Hacker News Reader

Comment by radium3d | Hacker News Reader

I get the urge to block these news sources every time I see a tesla article pop up in my feed, but I have a personal policy of not blocking any news source, I just refuse to click them any longer despite the strong urge I get after reading the headline. It's one mass overreaction. I imagine Tesla pushing into profit with time to spare in the near future and is anyone going to call out these authors, publishers?

I wish there was a way to see who is paying these authors and who is donating to these publishers. If we could follow the money it may reveal some motivation beyond the click bait headlines, or maybe not.

View on HN

This is Bloomberg news... a generally respected reporting source. The owner is Michael Bloomberg if you are curious.. but it's not just Bloomberg that is bearish on Tesla it's any news reporting source which has looked at Tesla financials...

At least once a week the Financial Times has been roasting Tesla/Elon too.

This is not a conspiracy. It's basic math and accounting.

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/09/07/1536327657000/If-it-h...

The manufacturing has been accelerating consistently, this is why I'm skeptical of the outside news articles which tend to ignore the progress.

Bloomberg is very positive from a production standpoint.... but each car produced loses money no?

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/

No.

OK can you be more helpful and maybe back that assertion up with evidence/data?

Here's some for you: https://www.quora.com/Is-Tesla-losing-money-on-each-Model-3-...

I guess by definition, as long as they lose money, they lose money on each Model 3.

But really what you're implying is, when Fremont is a closer to full produciton, each Model 3 will net a loss. Best engineers say no. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2018-tesla-model-3-munro-...

Even Tesla's public financials show they lost more money, when they made less model 3s.

The embedded assumption is that current demand is sustainable, rather than simply a reduction in a multi-year fanatic backlog.

Embedded inside that assumption are a lot of assumptions about ramps in production with consistent quality and finish, and lack of EV competition.

I personally disagree that Tesla can maintain production and quality at these levels without needing more financing, but the verdict is definitely not in yet.

You don't care about profitability anymore?

Now you want to talk about demand? OK.

- Tesla is mentioned in multiple current top rap songs.

- Elon has the most viewed episode of the most viewed podcast.

- Tesla is working on a rocket powered car.

- Teslas are featured in major TV shows and movies.

- $45k auto loan is within range of your average middle class budget.

You think that wont translate to sales? We'll see.

I think a lot of promises (and outright lies) have been stated.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/tesla-stock-drops-after-comp...

> I imagine Tesla pushing into profit with time to spare

Is your imagination based on any facts, or just your feelings?

From my point of view, they are not currently profitable and becoming profitable is not in the near future. Are there any independent analysts that are predicting Telsa profitability on the same timeline as Tesla themselves?

Based on the information direct from Tesla about the consistent manufacturing acceleration.

So in your comment further up, you're implying that Bloomberg et al have some kind of ulterior motives for writing articles about Tesla's shortcomings and are decrying them for it, but you're also willing to take full stock in information directly from Tesla without questioning it?

You might be right that these authors have some kind of bias against Tesla, but it is a 100% certainty that Tesla has a bias for itself. It seems hypocritical to distrust independent news organizations but then blindly trust Tesla.

I'm talking strictly manufacturing numbers, are you saying Bloomberg or any other outside organization knows a more accurate number?

If you're looking at "strictly manufacturing numbers", then you're only looking at part of the picture, conveniently, the part that Tesla wants you to look at.

News organizations provide extra contextual information that reveals that "strictly manufacturing numbers" aren't representative of the company's performance. This is why they are valued.

But that's getting away from the point: you're distrustful of news organizations for possibly having motives, and yet you're trustful of Tesla even though they definitely have motives. It doesn't make sense.

They may have motives but there are laws in place that prevent them from falsifying the data required to come to an intelligent conclusion of whether Tesla will pay off their debt or not so the data better not be false.

As for the news organizations, there is a possibility they have motives and the way many of the articles are composed does not help the case that they do not have motives, whether that be get the most clicks or push down another organization. I believe they have laws in place as well to protect readers from this sort of behavior, but I'm not sure.

Both types of organizations have been known to break the law though so we're left wondering what the future will hold. It will be fun to look back in the months ahead and see which theory was correct.

Both types of organizations have been known to break the law though so we're left wondering what the future will hold. It will be fun to look back in the months ahead and see which theory was correct.

If you're going to make a broadly defamatory claim about an entire industry, you need to back it up with evidence.

Sorry

VW comes to mind in the auto industry and I'd have to Google "news company found guilty" for you for the other.

Don’t. Cult of personality CEO having a breakdown and money people leaving a public company is a sign of impending doom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com