Wow, a full half of Tesla's operating income came from tax credits( around $800M of $1.6B operating income).
They had a few decent misses on operating income and earnings per share.
And their operating margin is in the low 6%ish which would make it one of the worst performing auto manufacturers around at the moment.
Man things have turned quickly on Tesla.
They are still in a good cash position but their car business is really showing signs of strain at the moment.
they did announce that they'll release a more affordable model by the end of H125 so that will help, but with that timeframe its likely to be a model 3 refresh and not a new car.
One of the last questions on the earnings call that just completed, was what would happen to Tesla revenue if Trump wins and those get cancelled. His answer after a pause, was that it probably would have an impact...and would probably be worst for his competitors...but does not really matter because they are all into FSD....
He did say he considers the "woke mind virus" to be a bigger threat to humanity than climate change. So I think he's being consistent even if it hurts him and his shareholders.
"When Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all his many
subsidized projects, whether its electric cars that don't drive long enough,
driverless cars that crash, or rocket ships to nowhere, without which
subsidies he'd be worthless, and telling me how he was a big Trump fan and
Republican, I could have said, 'drop to your knees and beg,' and he would
have done it..."
-Trump, who Elon is currently giving $45 million / month for his campaign.
But hey, that's pocket change compared to the brand value he has incinerated on Twitter.
Musk is thinking more about getting Trump elected to avoid the DOJ investigations. Seems that he is willing to sacrifice Tesla to avoid federal prosecution.
>Wow, a full half of Tesla's operating income came from tax credits( around $800M of $1.6B operating income).
Of course if Tesla didn't make those car and batteries they wouldn't have regulatory credits to sell. Also the credits were 3.5% of total revenue ($890M of $25,500M).
Hasn't this always been the case? Haven't they always been dependent on credits and subsidies to make a profit?
Tesla's received almost $3 billion in state and federal subsidies and half a billion in bailouts[0] (and has more violations[1] than most other companies of its size). Additionally, they regularly engage in probably illegal accounting practices like categorizing automobile warranty expenses as part of the "Goodwill" category rather than the cost of making the vehicle leading to a huge inflation of Tesla's claimed gross margin
I think a pivot to energy infrastructure is inevitable. The EV business can be seen as a stepping stone imo to build a strong cash position with all of the reservations. Sort of like free financing.
Turns out people were right and Musk had a bunch of good ideas, some of which might have a very positive impact on the world (probably EV adoption) but all predicated on getting government money.
> their car business is really showing signs of strain at the moment.
Their car business aka "their entire business"? :-)
> Their car business aka "their entire business"? :-)
Tesla acquired SolarCity which became their Tesla Energy division so it's not just cars, they also do residential solar, batteries, and supercharger infrastructure (which more and more manufacturers are using).
Someone should calculate how much lower medical costs will be with fewer ice engines on the road. Honestly curious if that is one of the payback strategies for the government.
imo this is a big part of why Elon is cozying up to Trump and the right. If the left wins, there will probably be tax incentives for EV manufacturers at large because that's just part of their platform. And if the right wins, then he has bribed them and will get preferential treatment. Given his companies are so dependent on government money, it does make sense as a strategy because it ensures continuity of those handouts in both cases.
Are you referring to Audi's EVs? Or Audi in general?
Either way, looked it up out of curiosity: Audi's parent company, Volkswagen, currently has a market cap of ~58B EUR with revenue over 300B EUR in 2023. Tesla has a market cap of $772B with revenue just under $100B in 2023.
Tesla's stock is trading (and has) at a staggering multiple for the automotive industry. It's fair to call out that their competitors may have their own struggles, but negative growth in Tesla's primary product line is going to make it increasingly tough for investors to stomach that premium.
Elon has a gift for selling a vision, so I certainly wouldn't bet against Tesla on any short-term horizon, but I struggle to imagine that alone will be able to carry their stock price in perpetuity.
Those tax credits are pollution indulgences what Tesla sells to competitors to stall their EV programs. They completely offset any environmental benefit of buying a Tesla. There is none.
Your comment sure is catchy. Making it read like half of Tesla's income came from tax credits. When in reality 'regulatory credits' revenue isn't significant.
I'll explain for you what my comment means. Operating income is a measure we use to see how profitable a company is at its core business after you subtract the costs of running that business.
Yes the credits are a small portion of Tesla's income but after account for the costs of building cars what's' left is the operating income. Those credits are about half o that income, without them the operating income( a measure of if the core business works) would be cut in half.
They still trying hard to hide the fact their future profits are rapidly converging to 0, or negative if the EV credits are removed.
All the future projects are basically smoke and mirrors.
Robotaxi ?
"Though timing of Robotaxi deployment depends on technological advancement and regulatory approval, we are working vigorously on this
opportunity given the outsized potential value. "
Sure thing. So how come that Tesla is the only one company trying to solve autonomous driving that didn't even ask for any regulatory approval yet ?
As a reminder, Musk said in 2017 that his Boring Company was doing DC to NY route (in 29 minutes) and got 'verbal govt approval' and was only waiting for full approval to proceed. We're exactly 7 years later and absolutely nothing has been done.
Tesla is an AI company now. Funny chart on page 8 - Tesla AI capacity stands at '45k H100 equivalent', while the company claims it's betting it's whole future on solving autonomous driving.
But xAI, which is also a Musk's company, apparently build a 100k cluster from scratch in no time (apparently using Tesla's H100...). Something doesn't add up here at all.
> All the future projects are basically smoke and mirrors.
So were electric vehicles when he took over as CEO. In fact, that's why he ended up taking over as CEO — Tesla needed someone who could sell smoke and mirrors for long enough to do a "fake it 'til you make it" run with the entire brand, as they needed to have the cars to justify the chargers and the chargers to justify the cars.
This doesn't mean he's still the right man for the job once the dull nature of reality becomes more obvious, when EVs become boring and mundane, which is exactly what's happening in that market.
The reason the original CEO was replaced by a guy and another guy and finally Musk is because the cost of Roadster parts was higher than the price of Roadster.
What Tesla needed was someone who is un-naturally good operator: someone who can drive the costs down, motivate the employees to deliver great product at a profit.
That was Musk.
And if you think that's just a given and any CEO can do it: currently Lucid and Rivian are still loosing tons of money on their cars. So does Ford and GM. Not to mention Fisker and few others who went bankrupt in the process.
You can do apples-to-apples comparison of execution of Musk vs. CEO of Lucid or Rivian by looking at "money burn at year N" of company's existence. Lucid and Rivian are still accumulating "money burn".
EVs were ready. The Nissan Leaf was the first successful mass market one.
Rockets that land themselves were talked about since the 60s and prototyped by Lockheed in the 90s as the DC-X. (Search YouTube for some flight tests.) The funding just wasn’t there after the Cold War was over and excitement about space was at a low point.
I’m not taking away from the great accomplishments of the engineers at Tesla and SpaceX. What I’m pointing out is that in both cases Musk was raising money to complete and bring to market things that were already quite proven to be achievable. EVs and vertical landing rockets had been done, just not as well.
Rapid tunneling, FSD, and Neurolink are all things nobody has done or done well. Success rate is much worse in that domain because there is a lot less prior art to draw from and less certainty about a solution.
I think it's pretty bizarre to see a financial document that reads more as an advertisement for the business as a consumer wanting to buy their product rather than actual financial performance details.
Also I am so certain the humanoid robot is not very productive and someone in management pushed hard to get it on the line and photographed just before the Q2 report deadline, what a joke.
Fairly typical or at least happens often enough that an earnings call deck is provided. I did not watch this call but this should be the slide deck they went over. Definitely more the norm for annual calls, both a formal SEC filing will be made and often the deck to go along with the presentation. From a public perspective I don't think anything in here is an "advertisement". They (mgmt) is trying to show you their narrative, how they think about the company and whats coming up. Think of it as a software roadmap. If you think this one is an advertisement you should see clothing consumer materials like Nike, they will walk through a number of their product lines in a very "ad" like tone.
Edit: Not to suggest that their narrative is correct but that's the general aim of these calls. See Snowflake below.
It gives off some strong "faceless worker trapped in a box doing repetitive menial work" vibes. I get the whole 'humans can do so many different things, so make a human-shaped robot to do all those things' idea, hence Boston Dynamics' Atlas, but humans do all those things at a kinda mediocre speed.
Developing general control systems for 6+ axis arms and picking the correct number and size of arms for whatever strength/speed you need seems far more useful. Yeah, you can pick up your one-size-fits-all gimpbot and put him in the cage to put different cells into different boxes, but the hard part IMHO is the control software/training, not the hardware.
Well, it's not as bad as Q1. But way down from last year.
It's amusing to see what Tesla puts in a filing in which material mis-statements are felonies.
It's quite different from what Musk says when he can get away with it.
The phrase "full self driving" is never written out. They do use "FSD (Supervised)" twice, both with the footnote in tiny type "Active driver supervision required; does not make the vehicle autonomous." The closest thing to a mention of real autonomous driving is "Looking ahead to future
autonomous driving and robotaxi service, we continued progress on software and hardware
development." Remember that Tesla announced the reveal of their robo-taxi for August 8, 2024, but that's been cancelled.[1]
On the battery front, Tesla is having a bad year.[2] Tesla is trying to make their own cells, rather than buying them from Panasonic or CATL. It's not working well at all. Also, note the total absence of any mention of solid-state batteries. That's clearly the coming technology, and Tesla is nowhere in that space. (Yes, solid state batteries are real. On sale at Home Depot now.[3])
This is a big car company having a so-so year. Ford and GM have years like this. Ford's P/E ratio is around 15. GM's is around 6. Tesla's is around 68. Nothing in this report justifies that.
> This is a big car company having a so-so year. Ford and GM have years like this. Ford's P/E ratio is around 15. GM's is around 6. Tesla's is around 68. Nothing in this report justifies that.
Telsa is not a car company, any anyone that thinks that way is completely missing the point
Honestly, this downturn in profit is not surprising. (Copying from the other thread)
- A lot of Tesla competitors have caught up (outside of self driving) and energized their sections of the EV market. I see way more Korean EVs on the road than ever before for example.
- EV growth is slowing due to various factors, but so are cars in general due to economic issues.
- Elon opened up the NACS as a gambit for not having to change their own chargers. NACS won, but a lot of prospective EV buyers are waiting for NACS native vehicles from other manufacturers.
- Elon has really alienated massive chunks of the EV demographic. Identity politics are inherently tumultuous.
As a launch batch Model Y owner myself, I’m definitely looking elsewhere whenever this car needs replacing. I want more comfort and just a better driving experience (turn signal stalks, an instrument cluster etc in the more accessible models) and the only reason I went with Tesla is the charging network is unmatched in NA.
I do not have a very rosy outlook on Tesla as long as Elon remains in charge. He got it where it is, but he’s increasingly a liability.
> - A lot of Tesla competitors have caught up (outside of self driving) and energized their sections of the EV market. I see way more Korean EVs on the road than ever before for example.
Mercedes already have certified level 3 self driving. (With some caveats, but that’s more than any of Tesla offerings)
> In 2024, our vehicle volume growth rate may be notably lower than the growth rate achieved in 2023, as our teams work on the launch of the next generation vehicle and other products. In 2024, the growth rates of energy storage deployments and revenue in our Energy Generation and Storage business should outpace the Automotive business.
Pretty bleak YoY numbers for car sales. They are pretty open about pivoting away from cars at least.
> Preparation of Semi factory continues and is on track to begin production by end of 2025.
Okay. That's why you've delivered 36 of the 100 units that were scheduled for seven years ago (2017), and none since then, which is why PepsiCo, Sysco, UPS and Walmart have all since terminated their agreements.
But it's "on track". Sure.
Last time Musk tried to throw out an excuse for this, it wasn't production capacity, it was "battery availability". Meanwhile:
> In Q2, we produced over 50% more 4680 cells than in Q1 and continued to see cost improvements.
> Both Megapack and Powerwall achieved record deployment in Q2, resulting in 9.4 GWh of total storage deployments. Overall, the Energy business achieved record revenues and gross profit in Q2.
"We're breaking so many records in battery availability and production capacity, you guys! We just haven't been able to make any for the Semi in seven years."
1. Semi is not dependent on 4680 batteries. And that's still a minority of the battery mix they use. 4680 form factor is still limited to Cybertruck and some Model Y production.
2. Semi has been in initial and testing production, only selling to customers close to the factories and engineers so they could service them quickly, learn and adapt new models.
3. More new Semi trucks have been recently delivered to Pepsi and internally to Tesla.
4. "On track" compared to previous released information from last few quarters.
Semi is still a small part of the business and not as prioritised as it takes a lot to develop a new program for big trucks when the company hasn't been in that niche before. At the same time they are developing various charging solutions with customers and on their routes before they rollout. Still learning from customers and drivers what is the best utilisation for these products.
I still don't get why they prioritised the cybertruck Vs the semi... Makes no sense at all. Markets are way different in size, I guess margins too. A shame really
>PURCHASE, N.Y., May 21, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Today PepsiCo Beverages North America (PBNA) announced the expansion of its electric-powered fleet across California. In the next several months, fifty Class 8 Tesla Semi trucks will operate out of its manufacturing and distribution facility in Fresno, Calif., and 75 Ford E-Transit electric vans will step-change the electrification of its equipment services fleet across the state. The electric vehicle deployment will help the company progress toward its ambitious pep+ (PepsiCo Positive) goal to reach net zero emissions by 2040.
Then that is new, certainly, and maybe they have reconciled. The date certainly matches and makes at least some of my information out of date.
> PepsiCo made initial payments for 100 Tesla Semis in 2017
> But according to the food-and-drinks maker and one of its executives with knowledge of the deal, PepsiCo was using only 36[1] of Teslas promised 100 electric trucks as of [April 2024].
So they're getting 14 more "in the next several months", it seems. And still are owed 50 more from a seven year old order? They're more patient than I, it seems.
Readit News
They had a few decent misses on operating income and earnings per share.
And their operating margin is in the low 6%ish which would make it one of the worst performing auto manufacturers around at the moment.
Man things have turned quickly on Tesla.
They are still in a good cash position but their car business is really showing signs of strain at the moment.
they did announce that they'll release a more affordable model by the end of H125 so that will help, but with that timeframe its likely to be a model 3 refresh and not a new car.
Totally logical for the CEO of the company to be vocal supporter of the man who wants to kill those credits.
It would be immoral for Trump to offer a quid pro quo to Musk, so that couldn't be the what's happening at the moment
Of course if Tesla didn't make those car and batteries they wouldn't have regulatory credits to sell. Also the credits were 3.5% of total revenue ($890M of $25,500M).
Hasn't this always been the case? Haven't they always been dependent on credits and subsidies to make a profit?
Tesla's received almost $3 billion in state and federal subsidies and half a billion in bailouts[0] (and has more violations[1] than most other companies of its size). Additionally, they regularly engage in probably illegal accounting practices like categorizing automobile warranty expenses as part of the "Goodwill" category rather than the cost of making the vehicle leading to a huge inflation of Tesla's claimed gross margin
[0] https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/?parent=tesla-inc
[1] https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/tesla-inc
What is Tesla's edge in energy infrastructure?
Service and Energy Generation are <10% LOBs. They are a car business.
Really they aren't doing poorly when you consider the awful interest rates out there.
Until you've lived at a time when 13% was considered a great mortgage rate, you have no idea what an "awful" interest rate is.
> their car business is really showing signs of strain at the moment.
Their car business aka "their entire business"? :-)
Tesla acquired SolarCity which became their Tesla Energy division so it's not just cars, they also do residential solar, batteries, and supercharger infrastructure (which more and more manufacturers are using).
And what if another company (tesla) makes its own batteries.
Are they judged in a similar fashion?
I took my Y to the Bay Area this last week and with the crappy roads, it was a rough, rough ride.
That being said, like others have said.. I won't spend money on another Tesla while Elon's there, even if they ship magic on a stick.
That it would largely be about Musk winning, rather than doing all that he can to support global EV adoption, would absolutely track for him.
Either way, looked it up out of curiosity: Audi's parent company, Volkswagen, currently has a market cap of ~58B EUR with revenue over 300B EUR in 2023. Tesla has a market cap of $772B with revenue just under $100B in 2023.
Tesla's stock is trading (and has) at a staggering multiple for the automotive industry. It's fair to call out that their competitors may have their own struggles, but negative growth in Tesla's primary product line is going to make it increasingly tough for investors to stomach that premium.
Elon has a gift for selling a vision, so I certainly wouldn't bet against Tesla on any short-term horizon, but I struggle to imagine that alone will be able to carry their stock price in perpetuity.
https://x.com/EconomyApp/status/1815845019053613480/photo/1
I'll explain for you what my comment means. Operating income is a measure we use to see how profitable a company is at its core business after you subtract the costs of running that business.
Yes the credits are a small portion of Tesla's income but after account for the costs of building cars what's' left is the operating income. Those credits are about half o that income, without them the operating income( a measure of if the core business works) would be cut in half.
That is a significant measure.
All the future projects are basically smoke and mirrors.
Robotaxi ?
"Though timing of Robotaxi deployment depends on technological advancement and regulatory approval, we are working vigorously on this opportunity given the outsized potential value. "
Sure thing. So how come that Tesla is the only one company trying to solve autonomous driving that didn't even ask for any regulatory approval yet ?
As a reminder, Musk said in 2017 that his Boring Company was doing DC to NY route (in 29 minutes) and got 'verbal govt approval' and was only waiting for full approval to proceed. We're exactly 7 years later and absolutely nothing has been done.
Tesla is an AI company now. Funny chart on page 8 - Tesla AI capacity stands at '45k H100 equivalent', while the company claims it's betting it's whole future on solving autonomous driving. But xAI, which is also a Musk's company, apparently build a 100k cluster from scratch in no time (apparently using Tesla's H100...). Something doesn't add up here at all.
I'm truly fascinated by all of this.
So were electric vehicles when he took over as CEO. In fact, that's why he ended up taking over as CEO — Tesla needed someone who could sell smoke and mirrors for long enough to do a "fake it 'til you make it" run with the entire brand, as they needed to have the cars to justify the chargers and the chargers to justify the cars.
This doesn't mean he's still the right man for the job once the dull nature of reality becomes more obvious, when EVs become boring and mundane, which is exactly what's happening in that market.
What Tesla needed was someone who is un-naturally good operator: someone who can drive the costs down, motivate the employees to deliver great product at a profit.
That was Musk.
And if you think that's just a given and any CEO can do it: currently Lucid and Rivian are still loosing tons of money on their cars. So does Ford and GM. Not to mention Fisker and few others who went bankrupt in the process.
You can do apples-to-apples comparison of execution of Musk vs. CEO of Lucid or Rivian by looking at "money burn at year N" of company's existence. Lucid and Rivian are still accumulating "money burn".
Rockets that land themselves were talked about since the 60s and prototyped by Lockheed in the 90s as the DC-X. (Search YouTube for some flight tests.) The funding just wasn’t there after the Cold War was over and excitement about space was at a low point.
I’m not taking away from the great accomplishments of the engineers at Tesla and SpaceX. What I’m pointing out is that in both cases Musk was raising money to complete and bring to market things that were already quite proven to be achievable. EVs and vertical landing rockets had been done, just not as well.
Rapid tunneling, FSD, and Neurolink are all things nobody has done or done well. Success rate is much worse in that domain because there is a lot less prior art to draw from and less certainty about a solution.
https://x.com/EconomyApp/status/1815845019053613480/photo/1
Regulatory credits were 0.9B out of 1.5B of profits.
Also I am so certain the humanoid robot is not very productive and someone in management pushed hard to get it on the line and photographed just before the Q2 report deadline, what a joke.
I do not hold Tesla stock (directly, don't have a desire to audit my mutual funds that closely).
A $700 billion market cap 'meme stock'. Don't think so.
Edit: Not to suggest that their narrative is correct but that's the general aim of these calls. See Snowflake below.
https://s26.q4cdn.com/463892824/files/doc_financials/2024/q4...
The quarterly statement is called a 10Q and is filed with the SEC and can easily be found on the company investor relations website.
It is totally normal to have a slide deck published to accompany the quarterly shareholder call.
Developing general control systems for 6+ axis arms and picking the correct number and size of arms for whatever strength/speed you need seems far more useful. Yeah, you can pick up your one-size-fits-all gimpbot and put him in the cage to put different cells into different boxes, but the hard part IMHO is the control software/training, not the hardware.
It's amusing to see what Tesla puts in a filing in which material mis-statements are felonies. It's quite different from what Musk says when he can get away with it.
The phrase "full self driving" is never written out. They do use "FSD (Supervised)" twice, both with the footnote in tiny type "Active driver supervision required; does not make the vehicle autonomous." The closest thing to a mention of real autonomous driving is "Looking ahead to future autonomous driving and robotaxi service, we continued progress on software and hardware development." Remember that Tesla announced the reveal of their robo-taxi for August 8, 2024, but that's been cancelled.[1]
On the battery front, Tesla is having a bad year.[2] Tesla is trying to make their own cells, rather than buying them from Panasonic or CATL. It's not working well at all. Also, note the total absence of any mention of solid-state batteries. That's clearly the coming technology, and Tesla is nowhere in that space. (Yes, solid state batteries are real. On sale at Home Depot now.[3])
This is a big car company having a so-so year. Ford and GM have years like this. Ford's P/E ratio is around 15. GM's is around 6. Tesla's is around 68. Nothing in this report justifies that.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-11/tesla-pla...
[2] https://electrek.co/2024/07/17/elon-musk-might-give-up-tesla...
[3] https://www.homedepot.com/p/YOSHINO-Solid-State-Portable-Pow...
Telsa is not a car company, any anyone that thinks that way is completely missing the point
Tesla is over 20 years old. This is not a startup company any more.
Since learning more about Mr. Musk, registrations for his automobiles in California have fallen drastically: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/teslas...
- A lot of Tesla competitors have caught up (outside of self driving) and energized their sections of the EV market. I see way more Korean EVs on the road than ever before for example.
- EV growth is slowing due to various factors, but so are cars in general due to economic issues.
- Elon opened up the NACS as a gambit for not having to change their own chargers. NACS won, but a lot of prospective EV buyers are waiting for NACS native vehicles from other manufacturers.
- Elon has really alienated massive chunks of the EV demographic. Identity politics are inherently tumultuous.
As a launch batch Model Y owner myself, I’m definitely looking elsewhere whenever this car needs replacing. I want more comfort and just a better driving experience (turn signal stalks, an instrument cluster etc in the more accessible models) and the only reason I went with Tesla is the charging network is unmatched in NA.
I do not have a very rosy outlook on Tesla as long as Elon remains in charge. He got it where it is, but he’s increasingly a liability.
Mercedes already have certified level 3 self driving. (With some caveats, but that’s more than any of Tesla offerings)
Pretty bleak YoY numbers for car sales. They are pretty open about pivoting away from cars at least.
> Preparation of Semi factory continues and is on track to begin production by end of 2025.
Okay. That's why you've delivered 36 of the 100 units that were scheduled for seven years ago (2017), and none since then, which is why PepsiCo, Sysco, UPS and Walmart have all since terminated their agreements.
But it's "on track". Sure.
Last time Musk tried to throw out an excuse for this, it wasn't production capacity, it was "battery availability". Meanwhile:
> In Q2, we produced over 50% more 4680 cells than in Q1 and continued to see cost improvements.
> Both Megapack and Powerwall achieved record deployment in Q2, resulting in 9.4 GWh of total storage deployments. Overall, the Energy business achieved record revenues and gross profit in Q2.
"We're breaking so many records in battery availability and production capacity, you guys! We just haven't been able to make any for the Semi in seven years."
1. Semi is not dependent on 4680 batteries. And that's still a minority of the battery mix they use. 4680 form factor is still limited to Cybertruck and some Model Y production.
2. Semi has been in initial and testing production, only selling to customers close to the factories and engineers so they could service them quickly, learn and adapt new models.
3. More new Semi trucks have been recently delivered to Pepsi and internally to Tesla.
4. "On track" compared to previous released information from last few quarters.
Semi is still a small part of the business and not as prioritised as it takes a lot to develop a new program for big trucks when the company hasn't been in that niche before. At the same time they are developing various charging solutions with customers and on their routes before they rollout. Still learning from customers and drivers what is the best utilisation for these products.
But they obviously have SOME capacity to make Semi batteries. But just... haven't?
> only selling to customers close to the factories and engineers so they could service them quickly, learn and adapt new models.
Weird that Musk said they had battery capacity issues, then, not this?
> More new Semi trucks have been recently delivered to Pepsi
Pepsi has said they've moved on. Tesla might have done so as a goodwill measure, who knows.
https://www.pepsico.com/our-stories/press-release/pepsico-be...
> PepsiCo made initial payments for 100 Tesla Semis in 2017
> But according to the food-and-drinks maker and one of its executives with knowledge of the deal, PepsiCo was using only 36[1] of Teslas promised 100 electric trucks as of [April 2024].
So they're getting 14 more "in the next several months", it seems. And still are owed 50 more from a seven year old order? They're more patient than I, it seems.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
[1] This source (https://www.ccjdigital.com/alternative-power/article/1563524...) says there's only 21.
Do you have a source for this? I googled it and saw nothing about this.