GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
"churning out" is classic Tesla-speak, frequently creating confusion. Sometimes this is benign, but I believe it is frequently intentional to create the illusion of things being better than they are. "Churning out" is likely very different than "delivering", which is a more widely and uniformly defined term.

I suspect that Tesla counts a vehicle as "churned out" when it rolls off the assembly line as a supposedly-completed vehicle. At that stage, it still has a long path of winding through QC, shipping, and delivery-center baying before it is "delivered" to the owner and money is exchanged and sales contracts signed. We've seen aerials of 100's of Model 3's bayed at delivery centers awaiting "delivery". Churned out but undelivered vehicles are properly called "inventory". So at the end of 2017, Tesla had 2425-1770 = 655 Model 3's in inventory.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Yes, deliveries and production would be different numbers. Ordinarily the number produced wouldn't be important, but given the focus on the roll out numbers I understand why Tesla would release the production number.

I'm still trying to figure out why the WS analyst who changed his estimates of the deliveries from 10,000 last quarter to 5,000 in the last week of December still has a job. I had a hard time believing the number but he claimed he had called stores and so forth and was sure of his number. Talk about grade inflation! LOL

Anyway, still looking for the financials to see the size of the quarterly and yearly loss, which are more important than the number delivered in the first quarter of a release. The other issue is just how big an egg Tesla laid. Missing a target shouldn't be that big of a deal. However, when you say 100,000 to 200,000 and you end up at 1,700 I don't see how you remain credible. We used to call some sales people 50%ers, meaning they'd come in at half of their estimate. Never had to deal with a 1.5%er or a .75%er. That's nuts.

The other thing that is nuts is all the posts about the Model 3 rollout. It's been a disaster, but we know that. Five articles talking about it isn't going to add anything. Let's wait a few months and see what shakes out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
Another capital raise might be a challenge unless the Model 3 story quickly makes a complete turn-around. Every day is another day of another revelation suggesting all is not well inside Tesla. They can't survive too many more blows.

Example: the "small" issue announced today of Model 3 headliner fabric down-grade substitution because the single-sourced high-end fabric vendor couldn't or wouldn't provide the fabric to Tesla "due to high demand" (by other customers). This in-itself is a major problem, but Tesla's poor handling of making the substitution without notifying customers prior to making it is even worse. Tesla essentially is continuously in-denial that they have a fundamental top-management problem and has resorted to bending the truth to the point of lying to cover bad news.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,278 Posts
Haha ... the fixation on this site is silly. Let's visit in 3 and 6 months :)

The Tesla Model 3 will also be also going to other countries in reasonable numbers (just like the LEAF 1 & 2) ... unlike some other cars we know.

CARB info (credits related?)


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Haha ... the fixation on this site is silly. Let's visit in 3 and 6 months :)

The Tesla Model 3 will also be also going to other countries in reasonable numbers (just like the LEAF 1 & 2) ... unlike some other cars we know.
The most important number will be the profit or loss number at the close of Q1 2018. On the world deliveries of the Model 3, a huge problem for Tesla is that it's vastly more successful in NA than anywhere else. Its business is just OK in Europe and downright bad in China.

Also note that being a CARB state doesn't mean adopting ZEV standards, which is more of a driving force for electrics than fuel standards. For example, Washington and Oregon are both CARB states, but only Oregon is a ZEV state. China seems to be the biggest ZEV state at this point! LOL
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,278 Posts
The most important number will be the profit or loss number at the close of Q1 2018. On the world deliveries of the Model 3, a huge problem for Tesla is that it's vastly more successful in NA than anywhere else. Its business is just OK in Europe and downright bad in China.

Also note that being a CARB state doesn't mean adopting ZEV standards, which is more of a driving force for electrics than fuel standards. For example, Washington and Oregon are both CARB states, but only Oregon is a ZEV state. China seems to be the biggest ZEV state at this point! LOL
Yes, I'm sure GM understand the ZEV credits and have it down to a science with several financial people working on it :)

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevcredits/2016zevcredits.htm

Your profit/loss statement is misleading. All these companies are in different stages of their growth. Perspective.

Here is a stage (straight ICE vehicles) that GM is still in but may eventually move from (many years from now).
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/chevrolet-silverado-sales-figures/

The single month in December 2017 had 67,676 silverado sales ... WAY more than the sales of Bolt PLUS Volt sales. Perspective.

One of there non-PHEV vehicles


Two of their PHEV/BEV vehicles
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Your profit/loss statement is misleading. All these companies are in different stages of their growth. Perspective.
My perspective is that: (1) you can lose a billion dollars a quarter if and only if you can either get someone to fund you for free by buying your stock or lend you the money and (2) if you can't make money selling vehicles for $125K you aren't going to make money selling vehicles for $50K. Maybe that latter is wrong. The first isn't.

An argument that says losses are to be expected because a company is early in a life cycle is wholly devoid of content since it rests on the assumption that ultimately there will be profitability. It's rather tautological. I think I mentioned the WSJ reporter's comments about true believers always having trouble with the basics -- addition and subtraction? Adding losses doesn't get you any closer to profitability, electric vehicles are expensive to make, and there isn't a huge market for expensive vehicles.

Then again, when the iPhone came out I didn't think it would sell well because the phone was so bad and I assumed people wanted a phone in the iPhone. Tuned out I was wrong.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,278 Posts
My perspective is that: (1) you can lose a billion dollars a quarter if and only if you can either get someone to fund you for free by buying your stock or lend you the money and (2) if you can't make money selling vehicles for $125K you aren't going to make money selling vehicles for $50K. Maybe that latter is wrong. The first isn't.

An argument that says losses are to be expected because a company is early in a life cycle is wholly devoid of content since it rests on the assumption that ultimately there will be profitability. It's rather tautological. I think I mentioned the WSJ reporter's comments about true believers always having trouble with the basics -- addition and subtraction? Adding losses doesn't get you any closer to profitability, electric vehicles are expensive to make, and there isn't a huge market for expensive vehicles.

Then again, when the iPhone came out I didn't think it would sell well because the phone was so bad and I assumed people wanted a phone in the iPhone. Tuned out I was wrong.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux

Is investing into your future [products and services] the same as losing money? Do the big financial players understand more than ...

Related to the title of the thread and the table/maps/etc above, you think GM did an outstanding job with the Bolt rollout? They are building as many as they can to sell to everyone that wants to buy one? In each state, in close by countries, in far countries, etc?

So can a company have multiple facets and products and rely on some to make sure the they are all successful?
GM: silverado, escalades, and other ICE big sellers come to mine. Tesla: various products that save/use batteries ... powerwall, powerpacks, cars in different price ranges and styles, future cars (Y, pickups, semi-truck) in diff prices, etc..

Funny point on the iPhone. Mini-computer/multi-use-tools that happens to also make calls. However, the flaw is were are talking about whether electric based cars can appeal to current and future buyers. Will they get cheaper? Will technology improve? Can you scale the production and get better cost? Do other companies follow those same concepts and be successful? No, according to you, it is impossible.

Are other companies warming up to electric cars? Are consumers? Does that bold well for cars making a lot of electric cars? How does the InsideEVs sales chart compare to todays in terms of number of companies involved: https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

Yes, I have 3 Volts in my family and I have spent countless hours on this forum but ... your non-critical support of GM is because since delivering the Volt in Dec 2010 they have made huge strides in *-7-* years? So GM Volt, Bolts, ELR, and related platforms are profitable in their division according to your profit/loss rules. If they were a separate division or company would they be successful? And they are aren't using ZEV credits to help in other areas (vehicle types) of their business. They aren't careful where they sell the Volt/Bolt. They aren't limiting their sales to certain areas (states and even countries (Canada as a minor example)). And you don't consider yourself a wholly biased based on that answer?

So every new company moving into territory of other companies has been profitable right away or within a few years. Otherwise they don't have a plan according to you to be profitable? Any other examples in history that maybe were the exception to that? Haha, seriously you wrote all that with a straight face?? There have been no breakout companies in the past decade or two?

Your argument are always the same. If you haven't made a profit from year X or if you can't guarantee you can make a profit in the next quarter you are bound to fail.

If people continue to make orders on latest products, continue to buy your current vehicles, and put down payments on your future vehicles (after seeing prototypes) ... you have the right receipt. People see and believe the continual improvement (designs, hardware, and OTA!). That is what you can not grasp as the key high success factor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,230 Posts
Going to assume the discrepancy between what they churned out versus what they sold/delivered are the cars sitting in the QC/fix lot. There was an article awhile back that mentioned a lot of IIIs in a lot, all of which were there because they failed the QC checks.

hell there was a guy bragging on the Reddit forums; complete with YT video; of his IIIs fit and finish and people picked it apart for misalignment and such mostly because of the smugness of the OP. At the numbers being delivered the car is damn near hand built and should be perfect before it gets to the customer. The cannot afford a III to get out like that X with the cracked A pillar from last year
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
I do not expect to take delivery of a Model 3 this year unless there are radical changes at Tesla. My 'estimate' was originally Dec-Feb IIRC. So late 1 year is about average.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Going to assume the discrepancy between what they churned out versus what they sold/delivered are the cars sitting in the QC/fix lot. There was an article awhile back that mentioned a lot of IIIs in a lot, all of which were there because they failed the QC checks.

hell there was a guy bragging on the Reddit forums; complete with YT video; of his IIIs fit and finish and people picked it apart for misalignment and such mostly because of the smugness of the OP. At the numbers being delivered the car is damn near hand built and should be perfect before it gets to the customer. The cannot afford a III to get out like that X with the cracked A pillar from last year
Tesla is the only company that seems to highlight how many cars they PRODUCED along with how many they sold to customers. They want to pick and choose the numbers that show them in the best light. That's why they used non-GAAP in earnings statements for so long till the SEC finally stepped in and said "start using GAAP".
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top