Follow us on Twitter


Go Back   Tesla Motors Club Forum > Tesla Motors Forum > Tesla Motors

Tesla Motors Discussion about Tesla Motors

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 12-01-2008, 09:32 PM   #11
Super Moderator
 
graham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Aptos, California
Posts: 1,551
Interesting counterpoint to the Stross article. A different NYT article mentioning that lots of small companies are vying for part of the $25 billion ATVMP including Tesla. Merely facts stated, with less editorializing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/bu...1&ref=business
graham is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2008, 09:52 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDB View Post
...and we can't let Tesla fail because possibly 3 million jobs depend on it [sarcasm]. I'm no fan of bailouts, but come on, a bit too self-serving here.
The point that I think you're missing is that the so-called "Big 3" got themselves into the financial mess they are in today due to ignoring environmental necessity, consumer demand, governmental dictates, as well as employing shoddy workmanship providing a sub-standard work product even though they had all of the best materials and the largest labor force non-par, and just overall poor business practices.

"Bailing" them out would only provide them with the opportunity to prolong the malaise and temporarily stave off the inevitable, long needed restructuring from the top down, not to mention providing the upper level managerial staff with some well padded retirement/severance packages, as well as divert predetermined funds from the intended industry applications.

Simply put, they got themselves into this mess on their own accord, through their own machinations and mismanagement practices, they should be able to get themselves out...being unable to is demonstrable of their inability to not only manage their business, but also to provide a market/consumer viable work product, i.e., failure.

Basic, simple common sense teaches us that we don't throw good money after bad...Now what was that about "self-serving"??

Last edited by just-an-allusion; 12-07-2008 at 01:47 PM..
just-an-allusion is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2008, 09:58 AM   #13
vfx
ERIC VFX
 
vfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 4,655
Any good investment portfolio is diversified into many sectors. I blame the US D3 for not even having one "Prius" in their lines.

Make your Hummers but keep your EV1 too.
__________________
.
.
.
.
.
.
The world loves to be deceived.
vfx is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2008, 12:38 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
stopcrazypp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 634
How Risky Is Tesla’s Bet on a DOE Loan Guarantee? Earth2Tech

More details on the DOE loans. Looks like Tesla needs the new $400 million loan if they want to have a good chance of progressing in Model S on time. The $200 million DOE loan guarantee might come too slow and Tesla isn't the first in line to get a guarantee.
__________________
Because there are tons of crazy people in this world...
stopcrazypp is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2008, 06:48 AM   #15
Super Moderator
 
graham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Aptos, California
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpeilow View Post
This is a good article, thanks dpeilow! It explains a lot of the details of the different loans and where Tesla stands with them.

If I am reading it correctly, Tesla is in good position to get the $200 million loan (as part of the $4 billion 2005 package) but there are still hurdles to obtaining it (famously, the environmental impact delay in building the manufacturing plant) and the bureaucracy involved might delay disbursement to Tesla beyond the time table (late Spring/ early Summer) that Tesla has been hoping for.

The $400 million dollar loan (as part of the 2007 $25 billion package) is more of an unknown, but is a backup plan in case the $200 million either falls through or is delayed. The $400 million loan has more favorable terms than the $200 million but it is unclear at this point what Tesla's chances are in obtaining it, or what timeline it is offered.

Considering the other car manufacturers want part of the 2007 $25 billion as a quick bailout, it seems like Tesla has a shot at getting that money quicker than the 2005 $4 billion. Either way, I hope both loans work out for Tesla, and quickly. I want the Model S on the road soon.
graham is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2008, 01:22 PM   #16
Head Moderator
 
doug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stanford, California
Posts: 3,606
Send a message via AIM to doug
The Motley Fool: One More Reason We Shouldn't Bail Out Detroit
Quote:
You want to talk about efficiency? Tesla designed and brought to production its first model -- a car that practically transformed the automobile as we know it -- for $140 million … start to finish. For comparison's sake, $140 million is exactly one-tenth of what Detroit collectively spends each year on its so-called "jobs bank," a program that literally pays idle employees to do absolutely nothing.
SFGate: Auto bailout consequences
Quote:
If the Big Three auto manufacturers receive financial assistance in this tight credit market, then it will increase the already high barriers to new technologies.

Any established technology has a large advantage over emerging technologies. Existing technologies have an established track record with customers, efficiencies of scale and market share.

Yet, there are always small technology companies trying to evolve or revolutionize an industry.
doug is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2008, 06:01 PM   #17
Head Moderator
 
doug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stanford, California
Posts: 3,606
Send a message via AIM to doug
Opinion: Why Congress shouldn't divert funds to Big Three - San Jose Mercury News

Quote:
Opinion: Why Congress shouldn't divert funds to Big Three

By Elon Musk

Special to the Mercury News
Posted: 12/03/2008 04:37:30 PM PST

Last edited by doug; 12-03-2008 at 06:54 PM.. Reason: fixed link
doug is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2008, 08:28 PM   #18
Mostly water
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 310
$57,500 for the Model S... This looks like a price drop.

Elon is nothing if not transparently self serving. However, I do agree that the D3 should keep their money-grubbing paws off the ATVMLP.
__________________
Don't forget about the real world...
Chris H. is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2008, 08:30 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 199

I agree completely.

I had hoped that this weren't the case, but there was always the somewhat obvious fact that the "Big 3" specifically asked for "$25 billion" (without any explanation of how they came up with the figure), which happens to be the exact amount of the AVTMIP package, hmm....

I guess that I just didn't want to admit to myself that these so-called "industry leaders" were that corrupt, or would stoop to such despicable business practices.

You don't rob Peter to pay Paul and industry is not meant to be a process of two steps back and only one forward, even though it would only be a temporary fix.

p.s. Thanks doug.
just-an-allusion is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Old 12-04-2008, 07:58 AM   #20
Super Moderator
 
graham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Aptos, California
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris H. View Post
$57,500 for the Model S... This looks like a price drop.
And puts it right at $50,000 with the Federal tax break. $45,000 for Californians if they can extend that tax break beyond Mar 31. $45,000-$50,000 for a Model S (along with guaranteed commuter-lane capability) is pretty compelling.
graham is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 AM.

Tesla accesories at EVComponents
Click here to learn about advertising!

| Home | Register | FAQ | Today's Posts | Search | New Posts |
Teslamotorsclub.com (TMC) is in no way sponsored, endorsed, or affiliated by or with Tesla Motors, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries, suppliers, or vendors. ‘Tesla Motors’, 'Model S' and ‘Tesla Roadster’ are trademarks of Tesla Motors, Inc. Click here to learn about advertising!

SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0