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.
Don't be silly. I assume you're familiar with probability distributions? As a retail investor, I have no way of knowing for sure what the future holds for a given company or stock. Ideally, the proportion of my assets invested in a given company will at least roughly match the level of risk I'm willing to accept in connection with that company. I'm obviously still willing to accept a lot of risk with Tesla (and we own multiple Tesla products).
I’m afraid I don’t see that the risk is anywhere near what the volatility or the daily FUD and nonsense might suggest.

In fact, I see considerably more risk in many investments that have historically been sound despite their low volatility. I don’t believe these will prove sound in the face of several fairly obvious and relatively imminent climate, technological, and geopolitical disruptions.

WRT TSLA, I never consider selling, only how and when I can buy more.

But that’s just me and not advice.

Good luck getting back in in a timely fashion.
 
Read this.

Walmart Inc v Tesla Energy | Solar City | Solar Cell

Look at it. Its over 100 pages, but its pretty damning. Photos. Timelines. And surprisingly few demands from Walmart other then fixing it and paying for expenses.

No, Tesla has not put forth their side. But looking at what I see so far, Tesla has performed VERY badly. Do not mistake me for a short or a troll, I have a good amount of Tesla stock. I thoroughly believe in the future of Tesla, but am deeply disappointed when they make COSTLY mistakes like this. SC was a trainwreck. But the bleeding on this issue (Walmart) could have stopped a while ago. It looks like Tesla has just brushed this aside and certainly has not gone to each site and given it a re-do like they should. They have treated this like they have treated the worst of automotive customers.

I read it and it look like the ramblings of an ambulance chaser. Almost zero factual evidence and the overblown rhetoric of a first year law student. Wake me up when they link actual experts instead of just "unnamed consultants we are paying to find fault who told Tesla what they were doing wrong".

That said, I am sure the truth is somewhere between "incompetent", "flailing business model" and actual issues that should be addressed. If you have ever had anything to do with construction, inspectors do almost nothing and count on competent contractors.

There is zero doubt that Tesla can address things differently and there are certainly substantive things that can be addressed, but reading that suit is literally "Law 101, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks." I am definitely not just some guy posting on the internet, I own a good amount of law books.
 
not sure how many of you listen to Rob Mauer's tesla daily podcast but if you do, please go support him financially. He's quit his job to do Tesla news/information full time. Very informative stuff.

stop being so cheap and go support him. www.patreon.com/tesladailypodcast

Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

upload_2019-8-22_11-52-16.png
 
It appears to me that Walmart decide to proactively file this suit because Tesla has served them with a notice of breach of contract on July 8th. So Walmart sued first. (Or we haven't seen Tesla's suit.)

Lots of details from the Tesla side here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=RqSHuW6uX9KG7VafnJj1Og== and here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=nxjvmTOyMhPSBoGvo4N/Ng==

You can get a list of everything related to the case here: Document List

For example:

As you know. Tesla installed, maintains, and operates 248 solar photovoltaic energy systems located on rooftops at 248 Walmart stores, each system the subject of separate Solar Power & Services Agreement, Solar System Lease & Assignment Agreement. or similar contract (collectively, "Agreements"). While the specific terms of the Agreements vary in some respects. the fundamental underlying purpose of each is the same: Tesla supplies and maintains the systems that reliably generate clean, renewable solar power, and Walmart pays for the use of the equipment or the power it generates.
Regrettably, Walmart's breaches of contract, deliberate delay, and bad faith have frustrated that fundamental purpose. Today, all 248 rooftop systems lie idle. Of those, 244 systems are offline not because they are inoperable or unsafe, but because Walmart unfairly seeks to exploit claims it asserted - concerning just four other systems - as a pretext for refusing to comply with Walmart's contractual obligations and for demanding concessions from Tesla on all 248 systems, For over a year now, Tesla has made extensive efforts to accommodate Walmart's inconsistent and shifting positions, repeated delays, and unreasonable demands, all at significant cost to Tesla. My client continues to prefer a business solution to this dispute, but Walmart's conduct has put the parties on a collision course for litigation.

So Walmart's goal is to either:
  • Get concessions on the contracts to favor them
  • or get the contracts terminated probably so they can go with a cheaper provider.
When I first read the details from PlainSite I didn't understand why they had 248 individual contracts, it seems it would complicate things. Now I understand why. Each site has an independent contract so that something going wrong at one site can't mess up all the others.
 
Last edited:
I read it and it look like the ramblings of an ambulance chaser. Almost zero factual evidence and the overblown rhetoric of a first year law student. Wake me up when they link actual experts instead of just "unnamed consultants we are paying to find fault who told Tesla what they were doing wrong".

That said, I am sure the truth is somewhere between "incompetent", "flailing business model" and actual issues that should be addressed. If you have ever had anything to do with construction, inspectors do almost nothing and count on competent contractors.

There is zero doubt that Tesla can address things differently and there are certainly substantive things that can be addressed, but reading that suit is literally "Law 101, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks." I am definitely not just some guy posting on the internet, I own a good amount of law books.
Are their lawyers on welfare like many of their employees?
 
For everyone losing their minds over Walmart v. Tesla, it turns out PlainSite withheld some information until AFTER the matter was reported on by the media.

Vladimir Grinshpun on Twitter

Things look at bit different after reading this.
And so curious that the original information was released in proximity to the solar panel rental.
 
It appears to me that Walmart decide to proactively file this suit because Tesla has served them with a notice of breach of contract on July 8th. So Walmart sued first. (Or we haven't seen Tesla's suit.)

Lots of details from the Tesla side here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=RqSHuW6uX9KG7VafnJj1Og== and here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=nxjvmTOyMhPSBoGvo4N/Ng==

You can get a list of everything related to the case here: Document List
Well, at least they waited for Fred to get back.
 
It appears to me that Walmart decide to proactively file this suit because Tesla has served them with a notice of breach of contract on July 8th. So Walmart sued first. (Or we haven't seen Tesla's suit.)

Lots of details from the Tesla side here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=RqSHuW6uX9KG7VafnJj1Og== and here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=nxjvmTOyMhPSBoGvo4N/Ng==

You can get a list of everything related to the case here: Document List

For example:



So Walmart's goal is to either:
  • Get concessions on the contracts to favor them
  • or get the contracts terminated probably so they can go with a cheaper provider.
When I first read the details from PlainSite I didn't understand why they had 248 individual contracts, it seems it would complicate things. Now I understand why. Each site has an independent contract so that something going wrong at one site can't mess up all the others.


Thanks for this.
 
Another tidbit:

Walmart's breaches have caused significant compensable damages to Tesla and its investors. These include, but are not limited to, the payments that Walmart is obligated to rnake for power the systems generate - power that has not been generated solely as a result of Walrnart's obstruction of Tesla's efforts to re-energize and operate the systems pursuant to contract. Over the course of a single year, the amount of those damages is at least $13.7 million (not including lost incentives) and it increases by at least $37,400 daily (based on Walmart's historical load).
 
I'm wondering whether it's better for Tesla to get out of the pure solar panel business, in cases where they are NOT also selling their battery packs (I'm not sure if this was the case with Walmart). Pure solar panels seems to be a commodity item, with lowest cost to production (typically in Asia/China), along with the cheapest labor, the winner.

Tesla's expertise seems to be the battery pack + solar + intelligent mgmt software combo. So homeowners or businesses that want this combo, then Tesla has an edge. Whereas customers who just want pure solar panels, Tesla is competing against other low cost commodity providers.

Secondly, I think Tesla should focus more heavily (as they perhaps are) on solar roof tiles and the future category of Architectural Solar, where a variety of building materials (beyond just roof shingles), like glass, exterior walls, etc. have integrated solar film/tech. This is an area I think that Tesla can excel at, given their expertise in design and material engineering (perhaps with cooperation from SpaceX). This will not be a lowest cost commodity model due to architectural aesthetic considerations, as the appeal with Tesla solar roofs show. Both function and form, a hallmark of Tesla (and Apple) design, will be important. Architectural Solar has the potential to be another $100B+ business for Tesla.
Lots of synergies selling the panels alongside powerwalls and roofs. Cash cow the panels would be my preference.
 
Lots of synergies selling the panels alongside powerwalls and roofs. Cash cow the panels would be my preference.

We can see already that they Tesla/Walmart dispute has 2 sides and Tesla's arguments seem equally strong...

Over and above that the main things Tesla purchased with SC where:-
  • Existing Solar leases (like Walmart)
  • The GF2 factory
  • Solar Roof IP
  • Experienced installers...
There is no reason at all why Solar can't make a good contribution to Tesla's business, no reason at all why a Tesla install can;t be a higher quality than any competitor.

We know the panels coming out of GF2 are high quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lessmog
We can see already that they Tesla/Walmart dispute has 2 sides and Tesla's arguments seem equally strong...

There are two sides to every story? Color me shocked considering how many people in this thread were taking the Walmart filings as gospel.

If Walmart isn't budging, seems like Tesla will have no choice but to countersue and go on the attack. Can this end up in some sort of arbitration?