61–70 of 267 posts
Is it just me reading too much financial news or does "beats estimates" sound like it was better than estimates? Loss was 69 cents vs 53 cents expected. Revenues beat estimates, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see your point, but any company that uses non-GAAP numbers is suspect. Even the gov't is trying to crack down on companies that do it since it invariably is done to make the company look like it's performing better than it is. Gross margin ignores all the costs not directly associated with producing the vehicle (basically COGS). There are plenty of companies with positive gross margin (even under GAAP) that fail.
Investors are not fools; anyone reading these statements and reports is smart enough to understand the difference between GAAP and non-GAAP. Investors should make up their own minds as to which metrics are useful, just as you have made up yours that reporting the non-GAAP numbers is intrinsically suspect.
I hope you're kidding, because the counter examples to this are endless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Investors are not fools; anyone reading these statements and reports is smart enough to understand the difference between GAAP and non-GAAP. Investors should make up their own minds as to which metrics are useful, just as you have made up yours that reporting the non-GAAP numbers is intrinsically suspect.
Also the non-GAAP numbers can give a more accurate impression of how the company is doing if done sensibly.
[1]https://www.troutmansanders.com/using-non-gaap-measures--obs...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad that people look up to someone like that. What I am disappointed by is how his fans react to criticism. There's healthy respect and there's unhealthy worship. When you have a bunch of people who will get really upset due to any criticism that is on the worship side of the coin. Any community with voting arrows (HN/Reddit) suppresses anything negative said (no matter how supportable/well constructed the criti…
Huge fan boy here. I'm not saying he does no wrong; he's ruined his first, second, and third marriages. He's probably not around at all for his five kids. Its assuredly soul crushing (workload/expectation-wise, not mission, which makes a huge difference) working for him. But he's changing the world. So I give the guy wide latitude with my opinion. At least he's not yet another useless silicon valley billionaire. He i…
This is a great place to meet in the middle between the cynics and fanboys.
People get upset by the 'superhero' status of Elon Musk. Nerds everywhere worship the guy, buy his cars, watch his SpaceX launches. But honestly, let him have it, I say. He's earning it. He's taking huge risks and succeeding where others weren't willing to try.
It's fun to read Mark Spiegel's twitter feed. I've never seen someone so desperately try to force a theory. I wonder why some people want to see Tesla fail so badly.
There is a difference between Tesla, the car company (good) , and TSLA, the stock, which I belive is overpriced and has grey area accounting (bad). Sometimes they get confused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The fourth-quarter loss, excluding some items, was narrower than the $1.14 a share average estimate Straight from the article.
So I was reading this from marketwatch: "Adjusted loss of 69 cents a share, worse than expected." "Analysts expect an adjusted fourth-quarter loss of 53 cents a share" Now I don't know what to believe. Edit: I guess it depends on who's doing the estimating. The linked article says "The fourth-quarter loss, excluding some items, was narrower than the $1.14 a share average estimate among analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.…
A more accurate statement would be something like, "The tangible value of the company's assets, as far as anyone can reasonably ascertain with any degree of certainty, declined by 53 cents per share this quarter".
The question is whether the company is making good investments. If you believe its infrastructure investments will provide long-lived, strategic advantages which support the reduction of cost (increasing margins and free cash flow), decreased time to market (making more revenue accessible, more quickly), or other things, these "losses" are hardly bad things. [1]
[1] Of course, this assumes the company has access to continued financing on good terms, which seems to be the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's technology. Once it exists, it will continue existing. Every generation must use it wisely and ethically.
Not so sure about it. Look at Concorde. Musk actually said that technology does not move forward if there is nobody (or no company or no government) to push it forward.
Technology is both economics and engineering. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done if no one is willing to cover the costs.