Ok, so I could challenge you on any of the dozen weaksause argumentations you’ve brought to the table here.
So here it goes: CITE.
Cite for what you are claiming.
As far as I know, Tesla is the only company building a battery factory expressly to provide batteries for the automotive market, and really the only company preparing for mass marketing of electric cars.
Do you have any evidence that any of the big automakers are ready and waiting with their own gigafactories? if not where exactly are they going to source batteries from? Do you have any cold hard numbers on production rates of batteries in terms of capacities available to GM, Ford and “every other manufacturer” for their gearing up? Or can we expect GM, Ford, etc to gear up with tooling to produce a bajillion econoboxes that will totally crush Tesla, except that they’ll be fitted with a notice on the inside sunvisor that says “Batteries not included”?
Reporter logic. It’s like saying that a movie theater lost $199,999,980 on the first ticket sold because the movie cost $200M and the ticket sold for $20.
Tesla doesn’t lose money on every car they sell. They make a healthy profit. But their total income is currently less than their expenses because they have a new product in active development.
Are you really sure about that? Honda and Hyundai particularly are massive operations compared to Tesla. I guess I’m looking at the “market cap” figures for each and by my reading Tesla are around 27 billion and Honda are 7.5 trillion. I’m not going to look but I’d lay dollars to doughnuts that Hyundai are much bigger even than that.
Honda–definitely (I didn’t mention them). But Hyundai Motors (which is separate from the Hyundai conglomerate) is not so massive. Their market cap is 42.03 trillion… Korean won. There are 1,129 won to the dollar, so that comes to $37.2B. Which means I did screw up in my calc somewhere, or got some dicey figures, but even so the difference is <40%.
Honda is more like $60B (that 7.5T number was in yen). Mazda is about $12B, Fiat/Chrysler $20B, Kia $23B.
Is this not the normal state for every car company, to have new products in active development? They have to build cars, sell cars, and develop new products all at the same time, while not burning through all their cash and asking for a new capital influx. The normal steady state for a functioning car company is to develop new products and make money at the same time.
Not to say Tesla won’t get there, but they aren’t there quite yet.
And that’s in no small part BECAUSE Tesla made them cool, and made it clear there actually could be a market for the things. Otherwise, all those companies would be gearing up to make a tiny number of compliance cars (as some of them are) not to make actual popular mass-market transport.
THAT is what Tesla did. And they did it already, with the sports car and the sedan.
I doubt the SUV will add as much, as I really think that is the car Musk built because he wanted to drive it. And as such, it’s quirky.
I’m not sure it matters whether the Model 3 makes it or not.
It would be entertaining in a way if Ford and GM end up building decent long-range electric vehicles powered with Tesla batteries.
Musk’s billions are because of Tesla and SpaceX. He pretty much bet the farm on them, but his farm was only a couple hundred million at the time. The growth since then was what made him a billionaire.
TSLA is still overvalued in my opinion–obviously not because I think the Model 3 will fail, but because I think it’s higher than even optimistic growth would indicate. But I’m glad someone is pumping money into them. Even if they take a major hit, they should still have the cash to complete the Model 3.
(For the record, taking out a loan is not a sign of financial problems. Sometimes a loan is the best bet even if you have barrels of cash laying around.)
Sure, but not nearly to the same extreme. Most companies develop a platform and then amortize the costs over several years, with only incremental improvements in between. When they have a large product line and several platforms, these costs never get very concentrated.
But Tesla has only one platform and (barely) two models, and an upcoming model on a wholly new platform. The new model requires huge new infrastructure (like the gigafactory) and is also a big jump in volume. So proportionally, the Model 3 is much more difficult for Tesla than a normal new platform would be for a conventional maker (which has probably timed the new platform to coincide with the winding down of another one).
Tesla also spends much more on R&D than other automakers; in the ballpark of 15% as compared to 3-5%. Part of this is that they’re developing wholly new technologies; part is that because they’re smaller, the R&D they do perform is amortized over less product.
:rolleyes: All companies invest part of their revenue stream in future production. It’s based on a positive cash flow. The article clearly states the precarious position Tesla is in. Here’s a relevant quote: “Tesla had just $1.15 billion on hand as of June 30, down from $2.67 billion a year earlier”.
Do the math. They burned through 1.52 billion dollars in a year and they have 1.15 billion left. If they’re losing money on their cars and they’re late producing their cars, and they’re taking advance orders on their cars then they are a financial risk to both investor and consumer.
Tesla is bleeding money. They don’t have the assets necessary to compete and this has been my point throughout the thread.
I have to disagree with you here. When Toyota introduced their hybrid all the other car companies jumped into the fray. GM bought into their early driveline development. Ford and every other major company ramped up their research and introduced their own versions. Honda probably knocked out the best car but it didn’t much traction because of what I’m assuming was interior space. The problem that quickly arose was that not all of the cars were worth the extra money. Ford’s Escape hybrid was one of the few cars that paid for itself. This is the difference between making a luxury car where money isn’t the driving force behind purchase and making a viable car for everyday use. I don’t see any innovation or increase in public demand based on a flashy luxury car. That’s like saying a Ferrari has inspired people to buy a Ford Focus.
I don’t see it as entertaining at all. This what happens when businesses have an asset that is worth more than their product. Many companies find themselves in this position and are either bought out for that asset or they focus on that asset and redefine their business model. It’s the difference between being in the car business or the electric component’s for cars business.
I would see it as kinda sad because I wanted to see Bricklin and Delorean and Saturn succeed. But that’s the world of business. When I was a kid Kodak film was in every store and the Oldsmobile rocket V8 was a trademark that meant something.
Wait, what? Aren’t you the one saying every other car company has jumped into the fray? Didn’t you say that if Tesla sells some cars, every other company will make much the same thing?
You really can’t argue both sides and be taken seriously.
I’ve never heard of the Bricklin. The DeLorean is similar to Tesla in that it was cool in its time, although I don’t recall it having any unusual features other than gull-wing doors. (200 miles on a fast-charging battery is, at the moment, an extremely unusual feature, one that I can ONLY purchase in a Tesla vehicle.) The Saturn was mildly successful for a while, and some of what the Saturn group did got rolled into other GM lines when the brand died. A brand doesn’t need to live forever to “succeed” or to make a difference. Kodak and Oldsmobile were both successful comapnies in their day. Kodak is obviously past its prime, but still exists, fwiw.
I’m not arguing both sides. Tesla made it this far because they scratched out a little profit in a niche market. Companies like Honda and Ford are not interested in that market because there is no money in it. Put another way, it’s a waste of their resources to build a luxury electric car. the same resources that go into making an Accord would produce almost no return.
Tesla may have made electric cars “cool” but that is not the only quality looked for in cars. People want a variety of qualities in cars and when added up those qualities have to fit within their budget. These are the cars that Ford and other companies are working on.
The Bricklinalso had gull wing doors. They opened with an electrical switch that operated a pneumatic system. There was an air storage tank in the rear bumper to assist the door system. The company talked about using a rotary V engine that even by today’s standards would have had an incredible horse power to weight to ratio. (video)
The only problem was that it was a 2 cycle engine with little chance of meeting any kind of pollution regulations. They put different engines in with the last one being a conventional Ford Windsor block 351.
Aaaaanyway. Long story short they were always underfunded making promises they couldn’t keep. Tesla has done a better job delivering on promises but is still behind the financial curve needed to survive.
Yes, this dilutes the stock. But Tesla’s market cap is $27B, so they have quite a lot of wiggle room here. Investors do not necessarily see dilution as a bad thing if the money goes to smart investments that will grow the company.
Furthermore, lots of wealthy parties would be happy to step in if things get rough. The Google guys are good buddies with Musk, and already pumped $1B into SpaceX. I doubt they’d hesitate with Tesla. Panasonic has a big interest in keeping Tesla going, since Tesla is their biggest battery customer. Of course Musk himself is worth billions, and could sell off his own shares to keep them going. And finally, there are both corporate and government loan programs available.
Tesla has more than enough funding sources to blow through $1-2B/yr for several years without noticing. This isn’t a DeLorean situation.
Do you think the iPhone was a revolutionary product? I don’t care what you think about Apple and its market cap or whatnot. I’m talking about the product.
Your opinion of Tesla’s finances falls under internet opinion. I posted a cite showing they are in distress. Here’s another one. quote: "Capital spending has been for Tesla Model S and Model X upgrades — not its big gigafactory. "
They are not putting the money into their gigafactory as you suggested. They’re propping up their existing models.
From the same cite: "On the bright side, Barclays said that Tesla is making progress on some key product milestones, as stock grant data shows that the Model X Beta prototype is complete, while the Model 3 Alpha prototype is considered “probable of achievement.”
GM already has 50 of their 200 mile prototype running around town. They’re getting the bugs out of it now. Tesla is still working on the prototype.
and finally: "This report on Tesla comes after analysts at Bank of America said last week that Tesla could be facing a huge collapse, writing: “We believe Tesla has seemingly managed to offset a steady stream of negative news and weak financial results by issuing long-term targets that, in our view, are often quite difficult to fathom.”
About on par with their early computers. They put a better user interface on existing technology. The units themselves are not the end product. The end product is the i-store. That’s impressive.
I would say the ipad was more revolutionary as it opened up applications virtually unknown at the time it was conceived. By itself it destroyed the portable aviation GPS market and is now a portal device in all manner of businesses from restaurants to medical facilities.
I’m not going to bother looking up figures, but this is a percentage of what? Margin? Market cap? Gross? Fifteen percent of a small number isn’t necessarily “more” than 3% of a large number.
Why? Vertical integration failed years and years ago. Tesla can supply Ford, just as Lotus supplied Tesla. Lots of companies buy steel from Tata. Hyundai does lots of facility work for others. There’s nothing unusual about being suppliers to each other.
