[notenoughstuff]

>Check out their free cash flow [1]. You'll see that it's always in the red before production scales up (Model S first, then the X, and now the 3).

That's a charitable interpretation. From your link it's nearly always significantly in the red, outside of a couple anomalous quarters 5 years ago, and the one quarter they sold a bunch of ZEV credits.

It certainly doesn't look like "it's positive, except when they're scaling up!" to me. I guess one sees what they want to see.

[martythemaniak]

This is because they're always spending money to grow. They do this because they want to grow and are growing. This graph shows you they spent money to launch the Model S, then went profitable. After this they invested to launch the X, then went profitable. Then they invested to launch the 3, and now this year they aim to be profitable again. And you know what they're going to do after that? Spend money to launch the Y and Semi, then go profitable.

Can they use the profits from S/X to deliver the 3? Yeah, but not on the timelines that their customers and the market demands. People want their Model 3s today.

One sure mark of a hater is that there doesn't exist a configuration of reality that will satisfy their objections. Is Tesla spending borrowed money to accelerate their growth and deliver products sooner? They suck, they should be profitable. Are they using solely their profits to expand more slowly? They suck, because they're having trouble delivering their products on time. Great, awesome contribution.

[notenoughstuff]

>This graph shows you they spent money to launch the Model S, then went profitable.

The graph doesn't "show" anything. You are interpreting it in a specific (favourable) way. I don't agree. Also, free cash flow positive is not "profit".

>One sure mark of a hater is that there doesn't exist a configuration of reality that will satisfy their objections.

Oh, there it is. Any criticism means you're a hater.

I'm looking at the numbers. That's reality. You, on the other hand, are operating on future assumptions that may or may not come to pass. "Becoming profitable" isn't a given, just because Elon said so. As of right now, they are losing money at an accelerating rate. I guess we'll see.

And by the way, I'm not hater. I can see Tesla being the next Mazda, who make some of the most popular cars in my area. Great cars, great company. Do you know what its market cap is? $8BB. At Tesla's current market cap they need to build millions and millions of cars at substantial profit. You can believe that they'll achieve that and an investment today still wouldn't be worth it. Does that surprise you?

[martythemaniak]

What you're missing is that Tesla does not want to be a Mazda, nor a Ford, nor even a Toyota. They want to be an industrial behemoth that powers every part of the carbon-free economy. They want to be a GM, GE, ConEd, Exxon and Uber rolled into one. This is not some bizzare internet conspiracy, this has been stated in plain English multiple times and has been voted on by their board.

Now, you might think that's too risky, too ambitious, or they'll never be able to execute etc. Whatever. But you can't judge them based on your own made-up ideas and standards.

[Semirhage]

He already pretty clearly said what he thought. I'm looking at the numbers. That's reality. You, on the other hand, are operating on future assumptions that may or may not come to pass

Meanwhile your counterpoint is a very vivid fantasy of what Tesla wants to be beyond a car company, which is something it’s not doing particularly well. You’re engaging in just the kind of fantasy “Future assumptions” in question, and really just buying into empty PR and marketing. The evidence suggests that Tesla is a car company, and struggling to be just that. It’s an act of intense mental gymnastics to say that no, they’re not just a car company, they’re a whole economic sector that started as a car company... before they’ve even pulled off step 1. Maybe they will be, but the odds are not in their favor, and it’s going to be a moot point if they can’t even turn a profit on their cars.

Arguing from an imagined future should be the job of marcom, not you. It’s not a failure of imagination or a lack of faith for rational people to look at what is, not a vision of what may or may not ever be.

[notenoughstuff]

>They want to be a GM, GE, ConEd, Exxon and Uber rolled into one.

They have a long way to go to be compared to any single one of those companies, let alone all of them combined.

Betting on any company to be the biggest in the history of history is a fool's errand.

>But you can't judge them based on your own made-up ideas and standards.

I can't judge them by my standards? News to me.

[toomuchtodo]

What if they’re GE and not Mazda? The world needs an incredible amount of stationary storage to use renewables alone for generation.

[Semirhage]

Can they use the profits from S/X to deliver the 3? Yeah, but not on the timelines that their customers and the market demands. People want their Model 3s today.

Is it about what people demand, or what they promised when taking deposits?