sundaymorning
Active Member
When the date is set, I’ll PM you. This is too important for me to pass up. If someone can organize/plan an event/spectacle around a trip to NY please do it. Start a thread, whatever it takes.. I’m pissed at the SEC!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
When the date is set, I’ll PM you. This is too important for me to pass up. If someone can organize/plan an event/spectacle around a trip to NY please do it. Start a thread, whatever it takes.. I’m pissed at the SEC!
There was a interview of Baillie Gifford James Anderson couple of weeks ago. In which he emphasized that for a disruptive company like Tesla, to build a capital intensive business from ground up. It's bound to need capital. I am not sure about Tesla's ability to raise capital now with the SEC's pending lawsuit. But I would assume that it actually is easier this way instead of admit guilt and settle?
And don't forget China, Tesla will build the 3rd giga factory there in Shanghai with local funding. I have a feeling that with the current deteriorating US china relation, China could be reluctant to dish out a local financing for the factory. But Elon is viewed more favorably in there, actually around the world except USA.
There was news that Tesla is sending some Model 3 to China for dealership and training. They may want to stir up some excitement there.
Another thing I am not familiar, in the NYT article it mentioned that Tesla has 11 Billion debt and owe supplier 3 billion, plus the immediate due this year and next year. Sound like Tesla can cover the immediate payment with cash on hand, but what is the term of the other debts mentioned above? Are they long term?
Tesla seems to be slowing down the growth for the sake of survival. But with other established ICE manufacture rolling out chicken little Tesla "killers", I feel we can afford a little bit slowing down on the growth. Stock price may suffer, but it has already suffered so much. A cash flow positive is absolutely needed.
sundaymorning
Active Member
A capital raise isn’t necessary. Elon made that clear during two conference call ago when Adam Jonas tried, practically begged him to do it. “Where will the funding come from to build the GF in China?” He asked.. local banks, was the response.
Don’t forget that Q4 Tesla is expected to add a large sum to their reserves. Also take note that Tesla isn’t being sued, it’s Musk...
5 disagreeswhy do you disagree?
Eric would be awesome. He's high profile, very polished. Commands a lot of respect. And Larry and Sergey are friends/investors in Tesla.
Reid- He's very respected in the Silicon Valley. Very smart and experienced. And was at Paypal w/ Elon.
Bill Gates - no explanation needed. He likes Teslas
Sheryl - duh
Bezos - Long shot because he's sorta competes against Space X with Blue Origin. But still, I think the forward type of thinking might match up.
Iger - He's the most corporate of them all and would bring much stability and credibility.
Do you dislike all of these? Are they too uppity & corporate? Like any?
Like them all, in different ways. But I know Elon and I like him more. (Never met him personally, but you know what I mean by know. Jesus, I'm an old fart starting to sound like Bill Clinton under oath!)
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Looks like somebody executed a 1000 Puts at yesterdays closing price. Nice profits for them, wot. I hope the SEC is investigating when those Puts were purchased, and if the owner had insider knowledge of the upcoming SEC lawsuit.
sundaymorning
Active Member
As long as it’s not a guy named Elon the SEC won’t care.
First off, I haven't posted here in awhile (or anywhere really). Elon Musk deciding not to take Tesla private was by far the worst decision he has made and I was 100% convinced he would do it.
Sad.
Now that I've eaten my crow...
I need to point out something that I'm not seeing enough discussion about regarding the recent events. While everyone is focusing on "funding secured" and "420", I'm focusing on Elon saying that he didn't envision a situation where his percentage stake in Tesla would change substantially if Tesla went private. I am also focusing on his ability to determine a $420 price. Also, I'm focusing on an elephant called SpaceX. You'll see why.
Elon Musk is not just a CEO who randomly decided he was taking his company private...it's just not that simple. He is a ~25% owner and a CEO who also happens to own ~60% of a company called SpaceX, which happens to be valued at $30+ billion dollars, who decided he wanted to take his company private. This changes the dynamic in a way that the SEC will eventually have to come to terms with. They chose to omit this from their filing because it really hurts their case.
As someone who commands a $20 billion dollar position in another company, which can be borrowed against, the SEC is choosing to ignore that Elon Musk himself has the ability to make an offer to buy Tesla shares in mass at a specific price, because he has a way to fund it, especially if the majority of large shareholders hold. His $420 offer can come out of a unicorn's ass, it doesn't really matter where it comes from, if he has the ability to buy a shitload of TSLA shares at that price, if the deal goes as he wants with other holding, during this period of "considering" he spoke of. Him saying that he didn't envision a situation where his TSLA holdings would change too much proves that he thought there was a small chance it may become necessary to do just that. If he wasn't considering that as an option, he would have said, "my position will not change at all".
If a CEO worth $1 million says he is going to take his company worth $20 billion private, and he hasn't talked to anyone, it's a problem.
If the CEO worth $30 billion says he is going to take his company private at a $72 billion valuation, and he's talked with a few funds and sees most large shareholders staying around, and he thinks small shareholders can do a SpaceX-style-ownership situation (and be mistaken on that) and he subsequently says funding secured...I'm sorry, but he is allowed to do that. It's not criminal for a CEO and major owner, who thought his one private company's ownership plan could be applicable to his other company if he takes it private, to make an accident and be wrong. Unfortunate, yes. Reckless and misleading investors on purpose? Laughable.
Contrary to popular ignorance, Elon Musk is not an idiot. He isn't going to admit he did anything wrong when he literally possesses the ability to do everything he said and clearly had been in talks with MANY people regarding this idea prior to his tweet. The SEC does a great job showing how much time was spent on this prior to his tweets. I appreciate them painting the picture. If Elon spent any amount of time speaking to others about this, then you know it was on his mind in a big way.
Ignore the context and everything looks terrible. Remembering that the guy with $20 billion dollars in another company can leverage that money and buy a significant portion of the company he wants to take private if necessary...well...that sort of changes everything.
Elon Musk has NO BUSINESS AT ALL accepting ANY penalty for his actions by the SEC. To do so would be completely irresponsible and would hang a "damager" and "damaged" sign around him and the company. I fear a settlement being reached at some point in the future because, unfortunately, that how the system works, and I will be very unhappy that day if it happens because of what I just described. But, knowing Elon, he'll be the one to pay the extra money and go the extra mile to fight it to the very end, as he should.
I'll take "SEC Ignoring Context" for $500 Alex.
P.S.
...Page 4 of the filing...
SEC filling their documents with copy-pasta nonsense from Jim Chanos and David Einhorn's emails to the SEC...oh lordy...
DISCLOSURE: LONG TSLA. DON'T BUY IT. THE SKY IS FALLING. ELON KILLED JESUS.
Sad.
Now that I've eaten my crow...
I need to point out something that I'm not seeing enough discussion about regarding the recent events. While everyone is focusing on "funding secured" and "420", I'm focusing on Elon saying that he didn't envision a situation where his percentage stake in Tesla would change substantially if Tesla went private. I am also focusing on his ability to determine a $420 price. Also, I'm focusing on an elephant called SpaceX. You'll see why.
Elon Musk is not just a CEO who randomly decided he was taking his company private...it's just not that simple. He is a ~25% owner and a CEO who also happens to own ~60% of a company called SpaceX, which happens to be valued at $30+ billion dollars, who decided he wanted to take his company private. This changes the dynamic in a way that the SEC will eventually have to come to terms with. They chose to omit this from their filing because it really hurts their case.
As someone who commands a $20 billion dollar position in another company, which can be borrowed against, the SEC is choosing to ignore that Elon Musk himself has the ability to make an offer to buy Tesla shares in mass at a specific price, because he has a way to fund it, especially if the majority of large shareholders hold. His $420 offer can come out of a unicorn's ass, it doesn't really matter where it comes from, if he has the ability to buy a shitload of TSLA shares at that price, if the deal goes as he wants with other holding, during this period of "considering" he spoke of. Him saying that he didn't envision a situation where his TSLA holdings would change too much proves that he thought there was a small chance it may become necessary to do just that. If he wasn't considering that as an option, he would have said, "my position will not change at all".
If a CEO worth $1 million says he is going to take his company worth $20 billion private, and he hasn't talked to anyone, it's a problem.
If the CEO worth $30 billion says he is going to take his company private at a $72 billion valuation, and he's talked with a few funds and sees most large shareholders staying around, and he thinks small shareholders can do a SpaceX-style-ownership situation (and be mistaken on that) and he subsequently says funding secured...I'm sorry, but he is allowed to do that. It's not criminal for a CEO and major owner, who thought his one private company's ownership plan could be applicable to his other company if he takes it private, to make an accident and be wrong. Unfortunate, yes. Reckless and misleading investors on purpose? Laughable.
Contrary to popular ignorance, Elon Musk is not an idiot. He isn't going to admit he did anything wrong when he literally possesses the ability to do everything he said and clearly had been in talks with MANY people regarding this idea prior to his tweet. The SEC does a great job showing how much time was spent on this prior to his tweets. I appreciate them painting the picture. If Elon spent any amount of time speaking to others about this, then you know it was on his mind in a big way.
Ignore the context and everything looks terrible. Remembering that the guy with $20 billion dollars in another company can leverage that money and buy a significant portion of the company he wants to take private if necessary...well...that sort of changes everything.
Elon Musk has NO BUSINESS AT ALL accepting ANY penalty for his actions by the SEC. To do so would be completely irresponsible and would hang a "damager" and "damaged" sign around him and the company. I fear a settlement being reached at some point in the future because, unfortunately, that how the system works, and I will be very unhappy that day if it happens because of what I just described. But, knowing Elon, he'll be the one to pay the extra money and go the extra mile to fight it to the very end, as he should.
I'll take "SEC Ignoring Context" for $500 Alex.
P.S.
...Page 4 of the filing...
- "In 2018, stock analysts and investors increasingly began to question whether Tesla could meet its previously announced production targets and begin to earn sufficient cash in order to sustain its operations and pay its existing debt load."
SEC filling their documents with copy-pasta nonsense from Jim Chanos and David Einhorn's emails to the SEC...oh lordy...
DISCLOSURE: LONG TSLA. DON'T BUY IT. THE SKY IS FALLING. ELON KILLED JESUS.
But you're entitled to your own differing view. Again... nothing wrong with that.
Meh, too. May I join your movement?
BozieBeMe2
May I have this dance?
dqd88
Member
Not sure outside capital needed, especially in China. Local funding secured, probably, fully? Not so sure. But they will find a way. There's always Panasonic too.
Edit: Sorry for repeat of covered better "tween" posts.
dqd88
Member
But the Gfactory in China won't make Semi/roadster. Where will those be built? fremont? Nevada?
I thought the debt was closer to $10B. I don't know details. I think the 2 payments coming are convert to equity if share price hits threshold.
As 3 sales level out, they need to ramp up Semi/roadster. If he announces how they're going to build those that will help ease concerns.
Bob Lutz claiming that it is better to get paid by a dealer after 60 days than by the end customer after a couple of days or weeks (depending on the location of the customer) made my day!
sundaymorning
Active Member
Lutz can say whatever he wants no matter how idiotic it sounds because we all know he’s an idiot.
dqd88
Member
He's gonna be in the graveyard way before tesla. He really jinxed himself with that comment.
The insight from the lady was very interesting indeed.
But Lutz, jeeze, a total stream of BS. One clear example of his FUD is he says that other automakers produce a car, send it to a dealer who then have 60 days to pay On the other hand, Tesla who don't have dealers, need to wait until the car is paid for the customer. Which in principle is correct, but as they're built to order, I would imagine the time to payment is a lot less than 60 days, at least in the US.
I posted this earlier where the former SEC senior counsel pretty much saying SEC will most likely lose this case, Elon's tweet being "more than defensible".
I doubt that the dealer is billed when the car leaves the factory. I’d guess the dealer only gets billed when the cars get delivered on the dealers’ site (and the 60 days due date only starts then).
Totally agree - most Tesla fanboys love Elon fighting this, it enhances his credibility, certainly in my eyes.
And price target is $430 in the vid, not $420... Just to be pedantic :^)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
