After 12th straight quarterly loss in a row, Tesla Head Elon Musk says they are "hell-bent on being - Polidicks

[quote]In a phone call today about the Q1 results, the focus was on getting Tesla’s rates of production up. The company had some good news to report on that front: in Q1 2016, it sold 2,659 Model X cars, as opposed to the 507 it sold in the quarter prior. Tesla also reported that Model S orders were up 45 percent compared to Q1 the year before. That’s something analysts were looking closely at going into the call, hoping to see that demand for the still-nascent Model 3 did not cut into demand for the Model S.In fact, Tesla said that 93 percent of the people who reserved Model 3 vehicles had never interacted with the company before. But, the company noted, some potential customers have decided to buy a Model S first because Model 3 priority is given to Model S and X owners. Musk admitted on the earnings call that Tesla has struggled with manufacturing its cars at a fast enough clip to meet demand. “Tesla is gonna be hell-bent on becoming the best manufacturer on Earth,” he said. “Thus far I think we’ve done a good job on design and technology… the key thing we need to achieve in the future is also to be the leader in manufacturing. It’s the thing that we need to obviously solve if we’re going to scale and scale rapidly.”[/quote] [URL="http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/tesla-announces-12th-quarterly-loss-but-promises-half-million-cars-by-2018/"]source[/URL]

Imagine if more rich people used their money to try and better the world instead of hoarding it away in hidden bank accounts.

if i was super rich, I'd want to be like Musk, he's rad af

It doesn't matter how innovative the technology is or how driven the folks behind it are, a company with no solvency is in a bad, bad place. Thankfully, if the primary issue is simply that they are currently unable to keep up with demand, and thus can't exceed their break even point, then... Well, there are worse issues than having too much demand. The plan to significantly ramp up production will hopefully be enough to turn things around. If not company is going to suffer from loss of investor confidence, and could even ultimately go under.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50263564]It doesn't matter how innovative the technology is or how driven the folks behind it are, a company with no solvency is in a bad, bad place. Thankfully, if the primary issue is simply that they are currently unable to keep up with demand, and thus can't exceed their break even point, then... Well, there are worse issues than having too much demand. The plan to significantly ramp up production will hopefully be enough to turn things around. If not company is going to suffer from loss of investor confidence, and could even ultimately go under.[/QUOTE] I agree completely. TSLA is wildly overvalued on the market right now, and with their low production/inability to stay on target with new products/technology issues with their batteries, it's very likely that the markets will soon reject them as a concept in the next few years. Fingers crossed that they can turn it around and ramp up production to meet demand, but from my cursory understanding of their process, that may be hard to do in a compressed period of time.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50263564]It doesn't matter how innovative the technology is or how driven the folks behind it are, a company with no solvency is in a bad, bad place. Thankfully, if the primary issue is simply that they are currently unable to keep up with demand, and thus can't exceed their break even point, then... Well, there are worse issues than having too much demand. The plan to significantly ramp up production will hopefully be enough to turn things around. If not company is going to suffer from loss of investor confidence, and could even ultimately go under.[/QUOTE] Well, they have $1.44b in cash reserves, and afaik they're making money on each sale. Putting their money towards expanding production seems like the best bet. Of course they need to show that they can make money as well, but as long as they can show that sales are increasing and they can expand production, I don't see why investors would run away. While the comparison with Amazon isn't fantastic, it's the same principle - invest in the business while running losses, then reap the benefits down the line. Okay, I misunderstood what you meant with break even point.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50263493]Imagine if more rich people used their money to try and better the world instead of hoarding it away in hidden bank accounts.[/QUOTE] It would be fine even if they were just squirreling it away as long as it was US bank accounts and not foreign tax havens.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50263493]Imagine if more rich people used their money to try and better the world instead of hoarding it away in hidden bank accounts.[/QUOTE] I do not think Musk is in it for the money, but sees making money as vehicle to realize an agenda Remember Martin Shhkreli? Even that dick went into the medical industry because according to him (reliable or not) he knew someone he cared for when growing up. That person was sick and died. It seems people who are rich are either motivated by enormous greed or a need to serve, with money as side project.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50263564]It doesn't matter how innovative the technology is or how driven the folks behind it are, a company with no solvency is in a bad, bad place. Thankfully, if the primary issue is simply that they are currently unable to keep up with demand, and thus can't exceed their break even point, then... Well, there are worse issues than having too much demand. The plan to significantly ramp up production will hopefully be enough to turn things around. If not company is going to suffer from loss of investor confidence, and could even ultimately go under.[/QUOTE] It's no secret that if the Model 3 fails to meet expectations, it's game over for Tesla. They can only maintain the momentum for so long and it's quite amazing they've made it this far. A lot of people were counting them out from day one. At least they're currently (barely) liquid :toot:

Tesla has stated before they hope to be profitable by the end of the year. They are working hard on being more efficient with their capital. They aren't profitable right now pretty much by choice, they are reinvesting everything to expand rapidly. Tesla is probably the fastest moving car manufacturer right now. No one invests in TSLA for what it is now, but for what it has the potential to be. The loss statement seems irrelevant and sensationalist to add to Musk's statement, especially since a loss was expected and it was less of a loss than expected. Tesla can't rely on external sources of capital forever though, and does need to become profitable in the next few years at the latest. Once they have the Gigafactory and Model 3 out though they will probably be okay. Tesla Energy is also just starting to ship Powerwalls to residential places, and several Solarcity storage projects are in the works which all use Tesla's Powerpacks.

[QUOTE=Morgen;50264133]The loss statement seems irrelevant and sensationalist to add to Musk's statement, especially since a loss was expected and it was less of a loss than expected. [/QUOTE] no [URL="http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/02/tesla-posts-loss-in-q4-but-expects-to-be-in-the-black-starting-next-month/"]Tesla posts loss in Q4 but expects to be in the black “starting next month”[/URL]

[QUOTE=NixNax123;50264144]no [URL="http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/02/tesla-posts-loss-in-q4-but-expects-to-be-in-the-black-starting-next-month/"]Tesla posts loss in Q4 but expects to be in the black “starting next month”[/URL][/QUOTE] The title misrepresents what he said. He said profitable by GAAP standards in Q4 (which they might push back now to increase production plans for Model 3 demand). He also said they expect to be cashflow positive from March onwards, not for the whole of Q1.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50263493]Imagine if more rich people used their money to try and better the world instead of hoarding it away in hidden bank accounts.[/QUOTE] Now imagine if we had actual governments around the world that actually did their jobs and forced them to use their money to try and better the world instead of allowing them to hoard it and forced them to pay what they owed. And that also were willing to support the work of companies like Tesla. It's a nice fantasy to have, and if nothing else, it is something which we can strive to work towards achieving.

[QUOTE=Govna;50264301]Now imagine if we had actual governments around the world that actually did their jobs and forced them to use their money to try and better the world instead of allowing them to hoard it and forced them to pay what they owed. And that also were willing to support the work of companies like Tesla. It's a nice fantasy to have, and if nothing else, it is something which we can strive to work towards achieving.[/QUOTE] Reminder that storing money in banks/investing it in stocks etc is not "hoarding" and that the [I]only[/I] problem is that they're keeping it offshore.

[QUOTE=phygon;50264676]Reminder that storing money in banks/investing it in stocks etc is not "hoarding" and that the [I]only[/I] problem is that they're keeping it offshore.[/QUOTE] To expound for people who may not understand: money held in banks, for example, can be loaned out. It doesn't just sit in the bank coffers doing nothing.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50264755]To expound for people who may not understand: money held in banks, for example, can be loaned out. It doesn't just sit in the bank coffers doing nothing.[/QUOTE] This. If some rich dude drops a billion in the bank, something around 10% of it must be held by the bank. The other 90% goes back into the economy, because banks make money off of loans so they have no incentive to just hold it. That 90% still stimulates the economy even if it is being held. That 10% is what withdraws come from. Money doesn't just sit in the bank, it gets loaned out If said rich dude instead saves that billion in stocks, then their money is still in the economy because those companies are literally holding that money. It's okay to be rich and not spend your money. It's not like people just stuff the money beneath their mattresses, THAT would be keeping it out of the economy but it also would make no sense to do this. The issue is that when they're putting the money into tax havens, that money can't be loaned out to US businesses and thus it has escaped our economy until they bring it back (if they ever do).

[QUOTE=phygon;50264822]This. If some rich dude drops a billion in the bank, something around 10% of it must be held by the bank. The other 90% goes back into the economy, because banks make money off of loans so they have no incentive to just hold it. That 90% still stimulates the economy even if it is being held. That 10% is what withdraws come from. Money doesn't just sit in the bank, it gets loaned out If said rich dude instead saves that billion in stocks, then their money is still in the economy because those companies are literally holding that money. It's okay to be rich and not spend your money. It's not like people just stuff the money beneath their mattresses, THAT would be keeping it out of the economy but it also would make no sense to do this. [b]The issue is that when they're putting the money into tax havens, that money can't be loaned out to US businesses and thus it has escaped our economy until they bring it back (if they ever do).[/b][/QUOTE] I forgot the details but there's actually some tricks that are being used to have that money indirectly flow back into America without the income tax penalty. It's why people shouldn't expect a huge burst in economic activity if companies are forced to pay tax on their deferred offshore earnings, people should only expect the federal government to gain a bit of revenue. [url]https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/tax-reform/report/2014/01/09/81681/offshore-corporate-profits-the-only-thing-trapped-is-tax-revenue/[/url] [quote]Much ‘offshore’ income is actually already invested in the United States To qualify as “offshore” for tax purposes, U.S. corporate money must be controlled by a foreign subsidiary, but it does not have to be invested abroad. In fact, for many corporations, these foreign profits already sit in Manhattan, in accounts in American banks. For example, as of last May, Apple had $102 billion in “permanently invested overseas” income not subject to the U.S. corporate tax. On Apple’s books, this untaxed profit is “offshore” because it is controlled by two Irish subsidiaries—even though these subsidiaries park their funds in bank accounts in New York. This $102 billion that has yet to be subject to U.S. taxation is already in the United States, not trapped in Ireland. Apple cannot use this money directly for American real estate acquisitions, dividends, share buybacks, or funding for operations in Cupertino, but the money is being loaned out in the American economy by American banks, funding American mortgages and small-business loans just like any other American deposit. If bank accounts do not provide a high enough return, foreign subsidiaries of American corporations can use their unrepatriated income to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds or invest in the U.S. stock market, as long as the investments are in unrelated corporations. Apple can use unrepatriated profits to buy General Electric stock, and General Electric can buy Apple’s corporate bonds, all without “returning the money to the United States.” The drive to keep profits “offshore” for tax purposes may limit a parent corporation’s investment options somewhat, but domestic businesses and consumers still have access to multinational corporations’ foreign earnings. This money is not “offshore” economically, and it is not idle—it is already circulating in the American economy, being used for investments in American businesses and families.[/quote]