81–90 of 107 posts
> In total, we expect to deliver about 100,000 Model S and X vehicles in 2017, which would be a 31% increase over 2016.
31% increase from 2016, that's a huge bump in delivery and I wonder how/if this affected the model 3 production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d much less rather live in a world of ads, because that’s exactly what created the perverse incentive to press all emotional buttons possible in order to get more eyeballs/ad impressions (see: fakenews epidemic). People who produce good content expect to be paid for their labors. Do you have a better business model than ads (which incentivize twisting wording around to create emotional-button-pressing, and therefor…
If you consider accurate journalism as a necessity of a well functioning economy and democracy then an argument can be made that it should be government funded and independent. Think BBC. I don’t think the current model is working as well as it could.
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.
This is a press release which was likely delivered to wsj et al through a wire service they pay to deliver them piles and piles of press releases. Nobody quotes those as sources because nobody but news organizations that pay for them has access to them. A press release is also a rather bad primary source unlike, say, a research paper or a blog post.
You can still pay for premium services (via Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, etc) but subscribing to company news releases can be easily done by just visiting a company's investor relations website.
So 260 instead of 1500 model 3's. Bootstrapping has a lot of uncertainties so that's not very unlikely even. What's stood out to me was this, > In total, we expect to deliver about 100,000 Model S and X vehicles in 2017, which would be a 31% increase over 2016. 31% increase from 2016, that's a huge bump in delivery and I wonder how/if this affected the model 3 production.
So 260 instead of 1500 model 3's. Bootstrapping has a lot of uncertainties so that's not very unlikely even. What's stood out to me was this, > In total, we expect to deliver about 100,000 Model S and X vehicles in 2017, which would be a 31% increase over 2016. 31% increase from 2016, that's a huge bump in delivery and I wonder how/if this affected the model 3 production.
As a car company with some years of experience you should be able to factor in uncertainties. They could've made the estimate less optimistic, giving some upside in case everything goes right. Using the best case scenario as your base case is not necessarily the smartest thing (but can be good for marketing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Tesla is probably the only car company where the number of pre orders is deemed to be important. Car companies make money with sales and if they don't get production ramped up in time (before more alternatives become available), a lot of potential buyers will order somewhere else. Production capacity and consistent quality are the only important factors for Tesla, not how many people think about buying one at some point (in my opinion).
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.
But many public companies have discovered that conservative forecasts with positive surprises are better for the share price than optimistic forecasts with profit/production warnings.
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.
You don't read safe harbor statements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you consider accurate journalism as a necessity of a well functioning economy and democracy then an argument can be made that it should be government funded and independent. Think BBC. I don’t think the current model is working as well as it could.
> government funded and independent Pick one, please.
The German public broadcasters are well known for biting the hand that feeds them.
So 260 instead of 1500 model 3's. Bootstrapping has a lot of uncertainties so that's not very unlikely even. What's stood out to me was this, > In total, we expect to deliver about 100,000 Model S and X vehicles in 2017, which would be a 31% increase over 2016. 31% increase from 2016, that's a huge bump in delivery and I wonder how/if this affected the model 3 production.