Tesla ARR (edit as it seems to get some people confused: "Annualized Run Rate") is something like $25B/year. That for tech company easily makes for $250B+ valuation. (and yes i do own some)
>than Volkswagen
those dinosaurs are still not getting it. They continue to stay car companies instead of becoming tech companies. Paradigm shift must be very well familiar to tech people here at HN.
ARR is not a synonym for "revenue." Tesla's total revenue was $6.3bn for the last reported quarter, an annual run rate of $25.2bn. That's all sales, nearly all of which are sales of new vehicles.
Sales of durable new vehicles does not fit the definition of "annual recurring revenue" by any stretch of the imagination. ARR is valued highly because it implies steady revenue from each customer. Less the churn rate, it makes for a super steady long tail of cash flows. Once you've made a sale, you can count on that sale again the next year, and success of new sales builds on that existing base of recurring sales. These kinds of revenues tend to be more resistant to recessions, changes in preferences, etc., versus churning through new customers every year.
Car companies are the exact opposite. Sell a car? Great, you have to sell another car to someone else next year just to tread water. Your customers don't buy new cars every year. Maybe in five to ten years they'll come back to you.
That's why ARR is worth so much more, and why a durable goods maker does not get a high valuation because of their ARR. They're different business models.
In short, one can't justify Tesla's revenue valuation multiple based on multiples of ARR subscription companies.
ARR most commonly refers to recurring revenues, especially in the context of premium valuation multiples on revenue. Annual run rate is usually used for small businesses trying to extrapolate out a monthly revenue number. For quarterly publicly traded 10Q numbers, most analysts just say "annualized". But, that's all semantics.
Also, 10x sales is out of line for big tech companies. Most are more like 5-7x. True, a little higher than Tesla's 4x, but their economics are very dissimilar. Apple, which is typically trotted out as a "manufacturer", actually offloads all the lower margin manufacturing to other companies, and their margins show it.
The hallmark of a "tech" company, and the reason it can have such huge valuations, is that they don't do silly and expensive things like build relatively low-margin physical objects. Tesla has not demonstrated its plans beyond that yet.
>than Volkswagen
those dinosaurs are still not getting it. They continue to stay car companies instead of becoming tech companies. Paradigm shift must be very well familiar to tech people here at HN.