Tesla

[MrH]

Do they actually have sales contracts signed for the 2023 cars?

Of course not.

In what world is that even possible

Isn't this all a bit presumptuous then?  To recognize revenue on cars they haven't made, let alone, sold?  The same company that was mere weeks from bankruptcy previously.  The same company where the CEO committed securities fraud, you're totally cool with them just booking the revenue, whenever they want?

[SJ_GTI]

I am not going to get into Tesla...I don't know if they are actually doing what you are saying or if journalists are misunderstanding what is happening...but there are very clear accounts (USGAAP and IFRS) rules about how to recognize revenue for long term contracts.

If they are doing what MrH is claiming is would be a pretty cut and try case of accounting fraud and both Tesla and their audit firm would be liable for any real world damages as well as punitive damages. The SEC could of course initiate a proceeding against Tesla but so could any individual who has owned (or currently owns) Tesla securities (stock, futures, bonds, whatever).

So from my point of view the claim MrH is making is pretty extraordinary and should be accompanied by extraordinary evidence to justify such a claim.

[r0tor]

Of course not.

Isn't this all a bit presumptuous then?  To recognize revenue on cars they haven't made, let alone, sold?  The same company that was mere weeks from bankruptcy previously.  The same company where the CEO committed securities fraud, you're totally cool with them just booking the revenue, whenever they want?

Use your head.

FCA entered a long term agreement with Tesla.  They have nothing in their portfolio in the next 3-5 years that helps with CO2 and combined with their sales projections - they see a need to purchase credits to save them from heavy penalties.  They therefore have a need for the next 3-5 years for carbon credits.  They reach out to Tesla and strike a long term deal to lot long term financial risk.  Carbon credits for a year only exist for EVs sold in that year - so of fucking course you need to project future sales so you can come to agreement of how many credits can be put in the agreement in future years.  This is no different than FCA themselves projecting how many credits they need based on future sales   The agreement also probably provides penalties if Tesla can not supply those credits in future years.  Tesla maybe have front loaded the payment for the contract to secure the credits and ensure production capacity - after all they would lose money if FCA would bail out after year 2 of a 5 year deal and Tesla had already told other OEMs they have no credits available to sell.

There is absolutely nothing about this that is out of the ordinary.  Companies of all industries purchase carbon credits in lump sums for their projected future emissions in long term contracts.

[MrH]

They're currently under investigation and have been for years.  They've been through countless general counsel, chief accounting officers, and audit firms.

Explain to me how they're now recognizing the revenue for "Full Self Driving", which was pitched as full autonomous driving years and years ago, and never delivered on it.  That should sit in deferred until they actually deliver.

[MrH]

Use your head.

FCA entered a long term agreement with Tesla.  They have nothing in their portfolio in the next 3-5 years that helps with CO2 and combined with their sales projections - they see a need to purchase credits to save them from heavy penalties.  They therefore have a need for the next 3-5 years for carbon credits.  They reach out to Tesla and strike a long term deal to lot long term financial risk.  Carbon credits for a year only exist for EVs sold in that year - so of fucking course you need to project future sales so you can come to agreement of how many credits can be put in the agreement in future years.  This is no different than FCA themselves projecting how many credits they need based on future sales   The agreement also probably provides penalties if Tesla can not supply those credits in future years.  Tesla maybe have front loaded the payment for the contract to secure the credits and ensure production capacity - after all they would lose money if FCA would bail out after year 2 of a 5 year deal and Tesla had already told other OEMs they have no credits available to sell.

There is absolutely nothing about this that is out of the ordinary.  Companies of all industries purchase carbon credits in lump sums for their projected future emissions in long term contracts.

You don't even understand what we're talking about.

I am not going to get into Tesla...I don't know if they are actually doing what you are saying or if journalists are misunderstanding what is happening...but there are very clear accounts (USGAAP and IFRS) rules about how to recognize revenue for long term contracts.

If they are doing what MrH is claiming is would be a pretty cut and try case of accounting fraud and both Tesla and their audit firm would be liable for any real world damages as well as punitive damages. The SEC could of course initiate a proceeding against Tesla but so could any individual who has owned (or currently owns) Tesla securities (stock, futures, bonds, whatever).

So from my point of view the claim MrH is making is pretty extraordinary and should be accompanied by extraordinary evidence to justify such a claim.

This reads like a pretty clear violation of matching policy to me, but I'm not an accountant.  Curious what you think of this:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4361860-tesla-revelation-of-regulatory-credits-and-questionable-accounting

[SJ_GTI]

You don't even understand what we're talking about.

This reads like a pretty clear violation of matching policy to me, but I'm not an accountant.  Curious what you think of this:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4361860-tesla-revelation-of-regulatory-credits-and-questionable-accounting

This is what I can find on the 10Q:

Automotive Regulatory Credits

In connection with the production and delivery of our zero emission vehicles in global markets, we have earned and will continue to earn various tradable automotive regulatory credits. We have sold these credits, and will continue to sell future credits, to automotive companies and other regulated entities who can use the credits to comply with emission standards and other regulatory requirements. For example, under California's Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation and those of states that have adopted California's standard, vehicle manufacturers are required to earn or purchase credits, referred to as ZEV credits, for compliance with their annual regulatory requirements. These laws provide that automakers may bank or sell to other regulated parties their excess credits if they earn more credits than the minimum quantity required by those laws. We also earn other types of saleable regulatory credits in the United States and abroad, including greenhouse gas, fuel economy and clean fuels credits. Payments for regulatory credits are typically received at the point control transfers to the customer, or in accordance with payment terms customary to the business.   

We recognize revenue on the sale of automotive regulatory credits at the time control of the regulatory credits is transferred to the purchasing party as automotive revenue in the consolidated statements of operations. Deferred revenue related to sales of automotive regulatory credits was $0 million and $140 million as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. Revenue recognized from the deferred revenue balance as of December 31, 2019 was $140 million for the six months ended June 30, 2020.

This seems to be fairly straightforward and proper way to recognize deferred revenues to me. In other words they are not recognizing the revenues when they receive the credits or when the have an agreement to sell the credits to other companies, the recognize the revenue at the time the credit (or control of it) is transferred to the other company. In a simplified way they:

1. Generate the Regulatory Credit
2. Make an agreement to sell the Credit
3. Transfer the (control of) Credit

Step 1 is of course the most complicated part. I presume the credits are generated when they sell an EV (not manufacture it).

Step 2 can theoretically happen prior to or after Step 1.

Step 3 can only happen after both Step 1 and Step 2 have happened.

[MrH]

This is what I can find on the 10Q:

This seems to be fairly straightforward and proper way to recognize deferred revenues to me. In other words they are not recognizing the revenues when they receive the credits or when the have an agreement to sell the credits to other companies, the recognize the revenue at the time the credit (or control of it) is transferred to the other company. In a simplified way they:

1. Generate the Regulatory Credit
2. Make an agreement to sell the Credit
3. Transfer the (control of) Credit

Step 1 is of course the most complicated part. I presume the credits are generated when they sell an EV (not manufacture it).

Step 2 can theoretically happen prior to or after Step 1.

Step 3 can only happen after both Step 1 and Step 2 have happened.

They're saying the transfer of the credit occurs when the contract is signed with the other OEM, and it's not a prerequisite to make the car to generate the credit.

The entirety of it sits in deferred revenue, and they pull the trigger as needed to post profitable quarters.

[SJ_GTI]

So see this in the article now:

What would you think if Tesla does not do this? But what Tesla does instead is book the profit when it enters a contract to sell it.

This is explicitly not what Tesla is doing according to their SEC filing. The writer is relying on a (obvious to me) logical bait and switch. He even quotes the proper language following his distorted version of what Tesla is doing.

If I follow the logic of the writer he wants Tesla to recognize the "profit" from regulatory credits at the time they are generated. He mentions his long experience as a CA, but of course he is again using a bait and switch.

Revenue /= Profit

If you generate an asset (tangible or intangible) you are literally not allowed to book revenue just because it has been manufactured and it exists. You can only book the revenue when the ownership of that asset is sold.

Think about it in terms of widgets. You don't book the revenue from a widget when it is manufactured, you book the revenue when the ownership (or control) of that widget is transferred to the customer. This is basic accounting 101 stuff.

[SJ_GTI]

They're saying the transfer of the credit occurs when the contract is signed with the other OEM, and it's not a prerequisite to make the car to generate the credit.

The entirety of it sits in deferred revenue, and they pull the trigger as needed to post profitable quarters.

There is nothing in their regular filings to suggest such a thing. It is a huge leap in logic that Tesla is recognizing the sale of non-existent regulatory credits. This would be easy to see by any auditor.

The plain language of their filing sales they recognize the revenue when control of the credit is transferred. You cannot transfer the control of a non-existent credit.

If you want to keep believing there is some obvious fraud here you are welcome to do so. I don't see any evidence of it (from my admittedly cursory review of their filings).

[MrH]

There is nothing in their regular filings to suggest such a thing. It is a huge leap in logic that Tesla is recognizing the sale of non-existent regulatory credits. This would be easy to see by any auditor.

The plain language of their filing sales they recognize the revenue when control of the credit is transferred. You cannot transfer the control of a non-existent credit.

If you want to keep believing there is some obvious fraud here you are welcome to do so. I don't see any evidence of it (from my admittedly cursory review of their filings).

I just highlighted what the crux of the argument is.  Tesla argues the credit exists when the contract is signed.  You are saying that the credit only exists when a car is produced and sold, and the contract is signed.  Tesla has changed it's revenue recognition policy multiple times on what's considered "sold".  It used to be delivery to customer.  They are transferring inventory to their own subsidiaries in other countries, recognizing the revenue, and the car hasn't been registered at all.

Should be pretty easy to verify what I'm saying.  If what you're saying is true, the regulatory credit recognized should scale with volume sold, right?  That would be the right way to do it.

Let's look at Europe, Q4 2019 through Q2 2020.




Even more interesting, they admit right here they stick it into AR for cars they haven't produced.

Accounts Receivable and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

Accounts receivable primarily include amounts related to receivables from financial institutions and leasing companies offering various financing products to our customers, sales of energy generation and storage products, sales of regulatory credits to other automotive manufacturers and maintenance services on vehicles owned by leasing companies. We provide an allowance against accounts receivable to the amount we reasonably believe will be collected. We write-off accounts receivable when they are deemed uncollectible.

We typically do not carry significant accounts receivable related to our vehicle and related sales as customer payments are due prior to vehicle delivery, except for amounts due from commercial financial institutions for approved financing arrangements between our customers and the financial institutions.

They can put it in AR if they believe it's reasonable it can be collected.  Then they go on and say, yeah, but we pretty much always get paid for cars up front.  So what's left?  Revenue from interest on financial products, regulatory credit sales, sales of energy generation storage.

Surely that can't be much, can it?  Let's look how Tesla's AR has grown.  It's $1.8B right now.  On car selling business....that takes payment in full from either the buyer or their financial institution at point of delivery.

[r0tor]

I can play this game..

The author states...

FCA plans to launch a new electric version of its Fiat 500 minicar in Europe this year, along with plug-in hybrid versions of its Jeep Compass, Renegade and Wrangler models. That, combined with the Tesla credits, should make the company compliant
....
Tesla's regulatory credits will soon be in jeopardy, as cited by the CFO, Fiat Chrysler and Volkswagen above, the current buyers - other OEMs - need to make inroads into the EV market to generate their own ZEVs.

Selling a couple thousand fiat 500s doesn't do shit to FCA's carbon credit issue.  They just launched a hellcat Durango that will sell higher volumes, not to mention the JGC L

Authors states

Matching principle is the accounting principle that requires that the expenses incurred during a period be recorded in the same period

Income from credits is not an expense.  This is pointless for this discussion.  If I sign a contract with you for $100 million in widgets over 3 years, and you negotiate the contract that states I pay 60% upfront to secure line time - how do you think you are going to record your revenue?  I gave you $60 million up front, that's a recordable revenue for this year.

Tesla states

We recognize revenue on the sale of automotive regulatory credits at the time control of the regulatory credits is transferred to the purchasing party as automotive revenue in the consolidated statement of operations.

As I stated, revenue is counted as per transfer of ownership - WHICH IS A STIPULATION AS PER THE CONTRACT.  FCA owns a stipulated amount of credits for the next x years paid under terms of the contract.  Carbon credits are no different than car sales.  If Hertz bought 100k cars and were willing to pay upfront for them - that's a bookable revenue at time of contract and before delivery.

Author says

o paraphrase the above in simple English, Tesla can choose when it is convenient to sell the credits. It is at the discretion of the company when the credits change ownership control. But my objection is that this does not in any way reflect the basis by which they are generated (on sales of vehicles).

His objection is his shorts are burnt

[SJ_GTI]

Authors states
Income from credits is not an expense.  This is pointless for this discussion.  If I sign a contract with you for $100 million in widgets over 3 years, and you negotiate the contract that states I pay 60% upfront to secure line time - how do you think you are going to record your revenue?  I gave you $60 million up front, that's a recordable revenue for this year.

That is as wrong as the author. When you receive the cash is irrelevant in USGAAP/IFRS accounting. Revenue is recognized when ownership/control is transferred. So as an example, even if I build a widget, send you an invoice, and you pay me but the widget is still in my warehouse (generally speaking) I cannot recognize the revenue (this is called "bill and hold").

There are exceptions of course, but they are rare. Long term projects that take more than a single fiscal period can require partial recognition, but again here the payment terms are not what matter. The revenue recognition in these cases are based on the amount of work done, so regardless of whether the customer pays it all up front or all at the end the revenue recognition should be the same.

Tesla states clearly in their disclosure that they recognize revenue on regulatory credits at the time they transfer control of credit to the buyer. This is why the revenue from these credits can be lumpy...and to be fair to Tesla critics it can be managed by Tesla managers. If Tesla decides not to transfer control of any credits in a given quarter they will not recognize revenue. If they decide to dump a bunch to whoever will take them because they need the money in a certain quarter they can do so. The trick in this scenario is that a willing customer must be on the other side (either willing to defer taking control of a credit or willing to take more than usual). To be frank this happens in our business often...depending on how the year is going sales guys will try to get customers to take extra shipments or delay taking a shipment until the first week of the next year. It only works if the customer is willing.

[r0tor]

That is as wrong as the author. When you receive the cash is irrelevant in USGAAP/IFRS accounting. Revenue is recognized when ownership/control is transferred. So as an example, even if I build a widget, send you an invoice, and you pay me but the widget is still in my warehouse (generally speaking) I cannot recognize the revenue (this is called "bill and hold").

It's dependant on the contract and what the upfront payment represents.

[Soup DeVille]

In what world is that even possible

Wait lists and deposits for future products is a thing.

If they don't have the sales booked, then claiming future sales as present carbon credits seems dishonest at best.

[MrH]

That is as wrong as the author. When you receive the cash is irrelevant in USGAAP/IFRS accounting. Revenue is recognized when ownership/control is transferred. So as an example, even if I build a widget, send you an invoice, and you pay me but the widget is still in my warehouse (generally speaking) I cannot recognize the revenue (this is called "bill and hold").

There are exceptions of course, but they are rare. Long term projects that take more than a single fiscal period can require partial recognition, but again here the payment terms are not what matter. The revenue recognition in these cases are based on the amount of work done, so regardless of whether the customer pays it all up front or all at the end the revenue recognition should be the same.

Tesla states clearly in their disclosure that they recognize revenue on regulatory credits at the time they transfer control of credit to the buyer. This is why the revenue from these credits can be lumpy...and to be fair to Tesla critics it can be managed by Tesla managers. If Tesla decides not to transfer control of any credits in a given quarter they will not recognize revenue. If they decide to dump a bunch to whoever will take them because they need the money in a certain quarter they can do so. The trick in this scenario is that a willing customer must be on the other side (either willing to defer taking control of a credit or willing to take more than usual). To be frank this happens in our business often...depending on how the year is going sales guys will try to get customers to take extra shipments or delay taking a shipment until the first week of the next year. It only works if the customer is willing.

You seem hung up that the building of the car is necessary to book the revenue, but I'm showing that doesn't appear to be the case. Rightfully so, all the CPAs I know would never book the revenue for something not produced yet, but all evidence and disclosures points to exactly that.

Aren't you a make to order facility? Didn't you have to go to ASC 606 standards a few years back? I'm in the process of automating all of that for us. Things were a lot simpler would you just booked upon shipment

[SJ_GTI]

You seem hung up that the building of the car is necessary to book the revenue, but I'm showing that doesn't appear to be the case. Rightfully so, all the CPAs I know would never book the revenue for something not produced yet, but all evidence and disclosures points to exactly that.

Aren't you a make to order facility? Didn't you have to go to ASC 606 standards a few years back? I'm in the process of automating all of that for us. Things were a lot simpler would you just booked upon shipment

I mean, you can "show" it all you like. No accountant or auditor in their right mind would allow revenue recognition on the sale of something that doesn't even exist. Under SOX any accountant that signed off on a thing would be personally liable for it.

And yes, we are make to order, and no, ASC 606 doesn't disagree with anything I have said above. ASC 606 was to clarify and standardize when to recognize revenue and it explicitly says it is not based on when cash is transfered. Our company experienced no changes whatsoever in our policies or practices because of it, and our revenue recognition (like just about all accounting entries) is and has been more or less automated within SAP for ~20 years because it is exactly that...booked upon the goods issue.

FWIW here is some text directly from FASB:

What Are the Main Provisions and How Are Those an
Improvement?
The core principle of the guidance in Topic 606 is that an entity should recognize
revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an
amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in
exchange for those goods or services. To achieve that core principle, an entity
should apply the following steps:
1. Identify the contract(s) with a customer.
2. Identify the performance obligations in the contract.
3. Determine the transaction price.
4. Allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the
contract.
5. Recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance
obligation.

The amendments in this Update do not change the core principle of the guidance
in Topic 606. Rather, the amendments in this Update clarify the following two
aspects of Topic 606: identifying performance obligations and the licensing
implementation guidance, while retaining the related principles for those areas.

This is perfectly consistent with what I stated before.

When you are selling something at a specific time and place (like a regulatory credit) the performance obligation is already clear. This standard is to clarify things that are not clear (because they are long term in nature....ie: service contracts). Revenue recognition on long term projects (where performance obligations exist before, during, and after a good is shipped) has always been a bit more dicey, but you are completely misunderstanding what is being proposed. No rules were changed with ASC, just clarified to create standardization.

[r0tor]

Wait lists and deposits for future products is a thing.

If they don't have the sales booked, then claiming future sales as present carbon credits seems dishonest at best.

They sold a contract for future credits.  Tesla needs to produce those cars in those years, or secure those credits in those years, or they default on the contract and more than likely take a huge loss.  That's standard business...

[SJ_GTI]

Wait lists and deposits for future products is a thing.

If they don't have the sales booked, then claiming future sales as present carbon credits seems dishonest at best.

You don't recognize revenue from contract or even deposits. If someone pays you for something before you make it (like a car) it is carried as deferred revenue on the balance sheet.

R0tor is wrong, and Tesla's SEC filings make it clear they are only recognizing revenue from regulatory credits when they transfer control of the credit to a buyer. Signing a contract doesn't mean you have transferred control of something. Plain English is the key here. You can't transfer control of something that doesn't exist.

We have contracts to sell glass (and glass vials) to various customers. We don't recognize revenue just because we are obligated to make something for them in the future. We recognize the revenue when we transfer ownership of the products we are selling (ie: when we put it on their truck or, sometimes for small customers, deliver it to their location). It is at that point that we have satisfied our obligation and can recognize the revenue.

Most cash is paid after the event (although again for some small customers we are not familiar with we actually require payment prior to even scheduling production), but when you are paid or when you sign a contract is completely irrelevant to when revenue is recognized.

[Morris Minor]

A disadvantage of having an occasionally wayward CEO, with mega-rockstar levels of celebrity, is that your company is under levels of scrutiny like no other. Every molecule of paint, every fastener in the trunk, is endlessly analyzed & obsessed over.

[MrH]

A disadvantage of having an occasionally wayward CEO, with mega-rockstar levels of celebrity, is that your company is under levels of scrutiny like no other. Every molecule of paint, every fastener in the trunk, is endlessly analyzed & obsessed over.

Well, when the rockstar CEO goes on a coke binge and fakes the largest buyout ever during trading hours, I'd say the scrutiny is totally justified.  If that was any other person in the entire world, they would have been yanked by the end of the day.

[MrH]

I mean, you can "show" it all you like. No accountant or auditor in their right mind would allow revenue recognition on the sale of something that doesn't even exist. Under SOX any accountant that signed off on a thing would be personally liable for it.

And yes, we are make to order, and no, ASC 606 doesn't disagree with anything I have said above. ASC 606 was to clarify and standardize when to recognize revenue and it explicitly says it is not based on when cash is transfered. Our company experienced no changes whatsoever in our policies or practices because of it, and our revenue recognition (like just about all accounting entries) is and has been more or less automated within SAP for ~20 years because it is exactly that...booked upon the goods issue.

FWIW here is some text directly from FASB:

This is perfectly consistent with what I stated before.

When you are selling something at a specific time and place (like a regulatory credit) the performance obligation is already clear. This standard is to clarify things that are not clear (because they are long term in nature....ie: service contracts). Revenue recognition on long term projects (where performance obligations exist before, during, and after a good is shipped) has always been a bit more dicey, but you are completely misunderstanding what is being proposed. No rules were changed with ASC, just clarified to create standardization.

We have totally changed revenue recognition since ASC 606.  Since we are sharing lab data during the process, and the customer is signing off, and each batch is made specifically for each customer, we're now measuring percent complete and booking revenue according to that.  Adds a lot of complexity for us, but it prevents the end of month mad rush to ship, which is good.  Only problem is, now it encourages lots of WIP creation.

[Soup DeVille]

You don't recognize revenue from contract or even deposits. If someone pays you for something before you make it (like a car) it is carried as deferred revenue on the balance sheet.

R0tor is wrong, and Tesla's SEC filings make it clear they are only recognizing revenue from regulatory credits when they transfer control of the credit to a buyer. Signing a contract doesn't mean you have transferred control of something. Plain English is the key here. You can't transfer control of something that doesn't exist.

We have contracts to sell glass (and glass vials) to various customers. We don't recognize revenue just because we are obligated to make something for them in the future. We recognize the revenue when we transfer ownership of the products we are selling (ie: when we put it on their truck or, sometimes for small customers, deliver it to their location). It is at that point that we have satisfied our obligation and can recognize the revenue.

Most cash is paid after the event (although again for some small customers we are not familiar with we actually require payment prior to even scheduling production), but when you are paid or when you sign a contract is completely irrelevant to when revenue is recognized.

I know what the practice is; what I'm trying to point out is there's a difference between wrong practices done in good faith and those done to intentionally deceive.

[SJ_GTI]

I know what the practice is; what I'm trying to point out is there's a difference between wrong practices done in good faith and those done to intentionally deceive.

Ok, understood and agree. 

[SJ_GTI]

We have totally changed revenue recognition since ASC 606.  Since we are sharing lab data during the process, and the customer is signing off, and each batch is made specifically for each customer, we're now measuring percent complete and booking revenue according to that.  Adds a lot of complexity for us, but it prevents the end of month mad rush to ship, which is good.  Only problem is, now it encourages lots of WIP creation.

There could be something specific about the business you are doing. IIRC your company is a contract filler (I know we have shipped vials to your company to fill on behalf of other companies who also are our customer) so maybe there is some ownership relationship as the product is produced rather than when it is delivered. So if your customers owns and controls the product as it is manufactured rather than when it is shipped you could theoretically have an issue. This stems from being a contract manufacturer and wouldn't apply to most businesses (even if they are make to order).

[MrH]

There could be something specific about the business you are doing. IIRC your company is a contract filler (I know we have shipped vials to your company to fill on behalf of other companies who also are our customer) so maybe there is some ownership relationship as the product is produced rather than when it is delivered. So if your customers owns and controls the product as it is manufactured rather than when it is shipped you could theoretically have an issue. This stems from being a contract manufacturer and wouldn't apply to most businesses (even if they are make to order).

Yeah, we contract manufacture.  They own it through the whole process basically.  We can't sell the batch to someone else, for example.

I work on the oral solid dose line of the business though, so we make pills and capsules.  We have steriles division too, that's probably who you sell to.  My plant doesn't do any, but I work with others that do quite a bit.

[Laconian]

Well, when the rockstar CEO goes on a coke binge and fakes the largest buyout ever during trading hours, I'd say the scrutiny is totally justified.  If that was any other person in the entire world, they would have been yanked by the end of the day.

I thought it was Ambien, not coke, which got Musk all wonky.

[Soup DeVille]

I thought it was Ambien, not coke, which got Musk all wonky.

Nope.

Adrenochrome.

[Laconian]

Nope.

Adrenochrome.

Can't be. Musk is too based to be part of the satanic pedophile adrenochrome cabal.

[Soup DeVille]

Can't be. Musk is too based to be part of the satanic pedophile adrenochrome cabal.

He's using vatgrown stuff from stem cell embryos; not the free range stuff

[shp4man]

The whole stinking "carbon credit" thing is a fucking joke. Typical ineffective, expensive government program that the people end up paying for.