The most recent point @Bet TSLA made used the Model 3 situation as evidence that Elon has not gone all in because Tesla was not really on the edge of bankruptcy. But that point ignores the earlier context of discussing the "early days" back up to when Elon jumped in to Tesla after Zip2. My point was that Tesla at some point was on the edge... just because it wasn't the Model 3 ramp doesn't mean it didn't happen, and using that ramp as evidence of such doesn't tell the whole story.You two guys are talking about different events. The person you are replying to was talking about the initial Model 3 ramp where Elon stated they were close to bankruptcy.
You are correct, scaesare, that Tesla was literally hours away from bankruptcy December 24, 2008. That's when the Tesla Board was about to pull the plug (no one wanted to fund its losses anymore), and Elon said, **** it, and put his last $40M he had into Tesla. At that point he was literally broke, having invested all his Paypal gains into SpaceX and Tesla. That so impressed the VCs around the Board table that they too then joined him and together put in place a rescue round.
BTW, I don't think Elon's comment about the Model 3 ramp was hyperbole. He often uses shortcuts when talking. What I think he meant when he said Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy was that if they hadn't figured out the production ramp, they'd be burning through boatloads of cash, since they had hired and tooled for volume production (kinda like Rivian/Lucid today). They probably could have raised more money, but that wouldn't have been a solution. It was at most a stopgap. They had to solve their production issues to avoid bankruptcy.
And the market, oddly enough, knows this. That's why Rivian's market cap more or less follows their cash balance, effectively valuing Rivian's actual operations at $0. Tesla's actual valuation would have trended very close to their cash balance too (which was only a few $B) if they hadn't solved volume production.
The context of the thread I replied to was this chain (emphasis mine):
unk45:
Elon has a long history, back to zip2, of being conservative financially. 'course he did total that million dollar McLaren. Otherwise he has has been consistently conservative financially., although he's bet the bank couple times in the early days. He'll not avid all the financial stuff but he'll continue learning step by step. From product financing to insurance to supplier support Tesla and SpaceX do make immense effort to avoid the risks they can, and mitigate the ones they cannot. In these fields they're conservative.
Dave EV:
Those two statements are completely contradictory. Tesla and SpaceX have both teetered on the edge of bankruptcy with Elon having gone all in on both. In addition, Tesla put a large sum of money into Bitcoin and lost a good chunk of it. And most recently he's spent $44B on Twitter. None of those things strike me as being fiscally conservative.
Elon is a big risk taker and been fortunate enough that his biggest bets have ended up going his way.
You don't create game-changing companies like Tesla and SpaceX without taking big risks - financial and otherwise.
Bet TSLA:
SpaceX for sure. Tesla not so much. Elon has certainly made the "we were this close to running out of money" story about Tesla during the Model 3 "production hell" period into a big deal, but it's always been BS. He could have raised the money needed for another year of operations in a heartbeat. But he probably would have had to give up some ownership to do so. Not at all the same thing as bankruptcy.
Again, agreed that Elon has been willing to take big risks. But best to stick to the facts.
It's best to stick to ALL the facts...
Last edited: