Growth YoY is flat, earnings flat, but yet it moons and probably heads to 700 next. So it's not a hypergrowth story; the stock is basically just bitcoin at this point.

There it is......wow.

Absolutely insanity right now. Seems the GAAP miss doesn’t matter and people are just piling on the non GAAP beat. It’s like you said, feels like bitcoin at this point. Curious to see how the dust will settle tomorrow.

Major improvement in FCF though. Analysts love FCF.
Also looks like revenue / car actually went up a bit.
Unless there's something in the 10Q that puts a downer on these figures, this will not be quarter that puts off any bulls.

Will be interesting where it goes from here since conditions were perfect in Q4.
Will model Y have good margins when it starts selling? If yes, could also give them the boost they need in Q2/3 to keep looking good.

If you look at the full year results of '18 & '19 and then at what the stock price did... I really don't understand .

Even more bizarre is that I don't even think it's shorty at this point. Outstanding convertible debt is 12b and short float is only 13-14%, so vast majority of the remaining shorts are just convert hedges.

My guess is it's MMs getting run over since I saw somewhere that call/put ratio was 14:1.

Nope, way down. Deliveries up 23% YoY but automotive revenue only up 1%.

Wowzers. So many cracks.

Now that he doesn't need to brazenly lie about 1 milliion robotaxis in 2020 to get money:
This is hilarious. It's confirmed fraud from last April when he asked for $3.4 billion in bonds to keep his desperate company going and spent an hour avoiding all questions by claiming FSD level 5 would be "feature complete" by end of 2019.

Is that a real quote?

Or are you brazenly paraphrasing and changing the wording/meaning?

No, that is an accurate quote from your frauddaddy. Word for word it's even worse. Here is a verbatim transcript I just typed out for you from the actual conference call:

Like I said, the biggest conman of our generation. Alex Wice owes me an apology by the way.

This is from the Q3 earnings call for comparison...

Hence my surprise at what he has apparently just said.

Would like to see full transcript of most recent earnings call but seems he handled this question poorly!

Glaring inconsistency.

If you want to listen, go here, click webcast and move the bar to 18 minutes: https://ir.tesla.com/events/event-de...and-qa-webcast

$580. FSD feature-complete* secured.**

* it has a non-zero chance of working (not necessarily working well)
** sometime in 2020

The fact that someone might actually believe this, on the day the fourth batch of satellites that will provide every corner of earth with low latency-high bandwidth internet was launched, is truly mind boggling.

And I'm not even getting into how such a project is even possible only because the cost of launches has been reduced by an order of magnitude by SpaceX.

Even leaving Tesla aside, on the assumption that will eventually crash and burn and it is scamming the whole world (which is a ridiculous claim), there's no way you can't give the guy credit for SpaceX. Like no way in the whole universe.

I love a bit of kessler syndrome in exchange for internet I already have.

Seriously, I don't understand Starlink. Who needs it? The ping will be ridiculous, and 99% of people who can afford it already have fast internet. Undersea cables are already far superior.

When starlink goes live what chances do we give it being a complete bust? I think spaceX can be a company that launches satellites as a business, but they aren't going to fkn mars on starlink revenue.

Its funny to me that everyone I know who loves Musk and thinks everything he does is the next big thing also don't realize that within 10 years none of them will spend a single dollar on anything Musk. They don't make the correlation that when you have a trillion $ valuation on a company, its because a huge % of the population uses its products.

It's a fact that he's a conman. That fact that you don't accept this is amazing given the copious evidence in black and white. Someone can be both a giant conman AND have successful businesses. For some bizarre reason you think they're mutually exclusive? Madoff was a founding member of the Nasdaq (he basically created it, and electronic trading) and had a number of successful businesses. He also operated the largest ponzi in history for 30 years in his private investment firm.

Starlink is a joke. Even their own CEO thinks it's non-viable.

lol? This is what a conman has convinced you of. Launch costs haven't been reduced by "an order of magnitude". WTF? That's just more pure bullshit, like "Your car can drive across the US by itself from LA to NY by ~2018". They've been reduced by around 40%, mostly by taking shortcuts with safety and praying for the best. Impressive, but a long way from an "order of magnitude".

It's a straightforward fact with overwhelming evidence. Both Tesla and Solarcity had high levels of fraud. The Boring Company was built on embezzlement. Musk also used SpaceX funds to prop up his private Solarcity by having SpaceX buy hundreds of millions in bonds as his Solarcity fraud was collapsing. As he explained to his board, if any of his companies fail, the whole things goes under as investors pull money from his other businesses, as Musk himself is the product and confidence in him keeps the money stream coming in (government and investors in the 10s of billions each) so that his failing businesses can keep running.
I give Tom Mueller credit for SpaceX, he built it from scratch. A truly amazing man and a visionary. Musk is the money guy, an extremely important role. Musk to his credit is one of the world's greatest money hustlers, able to get vast sums of money from government and investors on pure lies even when he has failure after failure. The continuous stream of money means he eventually has success despite his incompetence (they brought in competent management and engineers with the funding rounds, a lot like they did with Zip2).

Having legitimacy from a stack of chips from catching a rive card just makes you a better fraud. Few people, including the SEC, believed that Madoff could be running a giant fraudulent ponzi because he had highly successful businesses (first electronic trading, founding seat on Nasdaq). Thus money flew into his investment business for 30 years, until 2008 withdrawals brought it all down.

Enron had a highly legitimate businesses (they owned heaps of energy companies among other things with high revenue) and that legitimate business provided the money and credibility and leverage to do pure fraud.

Crazy Eddie had a highly legitimate business (they took over a good portion of mobile phone sales) backed up by pure fraud.

Do I need to go on? Musk has taken a legitimate, impressive business (SpaceX) that he hit a one out on, and embezzled both its funds and reputation to keep his other 3 frauds going. I don't even see how that's controversial.

Current satellite solutions have limited bandwidth with higher ping times. Satellites in Geostationary orbit are 35,786 km (22,236 mi) away. That distance creates real world ping times on the order of about 600 to 1200ms. Since there will be over 4000 Starlink satellites they can be in lower orbits reducing the distance between the end user and the satellite. Shorter distance makes for better ping times and Starlink is projected to operate around 25 to 50ms.

You also seem to incredibly underestimate the worldwide availability of fast internet, by a great margin.

Extremely low.

Yeah I assumed they were mutually exclusive. You made a valid point, I'll concede that.


LOL

This bit just proves you're either uninformed or in bad faith: "Between 1970 and 2000, the cost to launch a kilogram to space remained fairly steady, with an average of US$18,500 per kilogram. When the space shuttle was in operation, it could launch a payload of 27,500 kilograms for $1.5 billion, or $54,500 per kilogram. For a SpaceX Falcon 9, the rocket used to access the ISS, the cost is just $2,720 per kilogram." (source)

I mean, you used to throw away a whole rocket for every launch. Now you basically reuse everything. How can you not be saving tons of money with this approach?

I tend to consider people guilty after courts have decided so, I kind of like the rule of law. I'll accept the speculation though.

This is just a biased view of how things went down.

It is, and highly so. Let's agree to disagree.

Yeah, this just isn't true. There were far cheaper commercial options. You're comparing the total cost of a manned space mission (which has an order of magnitude more cost for safety considerations) made with 1980s technology, computers, materials, etc, with an unmanned launch program made with 2015 technology. That's just pure bad faith or ignorance . Commercial launch costs were dropping rapidly before Musk got in the game, especially compared to the absurdity of the shuttle program. Here's a proper comparison and the state of the market in 2011:



Already a 6x improvement over the shuttle (almost an order of magnitude!) in cost per KG that had nothing to do with Musk or reuse. So I ask you: bad faith or ignorance on your part?

Musk tells an amazing bullshit story that sounds plausible, sprinkling in some "aww shucks" nerd buzz words in there, but the hard data doesn't support your claims at all.

Don't get me wrong, SpaceX is a great company doing great things to lower space launch cost (paid for by taxpayers), but it's not doing much more than other space companies are, and it's certainly not lowering costs "an order of magnitude" over anyone else. Not even by 2x over its competitors. Nor is it doing it by reuse:
And this is how Musk gets into your head, with plausible sounding nonsense. None of these cost reductions (which other companies have also achieved) have been due to reuse. Did you know that? I bet you didn't. That's because Musk talks a great bullshit story.

We have thousands of documents from discovery proving this beyond doubt.

As for the law, according to your own criteria Musk is an enormous fraud. He paid a large fine to the SEC and was forced to step down as chairman for committing securities fraud. Solarcity signed multiple settlements for defrauding the government.

In a world where Eppstein walked free for 20 years, where Madoff walked free for 30, where Elizabeth Holmes is not convicted of anything at all yet, I don't think your take that "Musk a ain't a fraud until proven so in a court of law" is reasonable. He's clearly a fraud from his own fraudulent statements.

Among the worlds middle class and richer? I assumed that most of the worlds people who could afford starlink already have reasonable internet.

Obviously poor people don't have fast internet, but they wont be starlink customers.

hes a zealot. the others mentioned had to know what they were doing would mean serious time in the pen. musk isnt misleading, hes just overly optimistic but a reasonable investor should know this by now and therefore dont need to be protected from his statements and actinos

The problem with Tesla stock soaring is Musk will actually have to produce a working product for the Semi, Cybertruck etc. At this point it could be vaporware. Also is it possible a cybertruck preorder becomes valuable in some way? they gave them for 100 dollars a pop lol.

On other hand this could all blow up and people shorting are going to make a killing. Freest free money since Btc.

Even not considering the fact that SpaceX is about to launch people at almost the same price it launches commercial payload, there's really no comparison between launch prices today, if you take into account rocket reliability (Falcon 9 is basically guaranteed to bring payload to orbit). Also, SpaceX is charging very little AND is NOT losing money. Its competition is basically other countries, who have taxpayers directly fund the launches. SpaceX, while having contracts with Nasa, does not receive taxpayers money directly.

In any case this is an updated chart of commercial payload prices:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...PjE/edit#gid=0

Again, bear in mind that SpaceX has driven and is driving the prices down dramatically (one factor being reusage, whether you like it or not), that's why other launch systems are willing to compete with negative margins.

Who do you think is funding SpaceX launches? lol?

I don't disagree that SpaceX is competing well on costs, but the notion that they brought costs down "an order of magnitude" compared to alternatives is pure fiction. In 2011 costs were already 6x lower than the space shuttle which you used to compare. They haven't even beat the competition by 2x.
There's a huge difference between being overly optimistic and flat out deliberately lying about material facts and projections in a way that constitutes criminal fraud. Musk has done the latter many times.

Its patently ridiculous to compare Holmes to Musk. Even if you accept that he makes bombastic and false statements to pump up the stock (which I personally don't think is his motivation and I think he really believes he can achieve things which he clearly cannot), the massive underlying difference is that he has created a company which makes a tangible product which is out there in the real world performing very well. In a market with famously one of the highest barriers to entry (name me another automotive startup that is even remotely a success in the past 50 years), he has produced nearly 1 million cars which consistently top customer satisfaction ratings, particularly on questions like "would you buy this car again" or other measures of enjoyment. I've been a car guy all my life and have been fortunate enough to own many vehicles that are lusted after by most car guys (multiple 911s, Aventador, M3, M5, Supra, etc) and I've never loved a car so much as the Tesla. I don't especially care about the environmental stuff, its just a really great, fun-to-drive car.

I own TSLA because when I find a company that makes a product or provides a service that I love, I try to buy some stock in the hopes that I find these companies quicker than most customers. Most of these investments have been good ones, although sometimes the rest of world never catches on to a superior product that I love (TIVO and SONO come to mind).

Despite the puffery and bombast, you can't ignore the fact that Tesla makes some fantastic cars and people who buy them generally love them. My wife, who always has picked cars for reliability and has driven a Lexus or Toyota since we were in our 20s, famously among my car friends can rarely remember the manufacturer of her car and has never in her life known the model. Despite this, she asks me weekly if Tesla has made the Model Y yet, because she is very keen to replace her RX with the Y.

Also, as a sailor who pays through the nose for satellite phone and internet connections, I would kill for Starlink to be operating now. Musk isn't alone in his conviction that the approach can be a success: Richard Branson, Samsung, Telesat, and Amazon are all developing or implementing a similar concept right now. I know guys at Panasonic Aviation and they have drastically scaled back their geosynchronous launch plans as they expect someone to win the low earth orbit communications game and crush the Immarsat market.

Finally, you are misinformed about the effect on launch cost spurred by SpaceX. When I was a subcontractor to Lockheed in 2009, our costs to launch EELV were well north of $300MM per rocket. Tesla has crushed every competitive government bid it has competed against on cost (although it wasn't awarded every contract). Similarly, costs per kg have plummeted since SpaceX entered the market. This is no coincidence. The CEO of Ariane said publicly that they couldn't possibly compete with SpaceX on price. Costs per kg are down more than an order of magnitude and although SpaceX is not the only reason it is beyond doubt that they are a major reason.