5 ms·

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 g

by 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.
jbooth 17y ago
Clearly not the case? http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/tesla-says-it-is-now-profitable-ships-109-roadsters-in-july/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/tesla-says-it-is-now-pr... Real world mechanical/electrical innovation is hard, and there's a lot of investment up front. Where would we be if people called ARPAnet a waste of money 8 years into its existence? I bet it was bleeding money for EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS as well?
- yahoog 17y ago
  You cannot tell me that you're comparing ARPAnet to a for-profit company. If Tesla were a government-owned institute, then your argument would hold.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    First off - Tesla is profitable or approaching profitability as of this year, per my link earlier. I figured maybe you didn't see that since you didn't address it. Second, the money that they get from the government is a loan, just like the government, particularly the Dept of Energy, gives to thousands of companies who's research/products have a chance of generating extremely positive externalities for the country. (Last I knew, the whole dependent on foreign oil thing is sort of a big deal) So what are you against here? What differentiates Tesla from the rest of those companies? If a company had a promising approach towards cold fusion, would you be against a government loan to them as well?
    - yahoog 17y ago
      See my link above. "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-... VCs clearly aren't backing them further. They've resorted to an IPO to get cash. Tesla is down to its last $9 million.
      - jbooth 17y ago

by gd123 17y ago

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.

jbooth 17y ago

Clearly not the case? http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/tesla-says-it-is-now-profitable-ships-109-roadsters-in-july/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/tesla-says-it-is-now-pr... Real world mechanical/electrical innovation is hard, and there's a lot of investment up front. Where would we be if people called ARPAnet a waste of money 8 years into its existence? I bet it was bleeding money for EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS as well?

yahoog 17y ago
You cannot tell me that you're comparing ARPAnet to a for-profit company. If Tesla were a government-owned institute, then your argument would hold.
- jbooth 17y ago
  First off - Tesla is profitable or approaching profitability as of this year, per my link earlier. I figured maybe you didn't see that since you didn't address it. Second, the money that they get from the government is a loan, just like the government, particularly the Dept of Energy, gives to thousands of companies who's research/products have a chance of generating extremely positive externalities for the country. (Last I knew, the whole dependent on foreign oil thing is sort of a big deal) So what are you against here? What differentiates Tesla from the rest of those companies? If a company had a promising approach towards cold fusion, would you be against a government loan to them as well?
  - yahoog 17y ago
    See my link above. "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-... VCs clearly aren't backing them further. They've resorted to an IPO to get cash. Tesla is down to its last $9 million.
    - jbooth 17y ago