Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Tesla Motors, Inc. (TSLA) Message Board

justthefactsmaam_ok 232 posts  |  Last Activity: May 1, 2015 1:56 AM Member since: Feb 2, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 14, 2015 1:45 PM Flag

    fully_diluted

    Great points. My point in this thread was to highlight to those with some level of objectivity that losses don't necessarily equal cash burn or capital needed. Further and contrary to the belief of some, GAAP accounting does not always paint the most accurate picture. I suspect you already know cash flows are often considered the truth serum and can tell a very different story than a P&L. In Tesla's case, cash burn excluding capex is far less than it's GAAP losses.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 14, 2015 1:29 PM Flag

    montanaskeptic

    1. You've made it clear though many topics and posts that you think a cap raise is coming. I think you're wrong unless the stock is in the $300 or higher range and even then unlikely unless it's well north of $300. BTW I'm not saying the stock will go there this year.
    2. We disagree about pretty much everything on the GF.
    3-6. As discussed in other posts, we disagree.
    7. So far, resale values are holding up well so no liability there (yet). Charging doesn't cost all that much. I expect warranty to costs to decline in the future as Tesla learns and improves it's processes and components. Probably the 2 largest warranty costs have been for the drivetrain and 12v battery, the former of which doesn't have a fatal flaw but rather a couple of resolvable issues and are now often being repaired at Service Centers.
    8. Oil prices could cause some headwinds for Gen 3, it'll depend on pricing. However, gas savings is only one consideration and even at the lowest gas prices of last year EVs cost less to refuel. TCO will still be lower for an EV over an ICE. I like the convenience of charging at home, while shopping or overnight. I'd pay a premium for this and for buying power from a more local source rather than send a penny to Russia, Iran, Venezuela etc. or to use my money to contribute to oil demand, supporting prices and benefiting Putin and other creeps.
    9. One reason I'm invested in Tesla is BECAUSE of Elon. The few things I don't like (eg comparing Tesla's potential market cap to aapl, even if he truly believes it and I think he does) are negligible compared to what I do like. He "gets it". He makes sense. You don't really belong in this group but to be concise only guys like you could confer so many nefarious intentions of a guy who takes no salary, has sold zero shares but has borrowed money to buy more shares and bonds yet ignore the cash he invested or his other assets which could cover the loans. He's also personally backing the RVG.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Tesla and the Gigafactory

    by ericap7104 Apr 13, 2015 2:09 PM
    justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 13, 2015 2:38 PM Flag

    The GF is being built in stages with full buildout completed around 2020-as planned. You did get one thing sort of correct: there is no need for a battery plant that size...now. Using your figure of 20%, Tesla would only need $400 million (20% of $2 billion) for it's share of this phase.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Gigafactory

    by ericap7104 Apr 13, 2015 10:10 AM
    justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 13, 2015 1:47 PM Flag

    Again:

    justthefactsmaam_ok • Apr 10, 2015 9:06 PM
    The 3/25 Washington Post pics clearly show progress over earlier pics taken March 7 by Randy Carlson. The 4 sections to the right of the "covered" sections now span the length of the structure whereas on March 7 they were just over half.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 13, 2015 1:20 PM Flag

    "Anyway, I've given you my best guess. I don't claim that it's the best guess out there, just what I feel is most likely."

    Temagami, there is no one on this thread who I respect more than you on this topic so I hope you are taking my questions as coming from someone trying to understand your thought process, certainly not trying to denigrate your work.

    With the above in mind, you projected that "Q4 was dominated by P85D's". Since P85D deliveries didn't start until sometime in December and some were pushed out to Q1, I looked at ASPs to see if they might confirm this. I used GAAP and non-GAAP revenues both with and without gov't credits and in every case ASPs declined 4-11% in q4 over q3. Wouldn't this be at odds with heavy P85D sales in q4? What am I missing?

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 13, 2015 12:14 AM Flag

    This will be very exciting and a big deal if they can pull it off. Expectations are that at least 1 launch this year would reuse one of these rocket. If it happens, THIS will be the big breakthrough.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 13, 2015 12:06 AM Flag

    temagami

    Am I missing something or are your GM estimates far below Tesla's forecasts?

    From the shareholder letter:

    "We expect that Q1 non-GAAP automotive gross margin should be about 26%, assuming no further strengthening of the US dollar in the latter half of Q1. Given that the euro has weakened another 7% since the beginning of the year, this impacts our gross margin by about 2 percentage points. We also expect GHG/CAFE credits to contribute one less percentage point to our non-GAAP automotive gross margin in 2015, than in Q4. Hence, our gross margin expectation of 26% in Q1 represents a significant improvement resulting from our efforts to increase manufacturing efficiency and deliver a richer mix of products. In markets where the local currency has declined significantly versus the US dollar, we recently increased prices by only about half that decline. The benefit of this price increase generally begins in Q2 as it applies only to new orders and is not retroactive to the existing book of orders. Our goal is to continue to improve Model S profitability and we believe we can achieve a 30% gross margin on Model S for Q4 of 2015, even with foreign currency rates at current levels. We expect these gross margin improvements will be partially offset during the introduction of Model X, as Model X gross margin will be suppressed for a few quarters from supply chain and production inefficiencies that are typical of a new product introduction. Eventually we should be able to grow Model X gross margin to a similar level as Model S."

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 12, 2015 7:53 PM Flag

    temagami

    So you have R&D and SG&A at $775M and $989M for the year, ~65% increase YOY? Where else do we differ?

    I'm still tweaking but for my 2015 base at the moment I'm using:

    55K deliveries, $100k asp, 28.5% margin, +50% yoy R&D and SG&A. Breakeven on Dev Services, nothing either way from the battery product or CPO leaving the GAAP loss for the year at $215 million. However, with these figures I expect Tesla to be operating cash flow positive for the year. To the point of this thread, actual cash burn from operations does NOT equal Loss From Operations.

    Those who think Tesla will lose $200-$500 million this year and spend $1.5 billion on capex then calculate that this wipes out the $1.9 billion in cash it's holding will be very disappointed. Since I think Tesla will beat the 55k delivery forecast, 2015 cash burn will be less than many here are anticipating. Contrary to many bears, I do not expect a cap raise UNLESS the stock price is in the ~ $300+ area, barring a major development. Of course, if I'm wrong and Tesla misses the 55k delivery forecast, my estimates will be way off the mark and Tesla will burn far more cash...

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 11, 2015 2:26 PM Flag

    temagami

    In your estimates, what are you using for 2015's largest non-cash expenses?

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 11, 2015 12:57 AM Flag

    Thanks getrichqk2. It's neither my expectation nor purpose to change the shorts' minds. It's to have my viewpoint challenged and keep my enthusiasm in check or see if I'm missing something. As I've repeatedly said, it's the shorts and skeptics many false and incorrect arguments over the last 2 1/2 years that has bolstered my long term bullish view. GL to you too.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • "From one of Randy's comments on SA:

    "The kind of short-term, rapid response regulation Tesla residential storage units can provide is the kind of grid stabilization service that the CPUC / EPRI study concluded had a break-even capital cost $3k/kWh, or $30,000 per 10kWh Tesla storage system. If by aggregating control of residential storage units so this type of grid stabilization service can be sold to the ISO (actually 'sold' into the California electricity market), then Tesla should be able to supply these units at little or no cost to the consumer, cut the consumer's total cost of electricity, and STILL make 50% gross margin even if the module cost is $1,000/kWh (which is certainly higher than these modules will cost Tesla based on their automotive experience and economy of scale.) ...

    What this means is that we should pay much more attention to how the 'business model' for these products looks than how the units look when bolted to the inside of your garage..."

    EIA's 2013 estimated build costs:

    Advanced nat gas CT: $676/kwh ("overnight capital costs" per the 2013 report).
    Dual Unit Nuclear: $5530
    Dual Unit Advanced PC coal: $2934
    Onshore Wind: $2213
    Solar PV (150mw): $3873
    Conventional Hydro: $2936
    Pumped Storage Hydro: $5288.

    temagami67
    "JTF - Does that mean that the utility company would pay an individual to install grid stabilizing battery storage? If so, that would be huge. It would completely tip the equation.

    and

    ... If the CPUC / EPRI study concluded had a break-even capital cost of $3k/kWh, why don't utility companies use it today on a commercial scale? It would have to be far cheaper for them."

    Answer: I don't know. However:

    I get a $50/month credit for 3 months for allowing SCE to disable my AC compressor remotely as needed.

    Look at Ohmconnect. "The energy market pays Ohmconnect to sell saved energy into the grid. We take a portion of that earning and pass on the rest to the users who reduce their electricity use during #OhmHour events."

    Sentiment: Buy

  • There is no question that Tesla has operating losses and is burning cash. However, it's interesting that the skeptics focus quite a bit on losses when many professionals know that profits or losses can be better or worse than they appear so they look at cash flows to evaluate a company. A company can have no profits yet still be cash flow positive although not over the long term.

    I bring this up because it's especially telling when it comes to Tesla. Elon's remarks about losses (GAAP at that) until 2020 been posted numerous times. So focus on the losses if you'd like. Ignore non-GAAP too (at your own peril despite what many of you think). Obsess over Tesla's 2015 through 2020 GAAP losses and ignore these quotes from Tesla's q4 cc (from SA):

    "As it is, we are expecting to be significantly - have significant positive cash flow in the latter half of the year.

    So yes, I mean, there’ll be sort of a short-term debt, but it’s clearly quite positive at the end of the year, and then going into 2016, even more so.

    Elon Musk - Chairman, Product Architect and Chief Executive Officer
    But yes, - but to answer your question, yes, even in the face of significant CapEx, we expect to be cash flow positive in Q4.

    JB Straubel - Chief Technical Officer
    I mean, that will happen somewhere in late Q3, but it’s - it will be reflected most clearly in Q4.

    Elon Musk
    I mean leasing, so if leasing and residual value guarantee of half the cars that would basically [indiscernible] affect revenue recognition, and then is it – if it is a quarter basis or is it a full year. That’s why I said it’s probably 2020, it’s the full year, and it’s GAAP. That’s - what that actually means is that Tesla’s free cash flow is incredible in 2020, it’s able to overwhelm even the non-GAAP stuff. So, I think people didn’t understand that what I said was extremely optimistic, not a pessimistic statement."

    All bets are off if MS sales drop or the MX launch is delayed yet again.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Pictures

    by ericap7104 Apr 10, 2015 1:57 PM
    justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 10, 2015 9:06 PM Flag

    The 3/25 Washington Post pics clearly show progress over earlier pics taken March 7 by Randy Carlson. The 4 sections to the right of the "covered" sections now span the length of the structure whereas on March 7 they were just over half.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • See page 10 of the thread on TMC entitled "Tesla's new Lathrop, CA facility". Plenty of speculation on what it's for but the height of the beams is interesting.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Pictures

    by ericap7104 Apr 10, 2015 1:57 PM
    justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 10, 2015 7:31 PM Flag

    "But I do know I said a couple of months ago Tesla would be going into a major cost-cutting effort to slow down the cash burn."

    I'll be putting up a post on the construction at the Lathrop facility that sure doesn't lend credence to what you said.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    Pictures

    by ericap7104 Apr 10, 2015 1:57 PM
    justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 10, 2015 7:26 PM Flag

    jmcvicker

    You proclaim how you just want the truth and disparage those crooked corporations and banks yet once again you mislead. I say this after you yet again post the same misleading line despite being informed about the full quote. Not that I think it was a mistake the first time, the second time, other times...

    Here's what jmcvicker said:

    "I am waiting to see what "shop via warehouse" is and what it can become. I definitely believe they will allow leasing of CPO cars - used car leases. That will move the iron."

    The actual context was about cash, not about a warehouse of cars or moving "iron":

    "Deepak Ahuja - Chief Financial Officer
    We would have significant positive operating cash flow, obviously as our business --our volume gross and our gross margin continues to improve. We’ll also have some cash used on our direct leasing program. Our expectation is that we will establish shop via warehouse line for leasing cars and that will continue to grow and fund the big portion for leasing funding required. So overall, we feel pretty comfortable where we are in terms of our 2015 look from a cash burn perspective."

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 10, 2015 1:02 AM Flag

    From one of Randy's comments on SA:

    "The kind of short-term, rapid response regulation Tesla residential storage units can provide is the kind of grid stabilization service that the CPUC / EPRI study concluded had a break-even capital cost $3k/kWh, or $30,000 per 10kWh Tesla storage system. If by aggregating control of residential storage units so this type of grid stabilization service can be sold to the ISO (actually 'sold' into the California electricity market), then Tesla should be able to supply these units at little or no cost to the consumer, cut the consumer's total cost of electricity, and STILL make 50% gross margin even if the module cost is $1,000/kWh (which is certainly higher than these modules will cost Tesla based on their automotive experience and economy of scale.) On top of this, it is likely that tax credits and other incentives will be available - the the chagrin of free-market proponents, and greater glee of Tesla shareholders.

    What this means is that we should pay much more attention to how the 'business model' for these products looks than how the units look when bolted to the inside of your garage..."

    IF he is even close on this perhaps Tesla's Supercharger network, with it's own large amount of battery storage, was not intended solely to recharge Teslas.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 9, 2015 1:24 PM Flag

    You're right, I missed the cell output vs the pack output part. However, it also says "2020 Tesla Vehicle Volume ~ 500,000/yr". It's not completely clear if that refers to the GF or Tesla as a whole since I've seen Tesla presentations suggesting 700k sales in 2020. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I read that some of the GF's production will be used for the MS/MX so that would account for part of the difference. Also, I'm skeptical that there will be a 40kw Gen 3 because I don't think that will have a 200 mile range but you might be right. Then again, if they come out with a new equivalent of the Roadster that has a smaller battery pack...

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 9, 2015 12:55 PM Flag

    Have you read Randy Carlson's comments on SA in response to Santos' article on Tesla's new product? If you think he's got a point perhaps everyone is looking at home storage in the wrong light. I'd post more but the censors keep deleting my posts.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • justthefactsmaam_ok justthefactsmaam_ok Apr 9, 2015 12:52 PM Flag

    I think it was split 35gw for cars, 15 for batteries not used in cars. I think 50kw average per car is too low.

    Sentiment: Buy

TSLA
226.03-0.02(-0.01%)May 1 4:00 PMEDT