TSLA - Tesla Motors

[Liberty]

 

But I'm skeptical that a follow on offering for $2-2.3Billion is something that gets put together overnight. The banks have to get their shit in order too - not as simple as Tesla deciding they want money and getting it.

 

 

Maybe not overnight, but for public issuers, particularly seasoned ones, it can be very, very quick, esp right after earnings.  I've not done follow on equity offerings, but having done it on the credit side it's really fast.

 

Not my world, so I don't know, but I would be surprised if it took very long, looking at how certain companies are opportunistic with both debt issuance, refinancing, and equity issuances...

 

In any case, all I'm saying is that you don't know, but we know that things changed a lot pretty quickly, so it's not implausible to say that his thinking could have changed quickly too.

 

Musk certainly has done many questionable things, but his detractors often will interpret everything with the least charitable version. To them, he can't do anything right... To me that sounds like a conclusion looking for a  backfilled justification, which is bad faith and dishonest thinking. For a guy that has been accused of selling hot air and being on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse for a decade, I'd say that maybe some people are miscalibrated vs the facts on the ground.

[Kaegi2011]

 

In any case, all I'm saying is that you don't know, but we know that things changed a lot pretty quickly, so it's not implausible to say that his thinking could have changed quickly too.

 

 

For a company faced with the uncertainties that Tesla faces, shouldn't shareholders worry that management isn't doing their job if shares rise by 20% (or whatever) and they wouldn't at a minimum consider issuing more shares? 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

But I'm skeptical that a follow on offering for $2-2.3Billion is something that gets put together overnight. The banks have to get their shit in order too - not as simple as Tesla deciding they want money and getting it.

 

 

Maybe not overnight, but for public issuers, particularly seasoned ones, it can be very, very quick, esp right after earnings.  I've not done follow on equity offerings, but having done it on the credit side it's really fast.

 

Not my world, so I don't know, but I would be surprised if it took very long, looking at how certain companies are opportunistic with both debt issuance, refinancing, and equity issuances...

 

In any case, all I'm saying is that you don't know, but we know that things changed a lot pretty quickly, so it's not implausible to say that his thinking could have changed quickly too.

 

Musk certainly has done many questionable things, but his detractors often will interpret everything with the least charitable version. To them, he can't do anything right... To me that sounds like a conclusion looking for a  backfilled justification, which is bad faith and dishonest thinking. For a guy that has been accused of selling hot air and being on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse for a decade, I'd say that maybe some people are miscalibrated vs the facts on the ground.

 

Sure, I admitted that it was probably the right move.

If I were him, I would have tried to do a BIGGER offering - one meaningful versus the size of the current company. I'm just disappointed that he did it less than two weeks after saying he wouldn't.

 

I don't go out of my way to look for reasons to dislike him - he's given me enough without me having to look.

 

The man is a genius, but also borders on being a charlatan. His detractors have been RIGHT about the financial conditions of his companies, but he has kept them going in no small part by misleading the public at those times.

 

Maybe we're all better of for his success - maybe the end does justify the means. But I could never trust the man with my money and have serious misgivings about trusting him enough to buy a car from him/his companies.

 

Who is to say he's not gonna throttle my speeds after the car turns 10 years old to force me to upgrade so the incremental revenues stave off bankruptcy once again? I can't say he will or won't - only that I don't trust him enough to risk it. 

[Liberty]

 

But I'm skeptical that a follow on offering for $2-2.3Billion is something that gets put together overnight. The banks have to get their shit in order too - not as simple as Tesla deciding they want money and getting it.

 

 

Maybe not overnight, but for public issuers, particularly seasoned ones, it can be very, very quick, esp right after earnings.  I've not done follow on equity offerings, but having done it on the credit side it's really fast.

 

Not my world, so I don't know, but I would be surprised if it took very long, looking at how certain companies are opportunistic with both debt issuance, refinancing, and equity issuances...

 

In any case, all I'm saying is that you don't know, but we know that things changed a lot pretty quickly, so it's not implausible to say that his thinking could have changed quickly too.

 

Musk certainly has done many questionable things, but his detractors often will interpret everything with the least charitable version. To them, he can't do anything right... To me that sounds like a conclusion looking for a  backfilled justification, which is bad faith and dishonest thinking. For a guy that has been accused of selling hot air and being on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse for a decade, I'd say that maybe some people are miscalibrated vs the facts on the ground.

 

Sure, I admitted that it was probably the right move.

If I were him, I would have tried to do a BIGGER offering - one meaningful versus the size of the current company. I'm just disappointed that he did it less than two weeks after saying he wouldn't.

 

I don't go out of my way to look for reasons to dislike him - he's given me enough without me having to look.

 

The man is a genius, but also borders on being a charlatan. His detractors have been RIGHT about the financial conditions of his companies, but he has kept them going in no small part by misleading the public at those times.

 

Maybe we're all better of for his success - maybe the end does justify the means. But I could never trust the man with my money and have serious misgivings about trusting him enough to buy a car from him/his companies.

 

Who is to say he's not gonna throttle my speeds after the car turns 10 years old to force me to upgrade so the incremental revenues stave off bankruptcy once again? I can't say he will or won't - only that I don't trust him enough to risk it.

 

The great thing is you don't have to buy the stock, or short it, or buy the products, so you'll be fine.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

The great thing is you don't have to buy the stock, or short it, or buy the products, so you'll be fine.

 

....

 

 

All I did was challenge some unchallenged claims and then discuss the answers, which is exactly what a discussion forum should be. When everybody is sitting on the same side of the boat, bad things tend to happen. It's healthy to have diverging opinions, it sharpens thinking. I'd rather that newcomers and lurkers who come to a thread get various takes and make up their minds about which makes the most sense than have everybody all singing kumbaya and saying that everything is amazing while the stock underperforms the index by 150% over a decade.

 

Will the real Liberty please stand up? Where the F did this guy go so quickly?

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

In any case, all I'm saying is that you don't know, but we know that things changed a lot pretty quickly, so it's not implausible to say that his thinking could have changed quickly too.

 

 

For a company faced with the uncertainties that Tesla faces, shouldn't shareholders worry that management isn't doing their job if shares rise by 20% (or whatever) and they wouldn't at a minimum consider issuing more shares?

 

I mean, if we're setting the bar that low (a ride of 20-30%), then 80-90% of companies would have had to considering issuing shares in 2013, 2017, and 2019.  Instead we got more and more buybacks each year...the exact opposite of what your suggesting here.

[Kaegi2011]

 

I mean, if we're setting the bar that low (a ride of 20-30%), then 80-90% of companies would have had to considering issuing shares in 2013, 2017, and 2019.  Instead we got more and more buybacks each year...the exact opposite of what your suggesting here.

 

 

It's not just the 20% that matters.  It's where they are in the life cycle of the company, the opportunity set, the capital need, the valuation, the risks, etc.  All those are are relevant to one's decision to issue shares.  If you reread my comment, it was not a formulaic "If shares rise 20%, then issue shares."

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

I mean, if we're setting the bar that low (a ride of 20-30%), then 80-90% of companies would have had to considering issuing shares in 2013, 2017, and 2019.  Instead we got more and more buybacks each year...the exact opposite of what your suggesting here.

 

 

It's not just the 20% that matters.  It's where they are in the life cycle of the company, the opportunity set, the capital need, the valuation, the risks, etc.  All those are are relevant to one's decision to issue shares.  If you reread my comment, it was not a formulaic "If shares rise 20%, then issue shares."

 

Of course, but only one of those things that changed in 10 days and not by much more than the 20% you stated. (32% based on the closing price the day comments were made versus where they closed yesterday prior to the announcement).

 

He already negated the rally up to ~$600/share by saying, at that time, there was no need nor intent to issue.

 

But again, arguing straw-men. My main issue isn't his issuing shares - it's that he said he wouldn't/didn't need to and did anyways after just 20-30%.

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

Is lying only wrong if it loses a company money?

 

We live in a society that praises lying (Trump, Musk) and doing whatever it takes to win.  Truth is dead...

 

There are many on here who would rather win (stock appreciation) no matter the cost than have principles.  And in a society that exalts money above all else the incentives sort of speak for themselves.

 

Funny.

 

The guy who's about to beat the likes of Boeing for the 1st manned mission from a pvt co and has schooled all automakers with EVs (despite using a fraction of the resources) is a fraud. I guess we should give Boeing the contract because their management seems nicer (even though their rocket failed and their missions are much more expensive for taxpayers than SpaceX). Not sure what "truth" you are discussing. Perhaps you are confusing "truth" for noise.

 

The deranged things being said about Musk could have been said about Steve Jobs (abandoned his 1st born for a while and didn't pay any alimony, believed in fruit for curing cancer, was a bully, adopted ideas from xerox, etc etc) or Thomas Edison or Ford. The only difference is Twitter didn't exist back then. These people are not like you. They are not like your conventional CEOs. Not buttoned up like Jeff Immelt, Ginni Rometty (but boy did they get some golden parachutes for terrible performance but I guess some shareholders will tolerate poor performance from a CEO who looks the part).

 

Funny thing is that CoBFers will buy these companies much later (when it is too late) as "good value stocks" like AAPL after a more conventional CEO like Cook takes over. Too late, you missed out on much of the ride.

 

You may be angry about Trump--he's the President and actually has an impact on a citizen's life, but to be angry about a CEO of a business that you don't have to invest in or purchase from, well that doesn't strike me as rational.

 

Maybe you should focus on your "oddball stocks" or cigar butts. Those are businesses that will surely make huge contributions to society.

[Dalal.Holdings]

13F out...Jim Simmons' Renaissance Technologies boosted TSLA stake about 6x, now #2 stake...

 

Guess Renaissance must not have access to all that quality data some of you folks have derived from Twitter and news outlets speculating about every auto accident involving a Tesla or Elon's Tweets. Care to share it w Jim?

[Spekulatius]

13F out...Jim Simmons' Renaissance Technologies boosted TSLA stake about 6x, now #2 stake...

 

Guess Renaissance must not have access to all that quality data some of you folks have derived from Twitter and news outlets speculating about every auto accident involving a Tesla or Elon's Tweets. Care to share it w Jim?

 

Renaissance techs average holding period is about 2 days. They probably rode the momentum up and they may ride the momentum down. It is likely that their position has changed, by the time anything is filed.

[Dalal.Holdings]

13F out...Jim Simmons' Renaissance Technologies boosted TSLA stake about 6x, now #2 stake...

 

Guess Renaissance must not have access to all that quality data some of you folks have derived from Twitter and news outlets speculating about every auto accident involving a Tesla or Elon's Tweets. Care to share it w Jim?

 

Renaissance techs average holding period is about 2 days. They probably rode the momentum up and they may ride the momentum down. It is likely that their position has changed, by the time anything is filed.

 

They had TSLA at prior qtr end as well. 600k shares. Would Renaissance hold onto something as #2 position worth billions for even two days if it resembled Enron like some astute investors on here have claimed?

[Guest cherzeca]

13F out...Jim Simmons' Renaissance Technologies boosted TSLA stake about 6x, now #2 stake...

 

Guess Renaissance must not have access to all that quality data some of you folks have derived from Twitter and news outlets speculating about every auto accident involving a Tesla or Elon's Tweets. Care to share it w Jim?

 

Renaissance techs average holding period is about 2 days. They probably rode the momentum up and they may ride the momentum down. It is likely that their position has changed, by the time anything is filed.

 

They had TSLA at prior qtr end as well. 600k shares. Would Renaissance hold onto something as #2 position worth billions for even two days if it resembled Enron like some astute investors on here have claimed?

 

I have no dog in this fight (bought a single put awhile ago that got stopped out the next day!) but I think the answer to this question is yes, while RT is really a black box to the outside world, based upon what I have studied about Simons, RT spends all of its copious talent and money on building more and better data based models with very little human over-layered tinkering to consider things like reputational issues at portfolio companies.  although if anyone could capture reputational data and model it, it would be RT 

[Liberty]

 

The great thing is you don't have to buy the stock, or short it, or buy the products, so you'll be fine.

 

....

 

 

All I did was challenge some unchallenged claims and then discuss the answers, which is exactly what a discussion forum should be. When everybody is sitting on the same side of the boat, bad things tend to happen. It's healthy to have diverging opinions, it sharpens thinking. I'd rather that newcomers and lurkers who come to a thread get various takes and make up their minds about which makes the most sense than have everybody all singing kumbaya and saying that everything is amazing while the stock underperforms the index by 150% over a decade.

 

Will the real Liberty please stand up? Where the F did this guy go so quickly?

 

Don't know what you're reading into this, but there's nothing incompatible here.

 

I didn't say you can't discuss it or be negative about it or whatever. I'm just pointing out that in life, most things should probably go in the "too hard pile" and we don't have to bet on everything. These things don't have to affect us personally if we don't let them.

[Liberty]

 

In any case, all I'm saying is that you don't know, but we know that things changed a lot pretty quickly, so it's not implausible to say that his thinking could have changed quickly too.

 

 

For a company faced with the uncertainties that Tesla faces, shouldn't shareholders worry that management isn't doing their job if shares rise by 20% (or whatever) and they wouldn't at a minimum consider issuing more shares?

 

I mean, if we're setting the bar that low (a ride of 20-30%), then 80-90% of companies would have had to considering issuing shares in 2013, 2017, and 2019.  Instead we got more and more buybacks each year...the exact opposite of what your suggesting here.

 

It's not the only thing that changed. Prospects in China too (and the rest of the world, since it's all connected). So if you're seeing that you might have a large temporary dip in sales which can lower your cashflow at a time when you're growing capex fast, might want to raise money to be on the safe side.

[Kaegi2011]

 

Of course, but only one of those things that changed in 10 days and not by much more than the 20% you stated. (32% based on the closing price the day comments were made versus where they closed yesterday prior to the announcement).

 

He already negated the rally up to ~$600/share by saying, at that time, there was no need nor intent to issue.

 

But again, arguing straw-men. My main issue isn't his issuing shares - it's that he said he wouldn't/didn't need to and did anyways after just 20-30%.

 

After just 32%?  So we disagree on the magnitude required to issue shares?  What’s your threshold -50%? 100%? More?

[thepupil]

13F out...Jim Simmons' Renaissance Technologies boosted TSLA stake about 6x, now #2 stake...

 

Guess Renaissance must not have access to all that quality data some of you folks have derived from Twitter and news outlets speculating about every auto accident involving a Tesla or Elon's Tweets. Care to share it w Jim?

 

Renaissance techs average holding period is about 2 days. They probably rode the momentum up and they may ride the momentum down. It is likely that their position has changed, by the time anything is filed.

 

They had TSLA at prior qtr end as well. 600k shares. Would Renaissance hold onto something as #2 position worth billions for even two days if it resembled Enron like some astute investors on here have claimed?

 

I haven't read the book, but from what I've heard, many people (and the models that they maintain) at Rennaissance and other shops of its ilk do not know the tickers they are trading (this is on purpose).

 

you also don't know Renn Tech's full Tesla position, they could have swaps/options/credit positions offsetting this.

 

I'd also point out that Rennaissaince manages several institutional products, not just the Medallion Fund. The institutional products have more normal alpha/track records. you don't know which Renaissance entity and which of its models likes TSLA.

 

Two Sigma, Citadel, and Susquehanna have been big holders of BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust (a stock which contractually will go to zero) for the past few years. They probably made a lot of money on it with all kinds of sexy options arbitrage and borrow cost harvesting and stuff that is beyond me.

 

my point is, you should not take a quant shop's position in a stock as any kind of investment merit or investment negative. it probably just means there's something interesting going on with the trading/options/market making/short selling element to the stock (TSLA and BPT certainly fit that).

 

 

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

Of course, but only one of those things that changed in 10 days and not by much more than the 20% you stated. (32% based on the closing price the day comments were made versus where they closed yesterday prior to the announcement).

 

He already negated the rally up to ~$600/share by saying, at that time, there was no need nor intent to issue.

 

But again, arguing straw-men. My main issue isn't his issuing shares - it's that he said he wouldn't/didn't need to and did anyways after just 20-30%.

 

After just 32%?  So we disagree on the magnitude required to issue shares?  What’s your threshold -50%? 100%? More?

 

Yes - I think we disagree on the magnitude. 20-30% rise and issuing shares to be tactical means you might be issuing shares in any given year. I definitely think it requires more than that. In this case, Tesla nearly tripled which I think qualifies...but Elon invalidated that by making the statement that none was needed and none would be offered when the stock was at $600.

 

To recap our discussion:

1) You had said everyone should consider a capital raise after a 20-30% increase.

 

2) I pointed out that means the vast majority of companies should've, at the very least, been considering issuance in 2013, 2017, and again in 2019 but were intead purchasing record amounts of their stock.

 

3) You retorted that it's not just the rise in the shares, but a combination of factors like environment, need, etc.

 

4) And then I pointed out, once again, that none of those had changed in 10 days.

 

Now we're back to the initial statement you made that everyone should consider a capital raise after a 20-30% rise and all other factors be damned and all other companies in the S&P 500 must be doing it wrong since they're still buying back their shares instead of issuing them. That, or 20-30% isn't a high enough benchmark to be ok with a CEO lying to your face.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

13F out...Jim Simmons' Renaissance Technologies boosted TSLA stake about 6x, now #2 stake...

 

Guess Renaissance must not have access to all that quality data some of you folks have derived from Twitter and news outlets speculating about every auto accident involving a Tesla or Elon's Tweets. Care to share it w Jim?

 

Renaissance techs average holding period is about 2 days. They probably rode the momentum up and they may ride the momentum down. It is likely that their position has changed, by the time anything is filed.

 

They had TSLA at prior qtr end as well. 600k shares. Would Renaissance hold onto something as #2 position worth billions for even two days if it resembled Enron like some astute investors on here have claimed?

 

A 5-second Google search of their prior 13Fs demonstrates that Ren Tech held positions in both Enron and WorldCom in 2001....

[Dalal.Holdings]

13F out...Jim Simmons' Renaissance Technologies boosted TSLA stake about 6x, now #2 stake...

 

Guess Renaissance must not have access to all that quality data some of you folks have derived from Twitter and news outlets speculating about every auto accident involving a Tesla or Elon's Tweets. Care to share it w Jim?

 

Renaissance techs average holding period is about 2 days. They probably rode the momentum up and they may ride the momentum down. It is likely that their position has changed, by the time anything is filed.

 

They had TSLA at prior qtr end as well. 600k shares. Would Renaissance hold onto something as #2 position worth billions for even two days if it resembled Enron like some astute investors on here have claimed?

 

A 5-second Google search of their prior 13Fs demonstrates that Ren Tech held positions in both Enron and WorldCom in 2001....

 

You’re probably right...I’m not verifying and I don’t know the inner workings of RenTech—they may not look at tickers at all, even for their 2nd largest position.

 

Doesn’t change the fact that many suffer from Elon Derangement Syndrome and the comparisons to Enron and Ponzi schemes are not only wrong, but lazy.

[Liberty]

Good video on EV charging infrastructure:

 

 

Unrelated, but this channel is pretty cool. Never thought a video on the color brown would be this interesting:

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

 

Of course, but only one of those things that changed in 10 days and not by much more than the 20% you stated. (32% based on the closing price the day comments were made versus where they closed yesterday prior to the announcement).

 

He already negated the rally up to ~$600/share by saying, at that time, there was no need nor intent to issue.

 

But again, arguing straw-men. My main issue isn't his issuing shares - it's that he said he wouldn't/didn't need to and did anyways after just 20-30%.

 

After just 32%?  So we disagree on the magnitude required to issue shares?  What’s your threshold -50%? 100%? More?

 

Now we're back to the initial statement you made that everyone should consider a capital raise after a 20-30% rise and all other factors be damned and all other companies in the S&P 500 must be doing it wrong since they're still buying back their shares instead of issuing them. That, or 20-30% isn't a high enough benchmark to be ok with a CEO lying to your face.

 

Ohhh, now the argument is Musk is a bad capital allocator. Yes compare that to CEOs who repurchase when their shares are high and slow/stop them as the share price falls (GE under Immelt or GM under Barra).

 

Timing matters. A 30% rise over a week or two is vastly different than one over a few years...it’s about price to intrinsic value. Price can change rapidly, intrinsic value more slowly. If a stock collapses 30% in a week without a change in intrinsic value, I would want my CEO out in the open market buying shares, regardless of what they said before that drop.

 

A good capital allocator issues stock at nosebleed valuation (isn’t that the consensus in here about how TSLA is valued?) and buys back at low. Why would a shareholder care if a CEO changes their mind as long as they follow this principle?

 

Look at a 10 yr chart of Tesla vs GM and GE. It’s easy to pick on Musk because he seems so all over the place, but in the end TSLA shareholders have absolutely zero to complain about. GE and GM shareholders had polished, well spoken management, but what do they have to show for it???

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

Of course, but only one of those things that changed in 10 days and not by much more than the 20% you stated. (32% based on the closing price the day comments were made versus where they closed yesterday prior to the announcement).

 

He already negated the rally up to ~$600/share by saying, at that time, there was no need nor intent to issue.

 

But again, arguing straw-men. My main issue isn't his issuing shares - it's that he said he wouldn't/didn't need to and did anyways after just 20-30%.

 

After just 32%?  So we disagree on the magnitude required to issue shares?  What’s your threshold -50%? 100%? More?

 

Now we're back to the initial statement you made that everyone should consider a capital raise after a 20-30% rise and all other factors be damned and all other companies in the S&P 500 must be doing it wrong since they're still buying back their shares instead of issuing them. That, or 20-30% isn't a high enough benchmark to be ok with a CEO lying to your face.

 

Ohhh, now the argument is Musk is a bad capital allocator. Yes compare that to CEOs who repurchase when their shares are high and slow/stop them as the share price falls (GE under Immelt or GM under Barra).

 

Timing matters. A 30% rise over a week or two is vastly different than one over a few years...it’s about price to intrinsic value. Price can change rapidly, intrinsic value more slowly. If a stock collapses 30% in a week without a change in intrinsic value, I would want my CEO out in the open market buying shares, regardless of what they said before that drop.

 

A good capital allocator issues stock at nosebleed valuation (isn’t that the consensus in here about how TSLA is valued?) and buys back at low. Why would a shareholder care if a CEO changes their mind as long as they follow this principle?

 

Look at a 10 yr chart of Tesla vs GM and GE. It’s easy to pick on Musk because he seems so all over the place, but in the end TSLA shareholders have absolutely zero to complain about. GE and GM shareholders had polished, well spoken management, but what do they have to show for it???

 

I'm certainly not supporting GE and GM, but it doesn't matter. As long as the Tesla stock price is up, I'm wrong. I get it.

 

I'm just going to mosey back out of this thread. Best of luck all.

[Dalal.Holdings]

https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/tesla-tsla-sec-rules-short-sellers-tslaq

 

Two professors of Columbia Law School specializing in corporate governance file a complaint...not against TSLA, but against TSLAQ:

 

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) received a request from a group of law professors to enforce stricter rules on short-sellers, like TSLAQ. The law professors specifically requested that SEC urge shorts to be more transparent when it comes to their trading activity...Examples of negative activism in the lawyers’ petition included shorts using fake names to spread antagonistic information about a company in the hopes of driving its stock down.

 

Important to remember that short sellers have resorted to less than noble tactics to drive down securities in the past...including this Forum's very own namesake Fairfax Holdings, going after not just the business, but the personal reputation management including Prem Watsa (as highlighted in "The Divide" by Taibbi where infallible TSLAQ hero Jim Chanos was involved):

 

Spyro Contogouris sat down at his computer in August 2005 typing out reassurances to his boss. Spyro worked for a hedge fund. He would be arrested for felony embezzlement in a real estate scam the next year but of course didn’t know that at the time. Spyro had been hired to destroy Fairfax Financial Holdings, a Canadian insurance company. His billionaire boss not only wanted the company to fail, he wanted its Indian CEO and Canadian immigrant Prem Watsa to be disgraced. On that day Spyro was assuring his impatient boss that he would fulfill his duties. The vindictive hedge fund boss was a fixture in high society and received the adulation of the press for his great taste in art and his vast art collection.

 

Funny how as objective investors we all claim to be aware of misinformation on Twitter/social media, but give TSLAQ a pass. There surely must have been no bots or other shady tactics being used to manipulate TSLA over the past years despite there being a major financial incentive to do so by certain money managers...let's believe everything we read from TSLAQ on Twitter (like when they file unintended acceleration claims with NHTSA despite never owning a Tesla themselves), but take everything we hear from *fraud* Elon Musk (who parlayed millions from Paypal into into a rocket and EV co now worth tens if not hundreds of billions) with a huge grain of salt.

 

Given all this less-than-noble behavior, Elon has good reason to keep SpaceX away from public markets.

 

[Liberty]

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automobiles/Tesla-teardown-finds-electronics-6-years-ahead-of-Toyota-and-VW2