SG&A does NOT scale linearly with revenue. The "S" part might, but G&A doesn't. And you just don't seem to get that growth and expansion has more expenses than steady state production.
Do the math for the last dozen quarters or so. You'll see that, for Tesla, SG&A has been a consistent 19-21% of revenue. It's scaled linearly. It should not - I agree! But it is. And that is why I am focusing on it. It shows something inside of Tesla is broken - either their model (direct sales) or processes don't work right. But facts are facts - SG&A at Tesla has been scaling linearly with revenue, and that's been a big factor in keeping their losses per vehicle amazingly consistent.
Stock prices for companies like Tesla are driven as much by simple emotion and desire as actual facts. How can anyone possibly justify a corporate valuation of Tesla higher than Ford or GM? It's enthusiasm - but as we saw today, all it takes is one word from Musk and the stock will jump. Nothing rational about it. I prefer to do what Buffet and other great investors do - invest in companies with sound fundamentals, typically with enough liquid cash they can afford a dividend, and who have a strong, bright future. Tesla is far from that...
I can't help it if you can't read a simple financial statement. SG&A is typically looked at as a percent of gross revenues - it's a measure of how much extra money is spent to capture those sales. SG&A was 19% of gross revenue in Q2, it was 20% of Q1. And between 18% and 21% for the last few years. Meaning that Tesla spends about 19% of their gross revenue to capture that revenue. Simple, really.
Wait - the entire hypothesis of this article is that trends are in the wrong direction. Who's trending good, and who's trending bad, in terms of CO2 output?
The entire hypothesis of the "runaway meltdown" is based on models and trends and projections, so why wouldn't a trend downward (the US) be a good thing, and a trend upward (the EU) be a bad thing?
The US is the 2nd largest for manufacturing output, behind China. Well ahead of Germany in the number 4 spot (who also outsources a massive amount of manufacturing to - you guessed it - China).
Starting in 2009, the Obama administration attempted to close the Yucca Mountain repository, despite current US law that designates Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository.
Just another example of President Obama ignoring the law because HE felt he knew better. Law, and multiple Congresses (Democrat and Republican alike) passed and funded Yucca Mountain. And President Obama took the opposite path. It's not the GOP (who, whilst "controlling" 95% of Nevada land, don't make up a majority of Nevadans because of Democrat-saturated Las Vegas and Reno), but President Obama.
Additionally, if it's all about "ZOMG WE'RE GOING TO DIE!!!" climapocalypse kind of talk, the ONLY measure that matters is total emissions. Bickering over how much per capita or unit GDP is superfluous, if people care about restricting CO2 in the first place. IF they want to talk about a world-wide problem, then the issue is total emissions, rather than who gets to emit how much and when. The fact it always breaks down to "you get too many CO2s for your people/GDP" shows it's more about controlling economies and societies than actually worrying about the supposed problem.
Slashdot Mirror
>
SG&A does NOT scale linearly with revenue. The "S" part might, but G&A doesn't. And you just don't seem to get that growth and expansion has more expenses than steady state production.
Do the math for the last dozen quarters or so. You'll see that, for Tesla, SG&A has been a consistent 19-21% of revenue. It's scaled linearly. It should not - I agree! But it is. And that is why I am focusing on it. It shows something inside of Tesla is broken - either their model (direct sales) or processes don't work right. But facts are facts - SG&A at Tesla has been scaling linearly with revenue, and that's been a big factor in keeping their losses per vehicle amazingly consistent.
Stock prices for companies like Tesla are driven as much by simple emotion and desire as actual facts. How can anyone possibly justify a corporate valuation of Tesla higher than Ford or GM? It's enthusiasm - but as we saw today, all it takes is one word from Musk and the stock will jump. Nothing rational about it. I prefer to do what Buffet and other great investors do - invest in companies with sound fundamentals, typically with enough liquid cash they can afford a dividend, and who have a strong, bright future. Tesla is far from that...
I can't help it if you can't read a simple financial statement. SG&A is typically looked at as a percent of gross revenues - it's a measure of how much extra money is spent to capture those sales. SG&A was 19% of gross revenue in Q2, it was 20% of Q1. And between 18% and 21% for the last few years. Meaning that Tesla spends about 19% of their gross revenue to capture that revenue. Simple, really.
What votes count for election of the President? HINT: It's called an Electoral College for a reason...
Rant all you want, but they're now making the 7th highest selling car in the US and earning positive GROSS margins on every one sold
FTFY. And of course, they LOST about $17,600 per vehicle sold. Meaning a NEGATIVE margin.
Oh, and SG&A was - once again - 19% of revenues. Right in line with the last 12 quarters. Showing no movement at all.
Hey now, there is no place for facts and rational talk in the middle of an OMGWTFBBQ Climapocolypse! There's death and heat to talk about!
It goes with his S3XY cars, you know...
Why does that make me think of this movie clip...
Wait - the entire hypothesis of this article is that trends are in the wrong direction. Who's trending good, and who's trending bad, in terms of CO2 output?
The entire hypothesis of the "runaway meltdown" is based on models and trends and projections, so why wouldn't a trend downward (the US) be a good thing, and a trend upward (the EU) be a bad thing?
Huh? President Trump won with about 56.5% of the vote.
No, it's more like obese guy lost 2 kg, skinny guy added 1 kg. Who's done more to lose weight?
Ahh, so you actually wanted to say "CO2 per capita" but instead said just "CO2". So the failure is with you, not AC...
This says otherwise. This source confirms and says the numbers are from Eurostat. EU emissions are up. Do you have a source stating otherwise?
Turns out, it's false. That whole consensus thing was a lie. But a rather effective one, I do admit!
The US is the 2nd largest for manufacturing output, behind China. Well ahead of Germany in the number 4 spot (who also outsources a massive amount of manufacturing to - you guessed it - China).
By "producing way over their fair share", do you mean of CO2 or GDP/manufacturing output? Or do you mean both?
The list. We're better than Luxembourg, and about tied with Australia. And there are 10 countries ahead of us.
The US is trending down. The rest of the world is trending up. That kind of renders your entire rant meaningless.
Nuclear is the safest.
Starting in 2009, the Obama administration attempted to close the Yucca Mountain repository, despite current US law that designates Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository.
Just another example of President Obama ignoring the law because HE felt he knew better. Law, and multiple Congresses (Democrat and Republican alike) passed and funded Yucca Mountain. And President Obama took the opposite path. It's not the GOP (who, whilst "controlling" 95% of Nevada land, don't make up a majority of Nevadans because of Democrat-saturated Las Vegas and Reno), but President Obama.
Solar and wind cost more. Electricity prices in a country tend to increase as solar and wind deployments increase. Not really a good solution, is it?
And in reality, US emissions are UP anyway. What's down is actually EU emissions! (Althoug also partially due to outsourcing to China.)
Citation needed.
Per capita numbers and per-GDP ratios are great when you want to control economies and dictate how people live, however...
Additionally, if it's all about "ZOMG WE'RE GOING TO DIE!!!" climapocalypse kind of talk, the ONLY measure that matters is total emissions. Bickering over how much per capita or unit GDP is superfluous, if people care about restricting CO2 in the first place. IF they want to talk about a world-wide problem, then the issue is total emissions, rather than who gets to emit how much and when. The fact it always breaks down to "you get too many CO2s for your people/GDP" shows it's more about controlling economies and societies than actually worrying about the supposed problem.