I like this proactive approach. Tesla should hit back against fake news, nip them in the buds.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Yes. Blog is very strong and detailed. That said, without someone from Tesla following up with live interviews on the financial networks, the blog is very very likely to be undercovered and/or miscovered into FUD.
jelloslug
Active Member
Tesla has been taking it on the chin for far too long with all of the FUD out there. It's about time for them to stand up for themselves.
The reference was likely to Walter Huang's family's wrongful death suit. The big difference between the potential Huang litigation (no filing yet publicized) and the stockholder derivative class actions in Delaware (SCTY conflict of interest) and California (Rosen) is that Tesla discloses it "self-insures" its product liability exposures but very likely carries Directors' and Officers' (D&O) Liability Insurance covering the latter two actions. A significant benefit of having true 3rd party coverage on liability exposures is that, under most liability policy forms, the insurer has to pay the costs of defense, which changes the analysis about when/if a settlement is economic/advisable.
"What I am not so sure of is that the US court (possibly State court?) that hears the case will have the matter decided by a judge. In the US, there is likely to be a jury (as I understand) and juries have a degree of latitude to "do justice as they see it". My concern is that, even with a direction to the jury about the applicable legal tests, the jury might rule in favour of the pursuer of the action at least partly out of sympathy with the family or a desire to punish Tesla for releasing beta safety tech."
A cynic might assert the US' jury system is more about the quality of the respective legal teams than fairness, viz. the OJ acquittal. Admittedly, there is a higher standard of evidentiary proof in criminal courts compared to civil courts, but check out toxic tort and pharmaceutical litigation awards.
Even disregarding urban charging solutions, there is a large segment of the population that is addressable today. I can see around 41% of the German population live in semi-detached or detached houses. And I would think that car ownership is significantly over-represented among people living in houses vs people living in apartments. That means that it's probably at least 50% of the car buying public that can install charging at home without much fuss. On top of that, you have some significant percentage of apartment complexes with assigned parking and suitability for charging.
You may think this will happen slow, but change doesn't happen slow when it's every consumer out there making the choice for themselves. A charge point doesn't cost much more than €1000-2000, and adds to the long term value of a property. Apartment dwellers here in Norway have found that charging is important, because losing a single additional interested party at a sale can amount to major losses.
We do have incentives. But incentives lose their importance as you reach the tipping point where BEVs are superior to ICE vehicles at a given price point. We were there with ~100k USD vehicles 5 years ago. And here we are again, with the Model 3 and 40-60k USD vehicles.
I don't see how a VW ID will compete at all with a Model 3. And that's if it actually becomes a reality. In volume. I will put more stock in VAG as a competitor when they start talking about the all new A4 that will only be sold as a BEV.
Also, remember there's about 82 million light vehicles sold per year. VW may be the traditional auto maker with the most real plans for BEVs, but even if Tesla sells 1 million BEVs and VAG sells 2 million BEVs in 2025, that's still not really putting a scratch in the demand. Other car makers could sell 79 million BEVs and the market still wouldn't be crowded.
(BTW, sorry if any part of my writing isn't legible. I had minor surgery on thursday and I'm high on oxycodone. But I think I'm doing okay.)
Last edited:
In one of Kolodny's several Twitter threads regarding this subject today, I posted a link to Tesla's rebuttal blog without adding comments of my own.
Link to Tesla's rebuttal blog: A Not So Revealing Story
In response, Kolodny has blocked me from reading or replying to her tweets.
The next Earning's call's Q&A is going to have to be awesome to turn this sentiment around. It's incredible how much of a beating this stock has taken.
Curt thanks for informing us about this. Please consider sharing this information with IR at Tesla as well.
Seems like you hit a nerve.
Have just doe the same, Curt, will see what happens...
I agree as regards the DE suit, in which Tesla is only a nominal defendant, but the federal suit in CA goes more substantively after Tesla itself. See para 37 of https://dailykanban.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/Tesla_lawsuit.pdf
You're welcome, Steve. I just now wrote Tesla IR as you suggested.
very good Curt.
perhaps more of us could send similar notes to IR re what you shared. I’ll further suggest that we express our concern re the broader phenomena this example represents, and share our constructive suggestions for Tesla to respond.
fwiw, my main suggestion on Tesla constructively responding to the general FUD situation (only having grown and become more emboldened over the past couple of years) is in post #2 here
Investor CONSTRUCTIVE Suggestions and/or Requests of Tesla
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
