6 ms·
Tesla Beats In Q4 With Adjusted Revenues Of $761M
- sheetjs 13y agoNote that it was only a beat on "Adjusted Revenues". Top-line revenue was actually a miss (615M versus 680M estimates). That being said, I Think the future is rosy for Tesla but TSLA is strained
- btian 13y ago680MM estimate was non-GAAP, Tesla's actually non-GAAP revenue was $761MM
- IBM 13y agoThe last time I valued Tesla, it needed to have CAGR revenue growth of over 70% in the next 5 years with margins of comparable high end car manufacturers (about 15%) to get a fair value of around $75. I hope you get off the train before this cycle comes to an end.
- sokoloff 13y agoI got both of my rear cheeks handed to me on earnings today. (I was long a fair number of puts on TSLA.) I believe in the company's technology, and the Model S is quite nice (a colleague has one), but the stock is WAY, WAY ahead of itself here. "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." rings quite true for me today.
- revelation 13y agoThey just had a run-up from 130 to an all-time high of over 200, they released early that they would be exceeding expectations.. and you had a put out for earnings? Irrationality exists in many shades, I guess.
- sokoloff 13y agoIt takes two sides to make a market...
- revelation 13y agoWell yes, and the other side are all those people that keep themselves up-to-date on their stuff. If your information base is summed up as "a colleague has that car, but they recently had fires, so surely they are not worth X", why are you doing options? (I have a theory of course: TSLA shorts stock supply is scarce enough to carry a very significant premium. So you enter options, where it's easier to find that "other side".)
- IBM 13y agoThat's the risk you run when shorting any stock, especially one with an already high short interest. It's better to just avoid the overvalued companies.
- cynicalkane 13y agoIt is almost never correct to short a stock with long puts. It's not a solvency issue, it's a premium issue. You're making a bet that it will crash in time period X, and people overvaluing these time-limited bets is the #1 way options traders make money (seriously). Solvency won't save you when it's -EV.
- revelation 13y agoSo the last time you valued Tesla, you stuck your head into the sand and calculated a range of "indicators"? I mean, really, what do you expect people to respond? You are trying to smash water with a hammer.
- foobarqux 13y agoI don't understand, what do you think is a reasonable way to make investment decisions if not a fundamental value analysis?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- cloudwalking 13y agoMarket speculation.
- ulfw 13y agoMagic 8 Ball.
- synaesthesisx 13y agoTesla's margins are almost double those of other manufacturers; a big part of the profit comes in from their automated highly scalable production. When they eventually release their Model E (affordable performance electric vehicle for the masses) it'll be a game-changer.
- oh_sigh 13y agoSurely your money is where your mouth is, right? You're going to make a killing guaranteed! Where can I subscribe to your newsletter?
- cjensen 13y agoI'm curious: why did you restrict your analysis to 5 years? On the one hand, I'd expect Tesla to have tech-like growth for 10 to 20 years. On the other hand, competition is bound to happen eventually. How did you pick 5 years?
- DVassallo 13y agoTesla might be the biggest extinction threat to GM, Toyota, VW and the other big guys. Don't you think they would pay $23B to, not only extinguish that threat, but also gain from the upside? In my mind, if someone may be willing to pay $23B for something, it's worth $23B. That's why I think the valuation is quite fair. EDIT: Fixed typo
- cheriot 13y agoIf an acquirer would pay $23B and the market values it at $23B then you don't make any money. Meanwhile you take the risk of holding a high flying stock. Maybe you're right, but it's a gamble.
- erikpukinskis 13y agoYou just described every stock on the market. If it's not a gamble then people buy it and the price goes up until it's a gamble.
- cheriot 13y agoYou're arguing for strong market efficiency. There's nothing wrong with index funds, but that doesn't explain why Graham, Dodd, Buffet, and similar investors have out performed market indexes for so long.
- erikpukinskis 13y agoA stopped clock is right twice a day. If you compare random subsets of index funds (i.e. take a random half of the stocks in the fund and call those a new fund), some of those will consistently outperform the indexes too.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 13y agoTesla is strongly positioned (effective first mover, superior execution) in a rapidly growing slice (electric vehicles) of a stagnant market filled with cut-throat competition (U.S. automobiles). The present valuation precludes a Cupertino-style citadel in the luxury market - Tesla has to burn Ford, GM, and/or Fiat's market shares into the domestic market and/or steal their growth in emerging ones, or burn their capital trying.
- ericb 13y agoDo you have this analysis handy? I find valuation...yada yada yada about as convincing as the other posts citing Tesla's great prospects. Tesla's margin is about 25%, so your valuation sounds like it would be way off out the gate.
- capkutay 13y agoI wouldn't weigh an investment in TSLA with the same metrics you'd use for mutual funds or steady large companies. Tesla is clearly a growth company. They're creating new categories (luxury, electric vehicles) and building infrastructure around it. They've also only released 1 sedan so they've barely penetrated the market. As a growth stock, I don't see anything alarming about a company that's worth 30x its quarterly revenues. They have a visionary, intelligent CEO in Elon Musk and the image/brand of a car company that's ahead of the game. Not to mention, they make amazing products. FB is valued at 60x quarterly revenue, TWTR is valued ~140x quarterly revenue. I would much rather bet on Tesla becoming the most valuable car company in the world (at least ~$50b in mkt cap) than the insane valuations of social media companies.
- beltex 13y agohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FVbyyDLzvg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FVbyyDLzvg
- smackfu 13y agoDown 5% during the day, up 12% after hours.
- pyrocat 13y agogood fucking lord
- gmays 13y agoI love the company, but I sold all of my stock a few weeks ago for a nice profit. I'm sure the true value will get there someday, but I'm no gambler.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- nathancahill 13y agoI've heard that same statement about Doge.
- arasmussen 13y agoprotip: nobody gives a shit if you made several hundred thousand dollars and are going to buy a car with it. quit bragging.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- twic 13y agoCan anyone explain what's up with this GAAP/non-GAAP business? I am aware of GAAP, but i thought it was something you either followed or were naughty and didn't follow, not that you could simultaneously follow and not follow.
- richardwb 13y agoBasically it just says that following one set of guidelines (the GAAP) their numbers are this, but following another set of guidelines (their own preferred accounting guidelines) their numbers are higher. It's kind of like the difference between listing your cumulative GPA and major GPA. The numbers are the same, it's just the ones you choose to include that are different.
- smackfu 13y ago>It's kind of like the difference between listing your cumulative GPA and major GPA. Except that you get to choose which classes are in your "major."
- tanzam75 13y agoAll companies in the US are required to report GAAP numbers according to the rules. Some companies choose not to follow the rules. But this is risky, because eventually someone with an accounting background will detect the discrepancies, and notify the SEC. Thus, it's become fashionable to report both GAAP and adjusted numbers, and highlight the adjusted numbers in your press releases. Now the SEC can't get you. You've followed the rules and reported the GAAP numbers. During the dot-com bubble, companies used to report GAAP earnings alongside EBITDA. Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization. In other words, we earned all this money, if you pretend that all of these other expenses didn't cost us anything. As Warren Buffett pointed out: "References to EBITDA make us shudder — does management think the tooth fairy pays for capital expenditures?" Charlie Munger called them "bullsh_t earnings." EBITDA eventually got such a bad rap that companies stopped using it after the dot-com bubble. These days, companies that want to distract from the GAAP numbers will report "non-GAAP" or "adjusted" earnings. This simply means that instead of mechanically excluding ITDA, each company makes its own decisions about what to exclude.
- dfc 13y agoIs "Tesla beats in Q4" a common financial reporting phrase? Google gave me five results for "in after hours trading following its general beat" and they were all for this article. Most of the results for "beats in Qx" were stories by Alex Wilhelm or blog spammy results.
- Bill_Dimm 13y agoYes. It's short for "Tesla's earnings beat expectations in Q4"
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]