It's one thing to entertain ideas throughout the year... it's a totally different thing to sell $2b worth of stock then 20 days later announce a merger and publish a document stating that you're dramatically changing the course of the company.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
It's one thing to entertain ideas throughout the year... it's a totally different thing to sell $2b worth of stock then 20 days later announce a merger and publish a document stating that you're dramatically changing the course of the company.
Ah, now it all makes perfect sense. Thanks.
I did learn one useful nugget from the TMC link, though: the rated highway range of the Bolt is only 217 miles. The high EPA mileage comes from 255 miles in city driving. Since the vehicle has a considerably less-powerful motor than Model 3 and a 60kwh battery, good city mileage is to be expected, and since the Bolt has a high drag-coefficient, less-attractive highway mileage is to be expected. Now, ask yourself this question: where do I need the best range: city driving or highway driving? Phrased differently, how often to you exceed 200 miles just running around town versus exceeding 200 miles in a day on the highway?
Last edited:
The board did meet to discuss the potential merger. It's written in the S-4
"Following the conceptual discussion between Messrs. Elon Musk and Lyndon Rive, on February 29, 2016, at a special meeting of the Tesla Board, Mr. Jason Wheeler, Tesla’s Chief Financial Officer, presented to the Tesla Board preliminary considerations related to product and operational synergies that might result from an acquisition of SolarCity, based upon publicly available information regarding SolarCity. Following discussion, the Tesla Board determined not to proceed with the evaluation of a potential strategic acquisition of a solar energy company, due to the potential impact on Tesla management’s time and resources in light of Tesla’s execution of ongoing operational and strategic initiatives, including Tesla’s ongoing production ramp of its Model X vehicle."
No, it's not. If the material conversations occurred after the deal then too bad. It's just unfortunate timing for any investors who got in and do not agree with the merger. And they have ways to register that dissatisfaction - vote the merger down or sell the stock.
Put another way, what if out of an abundance of caution they did disclose that the informal Feb conversations occurred and then they decided not to go forward with the deal? This happens quite frequently. That would have had a big impact on SCTY's stock price (and maybe TSLA's too), all for nothing. Companies are not required to disclose everything they consider.
Yeah, that's 100% non-material. Evaluating an idea using publicly available information and declining to give the idea any additional consideration at that time in no way rises to the level of materiality. Can you even imagine if that was the standard?
stealthology
Member
OK, so the NYT article is incorrect?
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1729847/
Edit: OK, wow. Seems like every article (even NYT) I come by has incorrect information. No wonder the 27% spread/arbitrage.
Or more to the point, there are even more 110 and even 220 outlets in the USA.
Or how about just count all of the available RV parks?
These can be great destination chargers after all.
The Bolt is likely to be popular with Lyft/Uber drivers (at least before Model 3 is widely available), especially in densely populated areas where lots of city miles are logged and the added city range is a plus. Not likely to be so popular with most of the general public although I don't doubt they can sell/lease 30,000 in the first year, including short-term leases to drivers who really want an EV and will later upgrade to Model 3 at about the same price point.
Honestly, I have no idea. Companies do not publicly disclose when they have meetings or minutes. My point is that regardless of whether it was discussed in a private conversation, in a Board meeting or both, materiality was not even close to being triggered based on the information we have re: the discussions. However, it's super easy to write clickbait accusing Elon of illegally withholding secret info from investors because - gasp! - they had thought about the merger prior to actually digging in and doing it.
Well its material to me as I wouldnt touch SCTY with a 10 foot pole... I'm sure that doesnt mean it meets any disclosure threshold though
Well, that is how extraordinary investment opportunities are made when you have the general market sentiment like that. I am in both TSLA and SCTY.Well its material to me as I wouldnt touch SCTY with a 10 foot pole... I'm sure that doesnt mean it meets any disclosure threshold though
May 20th... Tesla closes $2b deal. June 21st Tesla announces SCTY buyout. You think at some point within that 30 days Elon went to the board and said "hey... I've got an idea... let's put an bid on SCTY and change the direction of the company" and the board said "thumbs up"?
There's virtually a 100% chance that the intention to bid for SCTY in the short term was known in advance of the offering.
Yeah that would be a big deal if that actually happened. Which it didn't.
As I suspected, your thesis boils down to "nuh uh, Elon is lying!" Thanks for playing.
"Having raised money recently would we have been more comfortable if he had told us?’ Anderson asked. ‘Yes,’ he stated."
Tesla's SolarCity bid worries Baillie Gifford's Anderson
T Rowe Price is the other institution that could swing the vote one way or the other.
You are incorrect. It was breifly discussed, tabled, they did the raise, they started discussing the purchase again and decided to do it. This is all laid out in the disclosures very clearly.
Enough with your pet conspiracy theory, to many pages on it already.
I wouldn't take much from that.
Reporter: "Mr. institution, would you prefer to have more speculative inside information before investing in a company or less?"
Institution: "More."
hold on... you actually believe this? it's one thing to be an optimist... it's another to be slapped in the face with a completely likely negative scenario and blindly accept it.
I think its more than that. SolarCity is 3.4 billion in debt, lost half a billion last year and its year on year installation rate is falling.
For a capital intensive company like Tesla to take this on, at this point in time, fundamentally changes the outlook of the company.
Last edited:
Your post is incomprehensible. It literally makes no sense.
The S-4 clearly lays out the timeline. If it is truthful, Tesla is 100% clear and in the right. If you are suggesting otherwise, the only valid argument in support of this assertion is that Tesla is lying to the SEC. That appears to be your thesis.
You should double down on your short position. Oh wait! You can't - no shares left to short. Bummer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
