Beating a self-imposed deadline, the final car rolling off the assembly line on Sunday morning, several hours after the midnight goal set by Musk, two workers at the factory told Reuters on Sunday." CNBC reports: The 5,000th Model 3 finished final quality checks at the Fremont, California factory and was ready to go around 5 a.m. PDT (1200 GMT), one person told Reuters. It was not clear if Tesla could maintain that level of production for a longer period of time. Tesla had a goal of producing 5,000 Model 3s per week before the close of the second quarter on Saturday to demonstrate it could mass produce the battery-powered sedan.

356 comments

  1. And ... if they hadn't? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

    What if they hadn't beat that self-imposed deadline?

    Oh. They would not have twittered.

    I ... see. Well, nothing to see here, carry on...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it'll stop all the whiners who said they'd never do it. i bet the shorters are a bit worried now.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    2. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      i bet the shorters are a bit worried now.

      I am sure they are, however we probably need to see the financials first and see how many they actually produced for the quarter to be sure they didn't just pump up the numbers for the final week.

    3. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The tweet isn't really important here. Producing 7000 cars is.

    4. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If I had stock in Tesla (or any car company) I would rather want to know how many cars they sell, not how many they produce. Selling makes you rich, not producing. Producing only makes you poor.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by djinn6 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I doubt the Q2 report will show the information everyone wants, which is the production trend over time. If you only look at the quarter average, they won't be making anywhere near 5000 a week, especially given they've had several shutdowns to retool. But it's still possible they ramped up significantly in the final weeks and has a trend line towards 500k for the entire year.

      As for their financial situation, I predict they'll still be in the red after accounting for SG&A, though maybe not as bad as last quarter due to the layoffs a few weeks ago. Interest payments will be an even bigger burden and R&D will not have changed much. Finally for capex, it might be a good thing that they didn't get the building permit they wanted and settled for a tent instead.

      Their main problem will still be cash flow, since they're not making enough to cover their expenses. If the "pay another $2500 to order now" thing doesn't pan out, they'll need even more high-interest loans, or worst case, another round of stock offerings.

    6. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Informative

      All of them.

    7. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      They may not have "twittered" but you can bet every single other dipshit hater would have.

    8. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you sell the cars at a loss, like Tesla...

    9. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by aleck7 · · Score: 1

      In Teslaâ(TM)s case thatâ(TM)s obviously not a problem â" they will sell of them faster than any other mass car producer.

    10. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had stock in Tesla (or any car company) I would rather want to know how many cars they sell, not how many they produce. Selling makes you rich, not producing. Producing only makes you poor.

      Uh, they have years worth of orders even at ramped-up capacity and they are direct sellers. The principal problem they have to watch out for is their profit margin, but numbers aren't looking to be a big problem in the near future. And in addition: if nobody wants a Model 3 any more, that will just give them the capacity to focus on their semis.

      Sometimes I think that Musk is intentionally producing bad press in order to keep the market to himself. It's crazy how little actual competition he faces.

    11. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GM sells 200k cars per week, and that's just to keep pace with orders, not to catch up on years' worth of backorders.

      Once all the trendhoppers have their Elonmobiles that they've been desperately waiting for and all the anticipation is over, Tesla's sales will tank down to the level of any other electric car, assuming they ever do get the price down to something sane. Nissan Leafs and Chevy Bolts sell around 20k units per *year* at roughly the $35k price point.

      https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gm-sells-more-than-20000-chevy-bolts-in-2017-2018-01-03
      http://www.autonews.com/article/20170219/RETAIL01/302209952/nissan-leaf-finds-its-fan-base

    12. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The layoffs will be a benefit in Q3. They're a hit in Q2 due to severance.

      Correct that the Q2 delivery numbers will be low. Which is actually a very important thing, to keep the tax credit from expiring in Q2. That credit is potentially worth half a billion dollars to Tesla's customers, and some proportion will be used in buying more options. Options are high margin - sometimes almost pure profit. You want it to expire at the start of a quarter, not the end of one. Not like any manufacturer would ever admit to trying to "time" it.

      500k Model 3 per year will still require significant expansion; current production is 250k Model 3 per year (+100k S+X). However, they've clearly found a way to expand cheaply. Tesla's last announced plan was to hit 6k in Q3. Doesn't sound particularly difficult given how much they scaled up in Q2.

      Nobody, not Tesla or any serious analyst, expects them to be positive in Q2. But more and more analysts appear to be agreeing with Tesla's forecast (widely panned by analysts a couple months ago) of being sustainably profitable later this year. Tesla believes it'll be Q3.

      There's no need for more cash, so the topic of loans or stock offerings is right out.

      As a reminder to anyone reading this who disagrees with anything written above: you have a tool to financially profit off your disagreement with me - short selling. Unless you don't like earning money or something... or unless you don't actually believe what you preach. I mean, even if you had to put it on your credit card, how could you turn down such a rate of return?

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    13. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla cars sell at a loss? I thought the shirts were complaining they aren't.selling for $35k like they said, because they upsell to people who upgrade to the $85k Type R sticker and spoiler crowd.
      Did I miss the daily memo from ohduck@weshortTesla.com?

    14. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      What if they hadn't beat that self-imposed deadline?

      Oh. They would not have twittered.

      I ... see. Well, nothing to see here, carry on...

      Corporate goals/deadlines are generally always 'self imposed'. Seems folks think Tesla deserves some type of credit for this?

      It is the mark of a well run company to be able to accurately predict performance and then to hit those goals on schedule. It is even more important when you are in a massive capital burn mode. Amazon was in that place, they almost always exceeded their growth and financial targets.

      Musk isn't very good at defining targets that can be hit on schedule and/or hitting them on schedule. That doesn't mean he will fail, but it is generally a bad sign.

      As for shorts losing money, it won't be as much as many think. Most large short investors are quite sophisticated with hedging.

    15. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hm... I am finally going to hastily ;-) order a Model 3 now... because buying a car hastily assembled on a hastily put together assembly line in a hastily(see the theme here?) built tent by a company hitting their customers for additional cash has always been a dream.... or maybe not...

      And, yes tehre is more than one way to bet on a falling stock... F.ex. by buing puts... and without using credit.... no FUD required...

    16. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      There's no need for more cash.....

      So all future R&D and production will be funded entirely by exisiting cash and positive cash flow? I am asking as your meaning is unclear.

    17. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by tehcyder · · Score: 2
      I am no fan of Tesla, but I think you are falling for the ""I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" fallacy.

      Using current sales of electric cars as a guide to the future is meaningless. It looks like many European countries (at least) will have effectively banned ICE vehicles within 10 years.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by MasseKid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's kinda the point of positive cash flow / profitability...

    19. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sell them at a 33% profit, according to research by Mercedes Benz.

      Dipshit.

    20. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by sfcat · · Score: 1

      it'll stop all the whiners who said they'd never do it. i bet the shorters are a bit worried now.

      Ya think. Tesla closed at $344 on Friday. In pre-market trading its $366.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    21. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you're doing that Millennial-thing where you're not sure where the commas go.

      Thanks for the chuckle.

      When joining two independent clauses with a conjunction, you use a comma. You use EITHER a comma or conjunction to join an independent and dependent clauses. So the GP put the comma in the correct place. The GP is still off their med though about the rest of their comment.

    22. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what the financials are. You can't short against a hype and stupidity if it lasts long enough.

    23. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Tesla isn't at that maturity point yet. It's still a new business getting to full steam compared to traditional car makers. Even if many drop out of the preorder, there is still a pretty good demand gap that the primary concern is not being able to fulfill orders will result in lack of working capital. Secondary concern is that delayed deliveries will result in cancelled orders; no cash flow, no working capital.

    24. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should use a comma. It helps your paragraph flow. Full stops are jarring. Clauses can be combined. You can do it!

    25. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's kinda the point of positive cash flow / profitability...

      I just wanted to be clear. I had not seen anyone say that Tesla now has enough margin to fund future operations and development, and would not need any more cash at all.

    26. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did it once, lets see if it can be sustained first.

    27. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by mjwx · · Score: 2

      If I had stock in Tesla (or any car company) I would rather want to know how many cars they sell, not how many they produce. Selling makes you rich, not producing. Producing only makes you poor.

      Nope. You can sell all you want, but if you have no product people are going to ask for their money back.

      Seen plenty of companies try to sell their way out of a production problem, it's never worked. Selling is less important than producing as good products sell themselves.

      Finally, the saying your looking for regarding Tesla is "revenue is vanity, profit is sanity". It doesn't matter how much you sell if you're making a loss on each one.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    28. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glass houses.

    29. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by haruchai · · Score: 3, Informative

      "If you only look at the quarter average, they won't be making anywhere near 5000 a week, especially given they've had several shutdowns to retool"

      They produced 28,578 Model 3s in Q2 vs 9766 in Q1 2018 so the avg weekly production went from 751 to 2198, an improvement of 342%

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    30. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by tsa · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much quality control suffered from this. Tesla's build quality already was not worth writing home about.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    31. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In Soviet Russia, people always avoided things build near the end of their production drives. To meet the yearly production quota, they typically build things as slipshod as possible in the last quarter.

    32. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by vtcodger · · Score: 1, Funny

      'Hm... I am finally going to hastily ;-) order a Model 3 now."

      Brilliant decision. You should jump at this opportunity to spend $40,000 or (most likely) more for a vehicle that is only moderately more inconvenient to own than a 1998 Toyota Camry.

      For an extra $5000, you can get the optional autopilot that can drive you into bridges, police cars and fire engines if you have trouble managing that on your own. To my knowledge, there's no attermarket kit for the Camry that'll do that available at any price.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    33. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "It looks like many European countries (at least) will have effectively banned ICE vehicles within 10 years."

      I doubt that'll actually happen when they actually get around to trying to formulate legislation. But I do think that the combination of high fuel prices, still emission standards, and driver convenience will cause a substantial switch from pure ICE to hybrid and PHEV vehicles with higher gas "mileage".

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    34. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      The semi looks to be a perfectly viable product, but one has to wonder how big the market is. I would guess it will need a (expensive) custom charger if you plan to turn it around in less than 4-5 hours. That's likely to make it mostly depot to depot?

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    35. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct that the Q2 delivery numbers will be low. Which is actually a very important thing, to keep the tax credit from expiring in Q2.

      IOW, TSLA held back deliveries to extend tax credit eligibility to Q3.
      IOW, it now "factory gated" all that hold backs to hit the 5,000/wk.
      Thanks for exposing the Musk tent scam Rei.

    36. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 2

      Remember that to maximize the tax deduction they reduced us sales in q2 to say under 200k, lots more went to other countries like canada. Q3 will be much higher sles. So look at sales and production.

    37. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it'll stop all the whiners who said they'd never do it. i bet the shorters are a bit worried now.

      Shorters deal in stock demand, not company success. It just means that they have work harder to convince people to sell their Tesla stock (or options). Making them sell their stock by increasing the offered price is just one way to achieve that. Expect to see a lot more astroturfing.

      Another is bankruptcy: if you don't fill your short sales, your debtors get to see part of your remaining money but no stock at all.

      A large wave of short seller bankruptcies could drive Tesla's stock tumbling down since then demand will collapse. Of course short sellers don't go bankrupt in synchrony, so the last ones may be able to actually fill their orders instead of going broke.

      Stock market is a whore without conscience. It will take your money anyway. If you are into asphyxiation, you might well get thrown out dead into the street. How thrilling.

    38. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and, naturally, that is not what Rei said. Changing what he said (primarily from "expected Q3" to "right now"). Not that that really helps you, but at least you shorters should not try restructuring or otherwise altering what other people have said.

    39. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how finance works. Nearly every single business, from restaurants to car manufacturers, lose money while they are building up. They do not have to build the factory again. They do not have to do the development again. You need lessons in basic economics and finance before your opinion is valid in this area. You don't lump all capital investment into the first year's production and extrapolate from there.

      You may as well have said, "These restaurants lose money on every meal sold" while they build dozens of locations and only have 2 open. They don't have to build the restaurants every quarter. That's not how they will make money. That's just not how business works.

      The marginal cost of producing another car against the sales price will tell you if they are making or losing money on each car. This is what will tell you if they can cover the capital expenditure and investment by increased production. This is what investors are interested in.

      The company hasn't been profitable since they began production, but that is not, in any way, represent losing money on every vehicle they sell, unless sales stop today. And since the company is sitting on 450,000 customers who have already paid deposits (20 times the number any other car has ever had), sales are not likely to stop anytime soon.

    40. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      If they stopped successfully making new things at fast enough rates, they'd fail. They don't fail. That's why they keep going.

    41. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do it, you cunt!

    42. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Apparently AC can't read... They lose money BEFORE costs like R&D and capital expenses. This means losing money without accounting for things like building the factory or doing the development. I rather suggest you learn to read (as I clearly posted this much) and also learn how to read a financial report. Gross margin minus SG&A is already a loss; that is before any other expenses like R&D and capital (building factory) expenses.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    43. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I also don't think that they fail. But to justify the stock price Tesla has to grow a lot larger without needing much more capital. This is what short sellers bet against. They might be right, but the hype can kill them anyway.

    44. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      I doubt the shorters are that worried. Tesla stock has a market cap close to GM's right now. GM produces more than 8,000 cars per day . So there's still a huge chasm between Tesla's valuation and reality.

    45. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      As of 8:57 AM PST on July 2nd, it's at $337.46 and falling... Looks like the market doesn't like the report of missing their goal...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    46. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Generally, everything that's produced is sold. People have this fanciful misconception that unsold merchandise is disposed of in landfils, probably due to journalists trying to make their stories sound more dramatic. It doesn't work like that.

      When you over-produce something (supply exceeds demand), the cost to produce that inventory is a sunk cost. You've already paid for it, meaning there's no way to get it back (you can't go back in time and not spend the money to produce the items). So the cost to manufacture the product becomes a non-factor. Even recovering part of the production cost is preferable to recovering none of it. So when supply exceeds demand, you simply lower the price (below manufacturing cost if necessary) until the demand increases to match the supply you've got. And eventually everything you've produced gets sold.

      I had a run-in with a store owner who didn't understand this. He'd bought some Intel 80286 laptops for resale. When they didn't sell as well as he'd hoped, he refused to lower their price below what he'd paid for them. Two years later when 80486 laptops were the norm, he was still trying to sell the 80286 laptops for the same price as 80486 laptops, so of course nobody was buying. He ended up losing his entire investment in those laptops. If he'd ignored the sunk costs and priced the laptops below his purchase price, he might have been able to sell them losing only 20%-30%. Instead he lost 100%.

    47. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      In the automotive business, profits are typically earned through services at dealerships.

      The more cars on the road, the better. The more non-warranty repairs/maintenance, the better. However it'll take a few more years for there to be a significant number of non-warranty Teslas on the road to bring the profit number up enough to cover R&D and production costs.

      Now they need to hope their cars stay on the road long enough to bring in those non-warranty sales while at the same time keeping customers happy enough to want new cars 5-8 years down the road.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    48. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the automotive business, profits are typically earned through services at dealerships.

      But everyone has been telling me how electric vehicles will barely need maintenance compared to ICE. If that's true, then doesn't that mean Tesla is screwed, or were people who were claiming EVs wouldn't need much maintenance lying?

    49. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      For an extra $5000, you can get the optional autopilot that can drive you into bridges, police cars and fire engines if you have trouble managing that on your own. To my knowledge, there's no attermarket kit for the Camry that'll do that available at any price.

      Sure there is.

    50. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Yes, there's 15k in transit right now. But do you think there's any other manufacturer out there who wouldn't do likewise? GM's up next to hit their limit, do you honestly think they won't try to time it?

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    51. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It looks like many European countries (at least) will have effectively banned ICE vehicles within 10 years.
      New ICE cars yes, but it is rather 20 years.
      And it won't make it "illegal" to use the existing ICE cars until they break.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    52. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the automotive business, profits are typically earned through services at dealerships.

      No. Manufacturers can't own dealerships by laws that they themselves helped pass. They do not gain or lose based on dealership services. Tesla is attempting to get those laws overturned. Elon wants what you say to be true for his company, but what you have said is not true for any existing company- in the US at least.

      The more cars on the road, the better. The more non-warranty repairs/maintenance, the better.

      Yes, but not because dealer repairs go into the revenue column for manufacturers, but because fewer warranty claims reduce the amount of expenses. This has nothing to do with your original statement.

    53. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      They're going to lose their asses on warranty claims for those 5,000 rushed vehicles.

    54. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Teslas case, this is not a given. Though it's true they have demand to sell them faster than any other mass car producer, they've been having some rather severe QA problems requiring a non-trivial percentage of their cars produced to have to go in for secondary re-work before being able to be sold. A car going in for secondary re-work is not being sold.

    55. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Being that Tesla is a publicly traded company, they probably would had to report a lower expected production (again) and that will normally hit the stock price.

      The self imposed deadline, was a way of measuring what they can do and work up too.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    56. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      different AC (but how can you tell? that's part of the fun)

      The AC you are replying to is rational and explained things clearly. Maybe they stepped on your fragile ego more than you could handle ("You need lessons in basic economics and finance before your opinion is valid in this area") but they were right.

      Are you seriously arguing that because they can't meet SG&A they should not produce more cars? How do you think they could possibly make more money to offset SG&A *without* building more cars? If they were actually losing money on manufacturing cars there would be serious questions -- but in the real world they are not. In fact, the only serious problem they have is that their production numbers are not high enough to satisfy demand.

      Given your posts on the topic, one has to wonder just exactly how much money you have tied up in shorts against Tesla. Captcha? Enquirer

    57. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, LynnwoodRooster can't read, and does not understand finances - They do NOT lose money on each vehicle before capital expenses:

      Go read YOUR link, and tell me where capital expenses are.

      I'll give you a clue, since you so desperately need one: It's not in "Research Development" or "Selling General and Administrative".

      Since you probably still need help, capital expenditure falls under "Cost of Revenue".

      As per YOUR link, Tesla made more than $2.2billion last year after capital expenditure, or over $20,000 on each of the 103,000 cars they delivered. They lose money when R&D and non-production related costs are added in.

      https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sga.asp

      https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/cost-of-revenue-definition-and-usage.html

      Part of Cost of Revenue is overhead allocation (clearly stated in the previous link). This is where capital expenditure on the factory is accounted:
      https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/2017/5/14/overhead-allocation

      It would help if you had the simplest basic understanding of the data you erroneously think supports your opinion before getting snarky when presented with your own ignorance.

    58. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge, there's no attermarket kit for the Camry that'll do that available at any price.

      Sure there is. You can do a lot with a few well placed bricks, a wooden stick, and some rope. Timing of course, is everything.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    59. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      For AC, breaking Q1 2018 down since you are ignorant:

      Revenue: $3.4 billion

      Cost of Revenue: $2.95 billion

      Gross Margin: $456 million

      SG&A: $686.4 million

      Now, take the gross margin and subtract SG&A. That's a loss of $230 million RIGHT THERE. That does not include R&D, capital expenses, interest on debt, nothing. Just the cost of making the product and selling/delivering the product. Already a loss of about $6600 per vehicle sold in Q1 2018, BEFORE any R&D, capex, interest, or taxes.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    60. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Ogive17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who do you think sells spare parts to the dealerships? Or are you under the impression dealers order original equipment parts directly from the manufacturers?

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    61. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those of us who speak the Queen's English know of the existence of the semicolon.

    62. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by mlyle · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows Tesla has a huge order book, so that's not the problem. The problem is producing enough cars at a good enough cost structure to not go bankrupt.

    63. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by mlyle · · Score: 1

      The counter-argument to this is that they've pre-scaled SG&A to some extent for larger unit counts, and that SG&A (and R&D) don't scale at all linearly with sales amounts. It's certainly true to some extent-- whether it's true enough for them to reach true sustained profitability is the open question.

    64. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't realistically be much worse than the regular production batches.

    65. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      If you look at the last 4 quarters, and the last 4 years, SG&A has been pretty consistent at ~20% (Std Dev of 1.2%). It is scaling linearly, at least over the last 4+ years. They run over twice the SG&A of anyone else in the automotive industry, and is the big reason they lose money before you even consider other costs like R&D, capital expenditures, interest on debt, taxes, etc.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    66. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by mlyle · · Score: 1

      This is still consistent with scaling SG&A a couple quarters ahead, and it's something that goes away when you reach ultimate scale.

    67. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by slashdice · · Score: 1

      My local gas station sells aftermarket kits for $5. Look in the in the Bum Wine section of the refrigerator case.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    68. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by slashdice · · Score: 1

      GM, Ford, Chrysler make their money through car loans [1]. Your local dealer makes their money originating loans and in the maintenance shop. Tesla is the manufacturer and dealer. They don't have profits so normal rules don't apply (yet). Of course, if^W when you need maintenance on your hastily assembled golf cart^W^W^W Tesla, it will be months before parts are available.

      (We used to joke that GM was a healthcare insurance company that financed healthcare for retired workers through car loans.)

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    69. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you PLEASE go look up what Cost of Revenue is. I provided links in my last post. COST OF REVENUE INCLUDES CAPITAL EXPENSES. It's in the definition of Cost of Revenue. I even gave you a source to look at and you still don't get it. Quit using words that you don't even know what they mean as a proof for your ignorant false opinion.

      Before calling someone ignorant, make sure you're not an idiot first. And on this subject, since you are completely ignorant of what the words you use mean, you are unwilling to look them up, and you didn't even realize that there's no other category in your own link that would fit capital expenses, you are a complete fucking idiot.

    70. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by stooo · · Score: 1

      An ICE Truck looks to be a perfectly viable product, but one has to wonder how big the market is. I would guess it will need a (expensive) custom fuel pump if you plan to stop to refuel in a manageable time. :)

      --
      aaaaaaa
    71. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably a python dev

    72. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its all Rainbows and Unicorns from here on out!

    73. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      That might be the case. However, they only have a few more quarters of cash on hand (at the current burn rate) without diluting the stock or trying to take on even more debt. The time to turn the corner to profitable was probably last Q3, just before Model 3 units started shipping...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    74. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those of us who speak the Queen's English know of the existence of the semicolon.

      Those of you who need an inbred descendant of a now long-dead bastard, (or someone descended from someone who replaced said bastard or one of his descendants as king, or who replaced that person, etc.) who only became king by conquering a bunch of poor peasants and throwing over their previous local tyrant, to tell you how to speak are NOT in any position to tell anyone ELSE how to do it, nor how to write. (Stuff or sod or whatever, your bloody parasitic queen, and her misspelled "English".)

      Also, there was nothing grammatically wrong with that sentence; the semicolon can be used INSTEAD of a coordinating conjunction, but it's up to the author to decide which to use; also, moreover, a semicolon is appropriate to use to separate two independent clauses when they continue the same thought, making them closely enough related to each other that splitting them into two sentences would interfere with the flow and rhythm of the sentence. See thou what I dideth there, verily, as someone with an unhealthy attachment to anachronistic linguistic sensibilities might say?

    75. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 2

      It did not make the lines for those 8000 cars in the past year. Don't confuse momentum with acceleration. GM's current infrastructure was accumulated over decades. And it can't just magic its way into suddenly becoming an EV-producing infrastructure. That takes extensive capital investment and many years. The thing that Tesla's been doing, and its "competition" has not been.

      Some of the competition has finally started to pony up the necessary cash to compete. So game on.... several years from now when said investments actually start to pay off. In the meantime...

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    76. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Revenue: $3.4 billion

      Cost of Revenue: $2.95 billion

      Gross Margin: $456 million

      SG&A: $686.4 million

      Now, take the gross margin and subtract SG&A.

      Why would you subtract SG&A from the gross? It's part of the "cost of revenue" so you've already subtracted it before getting to the gross.

      I mean, sure, since you're hell bent on proving that Tesla is unprofitable, I can see why you would WANT to subtract $686 million twice. You're just masturbating with numbers, though.

    77. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 0

      There's this weird short notion that they can't seem to get past, that SG&A 1) scales up linearly with production volume (it doesn't), and 2) happens instantaneously with sales, with no expenses coming in advance (it doesn't, and they do).

      Some of the shorts even act like R&D scales up linearly with production volume, which is even sillier.

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    78. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Nope. Look at the financial report. It's a separate line item. Just check the financials. Gross profit of $456MM. Subtract out the R&D ($367MM) and SG&A ($686MM), and you end up with the operating loss (-$597MM).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    79. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a reminder to anyone reading this who disagrees with anything written above: you have a tool to financially profit off your disagreement with me - short selling.

      MANY HAVE, and they have made a fortune from this underperforming stock. Personally although I completely disagree with you I would never expose myself to the huge risks involved with shorting. But to further confirm that this isn't all good news, there were more downgrades to TESLA stocks today and of course a further 2% wiped from their price. So far only investors have been burnt this year not the shorters.

    80. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still write in Perl;

    81. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      As a reminder to anyone reading this who disagrees with anything written above: you have a tool to financially profit off your disagreement with me - short selling

      I disagree with you, but hope I am wrong for my friends sake. regardless you are showing ignorance of shorting to suggest people that disagree with you have a way to make easy money, shorting is not about long term or even medium term prospects for a company, it is what will happen in the short term and is more often based on sentiment and emotion rather than reality. I could lose everything betting TESLA will go bankrupt if I happen to be wrong by a month of when I think the market will realise their mistake even though I was right about the end result (note I don't expect TESLA to go bankrupt, but I do think they are massively overvalued).

    82. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no "acceleration" here -- Tesla consistently shows increase in unit costs with increased production volume. In economics parlance, these are called diseconomies of scale. In business terms, these are an epic fail.

      And there is no "momentum" either -- Tesla has repeatedly failed their promises, for example that of 6000 model 3 cars/weekly by end of June, which Big Mouth Musk talked about not 3 months ago:
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-stocks/tesla-aiming-to-build-6000-model-3-cars-per-week-by-end-june-report-idUSKBN1HO38Y

      Tesla cannot deliver. It cannot deliver the tech, it cannot deliver the quality, it cannot deliver the volumes, it cannot deliver the price. It is a complete failure, a turd, which only floats on a sea of government subsidy, stupidity and shilling.

    83. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a reminder to anyone reading this who disagrees with anything written above: you have a tool to financially profit off your disagreement with me - short selling

      and likewise if you are so confident you are right you can buy up options and make a motza. . unless you don't actually believe what you preach or don't like earning money? or are you just another one of the bullshit artists trying to talk up his shareprice?

    84. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha, you'd been told over and over but you just refused to learn. People who think they are smart are the funniest people to laugh at when they get so worked up and so invested in their idiocy. You rant and rave in every Tesla topic, but now you may finally begin to understand how wrong you are and how much joy you brought to everyone laughing at you.

      Please find another topic you think you know about soon. We will miss your humour till then.

    85. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Rei, why are you posting at 02:04AM local Reykjavik time?
      Masturbating to your Iceland World Cup football team hunks?

    86. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2198/wk is still a lot less than half of the 6000/wk that Saint Musk promised last year.

    87. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 25 minutes more per charge than necessary.

    88. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mistake is thinking that Tesla is simply a car manufacturer. They aren't.

      Comparing them to GM is like comparing a company that only makes refrigerators(GM) to a company like Samsung or GE(Tesla).

      numbnuts

    89. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 1

      You do realize that probably half of Slashdot's population posts in the evening, don't you?

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    90. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Tesla consistently shows increase in unit costs with increased production volume

      Flatly contradicted by the quarterly reports, but hey, this is Slashdot, make up whatever you want. :)

      And there is no "momentum" either

      Yeah, about that...
      About that...

      Tesla has repeatedly failed their promises, for example that of 6000 model 3 cars/weekly by end of June,

      Do you not even read what you link? Literally, the very first sentence:

      SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) is aiming to ramp up production to 6,000 Model 3 cars per week by the end of June to reach its weekly goal of 5,000 and allow for a margin of error

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    91. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The time to turn the corner to profitable was probably last Q3, just before Model 3 units started shipping.

      This neatly encapsulates your view so far. You think the company should have turned a profit while building the factory and tooling up to build the largest volume product it has ever attempted to date, before selling any of them. Your financial genius knows no bounds.

      That might be the case.

      I can only assume this is in response to :

      you are a complete fucking idiot.

    92. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 1

      MANY HAVE, and they have made a fortune from this underperforming stock

      On average, they've lost their shirt on this incredibly well performing stock. Can you not even look at a stock price graph? Tesla's price has skyrocketed over the past several years, and has gone through multiple short squeezes in the process.

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    93. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I've only owned TSLA for a couple months, and I've been talking about Tesla on this site for far longer than that.

      As for options, I may well.

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    94. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that probably none of Slashdot's population posts regularly [0200-0500] local time, don't you?

    95. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can look at stock price graphs perfectly and do every day, obviously you don't. This stock has significantly underperformed the market this year and is grossly overvalued. It is also now down for the year. Shorts are not made "over several years", they are made over days, weeks or months. The poor news announced yesterday has been a bonanza for shorters, I wish I was brave enough to be one of them as despite seeing the overvalue I don't trust the market enough with idiots like you in it.

    96. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soooo in otherwords you are talking bullshit. If you were so convinced you would not be owning tesla you would be owning options in tesla, far riskier but far more profitable, obviously you just don't like making money or you are just a coward inviting others to gamble while you yourself realise it isn't a safe bet.

    97. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for confirming you are just spruiking bullshit and don't actually believe what you say. After all you said it yourself if you actually believe what your saying then you have a way to make money. You call out disbelievers to short but you are too much a coward to follow your own advise and buy shares instead of options. Probably a good thing as with the poor news you would have lost your shirt this week.

    98. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly, Tesla are priced as if they have already succeeded and become wildly profitable with a full production capacity. This is in sharp contrast to the current reality of where they are at. Hype might carry the stock price through to when the Share price is actually matched with reality or a hiccup could send the hole pile of cards crashing down and in the process make the shorters 10's of billions more. My fair market value estimate for Tesla is somewhere south of $200 a share given their current position. If everything goes perfect for the next 2 quarters and they SUSTAIN 10k cars a week by the end of the year then I would happily put that up to $300. The prices north of $300 at the moment are just idiot investors/gamblers who buy with their heart/emotion rather than brain and maths.

    99. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit

      Go to any new car lot in America. Cars, especially shit American cars, can sit on a lot for months. Tesla has already sold every car before production of that car starts.

      numbnuts

    100. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 1

      This stock has significantly underperformed the market this year

      The monthly running average from a year ago is well lower than the current monthly running average. And of course you picked endpoints that would try to support your viewpoint. I could just as well pick endpoints from a couple months ago - when I bought in - and compare them to now; it's yielded a tremendous return.

      The long-term picture, however, is the most fair way to compare. And Tesla has done anything but "underperform".

      Shorts are not made "over several years", they are made over days, weeks or months.

      Their average performance is made over several years, even though individual short positions are not that long.

      The poor news announced yesterday has been a bonanza for shorters

      Not coming close to the amount that they've lost in the past several months.

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    101. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 1

      What the heck are you talking about? I bought shares previously because that was the simplest thing for me. Even that is hard enough here (non-US), and I'm stuck paying 1% transaction fees - you all are lucky that you can trade US stocks for flat fees or in some cases free. As for options, I mean exactly what I said: "I may well". I simply haven't looked into them yet, whether it's even possible for me to get them. I've only been in the market for a matter of months.

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    102. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Not really,

      Yes, really. Margins, both GAAP and non-GAAP, continue rising. SG&A remains steady, while volumes keep climbing.

      And guess what? SG&A will be falling in Q3 due to the layoffs. And Tesla is transitioning the supercharger network from a subsidy to an entity that pays for its own expansion, something that was too small of an effect to be visible in Q1, will be small but meaningful in Q2, and increasingly huge from Q3 onward. Meanwhile, Tesla Energy (Powerwall, Powerpacks, solar roofing products) are all scheduled to undergo massive growth in Q4 (small in Q3, insignificant in Q2). Tesla for example just announced a Powerpack project nearly an order of magnitude larger than the largest they've ever built.

      Yep, I did. Promise: 6000 vehicles a week. Result: 2000 vehicles a week.

      You do realize that even if you're dumb enough to view a target of achieving a 6k/wk rate in order to achieve a goal of a 5k/wk rate by the end of the quarter as meaning "we plan to produce 6k per week every week this quarter", the average person is not that stupid, don't you?

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    103. Re:And ... if they hadn't? by Rei · · Score: 1

      By the way - since you apparently care so much about me, by all means feel free to do the legwork for me on whether options purchases of US stocks are possible in Iceland, through whom, and what the fee schedule is.

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    104. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New cars are always almost built to order (except for fleet sales and showroom cars). Car manufacturers don't just make random configurations and sell them to dealers who hope for a customer that wants that exact configuration, colour, seat fabric, etc. They would not be able to predict demand and dealers would not be able to store the cars.

    105. Re: And ... if they hadn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you stupid? What the fuck do you think is sitting on auto lots collecting dirt? You think those are all ordered by customers that changed their mind or something? A big lot will have hundreds of the same model sitting outside.

      The fuck is wrong with you?

      You win the dumbest post of the day, you sped.

      numbnuts

  2. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like they have done the same thing as last quarter, realised they could not meet the number so put on a heap of extra shifts in the final week so they could get it across the line for the numbers. would like to see what the numbers were for the preceeding couple of weeks as that is what would either put that assumption to rest of prove it correct.

    1. Re:hmmm by dehachel12 · · Score: 2

      sure. And why wouldn't they be able to put in those extra shifts all the time?

    2. Re:hmmm by Daemonik · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't run a line 24/7/365. There's routine maintenance, cleaning and various other reasons that production equipment needs to shut down for a period of time.

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

      maintenance, tooling, staffing etc etc. unless he has found a new magical way to keep a production line 100% operational 100% of the time then that simply isn't possible. what the market will be interested in is what is his sustainable output, hopefully it is currently 5000 per week but I suspect also that it is far far lower at this point in time.

    4. Re:hmmm by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      sounds like they have done the same thing as last quarter, realised they could not meet the number so put on a heap of extra shifts in the final week so they could get it across the line for the numbers.

      Meanwhile, in the real world, despite shorts insisting that last quarter's weekly numbers (2k) would be an unsustainable burst rate, they maintained it for weeks, all the way up to the next scheduled downtime. Then they got back up to 3,5k and maintained that until the next set of upgrades. Now they're at 5k. But if you really think the 5k is a burst, by all means short that.

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
    5. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. It is too bad they can't just thrown up a second assembly line in a big tent or something. I mean if they could do that they'd be a le to nearly double production so even if they shut down a whole day once a week for plant servicing they'd have (100%-14%)*2=172% capacity. Call it 150% and give most of them Saturdays off too.
      If they could do that then the Tesla stock shorters would be totally hosed.
      Wait , what now?

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

      150% for 200% operational overhead. What could possibly go wrong? Iâ(TM)m going with wind blows down the fucking tent and robots get rained on.

    7. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adding another new, unplanned line would further add to cost of production. Yes, they can triple the amount of cars with triple the production lines, but when they originally planned to do it with one line, there is no way needing three is a good thing. With the added line and labor, above what was orignially planned, they will be making less money on each car, or will need to increase the price, neither of which is good.

    8. Re: hmmm by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      >when they originally planned to do it with one line,
      they did ?

    9. Re:hmmm by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Because people get sick, take vacation, and leave the company?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:hmmm by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing, but I think the easiest way to meet a target once would be to divert some production in previous weeks as "requiring rework". Come the week you want to meet target, you send some folks out to the parking lot where the "rework" vehicles are stashed to install light bulbs, trim strips, or whatever else they are missing.

      Not saying Tesla did that. Just that it or something similar could be done.

      It seems sort of like a software capability demo. You can demo just about anything if you have enough time to set up the demo. The worse the product, the more time you need to spend setting up the demo.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    11. Re: hmmm by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      You could try to make out production numbers like that but the quarter was way more productive than the previous one so it's just not a credible analysis.

    12. Re:hmmm by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      It will be a dire week for short sellers. I finally sold my TSLA last week, so it's sure to double next week!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re: hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure they can do that, that also means they are running at a much MUCH higher operational cost then expected.

    14. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and by all means eat your own hype, buy options instead of shares. Much more profit in it for you if you are so certain of TESLA futures.

    15. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looking like it will be quite a good week for short sellers. TESLA missed their production numbers, prices are down and trumps trade wars escalating should add some extra dampening on prices throughout the week.

  3. Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the thought of all those day traders with HUGE shorts against Tesla realizing that they're going to get absolutely frickin' REAMED.

    1. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by dehachel12 · · Score: 2

      yup, stock is already up 6%.

    2. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Why would you be happy about someone else's misfortune?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The shorters are the ones who set themselves up to profit from the misfortune of others, and collectively have also been working to bring about that misfortune. If it fails then it fails expensively, which discourages people from that practice thereby reducing the amount of misfortune in the world.

    4. Re: Rubbing my hands with glee by aleck7 · · Score: 1

      Theyâ(TM)re are not day traders, but short-sellers.

    5. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Barsteward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In this case, yes. Shorters (or anyone for that matter) who spread lies and misinformation to game the market deserve all the shit they get when it goes badly

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    6. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They deserve all the shit plus interest !!!

    7. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that those people were trying to manufacture misfortune for someone else so they could profit off it, the question should be why wouldn't you be happy about their misfortune?

      I think it's both ethically and morally acceptable to be happy when people trying to sow misfortune for their own profit themselves suffer misfortune that prevents them from causing it to others.

      It's like watching someone run up to someone with a knife to try and stab them, only to trip over and fall in front a car preventing them killing the other person. Why wouldn't you be happy about that person's misfortune in being unable to murder someone else?

    8. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like some bitcoin and tulip bulbs with your Tesla stock?

    9. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by AbRASiON · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I've seen a plethora of articles outlining why Tesla has legitimate financial management issues. These shorters aren't all about "fuck Tesla" it might simply be "this seems like a profitable trade, this company should be crashing, let's see if I can predict when"

      Some of them, it's emotionless, no politics, it's just how it is.

      I dunno if they are managed bad, but boy have I seen quite a few articles, including charts.

      I'm skeptical they achieved 7000 or skeptical they can HOLD 7000, perhaps they did do it? Dunno.

    10. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stock price is way over valued. You can't struggle to make 5k cars and be more valuable then other companies that have no issue selling millions of cars.

      Even Elon musk said it was over valued. Plus they're burning through cash

    11. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you know nothing about the market or how it works with a statement like that.

    12. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla stock sounds wonderful, freshly squeezed shorts.

    13. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is bullshit. We all know the institutional shorts are doing everything they can to get TSLA to collapse. They go on every morning TV show to talk about how they have no chance of survival to drive the stock down. It's everything they can legally do to manipulate the market.

      I'm skeptical they achieved 7000 or skeptical they can HOLD 7000, perhaps they did do it? Dunno.

      No one cares how "skeptical" you are because you're nobody and your opinion is less than irrelevant. You can keep your FUD, no one cares.

    14. Re: Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly what shorting is.

    15. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      The shorters are the ones who set themselves up to profit from the misfortune of others, and collectively have also been working to bring about that misfortune. If it fails then it fails expensively, which discourages people from that practice thereby reducing the amount of misfortune in the world.

      This is such a misunderstanding I don't even know where to begin. Taking a bet against a company is not "profiting from their misfortune", it's asserting that they scammed/tricked/fooled their way into having a much higher valuation than is properly deserved. We want folks to take those short positions as a guard against bubbles and irrational optimism.

      As far as "working to bring about that misfortunate", that is true and lamentable. But it's hardly unique to those with short positions. "Pump and dump" is exactly the same scam except on the long position side. Both are unethical and illegal, and it's got nothing to do with whether you are trying to manipulate upwards or downwards.

      Also, FWIW, I don't believe TSLA is overhyped, I think they are valued about right. I wouldn't short 'em, but I don't begrudge those that do.

    16. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Solandri · · Score: 1

      You do realize that if the shorters are correct and Tesla stock (eventually) comes back down to earth, then the stock price for Tesla was overvalued because of lies and misinformation spread by Tesla fans, right?

    17. Re: Rubbing my hands with glee by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      So you must be a shorter then?

    18. Re: Rubbing my hands with glee by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      I am sure they pushed it to the limitlast week but compare q1 vs q2 to see the general direction. After q1 had a big final week everyone said there was no way they'd be able to keep that last week rate going but they did.

    19. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now it is DOWN on this SUCH GREAT NEWS.... oh wait. Spend a minute and find out the average production rate is closer to 2,400. Spending an entire quarter trying to set up a "burst" at the end of the quarter is what Tesla has been doing and while it may help the stock price, it doesn't actually mean they can produce cars at that rate at this point in time.

      The bigger issue is what they have had to do in order to hit 5,000 cars a week.

      1. This goal was supposed to be hit over 6 months ago

      2. They are working the factory 24/7 and had to hire thousands of new employees that were not originally planned. The original goal did not indicate 24/7 operation. (24/7 operation is not sustainable. You need maintenance downtime.)

      3. They had to build "General Assembly Line 4" to hit the goal. The original goal did not call for using a 4th line.

      Conclusion: All the projections people are using to value Tesla are based on GA3 running at normal shifts producing 5,000 cars. Not GA3&4 running 24/7. This is like someone saying they are going to complete a marathon in 6 months and in reality the person walks the marathon a year later and claims success. Sure they "completed" the goal but at a much greater cost than planned and way late. In business it matters how much you spend to achieve a goal because if someone else can do it cheaper, they will eat your lunch in the long run.

    20. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Too bad the stock is collapsing (again). TSLA is a pyramid scheme. They didn't even make their fake self-imposed production numbers. In addition, there is a whistleblower out there who is going to blow the whole scheme wide open. If you want EVs to succeed you should be investing in other EV makers who are actually making EVs for regular people.

    21. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gossip and lies. Only in a world where a social networking corporation picks the american president.

    22. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that if the shorters are correct and Tesla stock (eventually) comes back down to earth, then the stock price for Tesla was overvalued because of lies and misinformation spread by Tesla fans, right?

      No. There is a difference between being wrong and lying. This difference is something many people should learn. Both because the fact someone really believes something doesn't make it true, no matter how convincing they are and also because realising that someone is actually lying is an important step to realising you can't trust them and should watch out for what they do.

      In this case some short sellers have been lying, some have been saying what they believe and many Tesla fans have been prematurely optimistic. It is now turning out that the Tesla fans were both truthful and right.

    23. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Please state your definition of 'collapse'. It's up over 30 points in the last month, including this morning's 10 point drop.

    24. Re: Rubbing my hands with glee by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Nope, I'm mostly long, including on TSLA since the low double digits.

      But please continue to make assumptions about the investment positions of internet strangers, it's, uhh, endearing?

    25. Re: Rubbing my hands with glee by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      I do my best.

    26. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Julz · · Score: 1

      Likewise. Several of my friends had joined these doomsayers and were berating me for the mere mention of electric vehicles and Tesla being ahead of the game. One of them dumped his shares based on the stories about failure which hadn't even occurred yet.

      --
      When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
    27. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you go broke I fuck your wife and daughter cheap.

    28. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That lasted all of a few hours while the fan boys bought, but then the investors leaving the stock saw it decline another 2% for the day. The reality is Tesla is currently massively overpriced. This good news is welcome but it falls far short of what investors need to have confidence in Tesla, Shorters are safe for now.

    29. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only people that got reamed today were Tesla investors.

    30. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Less than a few hours after making this post an analyst had already claimed the figure was unsustainable.

    31. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably because it IS. sustainable production is not putting on extra all night shifts and extra production lines in a tent for the last week. This is also born out by the big miss on numbers for them, well below the analyst predictions for the quarters total production.

    32. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Shorters are safe for now
      tesla is now well past 'in danger' status, and will grow into a big carmaker.

    33. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      As lots of other people have said, on any rational evaluation, the stock is overpriced. The short sellers are acting to correct an anomaly in the market. This is generally a good thing. Note that short sellers are not betting that the company will fail only that the stock price will go down.

      The other thing to note is that, generally, the stock price of a company is nearly irrelevant as far as day to day operations are concerned. The stock price will not affect Tesla's short term ability to raise Model 3 production, so chill out about the short sellers.

      Where a low stock price does have an effect is in terms of investment for the future. For example, Tesla might want to raise capital by selling more stock or they might want to use the stock as collateral on a loan. It also might affect their ability to recruit and retain good staff if stock options are part of the remuneration package.

      I don't know why the Tesla fanboys are so obsessed with the short sellers (unless they own Tesla shares). Tesla is overpriced so of course there are short sellers. But it doesn't matter because the fanboys are sure that Tesla is financially sound, right?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    34. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Collapse = down 12% in the last 12 months in a strongly up market. It dropped another 25 points today, and will continue to go down.

    35. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You should have listened to your friends. Tesla isn't even the biggest EV maker.

    36. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The value of Tesla has nothing to do with cars. Only an idiot thinks that GM or Toyota is their competitor.

      Their value is in the battery and solar.

      numbnuts

    37. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask the orange turd if it is correct after you finishing sucking off his microdick.

    38. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      And 2 days later, it's down 10%.

      All that tells me is TSLA has high volatility.

    39. Re:Rubbing my hands with glee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, no, that doesn't follow at all. For example, It may simply be that too many investors believed the lies spread by the shorters, and there can be many other reasons, including (as just a random example) a freak airplane crash that takes out Tesla's entire carfactory.

  4. Rush by dohzer · · Score: 0

    I can't imagine there'd be problems with rushing out extra units to meet a deadline.

    1. Re:Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think any product build was rushed? Increasing capacity to create the same thing doesn't mean any product being created was created in a shorter time then it usually is.

    2. Re:Rush by phayes · · Score: 1

      Those who predicted that Tesla would not be able to reach their goals and shorted them need to find something to salve their injured pride/pocketbook. Apparently it's FUDing the quality of the cars.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    3. Re:Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      great 7000 friday afternoon specials

    4. Re:Rush by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Oooh, that factory said they could make x units a week and they're doing it. There's no way that could be a good thing! Do you even hear yourself?

    5. Re:Rush by DrXym · · Score: 1

      No more than there have already been.

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

      Waah! They're not producing cars fast enough!
      *Tesla meets production target*
      Waah! They're producing cars too fast!

    7. Re: Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      salve
      sav/
      noun

      verb

      1. soothe (wounded pride or one's conscience).
    8. Re: Rush by phayes · · Score: 0

      Oh, look! One of the Tesla shorts is trying (and failing) to criticise my grammar. No need for a translater, it's perfectly cromulent english. Had you gone beyond 8th grade you might have gotten beyond your comic-book english level of "Pow! and Kaboom!".

      So, how much did you lose? Tesla Série 3 entry level at least I hope.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    9. Re: Rush by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Heck, salves are great for injuries. I didn't see the problem.

    10. Re: Rush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And had you made it past 6th grade, you might be able to spell "translator" correctly.

  5. I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Qbertino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... and his crew succeed a million times over and become filthy rich while doing it. The penance with which Musk pursues his visions is inspiring and he serves as a very neat role model.

    Two thumbs up for scaring the living sh*t out of the leading German car industry which, IMHO, has become way to complacent with its success.
    And thanks for paving the way into carbon neutral traffic and land-transport.

    My 2 eurocents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Well putt, Qbertino. I like that he goes beyond stupid political posturing of wide majority of techno-billionaires and has a constructive approach to politics.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    2. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      " The penance with which Musk pursues his visions"
      Penance? That word does not mean what you think it means

    3. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont worry he is, first by creating the shit pile "paypul"

      and then by using your tax money to sell his cars to rich people.. (subsidies)

    4. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by vrassoc · · Score: 1

      tenacity?

    5. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pace would work.

    7. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Persistence.

    8. Re: I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autofellating works even better.

    9. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      Panache (probably)

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    10. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he is so likeable with all his smugness and his inflated ego.

    11. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is already filthy rich, and not because of success as in making and delivering a good product, but of success as in able to con gullible people into supporting his pyramid schemes and the government in paying his bills.

    12. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Penis.
      The penis with which Musk pursues his visions...

    13. Re:I hope this Elon Musk guy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt the German car industry gives a rat's behind about Elon Musk.

      Elon Musk, on the other hand, cares about nothing other than Elon Musk.

  6. Beating a deadline late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Beating a self-imposed deadline, the final car rolling off the assembly line on Sunday morning, several hours after the midnight goal set by Musk, two workers at the factory told Reuters on Sunday."

    Um, if the final car rolled off the line several hours AFTER the midnight deadline, then they didn't actually beat it.

    1. Re:Beating a deadline late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhh! Not meeting a deadline means meeting a deadline to the Elon nuthuggerz.

    2. Re:Beating a deadline late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going for the coveted Pedant of The Week award, no?

    3. Re:Beating a deadline late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but (at least as it's worded in the story) the goal was 5,000 Model 3s per week, not 5,000 Model 3s in one week. "per week" is a sustained rate, and I don't know that it really counts if you binge to accomplish it.

      It would be like if I were to set a goal...by the end of the year, I'm going to get down to consuming 0 calories per day. On December 30th I stuff myself just before midnight, then eat and drink absolutely nothing on Dec 31st (yep, a boring new years eve). Then when the new year hits I tweet out that I accomplished my goal. Did you consume 0 calories in 1 day? Yes. Am I consuming 0 calories per day? No.

    4. Re:Beating a deadline late by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 5, Informative

      If the production shift started Saturday before midnight, then, that shift's production counts towards that week. That is fairly standard practice.

  7. Take that Fake News!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just days ago all the dire predictions ;)

  8. Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    With the pressure they’re under they must be slapping them together - probably better to wait a while

    1. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Daemonik · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Makes me think of that 80's movie Gung Ho where they rushed production to keep from being closed and cars were rolling off the line missing tires...

      Plus with Tesla's penchant to make production changes on the fly, and the questionable build quality of the Model 3's they've already produced.. yeah, pass.

    2. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Wait for their production to stabilize rather than meet some arbitrary goal.

    3. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When trying to picture conditions in the factory, I did keep imagining Banksy's intro to the Simpsons.

    4. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To be fair they seem to have improved build quality a lot. There are still quite a few Model X and S with issues but the M3 seems to have been better designed for manufacturing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Plus with Tesla's penchant to make production changes on the fly, and the questionable build quality of the Model 3's they've already produced.. yeah, pass.

      On one hand, building cars more quickly can lead to quality issues. But on the other hand, building more cars can lead to solving quality issues, because you adjust the process as you go along.

      If I were to buy one of these cars, I'd want one of the later ones.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      If they'd missed the deadline, I could see Musk making his engineers stand outside screaming in Japanese at the passing crowd "these are ribbons of SHAME!"

    7. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linking to some random guy ranting for half an hour about a windscreen he apparently cracked himself with a hammer, claim "questionable build quality" -> "+5 interesting". I'd call that "pretty damned overrated" myself... unless we can have a "fraudulent" mod, in which case I'd agree with the +5.

    8. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Linking to some random guy ranting for half an hour about a windscreen he apparently cracked himself with a hammer, claim "questionable build quality" -> "+5 interesting". I'd call that "pretty damned overrated" myself... unless we can have a "fraudulent" mod, in which case I'd agree with the +5

      Yeah, sure.. Munro & Associates with 30 years of experience deconstructing production chains to find efficiencies, improve quality and lower build costs who does work for every manufacturing industry in the world is just "some random guy".. no wonder you posted as an AC.

    9. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by kcwebmonkey · · Score: 1

      Makes me think of that 80's movie Gung Ho where they rushed production to keep from being closed and cars were rolling off the line missing tires...

      Plus with Tesla's penchant to make production changes on the fly, and the questionable build quality of the Model 3's they've already produced.. yeah, pass.

      Thanks for this! I've been trying to remember the name of that movie for years! I tried googling what I could remember about the movie but could never find it.

    10. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      It's more analogous to the Delorean story.

    11. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Train0987 · · Score: 0

      I got to see an M3 that was delivered last week. It's a piece of junk. It was delivered with warranty problems.

    12. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Train0987 · · Score: 0

      Watch the whole video. The windshield may or may not have been delivered that way but the vehicle shown in that video has many other problems that are easy to see but not highlighted in his commentary. Would you be happy to receive a $50k car in that condition? The damned front license plate holder sticks to the car with double-sided tape for crying out loud. Yugo wouldn't even have tried to pass that off.

    13. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      with 30 years of experience deconstructing production chains to find efficiencies, improve quality and lower build costs

      So professionals in the art of ripping some design decisions to shreds. Interestingly the only things he mentioned in his video even remotely relevant to users he seems to dislike from personal preference (door to heavy, not liking the design of the handle, pulling a hidden lever rather than the button to open the car). If that is all he's got to complain about that doesn't sound like much of a turn-off.

      Incidentally every other person whose ripped into the model 3 for things they don't like the end conclusion is almost universally to buy given how awesome it is to drive making little details in a budget EV quite forgivable.

    14. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What specifically was wrong with it?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Inconsistent panel gaps all around the car, inconsistent paint, orange peel, wheel covers fit loosely (to the point of rattling), console below the screen would not close properly, trunk would not close properly, steering wheel off-center, etc. I wouldn't have accepted delivery but the owner just had to take it show off to everyone.

    16. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Socguy · · Score: 1

      When the bulk of the assembly is done by robot it doesn't matter how fast they work, you get an identical product each time. The trick is going to be ensuring that each robot has enough feedstock to work at full speed at all times and to choreograph their production in the line so that their product is not overloading or underloading the next step. The slowest part of the line dictates the speed of the entire line. Having multiple lines is better in some ways as well. That means that sometimes you can upgrade the lines independent of one and other and not have to totally shut down production.

    17. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Yeah no. They don't "rip design decisions to shreds". They analyze a product and help the manufacturer reduce their costs and build a better product. Or depending on who's paying them they help them build something better than their competition. He doesn't pick on Tesla's choices out of personal dislike, they make a comprehensive book on all the design decisions, their costs, their benefits and sell them. If he said the trunk was something he hasn't seen since the 90's it's because everyone else already found a better way to do it.

      I also like how you slipped and called Tesla's customers "users". Show's your and Tesla's software background and how everyone else is a st00pid user to you. Well you're wrong. Most of us who aren't in Musk's cult do feel that things like fit and finish are important in a $50,000 car. So are safety features and the feeling that the engineers did their best to ensure you survive a crash.

      Munro did another program talking about the Model 3's where he pointed out other design decisions by Tesla that just make no sense. Small panels welded inside the body for no purpose that just slows down manufacturing. Insulation material that was installed backwards, showing the lack of training Tesla's workers have, etc. He also really gushed over the battery and the electronics and enjoyed how the car drove, although it has wind noise which is something you only see on cheap cars anymore.

      The M3 isn't worth $50k, it isn't worth $35k. It's questionable if Tesla is even going to make a profit off them at $50k which means it's only a matter of time before they start reaaaaly dropping in quality.

    18. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, I wonder of many of these have defects. Even in ones already on the road I've seen stuff one Model X's for example where the front and rear doors were poorly aligned (obvious with the way the front and rear handles are close together, they were like half an inch off level from each other.)

      It's like how my cousins who work in construction always say to not buy a new house built during a housing boom, way more corners are cut than during a slow building period.

    19. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They don't "rip design decisions to shreds". They analyze a product and help the manufacturer reduce their costs and build a better product.

      You must be in marketing.

      Show's your and Tesla's software background

      You're reading into stuff that isn't there. I don't have a software background. Never have, hopefully never will. I'm a hardware guy who plays with very big metal toys (much bigger than cars).

      Well you're wrong. Most of us who aren't in Musk's cult do feel that things like fit and finish are important in a $50,000 car.

      I can tell by all the people not ordering them. And all the reviews that I've read. Oh wait no I meant ... wait I had something about this ... I'll just stick with "Well YOU'RE WRONG!"

      Munro did another program talking about the Model 3's where he pointed out other design decisions by Tesla that just make no sense.

      Cool story, still selling like hot cakes, still drives like a bat outta hell. No one cares.

      The M3 isn't worth $50k, it isn't worth $35k.

      And yet people pay it. Basic economics says you're wrong. Again. There's a common trend here.

      It's questionable if Tesla is even going to make a profit off them at $50k which means it's only a matter of time before they start reaaaaly dropping in quality.

      Actually there's nothing questionable about it. It's a purely economics game that has been analysed to death. But I am sure you're right random person on the internet (who somehow posts a lot of wrong stuff) and you know better than all those analysts.

      Keep it up!

    20. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, how would you want the front license plate holder attached?

      Fresh double stick tape comes off pretty cleanly, and I want a part I'm just going to put in the recycle bin to come off cleanly, I don't want any sign that it was ever there.

    21. Re:Well done - but not sure I’d buy one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, how would you want the front license plate holder attached?

      Fresh double stick tape comes off pretty cleanly, and I want a part I'm just going to put in the recycle bin to come off cleanly, I don't want any sign that it was ever there.

      Half the states in America require front license plate.
      Sticky tape belongs on your cool ricer spoiler kit for your leased 1999 Honda Civic (spoiler for a front wheel drive car yes...the sticky tape has maybe 10 pounds of adhesion...it'll probably blow off >40 mph, just like your front license plate...you are getting some fo sho rocket boy...).

      numbnuts

  9. Re:Trump dies in Federal Prison either way a trait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Perhaps, but spamming it here, like the head cheetos himself does on Twitter, does not help.

  10. Musk is a braggard and underachiever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    However, nobody else brags near his level and where he underachieves, nobody else goes to start with. Basically, he is a visionary putting his money, well other people's money mostly, where his mouth is. Well, his mouth is way ahead but then nobody else keeps up with it either.

    So yes, visionary and game changer. Yes, his vision tends to be beyond even his game but that's not all that unusual. What is unusual is the degree to which he eventually delivers. Which makes Tesla stock really badly shortsold. Which leads to a lot of frantically bad press and double standards.

    So yes, a braggard and underachiever. Don't expect to hear much else from media run (or at least astroturfed on their dime) by rich people who have made a fortune by betting against people thinking they could make it against their will.

    1. Re:Musk is a braggard and underachiever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter how much of a visionary you are if you can't meet your commitments.

    2. Re:Musk is a braggard and underachiever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      he does consistently meet his targets
      he is just consistently to optimistic in his predictions of when he'll meet those targets

    3. Re: Musk is a braggard and underachiever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It does not matter how many commitments you keep so long as the government and other people are willing to hand you money.

  11. Re:Trump dies in Federal Prison either way a trait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does help in subtle ways. I understand they are not evident to all.

  12. I wonder how arbirtary the goal is? by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 0

    If they hadn't met the goal, what would everyone be saying?

    1. Re: I wonder how arbirtary the goal is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why did they pick an unattainable arbitrary goal? Dumbfucks."

    2. Re:I wonder how arbirtary the goal is? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      FTFA:

      "Beating a self-imposed deadline, the final car rolling off the assembly line on Sunday morning, several hours after the midnight goal set by Musk, two workers at the factory told Reuters on Sunday."

      They didn't meet the goal.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  13. Tesla car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like Tesla all car because I like their look and features
    And in this article of data is very important.

    teach talk

  14. Re:Trump dies in Federal Prison either way a trait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, but spamming it here, like the head cheetos himself does on Twitter, does not help.

    Sure it does help - it helps Trump.

    The constant spamming of fantasy bullshit just makes Trump look less unreasonable.

    In fact, one wonders if the constant spamming is actually paid for by Trump or Trump supporters.

  15. Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The deadline was moved twice. So now that they've finally met it for a single week... huzzah I guess. From here:

    As it continues working through supply and assembly line issues, Tesla has pushed back its goal for 5,000-vehicle-a-week Model 3 production for the second time.

    Last year, Tesla assured us it could reach the goal by the end of the calendar year. As problems mounted on the production line, that target moved to the end of the first quarter of 2018.

    In yesterday’s quarterly production report, the automaker stated this:

    “As we continue to focus on quality and efficiency rather than simply pushing for the highest possible volume in the shortest period of time, we expect to have a slightly more gradual ramp through Q1, likely ending the quarter at a weekly rate of about 2,500 Model 3 vehicles. We intend to achieve the 5,000 per week milestone by the end of Q2.”

    1. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half year late on a project is not so bad. Take any SAP 'configuration' project; You are happy if your project finish 'just' 2 years late... (if it finish :-D)

  16. QC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn’t want to be shipped the 7000th, that’s for sure.

    1. Re:QC by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Why, today they will make this weeks number 1, right after last weeks #7000.

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

      Considering they only made 5k of the model 3, I wouldn't want your imaginary #7000 either.

  17. Full email from Elon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From: Elon Musk
    To: Everybody
    Subject: Some concerning news
    June 17, 2018 11:57 p.m.

    I was dismayed to learn this weekend about a Tesla employee who had conducted quite extensive and damaging sabotage to our operations. This included making direct code changes to the Tesla Manufacturing Operating System under false usernames and exporting large amounts of highly sensitive Tesla data to unknown third parties.

    The full extent of his actions are not yet clear, but what he has admitted to so far is pretty bad. His stated motivation is that he wanted a butt fucking that he did not receive. In light of these actions, not butt fucking him was definitely the right move.

    However, there may be considerably more to this situation than meets the eye, so the investigation will continue in depth this week. We need to figure out if he was acting alone or with others at Tesla and if he was working with any outside organizations.

    As you know, there are a long list of organizations that want Tesla to die. These include Wall Street butt-sellers, who have already lost billions of dollars and stand to lose a lot more. Then there are the butt & fuck companies, the wealthiest industry in the world — they don't love the idea of Tesla advancing the progress of butt fucking. Don't want to blow your mind, but rumor has it that those companies are sometimes not super nice. Then there are the multitude of big gas/diesel fucking company competitors. If they're willing to cheat so much about butt fucking, maybe they're willing to cheat in other ways?

    Most of the time, when there is theft of goods, leaking of confidential information, dereliction of duty or outright sabotage, the reason really is something simple like wanting to get back at someone within the company or at the company as a whole. Occasionally, it is much more serious.

    Please be extremely vigilant, particularly over the next few weeks as we ramp up the butt fuck rate to 5k/week. This is when outside forces have the strongest motivation to stop us.

    If you know of, see or suspect anything suspicious, please send a note to [email address removed for privacy] with as much info as possible. This can be done in your name, which will be kept confidential, or completely anonymously.

    Looking forward to having a great week with you as we charge up the super exciting ramp to 5000 butt fucks per week!

    Will follow this up with emails every few days describing the progress and challenges of the Model 3 ramp.

    Thanks for working so hard to make Tesla successful,
    Elon

    (copied from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/elon-musk-email-employee-conducted-extensive-and-damaging-sabotage.html)

  18. It's all about the cash flow by sjbe · · Score: 1

    If you only look at the quarter average, they won't be making anywhere near 5000 a week, especially given they've had several shutdowns to retool.

    That doesn't really matter looking forward. The question is whether they can get to the necessary production rate fast enough to get the cash flowing and without blowing up quality in the process. Sure it would be nice if they did 5000 on average for the previous quarter but it's no secret that they weren't going to do that. The question is whether they can continue to meet production milestones next quarter and whether those will be sufficient to get the cash flow going fast enough to keep the company afloat.

    Their main problem will still be cash flow, since they're not making enough to cover their expenses. If the "pay another $2500 to order now" thing doesn't pan out, they'll need even more high-interest loans, or worst case, another round of stock offerings.

    Yes cash flow is THE big question. Elon likes to push the limits so it will be interesting to watch Tesla over the next 6-12 months.

    1. Re: It's all about the cash flow by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      They aren't making the cheaper versions yet, 5k * 50k is 250 million of cash flow. I think they will be doing okay.

    2. Re: It's all about the cash flow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) It is 2000*$50k and not 5000, so less than 100m. And 2) they'll be doing "fine" only until the returns and the recalls start.

  19. Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fanboys don't understand - or refuse to acknowledge - is that Tesla's financial situation is precarious.

    These 5,000 or 7,000 cars a week was just a publicity stunt and actually is not impressive.

    Let's talk about the 500,000 cars Tesla was supposed to make THIS year and let's talk about how they're horribly behind.

    Let's talk about how the company cannot sustain itself from operations and how it needs regular cash infusions.

    So, let's not get all excited yet until the quarterly financials come out, M,kay?

    Oh! And it's not shorts who are concerned, it's actual investors who are getting pissed at Musk - like ME.

    1. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pissed about what? The stock is triple what it was four years ago.

    2. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He hates money, probably.

  20. And you would enthusiastically buy one of the cars by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    that was produced in this all-hands-on-deck sprint of factory operation?

  21. Tesla fanboys by rojash · · Score: 1

    Tesla fanboys dont realize Elon would roll out the cars even if they are very buggy, just to meet a deadline.

  22. Deadlines by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Corporate goals/deadlines are generally always 'self imposed'. Seems folks think Tesla deserves some type of credit for this?

    Not where there are big interest payments coming due in the near future.

    It is the mark of a well run company to be able to accurately predict performance and then to hit those goals on schedule.

    That's one way to measure it but the most important measure is their ability to consistently develop and maintain substantial free cash flow. Nobody really cares if a company meets artificial expectations if they consistently generate substantial profits. Companies generally can only "predict" performance accurately by fudging the numbers anyway. If you see a company that consistently "beats" wall street expectations by just a little every quarter, you can be dead certain there is some financial engineering going on. (I'm an accountant so I should know) In reality businesses are rarely so predictable so some amount of variation should be expected. You just don't want any huge negative surprises but a little up and down is generally fine unless you are some wall street asshat who only cares about the current quarter.

    Musk isn't very good at defining targets that can be hit on schedule and/or hitting them on schedule. That doesn't mean he will fail, but it is generally a bad sign.

    For most companies I would regard this as a negative but it's no secret that Musk sets very hard to achieve "deadlines" all the time so I think that is baked into the stock price. In a way it's kind of genius in that he acts a little irrational so it makes it harder for analysts to hold him to a standard of performance. He's also taking a page from the Amazon playbook in not really giving a shit about short term results and apologetically so.

    1. Re:Deadlines by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Amazon did care about short term results, and generally hit or exceeded their short term targets.

    2. Re: Deadlines by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      In my experience working for big companies including Microsoft and Google, they often don't finish their large projects on time. Commonly they're promising them at a different date externally. But you set an aggressive date in part to organize your team around that. And they are doing just fine - they don't even build material things like cars, it was just a question of organizing ourselves. At Google if you met all your quarterly objectives they'd say you weren't being aggressive enough in your goals.

  23. Gung Ho! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_gLOUbQZgk

  24. Re:And you would enthusiastically buy one of the c by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    Can you provide any evidence for this?

    I ask, because a) they shut down twice this month to retool and reconfigure assembly lines, and b) the production rate has steadily risen. It's not like they doubled production for a week out of the blue.

    An "all-hands-on-deck sprint" sounds like the standard bullshit that the people in short positions have chronically been pushing over the last year or so. Are you one of those people, or do you have evidence to back up your claim?

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  25. #factorygated by fozzy1015 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read what Elon actually said. 5000 Model 3s were 'factory gated', not produced. That means, according to Elon himself, a chunk of that number were already built at the beginning of the last week of June. Knowing this week was coming up, that chunk could be a significant portion. They are counted in the final tally even though in the last week Tesla may have done as little as move them from one lot to another. So Tesla didn't even pull off a true 5K burst week. This is why sustained production numbers are the only accurate ones. Those numbers are what Moody's pays attention to.

    1. Re:#factorygated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had mod points to + this post right now. Factory Gated (actually a production price reference for any other car company) indeed.

    2. Re:#factorygated by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      Sure, but one key point that a lot of people are missing is that he's playing a numbers game to keep production numbers down as well as a numbers game to keep them up. Now that they're out of Q2 he doesn't have to keep the production numbers down to retain the tax incentive anymore.

      It had to expire at some point, because it's based on the total number of cars sold, but the pressure was to avoid doing hitting that mark at the end of a quarter which would trigger the incentive to laps starting the next quarter. Now they're poised to hit that number early this quarter, but all of the cars sold will have the incentive until Q4 starts. So the pressure now is to crank out as many cars as possible, to meet the Q3 demand which will probably lower in Q4 due to the lack of incentive.

      Where you're curious to see if they can even make 5k/week, I'm curious to see how much they've been holding back. My guess is that it's quite a lot, and I wouldn't be surprised to see 7k/week in Model 3s by August.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    3. Re:#factorygated by fozzy1015 · · Score: 1

      Now that they're out of Q2 he doesn't have to keep the production numbers down to retain the tax incentive anymore.

      I believe you're referring to the 200K FIT credit expiration. That applies to total US deliveries per manufacturer and has nothing to do with production. On that topic, some predict it was already exceeded before Q3(though only Tesla knows for sure at this point) https://insideevs.com/why-we-b...

    4. Re:#factorygated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the funny part. I don't think those here that are vigorously excusing Tesla could actually say what their 4 week present sustained production average is, nor could they say what it will be over the next 4 weeks.

    5. Re:#factorygated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've just been sending the cars up here to Canada, not necessarily holding any back.

    6. Re: #factorygated by dev-in-seattle · · Score: 1

      Compare q1 to q2 they look fine with a sustained improvement.

    7. Re:#factorygated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike every other car manufacturer that uses an assembly line, every single Tesla that gets produced was sold before it was even started.

      numbnuts

  26. Already sold (for now) by sjbe · · Score: 2

    If I had stock in Tesla (or any car company) I would rather want to know how many cars they sell, not how many they produce.

    Every car they produce at the moment is effectively already sold so at least for now it's the same number. Once they get through the initial bolus of orders then it will be more interesting. Of related interest Tesla doesn't maintain large stocks of inventory like the traditional automakers (they are basically building to order), nor do they account for when a sale occurs in precisely the same way either.

  27. Three shifts by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You can't run a line 24/7/365. There's routine maintenance, cleaning and various other reasons that production equipment needs to shut down for a period of time.

    Nobody expects them to. But it isn't unheard of to run assembly plants on three shifts either. Maintenance time and equipment upgrades are scheduled in advance whenever possible - often weekends or between shifts. I've seen this handled a variety of ways depending on the particular equipment needs. It's challenging but not a new problem or an unsolved one.

  28. "Underachiever"? by sjbe · · Score: 2

    However, nobody else brags near his level and where he underachieves, nobody else goes to start with.

    "Underachieve"? Seriously? Yes he sets unrealistic self imposed deadlines and misses a fair number of them but anyone calling Musk an underachiever is delusional. The guy has started PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla, SolarCity, and The Boring Company and he actively manages the last four. He has completely reshaped the space launch business and it looks likely he will do the same to the auto business. If that's underachieving then give me some of that.

    Frankly if you had achieved 10% of what he has you'd be bragging about it too. And bragging isn't really a problem if you can actually back it up and so far he mostly has.

    1. Re:"Underachiever"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk didn't start Paypal or Tesla.

    2. Re:"Underachiever"? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      The difference is he hired experts to run SpaceX and the Boring Company. He's trying to run Tesla himself with absolutely zero experience in auto manufacturing. He was in the right place at the right time to make his fortune with Paypal. The SolarCity deal is turning out to be a bit of self-sealing that could possibly get him in a lot of trouble with regulators and/or the DOJ.

    3. Re:"Underachiever"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before Musk took over running Tesla, it was failing. He managed to raise more capital for Tesla, including a good chunk of his own money, forced out the original CEO and took over and made it a success*. Tesla was venturing into uncharted territory by pushing high-end electric cars, while he was inexperienced in the field of car-manufacturing when he took over, it is hard to argue that anyone else would have done any better. Without him Tesla would have been consigned to the annals of history a long time ago, as a failed company.

      And I think you are underplaying his involvement in SpaceX, as well.

      * Admittedly it is a qualified success as they are yet to turn a profit, but they have achieved a lot.

  29. Footage of the 5000th car off the line. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    If anyone's curious, here's the released footage of that 5000th car off the Assembly line.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvW_PDkElho

    1. Re:Footage of the 5000th car off the line. by boley1 · · Score: 1

      If anyone's curious, here's the released footage of that 5000th car off the Assembly line.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvW_PDkElho

      Please go easy with the negative ratings. I hope to buy either a Model 3, Y or Pickup myself and even own approximately 2 shares of Tesla stock. So I'm no Tesla hater. This post should be marked as Funny!

  30. Re:Warning! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    I was in a traffic jam caused by a burning car this weekend. It was gasoline powered, not electric, but it was a pain. They should ban that gasoline stuff.

  31. Long term thinking by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Amazon did care about short term results, and generally hit or exceeded their short term targets.

    That is completely not true. Here is every letter to shareholders from Jeff Bezos since 1997. Read the letter from 1997 and then you'll understand. Amazon hasn't given a shit about short term financial targets since their inception.

    1. Re:Long term thinking by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between shareholders being concerned with what they percieve as inadequate profitability targets, versus not hitting targets. Amazon's early targets were not profitability, they werer growth and revenue based, and they generally hit those targets. Bezos was pretty clear on what to expect, those letters you linked to are evidence of such.

  32. Re:And you would enthusiastically buy one of the c by Corbets · · Score: 1

    that was produced in this all-hands-on-deck sprint of factory operation?

    I place my order 3 days ago, so while I can’t answer for the GP, yes, I would.

  33. Short selling is fine by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The shorters are the ones who set themselves up to profit from the misfortune of others, and collectively have also been working to bring about that misfortune.

    When a stock is as irrationally over priced as Tesla there is nothing wrong with betting that it will fall back toward sanity. Honestly we need people who are willing to bet with their own money when something seems wrong. Tesla is doing some really interesting things but there is no rational basis for them to have a market cap larger than Ford. I honestly am kind of a fan of Tesla but I'm also a fan of financial sanity.

    Furthermore when you are in a mature market like automobiles ANY investment is de-facto a bet on the misfortune of others. If you buy stock in Ford you are effectively hoping for misfortune for Toyota or GM. It's near as makes no difference a zero sum game. If you buy stock in Tesla you are hoping for misfortune for their competitors. That's fine but it's not really much different than shorting TSLA directly.

    If it fails then it fails expensively, which discourages people from that practice thereby reducing the amount of misfortune in the world.

    They are taking a risk and they are well aware of that fact but I think their thesis is correct. Tesla's current stock price cannot be justified with any rational analysis of likely future free cash flows. A $60 billion market cap on a company with $11 billion in revenue that has never made an operational profit? That's bananas. The only real question is when Tesla's stock price will come back to Earth. Might take a while but sooner or later it has to happen.

    1. Re:Short selling is fine by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      Ford, a company that killed all their car models, to focus on constructing trucks and SUVs exclusively, at a time when oil prices are going up? If anything I think they are over valued.

    2. Re:Short selling is fine by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      When a stock is as irrationally over priced as Tesla...

      And you claim that with what authority?

      I'm not entirely disagreeing, but I'm not willing to make the claim that it's "irrationally over priced", because Tesla is in a position that few companies have ever been in. As they ramp up their volume, they're quite possibly going to drive one or more established auto makers out of business.

      Look at Ford. They're discontinuing all of their auto lines in the US except their trucks, the Focus hatchback, and the Mustang. All of the rest, gone. The rest of the Focus models gone, along with the lines for Fusion,Taurus, CMax, Fiesta, which are joining the Crown Vic and Thunderbird in the dust heap of history. That means that Ford isn't competing with Tesla on electric vehicles. Either they know they can't compete, or they've entirely misread the market for electric vehicles.

      Tesla has already sold pretty much all of the vehicles it will produce this year, and maybe next year, without sales people, showrooms or a national advertising campaign. Think about that for a moment. They sell a software upgrade which costs them $0 for $5k in pure profit. Their margins are higher than any other car maker. And they don't require three dealerships in any medium sized city, and one in every moderate sized town to do it.

      Yes, compared to the established car companies, Tesla's valuation looks insane. But I'm not really sure you can compare them to those dinosaurs. You make the claim that it's "irrationally over priced", but looking at who is holding Tesla stock, my guess is you're the one who doesn't understand the market.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    3. Re:Short selling is fine by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ford, a company that killed all their car models, to focus on constructing trucks and SUVs exclusively, at a time when oil prices are going up? If anything I think they are over valued.

      Several problems with your analysis.
      1) I think you hugely underestimate the demand for trucks, particularly in the US
      2) Ford has pretty much never made a profit on passenger cars in the last 30 years.
      3) There is nothing preventing them from electrifying their trucks to hybrids or EVs and in fact Ford is doing just that.
      4) Ford is comparably priced to comparable companies with comparable product portfolios. They also posted a profit of $8.4 billion last year. That sort of profit easily justifies a market cap of $40 billion.

    4. Re:Short selling is fine by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Tesla is doing some really interesting things but there is no rational basis for them to have a market cap larger than Ford.

      Ford's valuation is based on future earnings potential. Investors don't believe that they will manage to make the turn necessary to stay on track. Whether that's accurate or not, Tesla can change direction vastly more rapidly than can FoMoCo.

      If you buy stock in Tesla you are hoping for misfortune for their competitors.

      Not necessarily. You could be hoping that one of their competitors buys them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Short selling is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      its easy to take apart someone's brief comments. Take yours for example:

      #1 ignores the obvious fact that the US is not the majority of the world's market. Sorry to break it to you.

      #2 is just an indictment of Ford's economical viability. Or did you somehow mean to say that a car company that cannot manufacture cars economically is managed soundly? Getting out of passenger vehicles because they cannot compete sounds like good management -- for a company that doesn't know how to manufacture.

      #3 maybe electric makes sense in short range vehicles that can use high torque. Except that that is not how they are used (at least in the US which is apparently the only market you think that matters). Using SUV/truck for personal transportation is always going to be less energy efficient than using a car -- acceptance of a 100km range truck is unlikely to be better than a 200km range car.

      #4 is just hand wavy numbers and no justification other than "I said so". Sorry, I don't accept your appeal to authority.

    6. Re:Short selling is fine by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Look at Ford. They're discontinuing all of their auto lines in the US except their trucks

      And why shouldn't they. People love their trucks. They sold more F-150s last month than Tesla will sell vehicles all year (assuming they were making 5k model 3's a month since January 1). And that's across all Tesla models.

      ]Tesla's] margins are higher than any other car maker.

      Ford makes $13,000 per F-150. That's more than those engineers in Germany said Tesla may approach once they're making 10k/model 3's a week. (And that number includes getting the batteries from panasonic at raw materials cost)

      Based just on the F-150 and the entire line of Tesla, I've gotta say it looks like the entire Tesla line is worth what the F-150 is. And while the F-150 is subject to oil price shocks, the number of rare metals used makes the Tesla line pretty subject shocks too. For instance in Cobalt.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Short selling is fine by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You could be hoping that one of their competitors buys them.

      When you value a company higher than it's competitors, acquisition is no longer an exit strategy.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:Short selling is fine by lgw · · Score: 1

      Let's say TSLA takes over all of Ford's business. That's fairly optimistic. It also leaves them overpriced at their current market cap, which is larger than Fords. Ford is not GM - it has lots of automation and isn't saddled with enormous union obligations.

      That has nothing to do with TSLA stock price, of course. Stocks are priced 80% on fashion, 20% on value. If TSLA succeeds this year it will become even more fashionable, and thus even more overpriced. Reality rarely intrudes on stock prices.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:Short selling is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stock is overvalued.
      BUT, the issue here is that the shorters are working to collapse Tesla. Not their stock value, but the company. Most of the shorters would appear to be those that want to destroy Tesla and EVs.

    10. Re:Short selling is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it's also been said that "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."

    11. Re:Short selling is fine by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      I think that while cars are a traditional market, energy storage is definitely not and it's hardly surprising that it'd be priced more like a startup.

      They've deployed over a GWh of energy storage, and it sounds like they've got a single deal in the works with california that will be bigger than everything they've done so far (and i find it hard to believe that's the only big deal they are lining up). That's a huge space, and if they continue to beat the industry for the amount of cobalt in their batteries then they'll be really competitive in a fast growing space.

    12. Re:Short selling is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore when you are in a mature market like automobiles ANY investment is de-facto a bet on the misfortune of others. If you buy stock in Ford you are effectively hoping for misfortune for Toyota or GM. It's near as makes no difference a zero sum game. If you buy stock in Tesla you are hoping for misfortune for their competitors. That's fine but it's not really much different than shorting TSLA directly.

      This is just not true at all. Although some misfortune happening to GM or Toyota may boost Ford's stock, this is not among the most common situations for a stock to rise. All the stocks can rise at the same time. You're not in Vegas betting against the house. Just because I have two pizzas, it doesn't mean someone else has to eat the box.

      Short selling (or buying puts) is betting against a specific company. And the short sellers are panicking, every shred of possible negative PR about Tesla has been promoted as widely as possible. Plausible sounding, but completely incorrect, ways of looking at their finances are being spouted left and right. Claims that started "Tesla will never..." have changed to "It doesn't matter that Tesla has..., what the real problem is..."

      I don't understand why a billionaire who is actively pursuing his dreams, building rockets and electric cars while pushing technology forward is so hated here, while the heroes are the billionaires who only push money around betting against him.

    13. Re: Short selling is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ford builds cars in and for many markets across the world. Don't be too USA-focused.

    14. Re: Short selling is fine by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And the price on those shares will drop and the market cap will become rational about 3 weeks after all the short sellers are broken. There are too many short Sellers and they are supporting the market.
      Tesla stock is unlikely to be able to correct until most of the short sellers are flushed.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    15. Re:Short selling is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also posted a profit of $8.4 billion last year. That sort of profit easily justifies a market cap of $40 billion.

      If they're really returning 20% then holy beezeezuz they're undervalued.

    16. Re:Short selling is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A huge part of Fords problem in the lead up to the great recession was the fact that they chickened out switching from target to cost accounting so don't be too impressed with their management.

    17. Re:Short selling is fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      over a GWh, which is an insignificant, invisible amount of storage - a run-of-the-mill nuclear reactor outputs this in an hour. Worse, battery storage is inefficient, and it doesn't scale well at all; and even it its present form it is a lot worse than selling cheap.

    18. Re:Short selling is fine by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      They are not killing all their car models. Ford operates globally and they are only killing their car range in the USA.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    19. Re:Short selling is fine by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's also insignificant considering the projected needs of energy storage over the next few decades. If Tesla becomes the provider of choice in a market that could be worth tens of billions annually in a few years time then that's a pretty large revenue stream.

    20. Re: Short selling is fine by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Software isn't free.

      The incremental cost is low but it may have cost millions of dollars,to develop the software. And it may cost Millions more to maintain the staff to support that software.

      I agree that short sellers are doing everything they can because they are getting desperate.

      And I agree Tesla has a product that people really desire.

      And finally I'll agree that Tesla is ramping up production rapidly. It appears to have strong, highly intelligent management and motivated Workforce.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  34. Re:Trump dies in Federal Prison either way a trait by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    There has actually been a good amount of research on this, by sources that I am admittedly far too lazy to find again on this lovely Monday morning.

    Trump's apparent supporters include a large army of bot and sockpuppet accounts (spread through Twitter and Facebook, with notably similar trends on 4chan that are more difficult to track) that become active around 8-9AM every morning, post throughout the day, and stop activity at around 5PM. Their language reflects an education through high school, but they tend not to use allegory or references to pop culture (except for memes of their own creation), and very low engagement with credible experts on any given subject. They also show a curious lack of activity on certain holidays.

    These patterns are also shown by an army of accounts attacking Trump. Same working hours, same linguistic style, and the same engagement patterns, with the only difference really being which names are being dog-whistled. Yes, it certainly appears there's somebody with a professional organization aimed primarily at creating controversy and unrest.

    Now, the fun part of the analysis is that the pattern of work hours and holidays don't align with American time zones or American holidays. Instead, they mostly align with the work patterns in Moscow.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  35. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The shorters are the ones who set themselves up to profit from the misfortune of others, and collectively have also been working to bring about that misfortune. If it fails then it fails expensively, which discourages people from that practice thereby reducing the amount of misfortune in the world.

    That is completely inaccurate and partly a flat out lie. No "shorter" has done anything to bring about misfortune.

    The simple fact is that there is nothing that can justify Tesla's share price. The stock market is a futures market. And Tesla is valued as if it's going to be larger than Ford or GM or Toyota for that matter.

    The worldwide auto industry is only so large and can only grow so fast. And Tesla will have to take sales away from the other automakers.

    People who short do so because they see the market valuing something inappropriately. Tesla is flying so high - all based on hype. It is impossible for a company to meet the expectations that have been placed on Tesla. From what I have seen and Tesla's potential, I think a fair price would be about $25 a share.

    And none of you people have seen what the other automakers have done already. Any market edge Tesla may have is going to disappear real fast.

    That's what just about everyone here fails to understand.

  36. Irrationality and emotion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You people act as if the shorts are personally attacking you and Musk.

    The posts on this site shows just how irrational and emotional Tesla shareholders are.

    See, all the shorts are doing is exploiting the fact that Tesla stock is priced irrationally. There is nothing that can justify it's current price. Nothing.

    It's ALL emotion and hype.

    And the folks who are shorting see that.

    But I think they underestimated the cult of personality around Musk and the hype about Tesla.

    1. Re: Irrationality and emotion. by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      See, all the shorts are doing is throwing away their money.

      FTFY.

      I for one am quite happy to see them do it.

  37. Irrational exuberance all over again by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And you claim that with what authority?

    Simple logic. Ford made $8 billion in PROFIT last year on $156 billion in revenue and has a market cap of $40 billion or so. Tesla lost $2 billion on $11 billion in revenue and has a market cap of $60 billion? Further Tesla has shown no credible path whereby they will generate profits superior to Ford's in the future. If you think that makes any kind of sense you are out of your mind. There is no rational scenario you can propose whereby Tesla is going to generate enough profit to justify that market cap in less than 15 years (and that's being generous) even with ludicrously optimistic assumptions.

    I'm not entirely disagreeing, but I'm not willing to make the claim that it's "irrationally over priced", because Tesla is in a position that few companies have ever been in.

    Evidently you do not recall the dotcom era around 1998-2000. Irrationally overpriced companies are nothing even remotely new and Tesla is not covering any new ground there. Seriously, show me any credible story whereby Tesla generates enough profits to justify their current market cap in less than 15 years. At the end of the day stock prices and market caps are all about profits (including expected profits), otherwise investors eventually have to look elsewhere to make money. If I invest $1000 in Tesla but have to wait 15 years to recover my money while playing a game of who is the greater fool then I'm an idiot.

    Tesla has already sold pretty much all of the vehicles it will produce this year, and maybe next year, without sales people, showrooms or a national advertising campaign.

    Impressive but let me know how you think they are going to manage that trick when they sell as many vehicles as Ford does. It's easy to sell out when you cannot produce all that much to begin with. 5000 vehicles a week? Ford makes and sells about 17,000 F-150s each week just on that model alone and they aren't scrambling to do it either. And more importantly they are making huge profits along the way.

    Yes, compared to the established car companies, Tesla's valuation looks insane.

    Compared to pretty much ANY company Tesla's valuation IS insane.

    1. Re:Irrational exuberance all over again by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      And you claim that with what authority?

      Simple logic. Ford made $8 billion in PROFIT last year on $156 billion in revenue and has a market cap of $40 billion or so. Tesla lost $2 billion on $11 billion in revenue and has a market cap of $60 billion?

      That's hilarious logic right there. You don't even understand that you're not comparing the same thing, do you?

      Further Tesla has shown no credible path whereby they will generate profits superior to Ford's in the future.

      So, what you're saying is that you don't know anything about Tesla. I get it.

      With this level of expertise, I can't imagine why you're not the next Warren Buffet.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:Irrational exuberance all over again by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      The stock valuation is definitely high because of speculation, but it's long term not short. If they can actually maintain sales and production of 5000 Model 3's a week that will generate profits around a couple billion a year, working from the assumption that their gross profit margin is only 20%. If production and sales go higher and stay there the margins will be better, and could be better than we estimate anyways. Speculation in Tesla is driven by the fact that every day it seems to be coming closer to realistically eating a huge share of the automotive market.

    3. Re:Irrational exuberance all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Justify your reasoning. He justified his to you twice, but so far all you have provided is skepticism and a bad attitude.

      Why is comparing profitability, revenue, and market cap to profitability, revenue, and market cap "not comparing the same thing" and "hilarious logic."

      Provide a causal method whereby Tesla will outperform present-day Ford by 50% in the next 15 years. Use numbers.

      As an investor, I want to know what you think and why you think it.

    4. Re:Irrational exuberance all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First that was very simple logic that seems both correct and dry rather than hilarious. Second Warren Buffet? If he wanted in invest in Tesla he would. Instead he talks about disruption and moats. Warren looks for understandable products with a good management team that he can afford to buy.

    5. Re:Irrational exuberance all over again by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious logic right there. You don't even understand that you're not comparing the same thing, do you?

      What's hilarious is that you had the opportunity to correct the logic but chose not to for some reason.
      As an independent reader, the other guy's logic makes more sense than yours....

    6. Re:Irrational exuberance all over again by hawk · · Score: 1

      >Evidently you do not recall the dotcom era around
      >1998-2000. Irrationally overpriced companies are
      >nothing even remotely new and Tesla is not covering
      >any new ground there.

      Only "sort of". Valuations of dotcoms were largely bets that they would be the amazon category-killer of their category. When all of the competitors were less than the winner's valuation would be, they are over priced--and, conversely, when (if it ever happened!) their combined value was *less* than the category-killer would be worth, they were underpriced. And this applies to the group; the one that had a 40% chance of winning should have been worth 40% of the category. If it was only 30%, even though the total was 200%, that particular one was underpriced.

      20 years ago, amazon itself seemed bizarrely over-priced . . . (and the same for google). Neither seemed to have a real path to be profitable, but . . .

      And then there's apple. In the late 90s, I was eating for it to drop to $13.50 to buy $5k (or go nuts with $10k) in my retirement accounts. I figured it would eventually be sold for $20/share to be broken up (it *did* manufacture the highest quality hardware at the time [with notable exceptions]).

      *sigh*

      it never went below $14 . . .

      oh, well.

      hawk

  38. Future free cash flows by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Ford's valuation is based on future earnings potential.

    Correct. Same is true for any company. Tesla included. However stock prices in the sort term routinely can deviate from this rational analysis. We saw quite a lot of this back during the dotcom bubble.

    Whether that's accurate or not, Tesla can change direction vastly more rapidly than can FoMoCo.

    Tesla's valuation cannot possibly be based on any rational analysis of future free cash flows. The fact that they are currently more nimble than Ford is pretty much irrelevant in the short to medium term. Short term valuations don't have to be based on anything rational. Long term though they pretty much always are. Show me any rational analysis whereby Tesla's future earnings potential exceeds Ford's within the next 5 years by enough to justify their current valuation.

    Investors need a return on their investment within a reasonable time period. Tesla is so overpriced that it is unreasonable to expect a return on investment any time soon. Doesn't mean it is a bad company or that they won't be profitable. It just means that they aren't likely to generate enough profits to provide a rational ROI to investors in a useful time frame. Right now we just have a bunch of people playing a game of who is the Greater Fool.

    Not necessarily. You could be hoping that one of their competitors buys them.

    Doesn't change the equation. If you buy Tesla stock and hypothetically GM buys Tesla, you still have an investment in Tesla and you still are hoping for misfortune for the competition because if someone buys a Tesla then they are not buying someone else's brand of vehicle. It might bump your ROI but it remains a zero sum game whereby a long position in one auto company is de-facto a synthetic short position in every other auto company.

    1. Re:Future free cash flows by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Doesn't change the equation. If you buy Tesla stock and hypothetically GM buys Tesla, you still have an investment in Tesla and you still are hoping for misfortune for the competition because if someone buys a Tesla then they are not buying someone else's brand of vehicle.

      This assumes that GM (in your example) doesn't just shut Tesla down and absorb its technology into its other product lines. That would be bad for the workers at Tesla, but as a corporation, it's often a profitable end game.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Future free cash flows by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      Not if GM "absorbs Tesla's technology" by picking the Tesla carcass in bankruptcy.

  39. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Sounds like you are confusing people who buy stock with investors.

  40. Re:Trump dies in Federal Prison either way a trait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheese and rice, this is getting ridiculous.

    Everybody with whom you disagree is a Russian bot.

    Did you know the Supreme Court, in effect, just destroyed public sector unions? Why don't you focus on issues instead of the stupid Russian interference fantasy?

  41. Re:Trump dies in Federal Prison either way a trait by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    Everybody with whom you disagree is a Russian bot.

    Now, that's not actually what I said at all. I said there are bots and sockpuppets on both sides, but they're focusing more on stirring up anger than having actual discussion. For example, one of the preferred tactics on both sides is "whataboutism", where they will bring up a completely unrelated subject like a recent court decision to steer the conversation away from rational analysis and towards partisan vitriol.

    Did you know the Supreme Court, in effect, just destroyed public sector unions?

    Oh look, there it is!

    Why don't you focus on issues instead of the stupid Russian interference fantasy?

    Foreign interference is an issue. It is probably the most important issue, because it undermines the legitimacy of every other democratic process.

    Take your example, for instance. The SCOTUS has determined that collective bargaining is not necessarily always something a non-union worker wants (regardless of whether it's in their best interest), so under the First Amendment, non-union workers have the freedom to choose not to associate with the union.

    Now, it's certainly easy to think this is a purely American problem. It's a case in an American court about American workers interpreting American laws governing American business practices. However, it's still a matter of international interest, as those American public-sector organizations are responsible for handling how the United States executes the duties of government, which in turn affects how the United States can compete globally with foreign efforts. If a foreign power can sway the American policy in a way that harms America's economic capabilities, they will create opportunities for their own advancement.

    Similarly, American elections are vitally important for determining American policy. If a foreign government is able to promote a narcissistic President, for example, they would be able to sway any policy or political negotiations by simply rolling out red carpet and offering copious amounts of insubstantial flattery. It is imperative, then, that we fully investigate any allegation of impropriety during elections. Everything - from campaign funding to personnel selection, and beyond - should be open to scrutiny, even if nothing is ultimately found.

    Even if the investigation ultimately finds no foreign influence, having a thorough investigation process itself deters foreign powers from trying to influence elections, as they can be sure the investigation will make such influence difficult to hide, at best.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  42. oh look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We beat the latest "self-imposed" deadline, after failing time and time again to beat the previous deadlines.
    Really, this makes them look really bad. When they have to resort to this sort of boast, it's pretty damn bad.

    This would be like someone saying that they managed to stop smoking ahead of schedule, when they already failed to quit a dozen times. Nice to celebrate getting there, but let's not pretend the past did not happen, that Tesla has not left those on the wait list waiting far longer than Tesla said they would.

    I'll keep driving my Bolt, which was ready for pickup last year, just 3 days after I put down $100 to get the model of my choice brought over from another dealer. When can I go into a Tesla salesfloor, and get a Model 3 within 3 days????

  43. I think you did the right thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An analyst has DOWNGRADED TSLA from HOLD to SELL a few hours ago by CFRA.

    There is a LOT of risk with the current price of TSLA - it's actually DOWN almost 3% at 12:30. TSLA is a gambling/trader stock. It's not for long term investing - it's too high.

    The fact is, even at this current production rate, Tesla is probably still going to lose money. And with its precarious financial condition, it may go insolvent if doesn't generate enough cash.

    In a few years when the hype dies down and the price becomes reasonable, it may be a good investment.

    And we're headed for a recession. We've just come off a peak in the business cycle and the numbers are pointing to a recession in late '19 or '20.

  44. The parent post speaks truth. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    This is why sustained production numbers are the only accurate ones.

    So. Much. This.

    With their enormous debt load, low credit rating, shrinking capital reserves, and lack of cash flow - sprints are irrelevant. Sprints generate lots of publicity, lets the fanboys drool and crow, impresses the impressionable and the already convinced... They do very little to address the very real problems Tesla is facing in the short (>6 mos) term.

  45. TSLA is ludicrously overvalued by sjbe · · Score: 1

    That's hilarious logic right there. You don't even understand that you're not comparing the same thing, do you?

    What exactly do you think is not "the same thing"? Do you not recognize the same data for both companies? You think Tesla is somehow special so that profits and revenues shouldn't play any role in determining market cap?

    So, what you're saying is that you don't know anything about Tesla. I get it.

    Ok smart guy. Show us how brilliant your financial analysis is. Prove your case. Show me how Tesla is going to make a profit large enough to justify a valuation 50% larger than Ford with 7% of the revenue and negative profits nor any near term expectations of significant profits. Dazzle me with your brilliant insight.

    With this level of expertise, I can't imagine why you're not the next Warren Buffet.

    Never claimed to be Buffet but you don't have to be to know that TSLA is a ludicrously overvalued stock. Someday it might make sense for TSLA to be worth more than Ford but that day is definitely not today.

    1. Re:TSLA is ludicrously overvalued by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Ok smart guy. Show us how brilliant your financial analysis is. Prove your case.

      Sorry, but if you're not willing to even learn a tiny bit about the company on your own, I'm not willing to spend my time teaching you. Search bar is up at the top of the page. I'll give you a hint: These two companies are not at the same stage of their lives.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:TSLA is ludicrously overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, you cannot present any rational argument to support your point whatsoever. You lose, Big Mouth.

      Oh, BTW, speaking of Buffet.... How much did his fund invest into this miracle of Tesla?

      Yep. Zero. I wonder why.

    3. Re:TSLA is ludicrously overvalued by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buffett doesn't invest in companies he doesn't understand and has zero understanding of high tech so he avoids it. That is his #1 rule, he has to understand the business and what they make before investing.

      Same reason he doesn't invest in Apple or Google.

      numbnuts

    4. Re:TSLA is ludicrously overvalued by hawk · · Score: 1

      So, tell me about Ford's battery business?

      How many houses does it power, and how many electrical grids does it have sites attached to?

      Tesla is *not* really in the car business, any more than Las Vegas is in the gambling business.

      Tesla is in the *battery* business, and cars are a great way to move them (and Las Vegas is in the fantasy business; gambling is just a big part of the schtick. [and for the matter, look at the land under the corporate owned McDonald's which it also owns . . . ])

      hawk

  46. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Rei · · Score: 1

    Stock prices are not based on what Tesla's year-old plans for the present time, any more than they're based on Tesla's two-year-old plans for the present time (which were less optimistic than reality). Stock pricing is based on current expectations, not old ones.

    --
    Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
  47. I'm reminded of Gung Ho by drewsup · · Score: 1

    that cheesy Mike Keaton movie when they pledge to build 15,000 cars to make a bonus, he gets in the last one made to prove its worthy of buying and the doors and wheels falls off!

  48. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the SolarCity self-dealing that's now blowing up. Musk had TSLA shareholders bail out his personal investment in SolarCity and now he's winding down that entire business now that he's whole. SolarCity alone has billions in debt coming due soon.

  49. Long term versus looooooong term by sjbe · · Score: 2

    The stock valuation is definitely high because of speculation, but it's long term not short.

    How long do you think is "long term"? Even a long term play still needs to have a justifiable ROI. It doesn't matter if it returns a 10% gain if it takes 10 years to do it based on the companies operating fundamentals.

    If they can actually maintain sales and production of 5000 Model 3's a week that will generate profits around a couple billion a year, working from the assumption that their gross profit margin is only 20%.

    Gross margin is not relevant here except insofar as it affects net margin. If Tesla builds 5000 Model 3s per week and sells them for $50K each then that is ~$13 billion in revenue (slightly over double their current revenue). 20% gross margin is in line with other automakers so the question is what the net margin will be. The most profitable automakers out there top out at around 11% net margins. Let's pretend Tesla can match that somehow even though they clearly won't in the near term. That would be a profit of $1.43 billion assuming some ludicrously optimistic assumptions come to pass. But realistically Tesla would be lucky to capture a fraction of that in the next few years. They might be very profitable in time but it won't happen in the next 12 months and they have some debt to serve next year.

    Then you have to figure out how long it would take for the shareholders to recoup their money. With a market cap of $60 billion (equity) plus $10 billion in debt (debt gets paid first over equity) and profits of $1.43 billion it will take 49 YEARS for TSLA to generate a positive return on that investment at current share prices. ROI = Annual Cash Flow / Equity and that works out to around a 2.8% ROI under completely unrealistic profit assumptions of 11% net margins. I'm a patient guy but I need an ROI before I'm dead.

  50. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's not actually the investors who have a problem with this (we voted for it - *I* voted for it. Enough institutional investors okayed it too). The people who have a "problem" with it are shorts and others who did not own the stock. Those of us who are long on the stock are quite pleased and have learned to lean toward stepping out of Elon's way and letting the wonder worker do whatever the hell he wants.

  51. Re:And you would enthusiastically buy one of the c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly you have never had a blue-collar job. Never buy a car built on a friday, or before a holiday. Never buy a car built in a mad dash. Imagine the bugs that happen in software during 100 hour death marches. Now remember that bugs in car manufacturing are things you will be paying to fix throughout the lifetime of the vehicle.

  52. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    When you and the "institutional investors" voted for it did you guys know that Musk was an original seed investor for SolarCity with a 20% equity stake that was going to be wiped out when their debt came due at the end of this year? No, he didn't disclose that until after the vote. Did you and the "institutional investors" know that the solar roof shingles he demo'd at the shareholder's meeting were non-working mockups and that they didn't even have a working prototype? Other's would've already been charged with fraud for doing what he did with SolarCity. SolarCity is now winding down operations right before the massive California law requiring all new houses have solar. Why would they do that if there was any truth to the hype about that company?

  53. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She already has been....and yes, because he is short.

  54. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most importantly, I really really don't care. I knew his cousin was heading SolarCity and expected Elon to have a lot of ownership - not sure if I knew the details or not (and didn't care). However, they still have Giga 2 going up for solar-related production. My understanding is that duplicated management+sales is getting removed as is the norm after merger. More sales will occur via Tesla stores and online under the shared brand. I approve of what has been happening post-merger.

  55. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    Not disclosing his ownership interest in SolarCity before having TSLA shareholders bail him out is straight up fraud.

    They aren't just laying off SolarCity mgmt, the entire business is being wound down (i.e. closed).

  56. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by mlyle · · Score: 1

    Of course, though ... past organizational performance often *is* indicative of future results. The same management team hitting milestones with ease indicates that you probably have a capable organization and approach to market that is serving you well; struggling and hitting them late may be because of a one-time setback or may indicate that bumpy roads lie ahead, too.

  57. 55K for believers and 35K for non-believers :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are going to sell Model 3 for the first 100K customers for 55K and for the remaining customers for 35K :-)

  58. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by swillden · · Score: 1

    struggling and hitting them late may be because of a one-time setback or may indicate that bumpy roads lie ahead, too.

    Or it may indicate that they just habitually set very high goals. There's a common notion in Silicon Valley that if you regularly achieve your goals, you must be setting them too low. Musk's companies have a history of doing incredible things while failing to do the even more incredible things he promised.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  59. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    Oh bull. Stock prices are based on fairy dust and personality cults. Musk could change the name from Tesla to TeslaBlockchain and triple the stock price with no other changes at all.

  60. Guess how much oil to make each car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess how much gas/fuel to get workers and salespeople etc to get there?

    Guess how electric cars are a facade.

    1. Re:Guess how much oil to make each car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much oil to make any car?

      The difference is that no gas is needed to run it.

      numbnuts.

  61. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by soc_cost_priv_gains · · Score: 1

    My high school English teacher had a saying written on the chalkboard: it is better to aim for the stars and miss, than aim for a pile of manure and hit.

  62. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    They aren't just laying off SolarCity mgmt, the entire business is being wound down (i.e. closed).

    That's just a lie. SolarCity, as a brand name, is being retired, but "the business" is very much staying alive. The infrastruture, intellectual property, critical employees, etc. are all being retained; it's just that all future solar products will be sold under the Tesla brand.

  63. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Rei · · Score: 1

    They're confusing the "winding down" of Solar City's old low-margin installation business with the "winding down" of what Solar City's debt was actually accumulated to fund (Gigafactory 2), which is very much not being wound down.

    --
    Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
  64. In the meantime.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you totally obvious to the fact that every major car maker and many smaller ones all have EV in their line ups NOW or due in the next 1-2 car cycles?

    Yes. You are. Or you are making shit up because you have an irrational love of a random businessman.

    Once the big makers get rolling, Tesla will get stuck forever as what it is now: an interesting but ultimately failed psychological experiment in charging people way too much for a car based on the coolness the cult leader fosters in his adherents while providing a Civic quality interior in a $100k car with the option to pay more to get the faux auto-pilot âoevehicular manslaughterâ mode.

    When I get an EV it will be from a real company. It will not be from some charlatan pushing expensive crap on his cult followers who murders people with buggy as fuck experimental driving software criminally advertised as self-driving mode.

    1. Re:In the meantime.... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Are you totally obvious to the fact that every major car maker and many smaller ones all have EV in their line ups NOW or due in the next 1-2 car cycles?

      Yes, and they're an embarrassment by comparison, in terms of either volume, price point/capabilities, or both.

      There's a reason that nearly half a million people lined up to wait ages for a Model 3 and not a Focus Electric, whether you understand why or not.

      --
      Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
  65. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by mlyle · · Score: 1

    Yah, that's fine, as long as we're not talking about the yardsticks that are involved in continued survival--- which is what we are. It's unclear how much access to debt or equity markets TSLA has, and they're attempting to thread the needle with very limited cash to profitability.

  66. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When SolarCity was bought up, that was no "low margin installation business", but a *synergy* that would benefit investors and shower them in gold. To quote his Holiness himself:

    By joining forces [Tesla and SC] can ... provide customers with an aesthetically beautiful and simple one-stop solar + storage experience: one installation, one service contract, one phone app. ...

      We also expect to save customers money by lowering hardware costs, reducing installation costs, improving our manufacturing efficiency and reducing our customer acquisition costs. We will also be able to leverage Tesla's 190-store retail network and international presence to extend our combined reach.

    If one makes a promise to to sell a "one-stop experience", destroying their sales channels and their installation competence is a very, very strange move.

    But the facts tell us a different story: SolarCity was losing money and market fast, there are no "roofing solutions" available - only intentions to make them.

    It is all financial fakery of the lowest quality, whereby Musk sold his shares of SolarCity to his current "investors" at a huge premium, so that he can keep paying the shills.

  67. Re: Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Rei · · Score: 1

    an aesthetically beautiful and simple one-stop solar + storage experience: one installation, one service contract, one phone app.

    Yes, that's a description of the solar roofing product.

    We will also be able to leverage Tesla's 190-store retail network and international presence to extend our combined reach.

    That's exactly what they're doing: using Tesla stores to sell the products, reducing duplication overhead.

    Why are you quoting Tesla describing exactly what they're doing to argue that they're doing something else?

    --
    Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
  68. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Rei · · Score: 1

    No, we're not. Tesla has no need for debt or equities markets to survive, and a several billion dollar buffer is not "threading the needle".

    --
    Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
  69. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by mlyle · · Score: 1

    Are we reading the same financial statements? They had $2.8B of cash on hand 3/31, after net negative cash flows of $800M, and have unquestionably burnt a lot more this quarter. This is not billions of dollars of buffer. I don't know the terms of covenants on their debt and what kind of cash balance they're *allowed* to get to, but it's not $0. This is cutting it really fine-- any time you have less than 3 quarters of cash on hand at current burn it's absolutely nervewracking (been there, done that).

    I'm neither short nor long on TSLA. It's not as desperate of a situation as the haters say, but .... it's not like you put it, at all, either ;)

  70. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by Rei · · Score: 1

    They had $2.8B of cash on hand

    Yes, that's known as a "several billion dollar buffer".

    after net negative cash flows of $800M

    1) $675M

    2) That's an entire year's worth. The concept that they can't become profitable in a year at the current high burn rate - let alone a declining rate - is utter nonsense.

    3) Capex creates assets that can be borrowed against.

    and have unquestionably burnt a lot more this quarter.

    Have unquestionably not.

    --
    Why must all aquatic villains play the organ?
  71. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by mlyle · · Score: 1

    > > They had $2.8B of cash on hand

    > Yes, that's known as a "several billion dollar buffer".

    I don't know if you're a native English speaker, but a couple is usually "2", few is "3-4", and several usually means "4-7". Further, a buffer only extends to the amount that is **more than you need**.

    > 1) $675M

    Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash (745,251) ... which is offset by $1.7B of issuance of debt during the period.

    > Have unquestionably not.

    Just to be clear as to what I meant: have burnt a lot more cash this quarter, but not necessarily more cash than the quarter before. We'll know in a few days the exact numbers.

  72. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by mlyle · · Score: 1

    > 2) That's an entire year's worth. The concept that they can't become profitable in a year at the current high burn rate - let alone a declining rate - is utter nonsense.

    I didn't even notice this in your comment.

    No. They had $3.96B in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash on Jan 1. They had $3.22B in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash on Mar 31. During this time they took in $1.78B in debt financing.

    http://ir.tesla.com/node/18711...

  73. Re:Ah no. The shorts are fine. by mlyle · · Score: 1

    (And just for completeness, paid down $1.39B of debt-- resulting in a net burn of about $1B a quarter).