Another (moderate) success for Musk...
Well, just goes to show, you can invite others to copy your battery designs and still make a profit...
Tesla's shares jumped seven per cent in after-hours trading after it announced a better than expected third quarter. The electric car manufacturer delivered just under 8,000 Model S sedans in the three months to September 30, generated $851m in GAAP revenue (up 97 per cent year-on-year) and recorded a GAAP net loss of $74.7m ( …
Just as a note, GAAP stands for "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" so non-GAAP means a model the company selected itself which shows the results they want. Its not necessarily wrong but its certainly a significant difference.
two sets of GAAP accounts should be reasonably comparable at least line by line (although there can still be some big differences in accounting policies especially relating to inventory and deprecation so the overall P&L or balance sheet figures may differ substantially) but non-GAAP figures are generally only comparable with the company itself year on year assuming no changes to accounting policy.
A less charitable view is that non-GAAP figures are the PR release numbers.
That brings back memories of the Groupon IPO, when they got slapped down for using non-GAAP numbers. Then sulkily said that they were right anyway. Then everything tanked after they'd sold the shares.
Or even further back during the dot.com bust shennanigans. Ah nostalgia. Do you remember when Amazon made profits? Well they were desperate to claim they did anyway. They were making growing losses on growing turnover, but had this super accounting metric which showed how if you took out the costs of everything, they were making loadsa money! I seem to remember they were even trying to amortise their stock over several years, which is an odd trick. Now it's the other way round, and they seem to be actively trying not to make profits.
Or i could work through a proper 3 month introduction to accounting course to understand financial reporting in detail... And yes there are lots of firms which publish non-GAAP numbers with some common conventions in certain industry segments
Its can be useful year on year for a given firm, provided the policy is reasonable and consistent
what you absolutely mustn't do however is treat non-GAAP as if its a single category which your comment implies. GAAP for all its faults is at least an external standard
As a selected industry though are you really wanting to use banks as an example of why its OK to pick your own financial reporting standard? (A better example is genuine property management firms where the difference can be do you treat a property as inventory for sale or not, inventory under GAAP gets marked at cost while investments get marked to market but again the policy differs between firms)
I guess my question here is why does a firm that's essentially a standard manufacturer need to deviate from standard accounting? (cool product yes but from a company perspective its still a company that makes physical things) . what is it in their business model which makes GAAP conventions not suitable for them when in summary they ought to be a very standard business just with a cool product
For example why do they have a non-GAAP revenue that's higher than GAAP? The article talks about excluding interest and stock costs , but neither of those should impact revenue
Whether it has an 'e-' in front, or not, SUV is a misnomer for the Model X. It is, I believe, better labelled a CUV - the 'C' standing for 'cross-over' (perhaps). Certainly the design is to the fluffy end of 'soft-roader'; the sort of vehicle that might, just, make it across a wet lawn rather than tackle anything resembling a ploughed field. Anyway, if it makes Elon and the tree huggers happy then so what - it still makes more sense than the civilian Hummers ever did.
This post has been deleted by its author
"I'd be quite interested in an electric SUV - even one made by Tesla. But there's no way in hell I'd buy a Model X. Sticking a letter from the arse-end of the alphabet on something doesn't make it cool."
No worse a designation than other nonsense in the SUV market: Qashqai, Toerag, Yeti, Tiguan, for example.
The interesting thing about Tesla is not the names, but that it is making attractive, aspirational electric cars. Not noncey, complex hybrids. Not Wendy-house-on-wheels, hair shirt cars. Not ponderous, dull-but-practical chuggers like the Prius. As far as I'm concerned Musk can call the cars what he likes, since I currently drive one of the vehicles whose names I've just ridiculed.
> since I currently drive one of the vehicles whose names I've just ridiculed.
Not the "Toerag", I imagine? ;-)
I think you meant Touareg, after the North African tribe, rather than something you would use to wipe your toes. Have to say though, "Toerag" has that "I've got nothing to prove so you can fuck off" sort of ring to it.
This post has been deleted by its author
> SUV is a misnomer
It's just a name, i.e., something that denotes a meaning given by convention.
Of course there is nothing "Sporty" about an SUV (unless you push it) and the Utility bit probably refers to taking the kids to / from school, but at least if someone says "SUV" we know they're not talking about a Land Cruiser, a Defender, or a Unimog, to mention three actual wheeled (not tracked) off-road vehicles.
When is he going to merge Tesla and SpaceX? I want a battery powered rocket.
The only question is, do you charge up the L-ion batteries and have an electric plasma drive, or just overcharge them, and watch the thing explode into the air instead?
What was it Boeing called it? "Venting with flame".
It's amazing they stop selling cars to retool the factory, have a GAAP net loss of $75 Million for the quarter and still claim to have made a NON-GAAP profit of $3 million this quarter. Few people can understand their accounting practices... I would imagine investors are going to start taking a much closer look at the numbers being offered.