By on October 22, 2020

Tesla continued to prove itself as the electric automaker par excellence by posting its fifth profitable quarter in a row on Wednesday. The California-based (for now) automaker reported a net income of $331 million and a 39 percent improvement in revenue to $8.8 billion.

Of course, a huge amount of that money came via regulatory credits Tesla sold to its rivals. By nature of being an EV manufacturer, the company was able to sell $397 million in environmental absolution while helping its own bottom line. Though third-quarter deliveries were quite strong as automotive revenue jumped 42 percent to $7.6 billion.

Tesla had sold 139,300 units by the start of October, the vast majority being the Model 3 sedan and Model Y crossover. By contrast, only 15,200 of quarterly deliveries went to the larger Model S and X. Assuming the company maintains its present momentum, it should get fairly close to its 2020 goal of delivering 500,000 cars by year’s end. But it noted that it would have to bolster production volumes in Shanghai and make some logistical improvements to its delivery network to actually hit the mark. Meanwhile, long-term concerns were a nonissue while capacity and customers continue to swell.

“We continue to see growing interest in our cars, storage and solar products and remain focused on cost-efficiency while growing capacity as quickly as possible,” Tesla explained to shareholders.

“We are increasingly focused on our next phase of growth,” it continued. “Our most recent capacity expansion investments are now stabilizing with Model 3 in Shanghai achieving its designed production rate and Model Y in Fremont expected to reach capacity-level production soon.”

Looking at the next batch of hurdles, Tesla needs to finish constructing facilities in Germany and Texas  the latter of which will serve as home base for Cybertruck. Elon Musk recently said the electric pickup is supposed to begin deliveries late in 2021.

It’s also working on fine-tuning autonomous-driving capabilities it has been promising for ages and is supposed to be made available via over-the-air updates on all modern vehicles  even vintage examples of the Model S (assuming the owner splurged on the applicable packages). For now, all the company has been willing to promise an Autopilot update on a limited number of test vehicles that will be issued more broadly before the new year.

We’re skeptical of any automaker promising true autonomy, frankly. Tesla has also habitually over-promised in regard to Autopilot, despite having one of the better advanced driving suites on the market. It has also started taking heat from the public and safety regulatory agencies for misrepresenting the very real limitations of Autopilot. But that has not resulted in a net negative for the brand. Most people still view it as the automaker occupying the bleeding edge of the electric revolution and rightly so. For all its foibles, Tesla is the one brand that has made EVs work for both itself and its increasingly loyal customer base.

[Image: Jag_cz/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

55 Comments on “Tesla Takes $331 Million in 5th Consecutive Profitable Quarter...”


  • avatar
    boowiebear

    Tesla’s profitability is based on selling government induced carbon credits. This is basically industry welfare and will reduce as other manufacturers offset their payments with new EV’s and higher MPG vehicles. Oh well, keep buying stock wall street!

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      An erroneous conclusion when considering that the carbon credit income is going down while the profit numbers are going up, as is the overall revenue. The carbon credits are icing on the cake, allowing Tesla to spend more on growth and efficiencies to produce more cars at lower costs.

      • 0 avatar
        deanst

        The carbon credits are larger than their net income. They are not the icing, they are the whole d*mn cake.

        • 0 avatar
          Oberkanone

          Red ink again without selling regulatory credits.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @deanst: “The carbon credits are larger than their net income. They are not the icing, they are the whole d*mn cake.”
          — Then where did the rest of their revenue come from? The carbon credits are only about 15% of their total revenue. That clearly means they are only a tiny piece of their gross income.

          Again, it means Tesla can spend more money elsewhere to improve their productivity. Without the credits, they could still show profits BUT… they could not move as fast as they are.

      • 0 avatar
        2manycars

        The carbon credit scam should never have existed. Without it Tesla would have imploded years ago, the company is built on stolen funds – carbon credits are outright theft. If electric cars were actually better there would be no need for armed thugs (governments) to push the issue. I certainly will never buy one (Tesla or other BEV), guaranteed.

    • 0 avatar

      “Tesla’s profitability is based on selling government induced carbon credits”

      You say that as if it is a bad thing. Are you climate change denier?

      • 0 avatar
        boowiebear

        You do not have to be a denier to be against a government induced market trading system based on questionable science and outcomes. Maybe China and India could buy a few trillion dollars worth to offset their carbon. They produce 2x the US.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @boowiebear: The fact that you’re calling it, “questionable science and outcomes,” suggests that you don’t think Climate Change is real. That pretty much makes it clear that you’re a ‘denier.’

          • 0 avatar
            JGlanton

            Someone’s here to sniff out wrongthink and label it with ad hominem attacks.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @JGlanton: Nope. Just directly refuting that individual’s statement of, “You do not have to be a denier to be against a government induced market trading system based on questionable science and outcomes.”

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            Vulpine,

            “questionable science and outcomes,”

            It is quite questionable. Considering the complexity of what is being modeled and the lack of any control to compare outcomes with it is a matter of estimation. Couldn’t be otherwise.

            However, I read on the weather channel a statement that “all scientists agree [on climate change].” This is a totally ludicrous statement because 1) not all scientist have significant background in meteorology; 2) the weather channel could not possible have polled all scientists; 3) the likelihood of all scientists agreeing on anything so nebulous is less than all rednecks agreeing on which brand of pickup trucks is the best. I assume some of the meteorologist who say they are so sure about climate change are the same ones who can’t tell us where a hurricane is going to be in two days to within better than a few hundred miles.

            The scientific method is predicated on skepticism. Science does not (properly) establish truths, but only laws that are always subject to change.

            There is a lot of controversy on this issue. The truth is that, even if temperature rise follows the exact numbers the chicken little-ists are predicting, we will never know whether it was because of human’s size 13 carbon footprint, or not. A sample of one with no control does not allow this to be established with any meaningful certainty.

            So, anyone with a scientific approach to climate change will be skeptical. If it is not presented that way to the public, it is propaganda.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @Old_WRX: “and the lack of any control to compare outcomes with it is a matter of estimation. Couldn’t be otherwise.”

            — There is hardly any lack of any control to compare outcomes with it. The control already says that at no time in geological history did we see such sudden and drastic increases in global temperatures… over millions of years of geological data and hundreds of thousands of years worth of ice core data.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Companies making money off government-funded vapor? Tesla is clearly the only company in American history to do that.

          (cough…cough…defense contractors…cough…cough_)

        • 0 avatar
          RHD

          Everything is questionable. That’s one of the basic tenets of philosophy as well as science.
          However, reality is what it is, and ultra-right-wing political internet comments don’t change what is real.

          • 0 avatar
            Old_WRX

            ” and ultra-right-wing political internet comments don’t change what is real.”

            Nor do ultra left wing comments. Nor do moderate comments. Nor would a papal proclamation, for that matter.

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      The 4th richest person in the world gets richer, the cars normal people buy get more expensive, the kleptocracy continues and all the while the NPCs cheer for more.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Dan: Who are the NPCs? Believe it or not, everyone is a PC, either pro or con. If they’re not actively on one side or the other, then they are inactively denying the science by not doing anything to affect their own futures. Those that can and do actively recognize that our environment has changed, ARE doing things to improve it, even if it’s just separating out recyclables like metal, paper, glass and plastics from other trash. Activists try to go farther to reduce waste in any manner they can, up to and including finding ways to reduce their energy usage with more efficient appliances, tools and vehicles.

        And believe me, if you have EVER bothered to check the history of your region, wherever you live, you will see that your climate has changed drastically, even in your own lifetime.

        • 0 avatar
          Old_WRX

          Vulpine,

          “If they’re not actively on one side or the other, then they are inactively denying the science by not doing anything to affect their own futures.”

          “Inactively denying” You’ve got to be kidding…

          And, if you checked the history of the climate in your area from back before there were humans, you’d see that it had changed drastically.

          The way the people who are pushing the climate change narrative are doing it make them sound not very credible. Too tabloid-ish.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “Cars normal people buy” are getting more expensive because people want trucks and SUVs, which cost more than sedans. Lord knows there are plenty of cheaper sedans and hatches out there, but consumers want the RAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMM, or the CANYONEERRRRRRRO, or a smaller version of them. Well, the CANYONEERRRRRRRO or RAAAAMMMMMMMM cost more than a Malibu sedan, which Chevy dealers can’t give away.

        Don’t blame “kleptocracy”…blame “the market.”

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      @Vulpine,

      “— There is hardly any lack of any control to compare outcomes with it.”

      Doesn’t work. Too much other stuff humans have done to the planet to assume CO2 level is what’s causing the alleged temperature rise. Not even close to an acceptable control.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @Old_WRX: You’re hardly the only one to ride with that assumption. I’ve stated many times in many places that CO2 is an indicator, more than an active participant, in the warming. Or have you forgotten all the other pollutants humans have been putting into the atmosphere over the last 300+ years? Maybe you’ve forgotten about Acid Rain? And what about the Chloroflurocarbons? And don’t forget other carbon oxides as well as nitrogen and sulphuric oxides. For a while, we were even pumping lead compounds into our air (through leaded gasoline, prior to ’73.)

        Again, there is a massive amount of geological AND ice-core data to show that our current climate change is at a drastically higher rate than ever before in this planet’s history. CO2 is merely an indicator, not the cause in and of itself.

        • 0 avatar
          Old_WRX

          Vulpine,

          The denuding of a vast amount of land is also a strong candidate for causing a rise in CO2 levels. And, no I haven’t forgotten the other pollutants. The amount of pollutants that have been dumped is catching up with us — they are everywhere including throughout the oceans. I suspect strongly that the reported increase in autoimmune disorders may have to do with the level of toxic substances in our environment.

          I am skeptical about the climate change stuff because the way it has been handled in the media does not come off as responsible reporting. There are dissenting views. If the media wants to be credible on this issue they need to stop being so strictly one sided on the issue. Monolithic reportage without any mention of opposing points of view is frequently a sign that things are being deliberately skewed.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I’ve read many of the “dissenting views” and to be quite blunt, they’re not believable. They try hard to refute the evidence by claiming things like, “It’s all part of the normal cycle” while being completely incapable of accounting for the timing. Again, the geologic, ice cores, and other indicators all show that this shift has occurred in a matter of just over 300 years, not the thousands of years Earth’s normal cycles show.

            Here’s the thing; natural events of rapid change tend to involve the explosion of a supervolcano or a cosmic event such as a large meteorite striking the Earth… Most volcanic events tend to cool the Earth for a period of one to three years and leave very visible geologic markers. Even Mt. St. Helens left very visible geologic markers, that while they’re finally being covered by new growth, will be visible to geologists through either drilling a core or ultimately simple erosion over the hundreds and thousands of years of ‘normal’ weathering effects. Mt. St. Helens has left a series of stripes in the ground around it not all that different from tree rings, representing the hundreds of years between eruptions. We have left a similar effect, even if not as coherent, through our centuries of polluting the air, land and water. Even you are part of that effect and some day it may be your skeleton found in some long-lost gravesite (assuming you don’t choose cremation.)

            Our written history extends back some 3,000 years or more, even if some of those languages are lost to time. They show a gradual shift of the climate far less extreme than what we’ve seen over the last three hundred years. The geology around the more well-preserved sites indicate gradual changes… but show that at one time even the Sahara Desert was green, not the wasteland we all know today. Moreover, geologic studies have shown that the Sahara cycles from waste to green to waste over an approximate 10,000 year period and was last ‘green’ something just over 5000 years ago. Based on that cycle alone, we should be cooling now, not warming. Other indicators around the globe say the same thing.

            Sure, our world has been hotter in the past–on a far longer cycle of millions of years. Such a temperature shift would be imperceptible in a modern person’s lifespan. Yet, I can see a portion of our current shift just in the 60 years I’ve been able to observe the weather for myself. Heck, due to surviving a cyclone in Nebraska when I was about 5 years old, watching the weather and yes, attempting to forecast it as an amateur has allow me to see how different parts of the US have seen shifts in “normal” weather patterns, some seeing far more violent swings from hot to cold, with more energy in the storm systems while others are seeing overall warming to the point where the average snowfall has dropped very visibly.

            No, those trying to refute the evidence cannot conclusively prove that climate change isn’t happening. They try to cherry-pick specific data and claim it as proof but when the data they discarded is put back into the discussion, their proof falls apart.

            The biggest part of the problem today is that both sides of the argument use CO2 as their “cause”, one using it strictly as an indicator while the other acts like the first believes it the only cause and attempts to refute the entire based on just that indicator.

            Honestly, either way you look at it, things ARE changing and not for the better. As long as we humans refuse to accept that WE are changing the world and that WE need to change how we use this world, things will only get worse. Burning anything adds to that pollution and where we can, we MUST stop burning things as fuel. We’re all guilty, even me, as my home is heated with natural gas and my vehicles burn gasoline. However, I do what I can to limit that use to the point that where I once drove an average of 600 miles per week to now maybe that much in twelve weeks. My home is reasonably well insulated and I set the heat to where the one room I spend most of my time in is comfortable in shirt sleeves while the rest of the house is significantly cooler–as much as 10° cooler–during the day. Given the availability of a BEV that meets my needs, I would completely eliminate my gasoline usage. But that vehicle isn’t available… yet.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “However, I do what I can to limit that use to the point that where I once drove an average of 600 miles per week to now maybe that much in twelve weeks.”

            So you used to drive 31,000 miles a year and now you drive 2,600 miles per year? Unless that’s fully due to COVID or you’ve retired recently that’s a little odd.

            “I set the heat to where the one room I spend most of my time in is comfortable in shirt sleeves while the rest of the house is significantly cooler–as much as 10° cooler–during the day. Given the availability of a BEV that meets my needs, I would completely eliminate my gasoline usage. But that vehicle isn’t available… yet.”

            I don’t think many people, even “deniers”, are against saving resources. But even by your own admission in your comment above you have levels that you aren’t willing to go to. Why not set your entire house to 10 degrees colder and wear a sweater? Did you really 100% *need* to buy a brand new (4WD?) V6 pickup?

            I think it is pretty easy to say that you’ll “go green” as long as there are no big personal sacrifices involved.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @ajla: Thank you for reading and understanding my statements. Here are my responses:

            • So you used to drive 31,000 miles a year and now you drive 2,600 miles per year? Unless that’s fully due to COVID or you’ve retired recently that’s a little odd.
            — A combination of factors, certainly. At that high mileage I was commuting approximately 120 miles per day, car-pooling my future wife to her work in a city and then back out to my own work in a small design and manufacturing company in the country. Sixty miles each way in a large triangular route. The car I used at the time offered remarkably good fuel mileage for the day, at just over 32mpg highway in a six-cylinder Camaro. I cut that in half after two years by going to work at the same place my wife worked and then cut it again when my wife went to work closer to home and I started a business of my own, letting me work AT home most of the time and only driving to meet clients as needed. I have since retired and my wife, due to Covid, has been working from home.

            • I don’t think many people, even “deniers”, are against saving resources. But even by your own admission in your comment above you have levels that you aren’t willing to go to. Why not set your entire house to 10 degrees colder and wear a sweater?
            — I live in a multi-story house where one room is inherently warmer than the others due to no fewer than six desktop computers are in operation nearly 24 hours per day, for numerous reasons. Admittedly the four biggest machines are put to sleep overnight or when not in active use but the rest serve as file storage and security monitors for our LAN and video security setup on the home. When every machine is running, the office–upstairs–gets roughly 10°F warmer than the main floor where the thermostat is housed. We added three remote sensors to the programmable thermostat so we know the actual temperature in every room in the house except the basement (which stays a few degrees cooler, naturally.) With electric cooling and judicial use of several air-moving fans (as compared to air circulation fans) that office is held to just under 80°f in the summer with a thermostat setting of 76°. During the winter, with gas heat, the thermostat is set to 72° but the system tries to average the different readings in the house, so the downstairs in particular gets notably cooler. As a side note, the effect has been an average savings of $100/month in the summer and $50/month in the winter as a result.

            • Did you really 100% *need* to buy a brand new (4WD?) V6 pickup?
            — A valid question. What I wanted was a compact pickup with sufficient capability to tow a maximum of 5000# and an extended cab. Problem is, nobody builds a compact pickup with that capability for the US market, and I have terrible luck when I buy anything used. Only once have I bought a used car or truck that wasn’t a money pit while only once have I purchased anything brand new that was. Ergo, I prefer to buy new for reliability, 4WD (or at least AWD) to handle the occasional snowy winter (an average of one blizzard every 2-3 years and one snowless winter about every five years. All told, I had to choose between capability and compact size and I chose the model that offered the closest to what I wanted… which is still 15%-20% larger than I really wanted. Still, it gives me around 27mpg on the highway and just short of 20mpg in town–almost exactly the same as the 4-cylinder ’97 Ford Ranger I had before it…and three times the horsepower and torque of that old Ford. I’m satisfied with it, even if I’m not totally happy with it.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      Vulpine,

      FWIW I have been keeping my house at 50 degrees for the last few winters. I do not use the AC anymore (and local summers are not that pleasant). I don’t drive much; I would drive a lot less, maybe, if it was anything like safe to bicycle anywhere from my house. There aren’t any bike lanes or shoulders right near my house and most of the bike lanes in the town I live in are just hamburger lanes (just a stripe of paint near the right side of the right lane — not me bubba).

      Whether climate change is real or not I don’t know — thanks to the crappy media. They present the news these days as if they were tabloids. They do not publish any SERIOUS dissenting view. The “dissenting” views they do publish are carefully chosen to make it seem like they are covering both sides of an issue when they aren’t really.

      One of the key issues that tells me it’s all hogwash: population. The ten thousand ton elephant in the living room. This issue will have to be addressed seriously. Any real discussion of the future of the environment that does not mention population is bosh. But, they don’t and they won’t. So, they’re full of BS. Quod erat demonstrandum:-)

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Quite a contrast to the trends of the Big 3.

  • avatar
    Syke

    And how many responders here were predicting the company to be nothing but a boondoggle and doomed to eventual (within the next couple of years) failure? Yeah, complain about the profit being based on carbon credits. I look at it as being just another marketing success – they’ve come up with a couple of products that are desirable, and are marketing the hell out of them.

    I’m enjoying watching them upend the automotive industry. And am not surprised that the legacy automakers are still spending more time on promised vehicles “real soon now”, while not seriously marketing what they’ve already gotten on the production lines.

    The big reason for Tesla’s success? They’re actually willing to sell an EV to someone who wants one. The last time I did some initial looking into a Chevrolet Bolt (this past April), the salesman tried to steer me to a Trax. Guess it’s because they kinda look alike.

    Maybe the propulsion system didn’t matter to him . . . . . . .

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “And how many responders here were predicting the company to be nothing but a boondoggle and doomed to eventual (within the next couple of years) failure?”

      In their defense Tesla was losing a large amount of money for a long time and the auto business isn’t always an easy one.

      I started coming around on Tesla around the time the Model 3 achieved nationwide production. I still wanted to see how they would get through a period of economic hardship (which the world kindly delivered in terrible ‘Monkey Paw’ fashion) and it looks like they can weather things fine.

      They aren’t the most perfect thing ever like some of their biggest fans claim but they’ve pulled off some impressive things.

    • 0 avatar
      Oberkanone

      Tesla is unprofitable on the sale of vehicles.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        Oberkanone: “Tesla is unprofitable on the sale of vehicles.”

        Not exactly true. They do make money on each vehicle. The big costs come from building the company. They have a large factory under construction in Germany and multiple factories under construction at their complex in Austin. They’re also spending money on research and development. They aren’t sitting back and just producing their current products in Fremont and Shanghai. They are adding new models and new factories. That costs money.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      Maybe, one day, Tesla will make money selling cars instead of Indulgences.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      “real soon now”

      If it takes as long as it took Detroit to produce a decent small car, none of will live to see it.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    I agree on the “industry welfare”.

    However, take out the credits, and they lost only $60 million in the quarter.

    If this is an honest number, it is not too awful—and for TESLA, it is quite impressive.

    It’s difficult to run a car company, more so during this turbulent year.

    Tesla is more vertically integrated, their cars are assembled in high cost California in the high-cost USA—no Mexican Rams to help fatten the bottom line here.

    So Tesla faces quite a few…”headwinds”

    If Biden and the Democrats will, this will be a big “tailwind”.

    I’m starting to think that perhaps Mr. Trump decided 30 years ago he wanted to become President. Hence all is old, and prescient, comments about trade and people getting a free ride from Uncle Sam, when he was interviewed. Those might have been PLANNED, so in the future, people would say, “Yeah, he’s always said that” He did it.

    Musk has gotta be thinking along similar lines… and after all, is he not great? Just ask him…

    Still, if the numbers are honest, Tesla did well this past quarter.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      Interesting comment. What’s the math that led you to determine they lost $60mm? I’m curious as I was under the impression that Tesla was surviving on selling carbon credits and not on the sale of their cars… that they were a long way off from recouping engineering and design costs from their cars.

      … And also their ongoing problems with warranty repair costs.

      I’d like to see them succeed, but I’d like to see them build a quality product first.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “no Mexican Rams to help fatten the bottom line here.”

      This quarter, they started sending some Shanghai produced cars to Europe.

      Tesla has a lot of expenses now and they are still in growth mode. Simultaneously building a factory in Germany and a 2,500 acre manufacturing complex in Texas. Not to mention the companies they’ve bought. The cost of developing new manufacuring technology and the battery tech is high too. They won’t have those costs forever.

      For the future, you have to look at their potential to move beyond the automotive sector. If they have the best and lowest cost battery technolgy, there are a lot of companies that would be willing to buy cells from them. Their motor technology is good too, so there’s potential there as well. Everything from small appliances and electronics to robotics and military unmanned underwater vehicles for the Navy.

      • 0 avatar
        Oberkanone

        Are we predicting the future or discussing past financial results?

        I would not invest in a company based on it’s ability to lose money during nearly it’s entire existence.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          @oberkanore: “I would not invest in a company based on it’s ability to lose money during nearly it’s entire existence.”

          Then you shouldn’t be investing. You have to take a look at why they were losing money. If the business is not investing in growth and they lose money, it’s an issue. If the money is going into growth, then it’s a usually a good thing. In some cases, I’d worry more about a company that was profitable and not investing in growth when one of their competitors was losing money while investing in growing the company. At some point, the competitor becomes profitable and takes the business away from the company that was once profitable. Lots of case studies back that up.

          That’s what happens in business. You go through a phase where you have to expend money to grow. If you don’t grow fast enough to a certain point, you’re toast.

          For example look at Tesla’s competitors going to battery companies like CATL for cells. Tesla is making contracts for raw materials and will be producing their own cells with their own technology. It’s costing them a lot of money right now (and we are talking about the present) but it will give them huge advantages over their competitors.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Carbon credits are the only thing keeping this manufacturer of low-quality fashion accessories afloat.

  • avatar
    JGlanton

    Its worse than that. most of Tesla’s carbon credit sales are still in A/R, so they haven’t really even sold them yet. They just have promises to buy them.

    “Stated differently, half of 1Q20, and all of TSLA’s 2Q20 regulatory credit revenues are still in accounts receivable (“A/R”). So what’s the big deal? Well, we interpret this as one of two things, namely: (1) TSLA sent a regulatory credit invoice to a customer and claimed it as revenue up-front (i.e., we’ll give you a price break on the regulatory credits you are buying, and let you pay us at a later date when the credits are actually needed, if you “buy” the credits now – such a transaction would create a receivable)…

    Johnson’s conclusion post-earnings is that Tesla may have “pulled forward cashless/one-time regulatory credit sales based on cars Tesla may not have sold to people who have not paid for them, enabling ‘goal-sought’ 100% gross-margin ‘paper’ sales in order to be included in the S&P 500.”

    “We see this quarter’s earnings as among the lowest in TSLA’s history,” he concluded.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/gordon-johnson-tesla-engaged-accounting-games-make-their-q2-profit

  • avatar
    JGlanton

    “Tesla’s latest credit fire sale is a repeat of Q2 when it sold a record $428M credits to show a $104M profit. Thus, over the past two quarters, Tesla has reported a combined net income of $435M. Stripping out credit sales, that profit turns to a loss of $390M.”

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • FreedMike: You’re not a student of history, I see. Why did people stop selling oil to Imperial Japan? Simple:...
  • FreedMike: @Jred: You’re right, India and China will try, but keep in mind that their smoggiest cities are...
  • FreedMike: Poorly executed? Assuming you’re OK with a subcompact, I’d say it was actually quite well...
  • FreedMike: Forty years ago, Chevy was selling a mildly restyled Chevelle as a Monte Carlo for quite a bit more money,...
  • FreedMike: I think Stellantis (God, what a name) should at least update the interiors of the LX cars. It’s not...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber