Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Sambucket said:
Isn't it deliberate to be cash flow neutral? Q1 dragged down the year but YoY it's looking more even.
If Tesla were showing large profits, that would mean they are not reinvesting? Operating margins are positive.
Also if Tesla had decided to recognise FSD revenue it would have been a full year profit.
ETA None of this justifies a share price over 300. But taken in isolation, lack of profit tells us little.
They can't recognise FSD receipts because it doesn't work and they haven't delivered it.If Tesla were showing large profits, that would mean they are not reinvesting? Operating margins are positive.
Also if Tesla had decided to recognise FSD revenue it would have been a full year profit.
ETA None of this justifies a share price over 300. But taken in isolation, lack of profit tells us little.
Edited by Sambucket on Thursday 30th January 11:49
Operating Margins are positive. So ignore reality (how the company is funded). Close to 1B in interest just ignored. Accumulated losses to date = 5B.
Operating cashflow is another made up number. It ignores depreciation, interest and capital expenditure.
Bottom line. These flat earnings reports will go on for years.
BJWoods said:
this seems very dumb, kill of the network, before it has grown!?
IONITY, Europe’s network for high-power-charging of electric vehicles, announced it will raise its charging prices by over 500 percent effective January 31, 2020. At that price, it will be three times more expensive than a Tesla supercharger in Europe, which average €0.25 ($0.28) per kilowatt-hour, and more than double the price of gasoline there. IONITY is a joint venture founded by the BMW Group, Daimler AG, Ford Motor Company, and Volkswagen Group with Audi and Porsche. Its objective is to build an extensive 350 kilowatt High Power Charging network for electric vehicles to facilitate long-distance travel in Europe. It currently has 202 charging stations in 17 countries and plans to double this to 400 locations in 24 countries this year.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/interna...
I’m probably wrong.IONITY, Europe’s network for high-power-charging of electric vehicles, announced it will raise its charging prices by over 500 percent effective January 31, 2020. At that price, it will be three times more expensive than a Tesla supercharger in Europe, which average €0.25 ($0.28) per kilowatt-hour, and more than double the price of gasoline there. IONITY is a joint venture founded by the BMW Group, Daimler AG, Ford Motor Company, and Volkswagen Group with Audi and Porsche. Its objective is to build an extensive 350 kilowatt High Power Charging network for electric vehicles to facilitate long-distance travel in Europe. It currently has 202 charging stations in 17 countries and plans to double this to 400 locations in 24 countries this year.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/interna...
I was under the impression that those prices are for cars that aren’t made by the backing manufacturers?
For instance turn up in a Tesla pay full price. Turn up in a Taycan different price.
I don’t know why I was under this impression sure I read it somewhere. If true prices have gone up it will kill off a lot of Taycan sales.
Burwood said:
They can't recognise FSD receipts because it doesn't work and they haven't delivered it.
Operating Margins are positive. So ignore reality (how the company is funded). Close to 1B in interest just ignored. Accumulated losses to date = 5B.
Operating cashflow is another made up number. It ignores depreciation, interest and capital expenditure.
Bottom line. These flat earnings reports will go on for years.
What's to stop them recognising those receipts? FSD spec is fairly vague. Eg 'respond' to traffic lights. Doesn't say anything about level 5. (not defending it but legally?O)Operating Margins are positive. So ignore reality (how the company is funded). Close to 1B in interest just ignored. Accumulated losses to date = 5B.
Operating cashflow is another made up number. It ignores depreciation, interest and capital expenditure.
Bottom line. These flat earnings reports will go on for years.
Also FSD isn't binary. Plenty of people happily paid for EAP which had tighter spec. If fsd does ever 'work' in a binary level 5 sense, they will be charging much more than 6k.
All accounting metrics are 'made up' if you want to go down that road. Nothing you have said suggests Tesla is not a healthy growing company using common financial services?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th January 12:35
Sambucket said:
Burwood said:
They can't recognise FSD receipts because it doesn't work and they haven't delivered it.
Operating Margins are positive. So ignore reality (how the company is funded). Close to 1B in interest just ignored. Accumulated losses to date = 5B.
Operating cashflow is another made up number. It ignores depreciation, interest and capital expenditure.
Bottom line. These flat earnings reports will go on for years.
What's to stop them recognising those receipts? FSD spec is fairly vague. Eg 'respond' to traffic lights. Doesn't say anything about level 5. (not defending it but legally?O)Operating Margins are positive. So ignore reality (how the company is funded). Close to 1B in interest just ignored. Accumulated losses to date = 5B.
Operating cashflow is another made up number. It ignores depreciation, interest and capital expenditure.
Bottom line. These flat earnings reports will go on for years.
Also FSD isn't binary. Plenty of people happily paid for EAP which had tighter spec. If fsd does ever 'work' in a binary level 5 sense, they will be charging much more than 6k.
All accounting metrics are 'made up' if you want to go down that road. Nothing you have said suggests Tesla is not a healthy growing company using common financial services?
Amazon is another bloater waiting to get cut in half.
Why isn't it healthy? Overvalued != unhealthy.
Doesn't seem to be a shortage of countries willing to lend Tesla money to build factories. Can't see 20bn being a problem.
5 years is arguably an unrealistic time frame to be expecting any serious profits returned to shareholders.
Amazon also seems pretty healthy to me. PE of 200 but that reflects how quickly AWS is growing.
Doesn't seem to be a shortage of countries willing to lend Tesla money to build factories. Can't see 20bn being a problem.
5 years is arguably an unrealistic time frame to be expecting any serious profits returned to shareholders.
Amazon also seems pretty healthy to me. PE of 200 but that reflects how quickly AWS is growing.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th January 12:50
Burwood said:
They can't recognise FSD receipts because it doesn't work and they haven't delivered it.
FSD is the name they gave the option that was previously called "Enhanced Auto Pilot".So they do sell the option and deliver it, it just doesn't live up to its name. Just like the "BMW Live Cockpit Navigation Professional" means you get a bit bigger screen but still a crap navigation system.
I watched a doc on youtube about how clever the cybertruck is in terms of costs to manufacture. It's crazy cheap and yet it kinda makes sense to make trucks super strong. They weighed it up against the F150 and the Tesla is something like 4 times cheaper to tool up and make. That's a bit of a game changer, no wonder they can afford to give it a 500 mile range (or 620, apparently that's rumoured to be the expected range now).
Sambucket said:
Why isn't it healthy? Overvalued != unhealthy.
Amazon also seems pretty healthy to me. PE of 200 but that reflects how quickly AWS is growing.
That's the point. AWS is not growing anywhere near fast enough to justify a PE of 200. AWS growth rate is actually slowing. 35% last quarter. Tonight we will find out. Microsoft has usurped AWS.Amazon also seems pretty healthy to me. PE of 200 but that reflects how quickly AWS is growing.
Unhealthy is net losses year after year. It (Tesla) might be stable. I certainly wouldn't call it healthy. Good luck to all stock holders.
I think the biggest compromise will be in terms of design, right? Complex surfaces are a lot harder to do.
I'm also wondering how they'll do in terms of safety. I know that in the USA, trucks have different safety ratings compared to cars, so that makes me wonder if they can make it fit to pass NCAP testings.
I'm also wondering how they'll do in terms of safety. I know that in the USA, trucks have different safety ratings compared to cars, so that makes me wonder if they can make it fit to pass NCAP testings.
Burwood said:
That's the point. AWS is not growing anywhere near fast enough to justify a PE of 200. AWS growth rate is actually slowing. 35% last quarter. Tonight we will find out. Microsoft has usurped AWS.
Unhealthy is net losses year after year. It (Tesla) might be stable. I certainly wouldn't call it healthy. Good luck to all stock holders.
What would be a healthy net profit for Tesla if it's intent on maximising growth?Unhealthy is net losses year after year. It (Tesla) might be stable. I certainly wouldn't call it healthy. Good luck to all stock holders.
Any reason why microsoft and AWS can't co exist? There is a lot of money in the world. lots of untapped markets. India just getting going. China on the boil. I tossed up 200 without looking it up. But Amazon's PE is dropping. Currently 82. It used to be something like 700! So what PE would more reasonably reflect AWS growing 35% a year?
Lots of binary thinking on this thread. Android vs iphone. Microsoft vs Apple. Amazon vs Microsoft. There is room for more than one player to succeed. There is a lot of money sloshing around the system. And investors need to put it somewere.
Sambucket said:
500k deliveries for 2020 has been guidance for about 5 years! So to answer earlier question about why price has gone up. I think it's less to do with good news, rather more, absence of bad news. I
To be fair, 500k was the guidance for 2018, then in Feb last year Musk said 500k for 2019 (which he later retracted), and now 2020. Possible in 2020 agreed.coetzeeh said:
To be fair, 500k was the guidance for 2018, then in Feb last year Musk said 500k for 2019 (which he later retracted), and now 2020. Possible in 2020 agreed.
Untrue. Guidance for 2018 deliveries was something like 250k from memory.
Musk said annualised production should be 500k by end of 2019 with china online. Guidance for deliveries was 340+. It's in the Q4 2018 investor letter.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th January 13:22
Sambucket said:
Burwood said:
That's the point. AWS is not growing anywhere near fast enough to justify a PE of 200. AWS growth rate is actually slowing. 35% last quarter. Tonight we will find out. Microsoft has usurped AWS.
Unhealthy is net losses year after year. It (Tesla) might be stable. I certainly wouldn't call it healthy. Good luck to all stock holders.
What would be a healthy net profit for Tesla if it's intent on maximising growth?Unhealthy is net losses year after year. It (Tesla) might be stable. I certainly wouldn't call it healthy. Good luck to all stock holders.
Any reason why microsoft and AWS can't co exist? There is a lot of money in the world. lots of untapped markets. India just getting going. China on the boil. I tossed up 200 without looking it up. But Amazon's PE is dropping. Currently 82. It used to be something like 700! So what PE would more reasonably reflect AWS growing 35% a year?
Lots of binary thinking on this thread. Android vs iphone. Microsoft vs Apple. Amazon vs Microsoft. There is room for more than one player to succeed. There is a lot of money sloshing around the system. And investors need to put it somewere.
It's a complete fallacy to say 'what about india and china'. Amazon will not gain traction in China. Well it hasn't and it's back peddling in that market. In India, a country they have operated in for 6 years now, they hold 30% of the online sales market and make losses.
You may forget that Amazon already controls a huge chunk of retail e commerce so any growth is hard fought and expensive. Diminishing returns. walmart is a serious competitor as is Alibaba. Again, valuation!
I would guess a very average earnings report tonight-maybe $4 per share. If it disappoints it will get whacked hard.
AWS in china grew 48% this year. 60% in india.
Only 3rd place in China tbf, but my point is, it's fallacy to suggest amazon is an unhealthy company because it's not no 1.
I didn't forget retail, i just down weighted it's significance to future revenue growth.
Only 3rd place in China tbf, but my point is, it's fallacy to suggest amazon is an unhealthy company because it's not no 1.
I didn't forget retail, i just down weighted it's significance to future revenue growth.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th January 13:33
Sambucket said:
AWS in china grew 48% this year.
Only 3rd place tbf, but my point is, it's fallacy to suggest amazon is an unhealthy company because it's not no 1.
I didn't forget retail, i just down weighted it's significance to future revenue growth.
I never said it was unhealthy. AWS growth can not be assessed on individual minnow markets. The entity 'AWS' is slowing to sub 30% from high 40's 18 months ago.Only 3rd place tbf, but my point is, it's fallacy to suggest amazon is an unhealthy company because it's not no 1.
I didn't forget retail, i just down weighted it's significance to future revenue growth.
I would call their entire business(AMZN) 'maturing' and i personally would not be thrilled about paying the thick end of $2,000 for a $20 annual return. The real money has been made in Amazon and it's a very expensive stock at what is a historical peak in the markets. Each to their own
Burwood said:
I never said it was unhealthy. AWS growth can not be assessed on individual minnow markets. The entity 'AWS' is slowing to sub 30% from high 40's 18 months ago.
I would call their entire business(AMZN) 'maturing' and i personally would not be thrilled about paying the thick end of $2,000 for a $20 annual return. The real money has been made in Amazon and it's a very expensive stock at what is a historical peak in the markets. Each to their own
I just think it would be clearer if you didn't use unhealthy as a synonym for overvalued re Tesla. I would call their entire business(AMZN) 'maturing' and i personally would not be thrilled about paying the thick end of $2,000 for a $20 annual return. The real money has been made in Amazon and it's a very expensive stock at what is a historical peak in the markets. Each to their own
You feel Tesla will be unable to service their debt? I thought that line of attack went quiet when they raised/ paid off the last convertible note without fuss?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th January 14:33
Sambucket said:
Why isn't it healthy? Overvalued != unhealthy.
Doesn't seem to be a shortage of countries willing to lend Tesla money to build factories. Can't see 20bn being a problem.
Um... they're (say) 1/100th the size of Ford, but the investment is high on the basis that they can overtake Ford due to massive growth. Fair enough (if rather optimistic).Doesn't seem to be a shortage of countries willing to lend Tesla money to build factories. Can't see 20bn being a problem.
..but if it costs 20bn to grow from 1/100th the size to 1/50th the size, by the time they have overtaken Ford they'll have ten times Ford's debt.
This is the significant difference between them and Amazon. Amazon has grown astonishingly large by reinvesting profits (decades of zero net income), whilst incurring virtually no debt. Tesla is getting other people to pay them to get bigger. That's even more worrying if they are seriously over valued, as any correction will cause their various debtors to tighten terms, and limit the possible borrowing going forward. Which means their current (slightly precarious) growth rate is only being supported by investor optimism.
They can't continue the necessary growth on a 'cash neutral' balance sheet, even if it is hailed as a great milestone in company finances.
Tuna said:
Um... they're (say) 1/100th the size of Ford, but the investment is high on the basis that they can overtake Ford due to massive growth. Fair enough (if rather optimistic).
..but if it costs 20bn to grow from 1/100th the size to 1/50th the size, by the time they have overtaken Ford they'll have ten times Ford's debt.
This is the significant difference between them and Amazon. Amazon has grown astonishingly large by reinvesting profits (decades of zero net income), whilst incurring virtually no debt. Tesla is getting other people to pay them to get bigger. That's even more worrying if they are seriously over valued, as any correction will cause their various debtors to tighten terms, and limit the possible borrowing going forward. Which means their current (slightly precarious) growth rate is only being supported by investor optimism.
They can't continue the necessary growth on a 'cash neutral' balance sheet, even if it is hailed as a great milestone in company finances.
I'd love to see your source for Tesla's IR (or anyone) claiming Tsla will ever be bigger than Ford...but if it costs 20bn to grow from 1/100th the size to 1/50th the size, by the time they have overtaken Ford they'll have ten times Ford's debt.
This is the significant difference between them and Amazon. Amazon has grown astonishingly large by reinvesting profits (decades of zero net income), whilst incurring virtually no debt. Tesla is getting other people to pay them to get bigger. That's even more worrying if they are seriously over valued, as any correction will cause their various debtors to tighten terms, and limit the possible borrowing going forward. Which means their current (slightly precarious) growth rate is only being supported by investor optimism.
They can't continue the necessary growth on a 'cash neutral' balance sheet, even if it is hailed as a great milestone in company finances.
BMW are valued more than Ford yet are a fraction of the size. I guess you hate BMW too?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 30th January 14:49
Sambucket said:
I'd love to see your source for Tesla's IR (or anyone) claiming Tsla will ever be bigger than Ford.
BMW are valued more than Ford yet are a fraction of the size. I guess you hate BMW too?
I don't hate anyone, and certainly don't hate Tesla.BMW are valued more than Ford yet are a fraction of the size. I guess you hate BMW too?
Their stock is priced as though they are 'bigger' than Ford - for some vague stockholder view of what value they have.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff