Having fun with Autoline Daily

Discussion in 'General' started by bwilson4web, Jul 19, 2018.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Give them enough rope, the Q2 2018 report in 2-3 weeks should make interesting reading.

    Having reported a 'tip' to the SEC, investigators may be on the way. So I found these at: https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/ib_investigations.html

    SEC investigations are generally conducted on a confidential basis to maximize their effectiveness and protect the privacy of those involved. Because SEC investigations are generally nonpublic, Enforcement will not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation unless the SEC brings charges against a person or entity involved. Enforcement also will not provide updates on the status of any pending SEC investigation.
    . . .
    Enforcement receives information about possible violations from many sources, including market surveillance activities, investor tips and complaints, whistleblower submissions, other divisions and offices of the SEC, self-regulatory organizations and other securities industry sources, and media reports. If Enforcement opens an investigation, it may request documents and interview witnesses on a voluntary basis. If authorized with a formal order of investigation, Enforcement can issue subpoenas requiring the production of documents and witness testimony. Enforcement develops the facts in an SEC investigation primarily through interviewing witnesses under oath and analyzing documents and data (e.g., emails, brokerage records, and trading data).
    . . .

    Due to confidentiality, the SEC tip and investigation results may never be publicly shared. So far, the only open proceedings are the Tesla lawsuit against Martin Tripp. FYI, Stuart Meissner, a New York lawyer, may not be able to practice law in Nevada to defend Tripp against the Tesla lawsuit: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/tesla-whistleblower-tells-sec-of-alleged-wrongdoing-at-gigafactory/

    Meissner, who is not licensed to practice law in Nevada, is only representing Tripp as part of his whistleblowing complaint. Meissner said he would not be "releasing the actual information" contained in the TCR for now.

    As of today, the GoFundMe entry for Tripp's lawyer is at $15k. But two can play that game. Nothing blocks Tesla from filing a 'tip' against the more prominent Tesla skeptics spreading FUD.

    Bob Wilson
     
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. David Green

    David Green Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I am excited for the earnings report... Should be some great drama! Might even make some truffle popcorn...
     
  4. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    That's an interesting conspiracy theory, but if there was any truth to it, then why would it have taken so long for news about this to spread on social media?

    It honestly puzzles me that it would be considered "news" that more Model 3's are piling up in storage lots. This is a perfectly predictable result of Tesla ramping up TM3 production significantly. Tesla's annual production last year was 101,312 (including Model S's and X's). That comes to 1948 per week, if it was divided equally. Of course it's not, as Tesla's production continues to grow. But, for the sake of argument, if it was 1948 per week last year, and now Tesla has ramped up to 3500 per week (and growing) just for the Model 3...

    Then it's hardly a surprise that Tesla's storage lots are overflowing!

    As I said, it honestly puzzles me that this is considered "news". Nonetheless, I note that even Business Insider, now notorious for publishing Tesla bashing fake news FUD articles, actually published an article about this non-news that is perfectly reasonable and debunks the latest attempt by the Usual Suspects at an anti-Tesla conspiracy theory:

    "We use Lathrop as a loading hub for cars being shipped to other locations for delivery to customers," a Tesla spokesperson said in a statement to Business Insider. "As our deliveries increase, we're obviously going to have more cars there."​

    I apologize to everyone for linking to an article at that virtual fish wrapping paper site. :confused: Pardon me while I go wash my mind out now.

     
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    About holding back Model 3 deliveries to shift the 200,000 threshold after Q2:
    I would not have brought it up except for:
    In jest, to remain ignorant, I would have to get all of my news from Tesla skeptics including the 200,000 sales if they could figure out how to kick sand on it. So why am I posting at 4:45 AM on a Sunday morning:
    The last two were thoughts that I had waking up. How curious that FCA which has a nice Pacifica plug-in and whose CEO once claimed: https://www.reuters.com/article/chrsyelr-ceo-evs/fiat-chrysler-ceo-please-dont-buy-fiat-500e-electric-car-idUSL1N0O71MS20140521

    Fiat Chrysler Automobiles Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne has a request for potential buyers of the automaker’s Fiat 500e electric car: Don’t buy it. He’s tired of losing money.

    Speaking at a conference in Washington on Wednesday, Marchionne said Tesla Motors Inc was the only company making money on electric cars and that was because of the higher price point for its Model S sedan. Decrying the federal and state mandates that push manufacturers to build electric cars, Marchionne said he hoped to sell the minimum number of 500e cars possible.

    BTW, the perfidious SpaceX first stage landed on the recovery barge. Does anyone believe another car manufacturer in the world could achieve the same thing? . . .

    Bob Wilson
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  6. David Green

    David Green Well-Known Member


    As for the conspiracy, I am not saying that... I think Tesla sales for the RWD LR Model 3 have softened, and Tesla does not have enough immediate demand to keep up with the supply. This is why they opened the entire reservation list, and then the entire North America to configure. I do not really care what Sergio said, "Tesla is the only one making money on EV's?" What? Tell has lost billions making EV's, from the number I have seen, including 650M in a single quarter in Q1, an 18% Net Loss...

    As for the rocket landing, yes McDonnell Douglas vertically landed their experimental rocket back in the 90's. This has all been done before, but it still cool. SpaceX unlike Tesla is well managed, and focused, Tesla is an entirely different kind of operation, that is poorly managed and wastes investors money by the billions.
     
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    I don't think we should allow them to hijack the term "skeptic". A skeptic is one who questions conventional wisdom. That's a very useful and proper part of the scientific method; we should regularly question that what everyone believes is actually true. That's how human knowledge advances.

    But purveyors of anti-Tesla disinformation are not skeptical at all. They have definitely and absolutely made up their mind about Tesla and its cars. In fact, they've taken the most extreme possible negative position -- about as far away from being merely "skeptical" as possible! Attacking a company which is genuinely trying to improve the world at every turn, trying to damage its reputation, twisting every fact and bit of news into more disinformation, more lies and more half-truths, and more propaganda, is a very, very long way from being a "skeptic".

    Our moderator, Domenick, doesn't want us to direct the term "FUDster" toward any other forum member here, in discussions, despite that being a factually accurate label for those falsely calling themselves "Tesla skeptics". Okay, well, I suppose "disinformation-monger" would be about equally correct, if unnecessarily awkward.

    I kinda feel this is like the rampant case of out-of-control political correctness regarding the progression of the terms:

    crippled --> disabled --> handicapped --> physically challenged --> differently enabled

    The problem isn't that the label is negative. The problem is that being crippled, or whatever euphemism you attach to it, really is a negative condition. Changing the label doesn't change the reality, so of course any new label you attach to it acquires the same negative connotation. Yet the champions of political correctness won't stop trying to find ever more vague descriptive labels for exactly the same thing!

    As Shakespeare said: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." And FUD by any other name stinks just as bad.

     
  9. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    I'm guessing you meant "Tesla" where you wrote "Tell"? Not trying to give you a hard time over a mere typo, but neither do I want to put words in your mouth if that's not what you meant.

    Hey, David, since you keep repeating the FUD that Tesla "loses" money rather than investing it wisely in future growth, where do you think all the new equipment to build Tesla cars comes from? Where does the money come from to build new Superchargers, open Tesla stores and new service centers, and for Tesla to expand its logistics and car delivery system to meet new levels of production?

    Since you keep insisting that Tesla is "losing" all that money, apparently you think the new production lines, new stores, and new service centers appear magically? Do elves, brownies, and gnomes come out at night and build them while nobody is looking? Do leprechauns provide the money to hire and train new employees?

    Tesla disinformation-mongers: Adding new meaning to the term "magical thinking" every day!
    :p o_O :mad: :D :eek: :oops: :rolleyes:

    P.S. -- Too bad about the money you are "losing" by paying into your 401(k) retirement fund. ;)

     
  10. David Green

    David Green Well-Known Member

    Typo, my bad... Operational loses on the 10Q are not investing in future products, they are selling cars for less then it costs you to design, build, sell, and warranty them, while keeping the lights on the in the factory... Investments in factory and equipment are classified as CapEx, those expenditures are listed outside of operations, so not the same. Tesla's 1st qtr 600M loss was from "operations", no investments included in that number. That number does not even include interest on Tesla's massive debt. Again not FUD, just facts... http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/4a522a09-6db4-4503-aca2-bb18f87f6289
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Domenick

    Domenick Administrator Staff Member

    The whole thing about the cash burn is that it's necessary to build revenue. Someone that is invested in fixed assets like the gigafactory and production lines, while other spends are more intangible, more still work toward building revenue. Tesla's revenue growth is the ignored part of the equation by the short crowd. This is pointed out in a fresh piece on Business Insider titled, "A Tsunami of money could be headed Tesla's way in the next year — and that’s bad news for the bears, though it's an argument that has been around a while, though pretty muted."
    This led me to look up the history of vertically landing rockets, and thus I found this video below.

    While it is true that McDonell Douglas vertically landed a rocket in the 90's, it's a bit like saying the F-22 Raptor is cool, but since the Wright Brothers flew an airplane over 100 years ago... (Not that I think landing rockets has much to do with Tesla in the first place, besides sharing the same guy who is willing to make risky bets for big payoffs.)

     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. David Green

    David Green Well-Known Member

    Domenick, I own, and run a business. I know about capital investment and how the structure works... Tesla has severe management problems, is the reason they lose so much money, and "Loss from Operations" is not an investment... Its simply a loss... By the way, in my 28 year career, no business I have worked for or owned has ever had a loss from operations...
     
  14. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Actually I'm following this example: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

    Climate change deniers call themselves "skeptics" when in reality they are just another set of delusional schizophrenics. Driven by their inner demons, they pantomime pseudo scientific nonsense with similar patterns of local Kabuki "fudsters."

    If you'd like to discuss climate change, let's start a separate thread. But as for the ethics, honesty, and technical skills of our local characters, there are technical solutions:


    Bob Wilson
     
  15. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    For fans of Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds series, rockets landing on their tail are old hat! ;)

    Not so much for rocket in commercial use, though. Claiming that somebody did it once is like pointing out that the Norse ("Vikings") discovered North American before Columbus did. Yeah, but it didn't stick, did it?

     
  16. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    I was at one time a global warming skeptic, back when there was much less evidence than there is now, and I thought that climatologists were getting over their skis, claiming certainty where it seemed to me there was still a great deal of doubt.

    That's very, very different than being a serial purveyor of FUD. Those who spout FUD know perfectly well what they say isn't true. They use all sorts of dishonest debate techniques, up to and including suddenly switching their argument 180° to argue the opposite viewpoint they were arguing in their last post, without ever acknowledging that anything they said had been shown to be wrong. (Sadly, you can see some of that on this forum, too.)

    Now, that's not to say that there aren't some poseurs among those who claim to be "climate change skeptics"; dishonest shills who either work for Big Oil or its lackeys, or just argue against scientific consensus because they enjoy the notoriety of being a contrarian. But I've spent some time reading debates on the "Watts Up With That" forum; there are a lot of very smart, very well informed people on both sides of the question who post there. The skeptics often have some real evidence to back up their arguments, too.

    But I agree that if we are really going to get into a debate about climate science, that should go in the "Off Topic" section of the forum.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2018
  17. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Definitely not facts. At best, it's just opinion. Y'all who are "financial guys" repeatedly go at it hammer-and-tongs (in various comment threads responding to IEVs news articles) over just what part of Tesla's expenses are, or ought to be, put in what column. This is a subject on which I treasure my ignorance. I'm content to merely say there is a very noticeable lack of consensus, with an awful lot of people insisting their interpretation is the only correct one. That might be more plausible if there were not multiple interpretations, all argued by their advocates just as passionately as the rest. Even if one viewpoint is correct, it's safe to say that most of them must be wrong.

    Such arguments remind me of a section from an urban myth about a reply to an exam question which asked if Hell is endothermic or exothermic (full story at Snopes.com):

    ...lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell.
    (Just kidding, of course! ;) )

     
  18. David Green

    David Green Well-Known Member

    600M first qtr loss Not facts? Are you blind? Cannot read a P and L statement? Look at the bottom line that is Labeled "LOSS FROM OPERATIONS" That says 600M loss, and that is before paying interest on debt, etc... Now Tesla is trying to "borrow money from suppliers" to make a profit... haha! You guys keep pushing me, I feel embarrassed to post back when you guys are so clueless about the realities of business.


    Tesla Operatinal Losses.png
     
  19. Domenick

    Domenick Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, that may well be, but not all businesses are the same. There are plenty of companies that "lost" money for years, scaling up, to then be quite profitable. Amazon is the prime example. (No pun intended :))
     
  20. David Green

    David Green Well-Known Member

    Amazon is not a poorly managed auto manufacturer, with constant efficiency problems, safety problems, etc... Not even close to apples to apples comparison...
     
  21. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    It's a "loss" in exactly the same way that someone paying into their 401(k) retirement fund is a "loss".

    If you want to call an investment a "loss", well it's a free country, but trying to assert that is a "fact" instead of just a very biased negative opinion is positively ridiculous. Repeating anti-Tesla FUD ad nauseum isn't going to change anything.

    Here's a reminder of what's important:

    Tesla’s global automobile sales totals:
    2012: 2650
    2013: 22,300
    2014: 31,655 (+41.95%)
    2015: 50,580 (+59.8%)
    2016: 76,230 (+50.7%)
    2017: 101,312 (+32.9%)

    Do we suppose that will be as much as +100% for 2018?

    Go-Tesla_Logo_med.jpg
     
  22. David Green

    David Green Well-Known Member


    A loss from operations is just that... loss from operating your business, CapEx spending which is an investment is listed separately, debt interest is also separate, and rising rapidly.

    Wow, Tesla sales are really amazing, with all three products worldwide sales they might match the Chevy Cruze USA sales... WOW... and lose how much investors money?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 23, 2018
  23. Domenick

    Domenick Administrator Staff Member

Share This Page