| >so it made sense to raise It totally makes sense, I agree. Just seems odd to say we won't, and then do, repeatedly. >And it's a myth that Tesla doesn't do any profit. For example last quarter Tesla got around 354M in regulatory credits (this is what the anti-tesla crowd likes to point out) but the net income was 1.14B. It's only a myth if you don't actually examine the underlying accounting. Regulatory credits, realizing deferred revenue on FSD (which doesn't exist), expanding the accounts payable, cutting R&D, bitcoin speculation... All of these things affect the income statement in a way that pumps income that may or may not even be sustainable. All so people will say "look, profits!" Are they marginally profitable now? Maybe, but that's nothing to brag about at a market cap of over half a trillion dollars. >not like the oil industry hasn't had it's insane amount of subsides over the years. So, what's your point here? Did I say oil companies deserve subsidies? Am I looking at the financials of Exxon? Being as how Tesla vehicles have tires, plastics, a supply chain...they also benefit from oil subsidies. What does this have to do with anything? |
Decent to do more than a billion in profit and they are a growth company with Giga Austin and Giga Berlin opening soon. When amazon had a similar market cap they did around 800m in profit. It's ofcourse easy in retrospect to say that amazon was a winner, but of course it was an unknown to investors and everyone placed their bets back then.
And my point with subsidies is that they affect the outcome, as they exist they have an effect on the business, and should be valued as such.