Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Transportation

Tesla Tops Wall Street Estimates With 112,000 Vehicle Deliveries In Fourth Quarter (cnbc.com) 86

Posted by BeauHD from the major-feather-in-the-cap dept.
SpankiMonki shares a report from CNBC: Tesla said it delivered 92,550 Model 3 cars and 19,450 Model S and X vehicles during the fourth quarter. The company was expected to deliver 87,900 Model 3, 9,800 Model S and 9,300 Model X vehicles, according to an average of analysts surveyed by FactSet. Investors were also watching production numbers. In the second and third quarters of 2019, Tesla delivered more cars than it produced. The production versus deliveries gap widened in the fourth quarter. In the third quarter, Tesla manufactured 96,155 vehicles and delivered 97,000 vehicles. In the fourth quarter, it manufactured 104,891 vehicles and delivered 112,000. The electric-car maker said it has produced just under 1,000 cars that are ready for sale at its new factory in Shanghai. Tesla started delivering vehicles to Chinese customers late last month.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Tops Wall Street Estimates With 112,000 Vehicle Deliveries In Fourth Quarter More

Tesla Tops Wall Street Estimates With 112,000 Vehicle Deliveries In Fourth Quarter

Comments Filter:

  • Let me just say to all the haters... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @08:47PM (#59584218) Homepage Journal

    Let me just say to all the haters, "Eat my shorts".

    Or was that "Let me just say to all the shorters, 'Eat my hate'"?

  • How it is delivering more than it made for 3 q? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @08:54PM (#59584254) Journal
    2019 first quarter was the European market opening. It handled the transition from US Sales to Europe very very badly. Till last day of 2018 it was delivering cars to get the 7500$ tax credit. Come 2019, it had not even completed the fitness certificates! The delivery ships were a mess, and deliveries did not really get going till the last 4 weeks of Q1. But the Fremont factory has been pumped up to make 4500 cars a week. That over production of Q1 why it is able to deliver more than it made for three quarters.

  • Are there any delivery numbers from the Chinese factory in these results?

    Once they get that running full speed the revenue numbers are going to be epic.

    • Meh -- scratch that question sorry. I didn't see the last line which said 1,000 cars are "ready for sale."

      Still, it is such a shame how that company is run by a guy who is so incompetent, delusional, criminal, and about to run out of cash in another month. So much potential wasted.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Musk may be many things, but I seriously doubt that he is about to run out of cash.

        When a useless startup like WeWork can get a $9.5 billion bailout, do you really think that Tesla couldn't get hold of additional funds if they needed them? The words "Tesla" and "Musk" seem to have been politicised to the same degree as "Trump".

      • Hah. They've been "about to run out of cash in another month" for years according to you people. Keep throwing money at your short position.

      • Lol, and meanwhile you're shitposting on a dying website.

      • "Still, it is such a shame how that company is run by a guy who is so incompetent, delusional, criminal, and about to run out of cash in another month. So much potential wasted."

        seems like this caused a lot of "whooooosh" replies :)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Socguy ( 933973 )
      They only delivered cars to Tesla employees in China so far. They start deliveries to regular Chinese customers from the Shanghai factory on Jan 6 I believe. So far the production rate at the Shanghai factory seems to be between 1000-2000 per week according to the analysts.
  • I don't really follow this whole thing, but I'm to understand that Tesla is the most shorted stock in history. If that happened, then these people must be losing their shit right now. I'm a fan of salt mining outrage from deplorable people with ugly views, could anyone provide me with some links or Youtube/Bitchute videos where they get really angry and red in the face about Tesla succeeding? Thanks in advance!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      There's a fun 2019 summary from Mark Spiegel (one of the top 3 loons in the TSLAQ short circus), explaining how his fund lost 6.5% in a year when the S&P was up 31.5%.... and how they've lost money for 3 consecutive years now in a bull market.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/tesla... [reddit.com]

      There's still a fair amount of TSLA shorting... 27M or so shares... so the craziness will continue for a bit I suppose.

    • The shorts have now lost more money than Tesla has spent. And they have nothing to show for it, while Tesla has cars, supercharger networks, solar power and batteries. Even building a factory in under a year. As for laughing at them, check out https://twitter.com/BarkMSmeag... [twitter.com] and https://twitter.com/TeslaHisto... [twitter.com] for some cherry picked tweets, it's entertaining for a bit.

  • Shorts, convertible bonds and used car prices... (Score:5, Informative)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @09:12PM (#59584304) Journal
    S3 Partners is reporting [twitter.com] persistent high short interest of over 10 billion dollars. The recent low water mark was 24 million shares shorted in Jan'19. It surged to 44 million shorted and has returned to about 28 million shorted. There has not been significant covering of the short bets even as the price surged past 400$.

    Looks like Tesla has raised 5 billion in convertible bonds, with convert price of 310$, 328$ and 360$. [twitter.com] This would work out to about 14 million shares at convert prices. So it is possible 50% of the shorted Tesla shares are fully covered by these convertible bonds, with down side risk capped. Less informed retail investors might be misled by the short interest reported and be shorting the stock beyond prudent levels for their holdings and loss tolerance.

    Already the used near luxury car prices have taken a sever beating according to Capital 1 credit card services analyzing whole sale prices of used cars. They said Tesla dumped 250,000 cars in that segment in USA, far beyond its capability to absorb it. All makes of near luxury cars had an additional 30 to 40% price drop because of that. This year another 360,000 cars globally in the same segment. Another round of unsold entry level luxury cars disposed of at clearance prices will depress used near luxury car prices even more. Drop in residual value, rise in lease terms, it is going to be a big mess for the likes of BMW, Lexus, Acura and Audi.

    • Looks like Tesla has raised 5 billion in convertible bonds, with convert price of 310$, 328$ and 360$. This would work out to about 14 million shares at convert prices. So it is possible 50% of the shorted Tesla shares are fully covered by these convertible bonds, with down side risk capped. Less informed retail investors might be misled by the short interest reported and be shorting the stock beyond prudent levels for their holdings and loss tolerance.

      There are other ways to protect a short position. For example, you can buy protective calls above your opening price. [dummies.com] It's kind of the reverse of buying a protective put against a long position, if you're concerned the stock price will go down.

      The safest way to "short" a stock is to do it synthetically by buying put-options. The most you can lose is what you paid for the put. The catch is that puts expire at some point, whereas short-positions don't until you close them.

  • Good. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday January 03, 2020 @09:23PM (#59584330)

    Money issues aside, it's a good thing that Telsa is now scaled up to crank out half a million or more Battery EVs in 2020. I don't give a damn who makes money off it, we simply need to be moving over to BEVs and put a tax on CO2 pollution as soon as possible. You can cry about economics of doing so but the law of physics don't give a damn.

    • Money issues aside, it's a good thing that Telsa is now scaled up to crank out half a million or more Battery EVs in 2020. I don't give a damn who makes money off it, we simply need to be moving over to BEVs and put a tax on CO2 pollution as soon as possible.

      There will not be any CO2 tax in the USA, nobody will be stupid enough to vote for it. If there are enough stupid people to vote for it then the next election will put smarter people in office.

      Here's an idea, how about instead of politicians taxing CO2 we get some politicians that listen to the experts on how to lower CO2 without raising everyone's energy costs? What are the experts saying we need to keep costs low as well as lower CO2 emissions? I'm glad you asked. For electricity production we need on

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        For electricity production we need onshore windmills, geothermal power, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear fission reactors.

        You had me up until you said hydroelectric. Unless you're talking about wave power, hydroelectric power shouldn't be seriously considered if your goal is reducing global warming.

        To be fair, if you're already building a dam for some other reason, such as flood control or drinking water storage, then the environmental impact is obviously basically zero. But if you're building a dam solely

        • You had me up until you said hydroelectric. Unless you're talking about wave power, hydroelectric power shouldn't be seriously considered if your goal is reducing global warming.

          I'm talking about hydroelectric dams like Hoover Dam.

          To be fair, if you're already building a dam for some other reason, such as flood control or drinking water storage, then the environmental impact is obviously basically zero.

          Every dam built for electricity has multiple uses, perhaps the most important if we are discussing global warming it is the ability for hydroelectric dams to store energy. I don't mean pumped hydro storage, though that should be considered where it is feasible, I mean the inherent ability for a hydro dam to store energy as water at a height and release it as desired to match demand.

          This impact is not only zero but negative. A properly constructed dam wi

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            The bad idea is not spending any real effort on storing the excess power for future use. Using any form of power that only works during the day means not just curtailment, but also limits on how much of your grid mix can come from nuclear, which can't be spun up and down quickly.

            There is no real limit on how much can come from nuclear. No more of a limit as there is for solar. That's because whatever technology that is proposed to avoid curtailing solar power can be applied to avoid curtailing nuclear.

            That's not entirely true. Power plants depend on a certain amount of back-pressure from the load to keep the turbines from spinning too fast. There are limits to the degree to which plants can handle variations in load.

            This can be solved in a lot of ways, the most obvious being giant, high-capacity transoceanic superconducting cables, and putting the entire planet on a single power grid. If we did that, we could have solar energy providing power all day, and the storage issue would become a much more easily solvable transmission issue. The design of the power bridges across the Bering Strait, the Northwestern Passages, and possibly the Norwegian Sea are left as an exercise for the reader, as are the geopolitical ramifications.

            Now I'm wondering if you are being serious in anything you posted. This is just lunacy.

            Why?

            If we could afford, economically and politically, to build a world spanning grid to manage solar power generation then we can do the same for anything else. At that point we won't have to curtail any nuclear power, or worry about a shortage of wind.

            Correct. And that's why I think that building a worldwide power grid should be a long-term goal. This obviously isn't something that can happen in the next year, and probably not even in the next fifty, but the world's power needs aren't likely to stop increasing any time soon. Plann

            • That's not entirely true. Power plants depend on a certain amount of back-pressure from the load to keep the turbines from spinning too fast. There are limits to the degree to which plants can handle variations in load.

              Those limits on handling variations in load become irrelevant if there is sufficient storage on a sufficiently large grid, the same kind of grid you admit is necessary for solar power.

              The difference with solar and nuclear is that when designed to handle these load variations a nuclear power plant can in fact manage large variations in load, military nuclear power plants can do this. This would be the kind used on submarines and aircraft carriers. We don't use those kinds of power plants for civilian power

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                It is in fact not solvable. Or rather the kind of grid needed to make a solar power only grid possible would be so expensive and complex that nuclear power would be far cheaper by comparison.

                Nuclear power, of course, has its own problems — waste, safety, nonrenewability, and concerns over nuclear proliferation. When you factor in those concerns, I'm not sure it really is cheaper.

                Solar power is worthless for use on the grid. The sooner everyone realizes this the sooner we can better divert our funds a

                • Nuclear power, of course, has its own problems â" waste,

                  That's a solved problem.

                  safety,

                  You can't be serious, nuclear power is the safest energy source we've seen. This includes accidents at foreign nuclear power plants, the kind of plants that would have failed inspection in the USA and would have never been built.

                  nonrenewability,

                  We will run out of sunshine before we run out of uranium and thorium we can viably mine.

                  and concerns over nuclear proliferation.

                  If you are concerned about weapon proliferation then we need nuclear power. There is only one way to destroy the plutonium stockpiled around the world, and that is by ne

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                    You can't be serious, nuclear power is the safest energy source we've seen. This includes accidents at foreign nuclear power plants, the kind of plants that would have failed inspection in the USA and would have never been built.

                    The problem is, what matters isn't safety so much as the perception of safety. When we go a hundred years without a Chernobyl/Fukushima-grade disaster, people might start to be comfortable with nuclear power, but as it stands, every time there's a disaster, it sets progress on new

                    • The problem is, what matters isn't safety so much as the perception of safety.

                      Then why didn't you say that in the first place?

                      Of course, you're conveniently forgetting to mention a few things:

                      No, I didn't. Solar power is shit for supplying power to the grid. This is because the times we get electricity correlates poorly with demand. Because there are days in which there will be no useful sunlight to produce power there will always have to be backup generation capability that can replace this solar power generation capacity watt for watt. In actual practice though it's more like 3 watts backup for every 4 watts of installed solar capacity, that'

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                      I'm going to listen to the experts that did a more thorough analysis. Like these experts: https://www.lazard.com/perspec [lazard.com]... [lazard.com]

                      You're seriously trying to use an appeal to authority, and then claiming a bunch of financial analysts as the authority, when it contradicts what the U.S. Department of Energy says? *blinks*

                      I think we have very different definitions of what constitutes an expert. We'll leave it at that.

                      I'm going to listen to the experts on this one. Solar power is shit for supplying power

        • Rotting plant matter? You mean LAKES are killing the planet with CO2? Boggle.

  • What is the definition?

    • They hand over the car to someone who bought it?

      Tesla recognizes revenue when they deliver the vehicle to the buyer, which is why deliveries aren't equal to manufacturing numbers - they can have cars in transit from the factory to the buyer when the quarter ends, especially now that worldwide sales are opening up. Takes a while to get a car across the oceans.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        If love to know how many returns and rejections they get.

        Tesla doesn't do test drives for the Model 3. You just order, drive it for up to a week or 1000 miles and can return it if you like.

        Also because of the way deliveries work people sometimes reject the cars for this like cosmetic issues that a dealer with servicing would normally fix in advance.

        I'd love to see stats on all this. They stopped refurbishing used cars in 2018 which suggests that they think volume and "take it or leave it" is the best option

        • I do not have numbers. I did shop the used market. There simply aren't that many low mileage used Tesla available. Either people are not returning in the first week in any real numbers or Tesla is doing something else with returns. Tesla makes you search an area by zip code so I plugged in the zip codes for 50+ major areas across the US. Almost none used and almost all were lower end vehicles. Searching with several used car search engines showed a similar story. If there are a large number of used T

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Some of the returns get sold as new again to other customers. They might make a few corrections to paint and stuff.

  • There's several companies and government projects working on bringing carbon neutral fuels to market. Will this be a "Tesla killer"?

    Here's just one recent example of this technology making the news.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]

    If they can make jet fuel be carbon neutral then they can make fuel for cars, trains, trucks, ships, lawnmowers, or whatever carbon neutral. They'll either adjust the process to make the fuel more like gasoline and diesel fuel, or they will adjust the engines to burn this jet fu

    • f they can make jet fuel be carbon neutral then they can make fuel for cars, trains, trucks, ships, lawnmowers, or whatever carbon neutral.

      You are totally missing the pointy about why electric cars, in particular Tesla, are actually popular.

      While they might be able to make fuel "carbon neutral", fuel powered cars will always have the problem that they cannot perform as well as an electric car (at least not at the same price point) and furthermore, they will always be way more unreliable.

      The whole planet fr

  • "Tesla delivered more cars than it produced."

    Then the other car manufacturers are doomed, if Tesla can deliver cars it hasn't produced yet.

  • It can't just be the time of year, this has to be the quietest I've seen discussions on a Tesla posting here on /. ...and largely positive too with out the usual flame wars, fights and "Tesla is doomed" prophecies.
    Have the haters and option buyers given up the fight one wonders?

  • If you extrapolate using the current 50% pa growth rate, then in 2025 Tesla could deliver over 4 million cars, 12 million in total. That's still only 1% of the 1 billion cars in the world today. The world's biggest car makers (Toyota, VW etc) only deliver around 10 million cars a year each.

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close