[rascalpenguin]

I imagine this is because the majority of revenue is spent on growing the buisness, rather than going into profit (As profit = revenue - expenses). As Tesla still has a lot more space to grow. Same method Amazon did until recently for years.

[matt4077]

Yes, but note that a lot of investments can be made without reducing profit.

"Expenses", in this sense is not "cash out". When you buy a building, you're just moving value from one store to another (cash -> assets). Only the deprecation (something like 5% p.a. for a building) has an impact on profits.

(although, for technology companies, investments often hurt profits more than for more traditional companies, mainly b/c typical tech investments are hard to value accurately and therefore deprecate immediately or faster – self-created IP as one example)

[sova]

Excellent! Thank you for pointing that out. "Profit" is a comical term, how can we measure the net savings for humanity-at-large from such endeavors?

[vinceguidry]

I wouldn't exactly call it comical. It's just that it's a political term rather than a financial one. Deciding to take a profit this year is an important signifier for the investors, who all must have the same question in mind, how long is it going to take for their investment to pay off.

As long as Musk decides to roll all revenues back into operations, investors get nothing. Musk has a reputation as someone who doesn't really care all that much about his investors, this is a move carefully designed to massage that image. Musk still doesn't care about his investors, but throwing a little cash their way keeps their voices from building to a crescendo.

As for what humanity is getting out of the deal, they already got the Model S and X, it's soon going to get the 3.

[maxerickson]

humanity is getting out of the deal, they already got the Model S and X, it's soon going to get the 3

Let's not be too breathless when we describe the cars that a few hundred thousand of the wealthiest people on the planet have purchased.

[vinceguidry]

> Let's not be too breathless

Well, you know, I wasn't. The opposite actually.

[Analemma_]

... at a considerable cost to taxpayers in what was essentially a large upward wealth transfer.

It might be worth it in the end, but call a spade a spade.

[eanzenberg]

In the US gas is subsidized to hell. It's not even close compared to EV credits paid out.

[Reason077]

The ZEV credits that Tesla receives, and sells on, aren't paid for by taxpayers - they're paid for by other automakers.

Ultimately, it comes out of the profits of whichever automakers aren't producing enough low-emission cars.

[rmah]

Gasoline is not subsidized, it is heavily taxed.

[hx87]

> As long as Musk decides to roll all revenues back into operations, investors get nothing.

Don't investors get a higher-valued company (and thus higher share price)? At the end of the day, capital gains is capital gains, whether it's realized via dividends or share buybacks or not.

[greglindahl]

Most investors value growth as well as income. And that's especially the case for Tesla investors, who bought a stock that has a ton of growth already priced into it.

[rascalpenguin]

Yeah that's right. Further, it's not that Musk just tells investors to go do one for humanity. They know if they let the business grow more now, they get even larger profits later.