One Of The Big Three To Buy Tesla?

Remember you are listening to a "trader" spouting nonsense to fill time on CNBC.

Its one of those wacky predictions

The 10 wildest tech predictions for 2014 —GM to buy Tesla? - Investors.com

So the prediction is the stock will tank then gm will buy it. The problem is if tesla's stock tanks there will likely be a reason, and then? I don't know. Here is his prediction that gold would go up.
Gold Higher by End of Year-Yra Harris | Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog
It had only dropped a few percent by the end of the year, but if you believed the thesis, you would have kept riding gold down.

Now partnering or buying part of tesla would not be a bad move for gm, but I stand by my no way in 2014 would they attempt to buy the whole thing. The board wouldn't approve it. Anyway I doubt the new ceo is ready to start aquireing companies.
Mary Barra new CEO at GM, most powerful female exec in America [Q&A] - latimes.com

 

At $TSLA's "greater fool" stock price plus a typical 30% control premium, he'd be crazy not to.

 

Exactly. Sometimes trolls appear in the comments sections; other times the article itself is trolling!

Would Steve Jobs ever have sold Apple to Microsoft? There's your answer.......end of story.

Anyhow, I'd like to say to the author (and whatever agenda he's representing) that if things keep going the way they are, it will be Tesla that buys another major auto company (or two, or three) by 2030 or even 2020.

Tesla's supercharger network, in particular, gives it a HUGE advantage over any other EV's on the horizon from ANYONE (and let's not even get into battery swapping, which Tesla is probably reserving as a hedge against FCV's)
Read:
Five Things About Tesla’s Future You May Have Missed | PluginCars.com

They could make major royalties by opening up the network to non-Tesla EV's. The ability to fill up at 120kw with NO fumbling of key cards, RFID, credit card swipes....no interface needed.......is HUGE.

Now, granted, SAE combo has a theoretical limit of 240kw, but that capability is at least a decade away. I hate to say it (actually I LOVE saying it!) but Tesla has moved around the world before other car makers have even put their shoes on!

 

The market cap is 100% ephemeral. The company is not "worth" $18B, with or without Musk, and he'd be crazy not to sell it for anything near that, especially give his personal stake in it, and move on to SpaceX, or Mars, or whatever his next draw on taxpayer financing and subsidies may be.

 

I hate to inform you, but -believe it or not- some things in life are NOT all about money.

Way off topic. Do you have #'s, or are you just trolling? If you want #'s, read this:
Subsidies for Oil, Gas and Nuclear vs. Renewables : Greentech Media

And, unless you live under a rock, you know that Tesla paid off its DOE loans 9 YEARS EARLY.

Boy....what a shame it would be for taxpayers to put a man on Mars. Such a waste!
This type of attitude will lead to the extinction of our species.

 

Each and every one of his current "commercial" ventures (Tesla, SolarCity, SpaceX) is built on maximizing the extraction of financing and subsidy from federal, state and local sources. None of them would have even been possible without such public support. The fact that he may have paid off SOME of the financing is immaterial to the kick start having been supplied by such public subsidy. He is in fact set to go off the reservation, to Mars, in case you haven't been listening to his recent rants. Buh-bye.

 

The exact same thing can be said about ANY company.
I mean ANY -from a mom & pop bakery to Exxon Mobile.
Don't believe me? Well, if you are a small business owner who wants a tax break (to "create jobs"), THAT is a subsidy.

What is your point, exactly?

Mine is that if we are going to 'subsidize' a business (however you define that), then whether or not we do so is a separate, political question, for another forum.
I'm saying that while we do, we might as well 'subsidize' those that help people & the planet (solar, EVs, space travel) rather than those that harm (Oil, Coal, ICE cars, etc.)

 

And I'm saying Musk is a fool if he doesn't sell to anyone offering anything near present market cap. He'll never get it again, since it is propped up by the subsidies Tesla continues to extract, which are not perpetual.

 

How can you predict the future? How do you know Tesla won't be to the 21st century what GM, VW and Toyota were to the 20th?
What subsidies, exactly, are you referring to? Can you explain how said subsidies are not available to other auto makers? Are said subsidies larger or smaller than what was given to Big Oil, that got us into our current predicament (which Tesla is trying to liberate us from)?

Musk would be a BIGGER fool for giving up the opportunity to change the direction of one of the most important industries to humanity, and possibly the course of industrialization itself in the 21st century.

 

Read any one of Tesla's or SolarCity' (or SpaceX's should it ever go public) SEC filings.

Themes such as, or similar to:

"Our growth depends in part on the availability and amounts of government subsidies and economic incentives for alternative fuel vehicles generally and performance electric vehicles specifically. For example, we currently benefit from exemptions from California state sales and use taxes for purchases of up to $612 million of manufacturing equipment from our arrangements with the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. To the extent all of this equipment is purchased and would otherwise be subject to California state sales and use tax, we believe this incentive would result in tax savings by us through January 2015. This exemption is only available for equipment that would otherwise be subject to California sales and use taxes and that would be used only for specified purposes. If we fail to meet these conditions, we would be unable to take full advantage of this tax incentive and our financial position could be harmed.

60


Table of Contents

In addition, certain regulations and laws that encourage sales of electric cars through tax credits or other subsidies could be reduced, eliminated or applied in a way that creates an adverse effect against our vehicles, either currently or at any time in the future. For example, while the federal, state and foreign governments have from time to time enacted tax credits and other incentives for the purchase of alternative fuel cars, funding for these programs is limited and there is no guarantee that our vehicles will be eligible for tax credits or other incentives provided to alternative fuel vehicles in the future. This would put our vehicles at a competitive disadvantage. As an example at the state level, California renewed the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program, a rebate program for the purchase of qualified alternative technology vehicles for 2012, but reduced the rebate amount from $5,000 per vehicle to $2,500 per vehicle due to fewer funds available and increased demand. Moreover, such funds may run out or be limited in ways that would be adverse to purchasers of our vehicles. Subsequent purchasers could face a delay in receiving rebates since they would have to wait until the next fiscal year’s funding became available or be unable to obtain a rebate at all. Moreover, as more and more eligible EVs are produced, California now faces a risk that the program will run out of funds prior to the end of the fiscal year. While California is looking at additional sources of funding for this program, other options under consideration are removing eligibility for vehicles based on MSRP or customer income levels. If enacted, these measures would almost certainly impact us in an adverse manner by making either our vehicles or customers ineligible for rebates. As an additional example, there is considerable discussion at the federal level over tax reform. Discussions have included reducing or even eliminating the current $7,500 tax credit available to purchasers of qualified alternative fuel vehicles, including Model S.
Also, government programs have been enacted in Europe favoring the purchase of electric vehicles, including disincentives that discourage the use of gas-powered vehicles. In Norway, for example, the purchase of electric vehicles is not currently subject to import taxes, taxes on non-recurring vehicle fees, or the 25% value added tax or other purchase taxes that apply to the purchase of gas-powered vehicles. In the event that such government programs are reduced or eliminated, sales of electric vehicles, including our and Model S, could be adversely affected."

 

There is no question that Tesla benefits from subsidies.
What we are asking you to identify for us is a company that doesn't.

Heck, our local sports team is building a new stadium. The taxpayers are paying for half of it.
Gas and oil receive more subsidies than EVs (about 10 billion vs 750 million last year).
So why single out Musk when he is only one of many offenders and is certainly not the biggest offender.

Also, keep in mind the $7500 EV rebate is not an outflow of cash, it is a lowering of revenue.
To some that is a big distinction, to others not so much. Just in case it makes a difference to you I thought I'd mention it.

 

First of all, Tesla's SEC filings don't contain "themes".
Tesla is legally required to disclose to all of its shareholders the conditions affecting their investment - the SEC filings are not company prospectuses!
Duh!
That's not the same thing as Tesla creating those conditions......I asked you specifically what subsidies you were referring to; I knew you would mention the federal and California EV tax credits. I'm sure you know that those credits are available to ALL carmakers? They obviously affect Tesla more, since it is an exclusive EV maker, whereas the others have heavy investment in ICE, and so are proportionally less affected (not to mention they are much larger companies).
Also, many of these subsidies existed long before Tesla was founded, or were created without Tesla's input. So why blame Tesla for taking advantage of them? Those are simply the market conditions, and any company has to base its corporate strategy on it.

What would you prefer? That Tesla tell its investors "Hey, there are a tremendous amount of incentives for the EV industry out there, but since we are ideologically opposed to government subsidies, we will base our growth strategy on NOT taking any"

That's a joke and you know it.
So, please explain to me why you are picking on Musk's enterprises:

TESLA - Yes, there are EV incentives. But so are there for GM (Volt) Ford (Cmax) Nissan (Leaf) Toyota (PiP) BMW (i8) Mitsubishi (iMiev) and on and on............

SOLAR CITY - Yes there are solar incentives. But they are also there for FirstSolar, NanoSolar, etc. etc.

SPACE X - Yes there is government help with space programs. But this also benefits Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. etc.

So, the Big Boys should take the incentives but not the tiny startup? Ridiculous.
As I said before, whether or not there should be subsidies is a separate political question for another forum.

But we are where we are, and Tesla is doing what any company would.....not something nefarious, as you seem to imply; you appear to have some sort of 'thing' against Musk.
Also, we both mentioned that these incentives are TEMPORARY. This is because they are designed to ramp up a NEW industry (did you even read my link?)

I will quote from your SEC filing:
"Moreover, such funds may run out or be limited in ways that would be adverse to purchasers of our vehicles."

And, here is a quote from the article I sent to you:
"subsidies early in the life of an energy transition have historically been very helpful to disseminating new energy technologies and bringing them down the cost curve." She adds, "Subsidies play a large part in our country's energy history; the trick is knowing when to stop."

Please read it:
Subsidies for Oil, Gas and Nuclear vs. Renewables : Greentech Media

And, again, even though this is not a political forum, please tell me why you believe that Big Oil (which has created a massive amount of harm to human health and welfare) was allowed to get them early on (and still keep them 100+ years later) while Tesla (which is attempting to rectify said harm) is NOT. Please explain.

 

The topic is Musk's habit of identifying and harvesting subsidies, and not knowing enough to sell at the top.

 

Exactly.
If he was really smart (or just more ruthless, and less caring about our Energy Future), he should have gone into fracking:

Fracking Bubble? Report Warns Shale Gas And Oil Won't Solve Energy Crunch | ThinkProgress

Fracking Developed With Decades Of Government Investment

Unnatural Gas: How Government Made Fracking Profitable (and Left Renewables Behind) | Dissent Magazine

 

Nah. There's not enough public subsidy to be harvested.

 

Musk could have made much more from subsidies in gas and oil or banking.
Again, federal EV tax rebate last year across all manufacturers was approximately 750 million. Tesla didn't receive a dime of that although they did benefit from it as their customers essentially lowered their cost of the cars by 7% to 10%.
Of course, the same rebate lowered Volt buyers cost by about 20%.

And since the Volt outsold the Model S, GM benefited more from them than Tesla did. So did Nissan.
Perhaps Musk isn't the worst offender here?

 

Mere facts will never sway an agenda. For some reason we fail to understand it is IMPORTANT for him to hate Musk. Reality will NOT interfere with this.

 

You kind of just undermined your whole premise here. You're saying Musk would be foolish not to accept a buyout offer at market cap of $18 billion, but that's only assuming that his Tesla venture is purely a financial one and that he has no other interest in it than walking away rich at some point.

He was rich before he sunk most of his wealth into-- and committed the rest of it to the venture though, so that portion of your argument is kind of moot. It also ignores virtually everything he's ever said about what his interests and motivations are with his current ventures, as well as the overall tone of his starting and investing in things like Tesla, Solar City, and SpaceX in the first place. These are all a part of a single, overarching goal if you listen to the things he actually says, so selling one to focus on another one would only happen if there were some physical reason to do so, which there hasn't been so far, and there appears to be none on the horizon either.

I could be wrong, and you could be right, but I have major doubts that Tesla will be sold to anyone-- particularly any of the major automakers, with the only potential exception in my mind of maybe Toyota-- anytime soon. The known facts just don't support the idea.

 

Taxpayers are on the hook for 10 - 12 billion that GM did not pay back.

Tesla dis not do the above to the taxpayer.

Rebates with GM? - " its' a joke son, get it?"when we taxpayers owe to amount above.

Lets' quit the so called "rebates with GM" discusions, we ALL pay for the above.


DBCassidy

 

Mr. Hyper-hype would apparently like to die on Mars, and not on impact....

Elon Musk's mission to Mars | Technology | The Guardian

I anticipate he'll get us to pay for the trip.

And the subsidy extraction continues, aided and abetted by Little Ricky...

Decision looms in SpaceX race - Valley Morning Star : Local News

"Furthermore, SpaceX has been negotiating tax abatements, incentives and operating agreements with communities and economic development organizations in Cameron County and the Rio Grande Valley.

In addition, the consulting firm of GreenbergTraurig touted in its June 2013 legislative update that it had been successful in assisting SpaceX with passage of legislation relative to launch activities at Boca Chica Beach. “At this facility SpaceX will launch rockets with satellites, cargo and eventually crew into outer space,” the legislative report states.

Furthermore, Gov. Rick Perry in his 2014 report on The Texas Aerospace & Aviation Industry highlighted legislation passed, which “removes a major hurdle for future coastal launch facilities in Texas, including a potential SpaceX project near Brownsville,” and the appropriation of $15 million to the Spaceport Trust Fund to assist private launch operators with plans to develop spaceport facilities in the state.

SpaceX also planned to apply for access to the Texas Enterprise Fund, Texas Spaceport Trust Fund and the Texas Capital Fund, the Star further found."