By on October 3, 2018

Tesla Model 3

If that headline was a tweet, it would certainly qualify as “evergreen.”

With Model 3 production having ramped up towards the very end of the previous quarter, Tesla production in the third quarter of 2018 totalled 80,142 units, some 53,239 of them Model 3s. Compared to the 53,339 vehicles built in Q2 2018, it’s a hefty increase in output.

However, lost in the megaton-yield controversies that follow Tesla CEO Elon Musk like a stray dog in search of a home is the fact that Q3 production didn’t quite make it to an oft-promised target.

Maybe we’ve moved beyond caring about Muskian promises, choosing to give them the weight they deserve, as the failure to meet this latest target didn’t meet with an avalanche of press. Many words reached pages about other Tesla matters, that’s for sure.

In its quarterly production update, Tesla claims it delivered 55,840 Model 3s to North American customers in July, August, and September, achieving a production rate of 5,300 Model 3s in the last week of the quarter. That’s only about 300 cars/week more than the rate hit at the end of Q2 — a met target that prompted much fanfare.

Tesla stated that the bulk of the Model 3s produced in Q3 were pricier, dual-motor variants, which carry a premium on top of the rear-drive Long Range models that kicked off production last year. This means “we achieved a production rate of more than 10,000 drive units per week,” the company said, as if anyone had assigned a target to drive motors.

At the end of Q2, Musk reiterated a promise that Model 3 production would reach a rate of 6,000 vehicles by the end of August. While the value and margins of the Model 3s rolling off the two Fremont, California assembly lines no doubt increased (much to the company’s benefit), overall production lagged in expectations. Over the course of Q3, Model 3 production averaged 4,018 vehicles per week. Yes, getting the dual-motor vehicle onto the line may have led to slowdowns, and any number of other elements could factor in. But stark numbers have a way of tossing wet blankets on top of stark promises.

The future, of course, will be different, Tesla claims, and it needs to be different for Tesla’s bottom line.

“There remain significant opportunities to grow the addressable market for Model 3 by introducing leasing, standard battery and other lower-priced variants of the car, and by starting international deliveries,” Tesla stated.

Yes, an opportunity exists in building the $35,000 version of the car promised when the model was unveiled on March 31, 2016. Two and a half years ago. By the end of the night, the number of preorders totalled in the six-figure range, and the low, “electric car for the masses” price tag featured prominently in every news story. Musk now claims that the base Model 3 will reach customers in early 2019.

Sorry for the negativity, CleanTechnica.

Another promise made earlier this year was that the automaker would be in a cash-positive position by the end of it, with higher-priced variants of the Model 3 understandably serving to boost its profitability. Tesla has not yet released its Q3 financials. Money, and quite a bit of it, will be required to complete the company’s Shanghai factory — a plant critical to Tesla’s future Chinese sales. Currently, the 40 percent tariff levied on imported American vehicles means Tesla models sell at a “55% to 60% cost disadvantage compared to the exact same car locally produced in China,” according to the automaker.

By building locally, Tesla would not only free itself from tariffs, its cars would also find themselves the recipient of state incentives totalling up to 15 percent of MSRP.

[Image: Tesla]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

78 Comments on “Tesla’s Third-quarter Model 3 Deliveries Fall Short of Target...”


  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Misleading headline.

    Why? Because the author never flat states WHICH target was missed and talks around Tesla’s claims without specifying what is supposedly false about them.

    • 6000 units per week? Supposedly Tesla reached that goal at least once.
    • 50K to 55K Model 3 produced? Clearly reached, even discounting last quarter’s Model 3 leftover deliveries vs current production.
    • 80K+ total production/sales?

    Where did Tesla miss?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “Where did Tesla miss?”

      The Model 3 merely outsold the Corolla, but not the Camry – that’s where. Musk is such a fraud.

    • 0 avatar
      FWD Donuts

      Musk inferred his company was going to be consistently producing not 5000 but 6000 Model 3s by the end of the quarter. Miss. Also inferred they would be profitable for the quarter. Hmmm, not talking about that. Miss.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Can you prove it’s a miss? Don’t forget that the assembly line was shut down at least twice to make changes, which would lower the overall number without negatively affecting the rate of production during operation.

        53,000 produced means AT LEAST 10 weeks of production at 5,000 per week. Where is your evidence that he didn’t exceed 6000/week in the last month?

  • avatar
    Whatnext

    And yet Tesla’s September sales were in striking distance of Lexus and 60% higher than Infiniti. Pretty remarkable for a company that didn’t deliver its first real car until 2012.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      You know, if Lexus sold their cars at a loss, they’d sell more of them too.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        They are not selling the cars at a loss. Each one sells for more than it cost to build, despite arguments to the contrary. I will acknowledge that up until recently, the company cost more to operate than the cars brought in; but that’s a different kind of “loss.”

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          I responded with links – links to a reliable source that shows that the Model 3 is being sold for profit unit by unit.

          ZeroHedge and SeekingAlpha are not reliable sources.

          As a matter of fact, let’s set the bar equally. The only source I’ll accept is from Tesla – since I provided you Tesla sources in your request. I’m sure it will be just a 10 second Google search.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @APaGttH:

            The statement, “You know, if Lexus sold their cars at a loss, they’d sell more of them too,” is not responding with links. That’s why I asked for links.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I may be splitting hairs, but I’d say “selling cars at a loss” and “running a company at a loss” mean two very different things.

      • 0 avatar
        Haggy

        True, but fortunately for Tesla, the gross margins per vehicle are quite high by industry standards and have been for a long time. Stop spreading fake information and read the annual report. Tesla does NOT sell cars at a loss.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          And it’s supremely ignorant to compare Tesla’s gross margins with the industry because Tesla retails everything, while most vehicle sales made by everyone else are wholesaled.

          Tesla’s sales costs are booked below the line in SG&A, and they are enormous. The company loses money on operations.

          Musk preys upon the ignorance of his fans, who lack an understanding of finance. And most business journalists don’t have a grasp of the numbers, either.

          • 0 avatar
            FWD Donuts

            Pch101, you nailed it. And check out the “qualifications” of their board when you have a chance. Some VCs, an executive with a publisher of African American content to check the minority female box in one fell swoop, another publishing executive, some Silicon Valley executives. Nobody with automotive or big time manufacturing experience. Crazy.

    • 0 avatar
      arthurk45

      What “September sales.” Perhaps you aren’t familiar with Tesla’s situation – they didn’t “sell” that many cars in September – those cars were sold over the past 2 1/2 years. So how many Lexus and Infiniti cars were sold over that same 2 1/2 year period? Better get in touch with reality before defending a company run by a guy who should be in prison for stock market fraud, not slandering half of the population (his enemies).

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Ya, didn’t take long for the Tesla cheerleaders to arrive.

    The target of 50K to 55K Model 3s in the quarter was an updated number when they moved the goal posts lower on August 1, 2018. In addition that call promised production volume of 6K units per week by the end of the quarter.

    So yes, they hit their goal, after reducing the target number from the start of the quarter from 65K down to 50K to 55K. Yaaaaaaaay.

    They didn’t hit the 6K per unit number as promised, and are no where near the target number original predicted of 10K units a week.

    It’s simple math – 52K units into 13 weeks is roughly 4.1K units a week. They are off all their original targets.

    I don’t see it as a win when you keep moving the target closer and closer until you go, “see, greatest car company in the world, we hit the target after we moved it closer!”

    But hey, they hit their — targets.

    Still no $35K Model 3, the tax incentives get cut in half after this quarter, and then cut 75% in 3 more quarters.

    • 0 avatar
      Tummy

      It’s called revised guidance. Companies do that all the time. If you pick an arbitrary date of August 1, 2018, why not pick the date when I reserved, March 31, 2016? At the time, their production goal was 500k cars per year by 2020. Later then moved that up to 2018. Suppliers said that date was impossible. The actual date will likely be somewhere between 2018 and 2020. So I pick March 31, 2016 to set my expectations. Not your August 1, 2018. By your logic, I’m right and you’re right. BTW, I’ve been driving my Model 3 for almost 10 months. My S over 2 years. They are great cars, you are missing out.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I want Tesla to succeed because it’s an innovative American company that employs American workers. They’re helping create a market for a new type of product that other companies could also make, producing more jobs and more profits.

      If the product helps the environment, then that’s sauce for the goose.

      What’s so wrong with that?

      It’s possible to want the company to succeed and NOT be derisively called a “cheerleader.” Come on.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        “They’re helping create a market for a new type of product that other companies could also make, producing more jobs and more profits.”

        Making… other companies have or are bring their products to market now and the field is only going to get more crowed.

        Also I doubt you’ll see a net increase in jobs since EVs are replacing ICE powered vehicles and as those vehicle types are phased out along with their support systems those jobs or at least the manufacturing lines will evaporate or become niche product (Like say the LS V8 – I imagine in the not too distant future companies like Edelbrock or High Performance Industries (conglomerate that owns Holley, Hooker and others) will manufacture the engine in its entirety as an enthusiast product for old hot rods and the like

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        yes, but you’re not relentlessly bragging about Tesla as though you yourself created the company; nor do you jump into any discussion about a non-EV vehicle and s**t the place up.

        *That* is what Tesla cheerleaders do.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “*That* is what Tesla cheerleaders do.”

          — No. That is your stereotype of Tesla proponents.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            I said “Tesla Cheerleaders.”

            Go look at any review on Ars Technica (or similar) of any ICE-powered car. Without fail, somewhere in the first 5 comments some smug douche will post something like “I’d rather not read about ancient technology” or “can we stop destroying the planet, please?”

            and pretty much 100% of authors and commenters on Electrek.

            you can be a supporter or proponent of something without being a slobbering fanboy.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Ok, so tell me: Exactly what is a “Tesla Cheerleader”?

  • avatar
    redapple

    I would be much happier without any Tesla news and without any Kavanaugh news.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    @APaGttH: Please show us exactly what they changed.
    No, I didn’t say “Tell us,”, I said, “Show us.” Links, please.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Really? OK, since you wont’ do a 10 second Google search.

      July 2, 2018:
      http://ir.tesla.com/index.php/news-releases/news-release-details/tesla-q2-2018-vehicle-production-and-deliveries

      …GA4, our new General Assembly line for Model 3, was responsible for roughly 20% of Model 3s produced last week, with quality from that line being as good as our regular GA3 line. We expect that GA3 alone can reach a production rate of 5,000 Model 3s per week soon, but GA4 helped to get us there faster and will also help to exceed that rate.

      Tesla expects to increase production to 6,000 Model 3s per week by late next month. We also reaffirm our guidance for positive GAAP net income and cash flow in Q3 and Q4, despite negative pressures from a weaker USD and likely higher tariffs for vehicles imported into China as well as components procured from China…

      Tesla’s own press release from 7/2/18 stated 6K per week by August, and the previous promise (unless you want to move the goal posts) was 5K sustained. If I give total benefit of the doubt:

      5K a week July through August
      6K a week September

      That’s 69K units.

      Then on August 1, 2018, Tesla moved the goal posts:

      https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-production-to-hit-6000-per-week-by-end-of-august-2018-8

      …Tesla expects to make 6,000 Model 3 sedans in a week by the end of August, the company said in its second-quarter earnings letter, and a total of 50,000 to 55,000 Model 3s in the third quarter…

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      I always find it amusing that cheerleading commenters who spout “facts” without any links to the sources that support their view, are always so often concerned that others should provide links to support counter-claims.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Yup. Let’s see how long it takes Vulpine to provide a Tesla link that the Model 3 is sold for a profit on a per unit basis, as they claimed.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I suppose it’s possible for the model itself to be profitable, but for the company as a whole to be unprofitable.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            Which eventually leads to death. Operating a car company at a loss doesn’t work. There are plenty of examples of that over the last 100 years and you can’t ignore the terrifying cash burn rate that TSLA has in comparison to what is in the bank account.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @APaGttH: Except that the, “terrifying cash burn rate” isn’t nearly as bad as you think it is. Now you have to look at how it’s spent and cash burn on operating expenses has reversed itself to where, before this just-past quarter, it was nearly balanced with revenue. This suggests that increasing sales will raise that operating expenses figure into the black, leaving only capitalization as the major cash burn remaining.

          • 0 avatar
            96redse5sp

            Yeah. Why would anyone invest in a company – even a growing company – that year after year can’t turn a profit?

            My parents invested in a start-up (“Amazon” – remember them?) in the 90’s and held onto that stock way too long hoping it would be the next best thing. I dumped that dog the instant they made me power-of-attorney. Are they even in business anymore…

        • 0 avatar
          BigOldChryslers

          Monroe and Associates did a Model 3 teardown. They were pleasantly surprised by the thought that went into the design, and stated that the car SHOULD have a 30% profit margin based on their analysis, well above its competitors.

          https://youtu.be/pAS-yjWj9DY

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    It’s amusing to see the different ways different publications frame the same story:
    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/02/tesla-breaks-quarterly-delivery-record-with-83500-deliveries-in-q3/

    I know that site is known to be a “fanboi” site as referenced in this article, but it makes me wonder what sort of middle ground exists, if any.

    I typed “Nissan Leaf third quarter deliveries” in Google and all of the results were for the Model 3. Tesla’s sales figures are the story simply because their sales numbers are made to be the story. I’m sure you could find info on any car so long as the manufacturer provides it. But there are wolves on both sides of the fence just waiting to pounce on Tesla’s.

    I also found EV sales numbers (as opposed to deliveries – though likely only Tesla doesn’t deliver at the sale currently) and it strikes me that I didn’t even consider that people are still trying to buy the Model 3 now. In my mind, the sales stopped a few months after reservations started.
    https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/
    Tesla holds three of the top 4 spots with nearly 30k in September. Say what you will about Musk, but that’s not too bad. Especially considering the Leaf only barely beat the Model X in sales for the last quarter while costing about 1/3 the transaction price.

    Will they be able to sustain the sales? Probably not. But as they get more product out and if they can weather the Musk storms, it should be interesting to see what they look like in 10 years.

    • 0 avatar
      Land Ark

      Can’t edit:
      I mixed it up. The Leaf sold barely more units last quarter than the Model X sold in September.

      As soon as I moved my mouse over the “Click to Edit” link, it disappeared. And there was still lots of time on the clock.

  • avatar
    arthurk45

    Tesla has failed completely in producing what they promised 2 1/2 years ago.
    That’s nothing new – they promised a $49,000 Model S for years before producing a car whose cheapest version (never built) wasn’t within $10,000 of that price. Elon Musk lies and lies,and lies and then slanders those who point out his obvious failures. Musk, the world’s creepiest CEO who owns the world’s most corrupt company.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “Tesla has failed completely in producing what they promised 2 1/2 years ago.”

      Completely? Then what are the 80,000 Model 3s running around on US roads?

  • avatar
    stingray65

    One thing I have not heard any news about is whether there are any new orders for Model 3s. They had that huge pre-order reservation holder backlog, but have they actually been generating new M3 orders since they started serious production. I would assume that Tesla would be loudly trumpeting any news about masses of new orders, so the silence indicate weakening demand.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      I firmly believe the answer to that is yes as the last reservation number they published was 420,000 still in the pipe. They are 18 to 24 months away from working through the backlog. We know some have delivered, we know at least SOME people have canceled, but the number is generally sustaining so there has to be new orders.

    • 0 avatar
      Tummy

      If you look at the Reditt and Facebook Tesla groups, there are many reporting that they didn’t put in a reservation and have picked up their cars. I influenced several sales after coworkers and friends test drove our Model 3.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Which then calls into question – if there is a long line of reservations, why is their open inventory and why are they not building to the reservations…

        • 0 avatar
          Land Ark

          There were 22,250 “sales” or what is probably more accurately “orders” for Model 3s in September per the link I provided above. Based on that site, that is 10 times as many as were “sold” in February. So I’m guessing now that they are actually being delivered in real numbers, and can be seen on the streets, people are starting to place orders again.

          https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

          • 0 avatar
            Land Ark

            Edit:
            Looking at that site again, that may only be showing deliveries – not new sales – as the numbers add up to the numbers in this article.

          • 0 avatar
            Tummy

            For Tesla, deliveries should roughly equal sales. They don’t count inventory cars, orders or cars in transit as deliveries. Unlike traditional manufacturers which count cars delivered to dealers and sales separately.

            In states where Tesla is not allowed to operate, like Texas, a customer needs to buy the car and fully pay/finance it before delivery. So that is a sale, but not a delivery until the customer receives it and signs the final paperwork.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          During my visit to the local TSLA store a couple weeks ago, they told me they had some cars available for immediate pickup, assuming your financing is secured – heh.

          Some of the cars were demos, some were showroom models, and some were sales that fell through because the customer couldn’t actually qualify for the loan (funding *not* secured). They also had some off-lease Ss and Xs available.

          This one store (Wexford, PA) was delivering ~15 Model 3s a day, IIRC.

          I drove a demo, but was interested in the showroom model. Ultimately I balked because of the price.

          • 0 avatar
            Tummy

            They are delivering over 40 cars per day in Atlanta recently. The lot is absolutely packed with Model 3s. All of the cars on the lot were already assigned to a customer.

  • avatar
    vvk

    In other news, the $60k, 25% profit margin Model 3 was 4th best selling car in the US in September, surpassing Toyota Corolla and approaching Toyota Camry volumes. Take that, Ottawa boy.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      It wouldn’t matter if the Model 3 outsold the F-150; the haters would still declare that Musk is a liar and that Tesla is losing money on each car.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “In other news, the $60k, 25% profit margin Model 3 was 4th best selling car in the US in September, surpassing Toyota Corolla and approaching Toyota Camry volumes.”

      Keep drinking the patently false kool aid.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        The profit claim is very debatable, but not the rest.

        • 0 avatar
          Haggy

          Tesla has a proven long term history of high gross margins per vehicle and there’s no reason to think that they got it wrong this time and right all the other times.

          They knew what every part cost for every vehicle down to the cost of every washer. They knew what the factory cost because it was already built and tooled for the Model 3. They knew the fixed costs that needed to be allocated across vehicles. The only question was whether they would meet the needed volume so that those fixed costs would be low enough when allocated across all vehicles so that they could be profitable. Tesla met the production goals.

        • 0 avatar
          vvk

          I agree that profit margin is debatable and we do not know the actual number. However, we do know that a M3 is far simpler to build than a MS. Simpler construction, far simpler wiring, cheaper materials, smaller size/weight. And yet, price wise, they are almost the same. Someone paying $65k for a M3 is contributing more money to the company’s profit than someone paying $75k for a MS. They are making a ton of money on each car.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          Average transaction price on the 3 is $60k. The Munro teardown put the cost at around $28k.

          https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-3-average-selling-price-hit-60000/

          youtube.com/watch?v=pAS-yjWj9DY

          • 0 avatar
            FWD Donuts

            Yeah, but it’s built in a factory employing over 9000 works — and uses a factory owned retail network that employs 1000s more. So while the selling price is higher than the cost of goods — the variable costs are much, much higher.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Roughly 90% of the nameplates in yesterday’s article were down YTD, yet today’s headline is “Model 3 deliveries fall short”.

    https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/10/u-s-auto-sales-september-2018-an-athletic-fiat-chrysler-leapfrogs-ford/#more-1643632

    Hey, it’s October – time for the annual GM truck sales blowout – yet I doubt we’ll see a story titled “GM truck deliveries fall short”.

    Every other mfr would love to have Tesla’s problem of being unable to build cars fast enough.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Thats not really a problem. Detroit just needs to import some silicon valley tech bro and let them “disrupt” the industry by applying the tech bro method and “poof” any major manufacturer will have the enviable problem of not being able to get enough product out the door to meet demand.

      Added bonus! They will become highly unprofitable and the envy of the sector as wall street hucksters pump the stock as the futurists teach the old school auto industry how to build cars.

      Tesla is unable to meet demand in a timely fashion since they haven’t quite figured out how to achieve industry productivity standards.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Musk is a fraud and a liar.

    Tesla and their low quality fashion accessories missed their target yet again, there is no profitability, and Musk needs to be removed as he is a cancer and the farther away he is from Tesla the better the company will do.

  • avatar
    Haggy

    Tesla gave quarterly guidance, just as other companies do. Tesla met quarterly guidance easily.

    Tesla also met the goal of getting production up to that speed in a single week. Immediately after that, they gave the quarterly guidance figure, which accounted for taking the lines down to improve them, which is a necessary part of ramping up production. Tesla didn’t miss any goals.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    “Another promise made earlier this year was that the automaker would be in a cash-positive position by the end of it, with higher-priced variants of the Model 3 understandably serving to boost its profitability.”

    Tesla has negative operating cash flows. So when Tesla makes stuff and sells it, it’s losing money in the process.

    The more cars that Tesla sells, the more money that it loses. Given its performance to date, selling more cars will make Tesla’s situation worse, not better.

    “Money, and quite a bit of it, will be required to complete the company’s Shanghai factory”

    Tesla will need to borrow it or find investors, since it doesn’t make money from the business itself.

    Tesla has been fortunate in its ability to obtain capital even though it bleeds losses. Time for that may be running out.

    • 0 avatar
      vvk

      This nonsense will not become true if you keep repeating it.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The negative net operating cash flows and net losses are facts.

        If you can’t read a financial statement, then that’s your problem.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          “The more cars that Tesla sells, the more money that it loses”

          That’s completely untrue. You can’t read a financial statement.

          But, making a profit on each car doesn’t necessarily mean they are profitable. There are costs for building new factories and developing new products. I don’t have time to waste figuring out if they are profitable or not. I really don’t care. I’ve got better things to do.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Net income is negative.

            Operating cash flows are negative.

            The losses during 1H2018 were about double what they were in 1H2017.

            Those are not opinions. Those are facts, reported in Tesla’s financial statements and reported to the SEC.

            You are trying to turn your ignorance into my problem.

            I remember dealing with the GM fanboys in 2007, who were all telling me that I was wrong about GM’s financial position. Of course, they were wrong and GM imploded.

            The Tesla fanboys are even worse, as they have a Jim Jones-tinged religious zeal that even the Chevy wingnuts didn’t have.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Parts and Labor, I’m sure Teslas are profitable.

            But just like the $19.95 Oil & Filter Change you enjoy, the shop is no doubt taking a loss, despite only spending $3.75 on oil and filters at the bulk/wholesale rate, plus a few minutes labor per customer, at the the counter and under the car.

            The shop is obviously taking a loss when you add up all the cost of operating a business, lease on the building/equipment, staff, insurance, advertising, utilities and dozens of incidentals.

            That is unless you’re also accepting/giving it to an air filter, cabin filter, trans service, tire rotation, coolant flush, hoses/belt and or CV boots, and so on. So the Oil & Filter Change that got you in there is a loss leader, like the Dollar Any Size Drink.

            Teslas cars are all Loss Leaders, but without making it up with a $8.79 McRib Combo by the time you Super Size.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Pch101:
            • Net income is negative.
            — True. But not as negative as before on a quarter by quarter or year over year basis.

            • Operating cash flows are negative.
            — True. But not as negative as before on a quarter by quarter or year over year basis.

            The point is that the revenue numbers and cash flow numbers change with each quarter. Just because a number is in the red doesn’t mean it’s the same numbers as before. Said numbers can still be red but far less ‘red’ than previously, implying positive movement even if it hasn’t reached the ‘break-even’ point yet.

            Life is not black and white; it is not just positive or negative. There are an infinite number of shading points in between. This is what too many people refuse to acknowledge.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            you can’t just look at the estimated BOM cost and declare “this car should have 25% gross margin.” If Tesla’s production and logistics are as inefficient and inept as they appear to be and are burning up their margin on that, they’ll never make a profit.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @Pch101: “Tesla has negative operating cash flows. So when Tesla makes stuff and sells it, it’s losing money in the process. The more cars that Tesla sells, the more money that it loses.”

      — Illogical argument. Operating costs do not increase proportionately with production rates.

      “Money, and quite a bit of it, will be required to complete the company’s Shanghai factory” Tesla will need to borrow it or find investors, since it doesn’t make money from the business itself.”
      — China itself is fronting that money.

  • avatar
    lwest

    No point to make, but Tesla makes 5000 Model 3’s a week. Porsche sells about 5000 cars a month.

    Despite everything it is still remarkable how far they’ve come.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ajla: Newly redesigned vehicles are statistically less reliable. consumerreports.org/buying-...
  • Arthur Dailey: Re ‘keyless entry’. I remain unconvinced that replacing a $2.50 metal key with a $300 (to...
  • dukeisduke: But what’s wrong with a Slanty? :-)
  • PeriSoft: Spending every day seeing what breaks also gives you a skewed viewpoint – after all, somebody who...
  • forward_look: Trying to find a replacement for my wife’s Caliber. The Soul would fit the bill but it’s so...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States