no that's just wrong. It's much more expensive than that. And that's with being able to sell back to power companies at wholesale rates and getting all kinds of tax credits from the gov't.
I don't expect anyone to "fight ISIS for me", but it would be good if the US didn't actively create chaos in countries like Egypt, Libya and Syria. If the countries don't get broken, then there's no ISIS.
how do you know? You would have said the same thing about internet stocks re 1999. Everyone was excited and the internet was the future. Til it all went bust.
their margins can only go down. Even with supposedly high margins, they still aren't making money. The cost of their "100 year infrastructure" is not written off against profits, it's depreciated slowly. So no, that's not an excuse.
their definition of breakeven is different than a commonsense definition. Their breakeven means "the price they need to pay for all kinds of social spending". But that spending will occur whether they sell oil or not. The actual cash cost of the oil, which is what most people mean by breakeven, is minimal.
they probably don't pay it back. They probably roll it over. That's like saying "how do you own a house with a 300K mortgage on it". That sounds like a lot of money, and it might be, but you need to consider the worth of the house, the income the homeowner has, the security of his job, etc.
ok, you were right on btu. I've been brainwashed with the efficient market hypothesis in college so I'm a little shocked at how a stock just goes straight down, but fortunately I wasn't long this. And hopefully, I would have sold had I been.
So what is your strategy in general. Not this stock, but in general, trend following? Buy on hitting 52 week highs, buy on reaching 200 dma? etc? Do you do anything fundamental?
I think the shares would trade on the pink sheets at maybe a few pennies a share. The shorts could access their proceeds, as their equity would grow as the stock falls. The money becomes withdrawable. Actually it's even better, as without covering, they don't trigger taxes. If the shares are extinguished, that would trigger taxes, I would assume.
"When tesla is making 4 billion a quarter"....wow just utterly delusional. And to make even 1/10 the cars of a ford or a gm would require hundreds of millions of new shares to be sold. Not that they would ever get there anyway.
The dealer has to eat too. Real estate has a high transaction cost too.
Critical thinking and skepticism are offering somerhing. Pie in the sky projections based on nothing other than wishful thinking offer nothing.
2.75 billion less cost of materials labor etc spread out over a year...about 300 million dollars. Still not enough to erase losses.
Gm will sell 5m cars at 20k a poo next year. That's a brand new 100 billion they'll receive within days!!!! But the market cap is 40 billion for gm why is that? Duh.
Wrong amazon has had profitable quarters before.
The facts are: 35 billion market cap, huge losses, huge cash burn, won't be profitable for years if ever according to ceo. 1% of the volume of gm but a market cap almosr as high. Long answer: pie in the sky sales will go from 50k per year to 5m per year no problem (100 fold increase??), losses don't matter the car is cool so buy the stock. There's no such thing as overvalued if the car is cool.
Their revenues are measured in dollars. Labor is in reals.. which is one of their costs.
That's like saying why pay more than dealer cost for a car? Or why pay a stores retail price instead of its wholesale price?