Yes the MS can carry 7-if you count the 2 child-size rear facing seats. Or you have 2 midgets sit in them. Or 5 kids or midgets in the back seat. Or...
I know, all EVs are the same. All EV and Tesla fans are the same. All Republicans are the same. All Democrats are the same.
Sarcasm aside, I'm wondering how much demand there will be for the MX from a place like China, where many of the wealthy have drivers and wanted more interior space than the MS provided, even with the now unavailable executive seats. Also, as I understand it, conspicuous consumption is important to these people so perhaps the Falcon Wing doors will be an attraction for them. I suspect towing capacity isn't a concern of theirs.
I've posted that VIN assignments have greatly slowed and that the incentive program is a sign that demand has decreased. It's why I've also posted that I see more of a risk to the stock to the downside in likelihood and magnitude than to the upside in the near term. If it turns out that a number of prospective Tesla owners are just waiting for the MX specs and pricing to decide between it and an MS and only postponing an order for one or the other, my near term concern will be proven to be very wrong. If not and temagami is right, the stock will get crushed imo.
BTW I saw a couple of posts on TMC from people who were waiting to see specs and pricing of the MX before deciding on it or the MS. No deposit on either. Can't tell how many are in the same situation but will be interesting if it's more than a few.
"Maybe a better perspective for judging sales is to look at July versus the average of the first 6 months." "In that case...NA sales are down 17%..."
I guess that's one way to look at it. Or NA ytd 2015 vs 2014: 13100 vs 8200. Or Tesla 1H 2015 vs 2014: 21800 vs 14000.
You used one month's data from one geography to come up with a thesis of weakness in Tesla's global sales/demand. Someone who's been on this board as long as you have and as intelligent as you are knows better.
Go back to the same website. Look at July 2014 MS sales. Compare to previous and subsequent months and post what predictive value it provided.
"We timed out a road trip my wife and I take quarterly and it will take 3 hours longer in the Model S..."
From where to where?
Posts like yours are the reason Tesla doesn't post monthly figures. The figures you cite are NA sales only. How were European and Asian sales? How about July 2014's sales vs. the subsequent months?
Perhaps you're breathing too much coal out there in Montana.
That you'd decry cronyism while using an example of Tesla's expenditures for lobbying to allow them to merely sell cars in states where NADA checks every cronyism box and with money far exceeding Tesla's...well, I'll just say I don't see how you can have your heart in this argument. You can hate everything Tesla and EV and still support a fight against the dealer lobby's corrupt influence.
"Fewer moving parts requiring low or no maintenance is a myth."
Bull. That's from my own experience as well as what manufacturers recommend. My Volt has 24,000 miles and 1 oil change (next one in ~17,000 miles), 1 tire rotation and zero other suggested or required maintenance either to date or the forseeable future. For every complaint about Tesla service I see far more saying how outstanding it is. Odd you're going after this kind of bs when there are far bigger and legitimate issues at the moment.
"Honesty would compel JTF, Future, and their fellow travelers to admit that Tesla exists because it has hired a cadre of state & federal lobbyists to coerce wealth transfers from the middle class to the upper echelon who can afford the Model S."
Wow, if you want to compel honesty let's start with what you posted:
1. Look at what % of taxes are paid by the "upper echelon" compared to every other group, including the middle class, then tell us who is transferring wealth to who.
2. Tesla "has hired a cadre of state & federal lobbyists...". How many? How much does Tesla spend on these lobbyists?
3. Tesla exists because of "coercive wealth transfers"? Tesla has obviously and substantially benefited from many government programs but Tesla would still exist without them; it would just be selling far less cars, growing far slower be less ambitious in the short term.
You're preaching to the wrong congregation here. I was apoplectic listening to Obama's new carbon program and the lies and rhetoric he threw out. What a disgrace. That said, I am for higher taxes on coal (true pollution), incentives for grid scale solar while being against residential solar subsidies. I'm for incentives for EVs but would be open to reducing or eliminating them for incomes above a certain threshold. However, the advancements and declining cost of wind, solar, grid storage and EVs benefit the country and ultimately especially the poor.
I thought the same thing about the cost of my health insurance when Obama was saying how reducing carbon emissions would save money, especially for the poor, when he talks about how health care inflation has been at it's lowest in years. My health insurance has TRIPLED since Obamacare, as has that of many of my friends. Even those with employer provided health insurance have suffered massive increases. I know ZERO people who have had insurance premiums decline. He's despicable.
"The excerpts you quoted do not refute anything I posted, but may give comfort to those in other pews."
True but when put in context...
"These costs were immaterial for all periods presented."
...it counters the significance implied by what you posted.
I don't have an opinion yet on the Ahuja's departure. Yes, there are times when it's a bad sign. However, I've seen where it's a major plus for the company and shareholders.
"Spend more time with the family? Tick off bucket list boxes? None of the above?"
Maybe he wants to go backpacking:
"Google Chief Financial Officer Patrick Pichette is calling it quits to go backpacking around the world almost seven years after joining the tech giant—and he says it's because there's never a good time to quit the rat race."
How did that work out? Seems like it worked out well. Do you think he's an idiot, incompetent, a liar or there was massive fraud at Google because if not apparently a Ruth Porat is worth billions of $ more than that ex-CFO who's now a backpacker.
"ZEV, CAFE, and GHG credits are recognized as Automotive Revenue. Since there is little if any cost associated with those credits, GM is deceptively inflated."
From the Q1 shareholder letter:
"Q1 Automotive gross margin excluding ZEV credits was on plan at 26.0% on a non-GAAP basis, and 25.0% on a GAAP basis. The 330 basis points of sequential improvement in non-GAAP gross margin was driven by lower manufacturing costs and richer mix, offset partially by the strong dollar, expedited shipping costs related to port delays and an increase in warranty reserves of about $200 per car."
"Supercharger revenue is recognized as Automotive Revenue but supercharger operating expense (including depreciation and amortization) appears not as Cost of Automotive Revenue but #$%$&GA. Those operating costs remain a liability as long as a SuperCharger-enabled car is operable."
From the q1 2015 10q:
"We allocate Supercharger related expenses to cost of automotive revenues and selling, general, and administrative expenses. These costs were immaterial for all periods presented."
A Member of the Congregation
From TMC: MX reservations increased by 1200 in July and now are at an estimated 25,000 AFTER assuming 4263 cancellations. The daily average was nearly 39, making it one of if not THE top month ever. The highest rolling average is for the 12 month period and it at 904/month; July blew that way. Perhaps this explains the drop in MS reservations as some including temagami have suggested.
Q3 will be VERY interesting.
I'll be happy to post it sometime after the dust settles. Not trying to be evasive but it doesn't feel right to me to post something so bullish long term when I'm very concerned short term and see more risk to the downside in direction and magnitude than I can see on the upside at this time. FWIW I'm still net long but have put on some positions that will benefit if the stock gets hit short term but later goes back up.
As for the 50% YOY growth rate, that's an average so if you consider 33,000 deliveries for 2014 (yes, it was lower but I'm including deliveries that were pushed into 2015) then 2015 needs to hit 49,500. That's lower than estimates and far lower than my original estimate of 50,000 MS alone to be sure but at that low figure 52% YOY growth gets you to around 400,000 in 2020. What's PE would you assign a company growing at 50%/year? I'm not saying 50 but a market multiple would be too low unless it's NASDAQ circa 2000. BTW my estimate doesn't include anything other than Tesla vehicle sales; no batteries, nothing from services to anyone else.
"I see lots more dilution, debt..."
There has been little dilution since 2013 as Tesla purchased hedges and I think it's only above $500 that dilution is more than 5%. Also, with the capex planned through year end, Tesla is farther along in it's capacity buildout than many think. Only the MS line has been running to date and it's running only around 22 hours/day 5 days/week.
That's a good point. I don't think he tried to invoke the Lemon Law nor do I know why he wouldn't have.
I DO see the math not just supporting the current price but a much higher share price IF Tesla is delivering 450,000 cars in 2020. It's ironic that you'd bring this up because I recently did my own estimates on what 2020 could bring. I'd post my assumptions but it doesn't seem right because I'm concerned that the q3 forecast won't be all that strong and that the stock is more likely to get hit very hard than it is to pop. After the dust settles I'll post and would be interested in your thoughts. I will say one thing though: 450,000 sales in 2020 implies 50% YOY growth. Some people like to see a PEG ratio
All versions show September delivery, as they have for 1-2 weeks now.
I'm not a basher and totally disagree with the CS' note. There is no indication from those who track VINs by various methods, some more comprehensive and others various basic (like me) that give any hint of strong demand. One possibility for the negative appearance, although unlikely, is that many of the VIN gaps are being filled and a larger number of cars are in transit. However, my friend's brother's 70 is scheduled to be delivered around 5 weeks after being ordered.
If you or anyone else has anything to contradict the VIN data I'd love to hear it.
FWIW I'm still long but more aggressively hedged.
You are making a case for the bulls if you believe that more aggressive salespeople will produce more sales. Since Tesla is at the bottom in this regard, there is nowhere to go but up.
Same thing for those who (correctly) point out how poorly Tesla has done in China. There is nowhere to go but up.
I don't know what the big deal is but no, I've never bought or leased a luxury vehicle. I'm not interested in luxury cars although I did look at BMWs once. My experience was fine but my friend had bought a number of cars from this dealership and referred others to them and the rep so there was little chance he'd do something stupid like try the hard sell.
BTW my brother in law bought a MB. He wasn't all that impressed with it as time went on but the clincher and why he'll never buy another is the 4 times he had to take the car in for the same problem that would cause various things not to work. He unloaded the car before the lease was up. I will say he's very happy with his BMW.