So, you're right that there's an improvement. OTOH if you look at non-R&D SG&A the trend is still present but less clear. Least squares fit guesses SG&A is 360M + 0.2 * revenue, which if gross margin is 20% never reaches profitability--- but of course, since SG&A is spent "ahead" this is misleading. It's certainly not a wonderful sign, though.
In Q2 we learn just how perilous the cash situation becomes (Q2 will probably be a flat or even a bit worse in cash flow situation, due to costs incurred related to efforts to control SG&A), and Q3 we see whether they're turning the corner fast enough. It is possible, but you can't deny that this is right down to the wire.
Even when you're operating a much smaller company, it's never really clear just how much of SG&A is relatively scale-invariant and how much actually supports production and individual unit sales/distribution/servicing. You figure out that for real as you turn the corner.
And he acknowledged it was a problem multiple times before this latest outburst, including just about a month ago-- but somehow still has not stopped it.
;) I've got a Honda Clarity, 1000 miles, burnt 0.2 gallons of gas so far (about half of that because I was fucking around with the HV modes). And eventually I'll go on a road trip and it will be a lot less of a pain.
Yes, I'll need time based oil changes, but that'll be quite some time as it's synthetic and used so sparingly. Bigger deal will be needing to burn the gasoline before it goes bad. I wish it could take a little more gas (range with 7 gallons is very good, but with 9 would be super impressive-- but then I guess the "needing to get rid of gas problem would be bigger).
Not really too much of a transmission either. Same cargo volume as a Tesla 3, but not divided into 2 compartments, and a much better back seat.
> The Model 3 can be refilled in 15 seconds of your time. Plug in when you get home, disconnect when you leave. Who cares how long it takes while you're asleep? That's not your time. The time it charges in your garage does not in any way waste minutes of your life. Unlike stopping at a gas station at regular intervals throughout your regular life.
PHEVs do this too.
> On long trips - aka, the exception, not the rule - you charge in the time a typical person spends on meal and bathroom/stretch breaks. But that's tangential to how most people spend most of their time in their vehicles.
Your own quoted text shows the language is completely replaced. Yes, the size of the credit was multiplied by the number of manufacturers, else it would have run out a fair bit ago. What other credits you can take it with and its interaction with depreciation was changed. The eligibility threshold was pushed up one 1KW-hr of capacity. The credit was limited to existing tax obligation (not refundable). It was allowed for lease and its interaction with business taxes was substantially changed. Etc, etc, etc.
> (a) In General.--Section 30D is amended to read as follows: [entire text of current language]
[entire text replaced, with some similarities with prior language... but e.g. changing limit to 250k per mfr instead of 250k total, threshold, interactions with depreciation, etc]
Not really? I mean, yes, there was a similar tax credit as part of TARP, with sharper limitations that was basically not ever claimed, and it was replaced by the Obama administration, fulfilling a campaign promise...
Yah-- but if I partially disagree with someone in an attempt to try and engage in discussion with them, I would be offended to be told that I'm "mansplaining".
Sure, they're under no obligation to take the bait and discuss things with me, but if I've been civil they don't need to denigrate, mock me, and implicitly accuse me of sexist behavior.
:) You're determined to think that stamp collecting isn't significant, but the reason why the USPS does commemorative issues is that it drives this--- people buy them and then keep them. It tends to get people who aren't even stamp collectors--- I've got a bunch of centennial of flight stamps because I'm an airplane nerd (not really a stamp nerd).
About 3.5% of all stamps are breakage: they will likely never be used based on past trends. For many boring stamps, it's 1-2%. More desirable commemorative issues with a broad interest it's 5-10%. To me, this suggests about half the breakage is because of people liking art on some issues and keepin' em.
Yah, that's a fair point-- you were maybe about to die anyways. Or maybe not.
The traffic accident increase ---- not so much.
Studies looking at the US have found a 10-20% increase in traffic fatalities the Monday after the time shift (both directions), only fully settling to normal a week later. If you consider just the Monday, that's 30 extra deaths per year.
So in column A, we have something that saves between -$300M and $300M in energy per year, unknown-- and in column B, we know that it kills at least 30 people a year. Doesn't seem like a great policy to me.
There's been numerous studies. Yes, there's (probably) a tiny electric savings. There's also a loss from increased heating expenses, which are not usually electric. Overall studies have struggled to find a benefit and some have even shown an overall net loss. But we know people die in traffic accidents and from heart attacks at an increased rate afterwards--- the cost of the extra death exceeds a (doubtful) couple hundred million dollars in energy savings per annum.
If the government has effectively given a vendor a last-mile monopoly--- as has historically been the case with franchise agreements and city street easements--- the last thing in the world I want them to be doing is to decide what kinds of traffic are "more important." I have one choice of vendor. If they decide I'm not going to have a great time streaming video and I need to buy TV service from them, too, that's "not cool."
You can still implement QOS to ensure that every customer has a certain amount of traffic at specified latencies/losses-- not that anyone does. Service providers mostly like QOS to advantage their own services-- using leverage from the state-granted monopoly they have to sell you other things.
> Approximately ZERO percent of the value of the stamp, ignoring the statistically insignificant philatelist community, is the picture on it.
They gave him 5% of the "breakage"-- the stamps that were purchased and not used. A big chunk of these end up with people holding onto them because they like them-- whether they're "super stamp nerd" or they've bought a few issues of stamps they like--- here aesthetic value is important. Some are lost, some are waiting in a drawer for later use, and some are collected.
You're ignoring the whole next 3 pages which talk about what is "reasonable network management", and the cited rulings that occurred under the previous 2010 regime. You're further ignoring the enforcement actions that the FCC undertook against mobile operators for treatment of video, which the mobile operators settled...
> A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management
So, your reading would be --- you can't throttle traffic based on content/type... except you can for network management. Which in turn neuters the entire standard. In turn, the order has dozens of pages breaking down what was argued in the 2010-2015 to be reasonable network traffic management and how administrative law judges had found.
So no, just because *you* can call it reasonable network management doesn't mean it was for the purpose of the rule.
They are throttling all video. So perfectly compliant with NN.
Whaaaaat?
As Wikipedia puts it:
> Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. Internet traffic includes all of the different messages, files and data sent over the Internet, including, for example, emails, digital audio files, digital video files, etc. According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is that a public information network will end up being most useful if all content, websites, and platforms (e.g., mobile devices, video game consoles, etc.) are treated equally
Nor would your assertion "They are throttling all video. So perfectly compliant with NN." be compliant with the 2014 FCC Open Internet NPRM or the 2015 FCC Open Internet ("network neutrality") order.
Which is it? Are you being dishonest about what network neutrality has meant in the past (and means in the present), or are you deeply opposed to it despite not being familiar with its provisions?
> 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.
> 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.
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;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
17Q1 925/2696 = .3431 .3254 .3299 .3091
17Q2 908/2790 =
17Q3 985/2985 =
17Q4 1037/3288 =.3153
18Q1 1054/3409 =
So, you're right that there's an improvement. OTOH if you look at non-R&D SG&A the trend is still present but less clear. Least squares fit guesses SG&A is 360M + 0.2 * revenue, which if gross margin is 20% never reaches profitability--- but of course, since SG&A is spent "ahead" this is misleading. It's certainly not a wonderful sign, though.
In Q2 we learn just how perilous the cash situation becomes (Q2 will probably be a flat or even a bit worse in cash flow situation, due to costs incurred related to efforts to control SG&A), and Q3 we see whether they're turning the corner fast enough. It is possible, but you can't deny that this is right down to the wire.
Even when you're operating a much smaller company, it's never really clear just how much of SG&A is relatively scale-invariant and how much actually supports production and individual unit sales/distribution/servicing. You figure out that for real as you turn the corner.
And he acknowledged it was a problem multiple times before this latest outburst, including just about a month ago-- but somehow still has not stopped it.
;) I've got a Honda Clarity, 1000 miles, burnt 0.2 gallons of gas so far (about half of that because I was fucking around with the HV modes). And eventually I'll go on a road trip and it will be a lot less of a pain.
Yes, I'll need time based oil changes, but that'll be quite some time as it's synthetic and used so sparingly. Bigger deal will be needing to burn the gasoline before it goes bad. I wish it could take a little more gas (range with 7 gallons is very good, but with 9 would be super impressive-- but then I guess the "needing to get rid of gas problem would be bigger).
Not really too much of a transmission either. Same cargo volume as a Tesla 3, but not divided into 2 compartments, and a much better back seat.
> The Model 3 can be refilled in 15 seconds of your time. Plug in when you get home, disconnect when you leave. Who cares how long it takes while you're asleep? That's not your time. The time it charges in your garage does not in any way waste minutes of your life. Unlike stopping at a gas station at regular intervals throughout your regular life.
PHEVs do this too.
> On long trips - aka, the exception, not the rule - you charge in the time a typical person spends on meal and bathroom/stretch breaks. But that's tangential to how most people spend most of their time in their vehicles.
PHEVs do this better.
Your own quoted text shows the language is completely replaced. Yes, the size of the credit was multiplied by the number of manufacturers, else it would have run out a fair bit ago. What other credits you can take it with and its interaction with depreciation was changed. The eligibility threshold was pushed up one 1KW-hr of capacity. The credit was limited to existing tax obligation (not refundable). It was allowed for lease and its interaction with business taxes was substantially changed. Etc, etc, etc.
30D was completely replaced in ARRA.
> (a) In General.--Section 30D is amended to read as follows: [entire text of current language]
[entire text replaced, with some similarities with prior language... but e.g. changing limit to 250k per mfr instead of 250k total, threshold, interactions with depreciation, etc]
Not really? I mean, yes, there was a similar tax credit as part of TARP, with sharper limitations that was basically not ever claimed, and it was replaced by the Obama administration, fulfilling a campaign promise...
Yah-- but if I partially disagree with someone in an attempt to try and engage in discussion with them, I would be offended to be told that I'm "mansplaining".
Sure, they're under no obligation to take the bait and discuss things with me, but if I've been civil they don't need to denigrate, mock me, and implicitly accuse me of sexist behavior.
:) You're determined to think that stamp collecting isn't significant, but the reason why the USPS does commemorative issues is that it drives this--- people buy them and then keep them. It tends to get people who aren't even stamp collectors--- I've got a bunch of centennial of flight stamps because I'm an airplane nerd (not really a stamp nerd).
About 3.5% of all stamps are breakage: they will likely never be used based on past trends. For many boring stamps, it's 1-2%. More desirable commemorative issues with a broad interest it's 5-10%. To me, this suggests about half the breakage is because of people liking art on some issues and keepin' em.
Yah, that's a fair point-- you were maybe about to die anyways. Or maybe not.
The traffic accident increase ---- not so much.
Studies looking at the US have found a 10-20% increase in traffic fatalities the Monday after the time shift (both directions), only fully settling to normal a week later. If you consider just the Monday, that's 30 extra deaths per year.
So in column A, we have something that saves between -$300M and $300M in energy per year, unknown-- and in column B, we know that it kills at least 30 people a year. Doesn't seem like a great policy to me.
There's been numerous studies. Yes, there's (probably) a tiny electric savings. There's also a loss from increased heating expenses, which are not usually electric. Overall studies have struggled to find a benefit and some have even shown an overall net loss. But we know people die in traffic accidents and from heart attacks at an increased rate afterwards--- the cost of the extra death exceeds a (doubtful) couple hundred million dollars in energy savings per annum.
If the government has effectively given a vendor a last-mile monopoly--- as has historically been the case with franchise agreements and city street easements--- the last thing in the world I want them to be doing is to decide what kinds of traffic are "more important." I have one choice of vendor. If they decide I'm not going to have a great time streaming video and I need to buy TV service from them, too, that's "not cool."
You can still implement QOS to ensure that every customer has a certain amount of traffic at specified latencies/losses-- not that anyone does. Service providers mostly like QOS to advantage their own services-- using leverage from the state-granted monopoly they have to sell you other things.
> Approximately ZERO percent of the value of the stamp, ignoring the statistically insignificant philatelist community, is the picture on it.
They gave him 5% of the "breakage"-- the stamps that were purchased and not used. A big chunk of these end up with people holding onto them because they like them-- whether they're "super stamp nerd" or they've bought a few issues of stamps they like--- here aesthetic value is important. Some are lost, some are waiting in a drawer for later use, and some are collected.
You're ignoring the whole next 3 pages which talk about what is "reasonable network management", and the cited rulings that occurred under the previous 2010 regime. You're further ignoring the enforcement actions that the FCC undertook against mobile operators for treatment of video, which the mobile operators settled...
The text of the standard was:
> A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management
So, your reading would be --- you can't throttle traffic based on content/type ... except you can for network management. Which in turn neuters the entire standard. In turn, the order has dozens of pages breaking down what was argued in the 2010-2015 to be reasonable network traffic management and how administrative law judges had found.
So no, just because *you* can call it reasonable network management doesn't mean it was for the purpose of the rule.
They are throttling all video. So perfectly compliant with NN.
Whaaaaat?
As Wikipedia puts it:
> Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. Internet traffic includes all of the different messages, files and data sent over the Internet, including, for example, emails, digital audio files, digital video files, etc. According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is that a public information network will end up being most useful if all content, websites, and platforms (e.g., mobile devices, video game consoles, etc.) are treated equally
Nor would your assertion "They are throttling all video. So perfectly compliant with NN." be compliant with the 2014 FCC Open Internet NPRM or the 2015 FCC Open Internet ("network neutrality") order.
Which is it? Are you being dishonest about what network neutrality has meant in the past (and means in the present), or are you deeply opposed to it despite not being familiar with its provisions?
(And just for completeness, paid down $1.39B of debt-- resulting in a net burn of about $1B a quarter).
> 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...
> > 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.
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 ;)
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.
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.
This is still consistent with scaling SG&A a couple quarters ahead, and it's something that goes away when you reach ultimate scale.
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.
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.