One was also able to get their customers $7,500+ per car as well as EV credits from Uncle Sam. On a per car basis, that is a considerably higher subsidy and help than a $50B loan.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
One was also able to get their customers $7,500+ per car as well as EV credits from Uncle Sam. On a per car basis, that is a considerably higher subsidy and help than a $50B loan.
My apologies, Sir, but your propensity to make dazzlingly inventive absurd proclamations (quite a few packed within one day) reminds me of somebody with similar talents ...
Wait, do you ... know Anton Wahlman?
We have no idea about how much of a cut that 3-5M is - are they paying out 1 week salary? 1 quarter? 1 year?
A bold move is to not provide overly generous bonuses to people who they determined are not worth keeping.
The SCTY restructuring restores my faith that it'll be a net good decision for Tesla in the end. Moving SCTY to a low acquisition cost model--away from SCTY hard door to door sales culture, into more passive Tesla sales culture--will allow the companies to mesh better and reduce the cash drain / risk of having SCTY on board.
If all SCTY does is manufacture and provide super-cheap, world class solar panels to Tesla infrastructure, along with passive sales to customers who want to join in on the fun, they'll be a good asset to Tesla.
If all SCTY does is manufacture and provide super-cheap, world class solar panels to Tesla infrastructure, along with passive sales to customers who want to join in on the fun, they'll be a good asset to Tesla.
Zhelko Dimic
Careful bull
Have you actually read Anton Wahlman!?
C'mon, that's too offensive to use on fellow contributor on TMC whether you agree or not...
Zhelko Dimic
Careful bull
Related to many discussions around here:
What Tesla Motors' CFO Said About Boosting Gross Profit Margins -- The Motley Fool
What Tesla Motors' CFO Said About Boosting Gross Profit Margins -- The Motley Fool
And, even with an as-good-as-decided take-over by very solvent Tesla, paying an unprecedented 6.5% interest on a newly issued $125M bond with a maturity rate of just 18 months. In October 2015 they were able to offer less (5.45%) for solar bonds with a maturity date of 15 years(!) I don't how anyone could claim that the capital market is/was not closing in on a stand alone SolarCity in a very, very rapid way.
MartinAustin
Active Member
Just for grins I reached out to Tire Rack using their "online chat." I told them I had a P100D and asked what the 19" tire choices were. The chap said Bridgestone Turanza Serenity Plus and Pirelli Cinturato P7 All Season Plus. (both 245/45R19) I mentioned the Primacy MXM4's used on older variants and he said that was his third choice. I pointed out that the P100D didn't officially exist yet, and wondered how he could make these recommendations. He said (quote) "the 2016 model has already been available and we've had access to the vehicle. This is for a 2016 Tesla Model S P100D."
I'm not sure he knew what he was talking about.
MartinAustin
Active Member
Of course it's going to be easier for Tesla to effectively operate and run their Solar City unit if it has even lower costs than it did prior to them proposing the acquisition. (and lest I be seen as a greedy capitalist shareholder-type... my sympathies go to those who are losing their jobs, hopefully they can get hired back some day)
However, just to play devil's advocate - can't this news be used as fodder for the FUDsters? SCTY laying off staff? Cutting back high-end salaries? That sort of thing also goes on at companies who are about to go out of business. And Tesla is offering to buy this company? Will the "gross corporate governance misconduct" comet come back around for another pass?
Ditto to the GM to Tesla comparison, along with other absurdities...
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Tesla did not "get" anything from Uncle Sam. Tesla was busy trying to get Roadsters out the door at the time these rules were written and had zero lobbyist in Washington or Sacramento.
GM and Nissan lobbied Uncle Sam for the $7500 per EV subsidy and wrote the rule so the Volt would qualify for the full $7500. GM and Nissan plus others of the "Big Eight" lobbied CARB and Sacramento for the current ZEV credits and rules. Tesla is just playing the game established by others. It has only recently hired lobbyist and tried to alter the rules going forward. Largely to allow direct sales.
BTW Taxpayers don't give a rats ass about per car basis. They care about the total cost. GM et al have eaten far more pork at the government trough than Tesla since Tesla came into existence.
andrerodpt
Member
Is this a invite to dinner from Apple?
He can't be serious.
I've read that Tesla is a company similar to GM, producing cars slightly inferior to Ford Taurus.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
