In my humble opinion, the likely GAAP margins can and will fluctuate with numerous extraneous variables (e.g. exchange rates for sales , production, employment) from an operating cash flow basis but not at all from a GAAP basis. For TSLA moire than many others there is variability because they do not directly hedge FX. Part fo that GAAP influence is often negative even when from a cash flow perspective the same effects can be positive. This quickly becomes both arcane, controversial and without enough direct data to resolve the conflicts.
Because of all that I depend far more on Free Cash Flow than I do on P&L. Almost by definition that minimizes volatility, which is the primary source for market maker profits. Consequently it is unsurprising that market makers and securities analysts rarely stray far from the most volatile measures they can find.
Those have a huge profit year right now as Tesla chose to concentrate on efficiency improvements and large capex for new products and new plants.
So long as people can concentrate on GAAP P&L we can be 'happily' assured that the actual FUD looks just like serious and genuine poor financial results. With Germany issues, including sabotage as well as expansion, China issues, primarily expansion and product development, Austin, Sparks, Buffalo, Monterrey, even Lathrop and so on, GAAP is quite likely to be negatively influenced this year while unit volume will not return to high growth until late next year, probably.
All that, and I watch Free Cash Flow. If it can stay positive with all that plus the pricing, supply interruptions and factory stoppage, especially Germany, we will now that Tesla maintains an impressive financial and logistics capacity with all those imply.
Nobody has thus far had too much direct evidence on that metric, just on GAAP P&L and/or auto sales trends.