Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Deliveries Are Down 31% From Last Quarter -- But Up 110% From Last Year (forbes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Forbes:
Tesla's stock dropped 8% Thursday on the news that Q1 deliveries fell 31% from the previous quarter. However, being a seasonal business, car companies usually compare their results against the same quarter from the previous year. On that basis, virtually all of the major car companies have said Q1 sales will be flat to 7% lower than last year. In contrast, Tesla's deliveries are up 110% from last year. From the one year perspective, Tesla is the only car company that is growing...
Yesterday's headlines which focused on the 31% decline are factually correct but misleading. Moreover, Tesla said that delays in deliveries to Europe and China caused "a large number of vehicle deliveries to shift to the second quarter. At the end of the first quarter, approximately 10,600 vehicles were in transit to customers globally..." Had Tesla managed the increased deliveries in Europe and China a little better, they might have come close to Wall Street's expectations.
On Friday, Tesla's stock bounced up 2.68%.
Yesterday's headlines which focused on the 31% decline are factually correct but misleading. Moreover, Tesla said that delays in deliveries to Europe and China caused "a large number of vehicle deliveries to shift to the second quarter. At the end of the first quarter, approximately 10,600 vehicles were in transit to customers globally..." Had Tesla managed the increased deliveries in Europe and China a little better, they might have come close to Wall Street's expectations.
On Friday, Tesla's stock bounced up 2.68%.
Because they respond to emotion and not logic.
Do you have any other questions?
It was the expiration/reduction of consumer tax credit. A huge amount of demand was pulled forward in the final Q of last year for that reason.
Tesla is a fraud. It is Theranos...
How so? Are they not electric cars? Do they not function as cars?
but they make explosive electric cars.
Electric cars do not explode, Tesla or otherwise. In the event a damaged battery cell, a cascade reaction can occur in which the battery slowly burns the car but never explode. However, ICE cars have been known to explode because they are powered by a combustible fuel source and a collision can cause the gasoline to leak. When the leaking gasoline meets a small ignition source the vehicle is soon engulfed in a fireball.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It's not the same thing. Theranos advertised a product which they never actually delivered. That they could do a variety of blood tests with a small blood sample which they did not.
Tesla sells an actual product that does work as advertised.
You might argue about the financial viability of Tesla or it's business model but even their competitors think their product are solid technology wise for what they are.
What they have are manufacturing and quality control issues.
It is not surprising they missed their target deliveries this quarter. Their logistics system is dysfunctional. Since deliveries this quarter were mostly for European and Asian markets, i.e. where the remaining high-end customers still to be served are, this made it even worse. Did you catch the news about a bunch of Model 3's stuck in customs in China some a couple of weeks back because of a labeling issue? Or how Elon made Tesla employees personally deliver vehicles to customers to meet their numbers? Those are just some of the issues. Their logistics suck.
As I've said before, the hundreds of thousands of people on the Model 3 waitlist means you can't view an increase in deliveries as an equivalent increase in customers. They're simply backfilling orders that already existed, so the 110% growth is just measuring increase in production. Depending on the rate that people on the waitlist are giving up and moving on, net customer demand could actually be decreasing.
The real test will come when the waitlist is eliminated -- then QoQ or YoY will actually measure deltas in customer demand.
Thank you for posting that. I was wondering where the mislead was, since all the recent expert analysis seemed reasonable and rational.
In case anyone hasn't been following the Tesla saga (most people, I imagine), public sentiment about the company is completely and totally driven by a sense of profit for the customers of the people writing the sentiment. If a fund's customers would profit by the stock tanking, then they try to bring that about by writing misleading predictions of doom and gloom.
The Tesla target price is all over the map - from from a low of 180 to a high of 500.
Tesla used to be the most shorted stock in history, and still has significant short interest. Roughly $11 b is betting that the stock will tank, and this results in enormous incentive to bring that about.
Last summer it was "Tesla will need another round of financing, we're certain", then Tesla paid its debt obligation in cash from profits.
Last month it was "Musk violated the SEC agreement", by tweeting information that was available in the published documents.
Today it's "interest has dried up". Wait a half a year and see if the trend is correct.
It's completely insane that the value of the company stock is based not on analysis and solid numbers, but on the perception of numbers. The stock doesn't go up or down based on whether they make a profit - it goes up or down based on whether it meets or exceeds *expectations* of profit.
Ugh!
It's literally impossible to get good stock information about Tesla at this point, and this will probably be true going forward for several years.
They didn't just advertise it. They put on fraudulent "demonstrations" to potential investors.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Yes. 1Q19 demand was pulled into 4Q18, and at the moment they still have thousands of units on ships in transit to China and Europe, effectively pushing those deliveries into 2Q19. So last quarter in particular was a low point in deliveries.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Tesla's cars are real and do work. Some idiosyncratic design choices but that's between the seller and the potential customer.
What it is not clear that Tesla has is a successful business model sustainable for more than... about the amount of time it has been in business. Historically it has always been possible to launch a new luxury brand, but having satisfied the demand from their intial customers it has also been very easy for the new luxury brand to go out of business and most have. GM, Nissan, and some other established makers are now selling electric vehicles that might eventually reach price points affordable by the masses, but Tesla does not seem able to do that.
What they have are manufacturing and quality control issues.
Yes, there are manufacturing and quality control issues, but those are not the only challenges. The current talking points attempt to pivot away from the elephant in the room, which is that Tesla's largest market may be trending toward saturation, hence the emphasis on Europe and China. Part of that potential decrease in demand comes from the sunsetting of the US federal tax credit. However, if some of that decrease comes from saturation of the potential market, then that is a big concern. The practical short-term addressable market is only a small subset of the total car market due to cost (i.e., a huge part of the market won't consider even a $35k car), availability of charging infrastructure (e.g., how do renters charge at home?), high cost of electricity (e.g., most people don't have access to free solar or at-work chargers), and range anxiety to a lesser but non-zero extent.
It is not surprising they missed their target deliveries this quarter. Their logistics system is dysfunctional. Since deliveries this quarter were mostly for European and Asian markets, i.e. where the remaining high-end customers still to be served are, this made it even worse.
This is the part that suggests that the US market is trending toward saturation, at least for the high-end, high-margin customers. If Tesla could sell more to the US market instead of the more costly operation of selling overseas to new markets, they would do so. The overseas markets can wait in deference to easier, short-term profits, if those profits were available.
Not just to investors. I was more unfortunate than that. They actually made available these blood testing services which simply provided totally bogus analysis results. Or in the case where the analysis were reliable the tests were conducted with machines other than their own.
The consensus seems to be it is not possible to make reliable testing with the minuscule amount of blood they claimed was necessary nor with blood samples taken in the finger like they claimed.
I think everyone agrees that electric cars can be made and there are several examples of that. So at least the technology is doable. If there is any bullshit with regards to Tesla it might be some of their claims about Autopilot. But it is not like the business began with that features. It is not the main reason why people buy a Tesla either I think. People buy Teslas because they like the idea of having an electric car which has high torque, nice top speed, they can charge at home, has low noise, etc. I think Autopilot was never a main concern. It is more of a gimmick than anything.
Could the Model 3 be cannibalizing sales?
Model 3 deliveries are up 522.25%, but Model S and X deliveries are down 44.50%
In 1Q 2018, Tesla delivered:
11,730 Model S
10,070 Model X
8,180 Model 3
In 1Q 2019, Tesla delivered:
12,100 Model S and X combined (Tesla didn't break down S and X deliveries separately)
50,900 Model 3
Maybe the Model S and Model X are getting dated and in need of a redesign and update? Cars usually have a 5-6 year model (generation) run before a completely redesigned model hits the lots.
What a weasel way to try and twist the bad numbers into a positive. Yes most are flat or slightly lower, but MOST are not projecting or relying on high growth, nor do they have a building excess of stock.
Eventually EV makers will find out that there is a limited market of people who can work around the current disadvantages of an EV.
Eventually EV makers will resolve that problem, by reducing or eliminating the current disadvantages of an EV.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
"They were still moving, but we couldn't get them out because the fire was too intense," a man who tried to help told Local 10 News.
https://www.local10.com/news/l...
Tesla's largest market may be trending toward saturation, hence the emphasis on Europe and China
Tesla's largest market to date hasn't even remotely saturated and the federal tax credit has rarely come into the consideration of those buying luxury cars. Tesla's expansion into Europe and China has necessitated a cheap platform and for that they needed to start getting an affordable car on the street. The expansion is just that ... expansion.
Even a company in a completely open an unsaturated market benefits from expansion in this brave new world of demanding perpetually and steadily increasing profits.
So you think... but from what I'm hearing, gas has some unique physical properties that are tricky to get around. Maybe one day we will be able to fill an EV in 5 minutes but that seems to be a long way off.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Electric cars are already more convenient than gas cars today — for those who can charge at home, or who can park at night any place where they have access to electricity. Going to the gas station is a nuisance, believe it or not. Plugging your car in when you come home takes five seconds, not five minutes. And then there's the superior driving experience to consider.
Even on road trips, we're still looking at one or two 20-30 minute charging stops per day, which doesn't seem like any great burden. (Unless you're trying to make the Cannonball Run!) You don't have to stand next to your car and babysit it for half an hour; you can go grab lunch.
Basically, I think most cars made by most companies now are very ugly. Teslas are the exception; they're sleek and clean looking. (And the homely, awkward Tesla Model X is the exception to the exception.)
The fact is, if you want to do those stops with an ICE you can still do those stops with an ICE. Buying an EV forces you to do those stops, which we don't tend to do as a family. We don't find it terribly rewarding to stop at some restaurant in some small town and spend more money.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Tesla's largest market may be trending toward saturation, hence the emphasis on Europe and China
Tesla's largest market to date hasn't even remotely saturated and the federal tax credit has rarely come into the consideration of those buying luxury cars. Tesla's expansion into Europe and China has necessitated a cheap platform and for that they needed to start getting an affordable car on the street. The expansion is just that ... expansion.
Even a company in a completely open an unsaturated market benefits from expansion in this brave new world of demanding perpetually and steadily increasing profits.
For Tesla's sake, I hope what you're saying is true. However, sacrificing the current stable market for an emerging future market when the company still needs to watch cash flow is a strange decision, unless the current stable market isn't that stable. Tesla admitted to pulling in Q1 sales into the previous Q4 in order to take advantage of the federal tax credit sunset, so even Tesla recognizes the impact of that sunset on sales. Plus, Tesla explained the extra $2k discount as a compensation for the sunset, adding to the idea that the credit does affect sales. We'll have to wait for Q2 sales to see if the US market recovers.