Tesla Motors

[rage2]

Not really trolling there, Sugarphreak has an excellent point, with the exception of Bre-X, that's a little extreme as that was purely fraud.

As for the McDonald's comparison, Tesla does exactly what Sugarphreak says. And McDonald's is a real estate company, read Ray Kroc's autobiography about how McDonald's became so successful. It's a great read.

[supe]

Ok Sugarphreak, I fully understand your mcdonalds example, I was blown away when I first learned about what companies true business models are, same reason as why the Nexus phones are so damn cheap, its because Google is an ad company not a hardware company.

I think you're wrong when it comes to Tesla. Tesla IS a car company. They make cars, and they make money from selling cars and car parts. And yes they do make money. Last quarter they hit their healthy target of 22% gross margin, you can't discount that fact. Tesla has partnerships with both Toyota and Mercedes, and the fact is, they can't make their cars fast enough to keep up with the demand, talk about a good problem to have.

Keep in mind that Tesla has spent next to zero on marketing. Also please explain why you refer to Elon as a playboy fantasy?

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider



I refuse to get trolled on beyond. Nice try.

Trolled? The word you were looking for is owned.

Reading this thread is frustrating, there's a number of rational, intelligent people discussing rational intelligent analysis of Tesla, and there's a couple of Elon ball hangers who think he shits diamonds and pisses excellence. How do you argue with people like that?

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by rage2
Not really trolling there, Sugarphreak has an excellent point, with the exception of Bre-X, that's a little extreme as that was purely fraud.

As for the McDonald's comparison, Tesla does exactly what Sugarphreak says. And McDonald's is a real estate company, read Ray Kroc's autobiography about how McDonald's became so successful. It's a great read.

Hahaha. You can't be serious?

As you said, Bre-X was outright fraud in a market that is inherently speculative. It's a totally different ball of wax than a car manufacturer that actually produces real tangible things. Comparing that to Tesla is pure stupidity.

As far as the whole "Tesla isn't a car company" thing goes, it's on the same level as the Bre-X comment. They make less than $5k in credits per car sold and only in California. Less than 5% of their revenue comes from credits. The gross margin on every model s sold is 25%, and they can't make them fast enough to meet demand. Yes, absolutely yes, they are a car company.

How does that in any way shape or form relate to McDonald's business model?

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


Trolled? The word you were looking for is owned.

Reading this thread is frustrating, there's a number of rational, intelligent people discussing rational intelligent analysis of Tesla, and there's a couple of Elon ball hangers who think he shits diamonds and pisses excellence. How do you argue with people like that?

Owned? Is everyone in this thread on crazy pills? Some guy says Tesla is like Bre-X and is a pyramid scheme, and everyone here... agrees with that?!? I just... I don't... I'm gettin too old for this shit.

[rx7_turbo2]

Sugarphreak said:
"It is a fact they don’t make money on cars, they make money by enticing investors and collecting carbon credits… it is fair to say that Tesla is not a car company.

No different than McDonalds… most people assume that McDonalds is in the business of fast food, when really they are in the business of real estate. "

UndrgroundRider responded:
I refuse to get trolled on beyond. Nice try.

How did you get trolled? Sugarphreak used a poor example with Bre-X so he chose a better one with McDonalds, he didn't "troll" you he "owned" you, is that not clear?

[rage2]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider
As far as the whole "Tesla isn't a car company" thing goes, it's on the same level as the Bre-X comment. They make less than $5k in credits per car sold and only in California. Less than 5% of their revenue comes from credits. The gross margin on every model s sold is 25%, and they can't make them fast enough to meet demand. Yes, absolutely yes, they are a car company.

How does that in any way shape or form relate to McDonald's business model?

Uhh, you're completely missed out on the carbon credits that they sell to Ford, GM, etc. Tesla sells 100% ZEV's, so they can sell off carbon credits to their competitors to meet their ZEV targets. Their competitors are in fact bankrolling Tesla due to carbon credits haha.

BTW - Tesla's profitable quarter is all thanks to accounting tricks. They used non-GAAP numbers to present a profit. Yes there would've been a cash profit for what they did, but it'll come back to bite them later on, which is why you have to use GAAP numbers.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by rage2

Uhh, you're completely missed out on the carbon credits that they sell to Ford, GM, etc. Tesla sells 100% ZEV's, so they can sell off carbon credits to their competitors to meet their ZEV targets.

Did you even read my post? I specifically talked about the carbon credits. They work out to less than $5k per car and only apply to cars sold in cali.

Btw, I didnt say tesla was a good buy. Just that sugar was full of shit and has no clue. In fact I dont own any tesla because I do think they are over valued, even after this recent drop. Once the li-air batteries come out in a few years tesla will get crushed by the big manufacturers jumping in once it makes fiscal sense.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[rx7_turbo2]

Well if UndrgroundRider didn't know what an "owning" was before the post above should clear things up

Although I'm guessing it won't

[rage2]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider
Did you even read my post? I specifically talked about the carbon credits. They work out to less than $5k per car and only apply to cars sold in cali.

I did. And Sugarphreak answered what I was going to say. Thanks.

[Unknown303]

Christ Sugarphreak you're on fire in here. Summed up the facts like a boss, I couldn't agree more.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Ok, lets get facts straight.

Great idea! Lets get some fucking facts straight.

Tesla's gross margin excluding ZEV's is 22% today. GM's is 12%. Ford is 15%. Suck it. I guess none of them can make any money on cars. They must all be in the ZEV credit business. No wait! It must be a pyramid scheme. Bre-X!!!! McDonalds!!!@1111 America!!! !

All of the numbers you provided were originally based on Darryl Siry's original analysis, which has been completely debunked by an official statement from Tesla. AND guess what?!? Not only is Tesla legally required to be truthful in these statements but they actually have the hard financial data to back it up. It's not just some wild fiction made up by people trying to sell stock advice.

Here it is, straight from the horses mouth:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08...y-exaggerated/
First, Tesla is not dependent on ZEV credit income. Siry noted that in our S-1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that we generated $8.2 million from sales of ZEV credits, and that they accounted for 85% of our gross margin. However, he conveniently ignored the fact that this was related to 2009 financials. Our European sales had just begun in the second half of the year and we were in the early stages of Roadster production. Siry omitted to pull information from the same table that shows that in the most recent publicly filed quarter, we generated only $0.5 million of ZEV credit income—which represented a mere 13% of our gross margin. We think many readers might have drawn a different conclusion about our dependence had both facts been presented.

The blog post you cite from unbiased Richard Finger bloody admits that those numbers are 100% guesses. He straight out admits it. It's not based on any official disclosure or financial statement form Tesla. They are 100% pure estimation by people who are in the business of selling shock financial news. TO TOP IT ALL OFF, look at the freaking date on that post. It's from bloody September! Q3 financials were released Nov 5. Your information is a full quarter out of date.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
But then... each sedan gets a number of cabon credits. Tesla can then sell these credits to other car manufactures which are short. For every credit they are short, other manufactures are fined 5000$.

Explain to me why GM/Ford (or anyone) would pay 6 times the cost of a fine, to avoid paying said fine? You're straight out looney tunes if you think that happened. And stop side stepping the fact that Tesla only gets these credits in a very limited number of states. It's not a federal subsidy, and it certainly doesn't apply to their non-US business.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
So basically every S model they roll off they are getting a $32,500 to $47,500 kickback. And even with all that extra money coming in, they can barely turn a profit.

I love how you took the one blog article on the whole of the internets that provides the largest 100% pure guess of what Tesla is selling the credits for, AND THEN ADDED $12,500 to it. Nice fucking gorilla math there Einstein.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
The only way for Tesla to survive is to capitalize on things that actually make them money.... cars is not one of them.

O RLY? What do they make money on then? Please, enlighten me. Surely it can't be the credits, because of course, those come from making cars. Obviously you're talking about some other magical unicorn source of revenue that nobody else knows about. Fill us all in oh wise one.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Similar to above, they may make cars... but it isn't what makes them money. They were bleeding money when they were just throwing electric car drive-trains into an existing Lotus chassis... so how can you possibly expect they can cost effectively produce cars themselves?

Yea, that makes sense... No, they don't make money on cars. It only accounts for 87% of their revenue. But hey, they don't make money on them. I mean, they have a 22% gross margin, and have been sold out since they launched, but no, they don't make money on them. Jesus. How does this kind of logic fly here? Do you know anything about business? Just because the business isn't posting Apple caliber net profits doesn't mean the business is failing. It's very common for newer businesses to post losses as they pickup speed. It's done intentionally to reinvest capital into the business and fuel growth. Tesla is dumping over 25% of revenue into R&D for christ sake. Facebook wasn't profitable until Q3 2009! Now their market cap is 113 billion. It's not even unusal for an up and coming company to not show profits early on, it's actually the norm.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
IMO when the money runs out and the party is over, we will look back on this not unlike Bre-X. Investors who got sucked into the hype and lost everything looking for somebody to blame.

You're an idiot. Sorry, not going to be nice about it, that's just plain dumb and you're dumb for saying it. This is nothing like Bre-X. Even your cronies who are coming to your defense won't agree with you there. Were you even old enough to know what was going on during the Bre-X scandal? Bre-X was pure fraud, in an industry that is highly speculative. It went to zero because there was nothing behind the company, it was vapour. It is NOTHING like Tesla. Tesla makes real products and has real sales. To even imply they are similar is pure stupidity. All of your arguments lose credibility because of how dumb your Bre-X analogy is.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Well if UndrgroundRider didn't know what an "owning" was before the post above should clear things up

Although I'm guessing it won't

Uhhh, that's not an owning. This is an owning.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Well if UndrgroundRider didn't know what an "owning" was before the post above should clear things up

Although I'm guessing it won't

Another successful prediction by me

Like I said, rational thought, sound analysis? Not needed when you're hanging from Elon's ball sack.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


First
Directly from the article you referenced:


So Tesla wasn't able to disprove it, they just don't like the fact the public was told how much the credits were for. There was no "de-bunking".... just moaning.

They were basing their information on 2009 financial statements and PURE GUESSES of what they were selling the credits for. Tesla came right out and told them they were wrong, misrepresenting facts by using 4-year old financials and provided actual solid current information backed by hard numbers.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Also Wired VS Forbes for credibility? Really?

That's just too good. I'm crying. My sides are hurting. I'm reeling from the irony. Do you realize the Wired page I linked to is a statement made by Tesla to respond to a Wired article that is the basis for your Forbes article? Are you trying to discredit Wired? Good for you I guess, because it has nothing to do with any of my arguments (although it is the basis for yours ). Unlike you, all of my information has been backed by financial data from the SEC filings and statements that were actually made by Tesla.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
They are a public company, they have to disclose their financials... this is nothing new. Just like Bre-X did.

Hey! Great argument. Super job. Tesla and Bre-X are the same because they're both required to disclose their financials.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I didn't say that they were paying 6 times the fine, or even as much as the fine... I was pointing out they get more than 1 credit per car and they sell them for a profit that works out to between 25K to 35K per car. This is not my number, that was provided in the Forbes article.

Actually, you did say... Here you go:

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
For every credit they are short, other manufactures are fined 5000$.

....

So how much are they making on credits exactly?

Tesla sells credits for as much as $35,000 each time it rings the register on a new Model S sedan.

Sorry, I guess it was 7 times.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Yes... I added the two lows, and two highs of two completely separate credit systems which is perfectly logical to get the total range. Also Einstein was also known to have failed math, so your sarcastic insult is not really that great.

Hahaha. I don't know where to begin with this one. Ok yes, I do. You're an IDIOT. Einstein did not fail math. That was a myth propagated by idiots who like to feel better about themselves for failing math. It is also a great example of the bar room quality of your knowledge on these matters.

Second, the federal tax credit goes to the consumer! That $7,500 is an income tax credit the buyer gets. And all this time you've been including this in your margin numbers? No wonder you're so out to lunch. There's only 1 credit that Tesla gets directly and can resell to other manufacturers. That's the ZEV credit. The actual value of this credit is less than $5000.

Third, only your gorilla math can get you from $5000 in ZEV credits to $47,500. That's just stupid. How does anyone buy your shit on this forum? By the way, the $35,000 number on Forbes already had the federal and state level credits added into one number. Why you thought you should then add the federal ($7500) and state ($5000) credits into that number again is beyond reason.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
The rest of your post is sort of a rant about how I compare Tesla to Bre-X... yes it is a stretch, but it is my opinion. If you were around for when Bre-X was taking off, there were many people just like you vigorously defending them.

Was I around?!? Were you!?! It was TOTALLY different than Tesla in a completely different market. And again, that was a totally different scenario. Bre-X was pre-revenue, and in an industry that is high-risk due to the inherent speculative nature of it. Bre-X would've turned out WAY differently if the core samples were legitimate. They were 100% fraudulent, hence the scandal. Just because there's speculation regarding a given stock doesn't mean we should write it off as the next Bre-X. Is this your first day? This shit happens all the time.

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


Another successful prediction by me

Like I said, rational thought, sound analysis? Not needed when you're hanging from Elon's ball sack.

What thread are you reading?!? The only ball sack loving going on here is between you and Sugar.

[supe]

The fact is Tesla hit 22% gross margin without any ZEV credits. They are targeting 25% for q4 and still they can't make these cars fast enough. Regarding ZEV credits, this is a government policy aimed to promote a better means of travel. Tesla is that. The fact that they make money from it is actually what the program is there for. Sure the credits boosted their bottom line, especially through their ramp up phase, but Tesla is past that now.

Rx7 your comments are just trolling, you're offering nothing meaningful.

Sugarphreak, your bre-x comparison is so out of whack. Bre-x was a complete fraud in every way. Tesla makes and sells cars, real cars, in fact maybe the best car ever made. In the short term, I'm sure statistically there will be more fires, the stock will probably bounce around. But I can't wait for the Model X, likely it will garner all the same accolades like the Model S did, and probably even more.

I don't know what your vendetta is against Elon but I don't think you give the guy enough credit, if any credit at all. I do believe that Elon is out to make the world a better place and he has a track record of making money while doing it. Its not an accident he is Fortune's Businessperson of the year.

[rage2]

Originally posted by supe
The fact is Tesla hit 22% gross margin without any ZEV credits. They are targeting 25% for q4 and still they can't make these cars fast enough.

So what you're telling me is they can't scale up?