2 ms·

They 'can' both be true, but they are not. Their P/E has nothing to do with government subsidies. The made more profit in the last 3 quarters then most other au

by nickik 6y ago

They 'can' both be true, but they are not. Their P/E has nothing to do with government subsidies. The made more profit in the last 3 quarters then most other automakers, as most lost billions.

arcticbull 6y ago
Generally everything here can be true at once. (1) Tesla can be living off government subsidies. (2) Taxpayers can be on the hook for billions in clean-up costs. (3) A P/E of 1100 represents a combination of the market's enthusiasm for TSLA shares, their subsidies driving earnings on the one side, and their desire to re-invest proceeds on the other. They are making good money [in part thanks to subsidies], but they're pouring it back into R&D rather than returning it to the shareholders. This is the mark of a growth company.
- nickik 6y ago
  As I said, yes it 'can' be true, but it isn't. But Tesla isn't living of subsidies, that is just a nonsense claim that gets repeated by uninformed people. In fact, of US automakers they have had the least amount of help in the last 10 years. Tesla has been operating without the EV tax intensive for a while now, while all their competition (outside of GM) still have it. So if anything the US government is helping VW, BMW, Daimler, Nissan and so on MORE then they are helping Tesla (or GM) at the moment. A pretty insane policy if you ask me but I guess the US government didn't really think it threw. Ford hasn't even payed back the credit from the 2008 crash to the government. And GM clearly got the most help this century.
mhh__ 6y ago
I wasn't saying they are both true just that the subsidies can go to both. Also [Citation needed]? Some manufacturers did make losses but "most others" would seem to be a miss-classification at least by net income. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-insights/091516/most-profitable-auto-companies-2016-tm-gm.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-insights/09151... (Updated 2020)

by nickik 6y ago

They 'can' both be true, but they are not. Their P/E has nothing to do with government subsidies. The made more profit in the last 3 quarters then most other automakers, as most lost billions.

arcticbull 6y ago

Generally everything here can be true at once. (1) Tesla can be living off government subsidies. (2) Taxpayers can be on the hook for billions in clean-up costs. (3) A P/E of 1100 represents a combination of the market's enthusiasm for TSLA shares, their subsidies driving earnings on the one side, and their desire to re-invest proceeds on the other. They are making good money [in part thanks to subsidies], but they're pouring it back into R&D rather than returning it to the shareholders. This is the mark of a growth company.

nickik 6y ago
As I said, yes it 'can' be true, but it isn't. But Tesla isn't living of subsidies, that is just a nonsense claim that gets repeated by uninformed people. In fact, of US automakers they have had the least amount of help in the last 10 years. Tesla has been operating without the EV tax intensive for a while now, while all their competition (outside of GM) still have it. So if anything the US government is helping VW, BMW, Daimler, Nissan and so on MORE then they are helping Tesla (or GM) at the moment. A pretty insane policy if you ask me but I guess the US government didn't really think it threw. Ford hasn't even payed back the credit from the 2008 crash to the government. And GM clearly got the most help this century.

mhh__ 6y ago

I wasn't saying they are both true just that the subsidies can go to both. Also [Citation needed]? Some manufacturers did make losses but "most others" would seem to be a miss-classification at least by net income. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-insights/091516/most-profitable-auto-companies-2016-tm-gm.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/company-insights/09151... (Updated 2020)