Tesla and Uber Unlikely to Survive...
Discussion
AstonZagato said:
Burwood said:
RobDickinson said:
Toaster said:
ave you seen the order list? if not I suspect you are correct but given that Musk has been a little odd on media there will be some cancellations so probably not total bulls
t
Edited to say cancelations look 50/50 on this thread https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... although not significant as a statistic
If course there have been cancelations be odd not to have. tEdited to say cancelations look 50/50 on this thread https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... although not significant as a statistic
Edited by Toaster on Tuesday 24th July 14:20
Musk has said still 400k plus pre-orders at shareholder meeting recently, legally binding, plus tweeted last week 7k orders net that week.
But yeah some baseless story in oil funded short selling press is more valid.
tter. AstonZagato said:
He might or might not be but, as the CEO of a US listed company, he is subject to Sarbanes-Oxley. It would be very dangerous to mislead the market on such an issue.
Exactly, he can bullst about some things, get predictions on future stuff wrong but historical company related info has to be right Flumpo said:
Welshbeef said:
Tony427 said:
RumbleOfThunder said:
What's this practice even called? 
Blackmail, robbery or obtaining money through menaces......allegedly.What would be interesting is if one of his key suppliers just tells him to take a jump. Key component shortages would prtobably arise and that tent can only hide so much.
No idea about the car supply trade though.
AstonZagato said:
He might or might not be but, as the CEO of a US listed company, he is subject to Sarbanes-Oxley. It would be very dangerous to mislead the market on such an issue.
Yes it is zerohedge, but here is a piece covering some court case in which it is alleged that something along those lines may have happenedhttps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-24/vertical...
I’m not sure telling shorts they’re in for a world of pain was particularly smart - what does that mean? Is he pre-announcing some massive upside that nobody knows about? And he was wrong, the shares quickly went lower but plenty of his loyal following bought on the back.
And his tweet over 18 months ago that self driving would depart from normal auto pilot in ‘3 months, 6 months definitely’ and still hasn’t.. This is one of the companies big plays and I struggle to see how if that was an official market update it holds any credibility - and if it wasn’t a market update it shouldn’t have been made.
Maybe these are the games he needs to play to keep the company funded, but he does like to create a siege mentality amongst his supporters.
And his tweet over 18 months ago that self driving would depart from normal auto pilot in ‘3 months, 6 months definitely’ and still hasn’t.. This is one of the companies big plays and I struggle to see how if that was an official market update it holds any credibility - and if it wasn’t a market update it shouldn’t have been made.
Maybe these are the games he needs to play to keep the company funded, but he does like to create a siege mentality amongst his supporters.
Bond investors getting nervous as cost to insure against Tesla default goes up substantially:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-bonds/cos...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-bonds/cos...
RobDickinson said:
When you make 100k cars you have less bargaining power than when you make a million.
Tesla is ramping up and its no surprise its going to try reduce costs every manufacturer does it.
5c saved on a component is a good deal
Isn't the difference that most companies try to do this on future contracts rather than retrospectively shaking down suppliers on a previously fulfilled deal?Tesla is ramping up and its no surprise its going to try reduce costs every manufacturer does it.
5c saved on a component is a good deal
RobDickinson said:
egomeister said:
Isn't the difference that most companies try to do this on future contracts rather than retrospectively shaking down suppliers on a previously fulfilled deal?
well s
t, yeah....There’s little doubt that he’s asking for a retrospective discount on past contracts.
“In a memo that a global supply manager at Tesla (TSLA) sent to some suppliers last week, the company has asked the suppliers to refund what it called a meaningful amount of money of what it had already paid these suppliers since 2016; the purpose of these retroactive discounts is to help Tesla become profitable, it said. The memo was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and reported Sunday evening.
According to the memo, the request for cash back is, as the WSJ put it, “essential to Tesla’s continued operation.”
RobDickinson said:
egomeister said:
Isn't the difference that most companies try to do this on future contracts rather than retrospectively shaking down suppliers on a previously fulfilled deal?
well s
t, yeah....Tesla said:
“Negotiation is a standard part of the procurement process, and now that we’re in a stronger position with Model 3 production ramping, it is a good time to improve our competitive advantage in this area. We’re focused on reaching a more sustainable long term cost basis, not just finding one-time reductions for this quarter, and that’s good for Tesla, our shareholders, and our suppliers who will also benefit from our increasing production volume and future growth opportunities. We asked fewer than 10 suppliers for a reduction in total capex project spend for long-term projects that began in 2016 but are still not complete, and any changes with these suppliers would improve our future cash flows, but not impact our ability to achieve profitability in Q3. The remainder of our discussions with suppliers are entirely focused on future parts price and design or process changes that will help us lower fundamental costs rather than prior period adjustments of capex projects. This is the right thing to do.”
Highlighted portion sounds like a shakedown on previously agreed costs to me...Jeez Rob, settle down 
the fanboy force is a bit strong.
If the rebate was material the correct method is restating prior years/quarters. But you can bet your ass they’d try and shove it all against current period. There may also be accruals for rebates not paid but suggested will be forthcoming-auditors will be looking at it closely.
Tesla balance sheet is the elephant in the room, not pnl .
the fanboy force is a bit strong.If the rebate was material the correct method is restating prior years/quarters. But you can bet your ass they’d try and shove it all against current period. There may also be accruals for rebates not paid but suggested will be forthcoming-auditors will be looking at it closely.
Tesla balance sheet is the elephant in the room, not pnl .
egomeister said:
RobDickinson said:
When you make 100k cars you have less bargaining power than when you make a million.
Tesla is ramping up and its no surprise its going to try reduce costs every manufacturer does it.
5c saved on a component is a good deal
Isn't the difference that most companies try to do this on future contracts rather than retrospectively shaking down suppliers on a previously fulfilled deal?Tesla is ramping up and its no surprise its going to try reduce costs every manufacturer does it.
5c saved on a component is a good deal
I've been having a recent rummage around this fellas Youtube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT...
taken with a pinch of salt because he's amercian obvs
......but.....
He started off buying a flood damaged Model S and ended up stripping out the entire workings and interior and using another scrapped donor car to make one good working one. Fair play to the chap.
What is unbelievable is Teslas attitude toward any sort of DIY spannering on these cars. They simply won't sell you and parts related to the electrical system and they won't even service cars that have been repaired using 2nd hand parts, they also will not undertake and TSB work ot do any software updates. There was even one case of someone fixed some bodywork damage with panels off a salvaged car, took it to Tesla for service - they almost refused to pay for some warranty work because they found this out then remotely turned off his supercharger access when he was on holiday 600miles from home.
Also, a high percentage of new Teslas are having to go in for new drive motors and various other ancillary items under warranty. Which is fine under warranty. But, if you buy one of these outside the network, and it breaks, you get no parts supply, support or servicing from tesla at all.
So, would such dire support for the used (non approved) market impact on their ability to survive from a finance perspective. All other car manufacturers must see parts supply and general servicing as a signifinant income stream?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT...
taken with a pinch of salt because he's amercian obvs
......but.....He started off buying a flood damaged Model S and ended up stripping out the entire workings and interior and using another scrapped donor car to make one good working one. Fair play to the chap.
What is unbelievable is Teslas attitude toward any sort of DIY spannering on these cars. They simply won't sell you and parts related to the electrical system and they won't even service cars that have been repaired using 2nd hand parts, they also will not undertake and TSB work ot do any software updates. There was even one case of someone fixed some bodywork damage with panels off a salvaged car, took it to Tesla for service - they almost refused to pay for some warranty work because they found this out then remotely turned off his supercharger access when he was on holiday 600miles from home.
Also, a high percentage of new Teslas are having to go in for new drive motors and various other ancillary items under warranty. Which is fine under warranty. But, if you buy one of these outside the network, and it breaks, you get no parts supply, support or servicing from tesla at all.
So, would such dire support for the used (non approved) market impact on their ability to survive from a finance perspective. All other car manufacturers must see parts supply and general servicing as a signifinant income stream?
Edited by dave_s13 on Wednesday 25th July 11:03
dave_s13 said:
I've been having a recent rummage around this fellas Youtube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT...
taken with a pinch of salt because he's amercian obvs ......but.....
He started off buying a flood damaged Model S and ended up stripping out the entire workings and interior and using another scrapped donor car to make one good working one. Fair play to the chap.
What is unbelievable is Teslas attitude toward any sort of DIY spannering on these cars. They simply won't sell you and parts related to the electrical system and they won't even service cars that have been repaired using 2nd hand parts, they also will not undertake and TSB work ot do any software updates. There was even one case of someone fixed some bodywork damage with panels off a salvaged car, took it to Tesla for service - they almost refused to pay for some warranty work because they found this out then remotely turned off his supercharger access when he was on holiday 600miles from home.
Also, a high percentage of new Teslas are having to go in for new drive motors and various other ancillary items under warranty. Which is fine under warranty. But, if you buy one of these outside the network, and it breaks, you get no parts supply, support or servicing from tesla at all.
So, would such dire support for the used (non approved) market impact on their ability to survive from a finance perspective. All other car manufacturers must see parts supply and general servicing as a signifinant income stream?
This is exactly what Apple does.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT...
taken with a pinch of salt because he's amercian obvs
......but.....He started off buying a flood damaged Model S and ended up stripping out the entire workings and interior and using another scrapped donor car to make one good working one. Fair play to the chap.
What is unbelievable is Teslas attitude toward any sort of DIY spannering on these cars. They simply won't sell you and parts related to the electrical system and they won't even service cars that have been repaired using 2nd hand parts, they also will not undertake and TSB work ot do any software updates. There was even one case of someone fixed some bodywork damage with panels off a salvaged car, took it to Tesla for service - they almost refused to pay for some warranty work because they found this out then remotely turned off his supercharger access when he was on holiday 600miles from home.
Also, a high percentage of new Teslas are having to go in for new drive motors and various other ancillary items under warranty. Which is fine under warranty. But, if you buy one of these outside the network, and it breaks, you get no parts supply, support or servicing from tesla at all.
So, would such dire support for the used (non approved) market impact on their ability to survive from a finance perspective. All other car manufacturers must see parts supply and general servicing as a signifinant income stream?
Edited by dave_s13 on Wednesday 25th July 11:03
Any tech company, specifically one from the US has only one mentality, to screw everyone over at some point. This can be the consumer, suppliers or even governments if they can get away with it and they usually do. Tesla is exactly the same.
So when cars are eventually driving themselves and you're relying on all the systems to be fully working in order to keep you and other road-users from crashing into each other, do you want to share the road with other autonomous cars maintained by DIY'ers?
I'm just putting the thought out there, as that's the way we're heading, whether we like it or not, and that's what Musk will be thinking now even if the 'dream' is still years away.
I'm just putting the thought out there, as that's the way we're heading, whether we like it or not, and that's what Musk will be thinking now even if the 'dream' is still years away.
. Ford and GM are 'murican and don't manage to do this. One would expect this attitude to relax as the cars continue to age in higher numbers. I'd bloody hope so anyway. WestyCarl said:
No Manufacturers regularly think up excuses to beat up tier 1 suppliers on costs for current parts retroactively.
Yes, this is part of the job of any supply chain management, they should be looking to reduce costs on parts all the time. However, you don't normally try to get discounts on parts bought years before at an agreed price.Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff