Never mind.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/24/tes...ded-elon-musk-says-company-is-better-off.html

After considering all of these factors, I met with Tesla's Board of Directors yesterday and let them know that I believe the better path is for Tesla to remain public. The Board indicated that they agree.

 

That's a politically charged way of looking at it! (Look at the transfer of GM from shareholders to the labor unions.)

I don't believe that the GM fiasco was done in accordance with existing law, so as you say that particularly case is in the realm of politics. Let's agree to ignore it for this discussion.

Equity holders take on more risk than bond holders in return for a greater share of the potential upside. So if debt-holders are forced to take a haircut, the equity holders would be expected to suffer even more.

I have no problem with that. The assets should be used to satisfy the outstanding obligations to the employees (unpaid wages and other benefits) first, then the secured debt-holders (using the security items) then the unsecured debt-holders, then the shareholders. At whatever point the assets run out, everyone further down the list gets nothing. What I really object to is Company X owning a fleet of planes and other assets and doing business one day and then the next day Company X is somehow magically a different Company X the next day with different owners owning all of those assets and doing business and all of the debt-holders and shareholders of the "old" Company X are simply screwed. Sounds like theft, to me.

 

What I really object to is Company X owning a fleet of planes and other assets and doing business one day and then the next day Company X is somehow magically a different Company X the next day with different owners owning all of those assets and doing business and all of the debt-holders and shareholders of the "old" Company X are simply screwed. Sounds like theft, to me.

Yup, it does seem wrong somehow. In theory a judge allows it to happen, chooses it even, reasoning that allowing the "new" business Y to continue with whatever was left of X, is better overall than dissolving X and walking away. I know bankruptcy carries a lot of implications and isn't as easy as people think it is, but it nevertheless seems like too easy a way out. Frankly I'm a big proponent of debtors prisons!

 

If I were Elon Musk and had tons of $$$ for R&D, I would pursue fuel cell technology for automobile applications instead of batteries.

Fuel cells for automotive use would be a technological and economic breakthrough that would transform both the automotive and energy industry.

In my work experience with electric buses in San Francisco, I've encountered several companies that do R&D in fuel cells for transportation use and there are a few successful applications in Canada. However, the main problem is that fuel cells are still not cost effective VS hybrid electric propulsion.

 

https://www.labaton.com/en/about/pr...lon-Musk-and-Tesla-Inc.cfm?cs_forceReadMode=1

The complaint alleges that Tesla’s Chief Executive Officer (Elon Musk) artificially manipulated the price of Tesla securities with objectively false tweets in order to “burn” the Company’s short-sellers. Specifically, on August 7, 2018, Defendants misrepresented they had “funding secured” for a buyout to take Tesla private and “nvestor support is confirmed.” The truth regarding the supposedly “secure” financing needed to effectuate the going-private transaction emerged in the succeeding days, exposing the fraudulent scheme and in the process injuring all Class Period investors as the price of Tesla securities deteriorated rapidly.

Not shocked by this.

 

Elon Musk did an hour with Joe Rogan on his podcast.
http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/elon-musk
Talked about lots of fascinating stuff, future visions etc. for whish Musk is justifiably famous. Unfortunately, he also smoked pot and drank whiskey on camera and that is what the headlines are this AM. Stock is down about 7% pre-market today. This after several days of drops from ~320s to 280 before this. Will open at around 260 today.

If Tesla is to survive someone needs to acknowledge that those lofty share prices have a lot of Elon-genius baked in. If Elon is baked, well, it's just another money-losing company and who invests in that?

On related notes: the HR director Gaby Toledano made the leave of absence announced a couple of weeks ago permanent today. That's how Doug Field, the director of engineering, left a couple of months ago. The new Chief Accounting Officer didn't bother with the leave of absence. He resigned after 1 month. He did say that it wasn't due to any accounting irregularities. Maybe he just didn't like the numbers.

Down 9.56% as I click..

 

The guys judgement is going up in smoke. It's legal but not very smart as the CEO to get high in public.

 

The guys judgement is going up in smoke. It's legal but not very smart as the CEO to get high in public.

Especially since as key management personnel have left, their jobs have been taken over by Elon himself. There's your Director of Engineering... and sales... and..

Kind of wonder what NASA is thinking about Space-X right about now. Elon runs that too.

 

Goes to show you that Musk has a lot more $$$ than common sense.

It is illegal to be under the influence of pot or alcohol in any federally sanctioned activity that involves public safety such as launching rockets for NASA. If he ever goes on the launch site for Space X while under the influence, he may be subject to arrest and prosecution.

 

Goes to show you that Musk has a lot more $$$ than common sense.

It is illegal to be under the influence of pot or alcohol in any federally sanctioned activity that involves public safety such as launching rockets for NASA. If he ever goes on the launch site for Space X while under the influence, he may be subject to arrest and prosecution.

Or while driving a car to buy donuts.

 

Goes to show you that Musk has a lot more $$$ than common sense.

It is illegal to be under the influence of pot or alcohol in any federally sanctioned activity that involves public safety such as launching rockets for NASA. If he ever goes on the launch site for Space X while under the influence, he may be subject to arrest and prosecution.

So? What does that have to do with anything? Would you be saying the same thing if he had taken a sip of beer or wine on TV?

 

Pot is legally a controlled substance that is illegal to possess and use under any circumstances and as the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation, Musk should not be using it in any place where his personal life may be made public.

I actually don;t give damn if people drink or smoke weed in their private lives, but just don't do it where the stock holders of a failing corporation can get a glimpse of embarrassing personal conduct. It's a public relations "Faux Pau" just like Clinton's XXX activities with Monica Lewinsky while in the Oval Office.

Furthermore, in my former job at San Francisco's transit agency, the civil service rules prohibit any off the job conduct that would in anyway constitute "Disgrace And Disrespect For The City While In Public View". Accordingly, public officials are considered as being on duty on a 24/7 basis and the general manager of the transit system certainly would not go on TV while drinking a beer, a glass of wine, or puffing on a joint.

 

Pot is legally a controlled substance that is illegal to possess and use under any circumstances and as the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation, Musk should not be using it in any place where his personal life may be made public. It's a public relations "Faux Pau" just like Clinton's XXX activities with Monica Lewinsky while in the Oval Office.

Furthermore, in my former job at San Francisco's transit agency, the civil service rules prohibit any off the job conduct that would in anyway constitute "Disgrace And Disrespect For The City While In Public View". Accordingly, public officials are considered as being on duty on a 24/7 basis and the general manager of the transit system certainly would not go on TV while drinking a beer, a glass of wine, or puffing on a joint.

I tend to agree. Musk’s or any CEO’s public behavior impacts shareholders, every one of whom lost money as a result of his stunt. I lean towards letting CEOs and other public figures be human and show us their true selves, but a man in his position should know better.

 

Pot is legally a controlled substance that is illegal to possess and use under any circumstances

These days, that very much depends on where you are.

and as the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation, Musk should not be using it in any place where his personal life may be made public.

I actually don;t give damn if people drink or smoke weed in their private lives, but just don't do it where the stock holders of a failing corporation can get a glimpse of embarrassing personal conduct. It's a public relations "Faux Pau" just like Clinton's XXX activities with Monica Lewinsky while in the Oval Office.

Furthermore, in my former job at San Francisco's transit agency, the civil service rules prohibit any off the job conduct that would in anyway constitute "Disgrace And Disrespect For The City While In Public View". Accordingly, public officials are considered as being on duty on a 24/7 basis and the general manager of the transit system certainly would not go on TV while drinking a beer, a glass of wine, or puffing on a joint.

I'm certainly not disagreeing, nor am I condoning Musk's behavior -- I am about as far from being a Musk fan as you can get. I just so no relevance to his behavior on a podcast and what would happen at a launch facility.

I completely agree that, even if it were legal, it was stupid. I don't know whether he has any contracts with anyone that would address such behavior. If he has any kind of a government security clearance, then there probably are prohibitions and restrictions on his behavior that would be relevant and I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force wouldn't look into it. But even if there aren't any such contacts or rules that he is in violation of, it's still stupid and just goes to show that he has a strong immature side that thinks that he is entitled to behave any way he likes. At some point there's a good chance he will discover that that isn't as true as he thought (though I would be fantasizing if I didn't acknowledge that, sadly, it IS true to at least some degree and much more of a degree that I would like it to be).

 

I actually don;t give damn if people drink or smoke weed in their private lives, but just don't do it where the stock holders of a failing corporation can get a glimpse of embarrassing personal conduct.

It's called free market, my friend. If Musk wants to act stupidly, he can. He has no obligation to act a particular way, drink a particular brand of scotch, or cheer for a particular team. Likewise, you are completely free to sell the Tesla stock you own because of it. No law was broken to a degree that any law enforcement agency will enforce to issue a citation for. By the way, a citation for pot is not going to cause the SEC to pull his authority to be CEO of a public company.

Reading back, I see that your life is full of opinions on how other people should act. Nobody seems to listen to you (or you tell an electronics forum instead of telling Musk). How does all that ineffective complaining make your life better?

 

There are a group of old farts like me, who spend a lot of time here. What seems preachy to you....to us old folks......it's just expressing an opinion. It's not meant to insult or hurt feelings. It's just open opinion.......he doesn't need permission. He broke no civility.

You don't either.

 

He has no obligation to act a particular way...

He does if he wants to remain a CEO. I agree with your point that CEOs have broad freedom to act as they please and Musk is not at risk here, but CEOs are certainly more constrained than you or I. The SEC frowns on insider trading, for instance.

 

My life is full of opinion too. It's the only thing I can take with me. It's all mine. There's none other like it.

It's the only thing I own. And no one else made it. It's mine and no other can possess it.

It can not be stolen. That's why we all like our opinions. Our very first civil law......protects our opinions.

Our civil agreement protects our speech..........but not our ears.

Your only recourse is fingers in your ears. Or change channels. You or the law may not prevent it.

I don't know this Musk fellow. But I do know the taxpayer money corrupts and is unfair to other competitors. It's a perversion. Political thievery.

From his posts....Glenn spent a lot of his life in transportation. It does not surprise me that he has an opinion on such things.

Didn't mean to steal thread....will retire.

 

Yeah, let's get back to the topic if we can.

So, on that topic - It's TESLA DAYS at Fremont! Bada-Bing! A wild weekend of drop in, pick your car and drive out.
https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-3-hundreds-delivered-stock-inbound/

This is a fascinating development IMO. Previously, you ordered your car online - Tesla has no independent dealers - waited until it was built, then picked it up at one of the delivery centers scattered about. Tesla maintained that this system was because every car was built to order, no discounts and so special. They tout the 420K reservations that they they have on the Model 3 alone as evidence that their future is assured.

Unfortunately, lurking on various fan-sites tells tales of delivery hangups, cancellations of delivery due to issues with the car (and rejections by the buyer), not enough capacity in the logistics etc. Add to that a convoluted system to even pay for the car and it's not a mystery why they are having problems. There are reports of lots (acreage actually) in Lathrop and Burbank, CA with thousands of cars collecting dust. One would wonder why, if all of those have a buyer reservation attached to the build, the cars weren't just shipped to the delivery centers for quick delivery to the willing and long-waiting buyers. TESLA DAYS at Fremont answers at least one of those questions - they didn't have firm orders for what they built. If they did then some poor schlep in Minnesota who has been waiting 2.5 years for his car just got it sold out from under him. 'More stock inbound' as noted in the article may imply that a number of those stored cars weren't really just going through logistics channels on the way to reservations holders despite assurances.

Q3 is coming to an end and TSLA desperately needs to 1)show a profit 2)demonstrate that their build capacity, quality, logistics problems are behind them and 3)that they still have strong demand for their cars. They need to move the metal. Q3 may indeed be profitable but I think that a decent analyst might question some of their previous claims when they essentially have to resort to putting a big blow-up gorilla on the rooftop to move cars.

Things will be different going forward. The closet mystique and exclusivity image that derived from the old process of buying is gone. Show up and give us your money is the new paradigm. A more dangerous result may be to the 'reveal and reservation' instruments. The Model 3 reveal extravaganza garnered 400K-500K reservations at $1000/pop. That's free money. Next March, they say they'll reveal the model Y crossover and take reservations for that. So after waiting 2.5 years for the 3 only to find out that you can just walk in and get one when they finally get around to building some, who in their right mind would plunk down a reservation? More so with the wobbly financials and CEO behavior of late. Any way you slice it, that's a half-billion bucks that they don't get for cash flow (deposits are not escrowed).

Finally, CEO behavior is actually a really big deal. There are real legal requirements for how information about a publicly-held business is disseminated with serious consequences for transgressions. The take-private tweet that was later recanted has generated class-action lawsuits on behalf of investors that bought into the stock at 350 thinking getting bought out at 420 was a done deal. No buyout and stock is now at 280. There are laws against that and Musk has exposed TSLA to potentially expensive actions. His management technique is better suited for small startups than a large industrial manufacturer. Especially, he doesn't like to concede that others may have better ways of doing things than he has.

Toyota's manufacturing system is the gold standard of auto-manufacturing and emulated the world over. Elon dismissed them as 'dinosaurs'. So he makes the same expensive mistakes they did decades ago. A recent article in the NY Times described some of the lessons they were learning about over automation (GM learned about that in the '80s). One item caught my attention and answered a lot of questions, for me anyway. They had spent days trying to get a robot to achieve millimeter tolerance to insert a bolt into hole. Days. Eventually they were delighted to discover that using a bolt with a tapered point to guide it to the hole worked without the fine tolerances they were trying to get out of the robot. Uhhh.. tapered point bolts have been around since forever for just that reason. Any of those 'dinosaurs' could have told them that but no, they had a bunch of techies going at it.

The same article described how they were experimenting with the robots to get them to go faster than the manufacturer's spec. Just what I'd do to ensure reliable and accurate manufacturing. I thought it was curious that none of the market analysts indicated that they had a problem with them experimenting with robot rates and tapered bolts a year after they said that the factory was up and running.

But, we'll see how TESLA DAYS work out after they deflate the gorilla and add things up. I'd expect to see more of that sort of thing as they try to clear out existing inventory. The stock took a pounding last week, maybe it will bounce as a result of this aggressive action. Who knows?

Just my .02 - not investment advice.

Interesting times we live in!

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-face-u-s-criminal-probe-over-musk-statements

Tesla Inc. is under investigation by the Justice Department over public statements made by the company and Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk, according to two people familiar with the matter. The criminal probe is running alongside a previously reported civil inquiry by securities regulators.