Right, but from an investment point of view a company with a solid gross margin and high R&D is a decent (though still risky) bet. The fundamentals seem to be in place that Tesla could be significantly profitable in the future.
The biggest risk I see is that if they continue losing cash then that'll cause a schism in the board between those who want to try and make the mass market car work versus those that want to cut their losses and go back to selling luxury cars only. That has the potential to get ugly.
I would not call Tesla's numbers 'solid gross margin'. Mainly because that margin is negative on base price and required up-sell, even in markets with little or no competition. They don't yet have the mass market product and price point with a positive margin. They've still got share in the luxury market to take, but that is limited and doesn't promise recovery of capital on its own.
If they can continue to increase production and lower costs while up selling, they can turn the corner as they work on the bigger mass market product.
Like I give a shit what a group of academics predicts will happen financially in 2035. Even famed economists can't predict what is coming in the next 5 years.
Claiming you have operating cash flow margin on some products doesn't make you a profitable company, particularly when you don't include the cost of money in that margin. They may become profitable one day, but they aren't right now.
This gives many, many people an incentive to trash-talk the company, so that the stock tanks and they can make money.
Investors don't short stock in hopes that trash talk brings the price down, they short based on the risks to success they feel exist, the financial sheet, and the ongoing performance of the company in general. There are many more people long on Tesla which would mean even more incentive out there to 'hype' the company.
"[The plaintiff] has been unable to find the Chinese manufacturer of the device."
If Amazon can't put the buyer in contact with the company which produced the device, then they should be liable. They sold it, they should be responsible for it. Frankly, even if they can put the person in contact, they should still be responsible, and recovering damages from the supplier should be their problem.
We have consumer protection laws for a reason, and that reason is that not having them costs everyone money. This decision simply lets Amazon push the cost of doing business off onto the court system, which means We The People have to pay for their cost of doing business.
Should one expect to be able to get in touch with the manufacture when they buy a cheap, Chinese brand knock off product that's never been heard of before? I buy cheap Chinese stuff on occasion but always with the expectation that if it is crap or faulty, there will be little chance of recourse.
I just wonder why he bothers to sell them. They aren't going to make significant money, are a distraction to any core businesses, and could bring liability claims (justified or not). Seems like most buyers would use the 'for fun' instead of as a tool like a week burner.
First there was cruise control. It maintained speed.
Then there was adaptive cruise control. It maintained speed and distance from the car in front.
Now there's autopilot. It maintains speed, distance from the car in front, follows lanes and assists with overtaking.
At no stage did anyone say you could take your focus off the road with any of them. And there's no need to revert to older technology because some people are stupid.
But only at the third state could one take their focus off the road.
"Autopilot is designed for use on highways that have a center divider and clear lane markings."
The GPS knows where the car is, and just about every mapping software knows what kind of road you're on.
So how hard would it be to have the Tesla's computer not even turn on the autopilot if they're not on a road with center divider and clear lane markings? Or better yet, the autopilot only runs on roads that have been certified "not screwed up".
In this case he was on Laguna Canyon Road, which has a median in some places and a middle "suicide lane" in others, and varies from one to two lanes from place to place.
An interesting idea. But such a Geo-permissive would require a lot of management and might be viewed more as a workaround than a solution.
Just because people know what it means doesn't mean it is correct. Its actually an imprecise description. Take "ten times lower" that a hilltop. Is that 1/10th the altitude of the hilltop, or is that 9 times the hilltop altitude below ground which makes 10 times after adding the hilltop, or does it mean ten times the hilltop altitude below ground?
A big part of that is access to opportunities train and compete and information that older people like myself simply didn't have access to.
This. Also, almost all colleges and even many high schools have 'professional' training methods and facilities. Coaches learning how to coach better is just as much a part as individual players learning how to train.
Its a great way to gain some leverage with China. We'll help ZTE if they agree to other stuff that helps the US, like cracking down on other unfair trade practices.
Not sure where you live, but unless you've got nuclear you are way behind on generating emission free electricity. "Renewables" or "green" means squat. Many countries burn biomass, spewing CO2 into the air, but since the can call it 'renewable' and 'green' they somehow fool idiots into thinking they are doing something wonderful. Hydro is renewable but has been used for years and in most countries can't be added, nobody is 'pushing' more hydro.
So, get off your 'renewable green' high horse and start talking about actual progress in reducing CO2 emissions. The US has renewables and has increased renewables. More importantly, he US has done more than many countries to reduce emissions simply by supplanting coal with gas.
I'm sure your news channels with pretty pictures of windmills and solar panels makes you feel wonderful though.
Maybe you aren't paying attention enough and just assuming what the news cycle feeds you is the case. We have plenty of green energy already, have for years.
PR doesn't have those problems either because they don't need long transmission lines. Its a relatively small Island so everything is close together. PR just has a destroyed distribution system. They'd benefit from underground lines but that cost $$$.
You conflate 'renewables' with wind and solar with your statistics. Be consistent because in Germany renewables also includes hydro and CO2 producing biomass burning.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but from an investment point of view a company with a solid gross margin and high R&D is a decent (though still risky) bet. The fundamentals seem to be in place that Tesla could be significantly profitable in the future.
The biggest risk I see is that if they continue losing cash then that'll cause a schism in the board between those who want to try and make the mass market car work versus those that want to cut their losses and go back to selling luxury cars only. That has the potential to get ugly.
I would not call Tesla's numbers 'solid gross margin'. Mainly because that margin is negative on base price and required up-sell, even in markets with little or no competition. They don't yet have the mass market product and price point with a positive margin. They've still got share in the luxury market to take, but that is limited and doesn't promise recovery of capital on its own.
If they can continue to increase production and lower costs while up selling, they can turn the corner as they work on the bigger mass market product.
Like I give a shit what will happen in 2035!
Like I give a shit what a group of academics predicts will happen financially in 2035. Even famed economists can't predict what is coming in the next 5 years.
Claiming you have operating cash flow margin on some products doesn't make you a profitable company, particularly when you don't include the cost of money in that margin. They may become profitable one day, but they aren't right now.
Tesla is the most shorted stock in history.
This gives many, many people an incentive to trash-talk the company, so that the stock tanks and they can make money.
Investors don't short stock in hopes that trash talk brings the price down, they short based on the risks to success they feel exist, the financial sheet, and the ongoing performance of the company in general. There are many more people long on Tesla which would mean even more incentive out there to 'hype' the company.
Marketing isn't free.
Actually, for Tesla it pretty much is.
"[The plaintiff] has been unable to find the Chinese manufacturer of the device."
If Amazon can't put the buyer in contact with the company which produced the device, then they should be liable. They sold it, they should be responsible for it. Frankly, even if they can put the person in contact, they should still be responsible, and recovering damages from the supplier should be their problem.
We have consumer protection laws for a reason, and that reason is that not having them costs everyone money. This decision simply lets Amazon push the cost of doing business off onto the court system, which means We The People have to pay for their cost of doing business.
Should one expect to be able to get in touch with the manufacture when they buy a cheap, Chinese brand knock off product that's never been heard of before? I buy cheap Chinese stuff on occasion but always with the expectation that if it is crap or faulty, there will be little chance of recourse.
I just wonder why he bothers to sell them. They aren't going to make significant money, are a distraction to any core businesses, and could bring liability claims (justified or not). Seems like most buyers would use the 'for fun' instead of as a tool like a week burner.
Since when do you need to hold the "steering wheel" in a plane that's on autopilot?
Whenever you have an unexpected situation ... same as the car.
AP requires you to keep your hands on the wheel at all times, not just wait for unexpected situations. Then it could be too late.
First there was cruise control. It maintained speed. Then there was adaptive cruise control. It maintained speed and distance from the car in front. Now there's autopilot. It maintains speed, distance from the car in front, follows lanes and assists with overtaking.
At no stage did anyone say you could take your focus off the road with any of them. And there's no need to revert to older technology because some people are stupid.
But only at the third state could one take their focus off the road.
"Autopilot is designed for use on highways that have a center divider and clear lane markings."
The GPS knows where the car is, and just about every mapping software knows what kind of road you're on. So how hard would it be to have the Tesla's computer not even turn on the autopilot if they're not on a road with center divider and clear lane markings? Or better yet, the autopilot only runs on roads that have been certified "not screwed up".
In this case he was on Laguna Canyon Road, which has a median in some places and a middle "suicide lane" in others, and varies from one to two lanes from place to place.
An interesting idea. But such a Geo-permissive would require a lot of management and might be viewed more as a workaround than a solution.
Pedants also object to objections.
Fortunately, good tech writers and most engineers avoid that terminology.
...that happens to be correct, do they throw the whole thing out to spare everyone's feelings?
They either throw it out or change it to get the result they like. If those are the choices, I'd prefer the former.
Of course they can also go after whoever wrote the racist algorithm.
Just because people know what it means doesn't mean it is correct. Its actually an imprecise description. Take "ten times lower" that a hilltop. Is that 1/10th the altitude of the hilltop, or is that 9 times the hilltop altitude below ground which makes 10 times after adding the hilltop, or does it mean ten times the hilltop altitude below ground?
They will make it a bit colder, 10 billion times.
What does that term mean? I see it kicked around here a lot and no one explains it.
-=BeauHD=-
touché
A big part of that is access to opportunities train and compete and information that older people like myself simply didn't have access to.
This. Also, almost all colleges and even many high schools have 'professional' training methods and facilities. Coaches learning how to coach better is just as much a part as individual players learning how to train.
Twitters new group think reinforcement feature!
The US Mint is still making pennies at a loss "per unit". The CFO told them to do what makes sense. Obviously there was some confusion...
Coin production in the US has steadily been dropping for obvious reasons.
The cost of printed money, which accounts for the largest part of cash transactions, is pretty low.
Most 'dollar' based transactions never involve an actual coin or bill.
How to compare I don't know, but its hard to imagine typical currency using nearly as much energy 'per dollar or dollar equivalent".
What wonderful country are you from? You haven't said.
I've done more to reduce carbon emissions, not only in the US but in other countries as well, than you could ever hope to.
Really, how does this help America? .
Its a great way to gain some leverage with China. We'll help ZTE if they agree to other stuff that helps the US, like cracking down on other unfair trade practices.
Not sure where you live, but unless you've got nuclear you are way behind on generating emission free electricity. "Renewables" or "green" means squat. Many countries burn biomass, spewing CO2 into the air, but since the can call it 'renewable' and 'green' they somehow fool idiots into thinking they are doing something wonderful. Hydro is renewable but has been used for years and in most countries can't be added, nobody is 'pushing' more hydro.
So, get off your 'renewable green' high horse and start talking about actual progress in reducing CO2 emissions. The US has renewables and has increased renewables. More importantly, he US has done more than many countries to reduce emissions simply by supplanting coal with gas.
I'm sure your news channels with pretty pictures of windmills and solar panels makes you feel wonderful though.
Maybe you aren't paying attention enough and just assuming what the news cycle feeds you is the case. We have plenty of green energy already, have for years.
PR doesn't have those problems either because they don't need long transmission lines. Its a relatively small Island so everything is close together. PR just has a destroyed distribution system. They'd benefit from underground lines but that cost $$$.
You conflate 'renewables' with wind and solar with your statistics. Be consistent because in Germany renewables also includes hydro and CO2 producing biomass burning.