5 ms·

Maybe it should go Government, then perhaps the outrageous prices and its haemorrhaging of cash won't seem out of place . . . just a suggestion. I'd much prefe

Maybe it should go Government, then perhaps the outrageous prices and its haemorrhaging of cash won't seem out of place . . . just a suggestion. I'd much prefer my tax dollars subsidizing my car than subsidizing cheap fishing and agriculture.

MikeCapone 17y ago
> its haemorrhaging of cash Could you cite your sources please.
- defen 17y ago
  From the article: The SEC filing provides the first clear look at the company’s finances. It notes that Tesla has lost "approximately $236.4 million from our inception through Sept. 30, 2009"
  - coffeemug 17y ago
    From what I understand their inception is 2001, which means they've lost about $30mil/year. That doesn't sound excessive to me at all. Software startups normally count $15k/employee/month as a reasonable expense (including hardware, rent, benefits, etc.) Given how massive the equipment and production expenses for an auto company can be, I wouldn't be surprised if their number is three times as high. At only 500 employees (again, a very small estimate for an auto company) that would put their expenses at 45k/month * 12 * 500 = $270mil/year. Considering that they've lost only $240 mil in eight years, they're doing extremely well. I can't even imagine the amount of effort and capital required to pull something like this off. If anything, I'm surprised how well they're actually doing so far.
    - gd123 17y ago
      I'm sorry, but losing $30M in one year is bad. Losing $30M for 8 years is excessively bad. Tesla is bleeding cash left and right and its CEO is flying jets to get around while taking in $450M in taxpayer money for loans, and then files for an IPO a week later. Musk (its CEO) had mentioned that Tesla would be profitable in 2009, and that's clearly not the case. Stating that losing $240 million in 8 years is doing "extremely well" is irresponsible to impressionable investors looking forward to Tesla's IPO.
      - halo 17y ago
        As a data-point, Amazon lost $3b over their first 6 years before turning a profit (citation: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/dotcom-delight-as-amazon-makes-first-profit-after-3bn-losses-665950.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/dotcom-delig...) .
        yahoog 17y ago
        Apples and oranges. Amazon put profits back into their company. They had a business model that worked. Tesla doesn't.
        jbooth 17y ago
        Argument by assertion? You can't just state something like that and not back it up. Unless you want to look ignorant. Tesla sells cars. After building them. For more than it cost to build the car. That's a business model. And they're profitable as of this year, as I cited above, and you keep refusing to acknowledge.
        yahoog 17y ago
        1. Tesla is not profitable. 2. Tesla currently has no profitable business model. If you want facts, please Google them. Here's a start that's titled "Tesla Motors Files For IPO - So Much For The Profits": http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/01/29/tesla-motors-files-for-ipo-so-much-for-the-profits/?mod=rss_WSJBlog http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/01/29/tesla-motors-...
        jbooth 17y ago
        Well, there's different ways to calculate those numbers. If I had to guess, Tesla was referring to EBITA and the WSJ is calling them unprofitable after interest and taxes. At any rate, it's ridiculous to try and claim that they don't have a business model. If they're selling the cars for more money than the incremental unit cost, then they do indeed have a profitable business model. They may not be selling enough of them yet to have a profitable company but claiming that they don't have a business model is just being obtuse. Are you claiming that in 2001, Amazon had no business model? Because that would be the same thing.

MikeCapone 17y ago

> its haemorrhaging of cash Could you cite your sources please.

defen 17y ago
From the article: The SEC filing provides the first clear look at the company’s finances. It notes that Tesla has lost "approximately $236.4 million from our inception through Sept. 30, 2009"
- coffeemug 17y ago
  From what I understand their inception is 2001, which means they've lost about $30mil/year. That doesn't sound excessive to me at all. Software startups normally count $15k/employee/month as a reasonable expense (including hardware, rent, benefits, etc.) Given how massive the equipment and production expenses for an auto company can be, I wouldn't be surprised if their number is three times as high. At only 500 employees (again, a very small estimate for an auto company) that would put their expenses at 45k/month * 12 * 500 = $270mil/year. Considering that they've lost only $240 mil in eight years, they're doing extremely well. I can't even imagine the amount of effort and capital required to pull something like this off. If anything, I'm surprised how well they're actually doing so far.
  - gd123 17y ago
    I'm sorry, but losing $30M in one year is bad. Losing $30M for 8 years is excessively bad. Tesla is bleeding cash left and right and its CEO is flying jets to get around while taking in $450M in taxpayer money for loans, and then files for an IPO a week later. Musk (its CEO) had mentioned that Tesla would be profitable in 2009, and that's clearly not the case. Stating that losing $240 million in 8 years is doing "extremely well" is irresponsible to impressionable investors looking forward to Tesla's IPO.
    - halo 17y ago
      As a data-point, Amazon lost $3b over their first 6 years before turning a profit (citation: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/dotcom-delight-as-amazon-makes-first-profit-after-3bn-losses-665950.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/dotcom-delig...) .
      - yahoog 17y ago
        Apples and oranges. Amazon put profits back into their company. They had a business model that worked. Tesla doesn't.
        jbooth 17y ago
        Argument by assertion? You can't just state something like that and not back it up. Unless you want to look ignorant. Tesla sells cars. After building them. For more than it cost to build the car. That's a business model. And they're profitable as of this year, as I cited above, and you keep refusing to acknowledge.
        yahoog 17y ago
        1. Tesla is not profitable. 2. Tesla currently has no profitable business model. If you want facts, please Google them. Here's a start that's titled "Tesla Motors Files For IPO - So Much For The Profits": http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/01/29/tesla-motors-files-for-ipo-so-much-for-the-profits/?mod=rss_WSJBlog http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/01/29/tesla-motors-...
        jbooth 17y ago
        Well, there's different ways to calculate those numbers. If I had to guess, Tesla was referring to EBITA and the WSJ is calling them unprofitable after interest and taxes. At any rate, it's ridiculous to try and claim that they don't have a business model. If they're selling the cars for more money than the incremental unit cost, then they do indeed have a profitable business model. They may not be selling enough of them yet to have a profitable company but claiming that they don't have a business model is just being obtuse. Are you claiming that in 2001, Amazon had no business model? Because that would be the same thing.