Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Is this supposed to be inspiring, Nissan? I mean, do you think by 2030 half the buying public will want to buy your pure ICEs??
Why not just say "🎉 By 2030, we plan to be on the road to irrelevancy! 🥳"

I am starting to wonder about this narrative as many carmakers say the same thing.

If Nissian announces that they will be 100% EVs by 2030, some current buyers intending to buy an ICE may reconsider.

The other factor is securing sufficent battery cells, which may be s work in progress.

Behind-the-scenes carmakers may have more ambitious plans than their current public statements, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can execute their plan.

The best predictor of future EV performance is current performance, public statements mean little. Yes those that linger in the blocks might catchup later, but it isn't a great strategy. If anything, it shows a lack of expertise and planning.
 
I have pretty mixed feelings about Tesla straight up acquiring SpaceX. Even with its substantially simple model, the general public vastly misunderstands the core business, and effectively give very little value to Tesla Energy, insurance, Teslabot, and to some extent even the robotaxi business. Adding SpaceX / Starlink to this is going to be very messy for the investing public to understand. Keep in mind that the regulars on this forum have invested a lot of time and energy understanding not just Tesla, but to some extent all of Elon's other ventures.

Secondly, those of us who have been around the TSLA / SCTY merger saw the amount of litigation Elon was dragged through, even as the purchase price was not significant for Elon (because he had approximately the same ownership stake in both entities) and he recused himself from those discussions.

Finally, there are investors of all stripes - namely those who want clean tech exposure, those who want exposure to autonomy, and those who want exposure to space, and those who want exposure to cash gushing ISP. Bundling all of them up in one entity, while good for some of us who want to watch one ticker, is inconvenient for most investors. This would result in what is called a conglomerate discount, where whole < sum of parts. Again as market historians can tell, conglomerates have come in and gone out of fashion. In fact at one point there used to be a conglomerate premium because of all the potential synergies between these disparate lines, but that was a long time ago.

For all these reasons, it makes sense to keep these businesses separate. Another option is to have an umbrella co ticker, but also list the subsidiaries as their own stub shares. So there will be a spaceX stub, a Tesla stub and potentially other stubs, but also a X share that would be the sum of all these. I believe Liberty media does this with various share classes. (I got a headache the last time I tried to figure what the heck was what in that mess of similar sounding names).

All that said, Elon is the one who can say eff it, I'll just float X and delist everything else, because it simplifies collaboration between all these entities. I do think he is past the point of how market values all these pieces. And honestly, as the lead contender to be the most valuable co in a few years, the onus is on the markets and analysts to figure out how to value this beast, and not the other way round.
 
I am starting to wonder about this narrative as many carmakers say the same thing.

If Nissian announces that they will be 100% EVs by 2030, some current buyers intending to buy an ICE may reconsider.

Anyone buying ICE past 2025 is paying a stupid tax, These manufacturers cant switch overnight so need to keep the fossil hype train going or go bankrupt.

Which will 100% work if there are no other companies selling just EVs.
 
I think if Elon were to merge all the companies, it’d be structured very much like alphabet/Google where Google with its ad revenue is funding a lot of businesses that have no direct relationship with its core business. However, a lot of resources can be shared under this structure.

We already know Elon is collaborating a lot between his companies, but this might also create a mess because a lot of things need to justify value at arm length from accounting perspective.

Thus, I don’t see a merge with Elon other ventures a lot of problem for other investors as long as they can justify. For example, Boring using Teslas for its tunnels while Tesla get priority access when it comes to accessing the tunnels.
 
SpaceX+Tesla would be broken up in no time, anyway. Tesla alone could become so big (with solar, energy storage, auto, semi, FSD), that Congress would pass a special law to make sure that some business practices can be considered anti-competitive.
Does not work that way. Government's ability to block acquisitions deals with monopolistic qualities. There are zero monopolistic qualities in a buyout of SpaceX because the two companies address completely different markets/industries/sectors.
 
I think if Elon were to merge all the companies, it’d be structured very much like alphabet/Google where Google with its ad revenue is funding a lot of businesses that have no direct relationship with its core business. However, a lot of resources can be shared under this structure.

We already know Elon is collaborating a lot between his companies, but this might also create a mess because a lot of things need to justify value at arm length from accounting perspective.

Thus, I don’t see a merge with Elon other ventures a lot of problem for other investors as long as they can justify. For example, Boring using Teslas for its tunnels while Tesla get priority access when it comes to accessing the tunnels.
As far as I'm aware, Waymo still has to do rounds of funding to continue operations. It cannot get funded from Google and it's ad revenue.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jkirkwood001
I have pretty mixed feelings about Tesla straight up acquiring SpaceX. Even with its substantially simple model, the general public vastly misunderstands the core business, and effectively give very little value to Tesla Energy, insurance, Teslabot, and to some extent even the robotaxi business. Adding SpaceX / Starlink to this is going to be very messy for the investing public to understand. Keep in mind that the regulars on this forum have invested a lot of time and energy understanding not just Tesla, but to some extent all of Elon's other ventures.

Secondly, those of us who have been around the TSLA / SCTY merger saw the amount of litigation Elon was dragged through, even as the purchase price was not significant for Elon (because he had approximately the same ownership stake in both entities) and he recused himself from those discussions.

Finally, there are investors of all stripes - namely those who want clean tech exposure, those who want exposure to autonomy, and those who want exposure to space, and those who want exposure to cash gushing ISP. Bundling all of them up in one entity, while good for some of us who want to watch one ticker, is inconvenient for most investors. This would result in what is called a conglomerate discount, where whole < sum of parts. Again as market historians can tell, conglomerates have come in and gone out of fashion. In fact at one point there used to be a conglomerate premium because of all the potential synergies between these disparate lines, but that was a long time ago.

For all these reasons, it makes sense to keep these businesses separate. Another option is to have an umbrella co ticker, but also list the subsidiaries as their own stub shares. So there will be a spaceX stub, a Tesla stub and potentially other stubs, but also a X share that would be the sum of all these. I believe Liberty media does this with various share classes. (I got a headache the last time I tried to figure what the heck was what in that mess of similar sounding names).

All that said, Elon is the one who can say eff it, I'll just float X and delist everything else, because it simplifies collaboration between all these entities. I do think he is past the point of how market values all these pieces. And honestly, as the lead contender to be the most valuable co in a few years, the onus is on the markets and analysts to figure out how to value this beast, and not the other way round.
I'd be OK with it purely because SP would literally never stop going up. Not that money is my primary driver here, but it takes all the Bloomberg-article-this and Jim-Chanos-that completely out of the equation for Elon. If it were allowed to happen, there's really no upward limit to valuation in the near term. Buy a few mining/logistics companies and he'll basically run the world.

Personally I've always advocated for Tesla to exit automotive once certain hurdles are surpassed. Scaling Model 3/Y production, "solving" FSD, etc. Absorbing SpaceX, selling automotive to Apple for $500B, and focusing on Energy and Space is A-O-K with me.

We say the Street doesn't respect Energy, I would say even this board doesn't respect Energy. The need and opportunity in the energy sector absolutely dwarfs automotive. Our focus should be there.
 
"Germany" isn't fighting Tesla/TSLA. There is due process which applies equally for everyone - irrespective if you are little ol' me, or Tesla/TSLA!

Who is fighting Tesla/TSLA are a bunch of NIMBYs and ICE-fundend environmental NGOs. This is not "Germany", FFS.

I really wish the bunch of smart people we all seem to be on this board (at least according to the recent survey) would acknowledge and accept that Germany is a sovereign country, with it's own laws and procedures and that considering how quickly Tesla/TSLA have been able to build Giga Berlin/ Grünheide is testament to the support that Tesla/TSLA has within the German government.

Don't make comparisons where they are not just. Apples:Oranges, and all that.

Right, I'm going back to the "other" thread, I always assumed the old "no politics or religion at the bar" rule applied here too....

See my follow up post, you are misconstruing what I said, or at the very least the overall meaning I was conveying. It was more a lamenting of the laws/regulations in Germany that have allowed for a VERY small group to leverage things to their benefit and obstruct completion.

As someone pointed, out, there are other things in the US and TX specifically that we can complain about (not being able to direct sell Teslas in TX for example).
 
Valuations have also gone through the roof in the last 8 years. The latest private valuation of SpaceX was c.$100b, however the story to the public market could be at a valuation of double that or more - a great way to raise a ton of cash to de-risk starship development.

The other option is that Elon is just reiterating the Starlink float.
Well if they merge, Tesla could launch the Cybertruck under the SpaceX brand where it belongs. Then proceeds from the Cybertruck could be used to fund starship development.
 
Closing at 5% up and no one even mentions it.

beanroller.gif