re: F tanks while Tesla soars

quote:

---

Its well known that Musk funds one company with the other company. Hell the truck schematics are built with space x parts.

The same goes for starlink.

A majority of the software in a Tesla was programmed by SpaceX.

And yes there are several satellite providers but none will have the ability of space x from both a resource and technical standpoint.

---

Don't really understand how publicly traded companies work huh?

You say “feed off each other”, when in reality it was straight up fraud. He got away with it because he’s good at selling snake oil.

quote:

---

Tesla looses money on every car

---

This is not correct, fwiw.

quote:

---

when in reality it was straight up fraud.

---

Ok if you’re going to say it’s straight up fraud, can you please specify how and why that’s the case

The court just issued an opinion regarding the lawsuit over the SolarCity acquisition, rejecting some if the plaintiffs complaints and allowing other to move forward. While there are still some potential problems for Musk, if anything, I think the complaints that were rejected were evidence that it wasn’t “fraud.”

So here is a link to the summary of the opinion, as well as some the issues of the case, including the complaints that are as close to fraud that I found.

Tesla, SolarCity, and Inherent Coercion

From my non-legal perspective, it appears that much of the complaint relates to whether Musk’s unique position as a popular and active CEO can make him essentially a “controlling stakeholder,” (despite only owning about 20%) and if it does, whether he then used his unique influence “inherently coerce” shareholder by misrepresenting the deal. And since you’re alleging fraud, then the misrepresentation complaints potentially fall into this category.

And think two of the complaints that you could argue as something resembling “fraud,” were rejected:

quote:

---

Granting a minor victory to the defendants, Vice Chancellor Slights rejected two disclosure defects asserted by the plaintiffs.

---

quote:

---

First, he held that valuation disclosures must only explain general methodology – in this case pertaining to growth rate assumptions about SolarCity’s investment tax credits. Such financial disclosures are not required to be so granular to permit replication so long as they communicate the key underlying assumptions that provide the basis of an investment bank’s opinion.

---

quote:

---

Next, the court held that statements regarding expected financial impact of the merger on Tesla and projected SolarCity cashflows were adequately described and appropriately qualified in the proxy materials.

---

It seems to me that if acquisition has a justifiable estimate of the valuation of the acquisition and a justifiable estimate of the impact on the financial impact of the acquisition, it’s hard to call that “fraud.”

Of the the remaining issues to be resolved regarding the representation of the deal, only two pertained to anything about SolarCity’s financial (extent of debt problems) or its product/operations (viability and timeline of Roof project).

quote:

---

SolarCity’s financial situation, which the plaintiffs refer to as a “liquidity crisis” due no outside financing and dwindling cash in the face of mounting obligations;

---

quote:

---

Musk’s overly sanguine statements about SolarCity’s roof product viability and timelines.

---

The rest primarily pertain to the larger issue of Musk’s involvement (he argued recusal meant voting recusal; complaints argues recusal meant all aspects including negotiations).

I've said for years now that if Tesla can ever produce a vehicle with at least 300hp, can go 300 miles on a charge and is under $30k then he'll change the whole fricking game. He's already changing it slowly but if that price on the 3 ever gets below $30k (and they can meet demand) you won't be able to shake a stick without hitting a Tesla.

I just don't trust Musk for some reason.


I've missed on out on huge gains but I just don't trust him so it's hard to put much money with him.


i'll probably throw something at this satellite internet thing though that's more an area I'm interested in and know better than automotives.

quote:

---

Tesla makes pound for pound the best car on the market and it’s not even close. People who disagree with that statement have never sat behind the wheel of a Tesla.

---

Best how? What Tesla vehicles? All of them?

Pound for pound in literal weight or from a cost perspective?

What are you considering comps to the Tesla vehicles that are "best"?

quote:

---

I've said for years now that if Tesla can ever produce a vehicle with at least 300hp, can go 300 miles on a charge and is under $30k then he'll change the whole fricking game. He's already changing it slowly but if that price on the 3 ever gets below $30k (and they can meet demand) you won't be able to shake a stick without hitting a Tesla.

---

Tesla is a luxury brand, albeit an electric one. the 3 was their answer to the mercedes c class, bmw 3 series, etc.

they aren't competing with a camry or accord.