Alright OK, let's look into that.
If an educated investor commits to the theory that TSLA is overpriced based on EPS, then for consistency's sake, this same educated investor must unequivocally admit that SLNN is grossly overpriced on an EPS basis.
In 2014, TSLA lost $294 million on 125 million shares or a loss of $2.35 per share.
In 2014, SLNN lost $13.3 million on 167 million shares or a loss of $0.08 per share.
In other words, Saleen's loss last year was more than 4 times its current value. Saleen must make up 4 times it's current value in loss to turn in a positive EPS. All the while Tesla had a net 1% loss of its current value. They just have 1% of their current value to make up in loss before turning it into a positive gain.
Last year, SLNN had an EPS loss 4 times greater than the value of its stock, while TSLA had an EPS loss only marginally unprofitable (~1% of the stock). This is a world of losses to make up for compare to TSLA.
Now let's try to compare both companies loss to an even more useful metric.
In 2014, TSLA lost $294 million on $3.2 billion in revenue or a loss of $1 for every $10 in revenue.
In 2014, SLNN lost $13.3 million on $4.8 million in revenue or a loss of $1 for every $0.36 in revenue.
From this, it is pretty clear that TSLA's hill to climb in order to become profitable is a terrain significantly more easy to conquer than SLNN's steep cliff.
We could also look at what is driving future growth and current losses. For example, if last year both companies would have cut let's say 80% of their R&D:
TSLA would have made $77 million in net gain in 2014 or $0.61 per share while SLNN would still have net loss of $12.6 million or $0.07 per share.
Again, if an educated investor commits to the theory that TSLA is overpriced based on EPS, then for consistency's sake, this same educated investor must unequivocally admit that SLNN is grossly overpriced on an EPS basis. Therefore arguing that SLNN's EPS is not that bad compared to TSLA's is a counter-intuitive argument
