Musk to review all of Tesla's expenses in new cost cutting plan

Post by omarforgotpwd » Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:18 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #109

omarforgotpwd wrote: post #90

This is not true. What he says in the memo is "it would take us 10 months to burn through the $2.3 billion we just raised at our Q1 burn rate" They've guided for a "significantly smaller" loss in Q2, and positive cash flow in Q3 and Q4. With $2.4 billion raised, $2.2 billion in the bank, and $2 billion worth of payments coming from Fiat Chrysler cash is not as much of a concern as the headline would suggest.

The headline used to be "Tesla Has 10 Months of Cash to Burn Before Dying Out" before we changed it. That's because the article was originally a different one—see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19950431 .

Post by base698 » Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:23 AM UTC

navigatesol wrote: post #3

> On Jan. 30, Musk told investors he thought Tesla would continue making money after finally turning its first back-to-back profits during the third and fourth quarters of last year, fulfilling his previous forecast that Tesla would become “sustainably profitable” from the third quarter of 2018 onward. Followed by a massive quarterly loss of $700MM and the pronouncement that the company has less than 10 months of cas…

Post by ksherlock » Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:27 AM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #102

Matt3o12_ wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit later in the thread the poster also states a pretty good explanation: > A lot of FUD from the media said Elon stated they will only have 10 months left before cash balance is zero. No where in this letter stated such a thing and Elon just used an arbitrary number(in this case the newly raised capital) to express the point that 2.4 billion may seem like a lot of money, but we shouldn't take it for granted. In fa…

> their demand is still going strong. This is what's not clear, and a major risk factor for them. I think Musk views 35k as the inflection point where quantity demanded sky rockets and he's not been able to get there. Seems like a lot of decisions were made based on assuming that would happen by 2019.

Post by m0zg » Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:32 AM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #24

whyenot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link is to what is represented as the authentic text of the memo. If genuine, to me, this seem like the most important bit: "It is important to bear in mind that we lost $700 million in the first quarter this year, which is over $200 million per month. Investors nonetheless were supportive of our efforts and agreed to give us $2.4 billion (our net proceeds) to show that we can be financially sustainable. That is…

> With relatively low gas prices at the moment, decreasing federal subsidies for electric cars, and more players entering the market, it seems like Tesla is in a pretty tough spot. Nothing you couldn't see coming 5 years ago, however.

Post by barney54 » Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:33 AM UTC

atq2119 wrote: post #111

soup10 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The domestic oil boom and the fact that we are now a net exporter of oil makes the transition to electric cars less urgent.

This ignores the fact that EVs are currently the only viable path towards road-based transport that is compatible with the continued existence of our species. The transition isn't urgent due to oil prices. It's urgent due to greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable for humans.