Tesla Loses a Lot of Money Selling Cars, But Makes It All Back On Credits and Bitcoin (jalopnik.com) 169
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Jalopnik: On Monday after the close of business, Tesla announced its Q1 2021 financial results in its quarterly earnings call. The company turned a surprisingly large profit this quarter, but it didn't do it by selling cars. Q1 net profit reached a new record for Tesla, at $438 million. Revenue for the electric car company was up massively to $10.39 billion. Unfortunately, all of that profit is accounted for in the company selling $518 million in regulatory credits, and $101 million was found in buying and then later selling Bitcoin. That second point is particularly interesting, as Tesla purchased $1.5 billion worth of BTC, announced that the company would begin accepting BTC as payment for its cars, which drove up the value of BTC, then sold enough BTC to make a hundred million in profit.
Without the $619 million in credits and BTC sales, Tesla would have actually managed to lose $181 million in Q1. In that time, the company shifted 184,800 3/Y units, and while it didn't build a single X or S in Q1, it sold 2020 units from previously-built inventory. That means the company lost around $970 per car sold in Q1. The company has indicated it expects to see a 50 percent growth in 2021 year-over-year, which implies at least 750,000 vehicles shipped out to customers this year. Musk was later reported to have said he believes the Model Y will be the best selling vehicle in the world next year "more likely than not." Which would mean something like 1.5 million Model Ys sold in 2022. I'm inclined to doubt such a claim.
Without the $619 million in credits and BTC sales, Tesla would have actually managed to lose $181 million in Q1. In that time, the company shifted 184,800 3/Y units, and while it didn't build a single X or S in Q1, it sold 2020 units from previously-built inventory. That means the company lost around $970 per car sold in Q1. The company has indicated it expects to see a 50 percent growth in 2021 year-over-year, which implies at least 750,000 vehicles shipped out to customers this year. Musk was later reported to have said he believes the Model Y will be the best selling vehicle in the world next year "more likely than not." Which would mean something like 1.5 million Model Ys sold in 2022. I'm inclined to doubt such a claim.
bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
They make money selling cars:
https://cleantechnica.com/2020... [cleantechnica.com]
> But the real biggie for me was this one: Tesla’s automotive gross margin improved from 18.7% to 23.7% in the third quarter (Q3). That’s a wild, astounding improvement in automotive gross margin — nothing to be shy about. Even 18.7% is a great gross margin in the automotive industry.
Stop the FUD.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
More recent:
https://www.teslarati.com/tesl... [teslarati.com]
> Tesla has always had impressive gross margins for its cars. One of the most recent reports of an impressive gross margin, which fuels profitability, was in January when Guosen Securities analyzed the Model Y. The study broke down the total gross margin and revealed it was 29.4%, around three times the industry average that lies at between 8-10% for luxury cars.
Re: (Score:3)
More recent:
https://www.teslarati.com/tesl... [teslarati.com] > Tesla has always had impressive gross margins for its cars. One of the most recent reports of an impressive gross margin, which fuels profitability, was in January when Guosen Securities analyzed the Model Y. The study broke down the total gross margin and revealed it was 29.4%, around three times the industry average that lies at between 8-10% for luxury cars.
Que the story in two months how speculators shorting Tesla ate massive losses yet again. “But we bought special interest stories this time, what could go wrong?” I’d say yet another round of big Tesla short losses wouldn’t be a story at this point but dupes and slashdot go together like a 1541 floppy drive and classic Commodore 64.
Re: (Score:3)
Guosen Securities is a Chinese state owned company that's mainly noted for getting themselves into regulatory problems and the fall out from that (I have no opinion on the analysis, I just find it puzzling that you'd wan't to use them as a source).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be sheer idiocy to take profits instead of plowing revenue back into growth when doing so results in 70% annual growth.
Of course growing revenue is easy if you are doing so at a big net loss, burning investment money, but that's not what happened here because the company did turn a profit.
So, it's a stupid story.
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone has to support the shorts!
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
It's more complicated.
So that is Gross Margin. Strictly speaking the sale price of an item, minus incremental cost to provide that item. It does not count, for example, a lot of payroll, capital purchases, operational expense, and so forth that the business spends that needs to happen to support them making the items, but not specifically tied to an individual item.
So having a healthy gross margin but an operational loss could mean:
-Ongoing fixed costs that are not being covered by the business that won't go away and represent a business in bad shape
-A company spending a lot to expand capacity and/or do research and development. This as a temporary state is fine, but would be bad if it's eternal.
In this specific case, I suspect the latter and it is probably warranted to say the impression being given is misleading (the latter is only ever a problem if the total business is operating in the red, but here they had income, even if not from cars, and opting to use some of it to enhance their business is fine).
But *technically*, the assessment is correct. If they had the same fixed costs and didn't have the credits and bitcoin bump, they would have been in the red. Of course, it's not certain that they would have opted to take on those fixed costs without knowing they had the buffer from those credits.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, removing non-core non-recurring income is a valid way of trying to determine a company's future viability. However, if you do so you also need to remove non-core non-recurring expenses. The big one here is Elon's massive stock awards. He doesn't get those unless the company is busting new milestones.
But nobody ever does it properly because it paints an even brighter picture of Tesla's future than the GAAP numbers do.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
When looking at Tesla's future prospects you have to consider their massive liabilities as well. Namely, Full Self Driving (FSD).
They have been selling FSD since 2016, each year predicting that it would launch imminently. It's five years later and it's still alpha quality, apparently years behind their competitors.
Customers have paid for that feature, and it was marketed as having specific capabilities. For example it was to be able to operate with nobody in the vehicle at all, parking itself and returning to collect you later. It would be capable of completing a coast-to-coast trip, including charging stops and any cleaning needed to keep the vision system functional. Later the promise of it earning you money by operating as a robot taxi was introduced.
Eventually customers are going to want refunds as it becomes apparent that it's not going to happen. Even if Tesla somehow do get it working they have to upgrade older cars to the latest hardware. Could be interesting seeing them trying to retrofit hardware into 10 year old vehicles. Even Musk is saying 2024 now, which will make some cars 8 years old, well out of warranty and with earning potential heavily reduced. There could also be issues if someone else makes it to market first and the promised earnings from the robotaxi feature are impossible to realize.
FSD as liability (Score:2)
FSD may not be the liability some are claiming, though? From what I'm seen, following many forums for Tesla discussion including ones on Facebook and such (where it's not all "tech geek Elon Musk fans") -- a lot of people simply don't pay the premium for FSD because they don't see the value it adds *today* as worth the cost. It's not like most buyers are doing it because they're wanting to use their cars as robotaxis and will be angry it's not happening for them.
Others are happy to pay for FSD, especially
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's important, as a general rule, to keep in mind that any situation needs to be carefully considered.
For example, it was bad to just say 'oh, well, sure they are net profitable, but if you take away some 'flukes' they aren't profitable'. It's also bad to say 'but they make massive money on product, look at their gross margin!' One shorthand may be the most relevant in one situation and the other may be more relevant in the other, but when repeated without clarification, people wrongly learn that
Re: (Score:2)
I remember almost exactly parallel discussions years ago over Amazon's then-perennial lack of profitability. The skeptics were certain that the stock price was an example of irrational exuberance and cult of personality, and to be fair there certainly were elements of that, but largely it was Amazon's reinvesting profits toward becoming an all-encompassing, dominant online retailer of everything -- not to mention becoming the largest cloud service provider. In fact web services account for most of Amazon'
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when you have irrational people on both sides of a question, then some irrational people will end up being right. I think it's also important to factor in the real usefulness of a cult of personality to a company's ability to take risks and weather short term setbacks. This translates into the ability of a company like SpaceX to accrue experience much faster than a company without a marquee personality at the helm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
You do understand the entire post is about financial news reported by Tesla yesterday. How relevant is linking an article from six months ago when this is about yesterday's numbers?
Because there's still lots of Kool-aid, and it's not going to drink itself?
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand the entire post is about financial news reported by Tesla yesterday. How relevant is linking an article from six months ago when this is about yesterday's numbers?
Because there's still lots of Kool-aid, and it's not going to drink itself?
But Musk has been promising self drinking Kool-aide for years now.
What's the holdup?
Re: (Score:3)
From yesterday [thestreet.com]:
> Tesla's automotive margins improved to 26.5%...
Re: (Score:2)
They make money on selling each car. They lose money selling cars in total.
Re: (Score:3)
They make money on selling each car. They lose money selling cars in total.
They make money selling cars.
They lose money by R&D spending and building factories to sell even more cars in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
If you factor in amortized factory depreciation, are they making money per car?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They make money selling cars:
https://cleantechnica.com/2020... [cleantechnica.com]
> But the real biggie for me was this one: Tesla’s automotive gross margin improved from 18.7% to 23.7% in the third quarter (Q3). That’s a wild, astounding improvement in automotive gross margin — nothing to be shy about. Even 18.7% is a great gross margin in the automotive industry.
Stop the FUD.
Gross margins only include COGs and excludes other expenses. If Tesla only made cars and had no sales, R&D, etc. expenses they could be profitable if people magically bought them and the innovation fairy gave them new stuff for free. Net profit is a better indicator, which for Tesla, absent credits, is less than zero. Tesla's issue is getting cost under control as the credits disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
How much money did Tesla make or lose on its solar panel and home battery business?
Re: (Score:2)
The grift is strong with Tesla
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla is still considered a startup company. Unlike a Ford or GM, who has number of already built factories so many that they are closing many of them now. When a new model is planned, they just do some minor retooling of their factory and they are good to go. Tesla being a young Auto company, has to build a factory to meet demand. They are currently building factories in Texas, Germany, and China as well working on expanding their California, and Nevada locations just to meet demand of their products.
An
Re: (Score:2)
A bad gross margin is bad for most circumstances. A good gross margin doesn't necessarily tell you much. You need it for things to be good, but by itself isn't a hug
My point is (Score:2)
If you and me are going to pay for it anyway We could just as easily have the research done at private universities and then "own" it ourselves (in the sense of public ownership).
Re: (Score:3)
So you are blaming Tesla for the problems with have with academic research, funding and openness.
We are not shifting all out money from Gas Power Cars to only Tesla. They are a number of other electric cars to choose from, nearly every major Auto maker company has at least one all electric model either out for the public, or will be available within a few years from now. These companies too also get some federal funds toward their electric development.
Gas and Oil companies, and ICE car makers too get a lo
No, I'm not (Score:2)
If my dollars are going to be extracted from me I generally would like some value for it in the near term. And I don't think we should be shifting money to somebody who's already fabulously wealthy when we could just do it ourselves and get all the benefits.
Musk is a businessman (a very good one) not a scientist. I don't n
Re: (Score:2)
Don't undervalue the befits of middle men.
For example. A small Doctors office. Often when they start out the Doctor figures I got an MD, I should be smart enough to manage and run my own practice, and for the most part they are right, they are smart enough to do every job there is to do.
However, he gets paid for services he does for every patient, while he is doing work with the patients he is getting paid about $400 an hour. But out of say a 12 hour day he may only see patients for 6 out of the 12 hours
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forget the tax credits do not apply to everyone, its a credit, so if your earnings are low, you cant get negative credit (umm unlike in Australia , where the govt does allow negative credit benefits to senior people in their investment accounts - paid out in cash, thats right, if you earn $0, but your investments created a negative credit of $10k against your $0 income, the govt in Australia pays you the $10k in real cash.)
Bullshit Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Tesla had positive gross margin on automotive less credits. The drains on profitability were Musk’s stock based compensation and investment in growth.
Making new car factories. (Score:2)
Yep. Absolutely BS headline.
Tesla makes money selling cars, and reinvests this directly in making new car factories.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they make profit selling cars if you assume cars just magically get assembled with labor out of parts they bought and there are no other expenses
Re: (Score:3)
On top of that, you can't handwave away selling regulatory credits, because they wouldn't have them if they weren't selling cars. Sure, maybe their ability to leverage that income will fall in future years, but we're talking Q1 of this year, when it's very, very much a thing.
These credits are helping them invest in the company without raising vehicle prices. When they go away, they can ramp down their investment in building out and keep the same pricing. If anything, the credits are making them more solid l
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how Tesla does it but afaik the way stock based compensation usually works is to issue new stock. This would be noted in the financial statement but the cost is 0 and has no effect on the bottom line (the other shareholders stake are marginally reduced).
So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly, why do I care how they got there? To say they "didn't do it by selling cars" is disingenuous, since they ran a gross margin of 26.5% on car sales. They made 26.5% on each car they sold, then spent that money in a bunch of different ways, got some revenue from a bunch of other sources, and ended up running a small profit. Seriously, so what?
This is just looking for something to complain about now that they're running a GAAP profit. Aw it's not a real profit from your perspective? Maybe you should go back to complaining about how their cars suck (not true), or Elon Musk is a moron on twitter (true).
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that even Musk's twitter behavior is "stupid like a fox." For more details just look at their advertising expenses.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, where there is already just a long line of people waiting for a car, and they cannot build factories fast enough. I don't think advertising would be a useful expense at this current time. Word of mouth seems to be working good enough.
Musk is no Steve Jobs, his presentation sucks, and I doubt his Tweeting is actually that beneficial, to the companies he works at. But because they don't have advertising or a PR Department. His tweets are the only sort of news we get out of these companies.
Alt
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, many people buy because they can identify with the company that makes the product, or identify with people who are somehow associated with the product (see sports marketing). Musk is "everyman USA". He tells bad jokes, he has a dad bod, he gets into little tiffs with other dads types (i.e. pedo guy), and he smokes pot. He appears downright human compared to the robotic droning you get from most CEOs. I personally can't name any other executive at any other auto maker, and I suspect few can
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, why do I care how they got there? To say they "didn't do it by selling cars" is disingenuous, since they ran a gross margin of 26.5% on car sales. They made 26.5% on each car they sold, then spent that money in a bunch of different ways, got some revenue from a bunch of other sources, and ended up running a small profit. Seriously, so what?
Very good point. Besides, if you really want to look back at the rich sorted history of US auto manufacturers, you'll find everything from their massive contribution to fighting a World War, all the way down to being kept alive because they all thought they were Too Big To Fail. The "how they got here" is quite alarming by comparison.
This is just looking for something to complain about now that they're running a GAAP profit. Aw it's not a real profit from your perspective?
When you look at "tech" companies going public with multi-billion dollar IPOs who have never turned a "real" profit, I don't even know if companies even know or remember what "real" profit means. Or why that should still be a priority in successful business today.
Hype, Bullshit, and Clickbait turned into a fucking multi-billion dollar conglomerate in the last decade. Perhaps profit is the thing sitting in the So-What bucket.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, why do I care how they got there?
“But mommy, it’s not fair, he’s selling Bitcoin!”
SEC: “There there, it’s gunna be ok...”
*hugs and rocks gently*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they can. Gross margin does not include capital expenditures. The "loses per car" figure does, even if it is disingenuous. Investing money that you bring in your future is good business sense but shareholders tend to only care about short term gain and don't like not getting a share of that money.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah... sure... that is why people invested in AMZN all those long years. Different people invest for different reasons. Yes some shareholders want dividends, while others want capital appreciation, there are personal and institutional reasons for that which describe segments of the market place for investments not the entire market place.
Most investors looking for capital appreciation want to see a plan they can understand and story that makes sense to them. They'd also like to see a 10K that supports tha
Re: (Score:2)
Living up to your username again, eh? Well done!
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk is a moron on twitter (true).
Hey, professional twitter moron is pretty much the most coveted, ideal, and profitable twitter user possible despite the redundancy in the name. When I hear about his tweets, I close my eyes and go to my happy place of guaranteed bullish returns on $tsla.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, why do I care how they got there? To say they "didn't do it by selling cars" is disingenuous, since they ran a gross margin of 26.5% on car sales. They made 26.5% on each car they sold, then spent that money in a bunch of different ways, got some revenue from a bunch of other sources, and ended up running a small profit. Seriously, so what?
The gross margin doesn't include other costs. Saying they made a profit on each car is like me saying I made a widget for $1.00, sold it for 1.25 and made a 25% gross profit. Please ignore the 15 cents is costs to advertise the widget, 10 cents to ship and 10 cents spent on R&D for each one I sold.
This is just looking for something to complain about now that they're running a GAAP profit. Aw it's not a real profit from your perspective? Maybe you should go back to complaining about how their cars suck (not true), or Elon Musk is a moron on twitter (true).
The problem for Tesla is they need to get the expenses associated with making cars under control so when the credits run out, or Bitcoin tanks, they can still be an ongoing concern. Speculating on digital c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The credits they're selling can be ended tomorrow, and bitcoin value can (and did) crash. Capex for growth is good, everything else is Elon being Elon.
Re: (Score:2)
In general the Tesla hate, is just a continuation of Prius Hate form a decade ago.
Their had been such a long time FUD campaign to discredit Human Caused Global warming using fossil fuels, that every time they relate energy efficient or all electric cars, their mind goes back to the 1970's where Small, Under-powered and Unsafe cars were pushed onto the public to save on fuel costs. Where Tesla is making Normal Size (With often a bit more internal space from having a flat floor, and Trunk that can be used for
Re: (Score:2)
There is a huge difference between Tesla hate and Prius hate, and that difference should be obvious to any investor. It is entirely possible to not like the Prius as a car, while still being very bullish about Toyota. Testa, on the other hand, is essentially a company that sells one car. That car happens to be popular, but it still means that all of Tesla's eggs are in that one basket. Worse, basically all of the Teslas currently on the road are relatively new. I know what I am getting when I buy a Toy
Re: (Score:2)
Progress in ICE Engines have seemed to peak in the past 20 years or so.
Just look at the trends in terms of power output / vs fuel economy. While it might be true that nothing "revolutionary" is happening in ICE land evolution has turned everything that inst an absolute economy base model, into ~300HP cruiser! The as you go up market the performance compared to what you could get for the same $$ even 10 years ago is almost jaw dropping.
Now I am not saying electric cars don't offer great performance, or generally better; just that gap between what long range model 3 vs what the
Re:A company's identity (Score:2)
The identity of a company not only says a lot about how it views itself, but drives important decisions about how well they do what they do.
If Tesla is a car company that happens to invest in Bitcoin, it will prioritize its cars and its reputation regarding its cars.
If Tesla is a Bitcoin company that happens to make cars, it will prioritize its Bitcoin investments, perhaps to the detriment of its cars.
Lack of focus has cost GE a great deal, forcing it to sell off many businesses and shut down others. GE for
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, why do I care how they got there?
It matters where earnings come. Are earnings coming from a viable business model, or are they just winging that shit pyramid style?
Re: (Score:2)
"Revenue for the electric car company was up massively to $10.39 billion. Unfortunately, all of that profit is accounted for in the company selling $518 million in regulatory credits, and $101 million was found in buying and then later selling Bitcoin."
They made money due to regulatory credits and selling Bitcoin.
Got that Potsy.
Can't sell credits if you don't sell cars (Score:5, Insightful)
The regulatory credits they sold to other companies mean nothing if there were no car sales, so even those are part of the "profit" on car sales.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they have (or had) banked up credits. So they could have sold those cars in previous years.
Short sellers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, sell Tesla short; I want to buy more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Short sellers (Score:5, Insightful)
They in fact are making money on EVs. Then they are spending it.
If they weren't spending it, they'd be profitable even without credits.
However, they are growing their business. Remember when Amazon wasn't profitable? Yeah. It was for the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that this article is wrong, that Tesla is NOT making more money on bitcoin than cars.
It's equally valid to say that Tesla would not make a profit if not for bitcoin, or that Tesla would not make a profit if not for selling cars. But Tesla would also make a profit if not for growing its business.
Remember, money is fungible. It all goes into the same pot. Where each dollar was made is irrelevant.
If Tesla just made cars and didn't expand it would be profitable... today. But it probably wouldn't survive tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, if Tesla lost the entire $1.5 billion currently invested in Bitcoin, absolutely nothing would change for the company. Tesla bought Bitcoin because they have spare cash lying around and don't feel like doing early repayment of debt or giving dividends to shareholders.
The story would be a lot different if they lost a billion dollars two years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
They spent a lot of money building factories (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Battery factories can go beyond cars. e.g. Powerwall.
How is Jalopnik being quoted on Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
> This is an article from Jalopnik - part of a social media megasite skewing heavily towards continual outrage.
Guess what gets nerds to see ads on /.?
And see more ads by complaining about it...
Re: How is Jalopnik being quoted on Slashdot? (Score:2)
Furthermore, Jalopnik is part of the former Gawker constellation. So it still sports some of the fumes from that enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dicedot is flooded, DELIBERATELY, with stupid shit but the editors responsible never admit why they resent quality posts.
It's passive-aggressive sabotage of Slashdot, it's obvious, and it will not stop because two people completely control the site and they're the ones doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Revenue for the electric car company was up massively to $10.39 billion. Unfortunately, all of that profit is accounted for in the company selling $518 million in regulatory credits, and $101 million was found in buying and then later selling Bitcoin. " https://jalopnik.com/tesla-los... [jalopnik.com]
You can fuck off now.
pump and dump (Score:3, Insightful)
> Tesla purchased $1.5 billion worth of BTC, announced that the company would begin accepting BTC as payment for its cars, which drove up the value of BTC, then sold enough BTC to make a hundred million in profit
How is that not a pump and dump scheme?
Re: (Score:2)
How is that not a pump and dump scheme?
Because Bitcoin is unregulated and that sort of behavior is fair play in crypto land, if you've got enough money to throw around.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't dump it - they only sold 10% of what they bought, to, according to Musk, test liquidity. They're also selling cars for BTC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin is not a stock.
Bitcoin is not regulated by the FTC.
If all it took for something to be "pump and dump" was to buy it and then say buying was good idea, then almost everyone is engaging in "pump and dump".
Re: (Score:3)
They accept BTC for cars - which is the point of BTC; to be accepted like cash. Then the convert some of the BTC into cash - which is the point of BTC; to be convertible to cash.
The question would be the timing of their purchase and announcement they were accepting Bitcoin. If they simply unloaded a bunch of what they bough and not from Bitcoin sales of cars, it may not pass the smell test. I think much would hinge on proving the Bitcoin was bought in anticipation of a run-up after Tesla's announcement, and if the buyers knew the announcement was forthcoming.
Slashdot is now a fake new site. (Score:3, Informative)
This has been debunked at least 1000 times. Slashdot is now a fake news site. Who would have guessed?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, Jalopnik has written exactly the article Slashdot is reporting, and with exactly the content Slashdot is reporting. So where is the fake news?
Slashdot has routinely posted false news articles about Telsa for over a year now. Some at Slashdot is either on the take from a competitor or is a short seller.
It's the "loses" that's misleading (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Building factories and doing R&D are part of the cost of doing business. You can't make cars without those activities, so they should rightfully be subtracted from profits.
In other words... (Score:2)
In other words, electric cars are not economically feasible without government subsidy.
Re: (Score:2)
"In other words, gasoline cars are not economically feasible without government subsidy."
There, fixed it for ya
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, electric cars are not economically feasible without government subsidy.
The force is weak with this one...
It's Jalopnik, no wonder (Score:2)
Another hit job clickbait article by a Jalopnik short, famous for their biased coverage. Of all the articles to post on Tesla earnings, why couldn't Slashdot choose a more objective source?
No. (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I say this as a Tesla investor and one who's planning on retiring this year at the age of 36 due to my investment (or bet, if you'd like).
Like many have already said, Tesla has quite hefty profit margins on their cars, they're just choosing to grow at a high rate (I think it's something like 50% annual growth since their inception, projected to be around 100% this year).
So they're spending their money on growing their manufacturing capacity, their supply chain, doing R&D and expanding to new
Re: A lot of people (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of the people holding Bitcoin are wealthy enough that they do not have to sell it, thereby sustaining its value. The only thing that can F up Bitcoin is a major breakthrough in mathematics or an unprecedented breakthrough in physics that enables a quantum leap in computer technology. Neither of those are implausible. Although I suspect that if it comes from a physics breakthrough we would be able to have AI and robotics tech that is so advanced that we wonâ(TM)t even need money.
Re: (Score:2)
That binary curve is a problem. If there's going to be a break, I would expect it to be there.
Re: A lot of people (Score:2)
Or people could realize there's no there there and pull their money out collapsing the whole house.
Re: (Score:2)
He could choose to keep the money and give it to the shareholders, that's what Ford/GM would do.
But instead he's doing a robin hood, taking money from people buying pollution machines and giving it to people buying awesome green(er) machines.
And that's the whole point of regulatory credits. Better would be to just ban production of ICE vehicles, but that's not Musk's job.
Re: No wonder lazy people are going bananas! (Score:2)