"Why is that a green hoax? Seems like a good idea?"
Saving energy is always a good idea. Passive solar always has been a good idea. There are thousands of home designs out there just as good as this one. But this one is a hoax because of the claims it makes. It claims to produce more energy than it uses (waste heat) and is carbon-positive. Do you understand the energy balance here? Do you understand the carbon balance here?
It's simply a passive solar house. The house produces no energy at all, with the exception of the plants growing inside. Another green hoax.
OK, I think I figured it out. The ASP went down last quarter because of the large number of discounted inventory cars that were sold. So there is reason that ASP and GM will both improve this year.
Future, Factory overtime will affect GM, but it will not affect ASP or revenues.
KB, The P85D deliveries in December included the most enthusiastic of Tesla buyers. I have to believe they were heavily optioned.
You're quite right about the drop in ASP last quarter, and I'm not sure how that happened. Well over half of Q4 deliveries were in December, and probably 80% those were P85D's. Is there any other factor besides foreign exchange?
A new monthly record for sales in Germany - 211. Add in an estimated 200 in the UK and Q1 sales should be right around 3500. Easily a new quarterly record in Europe. No need for China sales at all.
"Am I missing something or are your GM estimates far below Tesla's forecasts?"
My estimates of 23% for are in line with Tesla's forecasts, assuming that ZEV credit sales come in at about $75M per quarter. In the past two quarters, GM (ex ZEV) was at 22.8% and 22.0%. I don't see anything in the near future that will improve it. Q4 was dominated by P85D's. Q1 had mostly 85D's. Q2 will be 70D's. The Euro continues to erode. Production volume in Q1 will be the same as Q4. Certainly if volumes go up, GM should improve. I'll adjust my numbers when I actually see that happening.
I also factor in last year's guidance. From the Q414 Shareholder's letter: "We expect to deliver over 35,000 Model S vehicles in 2014, representing a 55+% increase over 2013." And for GM: "This year, we expect automotive gross margin to increase to about 28% (non-GAAP and GAAP) in Q4 through a series
of small design improvements, better supplier prices and economies of scale." They met this figure in the second half of last year, but 6% of the 28% was ZEV credits. Without the credits, GM actually eroded 4% in the second half.
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.
JTF, we have a significant difference in assumed GM. Based on the performance of the last two quarters, I'm thinking that GM (without ZEV credit sales) will come in at about 23%. In order to get to 28.5%, they'll need about $300M from ZEV credits. That's certainly not out of the question.
To save you some time, this is from the 10-K:
"Advertising and sales promotion costs are expensed as incurred. During the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, advertising, promotion and related marketing expenses were $48.9 million, $9.0 million and $3.9 million, respectively."
In other words, over $1500 per vehicle was spent last year.
It's really disappointing that Tesla is so committed to smoke-and-mirrors tactics. For some reason, they feel the need to stretch everything to an absurd limit. It makes no sense.
Coach, Last year Tesla sold about $151M in ZEV credits. I have no idea what the credit sales will look like this year, but the overall financial results in 2015 could end up looking very similar to 2014. Keep in mind that to achieve similar earnings results, they need to sell over 70% more cars this year.
My spreadsheet includes 4 categories of expenses: R&D, SG&A, Interest, and Other. R&D and SG&A are at $167M and $213M in Q1; increasing 10% per quarter after that. I have Interest and Other at $29M and $5M, respectively, based on the previous two quarters. I have kept those two expenses constant through the year.
"$294 million 2014 loss."
But that was last year. Where are earnings headed this year? Using Tesla's guidance numbers, this is what I see. Assumptions:
To hit unit sales of 55,000, assume 12500, 15000 and 17500 in the next 3 quarters.
Assume average transaction price of $110k. (last year was $101k)
Assume GM of 23%, excluding ZEV credit sales but including GHG credits.
Assume SG&A and R&D increasing 10% quarter-to-quarter.
Assume Interest and Other expenses are similar to the last two quarters.
Using these numbers, the net loss improves every quarter this year: $160M, $136M, $115M, $97M. Half a billion loss for the year. Make your own assumptions about ZEV credit sales. And non-GAAP adjustments.
"This will be feared by energy companies"
It's my understanding that the opposite is true. It's a solution to their problem.
It amazes me that this issue has not been elevated. At any othermaker, it would be a do-not-sleep-until-it's-fixed issue. It's that big. Keef has summed it up correctly. The only thing I would say is that item #2 is the fundamental problem. I believe the ABS is incorrectly bleeding brake pressure, allowing the pedal to sink too low, often to the floor. The other two factors make it worse.
"You cannot find the price that an OEM pays for a battery pack."
If you knew someone in purchasing at Dell, you would know exactly what the historical price of Li-ion batteries is. On the retail level, Dell still sells replacement 6-cell batteries for $120. Same as they have for the last 15 years or so. Of course, energy density has improved over this time so you would have to factor that in.
OK, I deleted the original thread and am replacing it with this more accurate account.
Researchers Måns Nilsson and Björn Nykvist of the Stockholm Environment Institute reported that the cost of lithium-ion batteries declined 14% (+/-6%) a year between 2007 and 2014.
From a second article on the same report: “They suggest that if prices continue to fall at the same rate (about 8 percent per year), they could reach US$150 per kWh over the next decade, which they say would make such cars cost competitive (depending on oil prices, of course)—and that they add, could have a major impact on the climate.”
In my opinion, while the data is encouraging, we will still need a breakthrough in battery technology before EV’s become mainstream. Apparently Mr. Nilsson shares my opinion since he added, “I think five years from now there will be a commercial breakthrough.”