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

Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

ir.tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 418 posts

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#331

Post by Latteland »

olivermarks wrote: post #53
crwalker wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long do you think the current Supercharger network will be a large competitive advantage? I agree with Benedict Evan's point that electric charging will become a commodity: https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2018/8/29/tesla-soft...

Wouldn't it be awful if you could only buy Ford gasoline from Ford gas stations? The lock in model is attractive until you think about broader implication, I agree with Evans too that it will be a commodity race to the bottom for recharging, with cost introduced for the power

Tesla can do superchargers and almost all other 3rd party chargers. They aren't lock in, they are like a super-capable system. Only other cars can't use tesla chargers.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#333

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

nikofeyn wrote: post #306
rconti wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of reasons those cars aren't sold in the US, and inability to pass any kind of safety standard is certainly going to be one of them. Of course, the fact that our market is (probably) smaller than theirs with way more red tape (including the aforementioned safety standards) doesn't hurt.

those are all excuses that, in my opinion, causes one to ignore the progress over there. it's dangerous thinking. do you really think that tesla is as safe as other established car manufacturers? (i am aware of their "ratings", which i find hard to believe.) edit: and you can see my other reply or do a google search to see that china's car manufacturing revolution, including their massive and unparalleled surge into…

> i am aware of their "ratings", which i find hard to believe.

Is this common among the anti-Tesla crowd? I think you're the first crash rating conspiracy theorist I've come across. If anything I'd assume that the organisations doing the testing would be deeply connected with traditional car manufacturers and that Tesla (as a newcomer) would actually be at a disadvantage.

Perhaps you know something we don't?

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#334

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #54
mikestew wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds awful Sounds better than bustin' ass for 60 hours/week for my base salary. Your friend is getting paid 1.5X for every hour over 40. And, yes, it is not uncommon over the years. My dad would seemingly work every overtime hour given. And at time-and-a-half, so would I.

50% extra for giving up your time with kids, excercise, sleep, family, and general fun in life sounds like a terrible deal.

Then you should consider yourself very privileged. Not everyone is in your position.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#336

Post by swarnie_ »

propman wrote: post #240
kllrnohj wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tesla could realistically hit 500,000 cars next year, almost 10% of total cars sold in America. US consumer auto sales per year are in the 16-17 million range. I personally wouldn't consider 3% to be "almost 10%", do you? But I don't think they realistically can hit 500,000 cars next year, either. They moved 70k cars in Q3. There's no reason to believe they can double that in 6 months or so particularly as the Mode…

I meant cars, not all autos. Cars are 6.2 million. Musk said he’s trying to get to 6000 a week by the end of August and 10,000 a week in 2019. The demand is clearly there as are the profit margins even sans ev credit. I know he overestimates things a lot but that tells me they are seriously considering ramping up production. As the production and now delivery processes streamline, they can definitely hit 6000 by end…

While i'm totally behind this rocket ship you need to take any number Musk give you and add a random number of months between 6 and 18 to it.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#337

Post by dang »

nemo846 wrote: post #326
dang wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of how you feel about this person or any other, would you please not post uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? We're trying for better than this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Unsubstantiated? I even posted links. So all we are suppose to do is sing his praises on this site?

Unsubstantive, which on HN means void of intellectual interest. Your comment was an example of the kind of internet rant we don't want here.

On this site, please neither sing praises nor vent ragefully. Both are boring.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#338

Post by erikb »

crwalker wrote: post #40
andrewmunsell wrote: post #32

One massive advantage that I'm not sure most people realize quite yet is the Supercharger network. No manufacturer (other than Porsche talking about it recently) has actually built out chargers for their cars. Every other electric car has to rely on a broken, sparse, expensive charger network. Blink chargers and some ChargePoint chargers are expensive in many places ($2 an hour!), and Blink is notorious for having br…

How long do you think the current Supercharger network will be a large competitive advantage? I agree with Benedict Evan's point that electric charging will become a commodity: https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2018/8/29/tesla-soft...

Space stations will become a commodity as well.

What I mean to say is, every product that is used by almost everybody will become a commodity at some point. That is not the question. The question is

a) How long can you keep it from not becoming a commodity?

b) How can you build your business model as market leader around it being a commodity?

E.g. gas stops can be considered a commodity at this point, but the powerhouse oil companies still own the whole thing and make hundreds of billions out of gas sales. If Tesla can use their leverage and tech-know-how to get into that position for electrical gas stations they might be in a good position to take that leadership position for a generation or two in providing electricity for the cars, making more money than with actual car sales.

So for Tesla, as much as for the not-yet-existing space station business, the fact that they will become commodities at some point is more of a strategic detail than a kill factor.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#339

Post by erikb »

tanderson92 wrote: post #197
mandeepj wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also include the fines payable after settlement with SEC

Worth noting that Tesla didn't really experience those losses due its special stock issuance to Musk to cover the portion of the fine that was due to Tesla. The only material effect to Tesla's corporate finances from that debacle was Musk now has more concentrated equity ownership of the company.

> Musk now has more concentrated equity ownership of the company

You mean Musk gained control through that, not lost it? How so? That's quite different an assumption from what I expected.

Re: Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Update [pdf]

#340

Post by soVeryTired »

btilly wrote: post #233
dragontamer wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of companies have a lot of bonds out. Its not necessarily unhealthy to keep some debt around, especially through the 2013 through 2017 timeframe when interest rates were abnormally low. Elon will have to roll over the debt somehow: either into stock offerings or maybe into new bonds. The meager profits reported this quarter aren't anywhere near the amount they need to pay off those debts... even if the profits…

According to financial theory, how you structure a company has no correlation with its success. Therefore the kind of debt financing that Elon is using is just fine. Financial theory and reality tend to agree except in a crisis. Unfortunately crises do tend to come along periodically. How TSLA weathers the next one will be interesting to see.

The Modigliani-Miller 'theorem' is dangerous nonsense. It proves a fact about a model rather than a fact about the real world.

From Wikipedia "The basic theorem states that in the absence of taxes, bankruptcy costs, agency costs, and asymmetric information, and in an efficient market, the value of a firm is unaffected by how that firm is financed". See anything wrong with this picture?

Post reply on HN