Following a second-quarter loss of $52 million, Tesla has just posted a Q3 loss of $65 million.
According to Tesla's shareholder release, this is good news.
"We are pleased to report another quarter of strong performance. Total revenues in the third quarter were $58 million, up 85% from Q3 of last year. Automotive sales grew by almost 11% from last quarter due to solid Roadster demand and powertrain component sales. Total gross margin was 30%, our fifth consecutive quarter of achieving 30% or higher gross margin."
During this period Tesla delivered 184 Roadsters, a 22 percent increase over last year. The Tesla Roadster currently sells for $109,000.
Tesla also posted revenue of almost $15 million from powertrain component related sales and $29 million from production agreements with Daimler and Toyota.
Tesla blames the loss ($0.55/share on a non-GAAP basis, $0.63 GAAP) on continued investments in R&D and on supporting the launch of the Model S.
They are currently sitting on cash resources of $334 million which, combined with $240 million left on a DoE loan, gives them some $574 million of available capital compared with $662 million available at the end of Q2. That should be good for at least another 8 quarters.
brn says:
04:17 PM, 11/ 3/11
I'm a bit of a fan of Tesla. They pushed the bar and made a business out of it. Hopefully, they can turn it around.
stylepergallon says:
04:23 PM, 11/ 3/11
The loss isn't that surprising. It's pretty hard to turn a profit while developing an entirely new volume model, when your only model on the market is a low-volume $110k roadster.
allinmyhead says:
09:19 AM, 11/ 4/11
I would be tempted to cross-shop a Model S for my next car but a few things worry me. Am I the only one thinking about this stuff, or are most consumers in the same boat?
1) Feels like a dot com start-up: great idea, good, but not perfect execution, lots of funding but burning through it quickly.
2) What do I do with this car if they go out of business? Are the dealerships structured that they can keep servicing cars even if the parent company goes away?
3) Not enough dealers for servicing. Luckily there is one in my city but it's lots of miles away and I expect a lot of trips for electronics glitches.
4) The model with a real-world usable range is $20000 more than the base model which has run-about range. That price point puts it into the realm of a lot of really special sedans; cts-v, e63, m5, etc.
bodyblue says:
11:16 AM, 11/ 4/11
Its just another boodoggle that will cost the taxpayers millions when it fails. It is an waste of taxpayers money to produce expensive toys for rich people....and that company is losing money like crazy. When they run out of cash they will be back with their hands out yet again with some crap story about how important their research is to the country. Screw them.
Mike Magrath replied to comment from bodyblue
11:37 AM, 11/ 4/11
"It is an waste of taxpayers money to produce expensive toys for rich people"
I'm usually for government spending on research and advanced technology but I'm with you here. Eventually there will be some trickle-down to real cars from these projects, I just don't think it will be enough / fast enough to justify the spend.
Raise the tax on gas to $6/gallon and the private sector would figure out EVs in about three months. (Some hyperbole there, but you get the point.)
-mm
hybris says:
10:13 PM, 11/ 4/11
When will this company finally die?! They have been sucking money for years and have little to nothing to show for it, they are still an over sized niche car company that still bleeds money and they call it a good sign!