121–130 of 224 posts
I think it looks fine. You Americans have a weird dislike of hatchbacks. To European eyes, it just looks very normal. Good luck to GM but I suspect their dealerships won't bother trying to sell many of these.
Just follow the money.
"Tesla loses money on every car too." This is false, Tesla averages $18,000 margin on every model S & model X it sells. "So how did GM pull off a $30,000 car with 200 miles of range?" It didn't. It is $30k only after $8000 of federal tax credits.
Tesla uses very unconventional accounting to arrive at that gross margin. Specifically they don't subtract R&D costs from their margins. When you correct for this Tesla's gross margin is within a few percent of the median for the automotive industry. > In 2015, Tesla spent over $700 million on research and development while selling about 50,000 vehicles. If Tesla reported gross margins like other automakers, gross ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla uses very unconventional accounting to arrive at that gross margin. Specifically they don't subtract R&D costs from their margins. When you correct for this Tesla's gross margin is within a few percent of the median for the automotive industry. > In 2015, Tesla spent over $700 million on research and development while selling about 50,000 vehicles. If Tesla reported gross margins like other automakers, gross ma…
> Tesla is operated very much like a silicon valley startup. They're growing rapidly in the hope of becoming profitable when they reach scale. But they sure as heck aren't profitable right now. They have already reached scale, and are already profitable. They're just pouring their profits back into further growth. Yes, they're spending a lot on R&D, but that's not sending money into a vacuum, that's investing in the…
Compared to the rest of the car industry? They are a fraction of a percent of the market.
>and are already profitable.
They cashed in all their ZEV credits to achieve one quarter of profitability. How did they do with those backed out?
I mean, they could be profitable, but going by last quarter is deceiving.
>They're just pouring their profits back into further growth.
You assume that the car industry isn't capital intensive, and that the other manufacturers are not also spending heavily on R&D. But they are.
>Conflict of interest, anyone?
Uh, no. It's an investing site. If you have a negative view of a stock why wouldn't you possibly short it? Or do you believe that these small-time Seeking Alpha authors are moving the market?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla uses very unconventional accounting to arrive at that gross margin. Specifically they don't subtract R&D costs from their margins. When you correct for this Tesla's gross margin is within a few percent of the median for the automotive industry. > In 2015, Tesla spent over $700 million on research and development while selling about 50,000 vehicles. If Tesla reported gross margins like other automakers, gross ma…
> Tesla is operated very much like a silicon valley startup. They're growing rapidly in the hope of becoming profitable when they reach scale. But they sure as heck aren't profitable right now. They have already reached scale, and are already profitable. They're just pouring their profits back into further growth. Yes, they're spending a lot on R&D, but that's not sending money into a vacuum, that's investing in the…
This justifies adding back R&D per unit, but not sales expenses.
From all I read, the interesting parts of the Bolt are actually completely made and designed by LG - all the electric components. And Tesla makes more Model S per day than GM builds Bolts. But I am happy that Bolt exists, as it currently is the most affordable electrical car with a long range. We need more of those.
"Tesla and Panasonic have entered into a non-binding letter of intent under which they will begin collaborating on the manufacturing and production of photovoltaic (PV) cells and modules in Buffalo"
That can be read as the two companies will work on manufacturing cells and modules together, but I think that isn't the case, given that that same press release states:
"The parties intend for Panasonic to begin PV cell and module production at the Buffalo facility in 2017. Tesla intends to provide a long-term purchase commitment for those cells from Panasonic."
If that conclusion is correct (corrections welcome), I would guess (again: corrections welcome) that that includes quite a few bits of software and hardware components on top of that that control charging and battery longevity.
So, is the Tesla-Panasonic really that different from the Chevy-LG one? From what I can see, the main difference is that the former are more committed to each other, with the advantages and disadvantages that that brings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla also includes the tax credit in their price. And at present they don't even have a car. Why are people so bitter that GM is competing? Is this not a good thing?
People are bitter because GM has a history of screwing the customer WRT electric vehicles. Many people wanted to buy their EV-1 but instead they sent them to the crushers. Like other people have said, GM is doing this to offset their truck/suvs and not out of a real interest in EVs.
This is simply incorrect, and is like saying Tesla is building EVs for the subsidies. GM are doing it because the future is EVs, and Tesla is to thank for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't doubt you're correct in summarising why many current Tesla owners buy Tesla cars. But if they want to be hugely, mass market successful they need to expand their client base beyond customers who "need" luxury options in a car. It's Tesla that would need to match GM's market proposition, not vice versa. > I want a nice car, not just an electric one, and Tesla's got that in spades. And I suspect many Bolt owner…
> And I suspect many Bolt owners want an economical car, not a luxury one, and the Bolt's got that in spades. See my other reply in this subthread - Bolt/Model 3 will be equivalent in terms of price, so I don't see how the Bolt is more "economical".
The Model 3 is still vaporware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla also includes the tax credit in their price. And at present they don't even have a car. Why are people so bitter that GM is competing? Is this not a good thing?
"Tesla also includes the tax credit in their price." This is false... Tesla advertises their model 3 targeted base price as $35,000. This is before any tax credits.
The Model 3 doesn't exist yet, so how do you know? Where are these advertisements you are seeing?
I think it looks fine. You Americans have a weird dislike of hatchbacks. To European eyes, it just looks very normal. Good luck to GM but I suspect their dealerships won't bother trying to sell many of these.
Still, the specs are hard to beat. When I get my payout from VW for my polluting TDI it's either the Bolt or the Volt for me. Probably the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla uses very unconventional accounting to arrive at that gross margin. Specifically they don't subtract R&D costs from their margins. When you correct for this Tesla's gross margin is within a few percent of the median for the automotive industry. > In 2015, Tesla spent over $700 million on research and development while selling about 50,000 vehicles. If Tesla reported gross margins like other automakers, gross ma…
> Tesla is operated very much like a silicon valley startup. They're growing rapidly in the hope of becoming profitable when they reach scale. But they sure as heck aren't profitable right now. They have already reached scale, and are already profitable. They're just pouring their profits back into further growth. Yes, they're spending a lot on R&D, but that's not sending money into a vacuum, that's investing in the…
Seeking Alpha is a mixed bag, but the authors are no more biased than the average wall street analyst. People who comment here also have their own agendas. Bias should be expected everywhere. As for your claim that anybody can write an article on there, that's not strictly true. They have a real name policy and failing to disclose properly can and will get you in trouble with the SEC.
By the way, having a short position and writing about why you are short (or the inverse) isn't a conflict of interest by any stretch of the imagination. The seeking alpha model is adversarial (like the justice system). People at opposing sides make their case and clearly state on which side their financial interest resides. Poor arguments get pilloried in the comments section. I think this model works remarkably well in practice. In order to figure out what's really going on forensic investigation is necessary, and that goes way beyond the plain GAAP figures.