Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Transportation

Tesla Logged $713 Million In Revenue In Q1 and Built 7,535 Cars 131

Posted by samzenpus
from the numbers-are-in dept.
cartechboy (2660665) writes "Tesla just announced its first-quarter earnings and the numbers are interesting. It logged revenue of $713 million on deliveries of 6,457 Model S electric cars. It's worth noting that's basically the number of vehicles it said it would sell in the quarter, but that number is slightly down from the prior quarter. It built a total of 7,535 Model S cars in the quarter as it built inventory as shipments began to China where sales just started last month. Net orders in North America grew 10 percent, and production for the second quarter is expected to increase to 8,500-9,000 Model S cars. Tesla expects to deliver 35,000 cars during the 2014 calendar year. Musk told analysts that China's enthusiastic and that government support is crucial. The Model X is delayed until spring of 2015 with production-design prototypes being ready in the fourth quarter. Tesla hopes to possibly break ground as early as next month on its gigafactory, though the location has yet to be announced. Of course, the stock market is already reacting to these numbers and is currently down nearly 3 percent in after hours trading."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Logged $713 Million In Revenue In Q1 and Built 7,535 Cars

Comments Filter:
  • Down 3%?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by korbulon (2792438) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @05:42AM (#46947453)
    Well thank goodness the stock market is such an accurate gauge of a company's fiscal health and true value (right Facebook?) It's all rational investors making carefully considered trades in an open and transparent marketplace.
    • by gl4ss (559668)

      it's all about what the expected report was vs. what the report really was. because the market prior to the report was at the level of the expectation.

      supposedly anyways. some people just forget they own something until the report hits their inboxes..

    • by 89cents (589228)
      Look at the pre-market line. The 3% was for Wednesday. Down around 9% now.
      • Re:Down 3%?! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fnj (64210) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @06:53AM (#46947643)

        Fine. What I see is a goddam good time to invest.

        • What I see is a goddam good time to invest.

          I think Tesla is an interesting company but I wouldn't touch their stock with a barge pole at the current price. The market cap of the company is 12X annual revenue. A reasonable revenue multiple is between 1X and 3X annual revenue. Tesla might be a great company but that doesn't make it a great investment at the current price.

          • by ultranova (717540)

            The market cap of the company is 12X annual revenue. A reasonable revenue multiple is between 1X and 3X annual revenue. Tesla might be a great company but that doesn't make it a great investment at the current price.

            Maybe, maybe not. The best case scenario is that the market for electric vehicles contunues to grow at increasing rate as gasoline-powered ones get replaced, and Tesla can leverage their current position and experience to take a significant portion of it. While that's certainly risky, such extr

            • by sjbe (173966)

              The best case scenario is that the market for electric vehicles contunues to grow at increasing rate as gasoline-powered ones get replaced, and Tesla can leverage their current position and experience to take a significant portion of it.

              An investment strategy based on absurdly optimistic scenarios is a very good way to lose a lot of money. You are making the same sort of argument they made for .com stocks during the internet bubble 15 years ago. Is it possible that TSLA might grow into its current valuation? Sure. Is it likely? Hell no, at least not in a short enough time frame to matter. Are you seriously going to argue that Tesla is worth 1/3 of Ford right now? Because that is where its market cap is ($22B vs $60B). There is no s

    • Well thank goodness the stock market is such an accurate gauge of a company's fiscal health and true value

      Of course it is. We have high-frequency traders ensuring this, at millisecond precision!

    • What was the total revenue and profit growth?

      Probably meh

    • If you have absolutely no idea how the stock market works, don't post about the stock market.

      • by korbulon (2792438)

        If you have absolutely no idea how the stock market works, don't post about the stock market.

        If Wall Street followed your advice 95% of analysts would be out of a job.

    • by fche (36607)

      If you look at GAAP numbers, as opposed to non-GAAP fiction, it starts to make more sense.

    • Today's /. fortune is particularly appropriate: "There has been a little distress selling on the stock exchange. -- Thomas W. Lamont, October 29, 1929 (Black Tuesday)"

    • Investors will spec buy into a company before they release good news in case it's something like, "Tesla Motors creates electric hover car that never needs charged!" Or something equally absurd. So when the news comes out that "Oh, so we're just doing business, made some good sales." Those spec buy investors cash out and are like aw man.

      I really think like a lot of investors are freakishly skittish. It's hilarious.

  • Odd numbers (Score:4, Interesting)

    by geogob (569250) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @05:47AM (#46947469)

    There is a lot I don't understand at financial reports, but these numbers really strike me as odd.
    How can you have a revenue of 731 M$ while producing in the same period about 500 M$ worth of merchandise? Said otherwise, for each car produced in Q1, they have a revenue of about 100 k$. I know the Tesla is not a cheep car, but that seems excessive. Or did I miss something here?

    • Re:Odd numbers (Score:5, Informative)

      by alexander_686 (957440) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @06:58AM (#46947657)

      Service for current vehicles.
      Powertrains for Toyota's RAV4.
      They sell fuel credits to other companies that make polluting vehicles.
      etc.

      Lots of this and that.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yes. Revenu is not the same as profits. In this case revenu was high, but expenses were higher, so the profit was negative.

    • Nothing odd at all (Score:5, Informative)

      by sjbe (173966) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @07:34AM (#46947801)

      How can you have a revenue of 731 M$ while producing in the same period about 500 M$ worth of merchandise?

      Because Tesla doesn't just make money selling cars. Read their financial statements and they'll detail their sources of revenue. Nothing particularly surprising there. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised to see Tesla end up making a big portion of their revenue manufacturing battery packs and power trains for other auto makers.

      • by alexander_686 (957440) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @09:13AM (#46948321)

        For the battery packs, I would be surprised. The Gigafactory that Tesla is building will be majority owned by Panasonic. i.e., it is a Panasonic factory, building Panasonic batteries, but it is being built for Tesla, with Tesla money. It is “Tesla” factory because they will be getting the output.

        I know that Tesla is looking for better battery solutions but I have not heard that they have come up with anything.

        • The Gigafactory that Tesla is building will be majority owned by Panasonic.

          That doesn't necessarily mean much. The important question is who owns the IP that is going into the products produced. Coke and Coke Bottling are/were separate companies. Guess which one makes the bigger profits? Apple outsources their actual manufacturing but they own the product produced. Who actually owns the manufacturing is important but it's often not the most important bit.

          • It will be producing Panasonic batteries so I assume that the majority IP would be Panasonic. Besides, it is not just the IP (knowledge) but also “total factor productivity” (ability to apply that knowledge.) I assume the ability to (hopefully) efficiently run the factor would mostly accrue to Panasonic. (and yes, I am making a lot of assumptions here. I would love to hear from anybody who knows more.)

            • by sjbe (173966)

              It will be producing Panasonic batteries so I assume that the majority IP would be Panasonic.

              I run a wire harness assembly company and we supply to battery harness makers. Ownership of the battery technology doesn't mean a thing as far as the assemblies that they go into are concerned. You may be right that Panasonic owns the IP on the batteries and their production but if Tesla doesn't own a lot or most of the assembly IP, I cannot really see any business angle that makes sense for Tesla. Tesla would have to own the rights to the product designs and probably some of the controls. I'd guess tha

              • The value add for Tesla, if I understand correctly, is that Tesla get a reliable source of battery packs. Panasonic was unwilling to invest in a new plant because of the risk – why build a expensive plant that will be gathering dust in 10 years because Tesla has moved on – either by going bankrupt or moving to a new battery technology.

                It is not uncommon for a company to co-invest with a supplier to ensure their supply chain. Apple invested in new Samsung LCD foundries to ensure they would have a

    • by dj245 (732906)

      There is a lot I don't understand at financial reports, but these numbers really strike me as odd. How can you have a revenue of 731 M$ while producing in the same period about 500 M$ worth of merchandise? Said otherwise, for each car produced in Q1, they have a revenue of about 100 k$. I know the Tesla is not a cheep car, but that seems excessive. Or did I miss something here?

      Companies make money in lost of ways. If you can't understand the financial statement or how the company makes their money, don't invest in the company! No matter what!

      I adopted this policy a short time ago and it has been a much better strategy than others I have tried. If you are want to start looking at simple financial reports, the easiest example I can think of is RICK's Caberet (RICK). Another simple business (aquire ships, lease them out) is Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. (NM), although I have

  • At a loss (Score:4, Informative)

    by jamesl (106902) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @05:55AM (#46947493)

    Not mentioned in the post for some reason was the loss of $49.8 million for the quarter compared to an $11.3 million profit in the same quarter last year. Accumulated losses since 2009 are on the order of $800 million.
    http://files.shareholder.com/d... [shareholder.com]

    Making cars is hard. Making a profit doing it is harder still.

    • Re:At a loss (Score:5, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@@@world3...net> on Thursday May 08, 2014 @07:35AM (#46947807) Homepage

      They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy. Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        they _were_ planning on that.. but altered the plan in previous years already.

        anyways, I'd be more worried about the 5 billion dollar bet the company is making on the GIGASUPERMEGADUPER plant.

      • by Hodr (219920)

        Just reminds me of the late '90s / early 00's when Amazon was losing so much money each quarter for years on end. I thought there was no way they would ever dig themselves out of debt.

      • by alen (225700)

        yeah, people should buy stock in a company that keeps on promising to make money one day when the CEO is off designing rocket ships and hyper tubes

        • by mdielmann (514750)

          Read up on Amazon circa 2000. Interesting times. Maybe a lack of profit isn't the only thing investors worry about.

      • They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy.

        Given their debt and cumulative losses, it's a risky strategy. There's possibility that they'll run out of people who will loan them money, and then.... they're shut down and out of business. There's also a chance that they'll start making a profit, but insufficient to both pay off the accumulated debt and to attract further investment, stunting future growth. Etc... etc...

        Fancy that, a CEO who can see pa

      • They were not planning to make a profit at this point. It's part of the long term strategy. Fancy that, a CEO who can see past the next quarter's results!

        This is far more common than the financial experts here on /. appear to believe. There are many examples of companies successfully executing long-term growth strategies.

  • Just wondering if Tesla sponsor this site in some way, they get a huge amount of stories here.
    • Re:Sponsor? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08, 2014 @06:12AM (#46947547)

      Looking at the big picture I think any Elon Musk story is kind of interesting. He is an uber geek trying to shift the world to sustainable energy and colonize Mars. Fast Cars and Rocket Ships are every kids dream as they said on 60 minutes.

      • by NetNed (955141)
        I also like how the 60 minutes fluff piece said he started Tesla because of a concern for what greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning automobiles was doing to the ozone layer, then in the very next shot is a rocket from his company spewing smoke from propellant at a rate that pretty much wipes out any gains the cars will make for so, oh, about 1000+ years. Of course my vehicle doesn't release hydrogen chloride or chlorine directly in to the ozone. But yeahhhhhhhh that Elon Musk is AWSOME!!!
    • Re: Sponsor? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is a site for nerds. Name a nerdier topic than Tesla.

      • by TeknoHog (164938) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @06:35AM (#46947599) Homepage Journal

        This is a site for nerds. Name a nerdier topic than Tesla.

        1. Hot grits
        2. Natalie Portman naked and petrified
        3. Beowulf clusters
        • by Hodr (219920)

          I wonder if the Natalie Portman thing will still be mentioned when she is 40. Of course presuming /. will still be around.

          • 7 years? Yeah, it'll be around. It may not be the same /. as it is today, but this is hardly the same place it was 7 years ago either. That's not necessarily a bad thing; evolve or die.

            It's also interesting to me since I IMDB'd her birthday that she's one day older than my girlfriend :)

        • by TeknoHog (164938)

          This is a site for nerds. Name a nerdier topic than Tesla.

          Oh, almost forgot: Edison.

      • Re: Sponsor? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by impossiblefork (978205) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @07:55AM (#46947897)
        Computer holography, Path-tracing, the fast-multiple methods for radiosity-- and if it has to be automotive related: alternative thermodynamic cycles for engines, field modulated magnetic couplings (like the ones magnomatics are making as gearboxes/electric drive systems for cars) or mass-production of parts from fibre reinforced plastic.

        All of these are nerdier, but perhaps not as easily digested.
        • or mass-production of parts from fibre reinforced plastic.

          All of these are nerdier, but perhaps not as easily digested.

          Yeah. I would not like to meet the person who can digest fibre reinforced plastic... I have a hard enough time with burritos with jalapeno peppers and hot sauce!

          • by ultranova (717540)

            I would not like to meet the person who can digest fibre reinforced plastic... I have a hard enough time with burritos with jalapeno peppers and hot sauce!

            But aren't peppers and wheat basically fibre reinforced plastics? Proteins are polymers, after all.

    • by 91degrees (207121)
      All we need is for Tesla to start accepting Bitcoins and Slashdot will implode. Or gain sentience. Or something.
    • by Twinbee (767046)
      As an investor in Tesla, this story suits me okay. I have to admit, I'm pretty surprised to see posting of financial results on Slashdot though. That's how captivating Tesla must be to the public, to post something as usually dull and mundane as quarterly results!
  • by quenda (644621) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @06:31AM (#46947589)

    Looking at the spec's: a 60 kWHr battery! With that plugged into my house and an array of photovoltaics on the roof, I can tell the electric authority to go **** themselves. (In Western Australia we pay 26c/kWHr, despite having massive natural gas and coal reserves locally. Plus supply charge.)

    Figuring that in the Tesla does not look quite so expensive. And as a bonus I can look down on all those carbon-polluting Prius drivers.
    So the question: will they allow me to use the Tesla battery while parked, or will that kill the battery as surely as my 8-year warranty?

    • Re:going off-grid (Score:4, Informative)

      by fnj (64210) on Thursday May 08, 2014 @07:06AM (#46947673)

      A 60 kWh battery, assuming you don't mind cycling it to 100% discharge, which is extremely severe treatment, represents about 3-4 days of electricity for a house with very light electricity use based on my electric meter, and those of people I know. OTOH, where I am, sunlight is not uncommonly extremely poor for periods longer than that. Unless your photovoltaics are over proportioned by 10-20 times, or you've got at least twice the battery, it ain't gonna cut it.

      It would be nice to be able to tap the battery with an inverter during power outages though. In my area when you lose power, you lose water supply (and heat of course). Not very good for sanitation. There's nothing to make you appreciate flush toilets more than 2-3 days without well water.

      • Keeping a backup of 50 l of water might be a bit cheaper...
      • Re:going off-grid (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@@@world3...net> on Thursday May 08, 2014 @07:48AM (#46947867) Homepage

        Your house is very inefficient, but not untypical of some parts of the world.

        Nissan has been offering this service for a few years in Japan. You use your Leaf as a UPS in the event of power failure. They say you can run your essential appliances (fridge/freezer, lighting) for a few days. You can also use it for a bit of solar PV smoothing. It isn't really designed to let you go off-grid though.

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          Guess you like living without climate control. Good luck with that winter with no heat ... which is the only way you're going to run off a Leaf pack for 'a few days'

          • by dave420 (699308)
            I live in a very comfortable climate in Europe, in an old, stone house with good insulation. The temperature doesn't fluctuate that much inside, and is very rarely uncomfortable.
          • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

            Most Japanese homes use gas for heating. Not everywhere is like the US. Incredible, I know.

            • by swillden (191260)

              Most Japanese homes use gas for heating. Not everywhere is like the US. Incredible, I know.

              Most US homes in cold climates use natural gas for heating.

            • by Agripa (139780)

              Good thing the gas furnace works when the power is out . . .

          • Maybe where you live. Where I live I require very little in the way climate control. It's amazing what you can achieve with a well-designed house in a temperate climate zone. I average about 12kwh/day to run my house, so would be quite feasible to charge a Tesla overnight on off-peak electricity, then run my house and transport from that during the day. The next level would be to have a swappable battery pack with PV array charging the one at home, this making off-grid power a reality for a good chunk of th
      • Wow 60 kWh in 3 days....that is a lot. I live in a small house in New Zealand. We use gas for water heating and electric for everything else.

        We have a smart meter so I can track my usage. We use between 3 - 6 kWh/day, on average a 60 kWh battery should last about 2 weeks.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Looking at the spec's: a 60 kWHr battery! With that plugged into my house and an array of photovoltaics on the roof, I can tell the electric authority to go **** themselves. (In Western Australia we pay 26c/kWHr, despite having massive natural gas and coal reserves locally. Plus supply charge.)

      Have you checked the prices of solar panels lately? The cost is certainly going down, but they're not cheap.

      It's a matter of paying (a lot) now, or paying later (in smaller increments). Most folks don't have many thousands of dollars lying around for the upfront costs, and most folks also don't have the patience to wait out the many, many years it would take for the ROI for them.

      At 26c/kWHr though, you'd probably recoup the costs a lot quicker than most. In North American the price is usually less than 15c/

      • I agree there unfortunately. I did the math a few years ago, during which time the electric price hasn't really risen substantially in the midwest. I basically figured that the cost of installing the PV panels would be recouped at about the same time that the panels reached about 30% of their original capacity... in other words by that point you'd be so close to replacement time that it was almost a wash. It just didn't make sense to me because when I also included costs of routine maintenance (you have to

        • by MrHops (712514)

          I agree there unfortunately. I did the math a few years ago, during which time the electric price hasn't really risen substantially in the midwest. I basically figured that the cost of installing the PV panels would be recouped at about the same time that the panels reached about 30% of their original capacity... in other words by that point you'd be so close to replacement time that it was almost a wash. It just didn't make sense to me because when I also included costs of routine maintenance (you have to clean PV shingles or panels frequently to ensure maximum efficiency) it really was a net negative.

          Now, if electricity prices were higher like in Australia then I could definitely see it making a lot more sense.

          Where did you get these data? I can't even find any timetable for solar panels degrading to 30% rated capacity. The typical warranty is no worse than 80% of rated capacity after 25 years.

          Doing a little math: Normal degradation is around .7% per year, so getting to 30% would take ln(.3)/ln(.993) or 171 years. Even at 2% per year it's roughly 60 years. All I can say is electricity must be pretty cheap where you live, if it takes 170 years for panels to pay off.

  • I think they can rest easy. Tesla will ABSOLUTELY break ground or not break ground on their new facility next month.

  • down from last years 1.3M
  • They will buy 1 and reverse engineer it.
  • ..other cars of a similar price point?

    In my mind, a Tesla is a luxury sedan more or less on par with BMW 7 series, Mercedes S550, Lexus LS460.

    It'd be interesting to see how sales compare with those cars.

    • If you look at the TOTAL number, then a number of cars are selling more. However, they are around the globe, with long established dealers and makers.
      BUT, for sales in the same regions, Tesla is not only outselling them, but in a number of places actually outsells all of them COMBINED.
  • Revenue is important, and so are revenue trends, but where is the P/L?

    The link that says "earnings statement" is anything but an earnings statement.

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.

Working...