Tesla share crash amid Republican bid to kill off electric car tax break

Yup. But they have almost NEVER made money...even before they were building factories and charging networks - but were selling their cars for over $100G's each.
How the heck can you sell low volume cars for over $100G's and not make money year after year? The answer? The cars cost too much to manufacture.

Now answer my question.

Do you realize that Tesla has only posted 4 or 5 profitable quarters in their ENTIRE 14 year run? Yes or no, please?

Not according to almost everything I have read.

Fine...prove that Tesla makes money on every car they sell with a link to an unbiased source that provides factual proof of this?

And not theories or deductions or assumptions or opinions...factual, unbiased proof that they make money on EVERY car they sell.

I bet you that you cannot.


BTW, GM supposedly loses $9,000 on every Bolt they sell.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-9-000-a-pop-and-chase-the-electric-car-boom

 

Yes I am aware of their financial history. Are you aware of how the company and its technology evolved? Do you think they simply put out their shingle and started making electric cars?

Its not the losses they have incurred but the nature of those losses. I suggest you carefully review their financial statements in detail. They have lots of cash, they have over $22 billion in current assets and almost 5 billion in shareholder equity and a market cap of over $50billion.

Given its consistent growth trend where assets increased over 10 times in the past 3 years, revenue increased 350% in the same time period, I think you might want to reevaluate teslas financial position.

you are using a ridiculous financial metric. It creates a totally distorted picture of performance since, particularly in the case of Tesla, the company has huge up front and on going infrastructure investments.

 

Ever hear of this place called NASA?

Take a look at their history ... and all if it’s Failures before one single Sucess.

 

I do agree that the premise of your question is incredibly simple. I do not agree that subsidies are a transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

You do realize that the poor don't pay federal taxes, don't you?

 

LOL. The "hyped up stock price" has no bearing on P&L impact. Atleast have an understanding of revenue and costs if you're going to try to talk out of your ass.

Their GM has remained steady and it trending up. You're looking simply at the bottom line which is a complete oversight on your end if you're a potential investor (I hope that you're not). Both R&D and G&A costs have been increasing year-over-year which is the sign of a growing business.

 

Anyone complaining about Subsidies needs to give this a read.

https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

 

the subsidies are a good thing if they create high wage jobs for the poor, but with electric it is not possible to create a high paying wind and solar energy job for the many without advanced education.

oil subsidies do that with fossil fuel energy, you do not need advanced education to drill for oil, mine for coal, and can still make a lot of money.

 

So, you can produce no link to unbiased proof that Tesla actually makes money on every car they sell - even though you said they do.

Noted.

Good day.

 

Oh for Pete's sake...I never said it had anything to do with profits and losses. Obviously issuing stock has nothing to do with profits and losses...DUH.

And you clearly have no idea how corporations work.

So school is in.

By issuing new stock (or issuing bonds), Tesla raises billions to keep themselves afloat.

And they have done both numerous times...to the tune of MANY billions of dollars. Without these Tesla would probably have been out of business LONG AGO.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-tesla-can-raise-money-2017-8?op=1/#selling-stock-1

Now if their stock price was flat, they could not issue new stock as it would dilute the share price. But with the price skyrocketing, they can issue huge amounts of new stock to raise giant amounts of new capital.
But as soon as the stock price stops climbing (which it eventually will), they can no longer do this without risking collapsing said price.
This is a VERY dangerous way for a company to survive as eventually people will simply tire of the fact Tesla cannot seem to stop losing money.

Next time you make statements about things...try and have a CLUE what it is you are talking about and you won't sound so utterly ignorant on the subject.

School is out.

Good day.

 

NASA? Are you serious? You are seriously comparing Tesla to NASA?

Tesla is a company.

NASA is part of the federal government - NOT a company.

NASA does not have to worry about profits and losses because virtually all of their funding comes from the federal government.

What is next? Comparing apples and aircraft carriers?

 

You seriously thought that when I typed the line: 'what is next? Comparing apples and aircraft carriers?' That I was referring to who invented aircraft carriers?

Okaaaaaaaaaaaay.

BTW...it was a government who invented aircraft carriers. The H.M.S. Argus - the first ship capable of launching and recovering aircraft - was 'invented' by the Royal Navy...part of the British government.

We are definitely done here.

Have a stable day.

 

123

 

Yes, they are. The Royal Navy got the idea to convert a ship into an aircraft carrier. Whoever carried it out is irrelevant. The person who had the idea was the inventor. And the Royal Navy came up with the idea for an aircraft carrier. So...the Royal Navy (part of the government) was the inventor of the aircraft carrier.

Don't you get tired of me proving you wrong?


BTW - my IQ is 124. Not quite in 'doofus' range. But whatever floats your boat.

 

12345 - sorry mods, had to correct something.

 

They make 22%? If you really knew economics, you would know that statement is nonsense. 22% of what? On what? From what?
On every car they make?
I guarantee you that there is NO WAY that Tesla makes a 22% net profit on every car they sell.
And I guarantee you that you cannot post a factual report from an unbiased source that proves they do (unless you are counting emission credits - which I believe is only in California).



Have you ever heard of a link?

I am not wasting my time hunting around for your proof.


BTW, here is something else that I did not realize was to this extent....emission credits.

'Tesla didn’t generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by selling sleazy emissions “credits," mandated by the state of California’s electric vehicle requirements. The competition, like Honda, doesn’t have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million, or $11,400 per car. As the company sold 5,000 cars in the quarter, though, $13,600 per car was paid by other manufacturers, who are going to pass at least some of that cost on to buyers of their products. Folks in the new car market are likely paying a bit more than simply the direct tax subsidy.


How’s this going to work in the future? As long as the competition has to pay greenmail to Tesla, probably just fine. And with California gradually ratcheting up the electric-vehicle mandate, maybe just finer. No wonder the stock price doubled and Goldman shelled out.'

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patric...ng-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/#3462b35d6f0a


So, I was only partially right. Tesla is also surviving based on emission credits - as well as stock price.

 

I will ask again:

Do you think it is morally right that the poor/middle classes are giving their tax money to the upper middle classes/rich (when the latter buy these cars)?

Yes or no, please?

Are you sure you are a Canadian?
Of course the poor in Canada pay income taxes.

- The official poverty line in Canada is (apparently) $22,133.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/census...of-4-8m-canadians-living-in-poverty-1.3587472

- And Canadian federal income taxes begin at $1 of income. From the Government of Canada website on taxes:

'15% on the first $45,916 of taxable income, +'

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...rates-individuals-current-previous-years.html

Canadian poor people DO pay federal income taxes.

 

\i'm sorry that you don't understand what gross profit is.

And again, taking their total net loss and dividing it by the number of vehicles sold is a distorted metric that does not in any way reflect the financial health of the company.

 

But for some reason, you included a chart of their annual revenue and net income for the preceding fiscal years.

Oh boy, this should be fun.

Breaking news...company offers common stock shares in return for operating capital.

Nearly all publicly traded companies do this. And just like all other companies, most would be out of business without it.

Just for the record, companies can issue a prospectus for new shares whenever (with BOD approval), regardless if the stock price is "flat" or "skyrocketing." Additionally, regardless if the stock price is "flat" or "skyrocketing," issuing new shares will dilute the share price. After all, the number of shares on the market has increased. And lastly, the amount of capital Tesla received in return for common stock issued has nothing to do with a "skyrocketing" stock price. When Tesla issued shares for capital, the shares weren't issued at market value. They're issued at a fixed, lower value based on the agreement.

Who knew we had Wall Street's version of Miss Cleo on our forum. Any other predictions?

It's actually how most publicly traded companies operate.

Oh the irony. Please don't leave, I'm just now starting to have fun.

 

What a Dotard

 

Well, their corporate taxes will be cut.

I see dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% down to 20% as the most important part of the Trump tax plan. This will lead to investment in the USA that will lead to 5% annual growth in the economy.

Trump promised 4% but I think he likes to lowball.

But it turns out, the tax cut also will be a boon to middle-class taxpayers.

Walt Hickey of the liberal 538 web site explained this:
Doubling the standard deduction

Right now you can either itemize deductions — laboriously indicating the amount of money you earned that is exempt from taxation due to a number of carve-outs we’ll get to below — or just take the standard deduction, which is a set amount of money that you can choose to deduct, tax-free, from your overall net income rather than do the math.

For example, the standard deduction was great for me personally when I was working in restaurants in college, given that I didn’t have many expenses that I could take as deductions. If the standard deduction had been doubled then, it could even have completely eliminated what I owed in taxes.The standard deduction is currently $6,350 for single filers and $12,700 for married couples filing jointly. In 2015, 69 percent of households took the standard deduction, so right off the bat, those households would benefit by being able to write off twice as much money. For the 30 percent of households that itemized their deductions, whether they benefit depends on how much they’re able to itemize: If their itemized deductions amount to just a bit more than the current standard deduction, this is probably pretty good for them because they would get a bigger deduction without having to do the work of itemizing; if their itemized deductions are far higher than the current standard deduction, they’ll still need to itemize, so nothing would change for them; if their itemized deductions are relatively close to the proposed new standard deduction, they won’t be able to tell offhand whether they’re better off itemizing or using the standard deduction, so they’re probably going to have to pay their accountant to figure it out anyway.So nearly 7 out of 10 taxpayers will immediately see their taxes drop as they can double their tax deductions.

And doubling tax deductions will reduce the incentive to bother with itemizing, so even more people will just take the standard deduction and be done with it.

This means we will liberate more Americans from wasting a Sunday filling out forms for the IRS.

If Trump cured cancer, CNN would headline it as, "Oncologists Will Lose Jobs Under Trump Plan."

So Hickey added:
By that token, this may be bad for some of the people who either directly derive their income from tax preparation and litigation (the country’s 1.4 million accountants, plus tax lawyers) or people who work in fields where existing deductions serve as incentives to use their goods or services (like the 440,000 real estate agents and everyone who works in charity).

The doubling of the standard deduction is a good achievement. If they lower the amount of money taken out of each paycheck, this may help Republicans at the polls next year.

As for helping the economy, reducing individual taxes will help goose the economy in the short term. As Michelle Obama said on July 9, 2008:

“You’re getting $600 -- what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month. The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings.”$600 earrings?

I may open a jewelry shop.

The big play is in the corporate tax drop.

Cutting individual taxes to sell the corporate tax drop is genius marketing.

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2017/11/trump-tax-cut-explained-in-two.html#more

 

Cut my taxes to 20% so I and everyone like me can invest too.

 

But but but but

Electric cars is baaad!