Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article I

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article I

Post by cwtcr hokie »

pasted in:

Time is running out for Tesla's unmet promises.

The leading electric car maker's struggles to ramp up production of its first mass-market car, the Model 3, could mean a cash crunch for the upstart automaker.

Tesla (TSLA) has thousands of customers lined up ready to buy a Model 3, which has a $35,000 starting price. But it keeps badly missing its production targets, and it is burning through cash as it does so. And it faces deadlines to pay more than $1 billion in bonds due over the the next year - $230 million due in November and $920 million next March.
Powered by SmartAsset.com
Disclosures
SmartAsset.com

Concerns about its cash positions could grow worse when it reports actual first quarter numbers next week. Moody's downgraded its debt deeper into junk bond status on Tuesday and warned more downgrades could be coming. Standard & Poor's also has warned of the possibility of a downgrade.

Bloomberg has been tracking production by continuously monitoring the issuance of vehicle identification numbers issued by the NTSB. It estimates that production stands at 1,026 a week, a big jump from the fourth quarter but less than half the 2,500 a week target that Tesla has set for the end of the third quarter, which concludes Saturday.

"That would be a pretty significant miss," said Bruce Clark, the credit analyst at Moody's. "We're not drawing a line in the sand by any means. But part of the issue is reestablishing credibility with constituents. At the end of the day, the company's credibility will be significantly impacted by how close they are to that 2,500 run rate."

The company had originally promised it would be making 5,000 Model 3's every week by the end of last year, but delivered only 222 in the third quarter, and another 1,542 throughout the entire fourth quarter. It has now pushed the 5,000 a week target back to the end of June.

Related: Tesla stock falls after NTSB announces it will investigate fatal crash

Tesla has never made a full-year profit as its grown into a major force in the auto industry. But investors, lenders and customers have been big believers in its charismatic CEO Elon Musk, at least to this point. They've provided him with the cash he needed to challenge the established players in the industry.

They've bought additional shares sold by the company in secondary offerings. They've driven up stock price to give the company nearly the market value of established automakers like Ford (F) or General Motors (GM), which both produce billions in annual profits and sell millions of vehicles. Customers have paid deposits of $1,000 each for cars they wouldn't see for years, giving Tesla nearly $1 billion worth of deposits. And, of course, it has also been able to sell bonds to raise cash.

Clark said he doesn't believe the company is facing any imminent cash crunch, but that if it continues to struggle to ramp up production of the Model 3 its "liquidity position is going to get tight in the next several quarters. That's why we see the need for them to go back to the financial markets."

And it will become more difficult, and more expensive, to raise that money if there are further doubts about it meeting its production goals.

Related: New Tesla pay package could make Elon Musk richest man in the world

It could also cause problems with the company's supplier base. Tesla reported it owed $2.4 billion in accounts payable at the end of last year. That's not a huge number as long suppliers continue to bill for the parts and raw materials.

But the credit agency downgrade could prompt suppliers to start demanding cash at the time of delivery, according to John Thompson, CEO of hedge fund Vilas Capital Management, which has its largest position shorting Tesla shares, betting big that the stock will fall sharply in value.

"Why did Toys 'R' Us go bankrupt? Its suppliers cut it off. You can have altruistic equity holders, you can have altruistic bond holders, altruistic customers. But suppliers are cold and calculating from my experience," he said.

In an email to his clients this week he again predicted a looming cash crunch for Tesla could even lead to bankruptcy later this year.

A company spokesman would not comment on the downgrade or Thompson's commentary.
CNNMoney (New York) First published March 28, 2018: 1:45 PM ET

Not paying your A/P will work for awhile, then it won't. $1 billion in deposits????? and that cash is being burned thru quickly, not good.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by awesome guy »

His devil may care attitude will hold off creditors.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
CFB Apologist
Posts: 3192
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by CFB Apologist »

Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by USN_Hokie »

Read about this last night.

This is a great example of what government meddling in immature technologies & sleazy marketing.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by TheH2 »

CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
People who know, know.
CFB Apologist
Posts: 3192
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by CFB Apologist »

TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Invalid comparison. This is not buying a Camry "limited" vs. the SE at purchase time. This is apple pushing out IOS 11 free to IPhone X phones, but $200.00 for same upgrade for IPhone 8 or 7s. It's bullshit
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by TheH2 »

CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Invalid comparison. This is not buying a Camry "limited" vs. the SE at purchase time. This is apple pushing out IOS 11 free to IPhone X phones, but $200.00 for same upgrade for IPhone 8 or 7s. It's bullshit
No, the consumer paid for certain battery capacity when they purchased the car. Maybe it would be better for them to produce different battery sizes, drive up the cost, and never have the option.
People who know, know.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13125
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by HokieJoe »

TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Why wouldn't you have the option to add physical battery capacity. The space for a larger battery is already available because it's already installed in the car. Yes? They're simply unlocking the extra capacity via software update. All the while, owners get to drag the extra weight around. Plus, what is the upgrade, 15kwh? So you're paying $800/kwh.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by USN_Hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Invalid comparison. This is not buying a Camry "limited" vs. the SE at purchase time. This is apple pushing out IOS 11 free to IPhone X phones, but $200.00 for same upgrade for IPhone 8 or 7s. It's bullshit
No, the consumer paid for certain battery capacity when they purchased the car. Maybe it would be better for them to produce different battery sizes, drive up the cost, and never have the option.
I'm not against this per se, but you could argue that the people who don't have the extended range are unknowingly subsidizing the cost for those who do.

My guess (aside from the marketing perspective) is that making it an extra cost option is done to limit warranty issues - ie, their testing showed that operating the batteries closer to full discharge induced much higher failure rates.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by TheH2 »

HokieJoe wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Why wouldn't you have the option to add physical battery capacity. The space for a larger battery is already available because it's already installed in the car. Yes? They're simply unlocking the extra capacity via software update. All the while, owners get to drag the extra weight around. Plus, what is the upgrade, 15kwh? So you're paying $800/kwh.
I don't know, maybe you would? I'm no engineer. It would certainly increase the cost. I believe Tesla also has self driving capabilities on all cars, but you have to pay for the upgrade. That's just like "Toyota Sensing" well, except Toyota doesn't put it on all cars, and well, it doesn't actually drive itself, but the idea is the same.
People who know, know.
CFB Apologist
Posts: 3192
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by CFB Apologist »

TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Invalid comparison. This is not buying a Camry "limited" vs. the SE at purchase time. This is apple pushing out IOS 11 free to IPhone X phones, but $200.00 for same upgrade for IPhone 8 or 7s. It's bullshit
No, the consumer paid for certain battery capacity when they purchased the car. Maybe it would be better for them to produce different battery sizes, drive up the cost, and never have the option.
The battery is installed in the lower priced car already. The lower priced consumer paid for the hardware/capacity- unless you argue the asinine point that those batteries were "subsidized" by Tesla as a loss leader? LOL. at any rate, does the base level Camry come with a bose radio installed, with a simple "switch" from Toyota to turn on the surround sound? Nope. It doesn't come with the good radio installed. So your comparison is invalid. Saying the lower priced customers didn't pay for the battery is invalid. This is a BS move from an elitist car company.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by USN_Hokie »

TheH2 wrote:Maybe it would be better for them to produce different battery sizes, drive up the cost, and never have the option.
There's very, very little economy of scale in my opinion. Search on Google for pictures of a Tesla battery packs - it's just a bunch of standard size lithium batteries sandwiched together. The person without the extra range is almost assuredly just paying for extra material and weight.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by TheH2 »

CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Invalid comparison. This is not buying a Camry "limited" vs. the SE at purchase time. This is apple pushing out IOS 11 free to IPhone X phones, but $200.00 for same upgrade for IPhone 8 or 7s. It's bullshit
No, the consumer paid for certain battery capacity when they purchased the car. Maybe it would be better for them to produce different battery sizes, drive up the cost, and never have the option.
The battery is installed in the lower priced car already. The lower priced consumer paid for the hardware/capacity- unless you argue the asinine point that those batteries were "subsidized" by Tesla as a loss leader? LOL. at any rate, does the base level Camry come with a bose radio installed, with a simple "switch" from Toyota to turn on the surround sound? Nope. It doesn't come with the good radio installed. So your comparison is invalid. Saying the lower priced customers didn't pay for the battery is invalid. This is a BS move from an elitist car company.
So let me get this straight.
#1 is ok, #2 ok?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to upgrade your battery and increase the mileage to 120.

Now, #1 is ok, #2 is not?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to unlock extra battery capacity.

I fail to see a problem here. It is the same thing. The consumer is agreeing to purchase 100 mile driving capacity, with the ability to upgrade to higher capacity in the future.
People who know, know.
CFB Apologist
Posts: 3192
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by CFB Apologist »

TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Invalid comparison. This is not buying a Camry "limited" vs. the SE at purchase time. This is apple pushing out IOS 11 free to IPhone X phones, but $200.00 for same upgrade for IPhone 8 or 7s. It's bullshit
No, the consumer paid for certain battery capacity when they purchased the car. Maybe it would be better for them to produce different battery sizes, drive up the cost, and never have the option.
The battery is installed in the lower priced car already. The lower priced consumer paid for the hardware/capacity- unless you argue the asinine point that those batteries were "subsidized" by Tesla as a loss leader? LOL. at any rate, does the base level Camry come with a bose radio installed, with a simple "switch" from Toyota to turn on the surround sound? Nope. It doesn't come with the good radio installed. So your comparison is invalid. Saying the lower priced customers didn't pay for the battery is invalid. This is a BS move from an elitist car company.
So let me get this straight.
#1 is ok, #2 ok?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to upgrade your battery and increase the mileage to 120.

Now, #1 is ok, #2 is not?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to unlock extra battery capacity.

I fail to see a problem here. It is the same thing. The consumer is agreeing to purchase 100 mile driving capacity, with the ability to upgrade to higher capacity in the future.
You are missing a key point.. both the 50K car and 100K car had the same capacity/range at purchase time. the 100K car was bigger, more HP, better seats, etc. 2 years later, Tesla pushes software to the 100K car for free to extend the range. The proles that could only afford the 50K car, had to pay 12K for the same extended range. Illegal? nope, the same thing as the 7 speaker surround sound on a delani at purchase time? nope. Elitist garbage/false marketing/bait and switch greed? yep.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by TheH2 »

CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote: So let me get this straight.
#1 is ok, #2 ok?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to upgrade your battery and increase the mileage to 120.

Now, #1 is ok, #2 is not?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to unlock extra battery capacity.

I fail to see a problem here. It is the same thing. The consumer is agreeing to purchase 100 mile driving capacity, with the ability to upgrade to higher capacity in the future.
You are missing a key point.. both the 50K car and 100K car had the same capacity/range at purchase time. the 100K car was bigger, more HP, better seats, etc. 2 years later, Tesla pushes software to the 100K car for free to extend the range. The proles that could only afford the 50K car, had to pay 12K for the same extended range. Illegal? nope, the same thing as the 7 speaker surround sound on a delani at purchase time? nope. Elitist garbage/false marketing/bait and switch greed? yep.
That's news to me and I have not seen that story. I've only seen the fact that all cars have the technology, but you have to pay to unlock it. Have a link? I apparently suck at googling internet searching with Google.

I've only seen the Florida story about the hurricane. Which led to me learning that base models come with a lot of the same technology that you just have to pay to unlock. See article:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-tesla-model-s/

If true, that does seem pretty crappy, without knowing what the buyers agreed to. However, if the buyers knew when purchasing the car, I don't think it looks bad.
People who know, know.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by cwtcr hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote: So let me get this straight.
#1 is ok, #2 ok?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to upgrade your battery and increase the mileage to 120.

Now, #1 is ok, #2 is not?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to unlock extra battery capacity.

I fail to see a problem here. It is the same thing. The consumer is agreeing to purchase 100 mile driving capacity, with the ability to upgrade to higher capacity in the future.
You are missing a key point.. both the 50K car and 100K car had the same capacity/range at purchase time. the 100K car was bigger, more HP, better seats, etc. 2 years later, Tesla pushes software to the 100K car for free to extend the range. The proles that could only afford the 50K car, had to pay 12K for the same extended range. Illegal? nope, the same thing as the 7 speaker surround sound on a delani at purchase time? nope. Elitist garbage/false marketing/bait and switch greed? yep.
That's news to me and I have not seen that story. I've only seen the fact that all cars have the technology, but you have to pay to unlock it. Have a link? I apparently suck at googling internet searching with Google.

I've only seen the Florida story about the hurricane. Which led to me learning that base models come with a lot of the same technology that you just have to pay to unlock. See article:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-tesla-model-s/

If true, that does seem pretty crappy, without knowing what the buyers agreed to. However, if the buyers knew when purchasing the car, I don't think it looks bad.
To me the bad part is the 50k car guy is literally lugging around all that weight for nothing which limits his/her range and drains the charge much quicker, the article I pasted though brings up some much more serious issues financially. Musk is a house of cards guy tho, we will see if he can keep the juggling going
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by TheH2 »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote: So let me get this straight.
#1 is ok, #2 ok?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to upgrade your battery and increase the mileage to 120.

Now, #1 is ok, #2 is not?
#1 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without charging the battery.
#2 - Buy a car for $100,000 that can drive 100 miles without a charging the battery. However, you can at any time pay an extra 12k to unlock extra battery capacity.

I fail to see a problem here. It is the same thing. The consumer is agreeing to purchase 100 mile driving capacity, with the ability to upgrade to higher capacity in the future.
You are missing a key point.. both the 50K car and 100K car had the same capacity/range at purchase time. the 100K car was bigger, more HP, better seats, etc. 2 years later, Tesla pushes software to the 100K car for free to extend the range. The proles that could only afford the 50K car, had to pay 12K for the same extended range. Illegal? nope, the same thing as the 7 speaker surround sound on a delani at purchase time? nope. Elitist garbage/false marketing/bait and switch greed? yep.
That's news to me and I have not seen that story. I've only seen the fact that all cars have the technology, but you have to pay to unlock it. Have a link? I apparently suck at googling internet searching with Google.

I've only seen the Florida story about the hurricane. Which led to me learning that base models come with a lot of the same technology that you just have to pay to unlock. See article:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-tesla-model-s/

If true, that does seem pretty crappy, without knowing what the buyers agreed to. However, if the buyers knew when purchasing the car, I don't think it looks bad.
To me the bad part is the 50k car guy is literally lugging around all that weight for nothing which limits his/her range and drains the charge much quicker, the article I pasted though brings up some much more serious issues financially. Musk is a house of cards guy tho, we will see if he can keep the juggling going
Paypal and Spacex say otherwise. Again, I'm not invested in Tesla and don't own the car. I won't invest in Tesla because the valuation is ridiculous (but hey I've said the same thing about Amazon for 5 years) and they may go bankrupt. But his track record says he's more than a house of card guy.


I'll give you Solar City seemed sketchy but I'm not very informed about it.
People who know, know.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13125
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by HokieJoe »

TheH2 wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Why wouldn't you have the option to add physical battery capacity. The space for a larger battery is already available because it's already installed in the car. Yes? They're simply unlocking the extra capacity via software update. All the while, owners get to drag the extra weight around. Plus, what is the upgrade, 15kwh? So you're paying $800/kwh.
I don't know, maybe you would? I'm no engineer. It would certainly increase the cost. I believe Tesla also has self driving capabilities on all cars, but you have to pay for the upgrade. That's just like "Toyota Sensing" well, except Toyota doesn't put it on all cars, and well, it doesn't actually drive itself, but the idea is the same.
I've no idea on the battery. I suspect they either don't know to build modular battery packs cost effectively; or one large pack scales better from a manufacturing perspective. OTOH, it strikes me as sort of a ripoff. I imagine the marketing people informed the engineers what their demographic would find acceptable.

Toyota's sensing (or any self-driving option) is some hardware bits plus a lot of software development, so it makes sense to charge more for it IMO.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by TheH2 »

HokieJoe wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Why wouldn't you have the option to add physical battery capacity. The space for a larger battery is already available because it's already installed in the car. Yes? They're simply unlocking the extra capacity via software update. All the while, owners get to drag the extra weight around. Plus, what is the upgrade, 15kwh? So you're paying $800/kwh.
I don't know, maybe you would? I'm no engineer. It would certainly increase the cost. I believe Tesla also has self driving capabilities on all cars, but you have to pay for the upgrade. That's just like "Toyota Sensing" well, except Toyota doesn't put it on all cars, and well, it doesn't actually drive itself, but the idea is the same.
I've no idea on the battery. I suspect they either don't know to build modular battery packs cost effectively; or one large pack scales better from a manufacturing perspective. OTOH, it strikes me as sort of a ripoff. I imagine the marketing people informed the engineers what their demographic would find acceptable.

Toyota's sensing (or any self-driving option) is some hardware bits plus a lot of software development, so it makes sense to charge more for it IMO.
It puts people in the car at a lower price point, gives them the option to upgrade in time. I get the optics of it, but people are agreeing to it so I don't see the issue. Tesla is doing the same model with self-driving which is hardware and software.

I would think Toyota at least thought about installing Sensing on all cars and then let people upgrade if they want. An extra thousand at the time of purchase is a a lot, but could be something they want later on and is now easy to upgrade. Of course it is now (or will be soon) standard on all cars. But, I imagine they will give serious thought to installing self-driving (or parking) capabilities as they become available on all cars and having people unlock it as they see fit.
People who know, know.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieJoe wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Why wouldn't you have the option to add physical battery capacity. The space for a larger battery is already available because it's already installed in the car. Yes? They're simply unlocking the extra capacity via software update. All the while, owners get to drag the extra weight around. Plus, what is the upgrade, 15kwh? So you're paying $800/kwh.
I don't know, maybe you would? I'm no engineer. It would certainly increase the cost. I believe Tesla also has self driving capabilities on all cars, but you have to pay for the upgrade. That's just like "Toyota Sensing" well, except Toyota doesn't put it on all cars, and well, it doesn't actually drive itself, but the idea is the same.
I've no idea on the battery. I suspect they either don't know to build modular battery packs cost effectively; or one large pack scales better from a manufacturing perspective. OTOH, it strikes me as sort of a ripoff. I imagine the marketing people informed the engineers what their demographic would find acceptable.

Toyota's sensing (or any self-driving option) is some hardware bits plus a lot of software development, so it makes sense to charge more for it IMO.
Yep. The code to allow the battery to deplete further is probably very simple. Again, my guess is that you're (in part) paying for a higher probability that it fails with this "option".
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:pasted in:

Time is running out for Tesla's unmet promises.

The leading electric car maker's struggles to ramp up production of its first mass-market car, the Model 3, could mean a cash crunch for the upstart automaker.

Tesla (TSLA) has thousands of customers lined up ready to buy a Model 3, which has a $35,000 starting price. But it keeps badly missing its production targets, and it is burning through cash as it does so. And it faces deadlines to pay more than $1 billion in bonds due over the the next year - $230 million due in November and $920 million next March.
Powered by SmartAsset.com
Disclosures
SmartAsset.com

Concerns about its cash positions could grow worse when it reports actual first quarter numbers next week. Moody's downgraded its debt deeper into junk bond status on Tuesday and warned more downgrades could be coming. Standard & Poor's also has warned of the possibility of a downgrade.

Bloomberg has been tracking production by continuously monitoring the issuance of vehicle identification numbers issued by the NTSB. It estimates that production stands at 1,026 a week, a big jump from the fourth quarter but less than half the 2,500 a week target that Tesla has set for the end of the third quarter, which concludes Saturday.

"That would be a pretty significant miss," said Bruce Clark, the credit analyst at Moody's. "We're not drawing a line in the sand by any means. But part of the issue is reestablishing credibility with constituents. At the end of the day, the company's credibility will be significantly impacted by how close they are to that 2,500 run rate."

The company had originally promised it would be making 5,000 Model 3's every week by the end of last year, but delivered only 222 in the third quarter, and another 1,542 throughout the entire fourth quarter. It has now pushed the 5,000 a week target back to the end of June.

Related: Tesla stock falls after NTSB announces it will investigate fatal crash

Tesla has never made a full-year profit as its grown into a major force in the auto industry. But investors, lenders and customers have been big believers in its charismatic CEO Elon Musk, at least to this point. They've provided him with the cash he needed to challenge the established players in the industry.

They've bought additional shares sold by the company in secondary offerings. They've driven up stock price to give the company nearly the market value of established automakers like Ford (F) or General Motors (GM), which both produce billions in annual profits and sell millions of vehicles. Customers have paid deposits of $1,000 each for cars they wouldn't see for years, giving Tesla nearly $1 billion worth of deposits. And, of course, it has also been able to sell bonds to raise cash.

Clark said he doesn't believe the company is facing any imminent cash crunch, but that if it continues to struggle to ramp up production of the Model 3 its "liquidity position is going to get tight in the next several quarters. That's why we see the need for them to go back to the financial markets."

And it will become more difficult, and more expensive, to raise that money if there are further doubts about it meeting its production goals.

Related: New Tesla pay package could make Elon Musk richest man in the world

It could also cause problems with the company's supplier base. Tesla reported it owed $2.4 billion in accounts payable at the end of last year. That's not a huge number as long suppliers continue to bill for the parts and raw materials.

But the credit agency downgrade could prompt suppliers to start demanding cash at the time of delivery, according to John Thompson, CEO of hedge fund Vilas Capital Management, which has its largest position shorting Tesla shares, betting big that the stock will fall sharply in value.

"Why did Toys 'R' Us go bankrupt? Its suppliers cut it off. You can have altruistic equity holders, you can have altruistic bond holders, altruistic customers. But suppliers are cold and calculating from my experience," he said.

In an email to his clients this week he again predicted a looming cash crunch for Tesla could even lead to bankruptcy later this year.

A company spokesman would not comment on the downgrade or Thompson's commentary.
CNNMoney (New York) First published March 28, 2018: 1:45 PM ET

Not paying your A/P will work for awhile, then it won't. $1 billion in deposits????? and that cash is being burned thru quickly, not good.
I think they are nice looking vehicles, but I’m content with my 2002 Camry that I park on the street.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:pasted in:

Time is running out for Tesla's unmet promises.

The leading electric car maker's struggles to ramp up production of its first mass-market car, the Model 3, could mean a cash crunch for the upstart automaker.

Tesla (TSLA) has thousands of customers lined up ready to buy a Model 3, which has a $35,000 starting price. But it keeps badly missing its production targets, and it is burning through cash as it does so. And it faces deadlines to pay more than $1 billion in bonds due over the the next year - $230 million due in November and $920 million next March.
Powered by SmartAsset.com
Disclosures
SmartAsset.com

Concerns about its cash positions could grow worse when it reports actual first quarter numbers next week. Moody's downgraded its debt deeper into junk bond status on Tuesday and warned more downgrades could be coming. Standard & Poor's also has warned of the possibility of a downgrade.

Bloomberg has been tracking production by continuously monitoring the issuance of vehicle identification numbers issued by the NTSB. It estimates that production stands at 1,026 a week, a big jump from the fourth quarter but less than half the 2,500 a week target that Tesla has set for the end of the third quarter, which concludes Saturday.

"That would be a pretty significant miss," said Bruce Clark, the credit analyst at Moody's. "We're not drawing a line in the sand by any means. But part of the issue is reestablishing credibility with constituents. At the end of the day, the company's credibility will be significantly impacted by how close they are to that 2,500 run rate."

The company had originally promised it would be making 5,000 Model 3's every week by the end of last year, but delivered only 222 in the third quarter, and another 1,542 throughout the entire fourth quarter. It has now pushed the 5,000 a week target back to the end of June.

Related: Tesla stock falls after NTSB announces it will investigate fatal crash

Tesla has never made a full-year profit as its grown into a major force in the auto industry. But investors, lenders and customers have been big believers in its charismatic CEO Elon Musk, at least to this point. They've provided him with the cash he needed to challenge the established players in the industry.

They've bought additional shares sold by the company in secondary offerings. They've driven up stock price to give the company nearly the market value of established automakers like Ford (F) or General Motors (GM), which both produce billions in annual profits and sell millions of vehicles. Customers have paid deposits of $1,000 each for cars they wouldn't see for years, giving Tesla nearly $1 billion worth of deposits. And, of course, it has also been able to sell bonds to raise cash.

Clark said he doesn't believe the company is facing any imminent cash crunch, but that if it continues to struggle to ramp up production of the Model 3 its "liquidity position is going to get tight in the next several quarters. That's why we see the need for them to go back to the financial markets."

And it will become more difficult, and more expensive, to raise that money if there are further doubts about it meeting its production goals.

Related: New Tesla pay package could make Elon Musk richest man in the world

It could also cause problems with the company's supplier base. Tesla reported it owed $2.4 billion in accounts payable at the end of last year. That's not a huge number as long suppliers continue to bill for the parts and raw materials.

But the credit agency downgrade could prompt suppliers to start demanding cash at the time of delivery, according to John Thompson, CEO of hedge fund Vilas Capital Management, which has its largest position shorting Tesla shares, betting big that the stock will fall sharply in value.

"Why did Toys 'R' Us go bankrupt? Its suppliers cut it off. You can have altruistic equity holders, you can have altruistic bond holders, altruistic customers. But suppliers are cold and calculating from my experience," he said.

In an email to his clients this week he again predicted a looming cash crunch for Tesla could even lead to bankruptcy later this year.

A company spokesman would not comment on the downgrade or Thompson's commentary.
CNNMoney (New York) First published March 28, 2018: 1:45 PM ET

Not paying your A/P will work for awhile, then it won't. $1 billion in deposits????? and that cash is being burned thru quickly, not good.
I think they are nice looking vehicles, but I’m content with my 2002 Camry that I park on the street.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm with you there. You can buy a lot of gas with the $80k I saved buying a Focus. They're still just status symbols for the time being.
fatman
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:18 am

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by fatman »

cwtcr hokie wrote:pasted in:

Time is running out for Tesla's unmet promises.

The leading electric car maker's struggles to ramp up production of its first mass-market car, the Model 3, could mean a cash crunch for the upstart automaker.

Tesla (TSLA) has thousands of customers lined up ready to buy a Model 3, which has a $35,000 starting price. But it keeps badly missing its production targets, and it is burning through cash as it does so. And it faces deadlines to pay more than $1 billion in bonds due over the the next year - $230 million due in November and $920 million next March.
Powered by SmartAsset.com
Disclosures
SmartAsset.com

Concerns about its cash positions could grow worse when it reports actual first quarter numbers next week. Moody's downgraded its debt deeper into junk bond status on Tuesday and warned more downgrades could be coming. Standard & Poor's also has warned of the possibility of a downgrade.

Bloomberg has been tracking production by continuously monitoring the issuance of vehicle identification numbers issued by the NTSB. It estimates that production stands at 1,026 a week, a big jump from the fourth quarter but less than half the 2,500 a week target that Tesla has set for the end of the third quarter, which concludes Saturday.

"That would be a pretty significant miss," said Bruce Clark, the credit analyst at Moody's. "We're not drawing a line in the sand by any means. But part of the issue is reestablishing credibility with constituents. At the end of the day, the company's credibility will be significantly impacted by how close they are to that 2,500 run rate."

The company had originally promised it would be making 5,000 Model 3's every week by the end of last year, but delivered only 222 in the third quarter, and another 1,542 throughout the entire fourth quarter. It has now pushed the 5,000 a week target back to the end of June.

Related: Tesla stock falls after NTSB announces it will investigate fatal crash

Tesla has never made a full-year profit as its grown into a major force in the auto industry. But investors, lenders and customers have been big believers in its charismatic CEO Elon Musk, at least to this point. They've provided him with the cash he needed to challenge the established players in the industry.

They've bought additional shares sold by the company in secondary offerings. They've driven up stock price to give the company nearly the market value of established automakers like Ford (F) or General Motors (GM), which both produce billions in annual profits and sell millions of vehicles. Customers have paid deposits of $1,000 each for cars they wouldn't see for years, giving Tesla nearly $1 billion worth of deposits. And, of course, it has also been able to sell bonds to raise cash.

Clark said he doesn't believe the company is facing any imminent cash crunch, but that if it continues to struggle to ramp up production of the Model 3 its "liquidity position is going to get tight in the next several quarters. That's why we see the need for them to go back to the financial markets."

And it will become more difficult, and more expensive, to raise that money if there are further doubts about it meeting its production goals.

Related: New Tesla pay package could make Elon Musk richest man in the world

It could also cause problems with the company's supplier base. Tesla reported it owed $2.4 billion in accounts payable at the end of last year. That's not a huge number as long suppliers continue to bill for the parts and raw materials.

But the credit agency downgrade could prompt suppliers to start demanding cash at the time of delivery, according to John Thompson, CEO of hedge fund Vilas Capital Management, which has its largest position shorting Tesla shares, betting big that the stock will fall sharply in value.

"Why did Toys 'R' Us go bankrupt? Its suppliers cut it off. You can have altruistic equity holders, you can have altruistic bond holders, altruistic customers. But suppliers are cold and calculating from my experience," he said.

In an email to his clients this week he again predicted a looming cash crunch for Tesla could even lead to bankruptcy later this year.

A company spokesman would not comment on the downgrade or Thompson's commentary.
CNNMoney (New York) First published March 28, 2018: 1:45 PM ET

Not paying your A/P will work for awhile, then it won't. $1 billion in deposits????? and that cash is being burned thru quickly, not good.
Nothing new here. The demand for model 3 has massively outstripped capacity and production delays on the model 3 have been a major topic for more than a year. Musk is the most badass entrepreneur in America so if anyone can pull off this miracle it is him. You should read his autobiography or watch a documentary on him. He had similar issues getting roadsters out to all the people who wanted it.
fatman
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:18 am

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by fatman »

awesome guy wrote:His devil may care attitude will hold off creditors.
Yup. This is the way he runs his companies. Nothing new here.
fatman
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:18 am

Re: Fatman may want to check his Tesla holdings, see article

Post by fatman »

USN_Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Those pricks charge 12K for a battery capacity software upgrade to their lower priced cars. Free for their more expensive cars. They have zero interest in the "common" consumer. All they care about is the 100K car market.
All cars have premium packages. For example, Toyota charges for "Toyota Sensing". Consumers are agreeing to purchase a car that has a lower mileage range. If they want higher then they purchase it. Premium cars purchase the higher mileage range. It's an option. Pretty sweet of a car company to give consumers an upgrade in Florida when a hurricane is coming.

Would it be better if they installed a smaller battery and never had the option to upgrade?
Invalid comparison. This is not buying a Camry "limited" vs. the SE at purchase time. This is apple pushing out IOS 11 free to IPhone X phones, but $200.00 for same upgrade for IPhone 8 or 7s. It's bullshit
No, the consumer paid for certain battery capacity when they purchased the car. Maybe it would be better for them to produce different battery sizes, drive up the cost, and never have the option.
I'm not against this per se, but you could argue that the people who don't have the extended range are unknowingly subsidizing the cost for those who do.

My guess (aside from the marketing perspective) is that making it an extra cost option is done to limit warranty issues - ie, their testing showed that operating the batteries closer to full discharge induced much higher failure rates.
USN. Are you guys talking about ludicrous mode? That is a software feature that gives you better than Ferrari speed. Not for everyone, but I think that is worth the extra $10k.
Post Reply