story
Citation needed.
The numbers I'm looking at are the following: http://ir.tesla.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1564590-16-18886&...
As of March 2016:
$ 182,482,000 in Research and Development last Quarter.
$ 282,267,000 net loss in the quarter.
So even if we got rid of Tesla's ENTIRE R&D department, they lost $100 Million last QUARTER. The primary cost of Tesla is "Selling, general and administrative", which was around $300 Million.
The only other cost that's larger than their administrative costs were the $779,316,000 spent on parts.
#1 Cost: The parts (~$780 Million)
#2 Cost: Selling, General, and Administrative. $300 Million
#3 Cost: $182 Million spent on R&D.
These numbers are per quarter.
Tesla takes in more revenue than their cars cost to build. It currently is not enough to cover all the other expenses of the company.
Yes Tesla's cars are "cool" and everybody wants one, but even the new "cheaper" model costs far more than the average person spends on a car. Right now, Tesla caters to the luxury market, and is viewed as a "cool alternative" to more traditional luxury makes.
Ford, Toyota et al, have models that cover just about every price range and every type of customer, from the extreme budget oriented to the extreme luxury sports car fanatic. Toyota owns Scion, Toyota, and Lexus for example - so if you need a car, chances are one of the Toyota offerings will satisfy your needs and budget. This opens the market potential to include just about every person.
The one thing that has worried me about Tesla for a long while, is Musk's claims that next year they'll sell 30% more cars, every year - something that's now proving to be an impossible feat. At some point, they were going to hit a ceiling of maximum potential sales as they attempted to wedge into the already entrenched high-end luxury sports car market - there just aren't enough buyers to keep that growth at these prices.
You know, the same was said about the iPhone.
Where do you get your numbers from, because this[1] seems to be about right at the Tesla price point.
[1]: http://mediaroom.kbb.com/record-new-car-transaction-prices-r...
Remind me again: this is Hacker News run by Y Combinator, right?
That said they certainly have a huge hill to climb, but as he said its one we all need to climb so great that they are pushing ahead with a business model to make it there
Right. What Tesla is attempting is orders of magnitude more difficult than your typical YC app shop with an exit strategy. I think they deserve a bit more slack than you seem willing to cut them. If it all blows up in their faces you can have your day with a smug "I told you so" but you won't be able to deny the benefits they've already provided to society via Musk's aggressive strategy and the effect that's had on the wider industry.
And that's fine. The founders of a company are free to specify its purpose in the company's articles. There is no legal requirement that says corporations must seek profits.
The ship has been righted for now, but it was pretty good in 2000 as well.
[1] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70R0S420110128
[2] http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-o...
1. http://revenuesandprofits.com/amazon-vs-walmart-revenues-and...
- Use that money to develop a medium volume car at a lower price
- Use that money to create an affordable, high volume car
Amazon is way better at making money to invest in growth. Tesla ?still? is in a fairly deep well, and will need investments to crawl out of it. Big question is whether they will.
Good news is that they aren't at 2012 scale anymore; bad news is that they aren't improving recently (https://ycharts.com/companies/TSLA/profit_margin)
The income increases the cash flow, which is obviously important, but it also signals to investors and bankers that there is a business, and they can invest or loan with better confidence.
Those companies are means to an end, not profit-generating machines.
For fiscal 2015 they were positive on net income: $596 million.
Q1 2016: $513 million in net income
They'll be generating $3 billion in annual net income in just another year. Sounds like a business to me, even if half of that net income comes from AWS.
Ford was immediately profitable, was it not? Even before implementing an assembly line?
(Tesla's subsidised by lithium salt concentrations in Bolivia, but that's a rather smaller overall subsidy.)
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
How much would it cost you to create a barrel of crude oil?
Not "extract from the ground", the usual meaning of "producing oil", which borrows rather more from "produce the evidence" than "manufacture the good". But actually start with high-entropy substrates and some energy source and synthesize oil.
Why do markets not account for this cost?
(Hotelling's Rule is ignored, and is, moreover, based on faulty logic. Curiously, Bohm-Bawerk, an Austrian Economist, gets far close to the truth in his theory of value, an exceedingly rare case in which I find myself agreeing with any Austrian principles.)
What the company does is reinvest the profits, instead of giving it back to shareholders. It makes a lot of sense in a growing market.