5 ms·

Is it just me reading too much financial news or does "beats estimates" sound like it was better than estimates? Loss was 69 cents vs 53 cents expected. Reven

Is it just me reading too much financial news or does "beats estimates" sound like it was better than estimates? Loss was 69 cents vs 53 cents expected. Revenues beat estimates, though.

CarVac 10y ago
>The fourth-quarter loss, excluding some items, was narrower than the $1.14 a share average estimate Straight from the article.
- SaintGhurka 10y ago
  So I was reading this from marketwatch: "Adjusted loss of 69 cents a share, worse than expected." "Analysts expect an adjusted fourth-quarter loss of 53 cents a share" Now I don't know what to believe. Edit: I guess it depends on who's doing the estimating. The linked article says "The fourth-quarter loss, excluding some items, was narrower than the $1.14 a share average estimate among analysts surveyed by Bloomberg."
  - codecamper 10y ago
    Could be companies estimate their earnings each year. And then analysts do their own estimates. guided vs consensus
  - eldavido 10y ago
    "Loss" is the wrong word for this. We need better terminology. A more accurate statement would be something like, "The tangible value of the company's assets, as far as anyone can reasonably ascertain with any degree of certainty, declined by 53 cents per share this quarter". The question is whether the company is making good investments. If you believe its infrastructure investments will provide long-lived, strategic advantages which support the reduction of cost (increasing margins and free cash flow), decreased time to market (making more revenue accessible, more quickly), or other things, these "losses" are hardly bad things. [1] [1] Of course, this assumes the company has access to continued financing on good terms, which seems to be the case.
nopzor 10y ago
they did beat estimates ie. they did better than expected. stock is up ±3% after market; all time high. go tsla go.
TrainedMonkey 10y ago
They beat loss estimates because they spent $500m [0] on capex instead of $1000m [1]. Not sure if I buy "got better deals from suppliers" story, but it would be awesome if it was true. Most likely they've hit delays with suppliers. [0] Q4 2016 update from shareholder letter on http://ir.tesla.com/ http://ir.tesla.com/ [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-capex-goal-means-1-billion-of-spending-in-q4-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-capex-goal-means-1-bill...
- refurb 10y ago
  Not sure if I buy "got better deals from suppliers" story Or they just shifted capex spending so that it doesn't fall on this quarter. I'm not knocking Tesla for doing this, all companies do this (shift costs and revenue around to meet earnings expectations).
  - cowsandmilk 10y ago
    > Or they just shifted capex spending so that it doesn't fall on this quarter. They state pretty clearly that is what happened in the letter. > we continue to negotiate more favorable payment terms with our capital equipment suppliers, pushing some payments closer to the start of Model 3 production and some payments beyond the start of production So, the "deals" are that they don't have to pay for certain things until later when they have more cash.
- taneq 10y ago
  I don't understand why capital expenditure is viewed as a loss. You spend $1mil on infrastructure, afterwards you have $1mil of infrastructure (which now should start earning you money) instead of $1mil of cash. H ow is that a loss?
  - dingo_bat 10y ago
    Because profit and loss is measured in cash, not any other kind of asset.
  - cowsandmilk 10y ago
JakeAl 10y ago
And the number of cars sold were down from the previous year. Doesn't sound like growth to me.

Is it just me reading too much financial news or does "beats estimates" sound like it was better than estimates? Loss was 69 cents vs 53 cents expected. Revenues beat estimates, though.

CarVac 10y ago

>The fourth-quarter loss, excluding some items, was narrower than the $1.14 a share average estimate Straight from the article.

SaintGhurka 10y ago
So I was reading this from marketwatch: "Adjusted loss of 69 cents a share, worse than expected." "Analysts expect an adjusted fourth-quarter loss of 53 cents a share" Now I don't know what to believe. Edit: I guess it depends on who's doing the estimating. The linked article says "The fourth-quarter loss, excluding some items, was narrower than the $1.14 a share average estimate among analysts surveyed by Bloomberg."
- codecamper 10y ago
  Could be companies estimate their earnings each year. And then analysts do their own estimates. guided vs consensus
- eldavido 10y ago
  "Loss" is the wrong word for this. We need better terminology. A more accurate statement would be something like, "The tangible value of the company's assets, as far as anyone can reasonably ascertain with any degree of certainty, declined by 53 cents per share this quarter". The question is whether the company is making good investments. If you believe its infrastructure investments will provide long-lived, strategic advantages which support the reduction of cost (increasing margins and free cash flow), decreased time to market (making more revenue accessible, more quickly), or other things, these "losses" are hardly bad things. [1] [1] Of course, this assumes the company has access to continued financing on good terms, which seems to be the case.

nopzor 10y ago

they did beat estimates ie. they did better than expected. stock is up ±3% after market; all time high. go tsla go.

TrainedMonkey 10y ago

They beat loss estimates because they spent $500m [0] on capex instead of $1000m [1]. Not sure if I buy "got better deals from suppliers" story, but it would be awesome if it was true. Most likely they've hit delays with suppliers. [0] Q4 2016 update from shareholder letter on http://ir.tesla.com/ http://ir.tesla.com/ [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-capex-goal-means-1-billion-of-spending-in-q4-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-capex-goal-means-1-bill...

refurb 10y ago
Not sure if I buy "got better deals from suppliers" story Or they just shifted capex spending so that it doesn't fall on this quarter. I'm not knocking Tesla for doing this, all companies do this (shift costs and revenue around to meet earnings expectations).
- cowsandmilk 10y ago
  > Or they just shifted capex spending so that it doesn't fall on this quarter. They state pretty clearly that is what happened in the letter. > we continue to negotiate more favorable payment terms with our capital equipment suppliers, pushing some payments closer to the start of Model 3 production and some payments beyond the start of production So, the "deals" are that they don't have to pay for certain things until later when they have more cash.
taneq 10y ago
I don't understand why capital expenditure is viewed as a loss. You spend $1mil on infrastructure, afterwards you have $1mil of infrastructure (which now should start earning you money) instead of $1mil of cash. H ow is that a loss?
- dingo_bat 10y ago
  Because profit and loss is measured in cash, not any other kind of asset.
- cowsandmilk 10y ago

JakeAl 10y ago

And the number of cars sold were down from the previous year. Doesn't sound like growth to me.