How does this matter? How does a trillion+ in deployed capital make any difference? How does a trillion+ in deployed capital into ICE R&D matter for EVs?

The part that they used from their existing infrastructure was the land. They had to build new facilities adjacent to their current production. How does this constitute leveraging the existing infrastructure?

And talking about making overly ambitious projections:
https://www.theguardian.com/business...d-factory-jobs

So far global total sales are 283'000 units which are mostly not produced in the UK.

I shouldn't have used the word passion, I meant something different. It's a mixture of incentives, knowledge and habit. As long as they have the possibility to sell what they've always been selling, they will keep selling that and not the new thing.

This is the part where you are so far out of depth. You don't have a clue how a manufacturing company operates. You know your greeks and you know your charts and maybe your Twitter sentiment analysis. You don't know **** about a production line.

You can't just easily reuse those facilities without shutting them down first and then remodeling them. If you think it's a plus that they need to do this then you are an idiot. At the same time, the machines that are being used for ICE cars are not the same for EVs. Which in turn makes them useless, i.e. huge write offs. In order to avoid those write offs, companies will continue to produce cars because at the margin, it hardly costs them anything to produce them. This isn't some outlandish thought either.

If you will repeat to me again that the same components are being used in an ICE car (sans the motor obviously) as they are in an EV, I will forever leave you alone - because you will be hopelessly lost.

So just say it and I will let you be.

Source? Couldn't get that number confirmed.

So the market has a different opinion than you have. The market has crushed you before on TSLA (and NFLX for that matter). You always think the capital matters the most and vision and a plan doesn't. It's fine to have that opinion. It will always result in catastrophic projections.

This is all true. Let's see about the impact.

We are again entering clueless territory. The companies won't be more capitalized by the time all of their production facilities have to be written off by 50% because the machines in use are worthless. This is the worthlessness cycle they are about to enter (if you assume that

That's five years from now. We have seen how good your predictions were about the future in this thread already.

It's pretty rich to insult a guy who founded 4 billion dollar companies in various fields and has an existing track record.

It's also pretty easy to claim something and not make valid comparisons. Do you want to give an example of a car CEO that has a better track record?


To conclude:
Whether or not Tesla will win against the other rising car manufacturers, especially in China, we will see. I am optimistic but that's a different discussion.

Spurious,
You're so clueless you don't even know you're clueless. Nothing you say has any connection to reality. You seem like a reefer smoking uni student who takes breaks from getting high to defend his hero. There's not much else to say.
Nice link. This says it all really:



This is a shocker and shows pretty remarkable incompetence. And consider that EVs are far less complex than an ICE car - they have a fraction of the fail points and service needed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ce-evaluations

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/tesl...es-report.html

yeah it will be interesting to see the spin here. are these employees going to be the scapegoats for a miss in the near future or the recalls? do they have bloated expenses? its going to be hard to get new employees up to speed and hit targets that have already been sold to the public

its even worse when you sit down and look at the legend.

tesla has cars that are going to the repair shop 3-4-5-6+ times in a single year. the median event is that if you own a tesla, you are guaranteed 1 repair trip a year. 100/100. with a highpoint of 120/100.

there are makes whove reported 0 repair trips. 5 manufacturers. Put another way, you are 60% likely to go to a repair center with a tesla every year. If you buy a certain chevy or honda make, your odds of going to a repair center could be <2%. So vis a vis you could be like 30x more likely to require a repair trip to a service center comparing a 30$k ice vs a 60k tesla EV.


and spurious is asking what $1trillion in R&D gets you? a ****ing reliable car that doesnt need to go to a service center once a year and sit on a lot for 5 months waiting for 1 part.

I'm honestly wondering if it's going to be some play on calling some random segment discontinued operations, and using accounting rules to push expenses out of the operating section of the PL.

It's been awhile since I've been in public accounting (former big 4 auditor) but I think disc ops you have to immediately take all future estimated losses (but not gains) and show them in current period but put them below the line (with extraordinary items and change in accounting principle). Could be used as a vehicle to clean up a bunch of debits on the balance sheet (hidden expenses). Again I'm not current with the rules so I might be way off here.


That is a total shot in the dark though, feels like it wouldn't have been done without a plan, the 30m ish in savings it will show in next quarter is probably meaningless

Actually way more likely it was getting rid of the pro union people

Musk doing an AMA on Reddit right now!

honestly it might just be performance related, but it looks bad if you consider they are trying to expand their business. there's already a lot of bad press about working at tsla. if you look at glasdoor their rating sucks compared to other car manufacturers and tech companies. i just think they will struggle to compete for the talent they need without throwing ridiculous amounts of money and stock options at people.

this just looks like it's gonna be a death by a thousand paper cuts.
a missed deadline or production target here, a few lawsuits over there, add in the high cashburn, more and more competition coming in, unhappy employees, rising debt, rising number of shares, the shady scty deal, delay on their autopilot, tax credits running out, high recall numbers.

if you look at those separately you might be able to ignore them, but add them all up this is looking grim. everything about this company looks bad, except for the cars. i like those.

I think they're firing so many employees because the machines that make the machines have now made enough machines--we call them gigamachines--to streamline the production process to optimized automation levels with less need for human intervention. This is what an exponential production schedule looks like.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/10...attan-in-2018/

I drove past a Tesla dealership about two weeks ago and the lot was only about a 1/3rd full. It looked embarrassing. I live in a growing city of 1 mil+ people. I know nothing about Tesla but the scuttlebutt as Peter Lynch would say looks bad at this particular location. Maybe its an outlier idk but I wonder what the actual sales are on the ground around the country...

Scuttlebutt just means gossip. Saying the gossip at this location looks bad doesn't really make any sense. And if you want sales figures, they aren't hard to find.

Peter Lynch is one of the greatest stock fund managers of all time. In his book Beating the Street he used the term to describe his gumshoe analysis. Looking at the actual place to see what's going on when he talked about retail companies. I'm just saying what I saw didn't look good for a dealer lot, especially on that street when all the other dealers had full inventory. I know it's just one example but I wanted to share my experience.

What do you mean? Do you think the lots were empty because they couldn't sell the cars?

Probably because they can't make cars.

Do bulls still assume model s and x sales are increasing? I mean, seems pretty clear they have flattened out at best.

Just been looking at the 2017 Bolt and the 2018 Leaf. They're both compelling offerings - Bolt has superior specs to the Model 3 at the same price points. Leaf as inferior range but much better price.

Doubly so because Tesla is going to run into the 200K limit on the $7500 electric vehicle subsidy, which means they'll both be $7500 cheaper than an (already more expensive) Tesla.

As I've said and quoted to the shock of the Tesla bull morons, previous EVs were deliberately made to be not attractive to limit sales, as automakers didn't want to sell them (they were money losing propositions, like Tesla cars). But the tide is turning. The 2018 Leaf is not only designed to look nice, but it's the first mainstream attempt at a genuine saleable car. Nissan's CEO:
These are the first of many - dozens of Model 3 superior EVs are coming out in the next three years, as cost parity rapidly approaches. Tesla has been too slow.

No **** Sherlock!

I test drove the new Leaf in Japan. It is a sick car. They have a very slick semi-automatic autopark feature where it will park for you (forward/reverse/parallel) as long as you hold down a button near the gearshift.

Though I really don't understand why they handicapped the NA release, since the one I test drove has a range of 320km.

Is it just me or does this scream "broke redneck chic"?



"Hey Clyde, she ain't got a dashboard panel but I stucks me an iPad on the dash!

This is the $50K version, by the way.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-1...time-solarcity

Firings will continue until morale improves!

I enjoy how tesla insists they are not layoffs


Man q3 #s must be crazy bad

Tesla news for those who are long, passed on without commentary:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/330515...orders-model-3
Earnings coming up in a few days, including the conference call and projections.

The machine that builds the machine that builds the parts I don't need to buy anymore