Live data from Hacker News

Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

treehugger.com

151–160 of 183 posts

Re: Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread." -Anatole France

Tesla currently has a market cap over $10B. That is larger than Fiat's.

I think the point is that other car manufacturers don't want to sell directly (just as the rich don't want or need to sleep under bridges), thus the law does not affect them.

It has less to do with money and more to do with interest.

And the law is stupid: it protects a method of sale which is altogether irrelevant to the economy, except in the sense that dealerships want the law because it prevents competition and secures their position in the market. Preventing competition is not in the best interest of the economy, the people, or the government, so the law should be changed.

Re: Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

#152
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't answer the question, why should Tesla be granted an exception not available to other automakers? Chrysler has had all sorts of problems with franchise law in California in regards to operating their own.

From a different perspective, what's wrong with car manufacturers operating their own dealerships? (I'm curious: there very well may be a down side, but I haven't thought of it yet.)

It's mostly a historic artifact.

Early on, cars were sold by local dealers. Later, when manufacturers wanted to sell direct they learned that local politicians cared more about the business down the street than some giant company in Detroit. Therefore, all manner of state and local laws got passed to protect dealerships' turf.

In a lot of ways, car dealerships are perfectly suited to exercise power in state legislatures. No matter what poduck district a state lawmaker comes from there are probably several car dealers there. They're often some of the most locally famous people thanks to the amount of advertising their businesses do. I couldn't name my gradeschool teacher from 30 years ago but I sure could tell you who owned the largest car dealership in the area... and sing his radio jingle.

By contrast, few state lawmakers have a Ford or GM plant in their district.

Re: Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

#153
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's an example of government as envisioned by the founders working as intended - when someone at the state level overreaches, a federal court strikes it down (I'm hoping the same thing happens to this absurd law regarding dealer sales). This happens in more places than just Texas. Doesn't change the fact that your first statement is not factual anymore. Given time I think we (Texans) can eventually stop / vote…

Glad to hear it. Just consider this poor bastard, who was recently sentenced by said morons to 50 years for the entirely non-violent act of shoplifting a package of ribs. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/willie-smith-ward-rib-theft_n_3365554.html That's "justice", Texas style. Better than the Taliban's, I suppose. But not by much.

"That's "justice", Texas style. Better than the Taliban's, I suppose. But not by much."

Well we can't all have the outstanding records of quality policing of places like California...

Re: Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

#154
I admire Tesla for playing hardball with these dealerships.

The deals between manufacturers and their own dealerships can be arranged with contracts. There is no need for a blanket ban on dealers selling directly.

It's hard to think of a purer example of rent seeking than the protection that dealerships currently have.

I hope Tesla continue to demand what is right and refuse to cut any deals with the dealerships.

Re: Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. They do not sell cars at the Houston Galleria store: http://www.teslamotors.com/houstongalleria

So it's basically a showroom.

Right, however given the amount of oil money floating around and people coming in from out-of-town to shop there, it makes sense.

Re: Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wut? This is, umm, complete and totally false. Where do people come up with this crap?

People "come up with this crap" by being literate. Texas Penal Code 43.21 DEFINITIONS (7) "Obscene device" means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs. Sec. 43.23. OBSCENITY. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscen…

Ah, I see. It's legal to own dildos, it's illegal to promote dildos (so that's, what, selling a dildo, or does telling people how awesome dildo are count as promotion too?), and if you've got more than six dildos, or two the same, that's too many for personal consumption and you must be an illegal dildo-dealer.

If I made this up, people would tell me it was laughably unrealistic :)

Re: Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems he was sentenced not for stealing ribs, but because the threatened the store owner that confronted him, which is, in fact, a violent act. It also appears he was somewhat of a habitual offender, having been convincted of various violent and non-violent crimes many times previously. The sentence is somewhat harsh (eligible for parole in 12.5), but your comparison to the Taliban is absurd. EDIT: somewhat harsh…

The clarification here on the details is certainly nice to have. However, are you seriously suggesting that 50 years imprisonment is only somewhat harsh?! Taking 12.5 years at the minimum before being eligible for parole for stealing $35 ribs and "threatening" someone? By the way, saying "I've got a knife" and calling that a threat is both a stretch of what it means to threaten and what it means to call something a "…

(Shrug) I'm guessing the rest of us can get along OK without this enterprising young gentleman. It's not as if he's likely to cure cancer or start the next Google.

Re: Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

#158
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In it's simplest form, non-excessively peppered with financial terminology and equations: Floorplan is a line of credit dealers use to purchase their retail inventory. Each vehicle on the lot subjects the dealer to finance charges that begin accruing from the moment the dealer takes possession of the vehicle. So, say that the floorplan fees and interest are $100/day per vehicle (for simplicity's sake). The longer a c…

A question about floorplans: Is the floorplan cost flat? I ask because if you take into account both sunk costs and the fact that two identical models would have the same floorplan cost per day, why would they care to sell the older car first? Let's say you have two cars on the floor: Car A - just arrived Car B - sitting for 100 days The cost of the floorplan is $10/day (let's say) If a customer comes in and buys car…

Well, floorplan financing is a finance vehicle like any other, so terms are different among participating providers. Also, I'm a bit unsure of what you mean by "sunk costs".

Each vehicle ordered into inventory is an advance on the line of credit that has repayment fees and interest. Each vehicle sold then translates into paying the floorplan provider the advance amount + fees.

In your example, I'm unsure of how you fail to see that Car B is already costing the dealership more money. But let's work it out anyway.

Car A just arrived. Car B has been sitting for 100 days.

Car A cost $20,000 and is on the lot for 0 days @ $10/day. Total repayment? $20,000.

Car B cost $20,000 and is on the lot for 110 days @ $10/day. Total repayment? $21,100.

If you were the dealer, would you want to lose that additional $1,100? I'm willing to bet it would matter to you.

Complex case:

You're in a floorplan agreement that requires repayment of advances in full (including accrued interest and fees) in n days. You damn well better sell enough specific inventory to cover this without losing profit. The longer specific inventory stays on the lot when you're repaying each period, the more screwed up your numbers become.

It is about both moving inventory and moving specific inventory when that inventory is costing the dealer as much money as 10 other cars that sit on the lot for 20 days each.

Moreover, the typical expected time-on-lot tends to be between 30-90 days. Floorplan terms are usually negotiated for these typical cycles. If a dealer is in a floorplan setup that is built for a 90-day max turnaround, and then has vehicles that sit around for 200+ days, that can add up to significantly higher fees per old car that eats into the profit margin. This is especially important with dealers who are selling based on a profit-per-vehicle basis, as opposed to the profit-per-level basis in use by volume dealers. Last thing you want to do (as a dealer) is strike a deal on a 200-day-old car that you had to strip to invoice price or below to sell, and then repay a floorplan advance + fees that exceed the sales price. It happens, but you still don't want it to happen.

More important still, if a dealer is unable to keep moving inventory off their lot (whether through consumer sales, fleet sales, or dealer trades), then they have more inventory eating up their floorplan, diminishing the amount of inventory they can continue to purchase to replenish supply.

Now, to balance all this out and try to create new profit centers that both put more cash in the bank and provide another opportunity to make money off a potentially negative car sale, we have the Dealer Finance Officer. An absolutely disgusting professional. But that is a different kind of discussion. You may already be familiar with how finance officers help increase dealer profits-per-sale.

Re: Texas won't allow Tesla to sell electric cars directly

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMHO, things make much more sense when you argue in fact instead of metaphor. This is true. However, are you actually arguing in fact? Your statements read as an outside agent judging the intentions and motivations of other agents. Perhaps you're part of one of the groups and actually possess insider knowledge here? Another potential outsider's reading of the bets and motivations at play (this taken from nearly 4 y…

>This is true. However, are you actually arguing in fact? The whole point of arguing in fact is that you can prove someone wrong! The poster makes specific claims and you rebut them -- if I cared enough, I could do some investigation and see who is correct. That's not true when an argument consists entirely of a metaphor.

And the whole point of my question (re: arguing in fact) was that the parent was not arguing with facts, but was advancing suppositions with no provided factual basis. I was not rebutting any claims made.

To that end, and as I stated clearly, I did the same, offering guesses at what might be going on in the dealer opposition based on experience working with dealerships before. But, ultimately, even my surmising lacks evidence, and so neither of us are arguing with facts--we're simply not advancing a metaphor.

EDIT: Attempting to clarify that my comment was not intended to dispute anything the parent said, but to add another potential view. Apparently I misunderstood the parent's meaning of the phrase "argue in fact".

Post reply on HN