xkjkls

40 ms·

481.
by xkjkls 7y ago
It's a feature of extremely cheap capital and low interest rates, not just Silicon Valley
482.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Of the $12 billion in funding he personally took $2 billion of it.
483.
by xkjkls 7y ago
The Model S sales are down close to 70% YoY. That’s very obviously not the platform of the future
484.
by xkjkls 7y ago
They still have 8 years as a public company. How many other companies can post losses for 8 years without Wall Street getting impatient?
485.
by xkjkls 7y ago
I guess my major point is that Amazon didn’t need to consistently find new capital in order to keep the business afloat. Musk does. That’s partyly the distinction between cash flow and profit
486.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Ok? And they are decreasing it. I assume the reverse applies?
487.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Tesla's hypothesized future performance has continuously been pushed out longer and longer. The consensus 2020 EPS was $18 in 2013, and by today it is a negative number. You can't push out future performance for eternity.
488.
by xkjkls 7y ago
You are correct; I type without proofreading
489.
by xkjkls 7y ago
The order backlog includes the Model Y, which is a car that isn’t even in production.
490.
by xkjkls 7y ago
This really isn’t answering the question. If a company is supply constrained, why would they be reducing prices? That’s literally the exact opposite of what should happen.
491.
by xkjkls 7y ago
The FactSet sell-side consensus was 99,000. That’s normally what people look at when they quote “expectations”. And for the most part analysts, I don’t know if you’ve ever met one, are honest people. There can be perverse incentives at time
492.
by xkjkls 7y ago
And they didn’t amass nearly as much debt to get there
493.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Cash Flow positive every year since 2003, not necessarily profitable. (Though the were profitable for some of those years, they weren’t necessarily).
494.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Amazon has been cash flow positive since 2003. Amazon has a unique negative cash flow cycle where they collected revenue significantly prior to paying their accounts payable. As long as they are constantly growing, it is basically like runn
495.
by xkjkls 7y ago
What does 2008 have to do with anything? A company that hasn’t made a profit for 16 straight years, especially valued at billions of dollars, should be considered a extremely risky investment
496.
by xkjkls 7y ago
No, then it’s “more than expected”. Wall Street has been a bull market for 10 straight years. If anything analysts are considerably charitable to companies
497.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Why do we think they are production limited instead of demand limited? They’ve had to lower ASPs for close to 5 consecutive quarters. That’s not indicative of production constrained.
498.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Institutional investors don’t like the stock because it’s a 16 year old company that’s never made a profit a year in existence. It’s pretty easy to see how that could make any money manager run scared
499.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Is this good though? They didn't meet expectations.
500.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Unless it is more than expected.
501.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Elon claimed they had a chance at 100,000 a few days ago. Based on that this isn't meeting expectations. Also, the revenue is what matters and the breakdown of 3 vs S vs X indicates they will have significantly lower ASPs and probably
502.
by xkjkls 7y ago
> Another advantage they have is a very simple online ordering system -- try getting a quote for solar somewhere else vs ordering on Tesla.com Is this really a long term advantage? One, producing a website to have simple online ordering
503.
by xkjkls 7y ago
> Well, if the arguments at the time were good enough to convince them, sucks to be them. What are they gonna do? If the arguments and timelines were knowingly dishonest, then that's fraud. Hence the lawsuit. > Unless they were g
504.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Apologies, I was actually off by one: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/11/16/the-10-highest-pa... But the point still stands.
505.
by xkjkls 7y ago
That's still value for the early investors.
506.
by xkjkls 7y ago
> This is "no one goes there anymore because it's so crowded" argument. This is a very true argument about the margins/economics of a business. If it is easy for competition to enter, it becomes very hard to make a hi
507.
by xkjkls 7y ago
I'm talking about the economics and moat that Tesla has itself, with which the fact that the panels are a commodity matter a great deal. This makes Tesla a servicing/financing company, and why do they have a systematic advantage a
508.
by xkjkls 7y ago
Tesla has the highest paid board of any Fortune 500 company.
509.
by xkjkls 7y ago
> Now Tesla shareholders, who overwhelmingly voted for the merger, made a big mistake. But Tesla shareholders own the company, they are allowed to make whatever decisions they want. They voted for the merger based on Musk's claim th
510.
by xkjkls 7y ago
> Shareholders definitely have a great chance to sue Musk because he did not do this in the best interest of his shareholders, it's in the best interest of his cousin. That lawsuit already exists and is still in litigation.

More ›