Hacker News Reader

No they weren't; profits are what's left over. If profits were 0.5B your argument wouldn't make any sense. You're just taking arbitrary numbers and comparing them to trick people.

If that's what you want, here you go - https://imgur.com/a/dWrGKuN

View on HN

I think the author just wants to say that if the regulatory credits are not there, then the profits will be 0.9B less than the reported net profit today, which is about 0.5B. This is a fairly reasonable statement, and it is assuming that they sell the same number of cars and people are already paying the maximum amount they are willing the pay.

You could argument that if the credits are not there, Tesla will sell less cars, and the net profit will be even more slim.

If the credits are not there, prices and spending of things change across the board to hit net income targets. You have no idea how it turns out. It's not 1:1. Again, credits are a fraction of the revenue, that can be absorbed.

If net profit was 0.5B, and next quarter they lost regulatory credits, it would make even more sense. Tesla would have a negative net profit next quarter, all else equal.

Companies continually changes prices and spending across the board to hit net income targets. Without credits (a small fraction of revenue) the prices of other revenue streams change to absorb it. It isn't 1:1.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com