Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 107 posts

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#51

Post by dilemma »

parent5446 wrote: post #50
dilemma wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The press release was created to provide information to news organizations. It is extremely odd to say they are not good sources.

It's a first-person source, coming from the company itself. Thus it's inherently biased toward the company and not the best source. This is as opposed to when the news article itself is a primary source, which is achieved by a reporter actually reporting what is happening in-person at the source of the event. Of course, in this case it's a bit hard, since the only insight into Tesla's production goals is what they re…

Like your second paragraph expresses, a press release id from the company itself is the absolute best source on their production numbers.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#52

Post by sowbug »

kec wrote: post #42
colechristensen wrote: post #18

This isn't news, it's gossip. ~200 instead of ~1500 means the bootstrapping is a little off schedule. It's stories like this and the attitude that they're important which gets us very destructive behaviors like putting production quota ahead of quality. Production misses are news when they're for substantial cause. Like a 10% miss for an S or X might be news.

How is being ~80% under quota not news? Such a large miss means that either Tesla is being unrealistically optimistic about their production capability, or they have serious production problems.

Because "~80% under quota" isn't a meaningful way to assess the schedule slip. They're still a few weeks/months off from mass production of the Model 3.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#53

Post by colechristensen »

kec wrote: post #42
colechristensen wrote: post #18

This isn't news, it's gossip. ~200 instead of ~1500 means the bootstrapping is a little off schedule. It's stories like this and the attitude that they're important which gets us very destructive behaviors like putting production quota ahead of quality. Production misses are news when they're for substantial cause. Like a 10% miss for an S or X might be news.

How is being ~80% under quota not news? Such a large miss means that either Tesla is being unrealistically optimistic about their production capability, or they have serious production problems.

There are something like half a million Model 3 preorders. They just started production, 200 or 1500 – both are but a rounding error compared to the actual full production rate. (order of 10k/quarter)

It's something like criticizing someone for running 75 feet instead of 400 in the first 45 seconds of their third marathon because they had to re-tie their shoes.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#54

Post by parent5446 »

dilemma wrote: post #51
parent5446 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a first-person source, coming from the company itself. Thus it's inherently biased toward the company and not the best source. This is as opposed to when the news article itself is a primary source, which is achieved by a reporter actually reporting what is happening in-person at the source of the event. Of course, in this case it's a bit hard, since the only insight into Tesla's production goals is what they re…

Like your second paragraph expresses, a press release id from the company itself is the absolute best source on their production numbers.

And as the very last sentence of my second paragraph says, "just because it's the best doesn't mean it's necessarily good". Your original post says "it is extremely odd to say they are not good sources".

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#55

Post by prostoalex »

modeless wrote: post #3

Actual source: http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1042449 OT: Sad how difficult it was to find this. The media avoids linking to primary sources. For example, Engadget's 3 paragraph article contains no less than 5 links back to engadget.com and not a single mention of this source.

WSJ content management system might be print-first and Web-secondary.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#56

Post by ovao »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #44
ams6110 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government funded is incompatible with independent. By definition such an organization is dependent on continued government funding.

Every government should fund journalism, and every citizen should read from several news sources (from different governments). The BBC is great, but you should not get your news about Britain from the BBC, get it from say Le Monde or NYT. And vice versa for France and the US.

I’m curious: why should one not rely on the BBC as a primary source of news about Britain?

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#57

Post by prostoalex »

colechristensen wrote: post #23
abakker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it is news for investors. Missing productions goals as a startup is different than missing production numbers as a public company that is arguably quite overvalued. It matters because if it effects their share price, that can have important downstream effects on their eventual ability to execute (e.g. secure more loans). Edit: I am not trying to say that Tesla should be punished, but am specifically addressi…

It is especially not news for investors. It encourages terrible behavior when people focus on this sort of dumb number. Projecting problems and solutions at the beginning of production is more or less impossible. Valuing a company based on the accuracy of what is litte more than random noise makes you a bad investor, making it a headline news story makes you a bad editor. It's only news if it shows an _actual_ proble…

> Valuing a company based on the accuracy of what is litte more than random noise makes you a bad investor

Some investors will value on random noise, and some other investors will figure this out and capture the mispricing, if there's any.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#58

Post by prostoalex »

kchoudhu wrote: post #39
nicolashahn wrote: post #15

Based on his track record, Musk often sets unrealistic timeline goals (and unrealistic engineering goals, but he usually meets those). This has happened multiple times with both Tesla and SpaceX, not surprised this happened.

You understand that missing material estimates has legal implications if you do it too many times? Regulators can and do start thinking that you have something to hide. Tesla isn't a startup working out of someone's garage -- it is a large player in a heavily regulated capital market. Estimates and guidance are for investors, not for people on the street: they are supposed to mean something.

This is not a material estimate, this is an estimate that Tesla, for whatever reason, volunteered.

Other manufacturers don't really do that, which is why you rarely see the headlines of Dodge Durango being three weeks behind schedule.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#59

Post by dilemma »

ovao wrote: post #56
pazimzadeh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every government should fund journalism, and every citizen should read from several news sources (from different governments). The BBC is great, but you should not get your news about Britain from the BBC, get it from say Le Monde or NYT. And vice versa for France and the US.

I’m curious: why should one not rely on the BBC as a primary source of news about Britain?

Because BBC is influenced by the British power structure.

Re: Tesla Misses Model 3 Production Goals

#60

Post by refurb »

colechristensen wrote: post #23
abakker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it is news for investors. Missing productions goals as a startup is different than missing production numbers as a public company that is arguably quite overvalued. It matters because if it effects their share price, that can have important downstream effects on their eventual ability to execute (e.g. secure more loans). Edit: I am not trying to say that Tesla should be punished, but am specifically addressi…

It is especially not news for investors. It encourages terrible behavior when people focus on this sort of dumb number. Projecting problems and solutions at the beginning of production is more or less impossible. Valuing a company based on the accuracy of what is litte more than random noise makes you a bad investor, making it a headline news story makes you a bad editor. It's only news if it shows an _actual_ proble…

If Musk hadn't promised 1500 units, then you're right, it wouldn't be a big deal.
Post reply on HN