Tog och skummade igenom
deras senaste årsrapport och har några funderingar.
1) De gör i Model S-avsnittet en uträkning som säger att en amerikan i genomsnitt skulle spara 1800 USD per år under de 6 första åren med Model S jämfört med motsvarande bil som drivs av fossilt bränsle:
Citat:
We have designed Model S to provide a lower cost of ownership as compared to other vehicles in its class. We consider the purchase price, cost of fuel and the cost of maintenance over a six year ownership period in this calculation. We assume comparable residual values, warranties, insurance costs and promotions and assume that currently available consumer incentives are still available at the time of a Model S purchase. In addition to the competitive pricing of Model S relative to other premium vehicles, we estimate that customers of electric vehicles will enjoy lower fuel costs. For example, assuming an average of 15,000 miles driven per year, an average electricity cost of 11.8 cents per kilowatt-hour and an average gasoline price of $3.24 per gallon over the full ownership of the vehicle which were the average electricity cost and gasoline price in the United States, respectively, for December 2013, and based on our estimate of the energy efficiency of Model S, we estimate that our Model S could save approximately $1,800 per year less in fuel costs than a comparable premium internal combustion engine sedan.
Senare i avsnittet Battery Pack sägs det att den estimerade livslängden för ett batteri är 7 år:
Citat:
We design our battery packs to safely store significant amounts of energy and to have long lives. For example, we have designed our Tesla Roadster battery packs to store 53 kilowatt hours of useful energy and to have an estimated life of over 100,000 miles or seven years.
Känns lite fult att beräkna genomsnittskostnaden för att äga bilen under de 6 första åren när batteriet blir kasst efter 7 år. Senare i samma avsnitt skrivs:
Citat:
For example, we currently expect that the Tesla Roadster battery pack will retain approximately 70% of its ability to hold its initial charge after approximately 100,000 miles or seven years,
Detta antyder att batteriet klarar sig längre än 7 år, men att prestandan då är 70 % av vad den var vid köp. Måste kunden köpa ett nytt batteri när det går sönder eller när laddningstaket blir olidligt lågt? I sådana fall, vad kostar det kunden och hur mycket tjänar Tesla på ett sådant köp?
2) Företaget går med förlust. De skriver öppet följande i bolagsrapporten:
Citat:
We have a history of losses and have to deliver significant cost reductions to achieve sustained, long-term profitability and long-term commercial success.
We have had net losses on a GAAP basis in each quarter since our inception, except for the first quarter of 2013. Even if we are able to successfully maintain our current Model S production levels, there can be no assurance that it will be commercially successful. In order to maintain profitability as well as long-term commercial success, we must continue to achieve our planned cost reductions and control our operational costs while producing quality Model S vehicles at volume, maintain and increase our Model S delivery rates to match our current and anticipated Model S production capacity, maintain strong demand for Model S in the U.S., and grow demand for Model S abroad in Europe and Asia. Failure to do one or more of these things could prevent us from achieving sustained, long-term profitability.
Alltså säljer de Model S idag med förlust och de är osäkra på om de någonsin kommer kunna tjäna på den modellen. Hur ser ni på det? Finns det anledning till att vara mer positiv till bättre marginal på kommande Model X?
Kikar man på resultaträkningen i rapporten för åren 2009-2013 står det mycket riktigt att de årligen gjort en nettoförlust. 2012 var förlusten 396 213 000 USD medan år 2013 var den 74 014 000 USD, så förhoppningsvis håller de på att vända trenden som annars har ökat varje år för de tidigare redovisade åren i rapporten.
3) Företaget verkar ganska beroende av diverse lättnader från staten:
Citat:
The unavailability, reduction or elimination of government and economic incentives could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.
Any reduction, elimination or discriminatory application of government subsidies and economic incentives because of policy changes, the reduced need for such subsidies and incentives due to the customer base of our electric vehicles, fiscal tightening or other reasons may result in the diminished competitiveness of the alternative fuel vehicle industry generally or our electric vehicles in particular. This could materially and adversely affect the growth of the alternative fuel automobile markets and our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results.
Our growth depends in part on the availability and amounts of government subsidies and economic incentives for alternative fuel vehicles generally and performance electric vehicles specifically.
Därefter ges ett första exempel att de har skattelättader på upp till 707 miljoner USD i Kalifornien:
Citat:
For example, we currently benefit from exemptions from California state sales and use taxes for purchases of up to $707 million of manufacturing equipment from our arrangements with the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. To the extent all of this equipment is purchased and would otherwise be subject to California state sales and use tax, we believe this incentive would result in tax savings by us through December 2016. This exemption is only available for equipment that would otherwise be subject to California sales and use taxes and that would be used only for specified purposes. If we fail to meet these conditions, we would be unable to take full advantage of this tax incentive and our financial position could be harmed.
Vidare förklarar de att man i USA får en tax credit på 7500 USD vid köp av en miljöbil och att deras affärsverksamhet är känslig mot lagändringar:
Citat:
In addition, certain regulations and laws that encourage sales of electric cars through tax credits or other subsidies could be reduced, eliminated or applied in a way that creates an adverse effect against our vehicles, either currently or at any time in the future. For example, while the federal, state and foreign governments have from time to time enacted tax credits and other incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel cars, funding for these programs is limited and there is no guarantee that our vehicles will be eligible for tax credits or other incentives provided to alternative fuel vehicles in the future. This would put our vehicles at a competitive disadvantage. As an example at the state level, California renewed the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program, a rebate program for the purchase of qualified alternative technology vehicles for 2013. Such funds, however, may run out or be limited in ways that would be adverse to purchasers of our vehicles. Subsequent purchasers could face a delay in receiving rebates since they would have to wait until the next fiscal year’s funding became available or be unable to obtain a rebate at all. Moreover, as more and more eligible EVs are produced, California will need to find additional sources of funding for this program or implement other options for removing eligibility for vehicles based on MSRP or customer income levels. These measures would almost certainly impact us in an adverse manner by making either our vehicles or customers ineligible for rebates. As an additional example, there is considerable discussion at the federal level over tax reform. Discussions have included reducing or even eliminating the current $7,500 tax credit available to purchasers of qualified alternative fuel vehicles, including Model S.
Genom hela paragrafen och avsnittet tycker jag mig läsa en oro över att skattelättnaderna kanske försvinner inom en snar framtid och att Tesla samtidigt i stor utsträckning är beroende av dem. Vilket jag kan förstå då de ännu inte går med vinst, trots alla skattelättnader och förmåner.
