> There are tons of stories of people waiting weeks for a simple door repair.

Once again, tons imply that it’s the majority. Unless you have actual verifiable data to cite, you’re just operating on opinionated data.

> Can we please stop with ridiculous BS about evil shortsellers?

Have you been living under a rock? I didn't even know about the insane short interest and the countess $TSLAQ Twitter trolls until I became a Tesla owner. Which is apparently been there since the early days.

Is it BS because it does not fit your narrative? or is it a baseless claim? If so, can you please cite sources?

> Would you believe that it's martians spreading "fud" about Tesla, if Elon says so?

Is that your attempt at insulting my intelligence? I look at everything objectively... I typically stay quiet if I don't know enough on a particular topic or don't have anecdotes.

> Huh?, 2008 they were not in survival mode.

It sure was! They had some troubles delivering the very first Roadsters and Elon had to use his own money to keep the company afloat (also SpaceX) and continue making payroll.

> A 10% miss in sales results in Billions in losses.

Well that's how the market inherently works you know? Tesla vehicle sales have also been rising year-over-year so your 10% miss does not apply.

that makes no sense

like you said in 2008 there wasn't anything there. They lose millions the whole company dies

now Tesla operates in billions of dollars. They lose billions it's still only 10%

If you take a closer look at their financial data, you'll find that it's quite a bit better than what people repeat.

In Fiscal Year 2018, they had positive operating cash flow of $2.1 billion. Part of the reason for the difference between accounting earnings (a loss) and actual cash flow is the huge depreciation charges ($1.9 billion) for historical capital expenditures, versus present-day cash outflows.

In that year, Tesla still spent a lot of cap-ex dollars on Model 3 capacity and battery capacity (to the tune of $2.3 billion), so overall cash flow was slightly negative - about $200 million for the year, off of $21 billion in revenue.

In the six months since then, they're reported additional positive operating cash flow: $224mm off of $10.9 billion in revenue.

This is a company experiencing 47% y/y revenue growth for the first half of the year. Yes, they're spending on cap-ex, but they are producing positive operating cash flow and their total operating+cap-ex cash flow is running a little in the red, but <1% of revenues.

And in context, they have $5 billion in cash and $10 billion in short term assets.

Tesla is not at significant financial risk.

Netflix

Revenue — $17 billion Gross Profit — $5.8 billion EBITDA — $2 billion Market Cap — $111 billion Debt — $14 billion Enterprise Value — $125 billion

Tesla

Revenue — $25B Gross Profit — $4B EBITDA — $2.33B Market Cap — $39B Debt — $14B Enterprise Value — $54B

-------------------

Uber

Revenue — $12 billion Gross Profit — $4 billion EBITDA — negative $7.6 billion Market Cap — $53 billion Debt — $6.2 billion Enterprise Value — $50.5 billion

Tesla

Revenue — $25B Gross Profit — $4B EBITDA — $2.33B Market Cap — $39B Debt — $14B Enterprise Value — $54B

I can go on but hopefully you get the point.

Partly I think this is motivated by the law that gives tax breaks to companies that show losses. So then no big surprise that many tech companies show losses, regardless of their corporate health. Amazon is one; they've almost never shown a profit ever, and when they have it has been exceedingly slight (surely an accounting "mistake"). Yet they are still in business over 20 years later, and that success has catapulted multiple individuals into the billionaire range. Shady? Definitely. Too much capital? Clearly not, since Amazon has out-performed any possible influx of capital.

There is clearly some dark art in accounting, but I don't think it's always because the companies are covering up bad business. It might be because they're trying to make as little taxable profit as possible.