@jbcarioca’s superb post, up to his usual insightful standards, is Required Reading for all who choose to participate in this thread.This is an interesting point.
Seriously, the terms conglomerate/, keiretsu-zaibatsu, chaebol all suggest largely unrelated groups of businesses that are connected by some common shareholding and financial interconnections.I have equated these because the terms are all a bit fexible.
Tesla, in my opinion, would not quality because all their businesses build upon a common technological approach, with common customers. Even when Tesla makes acquisitions, such as Grohmann, Maxwell, Hibar and the others Tesla almost immediately integrates them into Tesla operating units, nearly eliminating other customers. Thus I would call Tesla 'a vertically integrated manufacturer of renewable energy products' or something similar. I would not consider Tesla a conglomerate.
I think the 'Tesla discount' arises because of four related issues:
First, high vertical integration is not well understood in the securities industry. The 'just in time' industrial approach essentially constructs assemblers and franchisers. Thus Tesla is not quite plausible to them. NO auto dealers? That takes vertical integration to an entirely new level! No advertising? How si that even possible? (remember the critics don't yet understand the internet, much less 'word-of-mouth via social media)
Second, The defiance of 'status quo' and constant reinvention cause panic attacks in people who are built to understand momentum, not innovation.
Third, The leadership of Tesla, from Elon Musk to many others like Andrej Karpathy and Andrew Baglino have a common trait. They are all Engineers devoted to the pursuit of better technologies. They all speak in something far afield from the PR-accented simple English of securities analysts.
Four, Tesla accounting rules are among the most conservative among public companies but, a huge but, their income recognition policy is unique in the auto industry, their cash flow results in part from a sales process unique in the auto industry. their energy business is different from all others and, to top it all off, they act as an electrical power distributor in multiple ways, none fo which bear any relationship to what 'securities analysts' know.
Put these four together and magic happens. Magic is anathema to securities analysts. To exacerbate this problem the Tesla work is built on something that is described in "management consultant speak" as 'stretch goals'. Still worse is that these 'stretch goals' are dependent on solving previously insoluble problems, offered by Tesla in glorious detail. The detail, however, is incompressible to people who cannot actually understand the not-very-complex Tesla accounting conventions.
So the message is: "if you are bothered by volatility don't buy TSLA". If you're not prepared to fight constant misunderstanding and misrepresentation from ignorant observers, don't buy TSLA.
We do not need conspiracy to explain ignorance of fact. The probable losers in this transition are enthusiastic critics, and facts just confuse them.
In the meantime we can count on the collective acronyms to fight against progress. US only: SEC, NTSB, FTC, NADA, AMM, UAW and so on.
Still, our four leading issues are enough to feed the opponents for a long time to come.
As it brings up the topic of keiretsu - the modern-day successor of zaibatsu - I think it necessary to emphasize another key element. These organizations each are structured around a financial entity - almost always a commercial bank - that performs the necessary functions of any bank, but to the specific benefit of the constituent manufacturing and service components of the organization, and which serves as the medium @jbcarioca alluded to in his mention of the crossholding of shares amongst the keiretsu’s components. In Japan - I am far less fluent in the Korean counterparts, their chaebols - these often had begun as trading houses, a function still of extreme importance today.
So, where does Tesla fit in the above? Currently, as @jbcarioca described, hardly at all. Yet it is apparent to me that a keiretsu-like structure could fairly describe the Tesla Inc…..or our “X Corporation” of the near future….and most particularly as one envisages an entity that is instrumental in organizing a Martian colony and, in fact, an entire planet. Trading company? My goodness, yes. Indubitably and of utmost necessity. Financial keystone? Not only just as vital, but one that patently could morph from the still-nascent Tesla automotive insurance arm. Tesla’s also close to unparalleled ease of access to the capital markets plays hand in glove to all this.
I have only three - at the most, four - decades of productive time left. Perhaps it’s time to leave my own wilderness redoubt and get to organizing all this. Mr Musk needs to stay as Chief Innovation Officer, irrespective of whatever words he uses.