|Bid||223.06 x 800|
|Ask||223.16 x 800|
|Day's Range||221.02 - 225.85|
|52 Week Range||176.99 - 387.46|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.03|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||N/A|
|Earnings Date||Jul 30, 2019 - Aug 5, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||280.31|
What Tesla (TSLA) has built in the Nevada desert is impressive. Five years ago, the Gigafactory was merely an expanse of rocks and dirt, CEO Elon Musk bragged to shareholders on June 11. It is crammed top to bottom with automated machines, snaking assembly lines, engineering rooms, and 13,000 busy people working for Tesla and its Japanese partner.
San Jose-based lidar pioneer Velodyne LiDAR has reportedly hired four bankers to help the company go public, possibly as soon as this year, with a valuation of $1.8 billion.
In December 2017, we saw a sharp rally in almost all asset classes as markets started pricing in what many called “synchronized global growth” for 2018. However, as 2018 started drawing to a close, fears of a synchronized global slowdown hit markets. All leading economies were expected to grow at a slower pace in 2019 as compared to 2018.
Benzinga examined prospects for many investor favorite stocks over the past week. U.S. stocks finished higher for a third straight week, including new highs for the Dow and the S&P 500, bolstered by mid-week signals from the Federal Reserve. While the Fed opted to hold steady on interest rates with a reiteration that the economy remains strong, it did intimate that it is open to an interest rate cut before the end of the year.
Tesla Inc. may sell about as many vehicles in the second quarter as Wall Street is predicting, but that would be the year’s high-water mark for the Silicon Valley car maker, analysts at Goldman Sachs said in a note Thursday.
Welcome to your weekend! We'll recap a few highlight stories from the last week, plus some new items like our thoughts on Google getting out of the tablet business and a hands-on test of Tesla's latest in-car games. Why is the PlayStation Classic so unpopular? Tesla's vehicles have an array of goofy Easter Eggs.
InvestorPlace's Vince Martin pointed out in his June 7 article that Chinese electric vehicle maker Nio (NYSE:NIO) had a negative gross margin in the first quarter. That's not a good sign if you own Nio stock.Source: Shutterstock InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading TipsIn fact, Martin suggested that the Nio stock price could hit zero in the future, despite all the promise of the electric car maker's products. "Nio isn't necessarily going bankrupt in three quarters or even three years. But it does not have unlimited time. It's unlikely to be able to borrow much, given its meager asset base. Selling additional Nio stock will be difficult and would send Nio stock price even lower," Martin wrote June 7. Negative Gross MarginsFrankly, I'm not sure why anyone would invest in a company that has negative gross margins. Yet, Nio's had negative gross profits in three out of the last four quarters and investors are still buying Nio stock. * 7 Top S&P 500 Stocks of 2019 (So Far) Is that the definition of insanity or what?By comparison, Tesla's (NASDAQ:TSLA) had positive gross profits for the last five years -- its gross profits had grown from $881.7 million in 2014 to $4.0 billion in 2018 -- and, yet, some investors are actually opting to buy Nio stock over TSLA. While the company's negative gross margin is a big reason to shy away from investing in Nio stock, it isn't the financial metric that makes Nio stock a loser. The Altman Z-ScoreFor that, one needs to calculate the company's Altman Z-Score, which assesses the likelihood of a company going bankrupt within two years. I won't bore you with the formula. You can find that here. The important thing is that the Altman Z-Score gives you a better idea of a company's financial health at any given time. As the numbers on a company's balance sheet and income statement change, so too will its score, both positively and negatively. Taking its latest balance sheet and income statement financials from Morningstar, I've calculated Nio's Altman Z-Score to be -4.67. Anything less than 1.81 represents a company in distress. NIO's Altman Z-ScoreWorking Capital 546,244,434 A 0.22 Total Assets 3,048,600,000 B -2.51 Retained Earnings -5,460,092,704 C -1.69 EBIT -1,556,919,155 D -1.01 Market Cap 2,730,000,000 E 0.31 Total Liabilities -2,709,419,890 Net Sales 953,366,948 Calculation -4.67 Book Value 334,736,250 The Bottom Line on Nio StockSo, although my colleague didn't suggest it's going bankrupt anytime soon, I believe Nio's Altman Z-Score indicates that if it doesn't shore up its business soon, there's an excellent possibility it could face financial distress in the next 12-24 months. * 7 Stocks Flashing Signs of Strong Insider Buying That's especially true when you consider how much competition Nio has on the electric front in China. It's tough enough to right the ship financially when the competition isn't a problem, but things are going to get very difficult for Nio in the second quarter and beyond. Therefore, based on the company's competitive threats, a negative gross margin, and the real threat of bankruptcy in the future, I'm not sure how you can consider Nio stock anything but a losing proposition. At the time of this writing Will Ashworth did not hold a position in any of the aforementioned securities. More From InvestorPlace * 2 Toxic Pot Stocks You Should Avoid * The 7 Best Dow Jones Stocks to Buy for the Rest of 2019 * 5 Boring Stocks to Buy This Summer * 7 S&P 500 Stocks to Buy With Little Debt and Lots of Profits Compare Brokers The post The One Metric That Makes Nio Stock a Loser appeared first on InvestorPlace.
Surprises and missed expectations set off a sharp plunge in Tesla stock this year, which is down about 34%, as Wall Street analysts have expressed mixed views on whether Tesla stock is a buy or sell.
It's easy to get caught up in the drama of Tesla. The weirdness runs the gamut from Robo-taxis, to CEO Elon Musk's bizarre tweets, vehicle demand, manufacturing tents, and investor events. But if we step back for a moment, it's worth reminding ourselves that it's a company that enjoys having fun.
(Bloomberg) -- Workers at a major auto parts plant in Michigan are poised to return to work after a brief strike Friday, alleviating the threat of a supply disruption for carmakers Ford Motor Co., Tesla Inc. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV.The United Auto Workers called the strike early Friday morning after failing to reach a tentative contract agreement with Faurecia SA. A tentative deal has been reached, Misty Matthews, a Faurecia spokeswoman, said by phone.Faurecia’s plant in Saline, about 40 miles west of Detroit, employs 1,900 UAW members. The factory makes instrument panels, center consoles and other parts and supplies them to Ford, Tesla and Fiat Chrysler.To contact the reporter on this story: Kyle Lahucik in Southfield at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Craig Trudell at firstname.lastname@example.org, David WelchFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Investor sentiment on Tesla Inc. appears to have "overshot to the negative," said analyst Ben Kallo at Baird, who said he believes there are several upcoming catalysts that could drive the electric vehicle maker's stock higher. Kallo reiterated the outperform rating he's had on Tesla for at least three years, but boosted his price target to $355 from $340. The stock, which fell 0.9% in premarket trading Friday, has tumbled 20% over the past three months through Thursday, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained 3.1%. He expects the first positive catalyst to be second-quarter deliveries data, which are due out on or before July 3, as he believes the stock will react positively given low expectations. Other upcoming catalysts include a potential cash flow positive quarter, the battery and powertrain analyst gathering expected this summer, volume production from the Shanghai factory, pickup truck unveiling and announcements on strategies to expand manufacturing and battery production capacity.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur and philanthropist from New York, has drawn less attention than most of his counterparts. But he has been noticed for one big, bold proposal -- a universal basic income, or UBI, which would give every American $12,000 a year with no strings attached. Yang has thus become the most public champion of an idea that is gaining currency in some corners of the left and the right.Basic income has a long and interesting history, with similar proposals dating back at least to the 1500s. It was championed in the 1700s by Revolutionary War pamphleteer Thomas Paine, and in the early 20th century by populist Louisiana Governor Huey Long. In the 1960s, economists on both the political left and right, including big names like Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, James Tobin and John Kenneth Galbraith, all supported either basic-income schemes or the similar idea of a negative income tax. President Richard Nixon tried to implement a guaranteed income program, but it was defeated in Congress, while Nixon's 1972 election opponent George McGovern floated an even more ambitious plan. Yang is therefore reviving an old idea -- it’s only the size of his proposal that is new and radical.But the case for basic income is being hampered by dubious arguments being made on its behalf. Yang, for example, claims that UBI is necessary to save people from the penury they will experience once automation makes them obsolete as workers:Technology is quickly displacing a large number of workers, and the pace will only increase as automation and other forms of artificial intelligence become more advanced. ⅓ of American workers will lose their jobs to automation by 2030 according to McKinsey.This assertion echoes similar sentiments from many in the technology industry, such as Tesla founder Elon Musk and YCombinator Chairman Sam Altman.The problem is, there’s no indication that automation is going to make human workers redundant anytime soon. Technologists probably tend to believe in automation-induced job loss because they’re familiar with the inventions that are constantly forcing people to change what they do for a living. But even as these new technologies have been rolled out, the fraction of Americans with jobs has remained about the same over time. Meanwhile, evidence that automation causes job losses throughout the economy is slim.In other words, automation so far shows no sign of having the kinds of effects Yang claims are imminent. The dire-sounding number Yang cites from McKinsey should be given little credence. Studies like this simply ask engineers how many existing jobs could be done by machines; even if the engineers’ guesses are right, they fail to say how many new jobs will be created in the process, so they don’t give any picture of technology’s overall impact on the labor market.Thus, when UBI proponents make the dubious claim that basic income is necessary to save people from the rise of the robots, they undermine their case. They also send the message that they think a huge percent of American workers are simply too useless to be gainfully employed in the future -- hardly an appealing message.The second dubious reason to support UBI is the idea that it can replace traditional forms of welfare spending, like food stamps and housing vouchers. Libertarian economist Milton Friedman supported a negative income tax for this reason, and modern-day libertarians often espouse this view as well.But there are reasons UBI will never be a one-size-fits-all solution. First, it’s expensive. Giving all Americans $12,000 a year costs a lot more than giving money to poor people only. Income taxes would need to be raised on the middle class and rich -- effectively swallowing up the UBI payments for all but the poor. But such high taxes can distort the economy in various ways. Second, food stamps and housing vouchers are typically used to increase consumption of food and housing -- things that society generally believes poor people ought to be spending their money on. So although UBI might allow the government to spend somewhat less on other forms of assistance, it shouldn’t be viewed as a full replacement for these programs -- and people are unlikely to embrace it as a replacement.These flawed justifications for UBI have won the idea an eclectic base of support. But they serve to distract the public from the simplest, most reasonable case for UBI. Basic income, unlike minimum wage and the earned income tax credit, provides money for those who are unable to work. In doing so, it doesn’t pay people not to work, because poor people’s benefits don’t decrease when people get jobs (at much higher income levels, the taxes needed to pay for UBI might discourage work, but that is a different issue). In other words, UBI is a form of welfare that doesn’t require people to be able-bodied but also doesn’t incentivize them to be indolent.Basic income is an interesting idea worthy of more attention and more experiments, like the one in Finland. Proponents should stop trying to frighten people about automation or create a false tradeoff between UBI and other forms of welfare. Instead, if they are going to argue for UBI, they should simply emphasize the idea’s simplicity and fairness.To contact the author of this story: Noah Smith at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Kudos to Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas for finding the accurate but elegant way of describing the headache investors suffer in trying to figure out what to do with Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA). He explains of handicapping TSLA stock, "We continue to believe Tesla is fundamentally overvalued, but potentially strategically undervalued."Source: Shutterstock What that means (to Jonas) for the shares -- and, consequently, the shareholders -- from here isn't a whole lot. That is to say, whatever blend of fundamentals and strategic value Morgan Stanley is using has prompted the firm to set its target price at $230, or or about $10 above the current price. The target is also un-bravely in the middle of a rather well-established trading range.Nevertheless, the assessment perfectly pegs the sum total of several contradictions that have been vexing Tesla stock investors for years now.InvestorPlace - Stock Market News, Stock Advice & Trading Tips Short-Sighted Self-Driving ThinkingJonas, for the record, thinks it's Tesla's self-driving arm that's largely underappreciated by Wall Street, and Main Street … a premise that Ark Invest analyst Tasha Keeney agrees with. She explained in a CNBC interview on Wednesday: "We think the autonomous driving market is going to be a huge opportunity. We think this should be valued at $2 trillion today in the equity markets, and it's virtually unaccounted for. We think Tesla has a great lead there, and that's because of the data advantage that they have."Keeney specifically named Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) and General Motors (NYSE:GM) as names Tesla was besting on the autonomous driving front. * 7 Top-Rated Biotech Stocks to Invest In Today The analysts' arguments hold some water. But, neither addressed a more philosophical aspect of the matter: What's Tesla doing with the tech?The answer is, of course, making its in-house self-driving platform better, but to what end? If consumers don't want (or can't afford) a Tesla, a superior self-driving platform is irrelevant. Tesla isn't doing anything else with the know-how. Alphabet's Waymo and GM's Cruise are also at least the basis of a robo-taxi service that doesn't require consumer sales of vehicles to monetize. Ditto for Ford Motor (NYSE:F).Thus far, Tesla has shown no interest in selling or leasing its self-driving technologies to third parties, while former partner Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) and Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) subsidiary are providing off-the-shelf solutions to carmakers tiptoeing into the arena.In other words, how is Tesla going to claim its piece of the $2 trillion market Keeney sees on the horizon? If the company intends to continue doing everything by itself and only for itself, the scope of the autonomous driving opportunity means little. Other Contradictions Cloud Investment CaseIt's not just a glaring lack of clarity on the self-driving front that keeps current and would-be TSLA stock buyers on edge. Analysts can't agree on plausible future demand either.Case in point: Goldman Sachs just cut its price target on TSLA to $158 from $200, explaining, "we see a lower probability of the company achieving our upside volume scenarios; we believe a downward path for shares will resume as it becomes more clear that sustainable demand for the company's current products are below expectations."That's in direct conflict, however, with an assessment that Piper Jaffray posted earlier this month, noting, "We understand why some investors consider the stock un-investable, but of all the reasons to doubt our overweight thesis, we think weak demand is among the least convincing." Goldman Sachs specifically cited lower tax subsidies as a reason demand was facing a headwind.Indeed, even with the modest tax credit of $3,750 available until the end of this month, Tesla's Model 3 has widened its U.S. sales lead on other EVs despite net cost for these Model 3's being greater than net sticker prices for alternatives.Consumers want Teslas, even if they have to pay a little more to get one.Even analysts themselves are conflicted, not as to how ownership-worthy TSLA stock may be, but whether or not it's ownership-worthy at all. * 5 Stocks to Buy for $20 or Less As of the most recent look, the lowest analyst price target sits at $140, while the highest lies at $585. And, of the 31 analysts following the company, 12 are rating it at a "sell" or worse, while another dozen are calling it a "buy" or better. Looking Ahead for TSLA StockThis is a key part of the reason TSLA shares have been so incredibly volatile. More often than not they're precariously balanced on the fence, and even the slightest of nudges can knock them off. Sometimes they land on the bearish side of the fence, and sometimes the bullish.Regardless, Tesla stock's usually quite quick to climb back on the fence of uncertainty, with the horde on 'the other side' screaming their case a little louder when they start to lose ground.The good news is, the never-ending conundrum has proven helpful to traders even if it's been agonizing to traders. That is, several trading ranges have taken shape over the years, and now is no exception. While last month's reversal was seemingly prodded by headlines, a longer-term look at the chart reveals that bottom lines up with a floor around $179 that's been in seen several times since 2014. If the bulls continue to get traction, the ultimate ceiling is right around $390.Not surprisingly, the consensus target of around $280 is squarely in the middle of the trading range. The analyst community has collectively hedged its bet on TSLA, underscoring the idea that nobody really knows what to make of this name.As of this writing, James Brumley held no position in any of the aforementioned securities. You can learn more about James at his site, jamesbrumley.com, or follow him on Twitter, at @jbrumley. More From InvestorPlace * 4 Top American Penny Pot Stocks (Buy Before June 21) * 7 Blue-Chip Stocks to Buy for a Noisy Market * 5 Strong Buy Biotech Stocks for the Second Half * 6 Stocks Ready to Bounce on a Trade Deal Compare Brokers The post Morgan Stanley Perfectly Sums Up the Dilemma For Tesla Stock Investors appeared first on InvestorPlace.
(Bloomberg) -- One of Tesla Inc.’s biggest fans among Wall Street brokers said the carmaker’s share price decline in 2019 has been “humbling,” slashing its price target by a quarter while still recommending investors buy the stock.“We got it wrong so far this year, but remain convinced there is significant value,” Jefferies analysts Philippe Houchois and Himanshu Agarwal wrote in a note Friday, cutting their full-year gross profit estimates by 20%. Performance in coming quarters will remain volatile as the company’s manufacturing and model range expand, they said.Tesla’s stock fell 1.3% in pre-market trading in New York, adding to a 3% decline a day prior as analysts at Goldman Sachs and RBC Capital Markets both raised alarm bells about the company’s sales outlook.However, Jefferies says current negativity around demand and competition is “excessive,” given Tesla’s technology edge and tested path to profitability compared with legacy original equipment manufacturer peers.The bank cut its price target to $300 a share from $400, compared with an average of $270.4 among analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. The shares are down 34% year-to-date, closing at $219.6 on Thursday.Meanwhile, R.W. Baird, another broker with a buy rating on Tesla, on Friday raised its price target to $355 a share from $340, saying it expects the stock to react positively to quarterly delivery numbers in the first week of July given current low expectations.The bears’ argument that Model 3 demand has softened is “unsubstantiated,” analyst Ben Kallo said.(Updates with Friday’s pre-market trading in third paragraph.)\--With assistance from Dana Hull.To contact the reporter on this story: Joe Easton in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Beth Mellor at firstname.lastname@example.org, John ViljoenFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The problem: Driversdon't understand the limitations of these systems, according to two newstudies released Thursday by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety