backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by Kazinji.. on Nov 10 at 9:15 PM


Tesla Model S
It actually reported a GAAP loss of $38 million, but adjusted results were earnings of $16 million

Tesla Motors stock took a tumble when its third quarter financial results for 2013 revealed that the automaker shipped less Model S' than expected for the three months. 

For Q3 2013, Tesla reported 5,500 Model S deliveries (about 1,000 of those went to Europe), but Wall Street expected around 5,850. Tesla also predicted that it would ship about 6,000 Model S' in the fourth quarter, but again, Wall Street forecasted a little higher at about 6,600. 

But Tesla raised its guidance for the year, saying it will deliver 21,500 cars in 2013 instead of the 21,000 originally expected. It has ramped up production to 550 cars a week. 

According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, there's a lot of demand for the company's electric vehicles in North America, but U.S. sales may not meet expectations because Tesla has to keep an eye on capacity and start delivering EVs to Europe. The limited global supply of battery cells remain an issue.

But Tesla just increased its order of EV battery cells from Panasonic to almost 2 billion lithium ion cells, which Panasonic will provide from now until 2017. This is a pretty significant increase from the 200 million cells Tesla is expected to have received from Panasonic in the two years ending this December.

Tesla also reported a GAAP loss of $38 million (32 cents a share) on revenue of $431 million. Wall Street only expected a loss of 25 cents a share. 

But the adjusted results using non-GAAP methods were earnings of $16 million (12 cents a share) on revenue of $603 million. The non-GAAP forecast by Wall Street was 11 cents on revenue of $535 million, meaning Tesla exceeded predicted figures.

However, Tesla's stock price fell more than $20, or 11.5 percent, to $155 in the first three hours of after-hour trading once the Nasdaq exchange closed Tuesday. 

But Tesla's stock has fluctuated a ton, with a 52-week high of $194.50 and a 52-week low of $29.33. For the year, it's up more than 400 percent.

The company said that cash on hand at the end of the quarter was $796 million, which is a boost from $49 million the previous quarter. 

Looking much further ahead, Tesla is putting a rough production date on its upcoming Model X, which is an electric crossover SUV expected to start production in late 2014.

The International Business Times just snagged this quote from Musk about the latest Model X release date:

"I think for the X, we are aiming for maybe a few units at the end of next year, but volume production is -- it's a high volume production is probably Q2 2015, so high volume mean volumes comparable to the Model S at that time."

Tesla initially planned to begin Model X production by the end of 2013 with deliveries beginning early in 2014. That schedule was adjusted earlier this year for production to start by the end of 2014. While it looks like Tesla will still push out a few models at that promised date, it's looking more like 2015 is when production will really get going.

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't expect TSLA to make any sense at this point
By Mint on 11/6/2013 12:07:10 PM , Rating: 5
Not sure why the stock dropped so much over 350 cars that the company didn't even tell them they'll make, and which is a few cents per share of "missed" profit. May the street sees it as a sign of difficulty in scaling up production.

Regarding GAAP earnings, that's due to Tesla's unique financing/lease program. Normally an outside leasing company or bank buy cars from the manufacturer, making arrangements with the dealer.

Tesla went the route of guaranteeing the buyer that they'll buy back the car at a preset price if they don't want it after three years. So even though they are getting all the money up front from the bank doing the financing, only ~50% can be counted as GAAP income.




RE: Don't expect TSLA to make any sense at this point
By tayb on 11/6/2013 1:39:12 PM , Rating: 5
I don't understand the Hummer comparison. The reasons the Hummer failed were mechanical reliability, price, size, and gasoline prices. What are the reasons you think the Model S will fail?


By milktea on 11/6/2013 3:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
One explanation...
@superflex works for the "Oil" industry :)

Of course, it would only be his wishfull thinking that Tesla would fail.


By ritualm on 11/7/2013 1:58:05 AM , Rating: 3
The worst part of the Hummer is it still won't survive a head-on crash relatively unscathed like the Model S.

superflex should have compared it to something like this: a Marauder from South Africa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDoRmT0iRic

If it's going to be big, expensive, and a gas guzzler, it needs to be powerful enough to beat a police tow truck that's trying to tow your baby away. Nope, can't do this with a Hummer, either.


By Richard875yh5 on 11/7/2013 9:04:03 AM , Rating: 1
Your question is not hard to answer,but the question should really be "can Tesla survive"? The answer is no. Tesla is now high on media hype and sooner or later reality will set in. The media compares them with Toyota, GM and Ford. To me that is funny. A start-up company which has made less than 40k vehicles being compared to the big boys. When those big boys comes out with cars that are just as good and a lot cheaper, the Tesla stock will crash and things will happen fast from that point. Mark my words. This will happen!


By superflex on 11/7/2013 9:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
This
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-07/car-b-q-p...
I dont hear of fires with other PEVs. Mitsubishi, Nissan, GM and others aren't burning to the ground.


By Kazinji on 11/10/2013 9:15:28 PM , Rating: 1
H1 are awesome and are the military made into civilian use. And are quite expensive. H2 and H3 are GM's cheap knock off of the looks to rack in huge amount of cash for the fad.


RE: Don't expect TSLA to make any sense at this point
By Mint on 11/6/2013 1:35:25 PM , Rating: 3
Go find a single post in my history that suggests this.


RE: Don't expect TSLA to make any sense at this point
By Mint on 11/6/2013 3:08:10 PM , Rating: 5
What else is new. Reclaimer chickening out when asked to give evidence to support his BS.

Here's a post of mine from just one week ago being bearish on TSLA being able to meet long term expectations:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=33656...


By ClownPuncher on 11/6/2013 3:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
You do have to admit that the "Musk on your chin" zinger was pretty funny, though. Give that guido a cigar!


By Spuke on 11/6/2013 4:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
That was pretty funny.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/2013 5:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
Clown you recognize my genius, lets hug it out :)


By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/2013 4:26:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Here's a post of mine from just one week ago being bearish on TSLA being able to meet long term expectations:


And yet here you are pretending some confusing tragedy is taking place over their outrageously overvalued stock coming back to reality. Hello?

quote:
Reclaimer chickening out when asked to give evidence to support his BS.


Yes because that's exactly how I want to spend my afternoon; digging through your post history rife with disgusting big-Government mantras, envirowacko BS, and pro-Obamacare idiocy.


RE: Don't expect TSLA to make any sense at this point
By Mint on 11/6/2013 7:55:39 PM , Rating: 3
Tragedy? I'm pointing out the insanity of TSLA volatility, and I'm shedding some light on GAAP vs non-GAAP because most people don't know.

And yet more bullsh!t. Go find a single post of mine that's pro-Obamacare. I dare you.

Envirowacko? I'm anti-solar/wind (in their current form), pro-fracking, pro-Keystone, pro-nuclear, and while I believe AGW exists (and will call out BS science from the worst denialists) I don't believe it's severe or that we should implement a carbon tax or cap or anything major beyond support nuclear power research/construction. There isn't a single environmentalist that wants me on their team.

You won't find a single post opposing what I've said here.

I support EVs because:
-they're already lifetime cost effective and will only become more so
-OPEC will keep oil prices at $90/bbl regardless of domestic production
-they reduce the trade deficit
-I want the US to be the tech leader in this market
-a high power electric motor is cheaper and more compact than a high power ICE
-they reduce urban air pollution
-they'll eventually level out day/night electricity demand, driving more efficient production
-they mesh perfectly with the long term nuclear-powered future (molten salt or fusion)
-long term, used EVs will give everyone cheap, low-maintenance transportation


By maugrimtr on 11/7/2013 9:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Devil. So you really do support Obamacare? ;)

The results don't show Tesla doing badly. They show it at or near its stated goals for 2013. The share price suffered because analysts figured they'd do better and investors incorporated that over-the-goal performance in the share price (i.e. they made a bet the analysts were right).

So long as Tesla's guidance remains accurate and on track, there's really nothing to complain about. Some investors bet. They lost. Means nothing to Tesla's real world performance.


By ritualm on 11/7/2013 7:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
The short-term outlook of TSLA is more turbulent than daily average bitcoin spot prices, but the stock itself is a long-term buy/hold. Meanwhile, the herd (including the large majority of investment analysts) is retarded and they always have unrealistic goals for companies to reach.


RE: Don't expect TSLA to make any sense at this point
By Mint on 11/6/2013 1:34:22 PM , Rating: 3
I've NEVER been bullish on TSLA as a stock. Go look at my post history. It's overvalued, and I think their EV-only strategy will not work for the masses for 10 years. They'll be at a cost disadvantage to a 100-mile EV with a cheap range extender, and that's not even counting the advantages that the big OEMs have on all the other parts of the car.

They'll be profitable, but won't reach the 300k/yr volume that the market will demand by maybe 2020 to justify a $20B market cap.


By milktea on 11/6/2013 4:04:59 PM , Rating: 3
I guess that depends on what terms you meant by bullish. Short term, probably not so. But long term, I think Tesla a real deal.

IMO, 'cheap' EV-only strategy would work well even now. Of course Tesla isn't going to tell everyone that they're working on a economic EV model for the masses :)


By Mint on 11/7/2013 6:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
There is a certain percentage of the market that can be addressed by pure EVs, but I agree with you that they'll have to be cheap (i.e. Nissan Leaf pricing or less) and <200km range. I don't think a big enough market (i.e. 200k+ units per year) exists in the entry level luxury market that Tesla wants to address with the Gen3.

It's very possible that Tesla could be on the ball regarding cheap range extenders, but if so, then they're putting on one hell of a poker face.


By purerice on 11/7/2013 11:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
So here you say you're not sure why the stock dropped so much but below you say it's overvalued.

Well if it is overvalued you need a super outlook and Tesla did not give it. As usual Elon Musk was extremely vague on details and did NOT give revenue estimates, GAAP or otherwise. It is highly unusual for companies not to give estimates, even sandbagged estimates as Steve Jobs usually gave. They gave an outlook that would support at most a $4 billion auto manufacturer, not the $20 billion that they were worth Monday.


By Mint on 11/9/2013 2:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
Look at all the reasons that made TSLA overvalued over the last year. Which of them suddenly became invalid after the earnings report?

But if you think vagueness can invoke that kind of reaction, I'll accept that as a reason. I didn't realize it, nor did the DT article mention it.


Why
By winterwatchers on 11/6/2013 1:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it that when a stock like Tesla drops, ignorant people cries foul? Tesla has been up 33% so far this year, it is long overdue for a correction. The traders saw that and bet accordingly at the first opportunity. It is called "profit taking". People act as if stocks must always go up. If the market suddenly drops 10% then circuit breaker will kick in, but market have unlimited upside. Shaking head

In my opinion Tesla stock price is already over-valued and has been for some time now. But because of fed QE, pretty much all stocks are beyond fundamentals nowadays




RE: Why
By superflex on 11/6/2013 2:19:00 PM , Rating: 1
Precisely, and all bubble pop.


RE: Why
By Mint on 11/6/2013 3:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Stocks aren't going up because of QE. Almost every dollar the Fed puts into the economy is put back into banks, increasing excess reserves (ironically, held by the Fed again).

Stocks are up because
A) They're making money, and
B) the liquid alternative is 0% in a bank account or gov't bonds, and it doesn't look like those rates are going anywhere

The lower interest rates are, the more acceptable it is to take a risk, and the higher the average P/E ratio.


RE: Why
By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/2013 4:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Quantitative Easing is absolutely having an effect on stock prices. Where do you get your nonsense from? Every time you speak on economic matters it's propaganda.

Economists are even calling it a "stock bubble"!! QE has sent stocks to record highs. With the S&P 500 breaking the 1,600 barrier for the first time and the Dow trading above 16,000 points. Financial markets are expressing their confidence in the Fed’s ability to engineer healthier near-term economic expansion Hello??

The economy is horrible. We've had something like 2% GDP growth, job growth is sluggish as hell, yet it's a goddamn Gold Rush on Wall Street. And you're saying QE isn't a factor?


RE: Why
By Mint on 11/6/2013 8:15:14 PM , Rating: 1
What else do you suggest the wealthy to buy, genius?

Real estate? Please. Gold or other currency? US dollars simply become someone else's problem. Treasuries? Negative real interest rates on most of them, and there aren't enough anyway.

If you can earn 10% in a bank, a company earning a steady $1B/yr and paying it out as dividends is worth maybe $8B at most. If you can only earn 0% in a bank, the same company giving those same dividends is now worth maybe $30B.


RE: Why
By Keeir on 11/6/2013 9:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm.

Truth: Current Stock Market overall valuations and many indivual companies appear to be significantly higher rates than 2004-2007 time frame.

Truth: In 2007-2012 time frame, many companies had very low valuations despite HIGHER dividend rates than today. In 2013, many of these companies have much higher valuations (driving down divident rates significantly). During this period, savings rates were similiar to 2013.

Today must companies have between 1-3% dividend rate, when they have dividends at all. There appears to be more going on than simple investor fatigue with other forms of investment. Reduction of Treasury rates might explain alot, except Treasury rates have risen as the stock market is rising (this year). Not sure QE is exactly the blame, but QE is definately a non-market force....


RE: Why
By Mint on 11/7/2013 7:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
I just used dividends to make a simple example. In reality it doesn't really matter if a company pays out dividends or not, because if earnings go into a pile of cash like AAPL then your shares still own part of that pile.

I don't know if "fatigue" is the right word for other forms of investment. It's more of a correction for over-weighing:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/SAVING...
Total savings have doubled from the pre-recession level.

The "more going on" you speak is very simply explained: Corporate profit is a larger part of GDP than ever. It makes sense for corporations to have higher market caps as a result, now that it's more than ephemeral.


RE: Why
By Reclaimer77 on 11/6/2013 9:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
God you're stupid.

Forget it, not worth it. Enjoy fantasy land.


RE: Why
By Mint on 11/7/2013 6:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
More chickensh!t dodging.

Answer the question: If not the stock market, then how else should wealth be stored?


RE: Why
By makken on 11/6/2013 3:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tesla has been up 33% so far this year, it is long overdue for a correction.


You're off by an order of magnitude :)

The circuit breaker did trigger today. It will be interesting to watch this over the next feel days. I wanted to play their earnings with a straddle, but chickened out when I saw the option premiums.

I wrote a couple calls that went deep ITM. Hoping for an opportunity to buy those back in the coming days.


RE: Why
By winterwatchers on 11/7/2013 12:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, my bad the stock is actually up 380% YTD. I feel like I should just throw all caution out the window and drink the koolaid. With the reports of teslas catching fire, who knows, maybe it will come down a little more before the next ride


Typical Wall Streeters -
By Dr of crap on 11/6/2013 12:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
Because of a small difference in numbers of units sold, the "Wall Streeters" will run for the hills and make the stock take a dive for no good reasons. Typical!




RE: Typical Wall Streeters -
By troysavary on 11/6/2013 1:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, losing money is a terrible reason to sell off shares. What are they thinking?


RE: Typical Wall Streeters -
By gookpwr on 11/6/2013 2:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well I can't say from the numbers given that they aren't having production problems. I designed assembly lines for many of the top automakers and can say at 550 cars a week that's only a maximum of 13.75 cars an hour based on a 40 hour week.
Now GM runs many of their high demand production lines at 72 jobs per hour with an 80% up-time, meaning if they wanted to make more or less they can.
The Cadillac XLR was produced at 4 jobs per hour. The Model S is probably produced at a similar volume if its a 24X7 operation.
If it is a 24X7 operation they are pretty screwed as they would need to build an entirely new assembley line to be able to increase production volumes which would cost them in access of $300 million. If its an 8X5 operation making 13.75 cars per hour than TESLA is just fine for the Model S, and all they have to do is add additional shifts to get the production volumes up to a maximum of 2,310 cars per week.
Either way those are VERY low production volumes and they need to step it up big time if they are going to kick out any kind of truly for the masses type of auto.
From the article the Model X is supposed to be a high volume car and these numbers are far from a truly high volume produced car by the likes of GM, Ford, Mercedes, or Chrysler which are all capable of 70+ cars per hour.


RE: Typical Wall Streeters -
By flyingpants1 on 11/6/2013 9:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
Tesla is not "losing money".

The product they sell is profitable. They've increased margins to 21% and are expected to hit 25% in Q4..

They are spending money on expansion, for example the Supercharger network for USA and Europe, which is a one-time cost. They could be profitable each quarter, but they'd have to significantly slow their expansion.


RE: Typical Wall Streeters -
By tayb on 11/6/2013 1:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
More likely is that the stock went super high beyond expectations and everyone started shorting it. Funny things seem to happen when a large number of people can make money from a stock going down.

There is so much corruption and collusion in Wall Street it is incredible.


Nerds
By sweetca on 11/6/2013 1:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think some of you should stick to comparing pretty video card performance charts.

"Not sure why the stock dropped so much over 350 cars that the company didn't even tell them they'll make, and which is a few cents per share of "missed" profit."

Derr




Ready...aim...
By Motoman on 11/7/2013 4:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
http://consumerist.com/2013/11/07/another-tesla-mo...

As the old saying from stats class says, 2 points is a line and 3 is a trend. 3rd Tesla battery fire since last month.

I love this quote from a Tesla spokesperson:
quote:
We have been in contact with the driver, who was not injured and believes the car saved his life.


Because, you know, if he'd just been flying along the highway without a car around him, and hit some road debris, it would have killed him. Lucky for him he was wrapped in a Tesla!




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki