Tesla sells 5K cars....in one quarter
 

Tesla Motors Stuns Wall Street ... Again - Businessweek

For some perspective, the last 993, another niche/boutique car, barely sold 2,600 cars in North America for the whole year -- during a booming U.S. Economy. At this pace globally Tesla will be matching total Porsche NA sales for as recently as 2009. And their SUV has yet to be launched. They have a dealer showroom right in the upscale mall near here on the second floor. That's a genius move right there...stores are closing so cheap retail space to park a showroom car without a pushy sales guy wanting you to go for a test drive. Simply stage 1 of peeking interest from a prospective buyer. brilliant.

Tesla stock has gone from $29 to $150 in the last year.


http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2013-08-07...-s-630x420.jpg

Update, 7 p.m.: Adds details from Tesla’s earnings conference call.

Anyone hoping to ratchet the Tesla Motors (TSLA) hype down a notch will want to ignore the company’s second-quarter results delivered on Wednesday afternoon. Tesla turned a profit, much to the surprise of Wall Street analysts, and said it shipped a record number of its Model S luxury sedans that have become all the rage with the wealthy, eco-conscious set. The results pushed Tesla shares further into the stratosphere and boosted its market cap beyond that of Suzuki Motor (7269:JP), Mitsubishi Motors (7211:JP) and Isuzu Motors (7202:JP).

Led by Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk, the 10-year-old automaker delivered 5,150 Model S sedans in the last quarter, beating a forecast of 4,500 vehicles. As first reported in our cover story last month, Tesla has ramped production at its Silicon Valley factory up to 500 vehicles a week. (You can see the factory in action here.) It’s also preparing to ship cars into Europe—Norway alone should account for 800 orders, the company said—and then Asia. Tesla’s revenue for the second quarter reached $405 million, up from $26.7 million in the same quarter last year (PDF). Excluding one-time items, Tesla posted an operating profit of 20¢ a share, which was a real shocker to the Wall Street analysts who expected a 20¢-per-share loss. Including all the special items, Tesla reported a net loss of $30.5 million, or a loss of 26¢ per share.

Investors in the after-hours markets drove Tesla shares up more than 12 percent to a 52-week high of $150.90. Tesla started the year trading at about $33 per share before a string of announcements generated interest in the stock and put the squeeze on short sellers who had bet the Model S would be a dud.

Tesla kept its sales forecast for the year steady at 21,000 vehicles but declared that it expects to ship 40,000 Model S units per year by late 2014.

Financial analysts joined Musk on a mid-afternoon conference call to discuss the results and did not seem bothered by their huge forecasting miss. One analyst asked Musk for his take on BMW’s (BMW:GR) electric i3. “I think there is room to improve on the i3, and I hope they do,” Musk said. At which point the analyst broke into a fit of giggles, only to be joined by Musk. This went on for some time.

Throughout the call, Musk insisted that Tesla has more supply problems than demand problems. The company continues to work out kinks in its factories, to get better deals from suppliers, and to try and improve gross margins by becoming more efficient overall. “It is not some story about how did we get super good,” he said. “It is how did we stop being so stupid.”

Close Tesla watchers will have paid special attention to what Musk said about the Model X, a SUV-minivan mashup based on much of the Model S technology. The car will arrive in late 2014 in limited numbers, then reach volume shipments in 2015, Musk said, which is probably a bit later than the optimists hoped.

Musk, also the CEO of SpaceX, flicked at the Hyperloop, as well. He’s been dropping hints about this mysterious invention for almost a year now; it’s said to be a new mode of superfast transportation. He will reveal a draft plan for the technology on Aug. 12 and open-source it, asking others to improve on the design. Musk does not plan to commercialize the technology unless it languishes for a few years without anyone else acting on it. “I have to focus on the SpaceX and Tesla,” he said. “That is more than enough.”
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Model_S_01.jpg

btw,
Porsche is on a streak of its own... plenty of nice cars coming into the used car market fellas.

http://press.porsche.com/news/pdf/2013/Porsche-Delivers-More-than-13700-Units-in-July.pdf

I'm very impressed with the Tesla cars and what they are doing. They are pissing off the Saudis though.

I put a ton of cash into TSLA early February. Hands down best investment I've ever made.

Lucky you. :)

I wouldn't mind an electric car for commuting at all, but until prices drop. :p

Tesla has certainly had a couple of very solid quarters, but the future is not entirely clear as:

1. They are facing problems with rulings in a couple of states (with others pending) that their direct to consumer sales breach state laws.

2. BMW is releasing its own electric vehicle, which will likely cut into their sales.

3. Other vehicles such as Porsche's new hybrid may also cut into sales of their upscale electric sedans.

Still, it is nice to see that with a combination of government assistance and good design they have managed to not only stay afloat, but to thrive to a relative degree.

Brad

Yea but who bought these cars? Celebrities buy them by the dozen like the Range Rover.

The Tesla is cool, but electric only vehicles are still only practical for short commutes. The range is only 200 miles at a constant Hwy. speed, spirited driving will kill the battery very quickly. Besides, they still consume fossil fuels, just via powerplants instead of directly. Powerplants have fewer environmental controls than autos, so I don't even buy the Eco-friendly angle.

The emission from a combustion vehicle as opposed to energy made in plants are completely different.
Unless you're using coal.

Yes, there are some differences, but also many similarities. (assuming non-Nuclear energy) Both rely on combustion of fossil fuels, and after Bush's de-regulation, plants can do a ton of environmental damage.

So true
 

Also the batteries used in electric vehicles are anything but eco-friendly. Marketing sells electric vehicles as green but it isn't true.

Electricity is not only 'green' if produced by nuclear plants, but also by wind turbines (popping up in huge numbers in various parts of the world), hydro (think of the Sir Adam Beck plant at Niagara Falls, but also various other smaller hydro-electric plants) and solar (which is becoming more and more prevalent). Furthermore, even when plants use oil to generate electricity, less polution will typically result at peak periods (aka rush-hour) as vehicles are using their stored electricity and recharging at night when there is typically less demand. Over time, as more and more electricity is converted to 'greeen' sources, the difference will become even greater.

At present there are many reasons to prefer gasoline or diesel engines, but contributing to the environment is not one of them.

Brad

There are at least 3 Model S Tesla's in my town (I've seen three different colors).

Just the other day, a guy in a Tesla pulled up to me and said "nice car" to which I replied "want to trade..."?

He said the car has been a rock solid daily driver for him.




/

Brad, I see you've drank the Coolaid. First, the US is unlikely to build any more nuke plants because of the minor inconvenience of the radioactive waste produced. Not very Green to just bury it in Salt mines. Hydro is also has a limited number of sources. Solar is a supplement at best, the power output is tiny compared to a traditional power plant. Ditto wind. I think you're being naïve to think "green" sources will ever produce the bulk of our energy. They are now switching to Nat. gas power because it's so cheap. Pollution is OK if it's produced at night instead of rush hour? Don't get me wrong, I think we should pursue all available energy sources, but other than Nuclear, they don't provide enough to meet demand.

Sorry for the thread derailment.... moving along......

I would sooner invite a daily kick to the groin than to even contemplate buying an experimental car from BMW. Ditto for Merc.

Which is precisely where the meat of the market is. Long range battery technology is an unecessarily expensive cost for the market that Tesla is apparently wiping the floor clean with. Elon Musk is a genius. I could care less about the 'green issue'. I'm more concerned with the 'greenback' issue. Consumers like the idea of paying $6 a gallon as much as they'd like to switch to energizer batteries for their rechargeable phones, tablets and laptops. A huge waste of money! And precisely what we do every time we fill up our tanks and make the oil lobby happy. These are billions, trillions of dollars that could be spent to come up with new ways of making electricity (ie Bloom). Dirty coal and insanely expensive nuclear plants can not continue to be the only way. It's economic Liliputianism. There is a fortune to be made in cars and new forms of energy production. We have to stop doing the same old same old even if it takes 40 years to flip the whole U.S. fleet.

Well yeah, the genius part was doing it on the taxpayer's Dollar ! (mostly) Large subsidies continue to make it viable. Granted, big oil receives huge subsidies, adding to an already very profitable business.

Neighbor went and bought a white model S. My main exigence for wanting an electric is not because it is "green", but filling up for less than 5 bucks. I don't think I ever drive more than 200 miles a day, even if I am running around in the DFW area. There are certainly good points in that these cars not green as the virgin forest, but I feel at least some electricity can be offset. There are times when I must commute, and times when I want to drive spirited. :)

There is no free lunch (or not for long).

The electric utilities can't wait for 30% of the public vehicle fleet to be electric - then they will jack the price of electricity (including at 2am) through the roof. You'll be paying e-equivalent of $7/gal.

You can be held hostage by the oil companies or the utility companies - but you're going to held hostage. :)

If you ever need to compete with China, then you're going to have to deal with concept of public funding to break new industrial ground that carry huge capital expenses and burn rates from hell. The new Asian economies have no issue with throwing trillions into new industries thereby articificially lowering prices that our private industries must compete with. Few investors are going to jump into that shark tank solo. So communist economies like China's stuff their pockets deep, employ tens of thousands, open up factory after factory and grow their economies with our missed oppourtunities because U.S. private equity only wants 'sure bet' investments that pay off in 12 to 18 months so that they can sell prospective investors on how good they are at beating the S&P. It's all short term while our competitors overseas focus on the big picture.
China has plans to FORCE hundreds of millions of their citizens to relocate from the countryside into their urban sectors just to fill up the assembly lines and to get at raw material.

Dismissing public funding could be understandable when the global economy consisted of only the U.S. This is a whole new game now.
Sovereign wealth funds and direct monetary injection by Asian central banks into their manufacturing sectors need to be factored in.

OK, let's see.....$60-100k...vs. $6/Gallon for gas, you're talking a pretty long payoff period for the short distance commuter. The people buying these can afford high gas prices! Let's face it, most will buy them for "green" bragging rights, just like celebrities do now with the Prius. I'll admit, it is nice to at least make an electric car that is fun, and doesn't look like a clown car.