Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tesla/Lithium stocks discussion

Options
2456755

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 838 ✭✭✭lucky john


    I would be very worried about the spate of senior management executives on the production side.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-04/two-tesla-production-chiefs-to-leave-ahead-of-biggest-challenge-yet


    Musk is not the kind of guy that would be easy to work for and production has always lagged the promises so far. So i expect that now the promise is huge the pressure is going to be unbearable for many.

    Still, look at spaceX. Musk set about doing the impossible there and despite many quitters the employees delivered. What was noticeable and amazing about the landing on the barge last month was the exuberance and the youth of all the employees. Don't underestimate the dedication Musk seems to drag out of those that follow him.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,260 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Here's a fun highlight for Tesla and the claim "more cars will lower the losses" from their Q1 report.
    GAAP loss	cars sold GAAP loss per car
    1Q 2016	$282,267,000	14810	$19,059
    4Q 2015	$320,397,000	17478	$18,331
    3Q 2015	$229,858,000	11603	$19,810
    2Q 2015	$184,227,000	11532	$15,975
    1Q 2015	$154,181,000	10045	$15,349
    4Q 2014	$107,629,000	9834	$10,945
    
    The more cars they sell the more loss they make per car and while failing to deliver the June consensus target of 19.6k cars by only expecting 16k cars they believe they will be able to deliver 500k by 2018.

    Best of luck to the believers who decide to buy into the hype.

    Oh and for the model 3 deposit ownersTesla says "Thanks for paying the interest on our loans; we hope we'll not go bankrupt before you want to take delivery of the car".
    April cash receipts for vehicles in transit at quarter end plus Model 3 reservation deposits allowed us to pay back $350 million on the asset based line.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭Sabre Man


    How is loss per car actually calculated? Where did you find those figures?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,379 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    Nody wrote: »
    Here's a fun highlight for Tesla and the claim "more cars will lower the losses" from their Q1 report.
    GAAP loss	cars sold GAAP loss per car
    1Q 2016	$282,267,000	14810	$19,059
    4Q 2015	$320,397,000	17478	$18,331
    3Q 2015	$229,858,000	11603	$19,810
    2Q 2015	$184,227,000	11532	$15,975
    1Q 2015	$154,181,000	10045	$15,349
    4Q 2014	$107,629,000	9834	$10,945
    
    The Tesla Model X costs $80k, the loss per car is nearly $20k.

    If you can't make money selling a car at $80k - how the hell will they make money selling the Model 3 for $35k?

    I am very happy being short this company, at some point the delusion will catch up on this turd.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,379 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    The bit about them using refundable customer deposits to re-fi debt was also hilarious.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,260 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Sabre Man wrote: »
    How is loss per car actually calculated? Where did you find those figures?
    Their security filings listed on their site, here's Q1 2016 for example and scroll down to Net loss.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭Sabre Man


    You're looking at it the wrong way. It doesn't say anything about loss per car. Tesla isn't losing money on cars sold, but is simply spending money building the company for future growth.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/if-you-value-tesla-per-car-sold-youre-an-idiot-2016-05-05?siteid=yhoof2

    I don't own any TSLA shares at the moment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,379 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    Sabre Man wrote: »
    Tesla isn't losing money on cars sold, but is simply spending money building the company for future growth.
    Sorry, you are wrong on this. Even before capex for the next round of growth is considered, Tesla lost money in 2015. Check the cash flow statement for 2015 if you don't believe me.

    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459016013195/tsla-10k_20151231.htm


  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭Prezatch


    Elon Musk has announced that their output targets have been brought forward by 2 years from 2020 to 2018 :eek:

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e5d0e114-124a-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html#axzz47mqFlukK


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,260 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Oh and for those that missed it; this is a great line in their letter to shareholders:
    Given our plans to advance our 500,000 total unit build plan,essentially doubling the prior growth plan, we are re-evaluating our level of capital expenditures, but expect it will be about 50% higher than our previous guidance of $1.5 billion for 2016.
    So now they are going to spend $2.25 billion in pure CAPEX in 2016 alone from a company that posted Q1 losses of $282 million and stated it's going to get worse. Now they stated they hope to get 25% margin on their model X which is a premium model so let's give them 20% margin on the model 3 (and these are all pre-GAAP so actual margin is significantly lower, as a reference Porsche as the highest margin luxuary car company has 18% margin on their cars, Volkswagen cars are a 2.3% so think about that for a moment) and give the 500k cars @ 40k each (since they think everyone are going to buy upgrades). We have a pre-GAAP profit then of $1 billion. This means they need to sell half a million cars a year with 5k extras for three years only to recover the investment of 2016 alone (and that's before we start talking interest, write down on machines etc.); for those not aware 2017 is expected to have similar investments as well.

    Please can someone tell me with a serious face they expect Model 3 to sell for 7 years straight at 500k a year (maximum capacity when they come out; not adding the CAPEX to go up to a million a year by 2020)? And that's just to break even on the equipment to build the cars; not including the costs for the actual materials, workers, design, sales force, recalls etc. Break even with everything included would require the model 3 to sell at maximum capacity for around 10+ years straight without ANY NEW COSTS.

    I'm sure Musk will make money from his factory possibly but for the fools buying into Tesla stock? Sorry but this is puff puff pass kind of stock to me; not a single number shown to date on how this company will ever make a profit even at maximum production of an car for 10 years to cover existing costs and that's assuming they somehow magically managements to get these margins which to date they have never managed...
    Sabre Man wrote: »
    You're looking at it the wrong way. It doesn't say anything about loss per car. Tesla isn't losing money on cars sold, but is simply spending money building the company for future growth.
    Tesla has never made a profit, ever. Not as a niche supercar company, not as a small car company and they are not going to make a profit trying to sell cheap electrical cars either. Not a single number presented to back it up, not a single economical prognosis by them has been achieved on margins or profits. All we have is vague hand waving that it will be possible in the future somehow somewhere. Tesla is simply Musk's way to get other people to pay for his dream of a future with electrical cars but that does not make a profitable or sustainable company.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭Sabre Man


    Sorry, you are wrong on this. Even before capex for the next round of growth is considered, Tesla lost money in 2015. Check the cash flow statement for 2015 if you don't believe me.

    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459016013195/tsla-10k_20151231.htm

    Your statement seems to be correct and the losses could potentially increase as Tesla ramps up production.

    - Our cash flows from operating activities are significantly affected by our cash investments to support the growth of our business in areas such as manufacturing, research and development and selling, general and administrative.

    - Our operating cash flows are also affected by our working capital needs to support growth and fluctuations in inventory, personnel related expenditures, accounts payable and other current assets and liabilities.

    - The decrease in operating cash flows in 2015 as compared to 2014 was due to an increase in overall inventory to support growth.

    Sales in Norway peaked in 2014. Due to the unfavourable exchange rate and discussions in Norwegian EV discussion forums I believe sales this year will be lower than 2015. A new Tesla is a lot more expensive now than it was a few years ago.


  • Registered Users Posts: 627 ✭✭✭zpehtsfd


    Nody i agree with you that the stock is way ahead of itself but .......
    Nody wrote:
    Oh and for those that missed it; this is a great line in their letter to shareholders:

    Actually nobody missed it cause the reason they increased it by 50% was already posted in the message just before yours i.e. output targets brought forward 2 years to 2018
    Nody wrote:
    Now they stated they hope to get 25% margin on their model X which is a premium model so let's give them 20% margin on the model 3 (and these are all pre-GAAP so actual margin is significantly lower, as a reference Porsche as the highest margin luxuary car company has 18% margin on their cars, Volkswagen cars are a 2.3% so think about that for a moment) and give the 500k cars @ 40k each (since they think everyone are going to buy upgrades). We have a pre-GAAP profit then of $1 billion. This means they need to sell half a million cars a year with 5k extras for three years only to recover the investment of 2016 alone (and that's before we start talking interest, write down on machines etc.); for those not aware 2017 is expected to have similar investments as well.

    So output target of 500K cars would be for their affordable Model 3? :confused: They are already forecasting delivery of 90K Model S/X for 2016 so it's not too far-fetched to imagine 200K in 2020 at an ASP of say $80K. Add 200K of the Model 3 at ASP of $40K and the #'s look completely different.
    Nody wrote:
    Tesla is simply Musk's way to get other people to pay for his dream of a future with electrical cars but that does not make a profitable or sustainable company.

    Don't be so cynical. Musk is a revolutionary just like Jobs was. Tesla isn't some pet project for him. Tesla is a startup in a nascent market. In a relatively short space of time he has brought car engineering to a whole new level and the affordable Model 3 is incomparable in performance and range. The future of EVs is here and Tesla will be a sustainable and profitable company within the next 10 years. imo

    Also Wall Street doesn't care about EPS as long as they see future revenue growth (Amazon and Salesforce being prime examples of this). Add to that the massive short interest (plus borrow rate) and there will be no shortage of buyers on the way down. GL


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,283 ✭✭✭positron


    I just read that while Tesla is building the Gigafactory, it's Panasonic who is going to make actual cells in there - Panasonic is investing something like $1.6 B. It makes sense that Tesla leverage off Panasonic's expertise like that. News I read is from earlier this year (not new).

    However if someone want to buy some Panasonic shares, where do you do it? Do I have to buy shares in Japan exchage, or Panasonic Corporation (ADR) on nasdaq or on Borsa Frankfurt?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭Sabre Man




  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭Prezatch


    Sabre Man wrote: »

    Junior miners are where the real risk/reward is to be made at the moment however. The larger companies such as Albemarle spike up and down slightly but the likes of Pilbara are on a different level, up 47% in the last 5 days alone :eek:

    https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1462982886430&chddm=1805&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=ASX:PLS&ntsp=1&ei=4VgzV-mnH9HDUb3uo-AK


  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭Prezatch


    Pioneer Resources (PIO) mentioned in the 2016 share picks thread last week, up 165% in the last 5 days... There really are crazy movements going on for these lithium mining companies on the ASX


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭Sabre Man




  • Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭b4bmm


    PLS, GXY, AJM, PIO, BGS, PIO, ZNC to name a few off the top of my head all lithium plays on the ASX.
    Dont hold any as of this post.

    There is a trend now on the ASX that companies who were initially exploring for other commodities have jumped on the
    Lithium hype train announcing that permit x may contain Lithium and will be investigated further. Just the mention of the word
    Lithium gets people into a frenzy and wanting to load up. Be careful most won't be up to scratch. The arse will fall out of many of them.
    In and Out investments would be the best way to play many of them. PLS and AJM look the goods. Cant comment on the rest apart from BGS who is African based and if they get good drilling results in Mali that should put a rocket under the SP. They also have a big gold play there potentially so you will be getting a good fall back if the Lithium aspect doesn't come in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭Sabre Man




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,379 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    Tesla raising $1.4bn with a share sale. Musk selling 550 million shares to meet a tax obligation thanks to the exercising of options.

    Does Musk think the shares are overvalued?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭_Tombstone_




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭Sabre Man




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,379 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    Ce-gP12UEAE8c2N.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,379 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    Tesla offering to buy Solar City - ridiculous!


  • Registered Users Posts: 838 ✭✭✭lucky john


    I very much doubt Tesla can afford Solar City. I understand the reasoning as its in keeping with Musks long term ambitions. However not many Tesla share holders have the same vision. To fund the deal tesla would need a huge fund raising resulting in serious dilution for stock owners. The result would offer feck all benefit or extra share holder value even in the medium term. Musk owns around 20% of tesla so I'd be amazed if he gets this deal over the line. They have about 1.6 billion in cash (just raised) to up M3 production. Spending a cent of that on solar city would be unjustifiable, even for Musk.

    The bigger issue could be the damage a strange financial idea like this will do to the faith many have in Musk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,379 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett


    lucky john wrote: »
    I very much doubt Tesla can afford Solar City. I understand the reasoning as its in keeping with Musks long term ambitions. However not many Tesla share holders have the same vision. To fund the deal tesla would need a huge fund raising resulting in serious dilution for stock owners. The result would offer feck all benefit or extra share holder value even in the medium term. Musk owns around 20% of tesla so I'd be amazed if he gets this deal over the line. They have about 1.6 billion in cash (just raised) to up M3 production. Spending a cent of that on solar city would be unjustifiable, even for Musk.

    The bigger issue could be the damage a strange financial idea like this will do to the faith many have in Musk.
    First of all, it's only an offer, it might not even go through. Secondly, Tesla are offering stock, not cash.

    My thoughts. We all know SolarCity is in serious trouble, but things must be even worse than we suspect for Musk to use Tesla to bail them out. Remember, SpaceX, SolarCity and Tesla are all interconnected in various ways, either directly or indirectly. If one was to fall, then it's likely that Musk's house of cards would take all the other companies down with it. There is a serious conflict of interest here.

    Still short via puts, Tesla shareholders are going to get roasted tomorrow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭Sabre Man


    A terrible idea in my opinion, at least in the short to medium term.


  • Registered Users Posts: 838 ✭✭✭lucky john


    Musk's Vision
    "Instead of figures on a balance sheet, the Solarcity merger represents a continuation of a dream that began when he was just a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania. There, when one of his professors asked the class to come up with a business proposal, Musk submitted a paper titled “The Importance of Being Solar”. In the essay, Musk wrote in detail how solar cells worked, then goes on to predict a rise in solar power, concluding with a futuristic design of an orbital power station, beaming solar energy down to earth. In other words, when it comes to Elon Musk, Tesla, SpaceX, Hyperloop, OpenAI and now SolarCity should not be considered in isolation,but as tesserae from a mosaic representing a grander vision. And as long as the sun continues to rise, you can bet that Musk will continue towards this vision; the market will just have to make peace with that."

    Can one man achieve such a dream in one life time? Doubtful ( I won't say impossible because of the strides Musk has made in that direction already). However as a share holder in Tesla I fear he is jumping the gun on solar city by 5 or even 10 years. When Tesla is debt free with a couple of billion a year of free cashflow then it might, might.. be worth buying a solar energy producer. Now is just not the time.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,260 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    lucky john wrote: »
    Can one man achieve such a dream in one life time? Doubtful ( I won't say impossible because of the strides Musk has made in that direction already). However as a share holder in Tesla I fear he is jumping the gun on solar city by 5 or even 10 years. When Tesla is debt free with a couple of billion a year of free cashflow then it might, might.. be worth buying a solar energy producer. Now is just not the time.
    So never; Tesla is not going to make money in the future, they are not making money now and no matter how much they ramp up will not change the basic fact they fail to make money because their model is not working. It's great way to drive a vision and get other's to invest money but making a profit? Nope, sorry not happening and volume is not the driver here (plenty of car manufacturers are green at the volumes Tesla been producing).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 627 ✭✭✭zpehtsfd


    Small chance this deal closes but either way Tesla stock will be under pressure due to Musks financial interests in Solarcity. The move today just highlights how precarious the solar business is.


Advertisement