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

Tesla raises $1.8B

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 207 posts

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#61

Post by KGIII »

PakG1 wrote: post #57
KGIII wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it common knowledge. That's probably a mistake on my part. I know it because I invested pretty early on. My mistake is in thinking others would have read the history and knew the details. I'd like to hope a journalist would know, however. Well, at least research it. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia knows all about it. Still, I think it's a mistake on my part, to think others would know - more so, given the pervasi…

The interesting question is whether Musk himself portrays himself as the founder. I don't think he does? There are lots of stories though of how people take a business and make it huge, and take credit for being the founder when they weren't. The most popular story these days may be Ray Kroc due to his work at McDonald's and the corresponding movie The Founder.

I pay moderate attention to the press surrounding him and I don't believe he portrays himself as the founder. Maybe, perhaps, portraying himself as the driver.

He does, I think, deserve lots of credit. Him not being one of the originals in no way detracts from his work and skill.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#63

Post by ThrustVectoring »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #17
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not recommend committing securities fraud.

I'm curious. How is what was flippantly suggested related to securities fraud?

The SEC has taken a clear position that whether or not it's a "smart contract" or the like makes no material difference into whether or not you are offering a security. Making a cryptocurrency was suggested as a way to finance Tesla's business operations, so it is almost certainly a security in the eyes of the SEC. At this point, your choices are either to sell unregistered securities or to follow SEC rules anyways, at which point, why not just go through conventional channels?

"Fund your business by issuing cryptocurrencies" is an idea that will likely end in defending yourself legally against the SEC. Bad idea. I don't recommend it.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#65

Post by jerkstate »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

How much would it cost for a roof-mounted device that makes gasoline for you?

Add your local transportation bill to your electricity bill and now tell me how many years it is.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#66

Post by dpiers »

mattnewton wrote: post #60
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

Yeah, I kinda think they and the investors are hoping that electricity demand increases and the tech becomes much cheaper while their RnD is funded by millionaires who care about the aesthetics and the environment.

Which is basically how Tesla started - toys for rich people funded RnD until they could scale and get their costs down.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#67

Post by KGIII »

Inconel wrote: post #42
KGIII wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I missed that one. I do notice it is specifically about cell phones, though I suspect it is difficult to tell where else it is used. I don't own enough shares to pressure them into ethical sourcing and, honestly, hadn't even given it much thought until just now. I only have ~850 shares. Which, while a bunch, isn't going to influence much. It does make me curious.

Yes, that article isn't specifically about automotive batteries but I figured it was still fresh in reader's minds. It wouldn't surprise me if ICE cars had similar problems with conflict minerals, particularly in the catalytic converters. I'd love to see a really exhaustive study comparing the environmental effects of ICE and EV cars when taking into account the entire product lifecycle from mining, transport, manufa…

There are a lot of externalities but here's a recent one with a bunch of information.

http://www.adlittle.com/fileadmin/editorial_us/downloads/ADL...

This is a bit older and more about energy consumption.

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/218621/...

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#68

Post by colechristensen »

d_t_w wrote: post #44

Is there a difference between 'raises' and 'borrows'? I read this as Tesla took investment of $1.8B (presumably in return for shares), but in this case they have issued $1.8B of bonds, so they've effectively taken out a loan.

Quite a few of the "investment" rounds for companies have terms which look like loans more than ownership as well. It can get rather fuzzy distinguishing one from the other.

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#69

Post by no-lan »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

Not just amoritized though - less the cost of alt new roof, maintenance, and replacement. I believe Tesla is offering a lifetime warranty

Re: Tesla raises $1.8B

#70

Post by epistasis »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #59

Let's talk about Solar City. Their product is intended to be a solar roof, indistinguishable from a typical roof from street level. Costs look to be in the $50,000+ range. The marketing is that homeowners will not only drive electric vehicles, but go completely off grid by storing the energy collected into Tesla batteries. In order for this to make financial sense, there needs to be an ROI for the homeowner. So... ho…

Homeowners often pay extra for aesthetics that appeal to them.

But lets pretend they don't. How quickly does a normal roof recoup its costs? For at least the beginnings of a fair comparison, you should look at recouping the surplus over the normal cost of a roof.

Also, how are you spending $25k on batteries?

This sort of comment seems to attempt to try to take the most negative reasonable possible look on the situation, then throw in a bunch of exaggeration and unreasonable suppositions.

If your point is that normal roof-mounted solar is going to be cheaper, then yes, they pay for themselves in much less than 15 in many locales. But your solar panels plus new traditional roof are not going to pay for themselves in 15 years unless it's an amazing market for solar.

Post reply on HN