Print 42 comment(s) - last by BRB29.. on May 13 at 8:26 AM

Tesla shares surged almost 30 percent in after-market trading in New York to as much as $72.99

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk was right: the company certainly is profitable now, and even managed to beat analysts' expectations.

For Q1 2013, Tesla reported a net income of $11.2 million, which was quite a jump from an $89.9 million loss in the year-ago quarter. Excluding certain items, Tesla's profit came in at 12 cents a share, which was a boost from a loss of 76 cents a share in Q1 2012. 

Analysts expected a profit of about 4 cents a share. 

"We exceeded our own targets for deliveries, significantly expanded gross margin, and improved execution throughout the company," said Tesla. "Excluding non-cash warrant and stock option items, we generated a profit of $15 million. Including those factors, our GAAP profit was $11 million. Importantly, we achieved profitability despite the benefit of a one-time accounting gain related to the DOE warrant.
"2013 is off to a strong start, and we look forward to seeing more of you on the road in a Model S this year."

Revenue also saw a huge year-over-year boost, totaling $562 million (up from $30.2 million in the year-ago quarter). 

Tesla had an operations loss of $5.58 million, down from $88.8 million in the year-ago quarter.

Tesla sold 4,900 Model S sedans in the first quarter, beating its previous projections of 4,500. Model S deliveries for the entire year should total 21,000, which slightly exceeds previous forecasts of about 20,000. 

The company said its sales of zero-emission vehicle credits to automakers totaled $68 million, or 12 percent of revenue for Q1 2013.

Just this week, it was reported that Tesla could receive $250 million in environmental credits from California alone this year. 

For Q2 2013, Tesla expects to build 5,000 Model S' and ship about 4,500 in North America (the rest are headed to Europe). 

"Operating expenses are expected to increase moderately in Q2," said Tesla. "R&D expenses are expected to increase slightly from Q1 as the pace of product development starts to pick up. SG&A expenses will continue to rise moderately, primarily due to the growth in our stores and service centers.
"We plan to spend about $200 million on capital expenditures in 2013, as we conclude the majority of our investment in the Tesla Factory and Model S tooling."

Tesla shares surged almost 30 percent in after-market trading in New York to as much as $72.99. 

In other Tesla-related news, the company hired Aston Martin's Chief Engineer of Vehicle Engineering Chris Porritt this week. He will now be Tesla's Vice President of Vehicle Engineering.
"Tesla is a hardcore technology company, which means that anyone leading a team of engineers must be an outstanding engineer themself, as well as a good leader," said Musk. "Chris demonstrated exactly that in his prior role at Aston Martin, creating in the One-77 what was arguably their best car ever."

Tesla has certainly come a long way from this time last year. After problems with Model S shipment delays, a run-in with a poor review from The New York Times, and a production delay announcement for the Model X, Tesla has now proved that nothing can hold it back. 

Tesla began shipping 500 Model S' a week in March, exceeding the sales outlook of 4,500 posted in the February shareholder letter. 

It later announced that the company would be able to pay off its $465 million government loan within five years, and that this current quarter would be its first profitable one. Clearly, the company was right. 
Tesla is looking to keep that momentum by any means necessary. The electric auto maker has worked hard to please customers with a new battery replacement program as well as new service programs, which feature valet for customers who need to send their Model S' to the shop -- and can even borrow (or later buy) a better Model S or Tesla Roadster as loaner vehicles. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been fighting for a Texas electric vehicle sales bill (House Bill 3351) as well, which would allow distributors and manufacturers of electric vehicles only to sell directly to customers without the use of dealerships. Musk called this bill a matter of "life or death" for Tesla. 

Sources: Tesla Motors, Tesla Motors

Comments     Threshold

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

By flyingpants1 on 5/8/2013 8:50:33 PM , Rating: 5
Every SINGLE article about Tesla or EVs in general results in the exact same nonsense being repeated insimiomments section.

The subsidy argument is without merit; oil is subsidised MUCH more than EVs are.
Yes these are essentially cars for "the rich". They're the only ones who can afford to essentially beta test the cars and fund the development of the BlueStar, a $30k 200-mile EV. If Tesla tried to skip to the everyman model right away, they'd end up with a Chevrolet Volt or a Nissan Leaf - an expensive tiny piece of junk that doesn't make sense for anyone.

No, an EV does not produce as much emissions as an ICE vehicle does, not even if you generate the electricity from a coal plant. This has been debunked so many times, I'm not going to bother addressing it. You can check the Tesla website to see the refutation of this myth if you like.

The future is a maintenance-free, emission-free, 200-mile pure EV for around $25-30k. At that price point, it will simply be cheaper to drive than an ICE vehicle of the same class. You'll charge it with 100% free solar electricity from your home. The prices of batteries and solar panels are dropping like crazy. We'll get there, it's just a matter of time.

RE: Nonsense
By flyingpants1 on 5/8/2013 8:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
Buggy Android ROM.. First paragraph should read "in the comments section".

RE: Nonsense
By Breathless on 5/9/2013 10:43:55 AM , Rating: 5
I prefer insimiomments thank you very much.

RE: Nonsense
By StormyKnight on 5/8/2013 11:20:02 PM , Rating: 3
Off on the defensive already? Ok, I'll bite.

Tesla cars are for the rich. Period.

Electric vehicles won't compete with gas cars until they can fuel up (anywhere) at or under the same price and have the same or better range.

Electric cars are just big gadgets and conversation pieces.

RE: Nonsense
By V-Money on 5/8/2013 11:52:02 PM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't go that far. I've always owned multiple vehicles and I would gladly try out an EV if the range was enough for my normal commute. It would make a lot of sense for people who have normal commutes within the range (which 200 miles would be plenty for pretty much everyone, who really drives more than 200 miles in a day...normally...I drove over a 1000 today but I'm moving). It would allow you to never have to worry about stopping to get gas and since they will have charging pads you wouldn't have to remember to plug it in.

The problem is that people only look at their own situation. I love driving so an EV wouldn't work as my only vehicle, but I could see me having one as an extra vehicle. I also just came from the DC area and I know a lot of people who would love to be able to drive to work without having to deal with getting gas. For instance, read this article and you can see how EVs could be very beneficial.

RE: Nonsense
By captainBOB on 5/9/2013 3:13:59 AM , Rating: 5
Electric cars are just big gadgets and conversation pieces.

Like the smartphone.

RE: Nonsense
By piroroadkill on 5/9/2013 4:36:35 AM , Rating: 1
But smartphones are now outselling feature/dumb phones. They're not conversation pieces any more, they are the norm.

RE: Nonsense
By Mint on 5/9/2013 6:57:52 AM , Rating: 4
That's his point

RE: Nonsense
By Samus on 5/9/2013 5:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
Tesla cars are for the rich. Period.

12% of new car purchases are >$40,000

3 million new cars are purchased annually in the USA alone.

12% of 3 million is 360,000 "luxury" cars.

I'd guess about 250,000 of those are $50,000+

That's the starting price of a Model S.

If Tesla can convince people into these things with their supercharger network, government tax credits and subsidized home charging systems, there are potentially 250,000 annual customers.

This thing is, after all, faster than 98% of all production cars, with the luxury of an Audi A6 or an S-class.

Reliability should also be exceptional. Finally people don't have to buy a Lexus to be guaranteed a luxury car that'll work every day.

RE: Nonsense
By Mint on 5/9/2013 6:20:38 AM , Rating: 2
Out of curiosity, what's your source?

I'll add in a little data about new car buyers:

~40% have income $50-100k, ~33% earn >$100k. Most cars are bought by people with good incomes.

Also, eventually a company in the US will sell EVs like we sell cellphones. Buy the car, but you don't own the battery. Instead, you pay a monthly fee to use it, and different plans have different mileages. As long as that fee is less than what we pay for gas, it's worth it. Renault is already doing this in Europe, and it allowed them to make the ZOE cost $10k less than other EVs.

RE: Nonsense
By Schrag4 on 5/10/2013 11:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
Just my personal opinion, if you make 100k/year you can't really afford a car for 50k. People take on way too much debt, IMO.

RE: Nonsense
By BRB29 on 5/11/2013 12:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
Something called saving? not all of us live pay check to paycheck especial those of us that make 100k a year.

I don't have a problem saving 15-25k a year. In one year, I could probably come up with a 20k down payment. With my trade in, let's say I still have 30k left to pay for a new Model S. That's only a $550-625 a month.

I don't see how I cannot afford a 50k car when a 60k car is well within my budget.

RE: Nonsense
By mjv.theory on 5/9/2013 4:07:39 AM , Rating: 3
You'll charge it with 100% free solar electricity from your home.

Yeah, this is a perfect example of a well thought out advantage of EVs. You get home in the evening, plug the car in to your $20,000 solar array and charge it up over-night ready for the next day. It may not work for everyone; obviously, if you don't live in a desert or if you live somewhere that the Sun does not shine at night.

RE: Nonsense
By Mint on 5/9/2013 6:26:32 AM , Rating: 1
He made a stupid point about solar, but what's good about EVs is that they even out grid demand. Nighttime is when demand is lowest, so EVs will let us use more efficient baseload generation instead of plants designed to ramp up and down to follow load.

RE: Nonsense
By flyingpants1 on 5/9/2013 12:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it would work for everyone, I said it is the future. I also said prices will fall. The cosr of a solar setup today is irrelevant. Naysayers have a delusional belief that somehow, prices will never, ever fall, even with widespread adoption and mass production. Yeah okay. It's more than just possible, it's likely to happen, it's predicted by the major car companies which is why they're all making EVs, it's predicted by utility companies in internal documents,iit's planned by companies like Tesla and SolarCity who are executing. That future could be 10-20 years away, but it's coming.

RE: Nonsense
By Spuke on 5/9/2013 1:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
it's predicted by the major car companies which is why they're all making EVs
They're only making EV's because it will help their CAFE numbers. Side benefit is public beta testing.

RE: Nonsense
By Mint on 5/9/2013 5:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
He was mocking the idea of charging with solar, because most people will charge EVs at night for their daily mileage.

RE: Nonsense
By flyingpants1 on 5/9/2013 1:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
...What? Do you not understand how a solar installation works? It doesn't work at night.

For 15k miles/year, you'd only need about 3800kWh of solar generated power per year. Plus your normal usage.

RE: Nonsense
By Guspaz on 5/9/2013 2:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't really matter, though, since most installations are going to use the grid as the "storage" device. Get credits in the day, use credits at night.

I believe your kWh figures are off a bit (I'd argue 6000 is more likely, considering 85 kWh gets you 250 miles and you have efficiency losses while charging), but not that far off.

RE: Nonsense
By flyingpants1 on 5/10/2013 2:11:13 AM , Rating: 2
50kWh should get you around 200 miles, charge 75 times, 3750kWh per year, plus any losses as you said. My yearly usage is about 8000kWh, so I'd need 12,000kWh generated yearly.

Once installed prices fall by just a bit more and financing tools are in place, it will be make perfect sense to buy an electric car and accompanying solar system.

RE: Nonsense
By flyingpants1 on 5/10/2013 2:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
My monthly electricity costs are about $100/mo.

I could get away with installing a 20kWh system myself for about $40k here in Ontario. If I could finance the system for 20 years, it would cost an optimistic $220/mo, only $120 more than my current electricity payment. I'd then take advantage of the Ontario microFIT program to generate about $360/mo with the extra solar electricity, making a net profit of $165/mo ($39,600 total after 20 years) which would go towards my electric car payment..

I'd end up with free power for my home and car, for life.

Yeah it's complicated and unrealistic at this point and the numbers are all way off, but it's an example of what's possible.

RE: Nonsense
By flyingpants1 on 5/10/2013 2:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
" making a net profit of $165/mo ($39,600 total after 20 years) which would go towards my electric car payment.."

This line is intended for a 35kWh system financed at $195/mo. Site needs an edit function for idiots like myself.

RE: Nonsense
By piroroadkill on 5/9/2013 4:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'd say the Leaf was an expensive and mostly useless car (I would never say "piece of junk" to what is clearly a well engineered vehicle, it is utterly disrespectful to those who worked on the project), but the Volt is something else. It can make sense for many people. If GM can get the costs down further in a Volt II, it's probably about as good as you can hope from an EV today.

RE: Nonsense
By Mint on 5/9/2013 7:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
A Leaf can be leased and fueled for $230/mo. That's cheaper than any gas car with basic features. It has twice the range of the average driver's daily mileage, so many people can use it, especially if it's in a 2+ car household where one of the cars runs on gas. So no, it's neither expensive nor useless.

I do agree that the Volt is more suitable for more people, but pure EVs like the Leaf and Model S will have their niche.

RE: Nonsense
By Spuke on 5/9/2013 1:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
Where can you get a lease on one that cheap? Also, a LOT of people ONLY buy new and don't lease so for the vast majority of potential owners, it IS an expensive car.

RE: Nonsense
By lelias2k on 5/9/2013 2:58:10 PM , Rating: 2

It's a new technology. I would NEVER buy a vehicle like this. Lease it out, if you love it and it's worth it, buy it at the end of the lease. Otherwise, turn in your keys and off to the next.

Most people buy cars because they see them for what they are not: an asset. Cars are an expense.

RE: Nonsense
By Mint on 5/9/2013 5:32:38 PM , Rating: 2

I've entered in many different zip codes, and the same $199/mo lease always shows up. Yeah, $2k down, but that's typical.

I know a lot of people don't like leasing, but it allows you to start saving right off the bat and puts all the risk of battery wear on the manufacturer. For people who insist on buying but don't like the high price, we need a hybrid of a lease and purchase, like Renault does in Europe with their "battery hire".

RE: Nonsense
By flyingpants1 on 5/9/2013 12:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think the recent article about decreasing the cost of the Volt was talking about the cost to manufacture, not the sale price. In which case it may still sell at $32k for a few years to come

I'd like to see a cheaper, slightly larger Volt with more electric range. As much of a Tesla fanboy as I am, I actually prefer the Volt. I like the gas backup.

RE: Nonsense
By lelias2k on 5/9/2013 3:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
As a transitional tool, the Volt is awesome.

RE: Nonsense
By bigi on 5/9/2013 8:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
Very good points and worth re-iterating.

RE: Nonsense
By Souka on 5/9/2013 2:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
I wish my company could get hundreds of millions in tax breaks and government investment funds(tax payer paid). We would really be profitable instead of just barely.

RE: Nonsense
By lelias2k on 5/9/2013 3:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
What products/services does your company supply?

RE: Nonsense
By KFZ on 5/9/2013 3:13:44 PM , Rating: 1
Your argument immediately falls apart when you compare EVs to petroleum (as subsidies), a natural resource with all kinds of essential and useful purposes that make the modern world.

Your narrow-minded view of oil's purpose defies logic. This bitter rationale for pouring tons of public money into technology that can't be forced into market viability with relatively low appeal and a jocular ideal that the world will be free of dirty, greedy oil if we could just kick the addiction would be laughable if it weren't so pervasive and incessantly repeated.

The world depends on oil and would be crippled without it. The world does not depend on EVs. On top of a weak economy, struggling sectors and poor infrastructure, this is where we start re-budgeting.

RE: Nonsense
By lelias2k on 5/9/2013 5:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
a natural resource with all kinds of essential and useful purposes that make the modern world.

And all sorts of "side-effects" as a reward! :)

You are the narrow-minded one for thinking that our world depends on oil and would be crippled without it. Unless you are so short-sighted (selfish?) that you can only look into the period that encompasses your life time. Earth will hopefully move on from your passing, and it is our responsibility to leave a inhabitable planet to our descendants.

Economically speaking we do depend on oil, because it is cheap and all people care about is more money in their pockets. But most applications can be replaced by something else. And if they can't, it's just a matter of time.

Unless we keep bending over to the oil companies' agenda.

RE: Nonsense
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 9:07:06 AM , Rating: 2
Unless we keep bending over to the oil companies' agenda.

Their evil "agenda" is the same as Elon Musk's: To make money.

Oh the horror!

Go hug a tree stupid ass.

RE: Nonsense
By BRB29 on 5/11/2013 12:55:43 AM , Rating: 2
He is not narrow minded. That is forward thinking. He are currently almost completely dependent on oil. Our goal is not to be because we know that oil is finite. However, electricity can be generated in many ways.

The plan for transportation
1. Increase MPG(short term)
2. EV/Hydrogen/other tech(long term)

Of course we will still use oil even after we have converted 100% to EV. But by then, we would use significantly less oil that we can maintain for a long period of time without relying on OPEC's mercy.

RE: Nonsense
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2013 9:05:13 AM , Rating: 1
oil is subsidised MUCH more than EVs are.


That's a lie. I would love for you to even attempt to back this up with facts and sources.

Oil generates billions and billions of dollars a year in tax money to our Government. These subsidies the left speaks of, are actually tax breaks ALL businesses qualify for.

Wake me up when EV's generate that kind of revenue stream...

You can check the Tesla website to see the refutation of this myth if you like.

Not weighting in on that argument one way or the other, but just amusing how you think the Tesla website would be some unbiased source lmao.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki