Business model is fatally flawed. Refusal to abide by the retail "rules" of the world. LOL!
Tesla should stick to the "proven" dealer model of retail which has proven to be so poor that's it's the archetype of poor customer experiences.
How about waiting for a couple of quarters of poor sales before declaring victory, rather than proclaiming your genius while actual sales and forecasts continue to increase?
Per WSJ blog post:
"Mr. Musk said he met yesterday with BMW AG executives and talked about potential ways to collaborate “and one was on supercharging.”
Agree with your first paragraph. I have yet to see the upside but am hedged and standing pat for now.
As for the "typo": it isn't. Read the Twitter posts.
As for Gracias, unless he knew about today's decision in advance and THEN initiated selling or a sell program it isn't insider trading. In fact, the stock is currently flat so it's not even clear that selling is the right call-yet.
"The revenue collected doesn't even cover capital costs let alone operating expense."
Wrong and wrong.
If you have sources to dispute the figures I posted, post them.
"How many of those Norwegian (and other European) Model Ss in taxi service do you suppose recharge at the "barn" every shift?"
Even if ALL of those taxis use only Superchargers, which I doubt, how many MS' are in taxi service? How many would use up a full charge every day? How much would that cost anyway?
Tesla has a bit more visibility into future electricity prices than you think but I'll leave it to you to figure out why.
No market research on EVs? Based on sales to date maybe they don't need it.
I'll accept your word that BMW and MB get the same margin for all options. However Tesla does a lot of things differently than traditional car companies and dealers. It's been reported that those same companies mark up cars sold in China while Tesla has said it won't do that. Haven't spent the time to verify.
I'm not short but I'd note that the recent volume is about the lowest in just over 1 year. Days to cover would increase if short interest is flat but volume decreased.
One other thing: some shares are short against the convertibles and I don't believe this would be reflected in the figures posted on NASDAQ.
I wrestled with that thought but am still not sure if it's the most fair way to view things. Also, where do you see that SC revenue is $2000/car? Just because that's the price as an option on one car doesn't mean it's accounted as such on the higher priced version. Perhaps the thought was that once deciding on the SC option for the 60 and pricing it on the higher side it might encourage buyers to spend $8000 more to get the 85. BTW if installed after delivery the price is $2500.
The poor don't pay income taxes. The rich do. The poor receive more from the government than they pay in. The rich pay far, far more than they receive.
"Tesla’s mismatched accounting deceptively inflates current period GM (gross margin), and pushes the folly of the SC business model out of sight over the horizon."
Tesla has spent roughly $60 million to date on Supercharger locations while generating over $3 billion in revenues during the same period. It's standard equipment on the 85s and a $2000 option on the 60s meaning only a minority of MS' buyers are paying for it directly up front. To date, assuming $.15/kwh (which is high), Tesla would have spent under $1 million in electricity charges which comes out to about $30 per car SINCE INCEPTION.
You used the terms "deceptively" and "folly". When put in context, do you want to reconsider?
It's entertaining to watch most of the participants here validate each other. Heck, apparently all that's needed is a bigger plug, more power, bigger charger and poof! you get faster charging! However, it's odd that Tesla's roughly 1 year old technology is still far, far faster than anything else that's currently out. CHAdeMO is 62.5kw, working on 90kw-and that would be LESS than Tesla's 1 year old 120kw technology. To date, I'm not aware of any incidents while Supercharging and it appears to only have a negligible impact on the batteries.
Did I mention that that technology is already 1 year old?
Better yet, now that the "secret" is out, perhaps all of the car companies can learn from this thread how easy it is reduce charge times. If you reduce the size of the expensive battery packs, spend more money on the charger and supersize it, no reason that charge times can't be reduced to essentially that of pumping 15 gallons of gas while at the same time plunging the cost of the car.
Who knew it was so easy?
4 weeks ago, Tesla released Q1 earnings and said at that time they were "On track for more than 35,000 deliveries in 2014". At that time, they had 4 months of sales and probably 2 months of forward visibility of demand. In fact they said q2 production was sold out. Fast forward to this past Tuesday where they reiterated the 35K+ deliveries for 2014.
With visibility through at least the first 6 months of 2014, why would Elon possibly stick to the forecast if, as you suggest, "it's nowhere in sight"? In fact, with 6400 Q1 deliveries and estimated production of 8500 units on the low end in q2, which is sold out, there will be 15,000 sales without producing another car so your "guess" of 26-27,000 is either idiotic or rhetoric-or both. Moreover, with sales to China only recently starting (the world's largest car market and the world's largest luxury car market), UK, Australia and maybe Japan coming up, your "guess" is clearly not on a "best efforts" basis although I have yet to be sure what your purpose is. Clearly it's not to spark an honest debate.
At least now you won't be able to say you meant "sales in...", where you try to rationalize your erroneous prediction by retroactively selecting a sales region.
Why someone who has the confidence to post their personal info chooses to prove how inept they are at forecasting nearly every significant metric when it comes to Tesla is confusing. It wouldn't be very shocking to find out you post one thing here while commenting "watch this" somewhere else.
tie, I seriously can't figure out if you're a fool or just trying to stir the pot. It seems very appropo to point out that the guy who asked the question about how long Elon would stay also said he was a "philosopher, a "level 2 genius" and asked to be co-CEO and when that was declined then asked for a seat on the board of directors.
Elon isn't confused. He talks, plans and acts like the physicist that he is. There may be someone who's confused but it's not Elon.
Yes and yes but that's not because of anything I heard at the meeting. The course has been pretty clear for some time: ramp up MS production, get the Model X finished and into production, begin work on the Gigafactory, continue work on Gen 3, release Gen 3. Elon said he didn't know what the demand limit would be (can't remember if he was referring to MS or MX) but would keep increasing until it was hit. He said quite some time ago that he didn't want to have a backlog, that he'd prefer people to be
able to get their car quickly after ordering.
Possible deviations from the course could include whatever Elon mentioned regarding Tesla's patents and maybe some other surprise deal. Doesn't appear we'll see improved batteries until Gen 3 despite the advancements that have been made since the MS was designed.
BTW re parking at the factory: the parking areas run the length of the factory, at least on the side that you can drive on. Signs say private property but no one seems to care. Anyway, there aren't just a couple hundred spaces-it's closer to 1000+ than 100 and I'd guess that there were several hundred more cars there than last year.
Lastly, there are over 1260 open positions at Tesla-the highest I've ever seen. All things considered, it's hard to see anything that indicates slowing sales or future expansion.
From a previous post, thanks for the warm introduction crocster.
Since the meeting can be seen online, not much for me to add but a few observations:
Fewer dumb questions this year (thankfully no one asked for the umpteenth time about solar panels on the roof).
The "4-5" year time frame that Elon will stay at the minimum is disconcerting albeit it's a long time away. Still...
Disappointed there was no date and location given of initial ground breaking of Gigafactory(s).
The "freeway" self driving feature which should be out in less than a year will be interesting.
I can't remember the exact phrasing but the initial version or something like that of Gen 3 should be out the end of 2016. Seems a bit earlier than we've been hearing although maybe the 2017 date bandied about relates to volume production.
The end of the deal with Toyota: never thought much of the RAV4 EV nor did buyers (and most here didn't like it either) but while that was one reason to end the program the other was that Toyota wanted a high volume car. Tesla can't supply enough battery packs for such a car as they don't even have enough batteries for their own cars. I think Elon said they'll revisit in a couple years.
While expectations up to now are for a 30% reduction in battery cost with the Gigafactory, Elon said that's looking conservative.
Did you enjoy the crazy guy who wanted to be CEO or at least given a seat on the board after telling Elon he was "also a level 2 genius"? Was already annoyed when he introduced himself as a "philosopher" and shareholder although he did initially ask a good question. However, he then went off the deep end and we gave him too much time IMO before we started grumbling to get him off the mic.
I drove by the Fremont plant again this year. While there were a lot of employee cars there last year, this time there were almost no, and I mean NO, open spaces. Can't put production numbers to it but Tesla has clearly hired a many more people.
The question about Gracias was asked at the meeting. Apparently the guy who asked it was sitting very close to Gracias so Elon handed the mic to him. You can watch the video but basically he said he was reducing the size in his fund by selling 25% of his position. Prudent risk management as mentioned in your post although not likely he'll get a bunch of options at a big discount. If he sells more in the near future at anything other than much higher prices we can discuss whether it's merely "risk management".
I haven't looked to see whether any or many options have been awarded at discounted strikes which I assume you mean beyond say 10% of the current price. I'd guess that most of the options that are being exercised at very prices were awarded when the stock...was at a very low price. Not much incentive in incentive options if they're too aggressively discounted.
Good post and I want to respond to some of the points with which agree and others that I see things differently but leaving for the shareholder meeting and am short on time. Will respond later.
I would somewhat disagree. Insomuch as the Volt and i3 are "hybrids", I prefer them to conventional hybrids because their engines function as generators, not motors, thereby removing some of the mechanical parts and complexity. I love my Volt and if GM had located the battery compartment as Tesla and BMW did at the bottom of the car which would provide more passenger space, increased battery size ie range by maybe 15 miles, I think the car would be selling far better.
I wonder how much the initial and but dead smear campaign against the car has and still affects sales. The "battery fire" stories should have resulted in legal action and repeated, profuse apologies by those who broadcast them.
I talked about cash that Tesla "suddenly" had? I brought up "new cash"? You "caught" me? With what? Where? I mentioned that Tesla has cash and that the balance sheet (and stockholders) are $200 million to the better in the most recent quarter. You'd dispute either comment?
"Musk is a retailer? IMO, he isn't. That much is clear. He sees zero interest in advertising."
Yep, I'm thoroughly confused. Tesla doesn't advertise because Elon has no interest in advertising, a viewpoint based on his philosophy irrespective of MS supply or demand? So he would be against doing some advertising if demand for the MS was far below Tesla's ability to produce the cars? If that's not what you're saying, can you or someone else bring it down to my level?
Cash on hand, roughly $2.4 billion, is more than convertible debt ($590 million) and long-term debt ($1.52 billion) combined.
Isn't that more significant and in context than "The sum of the cash on hand right now is less than the sum total of the three bond issuances."?
"But that number is going to be whittled down somewhat fast going through the next three quarters."
Tesla said just 3 weeks ago that for the year they would be "slightly" cash flow negative. At the time of the statement, they would likely have visibility through the first 6 months of the year so what do you see that they don't for the next 6 months?