1) $60k is around 80th percentile in price people are optioning out their Model 3's to - even today where production is starting with the more expensive variants. But by all means, inflate, because price distortion totally makes your points legitimate. 2) The median Model 3 buyer is spending around $24k more on their Model 3 than on their previous car. Aka, they're not "rich", they just really want the car. 3) See the production volumes linked here.
Unlike other manufacturers, Tesla can't sell vehicles at a loss; they generally get about 25% margins on their vehicles (Model 3 just broke positive in Q2 and is expected to be around 15% in Q3). Others by and large sell subsidized or no-profit EVs - and consequently will not sell more than they have to.
So far there have been three different independent teardown studies of the Model 3. Two of the three (Munro and the German teardown study) show that even a base Model 3 without any options will turn a good profit (one disagreed - although they used a demonstrably inflated battery cost estimate). But of course almost nobody buys a car without options. The average car sale price in the US is $36111.
Right now, Boring Company is working entirely on private funding. Mostly from Musk. Obviously that will have to change before they go large scale, but I doubt this one line will cost that much.
It's funny that most of the comments in this thread so far seem to be... upset about people going to sports events. I mean, I'm no sports fan, but this just strikes me as weird.
Neat that they're going to make their first full LA tunnel an operational one. A connection to Dodger Stadium was drawn up on their longer-term man of plans for the LA area, so looks like they're jumping ahead a step. I wonder what upgrades they're going to be making to Godot for it? Maybe bringing it closer to Line-Storm? I know they've been modifying Godot over time in order to test tech for Line-Storm.
Boring Company has been going through phases as they transition from standard TBM approaches toward their ultimate goal. In their first tunnel with Godot (a mostly standard TBM in the beginning), they required the standard laying of tracks and power lines (time consuming and expensive, particularly the power lines) and a powerful ventilation system to deal with diesel exhaust from the diesel locomotive that hauls ore, as well as pushing off the casing ends and using normal cutting discs. Their third TBM, Prufrock, will be using delivered/replaced battery packs, no tracks, a battery powered electric locomotive, pushing off the wall sides and automating their assembly, and advanced alloy highly cooled hot swappable cutting discs; it's in the advanced design stage. Between Godot and Prufrock is Line-Storm, which has nearly completed construction, and is a mix of technologies between Godot and Prufrock, and is expected to be 2-4 times as fast as Godot (Prufrock is expected to be 10-15x faster). Line-Storm will be used on the east coast.
"Your security weaknesses allowed someone to steal my pretend money!"
I imagine that in his lawsuit he's valuing the currency at the then-value (as of early January) rather than the present value. Because if it was present value, not only would the losses be much smaller, but AT&T could just keep dragging the lawsuit out until the losses would be so small as to be meaningless;)
A lot of people here would be glad to be out of NATO.
You don't have a base here out of the goodness of your hearts. You have it to have a staging point for projecting power (and monitoring for intrusion) in the North Atlantic, to keep threats away from your shores. We didn't tell you leave when you left last, and we didn't tell you to come back when you came back.
I think it's funny how people are assuming that the Saudis are the only party involved (and before this, were assuming "no parties").
There's thousands of individuals, many thousands of funds, and tens of thousands of companies worldwide which could plausibly be parties to such a buyout. To anyone who wants to exhaust the list: you've got a lot of phone calls to make; better get started.
It's funny how everyone instead went to calling banks, as if this would be a LBO. Why on Earth would anyone look at Tesla and assume "LBO"? That's nonsensical.
Wow, having an offer from a reliable funding entity is "secured funding", even if you haven't yet agreed to their preferred terms, and even if you ultimately arrange for other terms with them or with other parties. Imagine that.
I'm glad we were able to have this discussion today.
You know, maybe if Musk had wanted to make clear that he hadn't accepted any terms yet, he shouldn't have made any definitive statements, but rather have started off his post with something like "Am considering taking Tesla private...", and continually used words like "if we go private" multiple times, "would be", "in any scenario", etc, and only talked about "investor support".
Interesting theory. I can totally imagine buying a home under your definition:
Seller: "Have you secured funding for buying the house?" Buyer: "Yes, I have a loan offer from my bank" Seller: "Unfortunately that won't do. You see, I don't consider it 'secured' until you've accepted the bank's loan offer and have the cash on hand. Goodbye!"
Do the Saudis have the money? Answer: Yes. Does there exist a set of terms under which the Saudis would be willing to provide the money? Answer: Apparently yes. Are terms agreed upon? Answer: No. Are the Saudis the only player involved? Answer: No.
Summary: Is funding secured? Yes. Is a deal complete and ready to present to shareholders? No.
Apparently you were wishing that Elon had tweeted "Buyout deal for Tesla complete; all terms negotiated and ready to be voted on at next shareholder meeting".
Apparently some people have trouble understanding the difference between "having secured funding sources" and "having negotiated a deal that's ready to present to shareholders for a vote".
A year ago, Tesla had secured funding for a buyout deal from Softbank. But the deal negotiations fell apart over the level of control (Musk didn't want Softbank basically having veto authority over all company decisions).
Several years ago, Tesla had secured funding for a buyout deal from Google. But during the negotiations, Tesla's financial fortunes turned around and Musk broke off the negotiations.
There's no shortage of people out there who would consider a 20% premium not unreasonable for gaining significant control of the company (and of course its corresponding value surge when its shorts are forced to all cover at once). I estimate the total cost of the buyout to be on the order of $20-25B, maybe as much as $30B, depending on the details (a big question is who can remain on as investors). Musk obviously won't be selling his stake, and most (but not all) institutional investors seem to think that $420 is below their sell price. We're polling retail investors right now on TMC and it looks like most think $420 isn't even close to their selling point. But there's a number of regulations that may make it difficult for some parties to remain on if Tesla goes private.
With a buyout on the order of a few tens of billions of dollars, and a desire that no single party come close to a majority stake, individual investments can be expected to be on the order of a few billion dollars each. There's a great number of companies / individuals / funds out there for which this is a reasonable investment range. And the Saudi sovereign wealth fund is definitely among them. I am not privilege to the Saudis' investment structure, but the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund has a ton of investments over $1B (but only one over $8B).
You "keeps" refer/infer to Consumer Reports "subscriber/owner" survey, which is easily corruptible bullshit that any loser
It's funny how you guys only criticize Consumer Reports' work when it says something you don't like. If anonymous surveys aren't good enough for you, then what exactly is?
But I am impressed that the Tesla Model 3 is garnering praise comparable to Kia automobiles of the 1990s (fast forward to 6:55).
Hahaha... your source is Randy Munro? Um, you might want to look at what Munro has been saying recently about the Model 3. It's a "symphony of engineering", he has to "eat crow", etc, etc. He now goes on and on about its brilliant design decisions, about how the guy who designed the suspension should be a Formula 1 prince, and on and on.
Apparently you need to keep up, the board was only told that it was an idea and was not given any of the details either
From the statement of the board:
Last week, Elon opened a discussion with the board about taking the company private. This included discussion as to how being private could better serve Tesla’s long-term interests, and also addressed the funding for this to occur. The board has met several times over the last week and is taking the appropriate next steps to evaluate this.
Of course, the analysts have been saying all year that Apple should buy Tesla - they're flush with cash and looking for new investment opportunities. Softbank has been raised - they tried to buy Tesla last year, but it broke down over control issues. I don't think it's them because they invested in GM Cruise after negotiations with Tesla broke down. My two biggest bets however would be on either Chinese capital, or Alphabet. One, Tesla's already been negotiating with Chinese investors over capital for the Gigafactory there - and Tesla already has some large Chinese investors, like Tencent. As for Alphabet, like Apple, they're flush with cash and looking for investments, but unlike Apple, Musk is good friends with Larry Page. And Google already nearly bought Tesla several years ago, before Musk broke it off. There's a question of how Waymo would be involved - but then again, Tencent has their own self driving programme too. And Waymo was already around back during the last Google attempt to buy Tesla.
Amazing how you can read whatever you want into an article. Right in the first paragraph: to avoid concentrating ownership among a few new large holders, according to people familiar with the matter.
That in no way, shape or form says that there are no "new large holders". Rather, it strongly suggests precisely the opposite.
Control was the key thing that caused the previous buyout negotiations with Softbank to break down previously. Funds from Softbank were there, but Musk didn't want Softbank ending up with so much voting control. Don't act shocked that Tesla to dilute the power of new major holders as much as possible.
This entire discussion is centred around Musk's "funding secured" tweet. Hence a list of the people funding the buyout would be needed. Do try to keep up.
The SEC will require a lot more than just some list Musk wrote down
Duh. And how long do you think some phone calls will take?
Then will come questions about why the board was not made aware of these committed investments.
The board was made aware of it a week before Musk's announcement. Again, try to keep up.
There's a difference between, and I quote, "Investor support is confirmed", and "having all aspects of a buyout deal completely negotiated out and ready to present to a shareholder vote". A buyout is a very complicated process. In past buyout negotiations, such as the last one with Softbank, control of the company was the big sticking point. Funding was not the limitation. And it almost certainly is not here either.
Slashdot Mirror
1) $60k is around 80th percentile in price people are optioning out their Model 3's to - even today where production is starting with the more expensive variants. But by all means, inflate, because price distortion totally makes your points legitimate.
2) The median Model 3 buyer is spending around $24k more on their Model 3 than on their previous car. Aka, they're not "rich", they just really want the car.
3) See the production volumes linked here.
Unlike other manufacturers, Tesla can't sell vehicles at a loss; they generally get about 25% margins on their vehicles (Model 3 just broke positive in Q2 and is expected to be around 15% in Q3). Others by and large sell subsidized or no-profit EVs - and consequently will not sell more than they have to.
So far there have been three different independent teardown studies of the Model 3. Two of the three (Munro and the German teardown study) show that even a base Model 3 without any options will turn a good profit (one disagreed - although they used a demonstrably inflated battery cost estimate). But of course almost nobody buys a car without options. The average car sale price in the US is $36111.
Meanwhile...
In other news...
‘Literally No One Calls Me That Or Has Ever Called Me That’: Our Interview With Ol’ Musky
Right now, Boring Company is working entirely on private funding. Mostly from Musk. Obviously that will have to change before they go large scale, but I doubt this one line will cost that much.
It's funny that most of the comments in this thread so far seem to be... upset about people going to sports events. I mean, I'm no sports fan, but this just strikes me as weird.
Neat that they're going to make their first full LA tunnel an operational one. A connection to Dodger Stadium was drawn up on their longer-term man of plans for the LA area, so looks like they're jumping ahead a step. I wonder what upgrades they're going to be making to Godot for it? Maybe bringing it closer to Line-Storm? I know they've been modifying Godot over time in order to test tech for Line-Storm.
Boring Company has been going through phases as they transition from standard TBM approaches toward their ultimate goal. In their first tunnel with Godot (a mostly standard TBM in the beginning), they required the standard laying of tracks and power lines (time consuming and expensive, particularly the power lines) and a powerful ventilation system to deal with diesel exhaust from the diesel locomotive that hauls ore, as well as pushing off the casing ends and using normal cutting discs. Their third TBM, Prufrock, will be using delivered/replaced battery packs, no tracks, a battery powered electric locomotive, pushing off the wall sides and automating their assembly, and advanced alloy highly cooled hot swappable cutting discs; it's in the advanced design stage. Between Godot and Prufrock is Line-Storm, which has nearly completed construction, and is a mix of technologies between Godot and Prufrock, and is expected to be 2-4 times as fast as Godot (Prufrock is expected to be 10-15x faster). Line-Storm will be used on the east coast.
"Your security weaknesses allowed someone to steal my pretend money!"
I imagine that in his lawsuit he's valuing the currency at the then-value (as of early January) rather than the present value. Because if it was present value, not only would the losses be much smaller, but AT&T could just keep dragging the lawsuit out until the losses would be so small as to be meaningless ;)
A lot of people here would be glad to be out of NATO.
You don't have a base here out of the goodness of your hearts. You have it to have a staging point for projecting power (and monitoring for intrusion) in the North Atlantic, to keep threats away from your shores. We didn't tell you leave when you left last, and we didn't tell you to come back when you came back.
You do realize that socialism is mainstream in Europe, right? I'm looking around and I don't see any gulags here.
I think it's funny how people are assuming that the Saudis are the only party involved (and before this, were assuming "no parties").
There's thousands of individuals, many thousands of funds, and tens of thousands of companies worldwide which could plausibly be parties to such a buyout. To anyone who wants to exhaust the list: you've got a lot of phone calls to make; better get started.
It's funny how everyone instead went to calling banks, as if this would be a LBO. Why on Earth would anyone look at Tesla and assume "LBO"? That's nonsensical.
From the article: "Discussions are at high level"
Control, structure, parties to the deal, and a million other things.
Wow, having an offer from a reliable funding entity is "secured funding", even if you haven't yet agreed to their preferred terms, and even if you ultimately arrange for other terms with them or with other parties. Imagine that.
I'm glad we were able to have this discussion today.
You shorts should be novelists. Seriously. I'd totally buy your books. You could be the next John Grisham.
You know, maybe if Musk had wanted to make clear that he hadn't accepted any terms yet, he shouldn't have made any definitive statements, but rather have started off his post with something like "Am considering taking Tesla private...", and continually used words like "if we go private" multiple times, "would be", "in any scenario", etc, and only talked about "investor support".
'... oh wait.
Interesting theory. I can totally imagine buying a home under your definition:
Seller: "Have you secured funding for buying the house?"
Buyer: "Yes, I have a loan offer from my bank"
Seller: "Unfortunately that won't do. You see, I don't consider it 'secured' until you've accepted the bank's loan offer and have the cash on hand. Goodbye!"
It's much simpler. Saudi Arabia needs a hedge. There's no better hedge against oil than an EV manufacturer.
Do the Saudis have the money? Answer: Yes.
Does there exist a set of terms under which the Saudis would be willing to provide the money? Answer: Apparently yes.
Are terms agreed upon? Answer: No.
Are the Saudis the only player involved? Answer: No.
Summary: Is funding secured? Yes. Is a deal complete and ready to present to shareholders? No.
Apparently you were wishing that Elon had tweeted "Buyout deal for Tesla complete; all terms negotiated and ready to be voted on at next shareholder meeting".
Apparently some people have trouble understanding the difference between "having secured funding sources" and "having negotiated a deal that's ready to present to shareholders for a vote".
A year ago, Tesla had secured funding for a buyout deal from Softbank. But the deal negotiations fell apart over the level of control (Musk didn't want Softbank basically having veto authority over all company decisions).
Several years ago, Tesla had secured funding for a buyout deal from Google. But during the negotiations, Tesla's financial fortunes turned around and Musk broke off the negotiations.
There's no shortage of people out there who would consider a 20% premium not unreasonable for gaining significant control of the company (and of course its corresponding value surge when its shorts are forced to all cover at once). I estimate the total cost of the buyout to be on the order of $20-25B, maybe as much as $30B, depending on the details (a big question is who can remain on as investors). Musk obviously won't be selling his stake, and most (but not all) institutional investors seem to think that $420 is below their sell price. We're polling retail investors right now on TMC and it looks like most think $420 isn't even close to their selling point. But there's a number of regulations that may make it difficult for some parties to remain on if Tesla goes private.
With a buyout on the order of a few tens of billions of dollars, and a desire that no single party come close to a majority stake, individual investments can be expected to be on the order of a few billion dollars each. There's a great number of companies / individuals / funds out there for which this is a reasonable investment range. And the Saudi sovereign wealth fund is definitely among them. I am not privilege to the Saudis' investment structure, but the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund has a ton of investments over $1B (but only one over $8B).
1) That wasn't me (but again, nice of you to assume I'm omnipresent. Am I all powerful too?)
2) Reuters was wrong.
Actually, the situation has been reversed. The Saudis are in negotiations to take part in buying Tesla.
It's funny how you guys only criticize Consumer Reports' work when it says something you don't like. If anonymous surveys aren't good enough for you, then what exactly is?
Hahaha... your source is Randy Munro? Um, you might want to look at what Munro has been saying recently about the Model 3. It's a "symphony of engineering", he has to "eat crow", etc, etc. He now goes on and on about its brilliant design decisions, about how the guy who designed the suspension should be a Formula 1 prince, and on and on.
From the statement of the board:
Of course, the analysts have been saying all year that Apple should buy Tesla - they're flush with cash and looking for new investment opportunities. Softbank has been raised - they tried to buy Tesla last year, but it broke down over control issues. I don't think it's them because they invested in GM Cruise after negotiations with Tesla broke down. My two biggest bets however would be on either Chinese capital, or Alphabet. One, Tesla's already been negotiating with Chinese investors over capital for the Gigafactory there - and Tesla already has some large Chinese investors, like Tencent. As for Alphabet, like Apple, they're flush with cash and looking for investments, but unlike Apple, Musk is good friends with Larry Page. And Google already nearly bought Tesla several years ago, before Musk broke it off. There's a question of how Waymo would be involved - but then again, Tencent has their own self driving programme too. And Waymo was already around back during the last Google attempt to buy Tesla.
Amazing how you can read whatever you want into an article. Right in the first paragraph: to avoid concentrating ownership among a few new large holders, according to people familiar with the matter.
That in no way, shape or form says that there are no "new large holders". Rather, it strongly suggests precisely the opposite.
Control was the key thing that caused the previous buyout negotiations with Softbank to break down previously. Funds from Softbank were there, but Musk didn't want Softbank ending up with so much voting control. Don't act shocked that Tesla to dilute the power of new major holders as much as possible.
This entire discussion is centred around Musk's "funding secured" tweet. Hence a list of the people funding the buyout would be needed. Do try to keep up.
Duh. And how long do you think some phone calls will take?
The board was made aware of it a week before Musk's announcement. Again, try to keep up.
There's a difference between, and I quote, "Investor support is confirmed", and "having all aspects of a buyout deal completely negotiated out and ready to present to a shareholder vote". A buyout is a very complicated process. In past buyout negotiations, such as the last one with Softbank, control of the company was the big sticking point. Funding was not the limitation. And it almost certainly is not here either.