Electric cars

AdrianC

Fine.

So...
If Tesla's Q3 2018 losses are less than $500m, I'm donating a fiver to Cardiff ARC, and a fiver to Guide Dogs.
If Tesla's Q3 2018 losses are more than $50m, you're donating a tenner to the Alzheimer's Society.

Agreed?

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

Fine.

So...
If Tesla's Q3 2018 losses are less than $500m, I'm donating a fiver to Cardiff ARC, and a fiver to Guide Dogs.
If Tesla's Q3 2018 losses are more than $50m, you're donating a tenner to the Alzheimer's Society.

Agreed?

Yep, agreed.

Martyn1981

Tesla to increase battery pack production:

Tesla Bringing 3 New “Grohmann Machines” Online To Reach 8,000 Battery Packs/Week

Though this paragraph sounds a bit overly optimistic. I wonder if it needs some clarification and relates to a part of the process?

Tesla expects that these machines will enable battery production at 3 times the current rate and for 1/3 of the cost of today’s modules. That’s an impressive competitive advantage that Tesla has carved out for itself that takes battery production beyond just high volume and into a whole new level of production optimization.

AdrianC

So either the packs are currently built elsewhere and bought in, or they've built up one monumental stockpile.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

... Q2 2018 - Tesla's capex (their investment in assets) was $610m, against losses of $718m.

http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/7235e525-db16-470c-8dce-9ecac0ad7712
Cash Flow and Liquidity, page 4.

Hi

That may be the case, but what needs to be recognised is that this is additional capital expenditure on assets within the period as opposed to the total capital investment or asset value to date ... you'll note that within the $27.9billion of assets detailed on page 8 there's a line for 'Property, plant and equipment' detailing a 2018H1 increase of $942million to $10.97billion ... this is important because all of the assets need to be both financed & depreciated even when revenues are low due to either no production or low build volumes of new model lines ...

What is evident in the section you mentioned is that at the end of Q2 finished goods inventory increased by "$579 million as a result of the timing of deliveries", this likely resulting from the ramping up build at the end of Q2 before the volume-related logistics chain was fully able to cope ... it's almost certain that this has been addressed and deliveries are settling down to a normal repeatable level - if so it would be expected to have the majority of that additional inventory value (cost not sales value) to Q3 sales revenue, effectively boosting Q3 results ...

HTH
Z

almillar

Company making a loss != a product line being profitable.

It's never been in dispute that Tesla as a corporation has been making losses, due to the huge investments it's making.

Nobody has been arguing about individual product lines.

Once again, I don't think there is anything wrong in what I've posted, the fault lies in your understanding/interpretation of it.

I'm only asking for the latest, published, undisputed facts - you can't say what the 'present' is, because that won't be published until the 'future' - the best information we have, yes really, is the most recent past - Q2. In terms of reported fact, I reckon that's the best we've got to go on, until Q3 is actually reported.

Also, this is a special case. Elon / Tesla have said that profits might be reached in Q3 if production was high enough, it is Q3, and production has been reported as being very good, so it would have been remiss of me not to point out that they may, now, be in profit.

I know what you're saying, but I would reiterate that in my opinion, you can't say a company is IN PROFIT until it actually reports that it is IN PROFIT. They only do these reports 4 times a year, and you'll just have to be patient.

Nope. That's not an equivalent. To guess that a profit will be reached when production hits the necessary level is a reasonable guess since they have managed this twice before. So the business model appears sound. That doesn't mean they will make a profit this quarter or next, and they may need production to ramp even higher, but it does suggest a profit is likely based on the info we have.

You've reasoned a result based on a methodology. Someone else can come to a different result based on a differnt methodology. Without me getting into which is right or wrong, people can think different things, and come to different conclusions.

as they have reached profitability.

I refer to my comments above. You're getting ahead of yourself, in my opinion. Please don't tell me my opinion is wrong again.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Tesla to increase battery pack production:

Tesla Bringing 3 New “Grohmann Machines” Online To Reach 8,000 Battery Packs/Week

Though this paragraph sounds a bit overly optimistic. I wonder if it needs some clarification and relates to a part of the process?

Hi

Looks like it's a case that the headline doesn't quite match the detail ...

In a nutshell, it looks like current model 3 battery production capacity is 6000 unit's/week and there are three new automated 'Grohmann Machines' (German based automation engineering company now dedicated to support Tesla) on order to increase capacity & reduce cost. The first of the three production machines (/automated cells) will raise capacity to 8000/week, so they look to have capacity of 2000/week each ...

If the reduction in cost is in line with claims (which is possible when introducing a highly automated process as direct labour effectively becomes insignificant) it's likely that the existing machinery will be reallocated to other lines/products (if possible) or simply retired ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

So either the packs are currently built elsewhere and bought in, or they've built up one monumental stockpile.

Hi

Probably not the case when you look at the detail - see previous post above.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

What is evident in the section you mentioned is that at the end of Q2 finished goods inventory increased by "$579 million as a result of the timing of deliveries", this likely resulting from the ramping up build at the end of Q2 before the volume-related logistics chain was fully able to cope ... it's almost certain that this has been addressed and deliveries are settling down to a normal repeatable level - if so it would be expected to have the majority of that additional inventory value (cost not sales value) to Q3 sales revenue, effectively boosting Q3 results ...

HTH
Z

Also towards the end of Q2 they restricted deliveries within the US to avoid hitting the 200,000 EV sales figure that would trigger the reduction in tax break for new buyers until a quarter later.

Everything about late Q2 was, shall we say, a bit artificial.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

I'm only asking for the latest, published, undisputed facts - you can't say what the 'present' is, because that won't be published until the 'future' - the best information we have, yes really, is the most recent past - Q2. In terms of reported fact, I reckon that's the best we've got to go on, until Q3 is actually reported.

Nope. That's just an attempt to lay into those deceased horses again by yet again (and again, and again, and again) changing context or misinterpreting a statement of mine. You wanted to know if Tesla was in profit, or making a profit, only now are you referring to past reports. Plus of course, the past does not prove if they are now in profit.

Your previous requests and statements did not say what you now claim they said:

almillar wrote: »

You really do have trouble with the present and the future, don't you? Renault ARE profitable, the Zoe IS profitable, according to Renault. Tesla ARE NOT profitable.

You even used capitals to emphasise the present tense. Your rude (because you don't understand) response actually brings up the issue of 'present' and future. We are currently in the present, yes? The present is Q3, yes? Tesla might (just might) be in profit in Q3 ....... the present.

Or:

almillar wrote: »

No, no, no. See, you're twisting again. Tesla aren't in profit. With no further comment, good or bad. I'm not pushing it nor promoting it, in fact, as I've said, you seem very defensive of Tesla and I though you were brushing over it.

again, 'Tesla aren't in profit', you didn't say 'weren't' nor 'won't', you said aren't, which is present.

So the issue here is not that I've said anything wrong, or misleading, in fact the issue is that in trying to make a comment idiot proof I forgot the golden rule:

Nothing is idiot proof, as idiot's are too ingenious.

almillar wrote: »

I know what you're saying, but I would reiterate that in my opinion, you can't say a company is IN PROFIT until it actually reports that it is IN PROFIT. They only do these reports 4 times a year, and you'll just have to be patient.

But you are saying they are not in profit! And we are back to one rule for you, and another rule for me.

So I can't correctly say that they may, or may not be in profit, but you can say that they are not when you don't know. Please stop spinning and wiggling and give it up now.

almillar wrote: »

You've reasoned a result based on a methodology. Someone else can come to a different result based on a differnt methodology. Without me getting into which is right or wrong, people can think different things, and come to different conclusions.

Nope. They can come to a different result, I explained all of this to you, but my result is based on past results and information, so is a fair and reasoned guess, whereas their result would be despite the past results and information, so an unreasonable guess - it may well turn out to be correct, but that doesn't mean it's fair and reasonable.

almillar wrote: »

I refer to my comments above. You're getting ahead of yourself, in my opinion. Please don't tell me my opinion is wrong again.

Nope. This issue, had you referenced it properly, was about your repeated claims that Tesla has not made a profit. They have, after the S and the X. So the issue is in the past, not the future, so you are, let me think ..... failing to get behind yourself ..... or something like that.

I've told you this numerous times, as has Z, and I think you'll notice that in response to the same part of your post that I was responding too, this is what Ade said:

AdrianC wrote: »

Originally Posted by almillar View Post
But I think someone could also make a 'calculated guess' that they won't make a profit - they haven't so far

They have in the past. Twice! $22m in Q3 2016, and $11m in Q1 2013.

So I'm not telling you that your opinion is wrong, I'm telling you straight - that you are wrong and have been everytime you've made this false claim.

So yet another post from you, and every single part of it is wrong, mostly due to spin, amending conversations, and getting key facts completely backwards.

Are we done now?