By on November 5, 2012

Tesla recorded a third-quarter loss of $110.8 million, versus a $65.1 million loss in the third-quarter of 2011.

While anaylsts had expected lower losses (in the 90 cent/share range, versus $1.05/share recorded by Tesla), revenues exceeded projections as well, with $50 million booked in this quarter, versus projections of $48 million.

Production of the Model S has been coming online slowly but surely. Reuters reports that

The company said in a letter to shareholders posted on its website that weekly Model S production had risen to 100 cars by the end of the quarter and was now up to 200. By December, it will be making 400 cars per week, Tesla said.

While we’re still waiting on a proper review of the Model S, our initial impressions were much better than Tesla’s results this quarter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

64 Comments on “Tesla’s Q3 Losses Widen...”


  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    Despite all the hijinks and feeding at the public trough, I hope these guys make it.

    • 0 avatar
      -Cole-

      I don’t, but only because Musk is one giant PayPal fee.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        I don’t because at some point subsidizing each car they deliver to a rich customer by five million dollars is going to add up. I suppose this will be the most expensive quarter though, since the time for campaign contributions to keep the graft coming is about to end.

      • 0 avatar
        Silvy_nonsense

        CJinSD,

        As long as Congress keeps funding development of boondoggle defense projects, handing out hundreds of billions to private contractors year over year, your complaint about Tesla doesn’t really make any sense. Government support of private enterprise is business as usual in the U.S. and has been for decades.

        Tesla is no less worthy than any of the other (much larger) private corporations that provide jobs on our dime (Martin-Marietta, Raytheon, General Electric, Boeing and hundreds of others…) If you don’t like the system, that’s fine, but don’t kid yourself – the government has been giving loans and outright hand-outs to corporations for decades. Considering the staggering amounts of money involved, Tesla is a fraction of a drop in a very large swimming pool and singling Tesla out is just silly.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        That’s the worst rationalization ever. We’re not wasting some of our money. We’re wasting money that isn’t ours and in quantities that will destroy our civilization. Wasting government money should be punishable as treason. The stakes are the same. Justifying half a billion to enrich a few people because we’re also wasting a few billion to make our large industries competitive or to provide for our national defense doesn’t work on any intellectual or ethical level. We need to stop all of these programs and eliminate the barriers that make our industries uncompetitive at the same time. Doing so will also shrink the government payroll massively.

      • 0 avatar

        CJ, I sympathise with your hatred of government expenditures on these companies, especially since more than half of them have come to a dreadful end, i.e. bankruptcy.

        However, I have to give Elon Musk credit. If you hand him taxpayer dollars, he delivers on his promise. Both Tesla and SpaceX have delivered beyond reasonable expectations. President Obama insisted on giving this money away; I’m glad it went to one deserving recipient.

        (Of course I continue to vehemently oppose President Obama and will vote against him tomorrow.)

        D

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        In fairness to the current, and hopefully outgoing President, I doubt many of the key decisions are made by him. His staffers and party officials are more than likely the ones who do the leg work, select the beneficiaries, and present him with an order to sign or a bill for the Congress to vote on, and I would say this is the case in most administrations. I would think the current administration almost has to operate this way since the President is on vacation or at the links most of the time.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        The ubiquitous partisan response, “but they’re also wasting money on X so your complaint is invalid!!!”

        Two financial wrongs don’t make a right. They make us bankrupt faster.

      • 0 avatar
        imag

        I hate to inject a dose of reality into the situation, but, despite what certain politicians have said, recent Department of Energy programs has actually been very successful.

        In fact, even taking into account Solyndra, A123, Beacon, and Abound, the DOE programs’ success rate is currently well over 95%, far higher than Bain Capital’s success rate of 80%: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/fact-checking-governor-romneys-debate-numbers-on-renewables-and-loans

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        “Wasting government money should be punishable as treason.”

        So you’d support jailing the entire Bush regime which started two wars we got absolutely nothing out of, so that they could funnel large sums of tax money to their buddies in the defense contracting industry? No, didn’t think so. That’s why you’ve been successfully brainwashed into voting for a candidate on Tuesday who’s made starting a third war a top priority of his administration. It can’t be un-American or a waste of money if it involves killing people on the other side of the world for no benefit.

        Honestly, listening to partisan Republicans thunder about saving money is worse than annoying. It’s actively revolting.

      • 0 avatar

        “Tesla is no less worthy than any of the other (much larger) private corporations that provide jobs on our dime (Martin-Marietta, Raytheon, General Electric, Boeing and hundreds of others…) If you don’t like the system, that’s fine, but don’t kid yourself – the government has been giving loans and outright hand-outs to corporations for decades. ”

        REPUBLICANS never, ever argue with funding for military, petroleum or their other pork belly projects. Newt Gingrich and Sam Nunn have allocated so much money for weapons, I’m surprised we don’t have SHARKS with FRICKIN laser beams atop their heads in the US Navy.

        Second you wanna fund public education there’s a problem. Then they hire people to figure out ways to DESTROY and DEFUND the public schools. Meanwhile, the F-35 gets it’s vertical lift fan to fight Chinese superiority fighters that don’t exist.

        America is going to end up a bankrupt, 2nd class nation… oh wait.

    • 0 avatar
      schmitt trigger

      I’m also with you that I hope these guys make it.
      Tesla, with all of its flaws, is making an innovative product. It is a big challenge to develop an innovation into a market-successful product.

      As I have posted previously, what made the USA the great country that it became, was the willingness to take on big challenges. And challenges always have a risk factor involved.

      • 0 avatar
        Conslaw

        Well said. +1.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        I agree as well.

        I’m tired of all this “We can’t do that because we care more about our balance sheets this quarter” mentality. I would much rather lead the world in technology and do things that no one else can do than try to do the same things more profitably (cheaper) because I already know that’s a dead-end.

      • 0 avatar
        joeaverage

        I also agree – I hope they make it too. Our gov’t has sunk many times more into technologies with no future:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_a_New_Generation_of_Vehicles

        We can learn to build EVs here and employ ourselves or we can wait a decade and buy them from the Chinese by the boat load and continue to bitch that we don’t have any good jobs here.

        Meanwhile I am surrounded by yee-haws that want to preach about how the EV can’t do what the gasoline powered car can today (sub 5 min refills) and how the current Tesla EV is no different than a 1906 ACME roadster EV. And then of course there is the argument that the batteries that is commonly found in a consumer device like a TV remote or their cellphone sucks so all batteries must suck as well.

        And don’t forget that battery and electric motor technology will never progress past what they are in 2012. Whew.

        C’mon Tesla. I’d buy an “S” tomorrow if they were closer to my tax bracket. They exceed my transportation needs and are the most beautiful car I’ve seen in recent times. The wheels in that picture above are beautiful.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      @Dan: +1. I see a lot of that in this comment thread.

    • 0 avatar

      IF GM or FORD would snap up this car and build it, it would be a hit. I personally LOVE the car, but I don’t see private money being able to make it work.

      I think Tesla really has a hit here, but they need a big company behind it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWHlEC-SjFM

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Motor Trend called the Model S the most important car since the Ford Model T, Automobile Magazine named it the Automobile of the Year, and Time named it one of the best inventions of 2012. Everyone who has spent a lot of time with the Model S has heaped praise upon it.

    It works; it’s gorgeous inside and out; the performance is for real; the giant touchscreen is awesome to behold; it gets outstanding range; etc. But none of these publications have mentioned how the Model is is going to succeed as a PRODUCT; i.e. will it make enough money for Tesla to stay afloat amidst all these losses.

    The car is definitely not vaporware, but Tesla’s financial viability is still very much in doubt, which is a shame, because I really like the S, and hope Tesla can stick around long enough to release the gullwing Model X and their “entry-level” sedan. There’s also the whole issue of whether national dealers will allow them to sell direct, or if they’ll simply get sued into oblivion.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Musk had better find a buyer for the company before it runs out of money.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Being a Devil’s Advocate here. Couldn’t GM put a Volt drive train in Cadillac and have deep enough pockets to outlast Tesla plus throw in the usual incentives. Do you have a toilet/tv/dog/cat/ cell phone? We’ll give you discount for those things. Just kidding about the incentives but it seems that way.

    • 0 avatar
      Silvy_nonsense

      GM -is- putting a Volt drive train in a Cadillac. The ELR is an 2-door, so it doesn’t compete directly with the Model S. More info at http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/cadillac-elr-greenlit-for-late-2013-detroit-hamtramck-gets-35-million-investment/

    • 0 avatar
      Chicago Dude

      The performance of the Volt is in no way comparable to the performance of the Tesla. The Model S is a very fast car with incredible acceleration. I have long thought that the Volt drivetrain should have first been installed in a Cadillac model, but even so they would be targeting a different set of buyers and would likely coexist in the marketplace with little to no effect on each other.

    • 0 avatar
      hf_auto

      I like my Volt quite a bit more than I expected, and you’re spot-on with the idea of dropping Voltec into a Cadillac- it makes a lot of sense. So much sense that the ELR is doing just that.

      With that said, Tesla is in a completely different league with the Model S and I imagine they’re making Cadillac sweat. I expect the ELR to return roughly Volt-like performance (i.e. pretty good commuter) in the $50-60k range. With the base-model Tesla being 2+ seconds faster to 60 and offering roughly 4-8 times the range, faster charging + fast-charge network, and being a full-size car, the ELR might be a tough sell at a similar price. Tesla’s done a good job of positioning the Model S as a Panamera and M5-league car, whereas the Volt- and I assume by extension the ELR- still seem to have trouble shaking their Cruze roots (as much as I disagree with that comparison based on NVH alone).

      I also think the Model S range is getting to the point where range anxiety probably isn’t much of a concern for most users. My personal range requirement is 200 miles to make it from Seattle to Portland on one “tank” with a little buffer. I’ve only exceeded that distance once on an epic 900-mile Pacific Coast Highway run from SF to Seattle in one day. While I can’t stand Musk and hate to think of my money going to him, I’m extremely excited about the Model S and I hope to make it my next car.

  • avatar
    Brian P

    Like the car, don’t like the price tag, don’t like the stock. I hope they make it, but I have my doubts.

  • avatar
    Sundowner

    I hope these guys make it. The car is real and it works. I think here in the northeast, people are taking serious note to electic cars. I’ve been driving my father-in-law’s Chevy volt around NJ this past week, and people in expensive cars have been taking note of the car and asking me pointed questions like:

    “you don’t have to wait in the gas lines?”
    -no I don’t, I haven’t used more than a gallon of gas in the past week.
    “How do you charge it with the power out?”
    - I have an automatic stand-by generator on my house plumbed directly into my natural gas feed. All I do is plug into the outlet on the wall and let it charge. does it cost a bundle to charge off the natural gas? yes. but I don’t worry about gas lines.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Is the high cost of natural gas charging due to the cost of the generator, or inefficiency of burning natural gas for electricity generation? I ask because some years ago my brother in law put a million dollar turbine generator on the roof of his Manhattan office building in response to some Bloomberg initiative only to have other branches of government get involved to keep him from turning it on.

      • 0 avatar
        Sundowner

        It’s the inefficiency of me burning it in my generator to create electricity. Powering my house off the geenrator is about 50% more expensive than powering it directly off the grid.

      • 0 avatar
        Chicago Dude

        I know that the natural gas infrastructure is not as extensive as the rest of the country. I find it insane that so much of the northeast still relies on home heating oil in modern times.

        If you look over at http://www.eia.gov, you’ll find that natural gas prices seem to be as much as 20% higher in the northeast compared to, for example, the midwest.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        50% isn’t that bad of a premium to have power for the few weeks a year that the east coast’s crumbling grid is down.

      • 0 avatar
        Silvy_nonsense

        “I find it insane that so much of the northeast still relies on home heating oil in modern times.”

        I converted my last home from oil to gas and it was expensive. I had to pay the gas company for their infrastructure work, I had to pay the city to patch the street (not cheap, long story) and I had to buy a new furnace.

        In the Northeast decommissioning an old in-ground oil tank is very risky. If contamination is found, you may have to remediate all the contaminated soil and that can cost crazy amounts of money – $100,000 is possible.

        I think many stay on oil because the cost to change to gas is high and decommissioning an in-ground oil tank can turn into a nightmare.

      • 0 avatar
        Silvy_nonsense

        “Powering my house off the generator is about 50% more expensive than powering it directly off the grid.”

        …and 100% less aggravating than waiting in a gas line for five hours or more!

      • 0 avatar
        hf_auto

        @Silvy-
        In Washington we have oil tank insurance built into the price of the heating oil, does the NE have something similar?

        We hedged against a tank leak by decomissioning the tank BEFORE we replaced the furnace. Had there been a leak, PLIA insurance would’ve covered it as long as we kept heating the home with oil for 12 months. Contractors here will install temporary above-ground tanks to last you the next 12 months, at which point you can complete the conversion in much better financial shape.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        I heat with oil in Maine, as do something like 80-90% of homes here. I have never heard of such a thing as either an underground tank or tank insurance included in the price of oil. Tanks are in basements here, usually 175-250 gallons.

        Very, very little of Maine has piped in gas. Downtown areas of a couple of the larger cities is it. Having it delivered is VERY expensive, to the point where you won’t save much vs. oil.

        As with anything though, the MUCH higher price of oil has people actually spending money on efficiency. Personally, when oil was $.80/gal I could not have cared less. This was the first 4-5yrs I owned my house, until ~Katrina. I had an ancient furnace and leaky old single-pane windows in my little shack and burned 1200-1400 gallons a year. When oil went to nearly $3/per gallon, I invested $15K into new windows and a super-high efficiency boiler. Cut my annual consumption to 400 gal/yr. At $.80/gal there was just no incentive to spend $15K – the payback period was simply FAR too long. At $3-4/per, it was silly not to. Paid for itself in 3-4 years.

        And this is why the price of gasoline is still FAR too cheap in this country for there to be any meaningful incentive for most people to buy radically more efficient cars. People whine about it, but they still buy full-size pickups to commute in and make the occasional trip to Home Depot that could be done in a Fit with a trailer.

        I don’t buy into the “Government can do no right” arguement. The Government NEEDS to subsidize the development of technology. The private sector sure won’t do it, as Wall Street never looks much farther than the next quarter. Someone needs to take the long view, and I am perfectly happy to use some of my tax dollars to do so.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        krhodes1,
        If you really believe in the technology Tesla is developing, you can invest in their stock. This way, the rest of us who would otherwise choose not to make a gamble in technology that has failed in the marketplace time and time again can choose to spend our money on more worthy prospects.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    Apple,Inc.’s market capitalization is $546 billion. Tesla’s is $3.25 billion. It’s a shame, but the amount that Apple stock varies from day to day is enough to recapitalize Tesla and give them enough money to grow their business. Our financial system is better-tailored to creating stock-swing millionaires and billionaires than it is at capitalizing our industrial base.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      The value of Apple stock is a function of its profitability and how much investors are willing to pay for its current and future profitability.

      Tesla has no profits. Since its market cap has nothing to do with current earnings — there aren’t any — the stock is largely a bet on the future.

      Tesla’s best case scenario is selling a lot of cars. But that doesn’t seem likely. So that leaves Tesla’s most realistic best case scenario as the company being sold off to someone else who could use something that it has to offer.

      What may save Tesla are CAFE credits. Those are going to be worth some money to somebody. They may be worth enough for someone to buy the company, if but to control the flow of those credits. Ironically, General Motors might be Tesla’s best buyer, which would leave GM as the proud owner (again) of its auto plant in Fremont, California.

      Musk is a tech entrepreneur. Tech entrepreneurs typically build businesses not to make profits, but to build them up for the purpose of flipping them. That may be the plan with Tesla.

      • 0 avatar
        chaparral

        Tesla doesn’t have any profits, because the product that will make them money just went on sale and isn’t at full production volume yet.

        If they’ve got enough money to survive until they’re profitable, why not just do exactly that? It looks like they’ll be able to. In their price bracket the “viable as an independent automaker volume” can’t be too large.

        What chance do you give a modern Duesenburg? Tesla’s got a product with major advancements and advantages over what anyone else has, and they can charge a large premium for it.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTheDriver

        “Tech entrepreneurs typically build businesses not to make profits, but to build them up for the purpose of flipping them. ”

        Congratulations Pch101, you are now the proud possessor of the single most incorrect comment I have ever read on the internet. Carry on.

      • 0 avatar
        PintoFan

        “Tech entrepreneurs typically build businesses not to make profits, but to build them up for the purpose of flipping them.”

        Because when I think of Amazon, Ebay, Facebook, Google, Youtube, and yes, Apple itself, that’s my immediate reply.

    • 0 avatar
      cmoibenlepro

      Conslaw, I disagree with your premise that Tesla is more innovative and more useful to the economy than Apple.

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        Apple is highly successful and profitable, but not particularly innovative. iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air etc are all more or less derivative, better implementations of existing ideas. Apple’s patent portfolio is pretty slim, too (bar a collection of rounded rectangle patents) which attests to this as well.

        The Macintosh, way back in 1984? Yes, that was innovative. And the concept of iTunes in 2003. But then … ?

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        At this point, you’re probably right. However, should Tesla (and others) succeed, the payoff is a changed landscape with more charging stations and options for consumers. What the electric car represents is flexibility in terms of energy source. Electricity comes from many sources. Many of the recent gas price swings have resulted from issues with the refining infrastructure. Our economy is exceptionally vulnerable to these sorts of suppy-chain issues resulting from dependence on gasoline. Worse, we have a scarcity-based mentality that exacerbates short term supply disruptions. This all costs a lot both dollars and lost opportunities.

        While sitting in the dark last week, I thought about what it would mean to have a fully-charged Tesla in the driveway whose power could be tapped to run critical systems in my house. This is, of course, not a new idea. One of the biggest issues with the grid is that there are no viable ways to store power. If we had 10 million electric vehicles, the combined mass of their batteries would begin to add this capability to the grid. That’s one promise of the electric car. And compared to Apple’s current product line (as good as it is), that’s a real breakthrough.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Tesla in 2012 doesn’t have a enough of economic footprint to be relevant vs Apple.

        Tesla on a much larger, mainstream, scale would be more useful to the economy than Apple’s consumer junk, IMO.

        Innovation… eh. I’m not up on Tesla’s unique contributions to compare them to Apple’s supposed post-1997 innovations.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    My buddy’s daughter put down a 5 grand deposit on a Tesla SUV that isn’t even promised to be delivered until 2014. So the PT Barnum approach may be working fairly well here, assuming there are a fair number of Gen Y environmentalists out there making 150 grand a year. (Some day she’ll discover that here in Indiana the juice to charge that rig is from evil coal.)

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      I’m no tree hugger, but the evil coal that powers my Leaf costs 1/6 of the gasoline that powered my former 05 Scion xB. The economies of scale are that big.

      So while I support the vast right-wing conspiracy, anyone arguing against EVs on an energy or operating cost equivalence basis is incorrect. This EV is very cheap to operate.

      However, if EV demand went up, so would costs. We’d have to upgrade infrastructure, and the government would find a way to tax EVs rather than subsidize them.

      • 0 avatar
        Sundowner

        Agreed.
        I couldn’t care a whit about where the power is produced. IF someone makes me a sweet looking electice car with a 300 mile range that goes quicker than snot, is priced within my means, and can charge in under 20 minutes, they will have my money based on the COST savings alone. Tesla is moving in this direction.

      • 0 avatar

        I think it’s worth noting that the near supercar performance Tesla Model S is almost as cheap to operate as your Leaf, and that’s pretty darn cool. The actual figures, if I recall correctly, are about 88mpgE for the Tesla and 98 for the Leaf.

        What the electric car market can do, then, is save performance cars, which are otherwise endangered by CAFE.

        D

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Sundowner said…

        “Agreed.
        I couldn’t care a whit about where the power is produced. IF someone makes me a sweet looking electice car with a 300 mile range that goes quicker than snot, is priced within my means, and can charge in under 20 minutes, they will have my money based on the COST savings alone. Tesla is moving in this direction.”

        +1 You summed up my view completely. I would add one last thing, charging infrastructure that supports cross-country driving. Have it seat 4 in comfort, 5 in a pinch, and the trunk is not consumed by batteries. Price it around $35K to $40K equipped, not stripped. D-O-N-E. You don’t even had to throw me a $7.5K government tax break. Shoot it doesn’t even have to be “that” fast. 0 to 60 in 7.5 would be perfectly acceptable.

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        @Sundowner, APaGttH:

        The real problem with EVs – as you’ve mentioned – isn’t the range but the charging capabilities.

        Tesla is developing their own “Supercharger” which has double the output of a Level 3 charger. I use a Level 2 charger at home and you can’t even find Level 3 chargers in western PA.

        Besides these infrastructure challenges, charging a lithium ion pack in 1/2 hour is really tough on the pack. A significant breakthrough in battery technology must happen in order to mainstream them. It isn’t merely an issue of providing a bigger ‘filler neck’ to the pack.

        There are no easy answers, unfortunately. Gasoline remains a wonderful, portable fuel.

  • avatar
    Eric 0

    Teslas increased losses are consistent with the large capital investments associated with ramping up production. BTW, Tesla’s (TSLA) stock price is up almost 8% today on this news, so the market doesn’t seem to be worried about these losses.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Dead car company walking.

    Any idiot with a calculator and a modicum of understanding of how a business operates can grind out the numbers and see they don’t have enough operating capital left for 12 months of operations – including ongoing sales.

    The only way they have a prayer of avoiding bankruptcy in late 2013 or early 2014 is:

    1) Selling a ton more stock – diluting shareholder equity and depressing the share value. This is the easiest way to keep things going.

    2) Dramatically increasing production – key word – ‘dramatic’ – so that they can deliver more units and generate more income.

    3) A hybrid of 2) bring a future model online now (X CUV???) and again – fulfill the orders in volume

    4) Toyota injects more capital into Tesla, but ends up owning a bigger piece of the pie

    I don’t think we’re to a Tesla death watch – but we’re another bad quarter or two away from it.

    They can’t continue to bleed cash on this level – their balance sheet does not support it, and regardless of the election outcome, I wouldn’t bank on anymore government loans to back them up.

    The really crappy part of this American company that really tried is Toyota is in the best position to snap up its charred remains.

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      So you don’t think that Toyota won’t buy Tesla up if Tesla can’t stay afloat? The Apple and Microsoft do it all the time. If Tesla is building RAVEVs then Toyota needs Tesla to be around.

      I get the feeling that these big companies know far more about what the next decade or two will bring to our economy in the form of Chinese competition and oil prices. They make predictions with far better info than Internet sourced consumer grade free economics statistics from mainstream media companies.

      What would it cost to buy Tesla vs setting up a new product line for Toyota?

  • avatar
    bunkie

    If Tesla manages to survive and succeed, we will have gotten way more than our money’s worth. Compared to, say, the F-35 program (one half-trillion dollars and counting without any deployable aircraft), it’s peanuts. As others have said, there’s something either naiive or disingenuous about failing to complain about LockMart while frothing at the mouth over Tesla. At least some people are driving Teslas while no one yet is on the receiving end of ordnance from the F-35.

    By the way, I’m not anti-defense, but the F-35 program is a disaster and likely to be largely obsolete (because of advances in unmanned aircraft) by the time it becomes operational in any significant quantities.

    And then there’s the fabulous Constellation that was supposed to be the replacement for the space shuttle. That’s $15-20 billion gone with nothing to show. Meanwhile, Musk has produced not only a launch vehicle (the Falcon 9) but a working capsule as well (the Dragon). He’s on track to build an even larger launch vehicle (the Falcon Heavy) that will continue his record of drastically lowering launch costs. For that reason alone, I’m inclined to buy a Tesla. He’s done more for the American space program in the last ten years than Boeing, LockMart and Northrop-Grumman combined and for far less money.

    Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but it galls me that we have someone who, more than anyone, embodies the spirit of Heinlein’s Man Who Sold the Moon and all we get, it seems, is an emphasis on “bad” news.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      I was once a fan of the F-35 (and I still think it’s a beautiful aircraft), but you’re right on all points.

      The Constellation debacle is a national disgrace.

      Mr. Musk has done what many men dream of but few (actually none) actually accomplish. I sincerely hope Tesla can turn the corner and stay in business without subsidies.

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    In theory, you can do an initial public offering that contemplates future stock issuance to meet future capital requirements without watering down the value of the stock. You do this by selling stock in units with warrants (options) to buy more stock at higher prices for exercising when the capital is required and the value of the company has risen. In practice, it is ridiculously difficult to price the warrants effectively. Too often you see the warrants in penny stocks that are manipulated by insiders. The warrants are never “in the money” because the stock never reaches the exercise price, so they are therefore worthless.

  • avatar
    daveainchina

    I’m very interested in this company and I certainly hope they make it. This vehicle is just so different from the other players in the market on that alone I hope it makes it.

    Time will tell but I wish them the best of luck.

  • avatar
    shaker

    Rumor has it that Musk (even at $1/year salary) is not as concerned with the work conditions in his company as he could be. Don’t forget the workers :-)

    Edit: Removed an ill-considered tirade.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States