Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Dull so far.
If there was favorable near term out look...next qtr...listening noe
CC Webinar in 3 min.
I bet their prospects for China and Europe are good .... And easier to rollout than in the US.
Conference call in 7 minutes.
$200 by when?
Do you think it bounces tomorrow?
Sorry, i guess you did.
The loss was significantly less than a year ago and "beat" analyst estimates.
The key is whether or not they "beat" analyst estimates and by how much (a negative number can be ok, context needs to be provided)
The news feeds aren't so great; corrections, etc.
Do you plan to hold your options?
Who thinks it will bounce after the CC based on outlook?
CNBC metrics:
1) production of model s needs to exceed 5700 ( I think )
Blair had a PT of $187 assuming 5400 to consumers and
6100 consumers and marketing
2) Gross margin range is 16-20% est., TSLA reported 22%
( beat )
3) Production needed to be raised from 500/week to
Be considered a beat; TSLA reported 550/week ( beat)
Earnings and rev. Were both beats ( not sure of which source
to believe on that).
Here's a link to the SEC filing ( more positive ).
Also, today CNBC mentioned 3 categories where TSLA beat, so, maybe this stock will bounce to tomorrow or sometime soon based on outlook ( CC at 5:30 EST).
http://ir.teslamotors.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-13-427630&CIK=1318605
It sounds like these guys with VPC haven't accomplished very much.
If anyone was interested they could dig into the standards and certification materials to see what is really involved ( beyond a certified machine).
It's pointless to debate if delivering product beyond a machine isn't understood.
There's a difference between a turn-key machine and a turn-key process ( with project management ).
See http://www.pmi.org/ for what project management involves.
You could have a turn-key machine and a customer and still not meet any performance goals and metrics.
Delivering a product involves more than spitting out parts from a turn-key machine.
I think in a past CC it was mentioned that there was a machine at VPC dedicated to making LQMT prototypes.
if VPC was able to buyout LQMT, what would it mean for the general shareholder.
Maybe a buyout would best and this is just the beginning. For any buyout, a lower share price would be preferred right.
I understand your perspective. Consider politics and 2 against 1. It seems to me that LQMT has been running from VPC since the beginning ( threat of buyout, etc,). They'll have to give him something, e,g. First right of refusal, etc.
project management is overseeing the entire process. if VPC was responsible for managing Engels part, and it was delayed, they could be liable. Both LQMT and Engel would want to see it that way.
So, it sounds like VPC might have a leg to stand on. But if they were put in charge to "project manage" certification, including Engels part in it ( just a machine, not the entire equation), and if they didn't understand certification to begin with (because they sold furnitures .... no comparison), they may have been negligent and a factor in LQMT not securing business. If things had gone smoothly, they probably both wouldn't be considering arbitration. Maybe LQMT is trying to force their hand of VPCs motive is primarily financial without quality expertise to manage Engel. Who knows.
LQMT should replace a sales/BD guy with someone qualified that can evaluate mfgrs and support future ones.
I think the QA issues were real.
On the next CC, LQMT has been asked to comment on how they intend to grow shareholder value .... We will see.
.... Wonder who LQMT has in mind for mfgr.
maybe LQMT could use some "compassionate capitalism"; maybe they already are?
http://www.liloumace.com/Compassionate-capitalism-Blaine-Bartlett_a2437.html?preaction=nl&id=20329487&idnl=148661&
The goal is for everyone to make money thru share appreciation, due to legitimate real business that can grow shareholder value over time.
Also, if VPC thinks they can squeeze out LQMT (take over), maybe they can, but if they had quality issues initially, they probably don't look that great to a customer prospect that knew about it.
If LQMT is "ready" now for "real" business, it seems like they need a new manufacturer or agreement to address four primary concerns:
1) they need a partner that understands and can meet quality standards
2) they need to be able to address business together where both can make $ ( meet their margin requirements )
3) they both have to recognize that non-exclusivity is key to their success
4) any entity that wants to supply/manufacture LMT parts has to realize that they have to be "competitive" (vs. greedy alone which is what it sounds like)
It sounds like LQMT needed money and didn't have a good read on VPC and as things developed and "investors" started to realize that VPC/LQMT greed was getting in the way of shareholder value, that's when the finger pointing began (to PDP's point).
What I wonder is how are they both going to skirt the "fraud" allegations if both participated in it.
It doesn't sound positive to me because big company prospects that screen and validate vendors don't typically fabor ones with a history or track record of fraud.
The problem I see with what the 8K implies: it's never been about the customers, it's been about greed.
If either side thinks they can stonewall a customer to meet their own greedy agenda, they're mistaken I believe.
There is no way a conflict like this wold look good to a customer prospect unless it's resolved quickly and to customer benefit.
From what we've been trying to glue together, there were some earlier quality issues, there's an exclusive mfg arrangement with VPC ( that's probably a hangup), and there might be some other " arrangements" that aren't described in public documents very much, and there could be more than admit that know about it, and there may be a pump coming soon, and things could work out, or they may nit, etc.
It wouldn't be a surprise to have a reject at a trade show since good samples could be sold, used by customer, etc.
The art of corporate deflection ; deflecting on the deflectors:
http://www.blogging4jobs.com/hr/the-art-of-corporate-deflection/
It was produced by an "artist" .... Someone commented that LQMT, VPC, and also have AAPL websites now have a similar structure, etc. .... Part of a common eco-system?
The art of deflection - it's always someone else's fault.
Steipp alluded to "quality issues" at different times. Sounds real. If they have the quality issues worked out, now they need to second source.
(What they really need ..... To stop diluting).
For the Timmy's ..... Why have you been putting up with this ......cr*p.
Wake us up when there is some credible business. Thx.
it seems that "exclusivity" has been an issue. Who's issue is that.
I was just talking to a neighbor about this stock; their conclusion: this company is a shell.
So it sounds like they're trying to squeeze someone out.
What's next.