If they are at capacity, why don’t they charge more money?
Update: I guess technically it's $50k, the other day I read the average selling price was $60k and that was stuck in my head. Regardless, far away from $35k!
Twenty thousand dollars.
And they are outselling BMW’s entire passenger car lineup.
It cost them a pretty penny to get here but cash is literally pouring in for Tesla right now.
And also pouring out, they are losing a massive amount of money every quarter.
Source?
They are now at capacity and they are expected (by Tesla top management) to announce profitablity for this quarter. In other words, they were not a capacity last quarter and not profitable.
That's why with the record sales and production of this summer, Q3 earnings publication will be very interesting. But we won't know the actual result until end of October. By then, the shorts (with billions in backing) will do all their best to give the company an extremely bad look. Because if Tesla manage to turn a profit this Q3, they'll lose dozens of billions. It's now or never for them.
Please stop with this thought process. TSLA is doing a fine job all on its own making themselves look bad. On the business side, Musk has missed how many production estimates? There are also concerns about quality. On the personal side, he's still harping on this pedophile thing /facepalm. Then what looks like a complete lie about being bought out.
The way you fix the shorts problem is to actually deliver on your promises and make some money. Deflecting that it's the shorts causing problems for TSLA is typical TSLA deflecting the horrible job they have done at running TSLA.
Take this Reuters article for instance, which has been published and translated by dozens of top newspapers: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-germany-daimler/ele...
3rd paragraph: "The market for upscale electric cars is Tesla’s to lose, with sales of its entry-level Model 3 sedan expected to reach about 50,000 cars this year and almost double that in 2019."
All sources indicates that Tesla has already produced 50K Model 3. In the first three quarters. There's is still one quarter to go in 2018. And Tesla plan to produce more than 300K Model 3 next year, not 100K.
What kind of error is that? Reuters is aware of this "mistake" and they are not correcting it. All media who published the report and were made aware of the wrong numbers kept it "as is", even though the 50K has already been proven wrong.
How can Reuters and co keep such blatant errors while knowing it's bullshit? For some reasons, the disinformation only increases as Tesla pressures the legacy automakers margin (Tesla surpassed both BMW and Mercedes in US car sales this summer while the German are losing big time).
Reuters & co might not be short themselves. But they knowingly play the short game and kep spreading the FUD ("See these terrible numbers? Who can expect Tesla to turn a profit? Now, let's hear what competitors and short sellers have to say...").
Who cares? What influence do you think this article and that estimate has?
"Disinformation"; that's laughable. Tesla and Musk are being sued and investigated for stock manipulation, but you're crying about Reuters being off on their prediction. Who is showing bias? Where is the outrage?
>And just as Tesla surpasses BMW and Mercedes in car sales in the US, it's only getting worse.
Sedan sales, while the whole industry moves to CUVs and SUVs. Do you think this is sustainable, or is it clearing a backlog? Why can you get a car in 2 weeks now?
I never understand how this is a legit argument.
Just because one party shows disinformation doesn't make another party's disinformation right.
I don't think you know what disinformation is. You really believe one party is deliberately misleading, while the other is not?
FUD is what people do to Apple when they are making money hand over fist every quarter. TSLA is just a terribly run company that may end up out of business. Which is sad, because they have what appears to be a good product. Their production arrogance may not be able to be overcome though.
This is also standard Musk to blame short-sellers for TSLAs financial and production woes. Please tell me how short-sellers impact TSLA's production floor? The short-seller problem fixes itself if TSLA ever delivers.
>And Tesla plan to produce more than 300K Model 3 next year, not 100K.
I'll be amazed if they hit that number. They had to pull out all of the stops to hit the last one.
Yes. That's pretty bad. Their growth is quite backwards, they've learned to lose more money over time.
http://ir.tesla.com/news-releases/news-release-details/tesla...
http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/7235e525-db16-470c-8dce-9ec...
EVEN IF WE IGNORE $600 Million worth of CapEx, Tesla is still $100 million loss. Again, Tesla lost a total of $742 million, and no, investments into equipment or building space does NOT fully explain the loss.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/07/12/ba...
There is no universe where Tesla will be manufacturing 25,000 (300k/12) $40-50k cars per month. BMW alone sells something like 9,000 3-series vehicles in that price range per month. It's not credible that Tesla, with a limited sales network, limited charging infrastructure, high costs and long backlog is going to magically take away double digit percentages of the highly competitive small luxury sedan market.
They have been an amazingly innovative company. Hopefully when they do bankrupt the carcass gets picked up by a company who is a good steward of the assets.
Did you miss the report last week that Tesla is outselling BMW’s entire passenger car lineup? [1]
Also, double check your numbers - “The BMW 3 Series (the Model 3's direct competitor) sold only 3,751 cars in August.“
Tesla delivered between 17,000 - 20,000 Model 3’s in August, by comparison.
> Ford makes 50-90k F-150's a month without the drama.
“Production of the F-150, the most important vehicle in Ford’s showrooms, has ground to a halt.
Ford on Wednesday was forced to suspend all production of the F-150 after a fire at a key supplier’s manufacturing facility. It remained unclear how long the plants in Kansas City, Missouri, and Dearborn, Michigan, will need to wait before building F-150s again” [2]
That was back in May. Today they announced a recall of 2 million F150s due to a fire risk which is estimated to cost them $140 million dollars. [3]
[1] - https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2018/09/06/tesla-model-3-outsel...
[2] - https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/why-the-ford-f-150-is-a-...
[3] - https://interestingengineering.com/ford-recalls-more-than-2-...
A fire at a factory shutting it down is not hte same type of drama as constantly missing estimates and using a tent to extend the line.
GP said Ford makes the F150s with “no drama” and yet their factory is burning and their cars are catching fire — something I recall Tesla getting flack for, but Tesla never had a $140 million recall for it.
I get it, different standards for different companies. The company making 20 mpg pickup trucks in business for 115 years I completely agree it’s a different kind of drama for their factory to burn, all F150 vehicle production to cease, and to recall 2 million vehicles for spontaneously combusting.
GP said, “It's not credible that Tesla, with a limited sales network, limited charging infrastructure, high costs and long backlog is going to magically take away double digit percentages of the highly competitive small luxury sedan market.”
Except that’s exactly what they’ve done. Fan or not, those are the facts, and I think to debate about Tesla it helps if you’re not in denial about their actual accomplishments.
Ford had an F-150 production stoppage due to a fire, and was able to restart production a few weeks later. They had the capital and (invisible, unsexy) team to deploy Russian heavy lift aircraft to move key tools in hours and restore production. It was largely invisible.
With Tesla, you have the constant stream of PR and the apparent need for the CEO to personally assume control of the factory to meet minimum requirements. The process and company is broken.
The Model 3 certainly smashed all records for new car reservations — 232,000 in two days, 500,000 by July 2017. (The previous record was for the 1955 Citroën DS that had 80,000 deposits during the ten days of the Paris Auto Show) [Says Wikipedia]
But these are by no means pre-orders. Refundable $1,000 deposits, of which about 25% have actually been refunded to date, it’s not so much of a hook when you can click a button to refund it, and the car costs $50k+
> There’s no world where 25,000 people a month are showing up and driving away with a car.
Do you dispute that 20,000 people showed up, paid $50,000+, and drove away with Model 3’s in August?
Do you think that number won’t be 25,000 in September?
You sound offended that Tesla has a hot product that people have lined up to buy. Yeah, they took pre-orders and people have waited years to get one. Because they want one. Because it’s like nothing else on the road today. Because, as the WSJ said, it’s a “rainbow-farting spaceship.”
This is the CEO that wanted his 3 models to spell S-E-X but couldn't because of Ford’s trademark, so he settled for “S3X”. You might not like his style, but you’re simply denying the reality of the sales numbers.
Asking because if it's the first case then of course the comparison would not be fair.
Yeah there are about 400,000 people lined up to buy them, and they will keep on selling them just as fast as they can make them for many many more months.
We don’t know how many new reservation holders are being added at the end of the list, just that the total dollar value of all deposits on hand is increasing.
You’re right though it’s not a comparison. No car company in history has been able to get 400,000 people to put down $1,000 on a vehicle, sight unseen, never mind an electric one at that.
The BMW i3, by comparison, sold a grand total of 418 cars last month. No one is lining up around the block to buy that one.
Honest question: when did you start following this company? Elon has claimed profitability for years. Where is it? Where are the economies of scale that were promised?
>By then, the shorts (with billions in backing) will do all their best to give the company an extremely bad look.
The shorts will? Really? Which stories are false?