profile image
Oh dear... there's a lot wrong with that. If you enter sensible values, you even get something sensible:
10*(8.5+1.5*50)*4.4/2.53= 1452$ can be left as it is, but then you'd better be bullish 🐂 ;)
profile image
@svenleowe May I ask how you arrived at the EPS of 10?
profile image
@Lorena Q4 EPS of $2,5 annualized. You have to calculate with current values.
profile image
@svenleowe oh now I can't edit again. So again: I don't quite follow you. The earnings will not be released until the end of January? Current estimates assume EPS of 1.38 (see https://www.nasdaq.com/de/market-activity/stocks/tsla/earnings) or what source are you referring to?
profile image
@Lorena no, they have already been announced, just provisionally.

@svenleowe the only thing you've changed now is that you've just taken the EPS as 10 out of nowhere (? You ALWAYS take the GAAP figures ) and you're multiplying by 1.5, which might even be acceptable because the old model uses 2 and the new 0.8. Of course you could just use the new numbers because they should make more sense, but hey.

The main point of the post is that I suspect that the growth cannot be maintained and that the valuation is therefore too high.
Look here in the comments, someone had made a post about how Tesla can still achieve growth.
profile image
@Lorena jo will not arrive until the end of January. The estimates are simply wrong. Historically, the analysts have always been quite low below the actual figures. Just like they estimated 266k deliveries versus 308k actual.
profile image
@leveragegrinding out of nowhere? The deliveries are known. We'll talk again after the earnings ;)
profile image
@svenleowe Surely you know the difference between non-GAAP EPS and GAAP EPS?
profile image
@svenleowe even with 2.5 for q4 you can't get to 10 🙃
profile image
@leveragegrinding you get to 10 with 2.5*4 calculated over the year
1
profile image
@Lorena but I don't know where the heck the 4 times are supposed to come from.