Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Bailed Out of $6bn Google Takeover To Save Tesla From 2013 Bankruptcy
An anonymous reader sends word that Elon Musk almost sold Tesla to Google in 2013 when the company was close to bankruptcy. "Elon Musk had a deal to sell his electric car company Tesla, to Google for $6bn (£4bn) when it was heading for bankruptcy with just two weeks' worth of cash left in the bank. During the first week of March 2013, Musk spoke to his friend Larry Page, chief executive of Google, about the search giant buying his car company, which at the time was suffering from falling sales amid technical problems with the few Model S luxury sedan cars it had delivered. Ashlee Vance, author of upcoming book Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX and the Quest for a Fantastic Future, claims in an extra for Bloomberg two people 'with direct knowledge of the deal' said Musk and Page agreed to the buyout and shook on a price of around $6bn. This was plus promises from Google to invest $5bn for factory expansion and to not break Tesla up or close it down."
I smell a giant commie RAT!
More competition is better. We know google is working on their own car - but the Tesla is here today and doing better than anyone ever thought. No wonder the guy can do rocket science.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
...because Mr. Gates, a good friend of Mr. Jobs, personally chose to continue releasing versions of Microsoft Office for Apple's products to help Apple remain a viable platform for Microsoft's customers.
Please tell me how an anecdote from a couple of years ago is news...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Only if it is free market competition. When you allow government to pick winners, it is no longer Capitalism, but Crony Capitalism — which is to the real thing, like Westborough Church is to Christianity.
Because government officials do not put their own money on the line and a successful businessman must know, how to play politics — to the inevitable detriment of running his business instead...
And, while we are at it, our (taxpayer's) investment in Tesla was even worse than in Solyndra.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You nor I could ever hope to match this guys gravitas. He has been so successful he can now get things done through the virtue of his past accomplishments. Who amongst us could go anywhere and get any amount of money even remotely to what he was promised.
Not saying anything bad about it, just making a general statement of awe.
--headline with a question mark--
Maybe it's my reading comprehension, but this headline made it sound like this deal actually happened to me.
According to the article, "But the deal never happened because Tesla's fortunes quickly began to turn after Musk demanded that all staff, no matter what their job title, get on the phones and sell cars to curious customers who had placed refundable deposits."
Perhaps the headline should read "almost bailed out," or something similar.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
...gave him enough money to save him from bankruptcy.
I.e. Tesla only exists thanks to corporate welfare, in which billionaires get generous loans from struggling average Joes.
Ugh.
Seriously, the google boys are some of the most important business guys going. However, unlike most of the business ppl, such as Romney, Fiorina, McNerney, Welsh, Koch bros, etc, they focus on nothing but making money and have no interest in the future of America or Mankind.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As such, there is no reason to believe that they will not consider building their own cars. And if they were to do so, I am guessing that they will Work with Tesla to make their own.
There is a very good reason to believe they will not consider building their own cars. The reason is economics. Cars are a generally low margin business with huge capital requirements. The engineering and manufacturing are something Google has absolutely no expertise or advantage in. A VERY profitable large car manufacturer has profit margins around 8-10% (see Porsche or Toyota) and most are somewhere between 0-5% most of the time. Google right now has profit margins around 25%. If they got into the car business in any sort of meaningful way their profit margins would drop like a rock along with their share price. They would be jumping into a cutthroat business that they have zero advantage or experience in. Even if they bought a company like GM outright, it would be basically nothing but a huge distraction from their primary business. A company like Tesla they could manage because it is so small but eventually they would probably sell it off.
While Google has the financial means to get into the car business if they wanted to, they would be insane to do so. I could easily see them providing technology used in cars but I don't see any (sane) reason why they would actually want to make cars themselves.
Elon Musk isn't a visionary thinker like William Shatner.
I.e. Tesla only exists thanks to corporate welfare, in which billionaires get generous loans from struggling average Joes.
Substitute Tesla for GM or Chrysler and you could say the exact same thing.
The difference however is that GM and Chrysler provide a huge number of jobs both at themselves and their suppliers for those "struggling average Joes". Without them the Joes would have been much worse off. You really do not want to know how big a blow to the economy it would have been if they had not received bailout loans. Tesla on the other hand is a promising small company that needed a cash bridge to get their next product to market. They paid the loan off early and are looking like they might be a huge success so it's unclear to me what the problem is in the case of Tesla.
corporatism (which is the politically correct modern name for fascism)
The idea that fascism is synonymous with corporatism is wrong. Its a false meme often repeated by some on the left for political purposes, a technique of manipulating the ignorant. Much like some on the right toss around the word "communistic".
In reality fascism is a form of syndicalism, where workers are formed into syndicates to counter the power of owners. Fascism is actually quite socialistic in this respect. Fascism does not fit neatly into the political spectrum, it is a weird combination of ideas from the left and right.
More importantly under fascism both the corporation (owners) and the workers are subservient to the state. The state created a somewhat level playing field for the two to negotiate on but they damn well better put aside any labor squabble if its going to interfere with state requirements.
Yes, head of and used some of them. Quite inferior solutions. Not at all up to Tesla standards. "Successful" only because they are free.
Tesla recently sold a record number of cars, exceeding expectations.
It doesn't matter if demand in China is lower than expected when demand in the US and Europe is unfulfilled. Units that might have been originally planned for China get redesignated for US or Europe during production.
and that will stick with him forever.
"Free market" may be a Platonic ideal, but market freedom can still be compared. A market, in which the government invests billions of captive taxpayers' monies, is less free, than one, where only private investors exist.
Not all competition is useful. The skillset required for convincing government bureaucrats to extend loans has little overlap with what's needed to secure real investment from people risking their own funds.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Then what "-ism" would you suggest to describe what the current situation is in the US?
Maybe reality is more complex that any -ism? More complex than the politicians and their adherents would have us believe?
You are aware that Android is currently dominating the mobile market?
You'd have to live under a rock to not know how Android is doing. What is your point? Google makes virtually no money from Android directly.
You're also quite wrong. Google have a huge stake in GIS and have become one of the worlds leading imagery providers, so much to the point that they now have their own satellites (GeoEYE).
Which is entirely consistent with their search driven advertising business. That's not a distraction. That's a core business for them and really it is a cost center. They bought that so that they could enhance their local search.
Google is extremely diversified, so much so they could survive the complete destruction of their advertisement business.
Google is barely diversified at all. You haven't actually looked at any of their financial statements. Google makes close to 95% of their revenue from advertising. Fourth quarter 2014 they made $46 billion in revenue and $43.6 of that came from advertising. Google would be bankrupt if their advertising business disappeared.
If you want to see what an actual diversified company looks like go look at Berkshire Hathaway or General Electric. Hell, even Microsoft is more diversified than Google. Despite all the hype, Google is pretty much a one trick pony. It's a REALLY good trick but they don't have a second one right now. Their main saving grace is that they have so much cash in the bank that they could buy their way into a new line of business if they needed to. But they haven't developed anything in house that meaningfully changes the fact that virtually all their revenue comes from advertising.