Tesla Is Making Over 2,000 Model 3s a Week, Falling Just Short of Its Goal (theverge.com) 233
According to an email from Elon Musk, Tesla has increased its production of its mass-market electric Model 3 to over 2,000 units per week. "It's an impressive ramp up of production, but it still falls short of Musk's goal of 2,500 Model 3s per week by the end of the first quarter of 2018," reports The Verge. From the report: In the companywide email (which was obtained by Jalopnik, Electrek, and Autonocast host Ed Niedermeyer), Musk sounds a celebratory note on the 2,000-vehicle per week benchmark, while ignoring the larger issue of missed deadlines: "It has been extremely difficult to pass the 2,000 cars per week rate for Model 3, but we are finally there. If things go as planned today, we will comfortably exceed that number over a seven-day period! Moreover, the whole Tesla production system is now on a firm foundation for that output, which means we should be able to exceed a combined Model S, X, and 3 production rate of 4,000 vehicles per week and climbing rapidly. This is already double the pace of 2017! By the end of this year, I believe we will be producing vehicles at least four times faster than last year." With Q1 now behind us, we can expect to see Tesla report its official production numbers to investors sometime this week.
Over promise (Score:2, Redundant)
under deliver.
Re:Over promise (Score:5, Informative)
S and X production were only down for one day. Lines have to go down periodically regardless; tooling does not last forever, even if you're not doing upgrades.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla skipped prototype tooling (Score:2)
Toolings typically last for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of operations.
That depends entirely on the tooling in question. In many cases you are right but not always.
Tesla should still be on its first toolings UNLESS they've redesigned parts, forcing tooling changes or new tools altogether.
The problem Tesla has is that they apparently skipped prototype tooling [reuters.com] and ordered the production tooling. That means that if they didn't get it right they'll have to tear it out and replace it or spend a lot of time and money fixing it. It's a gamble but one with a non-trivial chance of rolling snake eyes. If it works they get to production faster and save a lot of money. If it doesn't then they have a huge p
Re: (Score:3)
Trying something different (Score:2)
Skipping proto tooling would be a big gamble for a well-established company; for a start-up, that's suicide and IMHO just further confirms the team at Tesla really doesn't have much experience in manufacturing.
If they are adequately funded it might not matter. Yeah they are taking some risks and they know it. But I work with some of those big established auto makers and I can assure you that they waste HUGE amounts of money and time in endless meetings and reviews and prototypes that often don't actually make things better. My company makes a part for an EV for one of the big automakers and given how much time we spent in meetings with 10-15 engineers in attendance about this one little part I cannot imagine h
Financing (Score:2)
The problem there is that they aren't adequately funded. They've been through something like 4 rounds of funding, their currently credit rating is C+, which for a company is pretty fricken garbage.
Doesn't matter as long as investors are still willing to throw money at them. Given the ludicrous value of the stock price that obviously hasn't been a problem to date.
And if they don't start turning a true profit by the end of the year, they're in serious trouble as their debts start to become due at the end of this year.
Only a problem if they cannot find additional financing. You really want to bet Elon isn't going to be able to sweet talk investors into another round of financing? Possible of course but I wouldn't bet against the guy.
Re:Over promise (Score:5, Informative)
Toolings typically last for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of operations. Tesla should still be on its first toolings UNLESS they've redesigned parts, forcing tooling changes or new tools altogether.
Yes, the tool lasts that long. Of course it never needs to be sharpened, or never chips, or rebuilt, or damaged, or, or, or, or, or
As someone who has worked in a factory, it is normal to change tools very regularly, so as to not make bad parts that need rework or scrapping.
Do you actually think a drill or a tap can just run forever?
And those are quite good compared to an endmill, to say nothing of a facemill.
I'm not sure what sort of tooling is required for building a Tesla, but even a drill needs to be changed, and I'd be surprised if at least something wasn't tapped.
Assembly tooling not component tooling (Score:3)
I'm not sure what sort of tooling is required for building a Tesla, but even a drill needs to be changed, and I'd be surprised if at least something wasn't tapped.
The tooling in question here isn't generally disposables like drills and taps but robots, paint, jigs, welding automation, material handling, presses, (big) die sets, etc. They aren't drilling and tapping anything on the main assembly line. All that stuff is done long before the parts reach the line. The tools in question are the ones on the line that can really affect production rates.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair. one day down isn't generally 'retooling' either. Even with planning and staging.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI - BASF has a good overview [www8.basf.us] on this, and what's typical for plastic mold toolings that run 1MM+ lifespans. Think about it - if a tool lasted 100K shots or so, and you're making 10MM+ parts a month (like some of the consumer electronics products out there, or even automotive like relay bodies and such), you'd go through 100 tools a MONTH. Given a typical 30-40 day lead-time to cut, polish, dial-in, and harden a tool, you'd need upwards of 4000 days of work per month just to keep the product rolling. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but even if Tesla where churning out 10k Model 3's a month then they don't need tooling that lasts for millions especially if there is a possibility of a part redesign in the interim.
The entirely rational thing might be to go with cheap tooling that only lasts for 10k (which would have been good for at least six months up till now) and you are sure it's not going to be changed before buying the expensive tooling that lasts for millions.
Cheap tooling is expensive in the long run (Score:2)
Sure but even if Tesla where churning out 10k Model 3's a month then they don't need tooling that lasts for millions especially if there is a possibility of a part redesign in the interim.
They have orders for 500K units already. They need tooling that can last.
The entirely rational thing might be to go with cheap tooling that only lasts for 10k
You'd think so but that's not how it works. You can get prototype tooling that will last for a short time but you do NOT want to do production runs with it if you can avoid it. I've seen auto companies do this and it rarely ends happily. It wears out in unpredictable ways much too quickly. Ends up costing you more in the long run. The cheap tooling is actually more expensive on a per unit basis when you are at production volumes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
S and X production were only down for one day. Lines have to go down periodically regardless; tooling does not last forever, even if you're not doing upgrades.
If they're reaching the 2000/wk mark with 2 shifts, not much overtime, solid build quality with minimal reworking, and can sustain it across several weeks, then this is a real milestone. Otherwise, they've still got a ways to go and much to learn.
The above may sound like a tall order but it's what established automakers do by the 10s of 1000s - or more - every week.
Re: (Score:2)
If they hit above 2,000 per week sustainable, it will quieten the critics. But they'll need to show a steady ramp up going forward to keep them quiet.
Re: (Score:2)
2,000 a week is 104,000 a year which is well short of their targets. At one point, Elon Musk was talking about doing 500,000 a year which is clearly still way out of reach. Even 200,000 a year (not enough to clear the order backlog in a year) looks unattainable right now.
So, no, it will not keep the critics quiet.
Comparison (Score:2)
At one point, Elon Musk was talking about doing 500,000 a year which is clearly still way out of reach. Even 200,000 a year (not enough to clear the order backlog in a year) looks unattainable right now.
For perspective the Ford F150 which is the fastest selling vehicle in the US most years has an annual production volume of around 800K/year.
Tesla doesn't have to please their critics - that's probably impossible. They just have to please their customers. The question is whether they can do so fast enough to keep their customers excited about the product. I know I wouldn't buy a car I had to wait 3 years to receive.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not done increasing production. The stated (revised) goals were 2500/week by the end of Q1, and 5000/week by the end of Q2.
Whether they can do that or not is the question. Breaking 2000/week goes a bit of distance to show progress in comparison to the doom and gloom stories we're seeing from the hedge fund whore financial press.
Re:Over promise (Score:5, Interesting)
Welcome to Bear World, where pointing out facts is "spin".
The only reporting that described people from the S and X lines working on the 3 line described it as a 1-day downtime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) I don't know why you linked to a blog when you can get that graph (up to date) straight from the Bloomberg site.
2) That's actually a terrible graph from Bloomberg, since those are supposed to be S curves, not straight lines (aka, starting out slower, then speeding up).
3) Go further back [cleantechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
1) I don't know why you linked to a blog when you can get that graph (up to date) straight from the Bloomberg site.
2) That's actually a terrible graph from Bloomberg, since those are supposed to be S curves, not straight lines (aka, starting out slower, then speeding up).
3) Go further back [cleantechnica.com].
That S-curve or "stepped exponential" as Elon also referred to it, got scaled back quite dramatically.
In the dim & misty past known as August 2017, he said quite emphatically
“What people should absolutely have zero concern about, and I mean 0, is that Tesla will achieve a 10,000 unit production week by the end of next year. [] I think people should really not have any concerns that we won’t reach that outcome from a production rate.”
"https://electrek.co/2017/08/03/tesla-model-3-elon-mu
Re: Over promise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
General Motors makes around 10 million cars per year. The difference between 1,000 cars and 10,000 cars is about a single shift for them.
Re:Over promise (Score:5, Informative)
Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts [cleantechnica.com]. I guess that's that "decades to tune their processes and supply chains" they had going for them, eh? And it costs Tesla $10k less per vehicle [cleantechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that matters is whether Tesla can meet their numbers before their money runs out. We all know that they'll hit their targets eventually, but if they run out of money and can't raise any more then it doesn't matter if they hit their targets next quarter because they'll already be out of business.
Personally I'll wait and see, but I have to admit it isn't looking good for them - the last time they sold stock it turned to junk bonds immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Tesla has been "running out of money" because they've invested profits plus investor money in the business. They aren't sitting around spending billions on bleaching Elon's asshole, they could stop at any time and just focus on what they already have.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Tesla has been "running out of money" because they've invested profits plus investor money in the business.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they've been spending their money on if they are unable to pay their bills.
they could stop at any time and just focus on what they already have.
It's too late for that - they've already stopped the capital investment, for over a year already, which is why I said that they need to make enough revenue to meet their costs.
In order to do that they have to hit their targets for both production and sales. Sales doesn't look like a problem, what with people lining up to buy their product, but production appeared to be a problem. If they make enoug
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla spent, $1,7B on R&D last quarter alone. And capital investment at both Fremont and Gigafactories 1 and 2 continue, and the Supercharger network is expanding faster than it ever has (just in the past week work has started on the Trans-Canada highway and the North Dakota gap)
Re: (Score:2)
Ed: year, not quarter. Shuold prorfraed betur :P
Re: (Score:2)
Fast isn't always good (Score:3)
Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts
That doesn't really tell you some very important information. What good is it to produce something fast if the quality stinks? I'm not saying Tesla's quality is good or bad but as the saying goes you can have it good, fast, or cheap. Pick two. Furthermore, it is pointless to run a production line faster than demand for the product. Tesla has a huge backlog of orders for the Model 3. The Bolt? Not so much even though it is a respectably good vehicle. I think the production line in Lake Orion has a ca
Re:Over promise (Score:5, Insightful)
What "moving the goalposts"? Even with their delays, they brought a new EV to market in higher volumes faster than GM. So where's your "the big automakers are going to teach upstart Tesla a lesson" coming from? If they're so good at making EVs, well, why don't they? Why is it that Tesla, even with half a year of delays, can tool a brand new line and churn out EVs faster than them?
Exact same line we've been hearing for the past ten years. Meanwhile, Tesla sells more nearly-six-figure-average vehicles in the US than its closest EV competitors sell econoboxes to a vastly larger customer base and half a million people are waiting on the Model 3, a vehicle designed to - like the S and X - turn a profit 25% margin.
Did you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, the ability to make a good, affordable EV doesn't just get magicked into existence because you're a "big automaker", that you actually have to invest billions of dollars a year in research and infrastructure to make it happen? Did you ever stop and think that the reason that the big automakers haven't pushed harder on EVs is because they don't want to, because they're all tooled up and researched to build ICEs?
Re: Over promise (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you ever stop and think that the reason that the big automakers haven't pushed harder on EVs is because they don't want to, because they're all tooled up and researched to build ICEs?
I think this was precisely his point; if they wanted to, and were willing to cut down on their ICE production, they could pump out enough EVs to eclipse Tesla overnight. (whether those EVs would be as good as Tesla's designs is a different question)
The two of you seem to be in violent agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a vehicle designed to - like the S and X - turn a profit 25% margin
Designed to turn a profit, sure - who doesn't design to turn a profit? The problem is, Tesla has had exactly ONE profitable quarter [ycharts.com] in the last 5 years, and that was when the booked all the pre-order sales for the Model 3. Historically, they're running about a -13% profit margin. That's the fact - unless you have actual, GAAP numbers that say otherwise?
Uber (Score:2)
Designed to turn a profit, sure - who doesn't design to turn a profit?
Uber as far as I can tell. They are burning through cash WAY faster than Tesla and I don't really see how Uber becomes magically profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Fast follower (Score:2)
If they're so good at making EVs, well, why don't they?
The answer is because they don't have to. he strategy they are using is called fast follower [london.edu] and it has been used very successfully by a lot of companies. Ford, GM and the rest can afford to wait and let Tesla prove the market and make the mistakes for them. It takes them about 18-24 months to bring a completely new vehicle to market and start production at scale which isn't very long in the car industry. Once they decide to move they can move very quickly and they know it. So they are playing wait and
Re: Over promise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are also some large funds that have sold TSLA short. They are overtly involved in the attacks on Tesla.
Re:Over promise (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody sane goes to China with new tech. They will be happy to cooperate with you. One year later, an almost identical car from an almost identical factory in a different city will hit the market. That factory will be owned by your cooperation partner. But unlike your joint factory, only by them. In fact, they'll not even tell you that the other factory exists, despite if you were put in either one without being told which one it is, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Tall story? Happened to Mercedes Benz.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I saw that on the news. IIRC the knock-off factory isn't even in another city like GP said - it's just round the corner.
Pretty convenient. If they run out of parts they can just get their mole to chuck some over the fence.
Re:Over promise (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying that Tesla has been lying to the SEC for years? The average margin on S and X was 25%. Their overall automotive margin is down to 18% now because of the problems with the 3 dragging down their average, but that's to be expected; you can't have a line designed for 5000/wk running at a fraction of that and still expect to get your design profit margin.
From your link:
Four. Years. The line downtime was 8-10 weeks, but it took four years to tool up.
Re: (Score:2)
>So you're saying that Tesla has been lying to the SEC for years?
There are various accounting methods to state cost. That should be considered when comparing between two companies. They may or may not include certain overhead or capital costs. They would naturally have to claim them elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
"So you're saying that Tesla has been lying to the SEC for years? The average margin on S and X was 25%. Their overall automotive margin is down to 18% now because of the problems with the 3 dragging down their average, but that's to be expected"
I know a few folks who know quite a bit about automaking including an old fogey who worked at Fremont decades ago both before & after it became NUMMI.
He's says there's no way Tesla's overall margins are that high. But even if they are, their R&D costs relati
Re:Over promise (Score:5, Informative)
Having worked a lot with installing factory automation, I can actually parse what is stated in that article. The four years were not spent planning, but actually building the replacement factory content.
That is how installing factory assembly lines work. They are built offsite, one sub-assembly line at the time, complete with SAT acceptance, and then moved to the factory and installed and tested there.
That is what the article explains. They spent four years speccing and building sub-assembly lines, and then budgeted 8 weeks to remove the old assembly line and get the new ones running. Which is a crazy schedule, which they almost managed to keep - which is amazing.
But no, they did not shift over production in 8-10 weeks total implementation time. The new factory already existed at the start of those 8 weeks, only spread out at the integrator sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Over promise (Score:5, Funny)
*Swoon*! Oh you spoony bard - I am vanquished.
I shall retreat for the evening and drown my sorrows with Teslaquilla [twitter.com].
(Rei has left the party)
Re: (Score:2)
Does REI stand for 'Reeks of Elon's Intestines"?
I've never seen a poster so in the tank for any company or person.
Versus a bunch of no-account ACs, who have no real idea why they hate Musk, it's just a reason to make up fake stats.
Re:Over promise (Score:4, Insightful)
Margins (Score:2)
Learn the difference between margins and profits. Thanks.
Are you talking about Gross Margins or Net Margins? Net margin ARE profits - the terms are literally synonyms. I'm an accountant so I should know. Gross margins are just revenue minus cost of goods sold but have nothing to do with profits directly until you include overhead, taxes, etc. A manufacturing company will have gross margins around 25%-35% but the most profitable car companies in the world have net margins around 10%. Tesla's net margins are negative since they are losing money.
Re:Over promise (Score:4, Informative)
Read. [tesla.com]
Gross margin = Gross profits / sales = historically around 25%, down a bit recently due to Model 3 production issues Your graph is operating margin, which is EBIT/sales. EBIT = gross profits - operating expenses (SGA, etc) - non-operating income + interest. In 2017, gross profit for TSLA was $2,2B, SGA was $2,5B, and R&D was $1,4B, yielding a net loss of $1,6B (plus everything else = -$2B). But a gross margin around 25% is quite solid for the auto industry. Tesla ran a negative not because of negative automotive margins, but because 1) SGA is scaled up to the size Tesla is actively growing to, not to the company's current sales, and 2) likewise for the R&D budget. Which are both exactly what you want to see in a rapidly growing company. None of Tesla's investors want to see them sit back on their laurels right now and live off of S and X; the point of investing in Tesla is to have a stake in a company that's transforming the automotive market. And that requires rapid scaleup. Gross margins prove the economic case for your products; operating margins remain negative until you've grown large.
Re: (Score:2)
Your graph shows quarterly profits / loss, which factors in all non-capEx business costs (EBITDA). This is sometimes referred to as profit margin.
He is talking about product margin, which is the percentage of profit over sale price on a per-product basis.
The two are not equal, and the terms are being confused. Profit margin is a totaling of all product margins, plus some other calculations that don't have anything to do with actually producing products for sale - various regulatory overhead, one time cost
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts [cleantechnica.com]. I guess that's that "decades to tune their processes and supply chains" they had going for them, eh? And it costs Tesla $10k less per vehicle [cleantechnica.com].
I wouldn't put too much faith in that. Tesla 25% margin is not plausible even for their higher-end cars except perhaps the Performance trims. As for the Bolt, a car that I wouldn't buy unless it were 1/2 the MSRP, GM is mostly selling them for the EV credits. But they do have the facilities, manpower and skillsets to turn up the production as needed. Ford, for example, converted their largest NorthAm truck factory to aluminum production of their flagship F-150 in only 8-10 weeks and by mid-November were producing 1400 per DAY at the new plant. https://www.popularmechanics.c... [popularmechanics.com]
That's a "machine-that-builds-the-machine" that Tesla can still only dream of building.
The Bolt comes off a line that also produces the Sonic. They produce two Sonics for every Bolt, so the production of that line is three times Bolt production. CM has a different model.
Bloomberg estimate 1214 per week (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.bloomberg.com/grap... [bloomberg.com]
However, their methods are inexact. They are doing the best they can without access to inside knowledge. Musk has inside knowledge, and there are laws against lying to the stock market.
Re: (Score:3)
Bloomberg's figures have always been messed up; they seem to have some sort of very long running average and thus catch neither downtimes nor increases in production rates.
Re: Bloomberg estimate 1214 per week (Score:3)
I wish there laws against journalists misleading stock market
Given they were begging (Score:4, Insightful)
their employees to work extra hard, I am surprised he missed at all. I was expecting him to fudge it up to 2400 or 2500 for the week ending Q1 by doing whatever (stop X/S production and reassign bodies, hold cars from the prior week, ...) and then go back to the 1200/wk. Technically he is not lying then. But we will see as Q2 moves along. Bloomberg is likely going to keep tallying up deliveries. It will be interesting what happens tomorrow on share price.
Re: (Score:3)
Not much being paid out right now for hit pieces on Julian Assange, gotta make the rent somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Muskese to English translation (Score:2)
"After throwing practically every resource in the company at getting Model 3s out the door, we managed to make 2000 in one week."
We'll see if it sustains. Given how badly he needed some positive scrap of news to come out to try to stop the stock price, bond rating, etc., from cratering further, I remain skeptical.
Re: (Score:3)
Reminder: at the end of Q4, it was ~250/wk average in December, a ~450/wk average in January, and an "extrapolated" 1000/wk rate from the last few days of the quarter. This is significant growth regardless.
Meanwhile, the Grohmann line (replacing the downed zones #1 and #2 on the battery line) was shipped to Tesla last month and should be going live over the course of the next couple months.
Impressive Ramp Up (Score:3)
Would this be a crash program?
In the meantime... (Score:2)
Popular models usually run at 50 to 80 jobs per hour. If he's talking seven days (!) instead of the normal five, and two shifts, he's running at 18 jph. Hardly impressive.
It's spreading (Score:2)
Can we stop having versions go, 3, 3s, 4, 4s, etc. I don't get the "s", or why cannot just go 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.
Re:It's spreading (Score:4, Funny)
Can we stop having versions go, 3, 3s, 4, 4s, etc. I don't get the "s", or why cannot just go 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.
The reason the model names are 'S', '3', and 'X' is so that when you've bought the whole set, it (sort of) spells out 'SEX'. Yes, really. (They originally wanted the Model 3 to be named the Model E, but Ford has the rights to the name 'Model E')
And if/when the model Y comes out, you'll be able to spell out SEXY, so there's that.
Re: (Score:2)
I was playing off the headline talking about "Model 3s", and Apple's habit of naming models things like "6s". But I never noticed that, and I believe its true.
none thanks I'm good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My Mazda 3 costs half as much so no Tesla for me
And the Chevy Spark costs half of the Mazda 3. So what?
It may be making them but..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The full quote was, "If things go as planned today, we will comfortably exceed that number over a seven-day period”".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, in the real world, Tesla declined 5,13%, only 3,23% worse than the Dow (which also declined today).
The "story" was an email sent to employees. Not to the media. Now you may argue that it was sent to employees with the expectation that some of them would leak it to the media. But p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
NASDAQ was down 2.7% and if you look at tech only it was worse than that. Amazon was down 5.2%. Today was primarily a tech bashing day because they are catching the brunt of the eye of the orange one this week - so desperately need to be able to put an eye of sauron image in here :(.
I bought some Tesla today and hope to buy more at an even lower level tomorrow. I'll sell half when it hits 300 again sometime in the next month (it's not good to be too greedy) and hold the rest in hopes of the normal 345 peak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For my part, I ordered two more items from Amazon today. And yes, it pays state sales tax here.
Re: (Score:2)
TSLA is up 1,2% in afterhours trading. Is this all the shorts have? Surely they're not "going wobbly" so soon!
Re: (Score:2)
Now up 6,15% pre-market. Aww, whatever happened to Tesla going bankwupt?
TSLA hugely overvalued as a stock (Score:2)
I bought some Tesla today and hope to buy more at an even lower level tomorrow.
Your money but as much as I like Tesla's cars I wouldn't touch their stock with a borrowed dick. WAY too overpriced even after a pullback. Tesla's stock price should be 1/10th of it's current market cap even under the most optimistic valuation. The fact that it peaked higher than Ford is just absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a really silly calculation. If the Dow went down by 0.01% and on the same day TSLA went down by 1%, that would be 9900% worse, but it doesn't tell you anything useful. It makes even less sense if TSLA went up by 1% on that day, now your 'difference' would be -9900% or -10100% (I can't even decide which one makes more sense.) Using a number (Dow) that is the sum of lots of positives and negatives as a denominator is silly. TSLA underperformed the Dow by 3.2% is the correct way of looking at this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Flack, incoming (Score:2)
Holy crap. I haven't been posting attention to the market recently, so thanks! Great time to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Flack, incoming (Score:2)
Oh it's the typical overreaction of ignorant crowds. It'll correct in a few weeks, or a couple months tops. All the "bad news" is taken completely out of context; their finances are far better today then they were a year ago. The only reason to NOT buy stock now is if you think it was massively overpriced to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Overreaction equaled overpriced stock (Score:2)
Oh it's the typical overreaction of ignorant crowds.
The overreaction of ignorant crowds is why TSLA had a market cap greater than Ford. The ignorance is on the upside. TSLA market cap should be at most 1/10th of its current value. Currently it is ludicrously out of line with any reasonable projection of future profits.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a bunch of news [model3ownersclub.com] with short term and/or minimal financial repercussions, except for the Moody's downgrade, which itself was based on said news with short term and/or minimal financial repercussions. And it is irrelevant to Tesla as, even if one believes they're "running out of money" (which is a nonsense claim), with $3,4B in the bank they'd still have no need to go to the markets in the short term and they have fixed terms with their suppliers, so whatever rating Moodys happens to give them today is
Expensive stock (Score:2)
Holy crap. I haven't been posting attention to the market recently, so thanks! Great time to buy.
TSLA isn't even close to being cheap enough to be a good buy. It's a fine company but their stock price is ludicrously overvalued even after the recent pullback.
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake. It was 307 five days ago. It's 251 today.
I'll let you do the math.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its quite clear that there are companies and people out there with an agenda to push Tesla's share price down and they are planting stories of dubious accuracy in the media.
Of course Elon is responding to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Its quite clear that there are companies and people out there with an agenda to push Tesla's share price down and they are planting stories of dubious accuracy in the media.
I saw a pseudo-documentary eons ago that claimed Detroit's "Big Three" + Michigan Senator Carl Levin conspired to sabotage DeLorean . . . which was deemed to be a danger to the status quo.
I've often wondered if Detroit's now "Big Two" + Turin's "Big One" would sit by idly as Tesla eats their lunch. Sure, they are reluctantly also going electric . . . but dirty tricks are an essential part of doing business these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, except it was an email to employees, and leaked by employees. If he emailed it directly to the press that would very likely run afoul of public disclosure responsibilities with the SEC.
Did he send it to all employees knowing it would be leaked? Probably. But the distinction is important.