All eyes on Tesla's Gigafactory


An audacious plan by Tesla Motors (TSLA) to build the world's largest lithium-ion battery factory continues to be the focus of the electric vehicle industry as the success of the Gigafactory could stand as the make-or-break point for the technology.

The company has narrowed the potential sites for the Gigafactory to Arizona, Texas, Nevada, and New Mexico with each state likely to throw in some incentives.

Despite the potential boost from state governments, the EV automaker still needs a large partner or two to share the costs of the massive project with it. Panasonic is the logical choice, but the company hasn't fully committed to investing in the Gigafactory.

What to watch: At the core of the strategy behind the ambitious Gigafactory project is a goal of slashing the cost of the lithium cell batteries for Tesla vehicles. Industry experts think the cost on Tesla's base 60 kWh battery could be brought down to $10K from $16K as production ramps up significantly. The wildcard in the mix is the potential of the Gigafactory to lead to disruptive energy storage innovation. Analysts are deeply divided on the issue.

From other sites
Comments (106)
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    "Panasonic is the logical choice, but the company hasn't fully committed to investing in the Gigafactory" Panasonic is the only choice if you want to build their cell design. What does "hasn't fully committed" mean? Either you are committed or you are not committed. Their is no advantage for Panasonic, especially if it wants Toyota's business, it doesn't want to aid its competitor. I think their is no way this will happen.
    29 Mar 2014, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    There is ZERO chance panasonic walks away from gigafactory. Toyota cell purchases from Panasonic are minuscule compared to Tesla's.

     

    Besides pitting Toyota against tesla makes little sense. Toyota is both a shareholder and customer of tesla. Toyota buys Panasonic cells from tesla in tesla battery packs.

     

    "Hasn't fully committed" is a benign term. There is nothing to be gleaned from it except its literal meaning. A Japanese company would never publicly decline to participate in a joint venture with an existing customer before informing them. If they were going to decline, tesla would already have been told.
    29 Mar 2014, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    Think of it in business terms. It is more profitable for Panasonic to sell Tesla the batteries it requires for the Gen-III cars than it is to invest billions in CapEx to produce a battery plant.

     

    From a corporate finance standpoint, this project does not make sense to Panasonic. Even if they are entitled to a portion of the production of the cheaper batteries. They are investing in a factory on the other side of the globe from their HQ to get a potential 30% reduction on batteries 3 years from now. Again, the 30% savings is not concrete and neither is the 3 year time-line.

     

    A $2-3 billion investment has to generate revenue substantially over the initial cash outlay. Anyone have numbers on how much revenue Panasonic will get out of this plant.
    29 Mar 2014, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    Panasonic will be paid an IP royalty for every cell the gigafactory produces. What they will not get is a profit margin on the percentage of output that belongs to tesla. If gen3 sells in the anticipated volumes, they will make a lot of money without the usual risk of building a factory upfront. The key is volume and tesla has shown they can generate demand for cells.

     

    Panasonic and its suppliers are only planning to invest $1 billion.

     

    http://reut.rs/1eF1iEo

     

    So while we know that Panasonic is not yet committed, we also know it has invited its key suppliers to join it in investing.
    29 Mar 2014, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    Do you have a source for the IP royalty as well as any indication on the royalty %?

     

    To figure out Panasonic's revenue. We would need the total potential cell output for the factory and the excess over the Model E requirements. We can then estimate the revenue Panasonic will earn.

     

    Your article, however, states that Panasonic and its suppliers plan to contribute $1 billion. If this is true it will result in a shortfall of $1-2 billion of CapEx for the giga factory. How will the difference be made up?
    29 Mar 2014, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    How else do you think it would work ? Panasonic has to be paid for its IP.

     

    There is no shortfall in funding. $3 billion gets you anywhere from 750 million to a billion cells capacity.
    29 Mar 2014, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    Is there currently no source confirming the royalty percentage or amount, or even confirming a royalty structure for the deal?

     

    Any source at all?

     

    Edit: According to Tesla's press release the giga factory requires $4-5 billion in funding. Do you have a source which states only $3 billion is required?
    29 Mar 2014, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (4406) | Send Message
     
    Anyone have any numbers on how much Panasonic will lose if Tesla forges ahead with another battery manufacturer and indeed develops new remarkable Li technologies?
    29 Mar 2014, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    There is no source on the royalty amount and there will never be. Such information is never disclosed.

     

    There will be a royalty structure for the deal. The owner of the IP has to get paid.
    29 Mar 2014, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    The factory will be be built in phases. The $4 to $5 billion amount is what will be spent by 2020. The first phase scheduled for 2017 only needs $3 billion.
    29 Mar 2014, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    The press release doesn't indicate that an initial $3 billion is required for the first phase. I can't find any other sources which cite a $3 billion initial cash outlay number. Everything refers to the $4-5 billion cost outlined in Tesla's press release. Appreciate if you provide a source for the $3 billion amount.

     

    As for the IP royalty deal. It will definitely be disclosed on Tesla's or Panasonic's next financial statement if the deal is agreed to by both parties. An IP royalty deal is material information. I'm asking if there are any sources, such as articles or a research analyst, which indicates a royalty structure for the battery partnership. There are other possible formats for the deal such as Panasonic receiving battery inventory from the giga factory.
    29 Mar 2014, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    The exact terms of a royalty deal would never be disclosed. Tesla has raised as much as they think they need to raise to kickoff the gigafactory. There is no funding shortfall. Like I said, $3 billion buys 750 million to 1 billion in annual cell production capacity. My source for $3 billion is the fact that tesla has raised $2billion and Panasonic is asking its suppliers to join it to invest $1 billion.

     

    The $4 to $5 billion figure is through 2020. Gigafactory Volume production is supposed to start in 2017. For Tesla's share of output, IP royalty is the only model that makes sense for Panasonic.

     

    Panasonic will receive battery inventory proportional to their ownership stake in the factory.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    As stated previously, the exact terms of the deal will absolutely be disclosed. Either in a press release or in the next financial statement release. Of course, this will occur after the deal is finalized or agreed upon.

     

    I'm asking if you have any sources (articles, research analyst statement or press release etc.) which backs your claims of a $3 billion factory start-up cost or the claim of a royalty revenue deal with Panasonic.

     

    If you don't then I have to take your statements as speculation not fact.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    What do you find implausible about $3billion. The biggest most efficient lithium ions battery plants in the world today cost about $1.2 billion. A $3 billions first phase for gigafactory would still be the biggest battery plant in the world by far. Tesla's gigafactory PDF clearly says $4 to $5 billion through 2020 with volume production starting in 2017. You can nitpick all you want. $3 billion gets you the biggest lithium ion cell in them world. There is no speculation there.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:23 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/1gCWEcD

     

    Clearly says $4 to $5 billion through 2020 with volume production starting in 2017. The entire $4 to $5 billion is obviously not needed for gen3 cell production to start.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    @doubleE

     

    The press release states $4-5 billion is need through 2020. We agree on that. However, I cannot find any shred of evidence that $3 billion is the total sum of capital required for the giga factory i.e. that the factory can be constructed and intends to be constructed with $3 billion in funding. We are not debating whether they can start construction with $3 Billion. We are debating on the total sum of capital required through 2020. If it's $4-5 billion as indicated by Tesla then there is currently a shortfall of $1 billion which must be made up during the construction of the factory.

     

    According to Musk and Tesla, $4-5 billion is required to construct a giga factory with the intention of producing batteries at a 30% cost reduction.

     

    You are speculating that Tesla will construct the giga factory with $3 billion in funding due to the existence of factories at a cheaper cost. The issue isn't whether a factory can be constructed with less than $4 billion. The issue is whether the giga factory, as outlined by Musk, which expects to reduce battery costs by 30% and produce supply for 500K Model E units can be constructed for less than $4 billion.

     

    If you have any evidence to support that the giga factory, with the goals outlined in the press release, can be produced for less than $4 billion, I would love to see it.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    Do we also agree that gigafactory volume production will start in 2017.

     

    If we do, then it is obvious that tesla needs less than $4 billion to kick off volume production in 2017.

     

    Are we in agreement up to this point.

     

    I never speculated that tesla will constructs gigafactory for $3 billion. I said it was enough to enter volume production and kick off gen3.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    The PDF also explicitly says the 30% cost reduction would be achieved by gen3 production ramp in 2017 not 2020. By 2020, the reduction is likely to be greater. There is no reason to believe that there is any financial impediment to building enough gigafactory capacity to support the launch of gen3 if Panasonic comes on board with $1 billion. Tesla currently has almost $3 billion in cash on its books.
    29 Mar 2014, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    "If we do, then it is obvious that tesla needs less than $4 billion to kick off volume production in 2017."

     

    This is the statement you need to clarify. According to the press release by Tesla, to meet the goal of producing 500k Gen III units in 2020, at least $4 billion is required. A shortfall of $1 billion changes the ability to meet this goal. It is a significant issue because the stock is valued on future Gen III sales.

     

    I hope you also understand that Tesla can't start constructing a $4 billion factory with a $1 billion funding gap and simply assume they will get funding by 2020. The markets would punish this strategy substantially. Tesla has to explain how it will fund the factory as well as detail the production schedule.

     

    You can't just sweep $1 billion under the rug and say its irrelevant because they have 6 years to come up with it.
    29 Mar 2014, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    There is no funding gap. In 2017, tesla will have a fully functioning factory producing cells that are 30% cheaper. The investments from 2018 to 2020 will be to increase capacity after the launch. 500k capacity will not be available or needed in 2017.
    That much capacity is not needed to launch gen3.
    If gen3 succeeds, There will be many options to generate those funds including cash flow from operations. Last quarter, tesla generated $40 million in operating free cash flow from the sale of 6900 model S. this will only grow as it enters china and the model X launches.

     

    If this funding shortfall is so glaring, how come no one else has seen it ?

     

    The PDF is clear. The $4 to $5 billion investment is through 2020 not 2017. It should be clear to you that some of that money will be spent after volume production has started.
    29 Mar 2014, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • Technology Equity Strategies
    , contributor
    Comments (3040) | Send Message
     
    One issue that comes up in joint ventures, and in OEM deals with committed capacity, is "take or pay" commitments. A normal OEM contract has committed capacity by a supplier, but no firm commitment by the customer until purchase orders are actually placed. This enables the customer to find out if it really has the demand for products before it becomes contractually committed to buy parts.

     

    But in a deal such as this where there is DEDICATED capacity owned by the customer, then it would be normal for there to be very large amounts of demand committed by the customer contractually.

     

    In other words, Panasonic would be saying "you want my technology, you want my knowhow, you want my best people working on this, you want my supply relationships, you want my money, you want to control the factory, you want it located where you want it...

     

    Ok, here's what I need. I get a very very big royalty on every unit you build. And you guarantee that you will build and pay me a royalty on a sufficient volume of batteries to support a minimum output, lets say 400,000 cars per year. You say you know you have demand. You say if you don't have that demand, you can build storage units for utilities. So sign up to it, big guy. Commit. I am not transferring this money and this technology without a long term, multiyear commitment. "

     

    All the discussion so far of this damn factory has been about the huge honor it is to supply Tesla, because Tesla just knows they are going to have all this demand. But that kind of happy talk is not how $5 billion factories get built. They get built with risk transfer, risk allocation, contractual commitments. If you talk the talk, you must walk the walk.

     

    Now those kind of contractual commitments become financial liabilities. They have to be disclosed to the public and accrued for in the balance sheet, and in the income statement.

     

    So lets all stop with the feel good talk. Joint ventures are hard. People hope they are win/ win. But often they are win/lose. Panasonic has a responsibility to its shareholders to defend them in this negotiation, so that they aren't left holding the bag if Gen 3 is late, small or unsuccessful.

     

    By the way, didn't Elon say he may move on after Gen 3 is delivered? Is Panasonic supposed to sit there and suck up all the risk and problems that can occur after that?
    29 Mar 2014, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Technology Equity Strategies
    , contributor
    Comments (3040) | Send Message
     
    double E.

     

    You can say it will never be disclosed. But if its material, and it will be, it is going to have to be disclosed. Lets ask the SEC about that. If Tesla does this nonsense about concealing it, its going to inevitably get disclosed in litigation.

     

    Does this company have any securities lawyers? Or thats just old auto companies who have to follow those old laws?
    29 Mar 2014, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    Too much guessing around here.

     

    Musk is on 60 minutes tomorrow night, maybe he will alleviate the information vacuum.
    29 Mar 2014, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • Technology Equity Strategies
    , contributor
    Comments (3040) | Send Message
     
    Ford, well he said his peace to Barron's today. That was illuminating.
    29 Mar 2014, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    How much does tesla currently pay for cells ? How about the leaf battery? How much does that cost ?

     

    We don't know for certain how much anyone pays for cells,,talk less of a cost breakdown.
    29 Mar 2014, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • Technology Equity Strategies
    , contributor
    Comments (3040) | Send Message
     
    double E,

     

    Ahhh, but those are garden variety OEM purchase commitments. The successful argument with the SEC is that those customary agreements, in the ordinary course of business and without minimum purchase commitments are not material. There is no question about this deal and its terms. Very very material. And not in the ordinary course of business.

     

    This one gets disclosed. My guess though is you are right, Tesla will not disclose it until it is ordered to do so by the SEC or a court. The laws don't apply to Tesla, after all.
    29 Mar 2014, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2326) | Send Message
     
    This really isn't that complex. They need $3b to construct the facility, do the tooling, set up the assembly lines for the INITIAL EXPECTED VOLUME. They don't need the other $1b until they start hitting larger volumes. They DON'T need to have the additional $1b lined up right now.

     

    Certainly, all the parties (and their investors) need to have reasonable confidence that such funding can be lined up LATER. But one of the major reasons they don't need to have it lined up now is an assumption that organic cashflow can be one of the major contributors. If the initial volume falls short of expectations, then they may never need the extra $1b (or its need may be delayed).

     

    Really not that hard. Companies do this all the time.
    29 Mar 2014, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (4406) | Send Message
     
    And, whether is eventually comes into play or not, Mercedes and Toyota are very interested in adding Tesla's powertrain to their EVs. It would be logical to assume the battery unit will be part of the deal and the volume of those cars *could* be equal or even greater than Tesla's own output.

     

    A factory such as this could provide batteries for any number of manufacturers while passing a slice of profit back to Tesla for pioneering the field.
    29 Mar 2014, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • Technology Equity Strategies
    , contributor
    Comments (3040) | Send Message
     
    Tricky

     

    The money is not the hardest part. Its technology transfer, and competition between the battery factory and Panasonic, which is still trying to sell batteries. The problems arise out of partial ownership, control, competition with the parent, incorporation of new technologies, buy out of the joint venture down the road, purchase commitments, and IP licensing from 3rd parties.

     

    Its actually enormously complex, and the money is in some ways the simplest. Joint ventures can take years to put together, and then years to unwind. Its a mess. One big problem in a JV is always getting IP rights from 3rp parties. Panasonic has cross licenses of patents, but they can't be transferred to new entities which are not wholly owned subsidiaries. Thats how patent cross licenses normally work. So every IP owner with a patent portfolio can have blocking rights.

     

    What if Dell announced one day that they weren't getting enough microprocessors, and had their own ideas on how to improve them. so they were inviting Intel to invest in a new microprocessor "giga factory'"

     

    And if Intel doesn't want to play, we will go to AMD. There would be peels of laughter, wouldn't there?

     

    This thing is half baked. When you say its simple, then with all due respect, you don't what you are talking about.

     

    This will be a huge distraction and delay, when Tesla is trying to run fast just making cars. The way this was put together is a blunder.
    29 Mar 2014, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2326) | Send Message
     
    Hi Tippydog,

     

    My comment was addressed to the gentleman who was insisting that "there is a $1bil hole" as if the project can't move forward until that hole is filled. I was merely pointing out that they only need to identify $3b *now*, because that's all they need now, the rest can be lined up at a future time, when the volumes require scaling up production.

     

    That particular concept = not complex.

     

    Now on the issue of disclosing royalties... I will first say I'm not an accountant, but I took a lot of it in undergrad and MBA. I think the disclosures will depend on the nature of the contract? For instance, if the agreement is solely a cut of future sales (which may or may not happen), then I would guess they don't have to book any liabilities now, it will just show up in COGS or SG&A as incurred? But if they were guaranteeing a minimum volume (and thus a minimum royalty), then I would guess that would have to be booked as a liability. And the need to call it specifically in disclosures will depend on how material it is, relative to the size of Tesla's general business. So... certainly *some* chance that disclosure will be required (I'd think Panasonic is demanding some level of guarantees on a deal this risky), but we shall see.

     

    Cheers.
    29 Mar 2014, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    @Tippy

     

    You mean this?

     

    "Tesla hasn't responded to Barron's queries since Musk hung up on us in an interview last spring."

     

    http://on.barrons.com/...
    29 Mar 2014, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • dieuwer
    , contributor
    Comments (2910) | Send Message
     
    Any if something goes wrong with the Li-batteries, there will be a GIGA EXPLOSION!

     

    You really want that factory in your backyard??
    29 Mar 2014, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • Technology Equity Strategies
    , contributor
    Comments (3040) | Send Message
     
    Ford,

     

    Exactly, thats Mr. Musk saying his peace.

     

    If it isn't some happy talk BJ, he shuts down, takes his toys and goes home. Thats not a the mark of long term staying power for a CEO or a company. Thats short term stuff. Long term players ENGAGE, even if its not a home town crowd.

     

    This what we see when its built on hype and childishness.

     

    Thus is character revealed.

     

    I'm not saying Tesla isn't impressive. I'm just saying this kind of stuff shows this company won't be the long term winner.

     

    Someone else with a better patience for the long game will be.
    29 Mar 2014, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • TAS
    , contributor
    Comments (3712) | Send Message
     
    Brings down the cost of the L-Battery in the Tesla from 16k to a mere 10k.

     

    I'm sure the 1% will sleep well at night as the rest of the population scrapes together enough cash for a used Cobalt. Cool.
    30 Mar 2014, 01:01 AM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    @tricky and @doubleE

     

    Guys. Can you send me a source? Any source, I've been asking for it since this thread started. Anything that states a $3 billion initial outlay is what's required to construct the factory and any additional capital required is for expansion of production? Anything? I appreciate the certainty with which you state your argument as fact. Please provide any source which supports the claim.

     

    Now, my main point, however, is not about the $3 billion required but how this effects the valuation of Tesla's stock. Tesla is priced at the expectation of 500k unit sales of Gen III in 2020 and a subsequent increase in sales every year after. Building the factory at $3 billion, as you said, is insufficient for the 500k unit production. According to Tesla, $4-5 billion is required. You mentioned that the Tesla can generate this from cash flows which is highly unlikely. Tesla generated $10 million in CFO net of CapEx in 2013. To fund a $1 billion shortfall, Tesla would have to generate over $200 million in cash flow (excluding cash flow from financing) annually until 2020. I don't see a 20x increase in cash flow (ex-financing cash flows) occurring. However, I do see further capital raising via debt or equity offerings.

     

    Tesla's stock is priced with the expectation of 500k Gen III unit sales in 2020. If Tesla does not close the $1 billion gap or if they don't need to because units will be much lower than the expected 500k then it's going to place negative pressure on the stock.
    30 Mar 2014, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    @Tippy

     

    Value of a Barrons article about Tesla - nil. who cares about their self pity. Their loss for being douches.

     

    NYT - on probation for being douches, their apology did not quite cut it in the public eye. Their reputation is slowly recovering but it will take some work.

     

    It is extremely important that Tesla owns it when it comes to the media and does not get owned by it. It's a double edged sword and it can be bought.

     

    Personally I am very happy that Barrons and Broder serves as a salutary warning to hack journalists. Tesla & Musk sells pages, but Musk is not coming sucking up and buying advertising spots in the hope of a favourable word is he. No they call him.
    1 Apr 2014, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    @Nigel

     

    "$200 million in cash flow annually"

     

    That all, what version of the financial reports are you reading?

     

    The ones from Tesla hover around the $50 Million of positive free cash flow quarterly as it is. They can double it without difficulty in the back half of the year. 2015 they have 2 models of vehicles to sell and we are led to understand cell supply sufficient to dish out 800~1000 cars per week as of 2H 2014.

     

    These numbers are a non issue.

     

    As for the factory. It stands to reason that the largest expense will be production equipment.

     

    A big empty shed is one thing equipment is another.

     

    This factory is principally produce one core product - a cell and then do the value added pack assembly.

     

    These are all processes that will require lots of duplication to arrive at volume capacity, the opposite if you like of one production line travelling at immense speed. Lots of parallel processing.

     

    Some processes will benefit from large scale, grinding and mixing precursors for example, most will simply have to be lots and lots of the same kind of equipment.

     

    It stands to reason that the factory can and will be configured to do everything it is supposed to do at low volumes and to iterate as many process optimisation and cost reduction studies as deemed necessary before duplicating optimised production lines to achieve a ramp up in production capacity.

     

    The difference therefore between a fully working factory and a facility in large scale production is very small in terms of added complexity and very large in terms of capital requirement.

     

    In other words it makes perfect sense to get the whole job done on $2bn and push the button on production ramp up expenditure after a significant pause for optimisation.

     

    1 Apr 2014, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    @ford

     

    Here's a link to Tesla's 10-K Cash Flow Statement

     

    http://1.usa.gov/1my0S95#

     

    Cash Flow from Operations = $257,994
    Cash Flow from Investing = ($249,417)
    Cash Flow from Financing = $635,422

     

    Tesla generated less than $10 million in cash flow from their operations when you take Capital Expenditures (i.e. investing in property, plant and equipment) into account (Cash flow from Investing)

     

    The entire cash gain in 2013 is from raising debt and equity.

     

    Going from less than $10 million in cash flows excluding financing to over $200 million is a pretty big leap. There's no 2 ways about that.

     

    No one's disputing the logistics of the Tesla factory. I am simply asking for any evidence which points to Tesla intending to start construction with less than $4 billion in funding. Any at all. So far none has been produced.

     

    Again, I'll say this because it bears repeating. I am not asking if Tesla CAN construct the giga factory with less than $4 billion in the bank. I am asking FOR any evidence which indicates they intend to do so.
    1 Apr 2014, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    @Nigel

     

    "http://bit.ly/1mqEvTh

     

    Positive free cash flow Q4 $40 Million

     

    from Q3 shareholders letter

     

    "Cash balance nonetheless increased by $49 million"
    1 Apr 2014, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • Nigel D'Souza
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    @Ford

     

    Fair enough on Q4 Free Cash Flow. Let's see the sustainability and growth of cash flows going forward. Have to wait for Q1 results to judge that.

     

    The only point of contention that remains is evidence or a source indicating that Tesla plans to start construction on the Giga factory with less than $4 billion in available funding.
    1 Apr 2014, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • joenjensen
    , contributor
    Comments (701) | Send Message
     
    Of course they don't have any numbers, everybody in SA has been guessing, even if they won't admit it.
    1 Apr 2014, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1758) | Send Message
     
    The odds are that a Giga anything would be subject to a cost overrun and projects delays. That seems to be congruent with Tesla's operations so far. Over budget and behind schedule. So given that 43% of large construction projects go over-budget by up to 71% and a smaller percentage are late, this needs to be factored in.

     

    The next problem is finding enough cash to fund ongoing operations that continually run a deficit. To date Tesla has lost over $1 billion dollars. That does not need to be paid back. But $600 million of long term debt is a problem. This debt rises every quarter since they are bleeding cash. (see table link below)

     

    http://bit.ly/1lXgB15
    12 Apr 2014, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    @I need a bailout

     

    Tesla has not lost $1 billion dollars.

     

    You repeat this often and it is not true.

     

    The company is profitable and cash flow positive. That is how it funds expansion at a rate of at least 2000% vs the remainder of the auto industry.

     

    They are not bleeding cash, they are in fact adding cash to the bank each and every quarter despite the aforementioned growth rate.

     

    The long term debt you refer to is in fact a GAAP adjustment that will be repatriated to the profit line of the GAAP accounts in January 2015. GAAP rules have been amended to prevent the confusion of amateur observers by the statements you are fond of promoting.

     

    It is important in investing to get a grip on reality.
    12 Apr 2014, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • Vico Confino
    , contributor
    Comments (249) | Send Message
     
    Vico Confino speaks

     

    Here we go again.
    The naysayers are saying Tesla must have a partner to share the 5 billion dollar cost of building the battery factory or it won't happen.
    If that's the best negative they can throw at Elon, they better go back to the drawing board.
    The 5 billion is "chump" change for Elon. If he wants it to happen like everything else the naysayers tried to shoot down, it will happen.
    Vico Confino
    Life begins at 81
    29 Mar 2014, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • pixelator
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    We love you, Vico.
    29 Mar 2014, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • mlauritz
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    Your understanding of Capital Markets & where Elon has his money is short-sighted.

     

    Elon cannot come up with $5B by himself without disrupting several (if not all) of his other arrangements; E.g. his ownership & controlling stakes of his other assets/companies, as well as, absolutely decimate the value of all of the above simply by selling such a large amount (The market is supply & demand guys!)

     

    I'm sorry; but the idea that he would liquidate his holdings to build this facility is pure silliness.
    6 Apr 2014, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • Skeptic84
    , contributor
    Comments (1268) | Send Message
     
    Panasonic is in the driver's seat here. If they're smart they'll withhold an agreement, wait for TSLA price to collapse with no deal and just buy the whole company for $4B.
    29 Mar 2014, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    Not really. There are other options for tesla. While they would no doubt prefer to move ahead with Panasonic, they could just as well do a deal with Samsung,LG or even BYD. Panasonic is not about to let one of their biggest customers walk.
    29 Mar 2014, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • Vico Confino
    , contributor
    Comments (249) | Send Message
     
    Vico Confino Clairvoyant
    Wake up Americans.
    Breaking News
    Had coffee at my regular Dunkin Donuts this morning.
    The owner has 20 franchises for Dunkin.
    He told me about a new "impact" fee the cities are enforcing.
    If you have side walk tables and chairs for your customers you must pay an impact fee.
    They have billed him $17,000 for just one of his stores.
    He told them that he had tables and chairs outside for 15 years without cost.
    They responded that he was paying for the 15 years he did not pay.
    Little stories you never hear about how this government is destroying itself..
    Vico Confino
    Saving my money to pay $5.00 for a donut and $10 for coffee at Dunkin Donuts

     

    Remember, these are the incompetent politicians you voted for.
    It is no longer who gets the most votes, it is the winning candidate who pays to buy them.

     

    Vote for me. I promise you two chickens in every pot and two Tesla autos in every garage.
    That's right. "Read my lips". It worked for that last guy.
    29 Mar 2014, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • AlphaCoils
    , contributor
    Comments (362) | Send Message
     
    Vico Confino for President!!!
    29 Mar 2014, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Vico Confino
    , contributor
    Comments (249) | Send Message
     
    Reply to AlphaCoils:
    From the desk of the next would be President
    Vico Confino

     

    Fellow countrymen and women, lend me your ears your eyes and while
    you're at it your wallets. Google: vicoconfinopresident.com
    View my last run for the Presidency.
    Vico Confino (81)
    "I have a great future behind me".
    29 Mar 2014, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    What a gamble! Changing battery designs with no experience of the batteries you will be using. A flaw could sink the company. Tesla talked to Samsung last year, BYD is a car maker why would they want to get involved with Tesla? LG already is building batteries for the Volt maybe they would be interested, but I don't think they would want to build in the US as the cost of labor is higher. No way without Panasonic.
    29 Mar 2014, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    BYD is one of the largest producers of 18650s in the world.

     

    So because LG already has GM as a customer, they would not want tesla. Sorry that logic eludes me. I thought the point was to sell to as many customers as possible.
    29 Mar 2014, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • haaggus
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    "The EV automaker still needs a large partner or two to share the costs of the massive project with it."

     

    It's a good sign for the TSLA stock that Tesla is not using it to pay for the gigafactory. Facebook has been throwing its stock around willy-nilly. Whatsapp and Oculus would've been purchased with cash if Zuckerberg thought the stock was going higher. FB know the stock is worth more like 40 per share. It's a good sign to be long TSLA that Tesla prefers to use cash and debt to buy things rather than parting with precious shares of the company.
    29 Mar 2014, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    I thought the bond issue diluted shareholders stock?
    29 Mar 2014, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    The gigafactory convert at $320. If they do convert, dilutive they will not be.
    29 Mar 2014, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (1847) | Send Message
     
    egrindle...... I believe he will first send TSLA cars to Mars ...then humans to install the battery stations. Where he's going "they don't need roads".
    31 Mar 2014, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    @docs trading

     

    And to think you were the guy handing out investment advice the other day.

     

    Double E - correct, except it was $360. Basically that's $2bn of upside insurance.
    1 Apr 2014, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • sailorguy1
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Does anyone remember when the roadster was bring built and everyone laughed that some geek would even think of using a battery pack from computers in series to run a car? I remember those days and thought this is awesome a simple solution that works. Now the same guys comes up with yet another simple solution that can work. Make lots of these batteries that work in the U.S.A. put them in a car and at the same time put them at your house and supply them with the sun. Another simple idea that everyone would have loved to come up with. Have enough cash on hand to make sure it will work and if it is running into a problem throw more cash at it. Sooner or later the simple solution is going to catch on and everyone uses it. Remember the time period for the first 10% of initial users is the same as the next 80% of the users taken you to 90% usage. If you do not have the infrastructure in place to handle the needs you will be lost. Side note... If you can install the equivalent of 1 Nuclear Power plant in 1 year with solar panels then why not install solar and get rid of Nuclear in places it can be replaced?To think the simple idea is built in a Gigafactory in Arizona, Texas, Nevada, or New Mexico places with lots of sun that could run on SOLAR POWER SUPPLIED BY WHO?
    So is this a gamble or an investment for someone with deep pockets. I think it is a bit of both and the potential payout of a game changer is huge. For the past how many years we have seen lots of Billionaires. Now it is time to see someone break the ceiling to being Trillionaire. ( this is not even a word yet found in spell check)
    Stop thinking about your investment in the next 10 minutes or 3 years and start thinking about your investment in 2020 and beyond. If we do not see a game changer in my life time my children will not have a chance of tipping the scales back to keep our world in step for the nest generations to come.
    Does anyone realize Presidents put land aside for the future generations by creating massive parks in this country. They were not thinking about the next election or even 20 years but 5 and 10 generation down the road!
    29 Mar 2014, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    Somehow it appears that Tesla bulls are willing to believe Musk no matter how wild his ideas. His colony on Mars is the most wild, but to expect to sell 500,000 cars in 2020 at an ASP of $35-40K is a wet dream. BMW one of the best run auto companies with over 20 models, 390 dealers and a $1.8 billion advertising budget only sold 377,000 cars in the US in 2013. They were so pleased that they are expanding their North Carolina plant by 50%. Dream on.
    29 Mar 2014, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    500000 is a global sales forecast. And it looks very doable.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • AlphaCoils
    , contributor
    Comments (362) | Send Message
     
    @fgrindle, on your profile you say that you were
    "very long on Apple (bought my first 1000 shares at $16.) in 1997."

     

    Really surprised you are not long TSLA. Don't you see the parallels between AAPL then and TSLA now?
    29 Mar 2014, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • Darren McCammon
    , contributor
    Comments (3628) | Send Message
     
    I predict the factory will be in the Reno/Tahoe industrial park off USA parkway, between Sparks and Fernley, NV. Industrial area with plenty of space. Easy access to highway 80 and major east west train route. Roughly equidistant between southern NV and northern NV lithium mines. Power from nearby NV energy powerplant as well as main natural gas line. Relatively cheap labor force from Fernley and Sparks. Air service between Tesla plant (via San Jose or Oakland) and gigafactory (via Reno / Tahoe airport). It makes all the sense in the world.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:22 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    Are you also going to Mars also? How can you know its doable? Elon said so?
    29 Mar 2014, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    This year,tesla will sell 35000 cars at an ASP north of $90000. In its second full year of production. With just one model !
    Do you know how hard it is sell cars in that price range. It is relatively easy to move downmarket when you have a successful flagship model. The success of the model S and the model X pretty much guarantees the success of the model E and it SUV derivative. 500000 is not beyond the realm of imagination. It is certainly no more implausible than describing the current market performance of the model S in 2010 when it wash first announced.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • Technology Equity Strategies
    , contributor
    Comments (3040) | Send Message
     
    double E.

     

    If you look over the world of technology, the winners are the companies that start down market and work up, not high cost and work down.

     

    Apple and Intel, not Apollo and Sun. Autodesk moves up an takes the whole engineering market, not the old Computervision.

     

    Thats the lesson from the technology curve. Much harder to take cost out from above, than to add features and performance from below.
    29 Mar 2014, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • AlphaCoils
    , contributor
    Comments (362) | Send Message
     
    Nissan Leafs are selling left and right with a less than 100 mile range. When ME starts rolling out with more than double the Leaf range (with free fuel to boot, supercharger network will be fully rolled out at that point) the demand will be insane!
    29 Mar 2014, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (1670) | Send Message
     
    "If you look over the world of technology, the winners are the companies that start down market and work up, not high cost and work down."

     

    I think the winners are usually the ones with a great product that comes along at the right time. Tesla is leading the way and they also seem to be far ahead of everyone else.

     

    As for price, there is a kind of myopia here I think. Back in the 80's, a "home computer" might cost $100. Today, an iPhone sells like hot cakes for $850. If someone buys 1K or 3K or 40K worth of the best available technology does it really matter how much the previous generation cost?

     

    Tesla sells, and will continue to sell, a relatively expensive car that refuels at home very cheaply and is ridiculously better and safer than anything else out there.
    29 Mar 2014, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4382) | Send Message
     
    Tesla is different from other high tech companies like Apple in that Tesla has had the vision of moving downmarket from the beginning. High tech companies that bring out one version of their technology at an introductory high price point and then think they can rest on their laurels get eaten alive by competitors that come in at lower price points and grab all the market share. Notice how Apple is conceding its market share to Samsung and others because it doesn't want to compete at the low end of the market. Tesla is different. Their plan from the beginning was to bring out a series of innovative electric vehicles, each at a lower price point, and each one earning the money needed to develop the next product in the series. They're not letting the company's management take excessive compensation for excessive profits. They are plowing that money back into the company's growth and Elon Musk is only taking $1 per year.
    30 Mar 2014, 05:51 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1758) | Send Message
     
    @arondaniel

     

    "Back in the 80's, a "home computer" might cost $100"

     

    Not so!

     

    I bought a Radio Shack TRS80 model 1 computer with 4K of ram for just over $1000 CDN in 1980. This was for home use. US price back then was $600.

     

    http://bit.ly/1id93Y1

     

    They sold 10,000 in the first month alone!
    12 Apr 2014, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Econ Student
    , contributor
    Comments (248) | Send Message
     
    There will be a trillionaire by 2030 and Elon Musk is the candidate to get there. He has 3 different companies which spreads his risk unlike Zuckerberg and Bezos. He may start even more companies. If he pools off the hyperloop that would make him a trillionaire with just that one project. I'm waiting for the SpaceX IPO which I think could eventually be more valuable than Tesla.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1758) | Send Message
     
    Yes MR Musk has more fingers in more pies than your average bakery.
    12 Apr 2014, 08:15 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    "Yes MR Musk has more fingers in more pies than your average bakery."

     

    If you look what Musk is involved in, the synergies are the predominant feature.

     

    There is plenty of aerospace in the Model S and plenty of production line efficiencies at SpaceX. Matter of fact Musk hired Andy something from BMW to run production at SpaceX - sure he can call on BMW expertise any time he wants for Tesla.
    12 Apr 2014, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    Musk does not own Solar City. He sells them battery packs and is a board member. Bezos and Zuckerburg are richer than Musk will ever be. Space X has a limited life once the space station is shut down, so I a not sure it will go public. Tesla reminds me of Next. Steve Jobs got funding from Ross Perot ($50M) and IBM ($100M). He then proceeded to build a very large factory costing millions. He thought he would sell Next computers to researchers for $1000. When the design was finished it cost more like $3000. He ended up going out of business. Luckily Apple bought Next (and Jobs) for $400 million. The rest is history. When Jobs died his fortune was worth about $8 billion! Six Billion was Disney stock (from his sale of Pixar) and two billion was Apple stock. It's not easy to become a Billionaire much less a Trillionaire.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (4575) | Send Message
     
    Elon musk owns 25% of solarcity. You skepticism is only matched by your lack of knowledge on the topic you choose to be skeptical about.
    29 Mar 2014, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • debbyclowney
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    and Solar City is run by his cousin, if I have my facts straight
    30 Mar 2014, 05:28 AM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (1847) | Send Message
     
    fgrindle.... .... He is CEO !
    31 Mar 2014, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    Solar City is run by his cousin

     

    Two of his cousins, Peter & Lyndon.

     

    Musk not CEO, Chairman (and the founding investor).

     

    Also basically Musk's concept combined with massive distributed data or computing management skills that Lyndon and Peter brought to the party. The sort of skills required to manage an organisation spread around large amounts of company owned off-site equipment and billing.
    1 Apr 2014, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • Bruce Miller
    , contributor
    Comments (2110) | Send Message
     
    "If you have side walk tables and chairs for your customers you must pay an impact fee."

     

    Kinda reminds me of England in the 1960s and 1970s. There was a tax on just about anything....some of these taxes were ridiculous. So it became a giant game in the citizenry figuring out tax work-arounds. The welfare state is expensive.

     

    And I haven't seen it mentioned, but isn't lithium in limited supply. As I recall, there some desert in Chile that holds most of the world's Li but the Chilean Government was making noises like it would not allow it to be mined except on a limited basis. But is this an issue?

     

    BruceM
    29 Mar 2014, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (4406) | Send Message
     
    Bruce

     

    Li is not an issue, perhaps setting up processes to continually 'mine' it will take commitments. Not so far away, either.

     

    http://bit.ly/13TV1Ga
    29 Mar 2014, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    I guess you are right. I didn't know Musk had that big an interest in Solar City. Still their stock is off its high of $88 down 25% to $61. Not trillionaire stuff. It seems that you have to sign a 20 year contract to have Solar City as a provider. At 77 years old they didn't want to speak to me!
    29 Mar 2014, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4382) | Send Message
     
    Lots of people live to 97 these days. And I've never heard of anyone saying Solar City turned them down because they were too old for a 20 year contract. As a matter of fact, old people sign 30 year mortgages and 7 year car loans without a second thought. And even young people die. I'm sure there are loan provisions covering the death of the homeowner. It's more likely that you don't live in a neighborhood that SolarCity covers yet, or they drove by your house and didn't like the way your roof was pitched.
    30 Mar 2014, 06:01 AM Reply Like
  • Water Brothers Financial Co...
    , contributor
    Comments (382) | Send Message
     
    If you get to the bottom of all of your comments - and they are that because if you all knew how to build a battery plant you would, etc. The amazing thing here is that he raised this money through the corrupt MS promotion and a bull market and CNBC hype - the amazing thing is he raised money for a plant without disclosing if or who he had as a partner and where the rest of the money was coming from. What if he never builds the plant - not in ca, nev, nm , az like all of you WHO KNOW - and uses it for working capital. This business plan is insane, amateurish, totally irresponsible and buttressed by phony financials, an early stage car. The Tesloans presume this is the first company in history that will never have a glitch or bad year or product liability or competition and it is the first company I can remember raising three billion dollars and saying we will tell you who will bring the other billions later. It's insane and the SEC is useless. He is building space X to colonize Mars so he has somewhere to escape to when the s hits the fan.
    29 Mar 2014, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    "Water Brothers Financial Co..."

     

    umad bro?

     

    I can tell you this from a shareholder's perspective (the ones the CEO has a duty to represent).

     

    100% approval rating. Good job.

     

    You guys seem to forget that CEO's don't represent the interests of the shorts. I am only too delighted when he takes your money instead of mine when he wants to go shopping.
    29 Mar 2014, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • Water Brothers Financial Co...
    , contributor
    Comments (382) | Send Message
     
    So phony financials and no battery factory partner are in your best interests? Someday soon you will be calling for his head I predict.
    30 Mar 2014, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    I'm with the SEC on that one, no phoney financials - and yes my preference would be the least number of partners in the pie as humanly possible.
    1 Apr 2014, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    I agree. Besides the Morgan Stanley hype, it seems that news of a "secret meeting" between Musk and the M&A manger at Apple. Rumors were then started linking Apple to the Gigafactory. Strange the timing of the leak. People thought 2 billion from Tesla, 2 from Panasonic and 2 from Apple. Never is going to happen.
    29 Mar 2014, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • rambler1
    , contributor
    Comments (977) | Send Message
     
    59 comments so far, but what does it mean for the stock?
    29 Mar 2014, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (1081) | Send Message
     
    It means it is volatile.
    29 Mar 2014, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1918) | Send Message
     
    Anyone do the math?

     

    16 K/60 kwhr = $266 per kWh

     

    10 k/60 kwhr = $166 per kwhr

     

    Anyone wager what Nissan's or GM's cost per kwhr is currently?
    29 Mar 2014, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4382) | Send Message
     
    I'm pretty sure that no one else in the industry comes anywhere close to the current $266 per kWh. They're probably all above $366 per kWh. They're probably losing money on every electric car they make, or at best breaking even.

     

    Of course, that's better than developing a technology like fuel cells that they're never going to be able to put into mass production. Those entire development efforts will have to be written off as total losses. At least with battery EVs its only a matter of eventually getting the costs down. You don't have to assume that by an economic miracle it will suddenly make sense to convert other energy sources to compressed hydrogen at great expense instead of using that energy directly to propel vehicles.
    30 Mar 2014, 06:17 AM Reply Like
  • Rik1381
    , contributor
    Comments (1402) | Send Message
     
    Nissan sent out a survey to Leaf owners that included a question asking how much of a price premium they'd be willing to pay for a Leaf with 150 mile range. The highest number one could pick on the survey was $5000. If we assume the Leaf battery needs another 20 kWh to achieve 150 mile range, then at $5k that's $250 per kWh.
    30 Mar 2014, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    Chrysler CEO on record - losing $10K on every Fiat 500e sold, no interest in rolling it out, refers to it as financial masochism.

     

    Was reading an auto industry report today.

     

    To summarise: Auto industry not taking EVs seriously. General consensus, really surprised by the success of the Model S, Still do not take the treat seriously that the Gen III will ever materialise.

     

    Perfect head in the sand stuff - as expected in a disruptive technology impingement on a large and fat industry ready to have a fork stuck in it.

     

    So much for Tesla's competition - apart from the FCV thing that is worth a closer look, no genuine competition on the horizon for Tesla - thats the word on the street in the auto industry.
    1 Apr 2014, 02:33 PM Reply Like
  • davelane814
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    One question, with this exponential growth of EV's who is making sure that there are enough charging stations/infrastructure in place to accomodate this increasing demand?
    30 Mar 2014, 05:16 AM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (1252) | Send Message
     
    davelane,

     

    For long range travel: Tesla only - see "superchargers".

     

    For short range travel or charging more slowly: Chademo, CCS, J1772, etc.

     

    Most charging is done on the most widely available charging system of all: the grid via your own household supply, usually overnight while you sleep. That gives you billions of charging points all round the world.

     

    And the Tesla Models S can use all of them!
    1 Apr 2014, 04:48 AM Reply Like
  • jblee
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    1. Panasonic gets a huge leverage to survive in today's Japanese economic
    2. The financial resource provided by Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi - UFJ may have moved into the last stage of application. The deal may have been structured with long-term IRS, CAP, Floor
    3. Toyota has made 10 folds of investment return on Tesla, Panasonic is open to survive or to face what happened to Sony, Sharp last year.
    4. Japanese bankers as traditional, will never tell media if there is a commitment for a loan even the loan is sealed.
    30 Mar 2014, 05:33 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    jblee

     

    Thank you kindly for your comment. It seems to me that you are commenting from Japan with local knowledge.

     

    "Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi - UFJ may have moved into the last stage of application"

     

    Do you have reason to believe that Panasonic has applied for lending to fund a bid to partner with Tesla on the Gigafactory. This would be very interesting new information,

     

    Again thank you

     

    "
    jblee 2

     

    1. Panasonic gets a huge leverage to survive in today's Japanese economic
    2. The financial resource provided by Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi - UFJ may have moved into the last stage of application. The deal may have been structured with long-term IRS, CAP, Floor
    3. Toyota has made 10 folds of investment return on Tesla, Panasonic is open to survive or to face what happened to Sony, Sharp last year.
    4. Japanese bankers as traditional, will never tell media if there is a commitment for a loan even the loan is sealed.

     

    "
    1 Apr 2014, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • 123man
    , contributor
    Comments (1603) | Send Message
     
    Elon is worth just shy of 8 billion, so he has the gigafactory within his own financial capacity - perhaps this is why he has taken his present path - he wants, but does not need other players - hanging up on a nagging reporter who keeps saying "tell me everything" is just common sense - I like the way he plays his cards, poker at its best - all the other guys want to play "go fish" -
    30 Mar 2014, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1758) | Send Message
     
    @123man

     

    Elon went into debt to buy Tesla shares.

     

    As this article says, there is a lot of collateral on that $275 million dollar Goldman loan.

     

    http://read.bi/106TBRA
    12 Apr 2014, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    @I need a bailout

     

    http://read.bi/Qig1ka

     

    Here is a link worth having.

     

    Holy mackerel look at that graph!!!!

     

    Big BIG trouble inbound for any kind of transport that is NOT directly solar compatible.
    12 Apr 2014, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (1847) | Send Message
     
    Good morning debaters.... to repeat the latest news is Musk is first sending TSLA cars to Mars... White ones not red so as not to clash with the planets terrain... then humans to install the charging stations ...and finally... "where he's going ..they don't need roads".............
    lol
    31 Mar 2014, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (3941) | Send Message
     
    123man: Elon is worth $8 billion based on his holdings in Space X, Solar City, and Tesla. He has no way to get the 3-4 billon required for the Gigafactory, neither does Tesla have the know how.
    31 Mar 2014, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (1252) | Send Message
     
    fgrindle,

     

    Tesla already has $2 billion. That's enough to "break ground" on the Gigafactory.

     

    It will take up to three years before the factory is starting production and that only needs one production line initially, exactly like the early days of the Fremont car factory.

     

    Meanwhile, the production of Model S and X cars will continuing to ramp up, helped by the increasing supply of cells from Panasonic.

     

    Even if Panasonic or others don't invest in the factory the cash needs will be met by the time production starts, and further increases in car production (by then the Gen 3 platform will be rolled out) will enable the building of extra lines until the factory hits full production round about 2020. This will nicely correspond with full production in the Fremont plant.

     

    Panasonic will not lose out either, even if they don't invest, as by 2020 they will be supplying 15 GWh of cells to Tesla to supplement the Gigafactory's 35 GWh.

     

    With the current cells that is roughly 1.2 billion cells in one year, a huge increase over the present contract for 1.8 billion cells over a four year span, but fully in line with Panasonic's ramp up in deliveries to Tesla by 2017. Even if the expected small increase in cell energy density happens in the next few years Panasonic will still be making about 1 billion cells for Tesla in 2020. Compare that with the approximately 150 million cells Tesla used in last year's production.

     

    And by the time Tesla is approaching 200,000 cars per annum I expect to be hearing about the next car factory and Gigafactory!
    1 Apr 2014, 05:22 AM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (1847) | Send Message
     
    TSLA.. Technical update:: Expect an advance ending on the third day....227-230 supply area should halt the advance unless accompanied by more than 14 million share daily volume. Longs raise your stops to 206.90 from the 200 level... shorts be prepared to be stopped out at the 230-233 level.
    more later....
    1 Apr 2014, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (1847) | Send Message
     
    TSLA....225....ATTN...... I know I advised for a three day rally and today is only day two.... Advise selling 1/2 positions here....volume very bad.. too light.
    Sell balance tomorrow or raise stop to 213.90 today from the 207 area.
    more later.....
    2 Apr 2014, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (1847) | Send Message
     
    Tech analysis update.... Recommend selling balance position or raise stop to 227.90 from 219.90. Max rally point is 240-242.....heavy supply and .682 % recovery from 202 (265). Now recommend selling April 11 expiration 242/247 call spread. believe full credit will be collected .....more later
    3 Apr 2014, 09:59 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs