This common bear narrative is hilarious. It works on the people that don't bother to do their own research. Seeking Alpha has the TSLA Q1 2016 earning call transcript:
Tesla Motors (TSLA) Elon Reeve Musk on Q1 2016 Results - Earnings Call Transcript | Seeking Alpha
Musk lays out a slew of caveats and talks about the complexity and the likelihood that people will misunderstand:
He then goes on to say that he doesn't expect to actually achieve volume production on July 1:
He specifically states the expected timetable for volume production:
Then he says, "So as a rough guess, I would say we would aim to produce 100,000 to 200,000 Model 3s in the second half of next year. That's my expectation right now. Yeah, so that's the thing."
Now... go back earlier in the transcript.. he says:
So... clearly, he's expecting 500,000 run rate in 2018. Not total produced, but run rate. Given that he thought run rate wouldn't hit 500,000 until some time in 2018, and he thought volume production wouldn't be achieved until late 2017, there is no way he thought 100,000 to 200,000 was about total produced especially given the s-curve that he's talked about over and over again. A single quarter at the full 500,000 per year run rate is 250,000 cars. But entering 2018, he wasn't thinking it would be 500,000 run rate. Now, if you look at the run rate of 100,000, that's 2,100 cars/week... at 200,000, that's 4,200 cars a week. That's consistent with guidance given in later touch points.
Of course, since Q1, 2016, there have been numerous additional updates. This 100,000 to 200,000 comment only comes here... and the rest of the communications from the company points to a run rate expectation, not a total produced expectation. The company guided for late 2017 volume production over and over again. Furthermore, serious investors always will discount future projections... furthermore, Tesla spent billions in capex to achieve volume production. The very attempt to achieve high volume production has been derided by bears as burning cash and, at the same time, the attempt is considered fraud? That's doesn't make sense at all. Again.. numbers are provided with a slew of caveats. It isn't right to ignore the caveats and point only to the numbers... and furthermore, to ignore follow up clarifications and updates.
If you really think it is fraud, bring it up with the SEC.
Last edited:
