SolarCity's 2016 net profit was
$238.8 million.
Tesla Motors'
third quarter 2017 losses were
$619 million.
So unless Solar City has grown massively in the last year (there's a chance, but equally I've not heard anything to that effect), its profits would struggle to cover
six weeks of Tesla losses, let alone enough to cover them three times over.
Revenue's a different story (since you mention revenue), but then revenue is also irrelevant unless costs are also considered. If you have higher costs than revenue (like Tesla), then you make a loss.
Mass production that it hasn't yet achieved and is currently struggling to achieve.
Where Tesla is spending its money is neither here nor there - the fact is it's currently quite a long way from being able to cover its massive expenditure. There is only so long a company can go with that being the case.
You don't need to be an analyst to understand that big losses, production behind schedule and employee lawsuits aren't exactly a walk in the park.
Which again, hinges on Tesla actually being able to produce its cars in suitable numbers. At the moment, that isn't the case. And unless Tesla can change that soon, it's going to be selling Model 3s into a market filled with other large-volume electric cars from much better-established car companies with vastly greater resources.
Nissan has been producing its second-generation Leaf since the summer - this being a car that has only just been launched. It will have no problem fulfilling orders, and given the improvements from the original car, it'll probably not have too much trouble selling them either. It's offering lower range than the Tesla, but then a lower price too. Several other manufacturers are doing likewise.
There are two separate issues here: Affordable cars, and ones with a similar range to the Roadster.
Tesla isn't yet doing both simultaneously, which puts it neither ahead nor behind anyone else not doing both simultaneously.
It's attempting to build a $35k Model 3 - though that gets you the 220-mile car (for comparison, the new Leaf does 200 miles and is expected to cost under $30k in the US - not such an advantage for Tesla at the more affordable end of the market).
It's also previewed a $200k Roadster with a 620-mile range. Now while that looks good value for its performance, it's not really "affordable" - it's still a rich-person's toy. Toyota, Ford etc don't have to compete with that, because that's not where the bulk of the market will be. The bulk of the market will be in that $30k (or below) range, and Toyota, Ford, and pretty much everyone else can
definitely compete with Tesla at that price.
That very much remains to be seen.
Those other car manufacturers are all vastly bigger than Tesla and are much more capable of riding storms. Volkswagen made a big loss in 2015 thanks to Dieselgate... and then bounced right back to a $5.4
billion profit in 2016. They've had to make changes to account for their problems, but by and large it's just been a blip on the radar.
Tesla doesn't have that luxury. "Rebounding" is what VW did. Tesla - yet to make a profit - is yet to "bound" in the first place.
I find it odd that you don't think a company needs to make money. Like I said before, that's only the case until they run out of capital to spend. If you can no longer borrow and aren't making any profits, there's only so long you can remain afloat.
Tesla's job is very simple. It needs to make money. And the best way it can do that is by doing what every other carmaker on the planet does and has to do: Build and sell cars in big enough numbers to cover expenditure.
