3 ms·

Says 500k, corrects himself to "mean" 400k, still misses by 10%, Tesla shill blogs report they "crushed" expectations: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-q4-

Says 500k, corrects himself to "mean" 400k, still misses by 10%, Tesla shill blogs report they "crushed" expectations: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-q4-2019-production-and-delivery-results/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-q4-2019-production-and-...

rmtech 7y ago
What was the expectation from skeptics? 0?
zaroth 7y ago
The communicated expectation was always 360k-400k. This was a range that “everyone” said was impossible to reach even at the low end. A tweet issued after hours and corrected the same day does not change the range explicitly stated in every earnings call and quarterly statement Tesla issued throughout 2019. It doesn’t matter what you or I think. The market speaks for itself. After announcing the number the stock is up ~3.5%. That indicates that reaching the lower range number was not fully priced in as of yesterday, and that the market deems this to be good news. Also, the annualized run rate with GF3 producing 3k/week would exceed 10k/wk based on 100,000 cars produced in Fremont in 13 weeks in Q4. Getting GF3 to 3k/week less than one year after breaking ground was also something the pundits said was “impossible”.
- aguyfromnb 7y ago
  >This was a range that “everyone” said was impossible to reach even at the low end. Really? Because I follow some of TESLAQ on Twitter, and many were expecting 115k delivered this quarter. Consensus was around 110k. One prominent poster had 367k for the year, and was within a fraction of a percent of what Tesla ended up delivering (isn't it odd that analysts can forecast more accurately than the CEO?) I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that "everyone" said the low end would be impossible. I don't know a single analyst who thought that. Care to provide a source? >stated in every earnings call and quarterly statement Tesla issued throughout 2019. I don't think they stated that number in any call except the Q3 call, but you could easily prove me wrong. What he did state, though, that Tesla wouldn't be "self-constrained to 400,000 units" (Q1 call). He also said that Freemont would be producing 8,000 - 9,000 cars per week in Q3 (Q2 call). >The market speaks for itself. Ah yes, the old infallible market. What does stock price have to do with anything?
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Tesla Q4 2018 Update: > “In total, we are expecting to deliver 360,000 to 400,000 vehicles in 2019, representing a growth of approximately 45% to 65% compared to 2018” [1] Finding a listing of consensus analyst estimates for 2019 made early in the year is a lot harder. But as late as last week the consensus was barely 360k. [1] - https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-9225c2cb0ae0 https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-92...

rmtech 7y ago

What was the expectation from skeptics? 0?

zaroth 7y ago

The communicated expectation was always 360k-400k. This was a range that “everyone” said was impossible to reach even at the low end. A tweet issued after hours and corrected the same day does not change the range explicitly stated in every earnings call and quarterly statement Tesla issued throughout 2019. It doesn’t matter what you or I think. The market speaks for itself. After announcing the number the stock is up ~3.5%. That indicates that reaching the lower range number was not fully priced in as of yesterday, and that the market deems this to be good news. Also, the annualized run rate with GF3 producing 3k/week would exceed 10k/wk based on 100,000 cars produced in Fremont in 13 weeks in Q4. Getting GF3 to 3k/week less than one year after breaking ground was also something the pundits said was “impossible”.

aguyfromnb 7y ago
>This was a range that “everyone” said was impossible to reach even at the low end. Really? Because I follow some of TESLAQ on Twitter, and many were expecting 115k delivered this quarter. Consensus was around 110k. One prominent poster had 367k for the year, and was within a fraction of a percent of what Tesla ended up delivering (isn't it odd that analysts can forecast more accurately than the CEO?) I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that "everyone" said the low end would be impossible. I don't know a single analyst who thought that. Care to provide a source? >stated in every earnings call and quarterly statement Tesla issued throughout 2019. I don't think they stated that number in any call except the Q3 call, but you could easily prove me wrong. What he did state, though, that Tesla wouldn't be "self-constrained to 400,000 units" (Q1 call). He also said that Freemont would be producing 8,000 - 9,000 cars per week in Q3 (Q2 call). >The market speaks for itself. Ah yes, the old infallible market. What does stock price have to do with anything?
- zaroth 7y ago
  Tesla Q4 2018 Update: > “In total, we are expecting to deliver 360,000 to 400,000 vehicles in 2019, representing a growth of approximately 45% to 65% compared to 2018” [1] Finding a listing of consensus analyst estimates for 2019 made early in the year is a lot harder. But as late as last week the consensus was barely 360k. [1] - https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-9225c2cb0ae0 https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/0b913415-467d-4c0d-be4c-92...