SpaceX, Tesla & Solar City: Elon Musk's companies and their unique relationships

I don't care too much for political entrepreneurship, though.

There is a board for the discussion of politics. I can appreciate some of it may influence discussions here. But I'd prefer to talk about the man and how he's structured his businesses to interdepend on each other in an incredibly congruent manner.

Why has solarcity tanked so hard, its in the 20s now after being 90 give or take. I remember it would trade hand in hand with tesla. Is it a buy down here? Obviously I know the GAAP numbers are bad but you cant really look at GAAP numbers with any of these types like tesla,amazon,etc. So is SCTY a steal?

Im definitely a believer in solar power long term, it just makes sense to me to have giant grids in these wide open deserts one day and just store all that energy.

Risky businesses? He got involved with a plan to land man in Mars, make solar power affordable to the masses, and disrupt the American automobile industry. Who was going to take on fossil fuel, NASA, the massive aerospace monoliths, Detroit and the people behind our power grids...and do it with low risk?

Look I agree he benefitted from a Green Administration but is t that what business and entrepreneurs are all about? Being at the right place at the right time to take advantage of the situation?

ETA: Read the link and the title is incredibly misleading. It is basically a takedown of Tesla and mentions nothing about Solar City nor SpaceX. The latter of those two is poised to DOMINATE the commercial space payload delivery business. They're privately held but this article takes a stab at trying to show you that SpaceX is poised to make margins and profits in the business which would make Apple and Alphabet drool. In fact Google just invested a billion dollars into SpaceX based on a $10 billion valuation which may be a bargain.

This business-which has not yet gone public-alone can allow Musk to float Tesla and Solar City for a long while. But in reality the competition Musk faces is essentially competition he has created all on his own since getting involved with Tesla in the first place...and in reality, if the goal is to make EV's affordable and lessen dependence on fossil fuels for vehicular transportation, then everyone wins even if he loses a business bet.

Which, based on SpaceX's biz prospects, said lost bet won't hurt Musk a lick.

LINK

quote:

---

I think Musk is a amazing man with incredible vision, but his businesses seem VERY risky at best. None would be a buy for me.

---

The stock being a buy and him making amazing products are two very different things. I honestly do not care about the stock price as long as it doesn't become a penny stock.

quote:

---

"Tesla's model relies strongly on a "green" administration. According to the Los Angeles Times, all of Musk's ventures: Tesla Motors, SolarCity and Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support. "

---

The government could remove the $7,500 credit for Tesla cars and they would still sell. It is icing but not the cake.

quote:

---

Risky businesses? He got involved with a plan to land man in Mars, make solar power affordable to the masses, and disrupt the American automobile industry. Who was going to take on fossil fuel, NASA, the massive aerospace monoliths, Detroit and the people behind our power grids...and do it with low risk?

Look I agree he benefitted from a Green Administration but is t that what business and entrepreneurs are all about? Being at the right place at the right time to take advantage of the situation?

ETA: Read the link and the title is incredibly misleading. It is basically a takedown of Tesla and mentions nothing about Solar City nor SpaceX. The latter of those two is poised to DOMINATE the commercial space payload delivery business. They're privately held but this article takes a stab at trying to show you that SpaceX is poised to make margins and profits in the business which would make Apple and Alphabet drool. In fact Google just invested a billion dollars into SpaceX based on a $10 billion valuation which may be a bargain.

This business-which has not yet gone public-alone can allow Musk to float Tesla and Solar City for a long while. But in reality the competition Musk faces is essentially competition he has created all on his own since getting involved with Tesla in the first place...and in reality, if the goal is to make EV's affordable and lessen dependence on fossil fuels for vehicular transportation, then everyone wins even if he loses a business bet.

Which, based on SpaceX's biz prospects, said lost bet won't hurt Musk a lick.

---

Tell me more about SpaceX and the commercial payload delivery? I honestly do not know much about the business aspirations. I know he wants to be able to land the space craft rather than it end up in the ocean. That's where my understanding ends on SpaceX

all tesla does is capitalize on the general population's ignorance.

quote:

---

all tesla does is capitalize on the general population's ignorance.

---

They made the highest graded car ever in consumer reports history. This isn't about whether you care about the environment or not.

The Model S, if fully loaded, can go 0-60 in under 3 seconds as a luxury sedan. That is absurd.

The article I linked at the end of my response takes a stab at it. But basically he benefits from the lack of onerous procurement and bid requirements. He builds it all in-house, including his rocket engines. He doesn't have to rely on a myriad of different builders of different components in far flung reaches all across the US.

He builds his Model 9 or Falcon (I'm honestly too lazy to remember) for approximately $60 million dollars. But it's reusable, and the tests to land it on autonomous platforms are designed to make it reusable and thereby reduce the cost of operation drastically.

The Launch Alliance (Boeing and Lockheed types) are-IIRC-at $100 million for their delivery rockets and won't be down to SpaceX's price for years though they are working. But here's the kicker: their rocket isn't reusable.

So their cost will and continued to be bloated beyond compare. Right now they still get business, but once Musk can truly prove reusability, and the landings and relaunchings become a given-or ordinary-then the cost will drop even further, they'll build more to increase capacity, and they can either increase prices based on a superior model, or simply keep prices neutral and DESTROY the monoliths of the aerospace industry.

The key here is the business is lined up-sats, space stations, etc-continue to be used more and more heavily. On top of that, the amounts they make are insane and the profits compared to other business and competitors in the space are ridiculous.

ETA:

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/17/how-profitable-is-spacex-how-much-more-profitable.aspx

quote:

---

...an average Falcon 9 launch currently costs $61.2 million. (The new Falcon Heavy, which will make its maiden voyage later this year, will cost a bit more.) That's already half the best price that Boeing and Lockheed Martin charge for a launch over at United Launch Alliance. It's cheaper, too, than the $77 million that Airbus' (NASDAQOTH:EADSY) joint venture Airbus Safran Launchers will charge for its new Ariane 6 rocket. Already, SpaceX is a formidable competitor, and one its foes will be hard-pressed to beat on price. The transition period Beating SpaceX on price, a job that already looks mathematically impossible, will get harder in a month or two, when SpaceX plans to relaunch its recovered Falcon 9 rocket on a second mission to space. According to SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX could offer as much as a 30% discount on a mission utilizing the pre-owned rocket. This would cut the price tag to perhaps $40 million (thus undercutting Airbusand Ariane by nearly 50%). After even a few such successful launches of reusable rockets, SpaceX's rocket salesmen could really put the hurt on the competition.

---

Solar City down 23% on the open.
down 75% form peak.

* losing money hand over fist (and increasing)
* high dependency on gov't subsidies
* increasing competition from China
* vast oversupply of natural gas

Solar City is not just a gamble, but a lotto level gamble. Yep, it could pay off big, but so could 'pick 6'.

I can't imagine 'investing' in this company.