6 ms·

Tesla announces Q2 2017 earnings

73 points by lpolovets 9y ago

scott_karana 9y ago
I assume it's tactical that they released this information after the trading day finished? TSLA closing price was $325.89, and after hours trading recently peaked at $347.14!
- goshx 9y ago
  It reached $311 during the day
  - fmihaila 9y ago
    It's at $352 now, so the market seems to really like their report.
    - ams6110 9y ago
      Markets often respond positively just because doubt is removed. Regardless of what the report said, it's out, and people can look forward.
- yumraj 9y ago
  AFAIK that is standard practice, at least in the US
  - alexjikim 9y ago
    yea. either happens before opening or after closing.
  - btilly 9y ago
    https://qz.com/300486/the-best-times-to-release-bad-earnings/ https://qz.com/300486/the-best-times-to-release-bad-earnings... says that as of 2012 only 2% of earnings are announced while the stock is tradition, down from 20% in 2000. There is no reason to believe that this trend has changed.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mandeepj 9y ago
  In USA, earnings are always released either before opening of market or after closing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
wott 9y ago
In the document: Net loss of last quarter: $400M Net loss since beginning of the year (6 months): $800M (Because the article gives absolute figures for the revenue, but for the losses it only gives the loss per action, which doesn't talk to me.)
Animats 9y ago
That's a bit deceptive - giving revenue in dollars, and losses in dollars per share. Better view of the numbers.[1] [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-02/tesla-burns-record-13-million-day-q2-and-its-about-get-worse http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-02/tesla-burns-record-...
- wott 9y ago
  Ah! Same thought at the same time :-)
- kryptiskt 9y ago
  That's standard in the US and not a trick, I don't like it at all either way.
- gr2020 9y ago
  Not exactly a balanced source there - there is definitely some bias from the author showing through. But the comments on that post - yikes! So much anti-EV FUD in certain communities.
- homosaphien1 9y ago
  The comment section is cancer in this link. Classic zero hedge crowd.
  - simonh 9y ago
    I gave up at the "I just spent 15 minutes reading about electric cars and..." comment. Instant expertise is the best expertise!
simonsarris 9y ago
I've owned TSLA a long time and I hope they don't start making money, and continue the Amazon model and actually build something with years of minimal or no profits, re-investing vigorously. Amazon had almost 20 years in business without "making any money" except a few quarters where they accidentally eked out some non-trivial profit. But without their spending, they wouldn't have become Amazon. Without Tesla's spending, they won't be a future company, they'll just be a tiny car company. It's amazing just how many people on different sites (stocktwits, seeking alpha, reddit) continue the "they're losing money, why are they valued so highly?" comments. How is it not obvious what Tesla is trying to do? The operative thing isn't that they're losing money, its that they're spending everything they've got. This is a good thing. The Starcraft analogy is simple to make: The winning player is the one that spends all their resources, not the one that hoards them. Nobody raises cash just to hold on to it. I have no idea why people can't grasp this. For earnings, what matters is whether or not revenue is higher than expected ($2.79B vs. $2.51B estimated) and what the gross margins are (27.9%). Check and check. ~~~ Bit of a diversion: For some historical comparison: Amazon added $6bn in debt as recently as 2014. Even very large and very successful companies take on debt to fuel growth far beyond "bootstrap" numbers. Both companies leverage as much investment money as they can to build and expand as fast as they can. If you look at Amazon's raises in the late 1990's you'll find something more comparable to Tesla today relative to revenue. In 1999 Amazon raised $1.25 billion, and their revenue for the year was $1.64 billion. So they raised proportionally way more money than Tesla has so far this year. And spent it all! (Also note the crazy growth: 293 million in Q1 to to 676 million in Q4 for Amazon that year. They were expanding like mad, but they still needed way more money than they were producing to reach their goals. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Revenue/1999/Q4 http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Revenu...)
- stevenwliao 9y ago
  > The Starcraft analogy is simple to make: The winning player is the one that spends all their resources, not the one that hoards them. Resource scarcity is much harder to predict in the real world than in Starcraft. If the economy is bad, you may not be able to raise another round when you need it- all the mineral patches disappear from the map.
theologic 9y ago
Since there is some confusion about why investors would support the TSLA stock price, I thought I would pull a couple of sell-side analysts reports to see what industry watchers were saying. (I happen to currently have a business role running a P&L, and I have access to sell-side research as one of my resources.) I'm not an auto guy, and while I read Elon's biography, I'm looking at this for the first time. It seems that the simple way the sell-side analysts are looking at it is by going out a few years, let's say 2020, and then projecting the possible EPS in 2020 then assigning a multiple. One guy said that they could get to an EPS of $6, and gave it a 30 multiple or roughly a $180 price, and said the stock is way too high. Another guy said they could get to an EPS of $20, and gave it a 32 multiple (but then discounts the value to today in 2017) for roughly a $400 stock price. The difficultly is predicting what the EPS is going to be in 3-4 years. The bulls are confident that Elon has a battery and innovation edge such as the auto-pilot (or Warren Buffet moat or competitive advantage). The bears say that the tech is too easy to copy. I understand concern over "how big can they get?" However to counter this, the absolutely auto market is massive (somewhere around or over $1.5T). The problem is that the market is fractured into a lot of small guys. I suppose there is an argument that Tesla could sell tech to a vast majority of these guys, and unite them under a common battery/OS platform (think IOS or MS-Windows). Mind you, I am not investing in Tesla at all, but there is a valid path to a high stock price. You just have to accept multiple things need to happen. Right now, I'm not investing, so this is a passing point of interest. Time to look at this page in 2020.
antaviana 9y ago
One of the great, and I mean really great, intangible assets of Tesla is its brand value. Tesla has a guaranteed pipeline of strong sales for years to come, saving themselves a ton of money for advertising that their competitors must spend.

73 points by lpolovets 9y ago

I assume it's tactical that they released this information after the trading day finished? TSLA closing price was $325.89, and after hours trading recently peaked at $347.14!

goshx 9y ago
It reached $311 during the day
- fmihaila 9y ago
  It's at $352 now, so the market seems to really like their report.
  - ams6110 9y ago
    Markets often respond positively just because doubt is removed. Regardless of what the report said, it's out, and people can look forward.
yumraj 9y ago
AFAIK that is standard practice, at least in the US
- alexjikim 9y ago
  yea. either happens before opening or after closing.
- btilly 9y ago
  https://qz.com/300486/the-best-times-to-release-bad-earnings/ https://qz.com/300486/the-best-times-to-release-bad-earnings... says that as of 2012 only 2% of earnings are announced while the stock is tradition, down from 20% in 2000. There is no reason to believe that this trend has changed.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mandeepj 9y ago
In USA, earnings are always released either before opening of market or after closing.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

wott 9y ago

In the document: Net loss of last quarter: $400M Net loss since beginning of the year (6 months): $800M (Because the article gives absolute figures for the revenue, but for the losses it only gives the loss per action, which doesn't talk to me.)

Animats 9y ago

That's a bit deceptive - giving revenue in dollars, and losses in dollars per share. Better view of the numbers.[1] [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-02/tesla-burns-record-13-million-day-q2-and-its-about-get-worse http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-02/tesla-burns-record-...

wott 9y ago
Ah! Same thought at the same time :-)
kryptiskt 9y ago
That's standard in the US and not a trick, I don't like it at all either way.
gr2020 9y ago
Not exactly a balanced source there - there is definitely some bias from the author showing through. But the comments on that post - yikes! So much anti-EV FUD in certain communities.
homosaphien1 9y ago
The comment section is cancer in this link. Classic zero hedge crowd.
- simonh 9y ago
  I gave up at the "I just spent 15 minutes reading about electric cars and..." comment. Instant expertise is the best expertise!

simonsarris 9y ago

I've owned TSLA a long time and I hope they don't start making money, and continue the Amazon model and actually build something with years of minimal or no profits, re-investing vigorously. Amazon had almost 20 years in business without "making any money" except a few quarters where they accidentally eked out some non-trivial profit. But without their spending, they wouldn't have become Amazon. Without Tesla's spending, they won't be a future company, they'll just be a tiny car company. It's amazing just how many people on different sites (stocktwits, seeking alpha, reddit) continue the "they're losing money, why are they valued so highly?" comments. How is it not obvious what Tesla is trying to do? The operative thing isn't that they're losing money, its that they're spending everything they've got. This is a good thing. The Starcraft analogy is simple to make: The winning player is the one that spends all their resources, not the one that hoards them. Nobody raises cash just to hold on to it. I have no idea why people can't grasp this. For earnings, what matters is whether or not revenue is higher than expected ($2.79B vs. $2.51B estimated) and what the gross margins are (27.9%). Check and check. ~~~ Bit of a diversion: For some historical comparison: Amazon added $6bn in debt as recently as 2014. Even very large and very successful companies take on debt to fuel growth far beyond "bootstrap" numbers. Both companies leverage as much investment money as they can to build and expand as fast as they can. If you look at Amazon's raises in the late 1990's you'll find something more comparable to Tesla today relative to revenue. In 1999 Amazon raised $1.25 billion, and their revenue for the year was $1.64 billion. So they raised proportionally way more money than Tesla has so far this year. And spent it all! (Also note the crazy growth: 293 million in Q1 to to 676 million in Q4 for Amazon that year. They were expanding like mad, but they still needed way more money than they were producing to reach their goals. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Revenue/1999/Q4 http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Revenu...)

stevenwliao 9y ago
> The Starcraft analogy is simple to make: The winning player is the one that spends all their resources, not the one that hoards them. Resource scarcity is much harder to predict in the real world than in Starcraft. If the economy is bad, you may not be able to raise another round when you need it- all the mineral patches disappear from the map.

theologic 9y ago

Since there is some confusion about why investors would support the TSLA stock price, I thought I would pull a couple of sell-side analysts reports to see what industry watchers were saying. (I happen to currently have a business role running a P&L, and I have access to sell-side research as one of my resources.) I'm not an auto guy, and while I read Elon's biography, I'm looking at this for the first time. It seems that the simple way the sell-side analysts are looking at it is by going out a few years, let's say 2020, and then projecting the possible EPS in 2020 then assigning a multiple. One guy said that they could get to an EPS of $6, and gave it a 30 multiple or roughly a $180 price, and said the stock is way too high. Another guy said they could get to an EPS of $20, and gave it a 32 multiple (but then discounts the value to today in 2017) for roughly a $400 stock price. The difficultly is predicting what the EPS is going to be in 3-4 years. The bulls are confident that Elon has a battery and innovation edge such as the auto-pilot (or Warren Buffet moat or competitive advantage). The bears say that the tech is too easy to copy. I understand concern over "how big can they get?" However to counter this, the absolutely auto market is massive (somewhere around or over $1.5T). The problem is that the market is fractured into a lot of small guys. I suppose there is an argument that Tesla could sell tech to a vast majority of these guys, and unite them under a common battery/OS platform (think IOS or MS-Windows). Mind you, I am not investing in Tesla at all, but there is a valid path to a high stock price. You just have to accept multiple things need to happen. Right now, I'm not investing, so this is a passing point of interest. Time to look at this page in 2020.

antaviana 9y ago

One of the great, and I mean really great, intangible assets of Tesla is its brand value. Tesla has a guaranteed pipeline of strong sales for years to come, saving themselves a ton of money for advertising that their competitors must spend.