Electric cars

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

Unless you have some kind of inside information, then whether they are in profit in Q3 or not is 100% pure speculation right up until the moment the results are announced.


Yes, "in profit" is one of the possible options, so it is "a fact" in that sense - although it's more of a basic truism.


Schrodinger's accountancy?

Hi

Really? ... as in any business, the performance accounted for over a period of time is the sum of accumulated daily performance, which in turn results from the accumulative effect of individual transactions ... effectively what happened today may result in a loss, tomorrow may be different - this is particularly relevant to transaction variability in sectors such as retail or in manufacturing organisations experiencing periods of flux such as product line change or expansion/contraction ...

Tesla have stated that they should (/hope to) enter profitability in Q3/2018, maybe that shows as a profit for the full period, maybe it results in a loss for part of the period & a profit for the remainder probably makes no difference to the company's or investor's position ..what's important is that the direction of travel is positive .... the important test being whether the sum of the quarterly updates resolves to the audited 2018 year end accounts.

Effectively, if the Q3 update describes a profit for the entire quarter or just the latter part of the quarter probably makes no difference to interested parties as any true investor pressure will be relieved pending Q4 results when production instability resulting from the recent (Q3) introduction of improved process efficiencies begin to deliver their associated cost savings ... as long as the next phase of revenue intensive organic expansion isn't given the green light in the next few months, whichever proves to be the case, Q4 is likely to show an accounting improvement over Q3 ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

Unless you have some kind of inside information, then whether they are in profit in Q3 or not is 100% pure speculation right up until the moment the results are announced.


Yes, "in profit" is one of the possible options, so it is "a fact" in that sense - although it's more of a basic truism.


Schrodinger's accountancy?

You're doing an Al!

Stating that they could be in profit is a fact.
Stating that they could be in loss is a fact.
Stating that they will be in profit (or in loss) is speculation.

My original statement was to stress that stating they are 'currently' losing money in a discussion taking place during Q3 might be wrong (or might not). Simples.

I'm fascinated by the need that some have to argue, even when a statement is undeniable. It's actually quite funny that a statement made to clarify that comments made 'today' are speculative, not factual (raising concerns over the casual use of the claims that they are 'currently' loss making), should raise so much concern from those whose only interest appears to be, to raise concern. Fascinating.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Stating that they could be in profit is a fact.
Stating that they could be in loss is a fact.
Stating that they will be in profit (or in loss) is speculation.

Yep, that's what I said.

The first two are, as I said, a basic truism, so really don't need stating.

almillar

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The fact you 'don't see the point' is exactly what you can't see.

I've re-posted the statements now twice for you to read, but I'll try to walk you through them again in the hope that you will see the light.

You and I were having a nice chat about Tesla, and the 'fact' that they aren't currently profitable. We were both taking a relaxed approach to this, and clearly on the same page that references were to the last quarter end.

I then threw in a simple fact (please note it is a fact), that since our discussion was taking place in Q3, then to cover my back against later pedantry using my Q3 (date of posting) statements against me, it was important to point out that Tesla might 'currently' (in quarter 3) be profitable.

It is a simple statement. It is 100% correct, and I believe 100% appropriate to the discussion given the time and Tesla's suggestion that Q3 might be the quarter they make a profit.

Since then you have gone all round the houses trying to spin what I've said, or change the narrative. But it's all been a pointless waste of time, simply due to your lack of ability to follow a rational conversation that's taking part outside of the time frame on which our earlier comments were based.

Correct. Now try to understand the difference, don't be afraid to ask for help.

My statement about Q3 was to point out the potential for a profit, and therefore the potential for us to have been using inappropriate language when bluntly referring to current and loss.

My statement suggesting a small loss for Q3 is simply me expressing an opinion, it is speculation, not fact.

Please don't mix the two issues, it's not that complicated even if it has taken you over two weeks to get this far ...... so far.

Got it. No accusations of FUD, narrative changing or anything. Fin.

[Gonna be a long day!] I did not speculate that they could be in profit in Q3, I stated a fact, that they could be in profit.

The point of saying it, is explained above, as we were both, when you get down into the weeds of the discussion, misusing the claim that they are currently not profitable, as neither of us knew that for certain. Please go back, have another read. I even tried to clear up your misunderstanding immediately that it was not an argumentative point, but a clarification.

Your crusade is a waste of time - all it has proven is that you can't follow a simple conversation that is factual about dates.

'Misusing the claim that they are not currently profitable' - That wasn't my claim BTW, I disagreed over 'current', not 'profitable' but I'll not repeat myself. You've made clear you were only referring to Q3, and that I should not be referring back to Q2. Done.

I was asking you to leave me alone, you changed the narrative and tried to make out I was having a go at you posting on the forum. That's not true.


OK then, but if you keep arguing with someone, you can't simultaneously ask them to leave you alone - right to reply.


I've already explained this, but you've tried to keep your misunderstanding going again today by asking if I'm banning you (how sad and pathetic).

If you stuck to the real discussion and didn't spin of into separate realities all the time I think you would have already gone away and left me alone.

What is the problem? Just click on the quote button and start typing. If you want to put in multiple quotes from different people, just open a new tab, quote them, copy and paste.


Done, I hope, thank you.



This isn't rocket science, not even EV science.

Now for the good news. All that seems to be left (your having retracted all the rest of it) is your misunderstandings of posts made, so we might finally be there.

But in the future, if I say something that you think 99% means one thing, don't go for the 1%, over and over and over and over and over ...................................

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, "in profit" is one of the possible options, so it is "a fact" in that sense - although it's more of a basic truism.

Yes, I think the above was my point all along. But, Martyn's (and zeupdater) been pointing out that the other quarters losses were expected, in 2 quarters, profit was predicted, and happened, and this, Q3, is one that profit has been predicted, which is why Martyn didn't like me referring to Q2, as the situation has changed since that.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

The first two are, as I said, a basic truism, so really don't need stating.

I totally agree, but had I not said it I'm sure you or Car54 would have tried to spin something. Of course I didn't realise that it would confuse Al so much he would spend weeks trying to argue against a 'basic truism' as you say.

But hey ho, I can only try to reduce spin and nonsense, I can't prevent it being posted just for the sake of EV negativity, nor an inability to comprehend basic statements.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

OK then, but if you keep arguing with someone, you can't simultaneously ask them to leave you alone - right to reply.

Not arguing with you, painstakingly and repeatedly trying to explain what should be obvious so that you will stop following me around and saying that I'm wrong.

I think we are there now, and for what it counts, I think referring to a current loss, when both (all) parties are aware that references are to the last reporting period is OK, but as we get later and later into the next period, and 'the silly people' are watching what we say just to spin any disagreement possible, then again some clarification regarding 'currently' may be warranted.

Then again, having made such a fuss about it (me, that is), if the 'silly people' do, do this, then I can now reference back to these pages.

molerat

Ooops


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45672813

Martyn1981

molerat wrote: »

Ooops


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45672813

One way or another I suspect he'll be more careful with his tweets now. Silly billy.

Car_54

Jasonaldean wrote: »

It is the new invention of Electric cars. The invention of this thing the rate of fuel is low in day by day. I am really impress to see this new invention in this future.

Who said “Two nations divided by a common language”?

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

One way or another I suspect he'll be more careful with his tweets now. Silly billy.

I don't think he's taking the hint - he refused the SEC's settlement offer...


https://gizmodo.com/report-elon-musk-rejected-sec-settlement-at-last-minut-1829387515