Tesla beats expectations with $3.4B in revenue

https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/02/tesla-earnings-q1-2018/

by GW150914 • 8 years ago

303 172 8 years ago

techcrunch.com

chollida13• 8 years ago

Numbers: - 1Q Adj Loss/Shr $3.35, Est. Loss/Shr $3.41

- 1Q Rev. $3.41B, Est. $3.32B

- Tesla reported 19.7% gross margins for Q1, beating Wall Street estimates. Model S and Model X are now above 25%,

- Cash burn in the quarter looks to be $1.05 billion

Misc:

- Customer deposits up to $984 million from $854 million

- says it will reach full GAAP profitability in Q3 and

- company had $3.2 billion in cash on hand.

- says it can get to 5,000 Model 3 units a week in about two months.

- Solar City seems done as a consumer product, After installing just 87 megawatts in the fourth quarter, it deployed even less in 1Q -- 76 megawatts.

- Tesla's 5.3% bonds are unchanged at 89 cents on the dollar,

- Tesla will not offer a leasing option on the Model 3 this year. Translation, Telsa needs cash and needs it right now in a big way.

- "Our Model 3 general assembly line consists of fewer than 50 steps, which is about 70% less than conventional assembly lines. All Model 3 vehicles use only one standard body frame, down from more than 80 for Model S, a wiring harness that has 50% less mass than average vehicles, and a fraction of the number of controllers, connectors and CPUs."

- "At this stage, we are expecting total 2018 capex to be slightly below $3 billion, which is below the total 2017 level of $3.4 billion." Open Question... how do you ramp up car manufacturing from 2500 to 5000 to 10,000 per week and reduce CapEx at the same time. Seems like eithr Capex estimates will blow out or prodcution will but both can't coexists. Check bond yields....

- Tesla spent $146 million on interest payments in 4Q -- roughly the same interest expense as GM, a company with approximately 10 times more revenue. Interest expenses rose to $149.5 million last quarter.

cs702• 8 years ago

I also see the quarterly cash burn of $1.054 billion, and also don't understand how the company could reduce capex by $0.4 billion this year at the same time it aggressively ramps up Model 3 production... seems optimistic.

Looks like Tesla will need to raise more cash fairly soon.

akvadrako2• 8 years ago

Elon promised they wouldn't need to raise cash this year.

dmode3• 8 years ago

That is fairly simple. The main CapEx is installing a new line, setting up supply chain, acquiring robots, programming robots. Once you are done with that, you then just need to crank out cars.

pooya132• 8 years ago

I saw a chart showing the same periods from S and X production. Apparently the highest capex comes right before ramp up since they have bought new equipment, tuned the process etc. As those issues are resolved you need less and less capex. But I am not an expert.

dharmon2• 8 years ago

In case you ever feel like its a waste of time, I, for one, appreciate your posts with notes + numbers.

Its so easy for conversations about these things to get derailed about, oh, I dunno, flying cars, that its great having your post with hard numbers there to keep the discussion grounded.

Its great that companies have big dreams and grand visions, but how will it work out in the numbers?

eric_b• 8 years ago

I second this! I always look for the chollida post in any kind of earnings release.

chollida13• 8 years ago

Thx, that's appreciated.

It's really something I do for my job, I just put them here as well. I think I often get penalized by the HN algorithms because a post can get edited 4-5 times.

danso• 8 years ago

Ditto. I'm surprised u/chollida1 hasn't considered making a little newsletter/blog for this content (with the advantages that HTML/etc provide for text and data formatting) and then submitting the link to HN. Even just writing and posting in Github Markdown would feel easier than using HN's plaintext editor.

avs7332• 8 years ago

- "Our Model 3 general assembly line consists of fewer than 50 steps, which is about 70% less than conventional assembly lines. All Model 3 vehicles use only one standard body frame, down from more than 80 for Model S, a wiring harness that has 50% less mass than average vehicles, and a fraction of the number of controllers, connectors and CPUs."

There is a lot to unpack in this statement...

I find it hard to believe there were 80 unique body models for the model S. The S has 3 major trims and about 3 major options that could even theoretically change things like wiring harnesses or body panels. This seems to me another Elon overstatement (air resistance and heat and robots oh my...).

also, re his later subcontractors comment. I have been given the impression here and by industry friends that subcontractors are increasingly unwilling to work with them.

secabeen• 8 years ago

There's also a lot of different homologation requirements to sell in different markets. That could blow out the number of models.

seibelj• 8 years ago

I seriously doubt that Tesla would make a misstatement in an earnings announcement given the massive penalties that would incur...

kyleblarson• 8 years ago

Solid cash burn of ~12 million per day.

sysk• 8 years ago

Tesla's 5.3% bonds are unchanged at 89 cents on the dollar

Can anyone explain this like I'm 5?

charlesdm2• 8 years ago

You can buy a bond that forces Tesla to repay you $1 in X years, for 89 cents.

Bonds trading below value happen when there is uncertainty whether it can actually be repaid in the future by the company (e.g. maybe it is unsecured debt).

If repaid the yield would have been 5.3% per annum + the 11% difference it trades below value

barbegal5• 8 years ago

For 89 cents you can buy a Tesla bond with a face value of $1 which accrues at a rate of 5.3% per annum (so would have a face value of 105.3 cents after one year). Tesla will hopefully pay back the face value but they may not if they go bankrupt.

panarky2• 8 years ago

The bonds pay 5.3% of their $1000 face value in interest every year, or $53.

You can buy this bond for $890, so the effective interest rate is actually 53 / 890 = 5.96% per year.

The fact that the price of the bonds is unchanged indicates that Tesla's earnings report didn't cause any change in market expectations of the company's ability to repay the bonds in full.

The price could drop to, say, 79 cents on the dollar if there's a greater probability that Tesla goes bankrupt and the bonds won't be repaid.

Bond prices also fall when market interest rates increase since that $53 per year isn't as competitive if other investments yield more.

Someone2• 8 years ago

”how do you ramp up car manufacturing from 2500 to 5000 to 10,000 per week and reduce CapEx at the same time.”

That could be possible if the production line for the larger production rates is mostly done, and all that’s needed is fine-tuning robots, training personnel, and starting to run the factory 24/7.

mrfusion• 8 years ago

Won’t solar city start back up once they get the solar tiles going? Otherwise that seems like big news?

davej• 8 years ago

The solar tiles are Tesla technology.

djrogers• 8 years ago

- Tesla will not offer a leasing option on the Model 3 this year. Translation, Telsa needs cash and needs it right now in a big way.

This doesn't necesarily follow, as it'd be fairly straightforward to run the leases through a third party who would give Tesla cash.

screaminghawk• 8 years ago

But then Tesla isn't offering it, the 3rd party is

rdl• 8 years ago

Solar City is 'done', does that include the Powerwall?

Robotbeat5• 8 years ago

You're confusing editorializing and actual data. "Solar city is done" is an editorial opinion by the poster based on the lower installed Megawatts this quarter from last, it isn't necessarily reflective of Tesla's actual plans.

An equally valid perspective is it's currently a low priority compared to just getting Model 3 out the door. There are occasional comments by Musk that they're still very much interested in consumer solar roofs and certainly Powerwall. Granted, it's also a valid point to say "the proof is in the pudding" and point out the lower actual installed capacity this quarter.

cowsandmilk• 8 years ago

I would suggest reading the section on solar in Tesla's letter[1].

They put some of the blame for declining solar sales on the fact that customers are waiting for powerwall. They expect sales to pick up as powerwall sales pick up.

[1] http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/624020036...

empath752• 8 years ago

It seems like there’s a disconnect between expected revenue and the stock price. If people took the expected revenue from analysts seriously then they’d have to believe that Tesla was nearly insolvent.

gcb0• 8 years ago

Am I reading this right? over 1/4 of revenue attributed to customer deposit?

slg• 8 years ago

It has been a while since I have taken an accounting class, but I am pretty sure the deposits can't be recognized as revenue since they also count as a liability. They are only recognizable as revenue once that liability has been cleared, basically once Tesla has delivered the car. It would be like issuing a bond, a positive cash flow event that doesn't alter the company's revenue or total value.

danohu• 8 years ago

How do you understand the lease-vehicles line in the balance sheet? From $4.1bn down to $2.3bn. I understand there's some accounting change, but I don't see where the other side of that missing $1.8bn shows up.

bhouston2• 8 years ago

Why did Telsa buy Solar City if it seems like a dud?

elsewhen• 8 years ago

Hindsight is 20/20

caio1982• 8 years ago

"Tesla also expects to achieve full GAAP profitability in Q3"

That would be a massive hit at skeptics as Q3 is almost around the corner (I wasn't even expecting it to happen this year), but even being a fanboy myself I still doubt such bold statement.

dharmon2• 8 years ago

At around $1B negative cash flow a quarter, with a little over $3B in the bank, they _have_ to do this. I'm not a bond expert, but the debt markets seem tapped out for them, and another stock offering wouldn't look so good either (but is likely).

The skeptics should be saying, "what a coincidence that they project to achieve profitability _just_ before they go bankrupt."

Robotbeat5• 8 years ago

Tapping out capital is a "Musk equilibrium." If there's too much runway, he considers it inefficient use of available capital and invests that extra available capital in some new project.

He operates close to the edge intentionally. It's a risky strategy that could easily blow up in his face, but it has also paid off very well in the past.

If they somehow had a bunch of extra cash in the bank right now, you'd find Musk simultaneously pushing hard on, say, Model Y right now, too.

dmode3• 8 years ago

I have no idea why people talk about Tesla going bankrupt. It will never happen in this liquid market. Even Uber raised $10bn from SoftBank. There is a ton of liquidity in the market and a lot of it is coming from middle East sovereign funds. It should be easy to do a stock sale with that kind of revenue and demand numbers.

gamblor956• 8 years ago

That would be amazing if they did achieve GAAP profitably, considering that GAAP earnings include stock-based compensation, non-operating expenses, and R&D expense.

OTOH, GAAP because generally requires R&D to be expensed in the period incurred, Tesla may really be saying that R&D expenditures are expected to drop to near $0 in Q3 (R&D being their biggest non-operating expense). That should worry investors if that's really what's happening.

empath752• 8 years ago

I’m a Tesla skeptic but at this point they just need to put cars on the road. They can ramp up R&D later. They’re pretty far ahead of their competition right now so can afford a pause.

ucaetano3• 8 years ago

"Tesla also expects to achieve full GAAP profitability in Q3"

This is essentially saying "we don't expect to go insolvent". But no company would announce that they expect to go insolvent, so the statement is mostly meaningless.

jacquesm5• 8 years ago

But no company would announce that they expect to go insolvent, so the statement is mostly meaningless.

Musk did just that. Which given this exact situation may come back to haunt him.

Jdam• 8 years ago

Does GAAP exclude one-time-effects? I can see them selling their grounds, offices and renting it again and the like.

mdasen• 8 years ago

I hope they do become profitable, but I'm skeptical they will.

1) Their losses are growing, not shrinking. From March 2017 to now, they lost $330M, $336M, $619M, $675M, and $785M. Maybe they hit a tipping point and there is an abrupt change, but it seems like the more natural trajectory would be for losses to become smaller and then turn into profits.

2) Tesla has said they'd be profitable before. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-results/tesla-expec...

Tesla is a really cool company, but it's hard to see a future where they justify their share price. Let's say that Tesla becomes the next Toyota 15 years from now. Toyota is only worth $213B. So, the kinda max value for Tesla is around 4x their current price. So, under really rosy conditions, Tesla appreciates at 12% per year over the next 15 years. That's not bad, but the likelihood that Tesla is the next Toyota is very small.

Let's say that Tesla is incredibly successful and becomes the next Volkswagen, Daimler, or BMW (the #2, 3, and 4 auto makers by market cap). They'd be a $106B, $85B, or $73B company. That doesn't leave much for price appreciation over their current $51B market cap.

Maybe Tesla can make a company that's way more profitable per vehicle and sell so many vehicles. But that's a bit of a moon-shot.

It seems more likely that Tesla will become a company like Subaru ($26B), Mazda ($8B), Nissan ($43B), Ford ($44B), Hyundai Motor ($40B), Fiat Chrysler ($34B), Renault ($32B), PSA Peugeot Citroën ($22B), Suzuki Motor ($26B), GM ($51B), or Honda ($60B). Those are all very successful auto companies. If Tesla becomes the next Mazda 15 years from now, that will be incredibly bad for investors. Basically, if Tesla doesn't become the next Toyota, it seems hard to believe Tesla won't underperform the market by a lot.

It's possible that Tesla will become the next Toyota, but unlikely. Comparing Tesla's market cap with that of most auto manufacturers makes you realize that investing in Tesla isn't just betting that Tesla will become a great volume car company like Mazda. They have to become the car company.

When investing, it's also important to note that money later is less valuable than money now and account for risk. Tesla is being priced like it's making $6B/year today and it's future is certain.

Beyond that, is the automotive industry long for this world? People are re-urbanizing and city traffic is only getting worse. Self-driving vehicles will mean that being driven unlimited places might fall to $50-100/mo which is significantly less than the $400+/mo of car payments, insurance, gas, parking, maintenance, etc. Why should I spend $631/mo for a $35,000 car plus insurance, gas, parking, maintenance when I can just get driven around for a fraction of that cost? Today, Uber's help is more limited since the human driver costs a lot of money per mile. If that future comes to pass, there will be a lot fewer cars manufactured and bought which limits Tesla's value.

If an autonomous car is serving 25 people a day, that's a lot fewer vehicles that need to be bought. World vehicle production is around 90M/year and Toyota and Volkswagen are 10M of that each. If the demand for vehicles falls to 4% of its current demand, that's only 3.6M vehicles per year. Even if Tesla makes 100% of those vehicles, they don't come close to being the next Toyota or Volkswagen. Even if an autonomous vehicle only serves 10 people a day, that cuts the vehicle market down to 9M. Even if an autonomous vehicle can only serve 4 people a day, that cuts the market to 22.5M. The future market for vehicles might be pretty small compared to the current one and so even if Tesla hits a Toyota or Volkswagen-like 10% of the market, it might not be a large market.

And self-driving services are likely to have stiff price competition. Unlike an Uber competitor that has the network effects of having drivers already signed up, it's relatively cheap to blanket a city with self-driving vehicles. $20,000/mo isn't a huge run rate to to buy 50 vehicles at $400/mo and that will let you place a vehicle within a short distance of everyone in a city like San Francisco (47 square miles). You could position them so that they're usually less than half a mile away to pick you up. $20,000/mo isn't a huge run rate to get your service started and you can buy more vehicles as you get riders. So, even if you think that Tesla might be that self-driving network and will make profits that way, I think it's more likely that the space will have a lot of competition that will push margins down. Waymo and GM/Cruze are well on their way. Nissan and Toyota are expecting to enter the game in a few years. Uber wants to be in this space.

It just seems like Tesla is more likely to become Mazda than Toyota and that the auto industry might be facing a large market-shrinking threat in self-driving cars. As such, it's hard (for me) to look at Tesla's market value and see the potential for a lot of appreciation over the long term. They're already worth more than most successful auto makers.

maxkwallace• 8 years ago

I agree with most of your post, but here's where I disagree:

Yes, new car consumption will likely decline in the USA and Europe, but in the coming decades, more folks in China and India (and elsewhere) will enter the middle class and start demanding car services. In addition, as the cost of car services falls (due to self-driving), the quantity demanded will increase.

So I don't think the future market will be as small as you've projected. It might even increase.

grecy2• 8 years ago

It's possible that Tesla will become the next Toyota, but unlikely

Keep in mind how broad Tesla's vehicle goals are.

- World's fastest hypercar (by a VERY long margin) (new Roadster)

- Heavy duty transport trucks (Semi)

- luxury sedans (Model S)

- affordable smaller sedans (Model 3)

- luxury SUVs (Model X)

- affordable smaller SUVs (Model Y)

- possible pickup truck

If they do well on most of those, I think they really do have the chance to become the next Toyota, maybe even bigger.

yazr• 8 years ago

Thanks for the useful comparison to existing valuation.

One issue which I never see addressed is the established automaker liabilities (pensions & debt?)?

Is it possible that once you take these into consideration the TSLA is (slightly) less unrealistic ?

nordsieck2• 8 years ago

Tesla is a really cool company, but it's hard to see a future where they justify their share price. Let's say that Tesla becomes the next Toyota 15 years from now. ...

There is one future that I can imagine, in which Tesla is a wildly profitable buy today.

If the company is using the car business to bootstrap itself into a space manufacturing company. I honestly think that this is the only reasonable explanation for some of the weird decisions that Tesla is making on the production line - trying to get to full automation, for example.

IkmoIkmo3• 8 years ago

All good points but, I think you're missing one (extremely unlikely) scenario, which is the bet that Tesla to cars will be like Apple was to phones. Not just supplanting existing phone manufacturers, but redefining what the market means and how big it is.

Nokia was a $90b phone company in 2007. The best-case scenario for a new phone company could in 2007 be expressed as a topping out at Nokia's size (Toyota in your example), but it'd be a moonshot. It'd more likely be an Ericson or Motorola, whose phone divisions weren't half as big as Nokia's. So the best case scenario is $90b, and more likely to be around $30b. And that would've made sense, until you figure Apple drove a market cap approaching $900b, mostly on the basis of its phones, all within 10 years of 2007.

So there's something to be said about the possibility that Tesla doesn't just supplant Toyota to become the car company, but also redefining cars and the size of its market, just like with smartphones. I see some people making that bet. That having been said, I personally think the chance of that happening approaches zero. The points you make are very apt. Self-driving cars means we can increase utility rates of cars (which sit still for 90% of the day) from 10% to say 90%, and that will completely destroy sales volume.

adrianratnapala2• 8 years ago

Q3 is almost around the corner (I wasn't even expecting it to happen this year),

Doesn't Q3 happen every year?

Animats• 8 years ago

CNBC business:

In the quarter ended March 31, Tesla's net loss widened to $784.6 million, or $4.19 per share, from a loss of $397.2 million, or $2.04 per share, a year ago.

Revenue rose to $3.41 billion from $2.7 billion a year ago, and outpaced analysts estimates of $3.22 billion.

It's deceptive to list the revenue in dollars and the loss in dollars per share. Reality is a loss of $785 million on $3.41 billion revenue.

traek• 8 years ago

It's deceptive to list the revenue in dollars and the loss in dollars per share.

It's just convention. Earnings per share (EPS) is a very commonly used metric, sales per share much less so.

justicezyx• 8 years ago

That just means the convention is deceptive.

samfisher83• 8 years ago

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/623988100...

If you look at the financial statement their cash flow used by operation went up 4x from the same quarter last year. Their margins on their cars are getting worse, I guess probably due to the model 3. Maybe Musk would have been better off just focusing on their high end cars and get all the processes ironed out.

ucaetano3• 8 years ago

Maybe Musk would have been better off just focusing on their high end cars and get all the processes ironed out.

Tesla would never become a mainstream car maker focusing only on high-end cars, and would not justify the market cap.

sgillen• 8 years ago

I think maybe he is saying they should have focused on high end cars only until all their automated manufacturing processes were ironed out.

dx0344• 8 years ago

You can be very successful just producing >$80k cars. You'll never be the largest car manufacturer but you can dominate a market. I think Tesla could've done that by producing more sports cars instead of affordable cars. There's a lot of wealth in the world, enough to justify a gigafactory.

Theodores• 8 years ago

Model S sales - allegedly down on April 2017.

Has America fallen out of love with the sedan? Even the Tesla version?

Ford announced they are not going to be selling sedans in America, Mustang excepted. GM are ditching the Bolt (or Volt?) and FCA aren't making a lot of regular cars in the USA.

From now on monster SUVs powered by oil is what the future is in America, thanks to fracking and easy credit. Can't wait for the invasion of affordable Chinese electric cars.

plaidfuji• 8 years ago

This was essentially what happened in late 90s/early 00's, and the subsequent rise in oil prices and '08 recession led to the bankruptcy of American auto companies that had stopped producing fuel efficient cars. The taxpayer-funded bailout included a stipulation that increased their fuel economy standards; that part of the deal is now being reversed by the current administration.

abrichr• 8 years ago

Source: http://fortune.com/2018/04/02/donald-trump-epa-fuel-regulati...

The Trump administration announced that fuel-efficiency regulations for cars and light trucks are too stringent and must be revised, beginning a process sought by the U.S. auto industry to roll back anti-pollution targets.
The EPA also said it was considering whether to revoke the waiver that allows California to set its own emissions rules that are tougher than the federal standards.

adam• 8 years ago

Thanks for commenting about this - I don't understand why there isn't more commentary about Ford deciding to drop sedans. It seems like someone is way way behind on the forecasting game. Just as oil prices are going back up and the demand for fuel efficient vehicles will increase, they're doubling down on...gas guzzlers.

rkangel• 8 years ago

At least now, Ford has a very healthy international business where they will continue to sell what we would refer to as saloons and hatchbacks. This means that should they ever wish to start selling sedans in the US again, there is a much lower barrier to doing that.

danans• 8 years ago

GM are ditching the Bolt (or Volt?)

The Volt PHEV might be discontinued in 2020 but that makes sense if increasing battery capacity makes PHEVs moot. They are a bridge technology.

GM is supposedly planning to increase production of the pure Electric Bolt:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-autos/gm-plans-to-expa...

Retric3• 8 years ago

PHEVs seems like a great option the issue is their electric range is not enough. Someone that commutes say 60 miles each way or 120 miles a day might as well get a hybrid as they don't really gain much from that extra battery.

Push the range in the 100-150 mile range and people would see more significant cost savings.

Another option might be to add some solar panels. If you get say 6m^2 * 22% efficiency * ~7.5 hours per day that's ~10kwh for free each day or around 30 miles. Not really a major savings, but would make a smaller battery seem more useful.

PS: I suspect the downside is the IC engine really needs to run fairly regularly or you have issues.

Robotbeat5• 8 years ago

This is one thing that is strongly in Tesla's favor. A pivot to SUVs and trucks has essentially zero geopolitical/oilprice risk, unlike every other domestic automobile maker which is gambling big time that gas prices don't continue to increase. I'm not sure Ford (focusing nearly exclusively on trucks) could survive a sustained $4/gallon gas price again, let alone whatever the gas price would be if the "$300 per barrel" scenario [0] happened (even for just a few months).

Gas prices are about $1/gallon higher than they were when the Model 3 was unveiled and Tesla got a huge backlog of orders. That's about $5000 in additional gas savings over the life of the vehicle (some of that in the form of residual used value). OPEC is still cutting back, and they want oil at about $80/barrel, up from the current ~$65. Gas prices arguably still haven't reached equilibrium for the current price of oil, and continued under-investment in oil capacity during the last slump could lead to significantly higher oil prices going forward, particularly if the global economy stays fairly strong. This is incredibly good for Tesla.

So I think Tesla has more going for it than a lot of people give credit. Theoretically, other car makers could've switched to electric tech, too (it's fairly simple, although it takes investment), but just about the only car makers who are TRULY serious about it (versus talking about it) are in China. Certainly when compared to other domestic car makers.

[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/300-oil-is-not-impossible-say...

ghazak• 8 years ago

Aren’t electric vehicles more at risk of the reverse, ie. a big decline in gasoline prices?

They’re more costly so users usually hope to make some of it back due to lower operating costs.

It’s not a huge risk though.

cityofdelusion2• 8 years ago

I don't feel like the risk is very high for Ford. The Ford Edge CUV gets 21/29 mpg. It isn't like in 2008 where a Ford Excursion got maybe 12 mpg. Giant SUVs just don't sell these days. Another factor is that Ford will continue to produce stuff like the Fiesta and Focus in Europe. If gas prices start climbing, they should be able to retool some factories and pivot back.

GM's CEO Mary Barra also just announced they are still committed to sedans and more efficient vehicles. They don't have much choice in the matter if I recall correctly due to the terms of their re-org / bailout.

I've no idea what Fiat-Chrysler is doing, as they seem to only produce gas guzzlers. They seem to have no plans whatsoever to produce a normal vehicle and just keep adding variants of models subject to the EPA gas-guzzler tax.

paulcole• 8 years ago

Stop making cars but keep taking people's money. Is this a viable longterm strategy?

SirLJ5• 8 years ago

Yep, create company after company and not one is profitable... Musk is where hype is going to die...

njarboe• 8 years ago

Re-usable rockets seem to be working. The margins on SpaceX launches is going to get huge until the competition catches up. That seems like at least a decade off at this point.

dmode3• 8 years ago

PayPal is not profitable ?

krrrh• 8 years ago

You can listen to the earnings call here:

https://edge.media-server.com/m6/p/nwvzygvo

It was... pretty strange. This is being pegged as the reason for the 5% drop in after hours trading despite beating estimates. Some details, and a youtube link to a portion of the call here:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-02/musk-meltdown-tesl...

unknown_apostle• 8 years ago

When a company has nominally good news for the world but the share price tanks after its release, this is usually a bad omen going forward.

newnewpdro3• 8 years ago

I find it strange there hasn't been mention of what's being reported on here [1] in this thread. Anyone who actually paid attention to the earnings call care to comment?

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/elon-musk-acted-like-a-jer...

jhall14682• 8 years ago

I didn't hear the call but that article has a pretty clear agenda given how many shots it took. That was not a news story, it was a hit piece editorial. Furthermore only MarketWatch is reporting on it.

planteen• 8 years ago

Reuters is covering it too. It's on the front page of Yahoo Finance.

"The price of Musk cutting off analysts? For Tesla, it's $2 billion"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/price-cutting-off-analysts-te...

In a note titled "The Importance of 'Boring' Questions," Morgan Stanley's Jonas called into question Tesla's financial standing.
"While they may be 'dry' in nature, we argue such questions are extremely important for a highly-levered and cash-hungry company," Jonas said.
Morgan Stanley's Adam Jonas said it was the most unusual call he had heard in 20 years in the business.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-stock-takes-hit-elon-13...

newnewpdro3• 8 years ago

Furthermore only MarketWatch is reporting on it.

Untrue, I just didn't go out of my way to fill my comment with a pile of URLs considering news aggregators were chock full of them [1], all saying largely the same thing.

[1] https://news.google.com/news/search/section/q/musk%20tesla%2...

misja111• 8 years ago

The talent that Tesla has to spin bad results is amazing.

"In its letter to investors, Tesla provided some updates to its Model 3 production, noting it hit 2,270 cars produced per week for three straight weeks in April."

Seems pretty great, 2270 cars for three straight weeks! Looks like Tesla's production is going steady. However, in its early March press release about the Model 3 production, Tesla was still saying something else:

"The Model 3 output increased exponentially, representing a fourfold increase over last quarter. This is the fastest growth of any automotive company in the modern era. If this rate of growth continues, it will exceed even that of Ford and the Model T."

Exponential production increase! .. which they now say abruptly stopped after the press release.

IkmoIkmo3• 8 years ago

Yeah there comes a point where you stop rooting for the little guy doing little-guy marketing gimmicks and realise it's a billion dollar company making intentionally disingenuous statements.

The Model T reached around 70k per week. Tesla has no business referencing it. It's like saying I got a promotion growing my salary from $50k to $80k this year, a growth rate of income that, if continues, will exceed even that of bill gates. It's a joke.

bhouston2• 8 years ago

Interestingly, I think nearly all people in Ontario on the Tesla waitlist got their option to buy cars in the last few weeks. I believe it is because the likely new provincial leader is going to revoke a huge tax break to electric cars, so Telsa is trying to get all of its Ontario customers to buy in before the rebate is gone.

I know 3 people on the waitlist who just all of a sudden got told they can now buy a car immediately. That is likely not a coincidence.

Tesla beats expectations with $3.4B in revenue

Related Stories