1 hour ago, balthazar said:

I didn't realize Daimler finally pulled the plug on smart- about a decade too late. Good riddance.

The KBB chart seems to make sense then, tho I question whether Daimler is 'reverse-sandbagging'... with the a-class in addition to the CLA, PLUS the 50% decline in s-class sales / the killing off of the s-class coupe... I'm not seeing how the ATP is up around 3-4 thousand over a couple years ago. Smells fishy.

Of course it is.

GLE has a $75k ATP according to iseecars, the E-class has the same price structure so I imagine its the same, and GLE and E are 2 of their top 3-4 sellers.  GLS's is $95k and it sells about as well as a GLA that transacts in the high 40s, so average those 2 together and that is about $70k.  AMG GT 4 door wasn't around 3-4 years ago, and new G-wagon since then that has sold well, so that should offset the A-class.  $64k average seems to make sense.  S-class is down now due to the changeover and there aren't any to sell since Europe got the first production run of the new S-class but it is arriving here this summer.

17 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

GLE has a $75k ATP according to iseecars, the E-class has the same price structure so I imagine its the same, and GLE and E are 2 of their top 3-4 sellers.  GLS's is $95k and it sells about as well as a GLA that transacts in the high 40s, so average those 2 together and that is about $70k.  AMG GT 4 door wasn't around 3-4 years ago, and new G-wagon since then that has sold well, so that should offset the A-class.  $64k average seems to make sense.  S-class is down now due to the changeover and there aren't any to sell since Europe got the first production run of the new S-class but it is arriving here this summer.

Except the bulk of their sales come from their much cheaper models. I know you want to paint this prefect picture of Mercedes instead of just accepting simple facts but you are really reaching here and clearly ignoring the fact that the bulk of sales are from models that are priced far south of $64K, I mean $59K. That’s what makes the most sense here on this Tesla thread. 

50 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Except the bulk of their sales come from their much cheaper models. I know you want to paint this prefect picture of Mercedes instead of just accepting simple facts but you are really reaching here and clearly ignoring the fact that the bulk of sales are from models that are priced far south of $64K, I mean $59K. That’s what makes the most sense here on this Tesla thread. 

Do the bulk come from cheaper models?   Their top 5 sellers in Q1 2021:

#1 GLE

#2  GLC

#3  E-class

#4  C-class

#5 GLS

Those 5 cars are 71.1% of their sales volume, 3 of them have ATP of $75k or higher.  And 46.9% of their total sales are models with over $75k ATP. 

E class is bundled with the CLS...

In effect, putting the C Class in 3rd place...

With the exception of the GLE, what I posted are in effect the models that sell the most in the US...

 Their bread and butter lease queens...  

7600 C Class

7000 GLBs 

15 000 GLCs

THAT right there, is a LOT (30 000 units) of  $38 000 - $43 000 vehicles.  And I know those are just starting price points. Id say the avg lease prices of these probably leave the store at 45 000 - 46 000 dollars. 

Still... 

If you take a looksie at Buick...  

https://www.buick.com/

These fall under a Buick level of competition and YOU yourself dont consider Buick as luxury...

This little exercise just brings home the points:

1. Mercedes is not entirely luxury...ESPECIALLY to what their bread and butter vehicles selll at IN the USA...

2. Further proof that Mercedes-Benz is akin to General Motors  rather than Cadillac.

And if we factor in the HOME market of Europe...those A Classes, CLAs and C Class cars are just Chevrolets for Europe...

Why are we still talking about Mercedes on a thread about Tesla? Stop feeding the fanboy. 

9 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Do the bulk come from cheaper models?   Their top 5 sellers in Q1 2021:

#1 GLE

#2  GLC

#3  E-class

#4  C-class

#5 GLS

Those 5 cars are 71.1% of their sales volume, 3 of them have ATP of $75k or higher.  And 46.9% of their total sales are models with over $75k ATP. 

I suggest you do some actual math (instead of just staring at numbers that don’t even support your argument) and bring this back up on a thread about Mercedes. This is getting old. For the record though, four out of that top five you provided ALL start under $60K. We are done here. 

Interesting read on Tesla and Competition. While they do not say that Tesla will go away any time soon, Tesla does need to pay attention to adding product and freshening up their portfolio faster as Companies like Rivian come to market, Ford and GM start producing their BEVs and other companies especially the Chinese enter the global market as they have shipped their first batch of 100 BEVs to Norway all pre-sold.

I think we will see a very different landscape in the auto industry by 2025.

Tesla Might Finally Have Some Competition. From Ford. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

18 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

E class is bundled with the CLS...

In effect, putting the C Class in 3rd place...

With the exception of the GLE, what I posted are in effect the models that sell the most in the US...

 Their bread and butter lease queens...  

7600 C Class

7000 GLBs 

15 000 GLCs

THAT right there, is a LOT (30 000 units) of  $38 000 - $43 000 vehicles.  And I know those are just starting price points. Id say the avg lease prices of these probably leave the store at 45 000 - 46 000 dollars. 

Still... 

If you take a looksie at Buick...  

https://www.buick.com/

These fall under a Buick level of competition and YOU yourself dont consider Buick as luxury...

This little exercise just brings home the points:

1. Mercedes is not entirely luxury...ESPECIALLY to what their bread and butter vehicles selll at IN the USA...

2. Further proof that Mercedes-Benz is akin to General Motors  rather than Cadillac.

And if we factor in the HOME market of Europe...those A Classes, CLAs and C Class cars are just Chevrolets for Europe...

 

The GLS outsells the GLB, and almost outsold the C-class, but I think the C-class was maybe down to a new model coming, or maybe just no one buys sedans anymore too.  You also realize C-class and GLC are priced the same as a Lexus RX or Cadillac XT5, which are the best sellers for the competition.  And I looked at my local dealer, they have about 10 or so GLB250's all around $47-49k, the C300s and GLC300s are around 50 to low 50s and obviously the AMG's are more but that is low volume.  

Mercedes can't be akin to General Motors because Mercedes is 1 brand.  GM since its inception has been a group car car companies/brands. 

10 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Why are we still talking about Mercedes on a thread about Tesla? Stop feeding the fanboy. 

I suggest you do some actual math (instead of just staring at numbers that don’t even support your argument) and bring this back up on a thread about Mercedes. This is getting old. For the record though, four out of that top five you provided ALL start under $60K. We are done here. 

I thought it was about average sale price, not base MSRP, because base models doesn't exist?  5 of 6 Cadillacs start under $49k.   Only 1 of 4 Tesla's starts under $50k.  And yet people want to claim Cadillacs bring more money than Teslas?  As if every Cadillac sold is maxed to limit in options, and every competitor is only selling base models with zero option, that isn't happening.  

 Probably like 60-70% of any car's volume is the mid-level trim, the base price is false advertising, like the Jeep Wagoneer that starts are $59,900 but has a $2100 destination charge so really it starts at $62,000 but they don't want to advertise that, and probably the base model isn't even built unless custom ordered so the $3,000 "convenience" package is added on, and now it is $65,000 is the real world cheapest version, but the magazine ad says $59,900.  And I just picked that as an example, 100% of car companies to that.  

8 hours ago, David said:

Interesting read on Tesla and Competition. While they do not say that Tesla will go away any time soon, Tesla does need to pay attention to adding product and freshening up their portfolio faster as Companies like Rivian come to market, Ford and GM start producing their BEVs and other companies especially the Chinese enter the global market as they have shipped their first batch of 100 BEVs to Norway all pre-sold.

I think we will see a very different landscape in the auto industry by 2025.

Tesla Might Finally Have Some Competition. From Ford. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

100% they need to keep coming out with updated versions of the existing models, and also more models because consumers like to be able to pick from more than 4 vehicles.  And the truck and roadster will help.  But there is a reason most car companies have a dozen or so models because they want to appeal to every buyer.  Tons of EV competition is coming, but the EV market is growing.  EV sales in the USA are like 500k units a year, on a SAR of 17 million or whatever it is.  By 2025 EV's might be 4 million units a year, Tesla could still double their volume with all these other entries coming.  I think the people that need to be worried are those late to the EV game, or without funds to pump into EV's, small companies like Mazda and Subaru, cash strapped companies like Nissan, not sure what Stellantis is doing, but being run by the French I imagine a green push will be coming, but will they be too late?

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

EV sales in the USA are like 500k units a year, on a SAR of 17 million or whatever it is.

328,000 in '20. Extremely unlikely to hit 500K in '21, sales are growing very slowly.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

By 2025 EV's might be 4 million units a year

They won't. If the stars align, maybe 1 million.

3 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Mercedes can't be akin to General Motors because Mercedes is 1 brand.  GM since its inception has been a group car car companies/brands. 

Ignoring the other crud, Mercedes = GM End of debate. They both build cheap ass auto's to luxury auto's and Daimler current owner of MB also builds Vans like GM, Trucks and Buses. 

MB is NOT a Luxury brand only. It is a brand that builds some Luxury models.

How does this relate to Tesla? 

It does not! End of debate.

Somebody does not know and understand Benz's history...

I suggest that somebody learn it. At the very least, that person could just use Wiki...

A couple of merges and acquisitions and introduction of new brands  in the early history of Benz motor cars between the three gentlemen that bear confusingly the name of the company today. 

Herr Benz, Herr Daimler and Herr Maybach all had their own proper automobile companies to which they merged together, collaborated together before and after mergers and created a new brand together with a new name (Mercedes) and further merged and formed and acquired each other's  companies to form new companies... 

And then furthered their merger traditions in the late 1990s with an American company using the name Daimler-Chrysler in the NEW company that if we actually do the math, we would see that at THAT point in time, Daimler-Chrysler had MORE brands then General Motors did...

Let us not forget to mention acquisitions of American and European lorry manufacturers...

I dont blame him tho, the history of this company and its names are most definitely confusing...

But, seeing that he is a fan of the company, Id think he would know better...

Mercedes, over time, has taken over as the MAIN brand name...  But in this company's history, all three gentlemen had their names of Daimler, Maybach and Benz adorn a vehicle under its convoluted branding system including models under the Mercedes name in the company...

All three gentlemen engineered their own stuff on their own brands bearing their names, but also engineered stuff under their mergered and acquisitioned convoluted company.  And all three gentlemen worked and engineered stuff on the brand named Mercedes.

Same but different when we compare the histories of Dunbar Buick, Louis Chevrolet, Ransom E Olds and GM founder that was ousted but clawed his way back into buying himself into the company and acquiring and buying out Louis and Ransom and creating new brands like Pontiac and Cadillac...  

Not quite accurate and profound this history lesson, but good enough to put things into perspective to show that GM and Daimler-Benz or whatever they are calling themselves today are indeed apples to apples.  

The German company just decided to consolidate all models and brands into one name over time.  GM decided to create an empire with several brands, then shut down some of these over time but continue on with a multiple brand strategy.  

1 hour ago, oldshurst442 said:

Same but different when we compare the histories of Dunbar Buick, Louis Chevrolet, Ransom E Olds and GM founder that was ousted but clawed his way back into buying himself into the company and acquiring and buying out Louis and Ransom and creating new brands like Pontiac and Cadillac...  

Not quite accurate and profound this history lesson, but good enough to put things into perspective to show that GM and Daimler-Benz or whatever they are calling themselves today are indeed apples to apples. 

I understand your generalization & get your point, but I am duty-bound to correct any historical fact stated in error; not to correct YOU but to have the facts in cyber-print for the future.

All modern GM brands were independent autonomous companies except Pontiac (created) and GMC (reorganized from the merger of 2 independents). Cadillac's roots as an engine builder, machine shop & foundry begin in 1890.

Seems many are starting to rethink Tesla, over half of the investment community has changed from buy to Hold or sell on Tesla after their stock has dropped 15% this year equal to 2019 and seems now that the Plaid S is out, Plaid S+ is canceled making some Tesla Fans concerned. Seems the new battery tech also now will not show up in the Plaid. 

Tesla (TSLA) Elon Musk Splashy Event May Underwhelm as Battery Questions Loom - Bloomberg

Seems also bothering Wall Street is the lack of a COO and any succession plan for Musk if anything was to happen to him.

Tesla desperately needs a COO or No. 2 for Elon Musk (msn.com)

On top of this, at the event, yes blamed on higher material costs, but an immediate price in crease by $10,000 for Plaid S reservation people. The Plaid S will now start at $129,990 compared to a Long range Model S at $79,990 starting price.

Tesla Luxury Model S Plaid Hits the Road With Higher Price Tag (msn.com)

Crazy price increases, stock down 4.81% in June on top of the 15% down through the end of May. No succession in leadership, executive leaders leaving the company. Battery Day was a bomb per Wall Street, New 4680 battery cells are missing in action, UltraCapacitor Maxwell bought in 2019 for $200 million for their tech to make Tesla go faster and longer is still missing.

Tesla acquires ultracapacitor and battery manufacturer for over $200 million - Electrek

One has to wonder / question about the leadership in Tesla right now and for future products.

Seems now that the Plaid S is out, Tesla has also quietly decided to raise prices on another auto. No anouncement, but if you go to the configurator, base price for a Tesla Model Y is now $500 more.

https://insideevs.com/news/513232/us-tesla-modely-price-increase/

3 hours ago, David said:

Seems now that the Plaid S is out, Tesla has also quietly decided to raise prices on another auto. No anouncement, but if you go to the configurator, base price for a Tesla Model Y is now $500 more.

https://insideevs.com/news/513232/us-tesla-modely-price-increase/

I thought high transaction prices were a good thing?  And since there is no negotiation or incentives with Tesla, that is the sale price, plus options of course.

Musk has stated in the past he envisions EV's for everyone, but with monthly price jacks and the 2nd cheapest model starting at $49 grand, he's not following his own mantra. $50 grand eliminates a huge swath of car buyers. So while it may be good for Tesla's the Company's revenue stream, it's not good for Tesla the Mission Statement's claim for existing.

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I thought high transaction prices were a good thing?  And since there is no negotiation or incentives with Tesla, that is the sale price, plus options of course.

Not when the prices go up multiple times in the same year on the same cars without any tangible gain in the product. In fact, those price increases are happening while they REMOVE features like power lumbar support. Don’t get sour just you don’t understand the difference between ATPs and just being greedy for no damn reason. 

^ I don't think it's 'greed', I think Musk is well aware that the drying up of carbon credits is going to have Tesla back where it usually is; in the red. Plus, the stock is off by a third... he's looking at mounting cash flow problems.

Another issue :
 

7 hours ago, balthazar said:

^ I don't think it's 'greed', I think Musk is well aware that the drying up of carbon credits is going to have Tesla back where it usually is; in the red. Plus, the stock is off by a third... he's looking at mounting cash flow problems.

Another issue :
 

True both it could be both. I have a bigger problem with charging more while removing features. 

19 hours ago, balthazar said:

^ I don't think it's 'greed', I think Musk is well aware that the drying up of carbon credits is going to have Tesla back where it usually is; in the red. Plus, the stock is off by a third... he's looking at mounting cash flow problems.

Another issue :
 

Musk doesn't have a sales problem or a demand problem.  If he couldn't get $140k for a Model S, he wouldn't price it that way.

21 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Not when the prices go up multiple times in the same year on the same cars without any tangible gain in the product. In fact, those price increases are happening while they REMOVE features like power lumbar support. Don’t get sour just you don’t understand the difference between ATPs and just being greedy for no damn reason. 

The just delivered the first Plaid models, fastest 0-60, fastest 1/4 mile of any production car, safest car in the world, infotainment has as much power as a PS5, 187 miles of charge in 15 minutes, faster around Laguna Seca than a McLaren P1 or a Corvette ZR1.  I'd say he gave some tangible gain.  Sure there are features it doesn't have, and it would be nice if Tesla had more models or if the Model S had more of a change to the body styling, but people are still buying and it's still the fastest car with a lot of tech.

Finally; quicker in the quarter than a Dodge. 

Impressive numbers... just don't see many takers out there. 

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Musk doesn't have a sales problem or a demand problem.

No, like I said; he's looking at a looming CASH FLOW problem.

14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Musk doesn't have a sales problem or a demand problem.  If he couldn't get $140k for a Model S, he wouldn't price it that way.

Cash Flow Problem? Hell Yes he does, what part of he just lost $500 Million in Carbon Credit sales with only a $430 Million profit means he is cash positive?

If he did not have a sales problem, then he would be selling millions globally rather than a few hundred thousand.

The auto business has not been profitable yet if you look at the SEC filings, he had Tesla turning a profit due to Carbon Credit sales to other auto makers and now that the mergers have addressed those needs, the sales have stopped, so yes, Tesla has a Cashflow problem.

11 hours ago, David said:

Cash Flow Problem? Hell Yes he does, what part of he just lost $500 Million in Carbon Credit sales with only a $430 Million profit means he is cash positive?

If he did not have a sales problem, then he would be selling millions globally rather than a few hundred thousand.

The auto business has not been profitable yet if you look at the SEC filings, he had Tesla turning a profit due to Carbon Credit sales to other auto makers and now that the mergers have addressed those needs, the sales have stopped, so yes, Tesla has a Cashflow problem.

Tesla has near $20 billion in cash, no cash flow problem.  

8 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Tesla has near $20 billion in cash, no cash flow problem.  

According to actual stock filing as of the end of Q1, they had $17.141 billion. With all the construction at Texas, Germany and Nevada, that can disappear overnight if payment from various companies was demanded.

Cash flow in regards to sales, is a different matter.

Tesla Cash on Hand 2009-2021 | TSLA | MacroTrends

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Tesla has near $20 billion in cash, no cash flow problem.  

And that is a bit of an illusion that can go up in a flash with one bad year (or increased competition form literally everyone else). A snippet from one article regarding their cash flow.

Be reminded that debt repayment and refinancing do not fall into the operating activities of the company and hence, it’s not part of the cash outflow or cash inflow discussed here

https://stockdividendscreener.com/auto-manufacturers/tesla-cash-position/

On 6/11/2021 at 8:12 PM, smk4565 said:

The just delivered the first Plaid models, fastest 0-60, fastest 1/4 mile of any production car, safest car in the world, infotainment has as much power as a PS5, 187 miles of charge in 15 minutes, faster around Laguna Seca than a McLaren P1 or a Corvette ZR1.  I'd say he gave some tangible gain.  Sure there are features it doesn't have, and it would be nice if Tesla had more models or if the Model S had more of a change to the body styling, but people are still buying and it's still the fastest car with a lot of tech.

Must be why their ATP is around $50K, which in case you haven’t been paying attention, means that FAR more folks opt for the cheaper models than they do the $140K models, much like certain other high priced makes. They might actually move a thousand of those a year, which is a drop in the bucket against overall sales. Nice to have on the brochures but it doesn’t really do much for the bottom line.

@smk4565 You really to pay attention here and read this article. Their profit hasn’t even come from their product, but a shell game of carbon credits and selling off bitcoin. Tell us again how that is good for the long term bottom line.

https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36266393/tesla-made-more-money-selling-credits-and-bitcoin-than-cars/

2 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

@smk4565 You really to pay attention here and read this article. Their profit hasn’t even come from their product, but a shell game of carbon credits and selling off bitcoin. Tell us again how that is good for the long term bottom line.

https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36266393/tesla-made-more-money-selling-credits-and-bitcoin-than-cars/

I know that is how they have done it, doesn't mean they will always do it.   I am not concerned with their financial health, and investors wouldn't have put $600 billion into this company if they were concerned either.

Investors get in & out at the snap of their fingers. There's never been a dividend, so buy in, if it rises an appreciable amount; sell out.
The company's financial health is marginal; that's not why investors bought in. They bought in for the (stock) ride.

And BTW, I'm sure those that bought in between $600 and $900 are plenty concerned. 

Compare to a stock like Exxon-Mobil. It doesn't move much, price-wise (tho right now it's 100% above it's 52-wk low). But it pays a dividend- last one I saw was .87 cents/share. Have 500 shares and Exxon is paying you around $1750/yr. So even if the stock flatlines, your money is making you money. Take it as cash or buy another 28 shares and earn $1850 in dividends next year.  

Tesla gives you nothing.

56 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I know that is how they have done it, doesn't mean they will always do it.   I am not concerned with their financial health, and investors wouldn't have put $600 billion into this company if they were concerned either.

So again, ignore the actual facts about product and try to cover with some nonsense about investors who, has Balth clearly stated, were in it for the stock ride. It sure as hell isn’t for the unreliable product that has yet to put them in the black long term. A third of those have already dropped them on a dime because issues the last five months. 
 

Just a little screenshot about those “non” worried investors and Tesla. 

Well if Tesla runs into financial trouble, they can just get a government bail out like GM and Ford did, and Chrysler did twice.  

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Well if Tesla runs into financial trouble, they can just get a government bail out like GM and Ford did, and Chrysler did twice.  

And way to deflect. Fun fact. They’ve been getting bailouts since day one but maybe you missed that part while not coming up with an actual argument. Without those subsidies, they would have went under years ago. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cleantechnica.com/2020/08/03/tesla-subsidies-how-much/amp/

Got any other cute and non-sensical remarks you want to make?

@smk4565 Oh and Ford didn’t take a bailout like GM and Chrysler did. Furthermore, the last time I checked, Chrysler was under Daimler just prior to their bailout but shhhhh, we don’t talk about the failings of German companies and this isn’t about them or the traditional domestic makes anyway. This is about the house of financial cards known as Tesla. 

3 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Well if Tesla runs into financial trouble, they can just get a government bail out like GM and Ford did, and Chrysler did twice.  

You really need to look at the hard facts of Tesla, Current Valuation to Debt to Equity.

Tesla Current Valuation vs Debt to Equity | TSLA (macroaxis.com)

This makes it pretty clear that Tesla has some big hurdles.

As long as Tesla can keep a crazy high stock price, they have a low debt to Equity, but that does not ensure they can survive long term on the current valuation as markets swing and if they do not start producing a real profit from their products, the Debt to Equity ratio can change to a very large negative.

I don’t really care if Tesla goes bust or not.  But they aren’t going to go bankrupt or stop selling cars.  It just isn’t going to happen.

So they're just going to build more & more & more cars at a $6 grand loss on each one??? 9 years of this shit business model and no profits, only driven by the whim of a perpetually-distracted ego-maniacal billionaire?

He's going to get bored and wander off at some point.

How long would you do YOUR job if you had to PAY to be there?

10 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I don’t really care if Tesla goes bust or not.  But they aren’t going to go bankrupt or stop selling cars.  It just isn’t going to happen.

Actually you seem to care an awful lot given the rabid defense of them. Furthermore, if they go bankrupt, it will be exactly because of their cars since that is supposed to be their main business.

I can't see them going bankrupt anytime soon but they probably need to start turning a profit here shortly, too. 

If you (almost) never make a profit as a manufacturer, bankruptcy is inevitable. The regular production 'history' of Tesla really begins with the Model S, which came out in 2012. 

Tesla is not going to go bankrupt. At least not in the 2020s.  In the 2030s...who knows?

Too many "investors" have poored too many billions into this to just let it fail.  

However, if Tesla CARS dont overtake the competition in sales market share, then who knows what will happen next. Consumers NEED to BUY your vehicles to STAY IN business...  THAT is just how...business works.

However, if Tesla cars wont exist, Tesla powertrains and batteries IS a thing and Tesla could provide THAT to OEMs that dont want to invest the billions developing their own tech.  

Volkswagen Group or GM might not be those that would buy Tesla powertrains and batteries as they have their own technologies...but...  

Toyota might.   They have fallen behind.

Honda might.  Honda will be buying GM tech, but having another option like Tesla might benefit Honda...

Mercedes might also.  Mercedes EV tech is pathetic as of now...

Keep in mind that VW does outsell Tesla is certain markets NOW.

Keep in mind that the Ford Mach E also has eroded Tesla market share.

GM EVs that actually compares to Tesla, like the GMC Hummer EV, well, the Hummer EV has a very very healthy amount of down deposits for one.   Tesla like craze about the Hummer with people... 

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

If you (almost) never make a profit as a manufacturer, bankruptcy is inevitable. The regular production 'history' of Tesla really begins with the Model S, which came out in 2012. 

Id say with the Roadster 1.0 

Tesla was considered a legit car company even with just that car and it was just a conversion job.  Elon wanted a legit Tesla EV with a REAL EV platform and that is how the Model S came about, but Tesla as a company starts with the Roadster as the REAL Tesla technology and raison d'etre is the battery tech and electric motor.  

To this day, Tesla is considered a tech company with their battery tech, motor and software front and center ahead of their car production...

12 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I don’t really care if Tesla goes bust or not.  But they aren’t going to go bankrupt or stop selling cars.  It just isn’t going to happen.

With out a real profit companies cannot survive for ever and Tesla is having problems. As I stated earlier, Tesla has one of the lowest Net Profits per company around.

$11,000 per employee is pathetic especially when compared to GM.

General Motors Financial Company Inc Net Income per Employee (GM), current and historic results, rankings and more, Quarterly Fundamentals - CSIMarket

As anyone here with common sense will agree with, the higher the profit per employee, the more stable the company is and the longer that company can stay in business.

Examples as of today of some of the highest profit makers:

Profits per employee

Yes, you need to make a profit OR sell technology and/or the company. Bankruptcy isn't inevitable if you're not making a profit. 

23 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Yes, you need to make a profit OR sell technology and/or the company. Bankruptcy isn't inevitable if you're not making a profit. 

Tell that to early 2000s GM and Chrysler.

14 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Tell that to early 2000s GM and Chrysler.

In all honesty...GM's "bankruptcy" was not a conventional one.

It was a solvency that was restructured.

Because there actually was revenue streams that were coming in.  Pretty SUBSTANTIAL revenue streams at that.  Its just that a lot of waste and fat had to be trimmed and why a restructure was presented as a solution instead of liquidating the company and dissolving it.

Tesla on the other hand, is not like GM where there is a healthy revenue stream from actual selling of cars.  

Tesla does spend billions in factories and their proprietary EV charging network which negates their revenue streams as the revenue coming in just goes directly back into the company. HOWEVER...much data including Sandy Munroe concludes that Tesla's manufacturing of automobiles is very very inefficient.  

GM did not have that problem.  

Sales were also there for GM.  (Tesla's market share going forward after 2023-2024 is under scrutiny too) 

GM's problems were that they had an enormous amount of expenses.  Not even debt.  Their debt load WAS manageable. Banks did not want to loan them money BECAUSE there was an over all (and global) bank meltdown (thanks to greedy American bank mortgage loans etc)...  It was their expenses that really did them in.    

WARNING BELLS WARNING BELLS

One of Warren Buffett's market indicators has hit a record 133% and it was this way when the market crashed on the Dot-Com Bubble Burst. This could have huge destructive consequences for companies that do not make a profitable product line like Tesla and other BEVs.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/warren-buffetts-favorite-market-indicator-surges-to-a-record-133percent-signaling-global-stocks-are-overvalued-and-at-high-risk-of-crashing/ar-AAL1Smg?li=BBnb7Kz

Additional indicators are showing extreme over value too.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-indicator-200-percent-stocks-overpriced-market-crash-2021-6-1030486280

This is an outstanding read on why Buffett feels so strongly about specific indicators for where the market is at.

Warren Buffett On The Stock Market

https://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/12/10/314691/index.htm

https://www.benzinga.com/top-stories/20/05/15936592/heres-what-warren-buffett-thinks-about-tesla-and-elon-musk

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

Tell that to early 2000s GM and Chrysler.

2 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

In all honesty...GM's "bankruptcy" was not a conventional one.

I know the fine details but it was still because they weren't making enough profit to keep afloat, a result of putting out $h!ty products for decades. My core point stands.