Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taking Tesla Private

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 290 posts

Re: Taking Tesla Private

#271

Post by greenhatman »

austenallred wrote: post #209
southerndrift wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going private, wouldn't it be a bigger distraction for everyone working at Tesla to wonder whether they can find a private buyer or not for their shares and what their shares are actually worth?

I can't imagine anything more distracting than a big number that goes up and down minute to minute changing the value of the equity they hold

I agree with this. This is the main reason I don't hold cryptocurrencies. I can't concentrate on work when I have to watch the price the whole time.

Re: Taking Tesla Private

#272

Post by miracle2k »

majewsky wrote: post #242
paganel wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The French government is also a big shareholder of Renault and Volkswagen is partially owned by the regional government where they’re domiciled, if I’m not mistaken, plus the German government itself always putting the interests of the German big 3 (MB, BMW, VW) ahead of almost everything else, even their citizens’ health (see the tax incentives given to diesel vehicles for the last couple of decades).

Correct. Also a large part of the reason why we still don't have universal speed limits on Autobahnen.

Is the claim here that with a speed limit, the business of the car companies would suffer? How so?

The reality, I think, is that there is sufficient support for the speedlimit-free Autobahn from Germans.

Re: Taking Tesla Private

#275

Post by karpodiem »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #131
S_A_P wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Your last sentence seems to sum up the motive here in my opinion, not so much to screw the short sellers, but to limit/stop the ability of them to influence the value of the company through whatever means.

Oh I wouldn't discount Elon's interest in screwing the short-sellers. There's ample evidence of his disdain for these people and even if you're bearish on Tesla, I think a lot of the short-sellers are fueled by oil & gas interests, so Elon's ire is not unwarranted. I don't think the media portrays this battle appropriately. Tesla is the #1 enemy of the combustion engine supply chain and that is no small thing. Every…

I'm not fueled by oil and gas interests - I know a fraud when I see one. I'm short the equity, since dividends aren't a concern.

Tesla cannot manufacture at scale - they do not have the experience or capital to execute on this. Their financial statements demonstrate as much, and the build quality/reliability issues that are prevalent on forums/reddit/twitter demonstrate this.

Re: Taking Tesla Private

#276

Post by karpodiem »

gameswithgo wrote: post #98
patrickaljord wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't SpaceX success due to the fact that most of its orders come from the US government while Tesla has to compete in the free market and isn't that successful there?

The free market of automobile manufacturing in which the USA has propped up both GM and Ford, and in the past Chrysler? The one in which the Japanese government is carefully intertwined with their automotive industry? The government is a customer of space x but they still compete against other companies for that business.

It's a national security interest that the United States has a automotive industry that pushes meaningful (3+ million vehicles a year domestically) volume.

There is absolutely nothing special about a Tesla BEV other than that unlike most automakers, it's extremely unprofitable. Go read Tesla's financial statements.

Re: Taking Tesla Private

#277

Post by peeters »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #176
peeters wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Articles/Bylaws would likely give Musk control, even though he only holds 20%. But Articles and Bylaws can be rewritten at the whim of the majority shareholder, no? I don't doubt that's how it would be initially structured (otherwise it would just be a hostile takeover) I'm just saying it's putting Tesla's future in the hands of whoever holds the most shares.

Google has three classes of shares: A, B and C. A shares get one vote, C shares get none and B shares get 10 votes. Brin, Page, Schmidt own all the B shares. [1] For FB, Zuck holds a class of shares where each of his counts as 10 vs. the common shares.[2] [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/052215/goog-or... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/shareholders-wont-force-zuck...

Hmm, interesting. I thought we were just talking about voting shares. Musk has said current shareholders would be able to hold on to their shares. Do you think behind that statement he implied "but will lose voting status"?

Re: Taking Tesla Private

#279

Post by mikestew »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #267
mikestew wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of me wonders if it isn't a side-effect, but the goal: put the squeezin' on the shorts. But, man, if that tin-foil hat theory is true, Musk better have someone in the wings at least pretending to want to finance this lest the SEC come a-knockin'. Normally, I'd just pass that off as "haha, wouldn't that be funny!", but given some of Musk's tweets lately, there's still a little part of me that entertains the idea…

Yeah I'm really wondering whether this was legal - I would've been on his ass if I were the SEC for illegal price manipulation. Even if he doesn't go through with it, it's still bumped the stocks up by a lot. Could've been a move to scare off the shorts?

By the time you had made your post, Tesla had already issued a press release saying the same, and news had come out that Musk had been talking to the board about it for the past week. So, yeah, he was serious and not being manipulative, and AFAICT completely legal.

Re: Taking Tesla Private

#280

Post by brohee »

djanogo wrote: post #226
swalsh wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting perspective on why Elon might be pulling this move: https://www.barrons.com/articles/tesla-stocks-surge-puts-con...

"...which would effectively let the electric-auto maker pay off that obligation in stock instead of cash." How does paying off the obligation with stock work?, whose shares would Tesla assign the bond holder?, if it assigns shares after market closes and when market opens if it's below $360, won't the bond holders sue?

The shares are created. As the debt are not repaid it's as if the bond holder bought shares in a round of recapitalization instead.
Post reply on HN