Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
Elon Musk did [predicted profits] on August 1 2018.... Do you honestly not remember it...

I remember it fine. But you just stated it from memory as though it was simple and clear, and it wasn't. It was indeed reported that way, but that isn't the whole story. Look down further along in that same answer to where he adds what the analysts like to call color (but I'd call ambiguity and confusion): it's a goal, and it excludes certain events, and it's "from an operating-plant standpoint" (I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it sure doesn't sound like GAAP). Here's that part:
And from an operating-plant standpoint, from Q3 onwards, I really want to emphasize our goal is to be profitable and cash-flow positive for every quarter, going forward. Now obviously, if there's a big recession or there's a severe force majeure event that interrupts the supply chain, that's not always possible but we're confident that in, provided the economy is roughly where it is today or reasonably good and there's not a big force majeure event that I feel comfortable achieving a GAAP income positive and cash-flow positive quarter every quarter from here on out. There may be occasional quarters, where we pay back a big loan or something, where there may be just because we paid back a big loan but absent that, it would be cash-flow positive.

So what is he predicting here? Nothing so simple as all GAAP profitable all the time from now on. So I don't think your calibration mechanism is at all accurate. And you'll notice that all quarters since then have actually been cash flow positive, except for 2019Q1, when there was indeed a large debt repayment about equal to their negative free cash flow. GAAP profitability has been much more elusive, and I'd say Musk's enthusiastic positivity in these statements has proven to be just wrong, but not "wildly inaccurate". In fact, I think it's likely that they will indeed be free cash flow positive from now on in every quarter without exception; as for GAAP profitability I hope not for a long time (well maybe close to break even), as I want them growing as fast as possible.

Also amazed that $420/share isn't seared into your brain.

I understand quite well what happened with the attempt to take Tesla private at $420/share. But I don't think you do (not if you are using it to "calibrate" current statements), and I don't think you have any evidence to back up whatever it is you do think, since it's probably vaguely remembered reporting that wasn't accurate to begin with. I described my take on what happened earlier in this thread, and there wasn't anything "wildly inaccurate" from Musk.

You wrote that you "calibrate" Musk due to his "wildly inaccurate statements about the future". You list five things, which I'll comment on a bit further:
- predicting that it would be profits from now on once the M3 came online
Wrong, or at best misleading. I described what he said about profits above, but it was also contingent on being "at a production rate of 7,000 cars a week", not "once the M3 came online".
- production levels would rise to 10,000/week
Yes, they will. Haven't yet. So yes, his timeline was wrong, and wildly inaccurate is fair.
- $420/share stock price
I assume this is intended as a vague handwavy way of saying that Musk lied about taking the company private. If you want to be literal, he never said any more than he was considering it. And he said he had funding, which he did (although unlikely in the form of signed commitments). And in the end Tesla wasn't taken private of course. So I think you're wrong on this being "wildly inaccurate" in any way.
- $35,000 M3's
There have been $35K Model 3's available since March. So you're wrong on this. Perhaps even wildly inaccurate.
- autodrives across the continent in 2017
Timeline failure for Musk. Pretty much a two year delay on all autopilot accomplishments due to MobilEye bugging out. But they won't do it by the end of 2019 either because it ceased to be a goal. I can agree that this was also "wildly inaccurate".

So, I'll give you two or maybe two and a half out of five, so your inaccuracy is much worse than Musk's. And the two things that Musk was clearly wrong about are about when, not if. I fail entirely to see what such predictions have to do with statements of fact about the present. If you're going to impugn Musk's credibility in general, you'll have to ground such things in clear factual evidence. Well, you don't have to. It's fine if you just don't trust the guy. But don't try to pass this off as a rational position.

Besides, I would think you would cut the guy a ton of slack as he's getting close to bringing the Globalstar dream to reality twenty years later. Ain't that awesome?!

If we have to go searching for and cite quotes every time stuff like this comes up, aren't our posts just going to be unreadable?

Yes. But sadly, since 90% of everything written about Tesla is lies, things vaguely remembered are going to be mostly wrong. I applaud your going back to a (sort of) primary source in citing the transcript. I say "sort of" because unofficial transcripts (on SeekingAlpha) have been previously discovered to have an occasional anomaly that reverse their meaning from what was actually said (if memory serves it was an inserted "not", or possibly a "now" changed to a "not"). Another way of lying, especially when various news outlets write articles based on the false transcript.

I'm not telling anybody how to write, but I don't trust anything I read about Tesla that I can't track back to primary sources. And I don't believe that anybody casually following Tesla news has good information or indeed the means to distinguish good information from bad. The entire situation is tedious and annoying when trying to find out anything about the company. And we even have our own local troll contributing (deliberately, I'm sure) to the problem.

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Let’s say that in any given week TSLA’s demand is only say (go ahead make up a number…) ten units per week above TSLA’s ability to supply… just ever so slightly supply constrained. Just ten per week excess demand.

Then. When GF3 comes on line - with 1000 cars per week - suddenly TSLA will have 990 excess cars built per week beyond demand… not able to sell and thus sitting in parking lots...



You have a very shaky grasp of economics: supply and demand don’t work that way at all. Demand is a curve, with higher demand at lower prices and vice versa. All companies, Tesla included, sell basically all of their production for whatever price they can get. If demand sags, as it has for Tesla, they tweak their prices down a bit (or add features, like free charging) until they sell as much as they’re making. Demand doesn’t just stop at some number (like 10 cars more than their production level.

So even if they are making 5000 cars a week and can sell 5010 at current prices, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t sell 3000 more per week, at lower prices. I’m sure they could triple their sales, for instance, if they offered the Model 3 at $30,000, for instance, and at $20,000 they might get 100 times their current sales. The question is, could they make any money doing that, and of course, they couldn’t (they can’t make money even at $40,000.)

Building cars in China, presumably at lower cost, and avoiding Chinese duty taxes, would be a way of doing this. I am sure they will easily sell all their new Chinese production (which their contract with the Chinese government obliges them to put out anyway). The big thing to watch is, how much will they get for these cars?

dt
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If demand sags, as it has for Tesla... they can’t make money even at $40,000.

I believe these statements are false. Do you have any evidence for them? Tesla has clearly stated that they had more orders going in to Q4 than when they started Q3 -- sounds like demand is increasing, despite their record deliveries. As well, given their positive free cash flow, it is reasonably clear that they are making money on selling their cars -- the fact that they are spending a pile on investing in the future does not change that.

In any case, as their earnings report is coming out in a few days, we'll find out details then. I'm quite sure their average selling price for Q3 is well over $40K, so I'm not even sure that the point of your statement might be.

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
First of all, the argument that it would be stupid for Tesla to expand production if its demand is limited is not quite correct. But the inference from that to "therefore Tesla is not demand limited is very far off my experience with other companies. I was involved in the launch of Globalstar, a satellite phone system which went online around 1999. It was built to service millions of customers around the world. It got about 10,000 customers and filed bankruptcy in 2002. People absolutely over and over build out supply that is not met by demand.

But to your actual questions about what people think about Tesla demand.

The short answer is that I think Tesla will sell more cars than it is selling now, but I think there is an excellent chance it never sells more cars than Ford. If Demand really does exceed Supply, it is obviously not by much. There is no long wait for a Tesla, you can buy one anywhere from immediately with an in-stock discount usually, to a few weeks wait. If there was a demand far exceeding supply there would be longer waiting lists. I tried to shop a Honda Odyssey in 1998 or so and I couldn't even test drive one, and my option to buy was to get put on the waiting list which would give me the right to get an Odyssey in a month or two at a price above MSRP. THAT is demand exceeding supply.

But I don't think demand is a simple number or a static number. If Tesla penetrates the rest of the world the way it has already penetrated California, its sales will be quite a bit higher than they are now.

As to their current production limits, people around here like to say they are battery production limited. That may be true, but is also pretty clearly a choice. If these puppies were flying off the shelves, I don't know of any reason that gigafactory/Panasonic wouldn't increase battery production.

Also, the fact that Tesla expects to sell more Teslas with GF4/Shanghai on line is a virtual proof that Tesla demand is price sensitive. GF4's main novelty is it will lower the price of Teslas a lot in China (and perhaps other places in Asia? I don't know about that.). It sure doesn't look like Tesla could sell right now an extra 3000 M3's a month if they had them, but if they had them at a lower price...

I think Tesla's success is like Climate change in this way: the truth is between the extreme opinions.

R:)

I don't think demand is a simple number, and this is why companies market. Marketing increases demand. It is a good sign that Tesla is not spending a lot of money on marketing. It is spending some, though, by my definitions. Discounts for in-stock vehicles is in my opinion a marketing expense. If there was demand>supply, in stock vehicles would by definition be sold without requiring discounts.

Tesla appears to be working more on increasing demand than on marketing, and that is mostly a good sign.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I believe these statements are false. Do you have any evidence for them?

My "evidence" for statements like these include the wildly inaccurate statements about the future that Musk has made in the past. Things like predicting that it would be profits from now on once the M3 came online, and that production levels would rise to 10,000/week and so on. And of course the odd $420/share stock price, $35,000 M3's and autodrives across the continent in 2017.

I don't fault Musk for being optimistic. But I do calibrate him.

At a certain point, people will learn that you don't need to replace all the ICE's with more expensive electric cars to save the planet. If "green gas" were pushed, funded by taxes on fossil gas, every ICE on the planet becomes a green vehicle as far as carbon is concerned. So $6000 POS little tiny foreign cars are green as long as you don't put fossil carbon in their tank. Seems likely to be a much faster and probably less expensive path to carbon reduction than getting everybody to spend $45,000 on a "mass market" car.

And people will also realize they can get self-driving and robotaxis etc powered by green gas as easily as they can get them in EVs, these are orthogonal developments that just look like they are connected because Tesla is amazing.

R:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My "evidence" for statements like these include the wildly inaccurate statements about the future that Musk has made in the past. Things like predicting that it would be profits from now on once the M3 came online, and that production levels would rise to 10,000/week and so on. And of course the odd $420/share stock price, $35,000 M3's and autodrives across the continent in 2017.

Well, I don't see any evidence here, just assertions and vague handwaving. Who predicted profits from now on? When? Quotes please. Who said anything about a $420/share stock price? Quotes please. You can buy a $35,400 Model 3 today, and it's been around $35K minimum since March. And that's before any incentives. I'll grant you the cross country autopilot trip was overly optimistic and was canned, and production of Model 3 going to 10,000/week has taken much longer than anticipated. It's going to be very interesting to see how long Model Y takes to ramp up.

But regardless, what do statements about the present, how things are, have to do with predictions? Optimism has no place in a statement such as "In addition, we achieved record net orders in Q3 and are entering Q4 with an increase in our order backlog."

At a certain point, people will learn that you don't need to replace all the ICE's with more expensive electric cars to save the planet.

Of course not. You need to replace half of them with cheaper electric cars and junk the rest.

If "green gas" were pushed, funded by taxes on fossil gas, every ICE on the planet becomes a green vehicle as far as carbon is concerned. So $6000 POS little tiny foreign cars are green as long as you don't put fossil carbon in their tank.

Please describe this a bit more. Sounds intriguing. How do we produce and use "green gas" in such a way that we have a minimal carbon footprint?

Seems likely to be a much faster and probably less expensive path to carbon reduction than getting everybody to spend $45,000 on a "mass market" car.

Sounds intriguing. Of course the mass market car is getting cheaper at the rate of high tech, and regardless involves far fewer moving parts, and doesn't spew poison into the air as a side-effect. My prediction continues to be that in a few years the price of an EV will be lower than the maintenance cost of an ICE. Regardless of green gas, the only people keeping ICEs will be those who keep horses nowadays.

Keep in mind that those few years might be 10-15, and part of the reason the maintenance cost of an ICE is so much is that governments penalize you for having them and impose surcharges for driving them anywhere and stinking the place up.

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Who said anything about a $420/share stock price?

How soon we forget.


Elon Musk
?Verified account @elonmusk

Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured.


https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1026872652290379776?lang...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How soon we forget.

Nothing's forgotten. But I'm willing to bet that anybody casually throwing around the phrase "$420/share stock price" has nothing accurate in mind. My question was meant to elicit an actual reference, which you kindly provided.

You'll note that there was no $420/share stock price, nor was there a promise of one. What there was was a foolishly underprepared consideration of taking the company private, abandoned when it became clear that many small shareholders would not be able to continue their ownership. And yes, the funding was easily there (in several possible ways), but pretty much all the feedback from shareholders was that they wanted to continue being shareholders and this maneuver would prevent that.

There followed some investigation as to whether it would be possible to create a legal entity that could allow quasi-public ownership to be possible, but it was abandoned as unfeasible. Me, I foolishly thought Musk must have figured out something clever before he said anything (as he has a background in finance and banking), but I was wrong. His foolishness (and mine) cost me a fair bundle.

Anyway, it would be much cheaper now for Musk to take the company private and he's had over a year to figure out possible legal structures and line up some buddies to help (e.g. Larry Ellison is on the board now and has a few spare billions). As well, it's become more and more clear that being a public company is serving no useful purpose any more. So I think it's entirely possible that he tries again. One consequence of this is that I own no way out of the money LEAP calls -- that 2022 $300 call becomes worthless in an instant if the company is taken private at $290/share.

My original point stands: what possible connection is there between these events, wrongly described, and Tesla's statements as to current demand? Even had the statement I quoted been Musk on twitter as opposed to an official Tesla press release, I don't think Musk's credibility is that shot, is it? I mean, how many of us are 90% accurate even? The post I was responding to was far less.

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Personally I'm willing to cut Musk a lot of slack, but that wasn't the point.

Lets go back to the quote you took exception to.

My "evidence" for statements like these include the wildly inaccurate statements about the future that Musk has made in the past. Things like predicting that it would be profits from now on once the M3 came online, and that production levels would rise to 10,000/week and so on. And of course the odd $420/share stock price, $35,000 M3's and autodrives across the continent in 2017.

You replied.

Who said anything about a $420/share stock price? Quotes please.

The subject was things Musk said, you asked for a quote, you received a quote from Musk...

I really don't need to read an explanation about the whole taking-Tesla-private event. I doubt anyone here does either. But on a list of Musk's questionable statements you can't get much more relevant than that event, when the topic is whether to just accept what he says without a bit of skepticism.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who said anything about a $420/share stock price? Quotes please.

This guy, IGU, did in post 2479 on this very board:



https://boards.fool.com/business-media-descriptions-you-like...


-IGU-
(at this point $420/share is a floor, so TSLA is free money)
(and I expect that absent force majeure or acts of god it will happen in this calendar year)
(of course I'm an optimist)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But on a list of Musk's questionable statements you can't get much more relevant than that event, when the topic is whether to just accept what he says without a bit of skepticism.

I'll agree that the statement was unwise, but in no way was it inaccurate. And the poster who wrote about wild inaccuracies was on average much more inaccurate than Musk has been. So I don't see that your post supports that poster's statement.

And I see we now have our local troll jumping in to the conversation as well. More grey.

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
IGU asked: Who predicted profits from now on?

Elon Musk did on August 1 2018.
Found it widely reported when googling, but I know how you feel about fake news about Tesla so I looked for a transcript. The transcript is consistent with the reporting of the conference call.

Here is the transcript:
https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2018/08/06/te...

Here is Elon Musk quoted in the transcript:
... So, at a production rate of 7,000 cars a week, we believe we can be sustainably profitable from Q3 onwards. ...

Do you honestly not remember it, or are you just shocked, shocked I say to discover that gambling is going on in this establishment? Also amazed that $420/share isn't seared into your brain. If we have to go searching for and cite quotes every time stuff like this comes up, aren't our posts just going to be unreadable?

R:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
IGU:
I'll agree that the statement [about going private at $420/share] was unwise, but in no way was it inaccurate. And the poster who wrote about wild inaccuracies was on average much more inaccurate than Musk has been. So I don't see that your post supports that poster's statement.

As I well remember and you pointed out yourself, you lost money thinking Musk's statement meant the stock was worth $420/share. And you were not the only one. in no way was it inaccurate. Well, in the way that people paying heed to what Musk said formed inaccurate opinions about the value of the stock to the point of losing money, that is the yes way it was inaccurate.

I believe you without asking you for citations that Model 3 is available for $35400 and accept this means my statement was inaccurate.

I have not checked on claims of 10,000/week production or even of what production is now. I sure remember getting the impression from Musk that the hard part of production hell was over, but I'm bored and tired of looking up references.

But $420 and "profits from now on", my hands may have been waving but they were not empty nor were they full of lies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You have a very shaky grasp of economics: supply and demand don’t work that way at all. Demand is a curve, with higher demand at lower prices and vice versa.

All true. However, there isn't one supply & demand curve world-wide. Each country or area has to have some small to medium critical mass of buyers for the price to be reasonable. There has to be superchargers put in place, service/delivery setup, etc. Obviously Tesla, with its supply limited by just one factory (compared to dozens for the big car makers) can't go after the large number of smaller markets without limiting supply to the bigger established markets. Having more supply should help here.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Also, the fact that Tesla expects to sell more Teslas with GF4/Shanghai on line...

As a picky matter of confusing terminology, please don't use "GF4/Shanghai". Tesla has never counted Fremont as a gigafactory. GF1 is in Sparks, NV; GF2 is in Buffalo, NY; GF3 is in Shanghai, China; and the speculation is that GF4 will be somewhere in Europe. Things are confusing enough without adding to it. :)

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Elon Musk did [predicted profits] on August 1 2018.... Do you honestly not remember it...

I remember it fine. But you just stated it from memory as though it was simple and clear, and it wasn't. It was indeed reported that way, but that isn't the whole story. Look down further along in that same answer to where he adds what the analysts like to call color (but I'd call ambiguity and confusion): it's a goal, and it excludes certain events, and it's "from an operating-plant standpoint" (I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it sure doesn't sound like GAAP). Here's that part:
And from an operating-plant standpoint, from Q3 onwards, I really want to emphasize our goal is to be profitable and cash-flow positive for every quarter, going forward. Now obviously, if there's a big recession or there's a severe force majeure event that interrupts the supply chain, that's not always possible but we're confident that in, provided the economy is roughly where it is today or reasonably good and there's not a big force majeure event that I feel comfortable achieving a GAAP income positive and cash-flow positive quarter every quarter from here on out. There may be occasional quarters, where we pay back a big loan or something, where there may be just because we paid back a big loan but absent that, it would be cash-flow positive.

So what is he predicting here? Nothing so simple as all GAAP profitable all the time from now on. So I don't think your calibration mechanism is at all accurate. And you'll notice that all quarters since then have actually been cash flow positive, except for 2019Q1, when there was indeed a large debt repayment about equal to their negative free cash flow. GAAP profitability has been much more elusive, and I'd say Musk's enthusiastic positivity in these statements has proven to be just wrong, but not "wildly inaccurate". In fact, I think it's likely that they will indeed be free cash flow positive from now on in every quarter without exception; as for GAAP profitability I hope not for a long time (well maybe close to break even), as I want them growing as fast as possible.

Also amazed that $420/share isn't seared into your brain.

I understand quite well what happened with the attempt to take Tesla private at $420/share. But I don't think you do (not if you are using it to "calibrate" current statements), and I don't think you have any evidence to back up whatever it is you do think, since it's probably vaguely remembered reporting that wasn't accurate to begin with. I described my take on what happened earlier in this thread, and there wasn't anything "wildly inaccurate" from Musk.

You wrote that you "calibrate" Musk due to his "wildly inaccurate statements about the future". You list five things, which I'll comment on a bit further:
- predicting that it would be profits from now on once the M3 came online
Wrong, or at best misleading. I described what he said about profits above, but it was also contingent on being "at a production rate of 7,000 cars a week", not "once the M3 came online".
- production levels would rise to 10,000/week
Yes, they will. Haven't yet. So yes, his timeline was wrong, and wildly inaccurate is fair.
- $420/share stock price
I assume this is intended as a vague handwavy way of saying that Musk lied about taking the company private. If you want to be literal, he never said any more than he was considering it. And he said he had funding, which he did (although unlikely in the form of signed commitments). And in the end Tesla wasn't taken private of course. So I think you're wrong on this being "wildly inaccurate" in any way.
- $35,000 M3's
There have been $35K Model 3's available since March. So you're wrong on this. Perhaps even wildly inaccurate.
- autodrives across the continent in 2017
Timeline failure for Musk. Pretty much a two year delay on all autopilot accomplishments due to MobilEye bugging out. But they won't do it by the end of 2019 either because it ceased to be a goal. I can agree that this was also "wildly inaccurate".

So, I'll give you two or maybe two and a half out of five, so your inaccuracy is much worse than Musk's. And the two things that Musk was clearly wrong about are about when, not if. I fail entirely to see what such predictions have to do with statements of fact about the present. If you're going to impugn Musk's credibility in general, you'll have to ground such things in clear factual evidence. Well, you don't have to. It's fine if you just don't trust the guy. But don't try to pass this off as a rational position.

Besides, I would think you would cut the guy a ton of slack as he's getting close to bringing the Globalstar dream to reality twenty years later. Ain't that awesome?!

If we have to go searching for and cite quotes every time stuff like this comes up, aren't our posts just going to be unreadable?

Yes. But sadly, since 90% of everything written about Tesla is lies, things vaguely remembered are going to be mostly wrong. I applaud your going back to a (sort of) primary source in citing the transcript. I say "sort of" because unofficial transcripts (on SeekingAlpha) have been previously discovered to have an occasional anomaly that reverse their meaning from what was actually said (if memory serves it was an inserted "not", or possibly a "now" changed to a "not"). Another way of lying, especially when various news outlets write articles based on the false transcript.

I'm not telling anybody how to write, but I don't trust anything I read about Tesla that I can't track back to primary sources. And I don't believe that anybody casually following Tesla news has good information or indeed the means to distinguish good information from bad. The entire situation is tedious and annoying when trying to find out anything about the company. And we even have our own local troll contributing (deliberately, I'm sure) to the problem.

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I am not in the business of reiterating every bit of background when I cite stuff we both (apparently) know Musk has said, and which has been discussed extensively here and elsewhere. Even you said you lost money as a result of Musk's tweet. And Tesla has reported $1.5billion net GAAP losses since Musk's conference call, and done it without a recession or a supply chain interruption.

So maybe there is some additional information you think is wildly relevant. But I challenge you to tell me the value of responding to these points as if I was just making sh1t up.

R:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yes. But sadly, since 90% of everything written about Tesla is lies, things vaguely remembered are going to be mostly wrong. I applaud your going back to a (sort of) primary source in citing the transcript. I say "sort of" because unofficial transcripts (on SeekingAlpha) have been previously discovered to have an occasional anomaly that reverse their meaning from what was actually said (if memory serves it was an inserted "not", or possibly a "now" changed to a "not"). Another way of lying, especially when various news outlets write articles based on the false transcript.

HFS! If you think he was misquoted then make your case. If you don't think he was misquoted and even remember him making the point, then consider that you are your own special brand of FUD responding to my bringing them up as if you had no idea what I was talking about.

What even would be a primary source? The tesla website doesn't have transcripts that I could find.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But I challenge you to tell me the value of responding to these points as if I was just making sh1t up.

Apparently it has little value. If you want to post things that are incorrect then go right ahead. If you want to do so in the context of calling Musk incorrect, you are perfectly free to do that as well. I'm just surprised you don't care.

And if you object to my correcting you by asking "Are you sure?" rather than simply saying "Wrong!" then I guess that's a matter of style.

And Tesla has reported $1.5billion net GAAP losses since Musk's conference call, and done it without a recession or a supply chain interruption.

Um, er, what does Tesla's gains or losses have to do with what's true?

-IGU-
Print the post Back To Top