Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[PeterK]

Moving this post from technical thread not sure about my cut and paste.
Credit familial rhino for initial post.
↑
This LA Times article manages to spew more methane than the recently sealed Aliso Canyon leak.
Strange that the LA Times would have such an overwhelming negative bias against the second largest private sector employer after Disney and the fastest growing major employer. Their disdain for Elon is worse than Cory Johnson and seems like a well funded more articulate Serking Alpha. Inconsistent use of facts, questioning AP as if it didn't already exist and noting the "huge" GM response to the EV market, apparently making Tesla irrelevant or unneeded.
What's up LA Times? Why do you hate the states most important manufacturing and engineering employer?

There's clearly an agenda there - wonder who are their big advertisers, owners, backers? They wrote the famous "$4.9 billion of subsidies" article that's now quoted by every Tesla-hater on a regular basis - second only to the "loses $x thousand on every car they sell" nonsense.

The Globe & Mail have a somewhat negative article and very negative video after the Model 3 reveal, both repeating the "Tesla loses money on every car they sell" line.

Video: Tesla unveils Model 3, but can it survive in the car business?

Will the new and affordable Tesla Model 3 turn Elon Musk into the next Henry Ford?

 

[PeterK]

WSJ auto writer Dan Neil actually wrote a positive piece about the Model 3 - he probably will get his bonus cut. . Of course the commenters jump in to trash Tesla as usual.

Tesla’s Model 3: Electric on the Inside and Out

 

[roblab]

There's clearly an agenda there - wonder who are their big advertisers, owners, backers? They wrote the famous "$4.9 billion of subsidies" article that's now quoted by every Tesla-hater on a regular basis - second only to the "loses $x thousand on every car they sell" nonsense.

The Globe & Mail have a somewhat negative article and very negative video after the Model 3 reveal, both repeating the "Tesla loses money on every car they sell" line.

Video: Tesla unveils Model 3, but can it survive in the car business?

Will the new and affordable Tesla Model 3 turn Elon Musk into the next Henry Ford?

Although very old history, LA Times ran an article about how superior Tesla was to GM, how GM had killed the EV1 and killed CARB legislation, etc. etc. GM immediately pulled all advertising, which amounts to millions. LA Times got the message.

Follow the money. It's all about Big Oil and Big Auto. First they ridicule, they they fight, then they lose.

 

[neroden]

Just remember, the LA Times loses money on every newspaper they sell. By the sort of bogus accounting that's being used to attack Tesla.

 

[Papafox]

Moving this post from technical thread not sure about my cut and paste.
Credit familial rhino for initial post.
↑
This LA Times article manages to spew more methane than the recently sealed Aliso Canyon leak.
Strange that the LA Times would have such an overwhelming negative bias against the second largest private sector employer after Disney and the fastest growing major employer. Their disdain for Elon is worse than Cory Johnson and seems like a well funded more articulate Serking Alpha. Inconsistent use of facts, questioning AP as if it didn't already exist and noting the "huge" GM response to the EV market, apparently making Tesla irrelevant or unneeded.
What's up LA Times? Why do you hate the states most important manufacturing and engineering employer?

My newspaper, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, today printed Michael Hiltzik's article with the title "Tesla-3 hype fuels excitement". I thought it was odd that the paper would print two positive Tesla Model 3 stories within 2 days, but as I read I realized this article was a calculated hit piece. I look at the LA Times as even more hostile to Tesla than the Wall Street Journal.

The reason we're going to make a lot of money investing in Tesla is because writers like this lure unsuspecting shorts into shorting TSLA and they will fall prey to the next short squeeze. This truly is misinformation you can bank on.

 

[EinSV]

With apologies for the cross-post, the post-launch Detroit Free Press article is here: Tesla Model 3 pricing could hinge on smaller tax credit

Bizarrely, the main point of the article is that no one will buy the Model 3 because it is too expensive.

But if you want something to frame for posterity, you might consider today's Free Press Sunday business page. Not a single word about Tesla or the 276,000 reservations for Model 3: Detroit Free Press - Business There is an article about the threat posed by Hyundai's luxury brand.

As someone who grew up in Detroit, I take no pleasure in what this deep-seated denial means for all the good people of my former city. I wish Detroit would face reality but they have been stuck in backwards thinking for so long that is just not going to happen.

 

[Gerardf]

I was for business in Munich last week, and followed the reveal online to order my two reservations .

Saturday at the airport I picked up some newspapers, including the Süddeutsche Zeitung. I wanted to share what they printed.
Note, this is a very well respected (and probably the main) newspaper for South Germany !


They not only mentioned the Model-3 reveal on the front page (!) , but also commented on the happening on page four, where they show disappointment and a warning for the German car industry :

Source: Autoindustrie – Wenn die Ambition fehlt

English : Google Translate

With this :

Title: Aus den Schlaf gerissen; meaning : to be rudely awakened.


And also (very positive) almost a full-page in the economy section (could not find it online).

Edit:
Today, an article in the online version, that uses text sections of that page, but left out big positive parts and added some parts with skepticism that were not in the printed article (will be to late, not alone in the market, bla, bla, bla) :

Neuvorstellung Tesla Model 3 – Tesla startet die Elektroauto-Revolution - und könnte scheitern

 

[chickensevil]

Mark B. Spiegel on Twitter

Only because I didn't want to make it's own thread over this, but also tired of seeing this posted by shorts. He is a tip, if someone is telling you to short the stock based terrible company practices and failing to file things correctly, and they themselves don't understand how SEC filings work, you should probably not trust them with your capital. I feel really bad for people who have given this guy their money...

So, this part of the SEC rules for the 8k reads as follows:

Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
(a) If a director has resigned or refuses to stand for re-election
(b) If the registrant’s principal executive officer, president, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, principal operating officer, or any person performing similar functions, or any named executive officer, retires, resigns or is terminated from that position
(c) If the registrant appoints a new principal executive officer, president, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, principal operating officer, or person performing similar functions
Instructions to Item 5.02.
4. For purposes of this Item, the term “named executive officer” shall refer to those executive officers for whom disclosure was required in the registrant’s most recent filing with the Commission under the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) or Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.78a et seq.) that required disclosure pursuant to Item 402(c) of Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.402(c)).

I clipped a lot of the extra stuff out, but if you want the whole document it is here:
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/form8-k.pdf

So the important piece is on the instructions note for number 4. So which officers are required in their most recent filing with the Commission? Well since their current 10-K states that everything regarding this will be filed within 120 days, I must rely on their last 14A that was filed which outlines other than their board of directors the following "Named Officers":

Elon Musk Chief Executive Officer, Product Architect and Chairman
Deepak Ahuja Chief Financial Officer
Jeffrey B. Straubel Chief Technology Officer
Jerome Guillen Vice President, Worldwide Service and Deliveries
Greg Reichow Vice President, Production

So right off the bat, you can discard any comments about the departures of anyone else in the company such as Ricardo Reyes who has departed. These positions, as far as I am aware, were never reportable.

So of those in the above list two have departed. Well one retired and the other took a leave of absence for an undisclosed period of time. They have an 8-K on Deepak, so I won't bother with this one. So the interesting one is Jerome. They did a very similar thing with George Blankenship when he left. The guy takes an unspecified length of a leave of absence and then they quietly disclose in a 10-k or 10-q that the position no longer has reporting requirements.

So did they do anything illegal here? Well according to the letter of the law. They must file a section 5.02 if: "any named executive officer, retires, resigns or is terminated from that position". A leave of absence is not a retirement, resignation or termination. By definition you are still an employee during this leave of absence. People take these for any number of reasons, like maternity leave, or military deployments... So if you are no longer there, for an unknown amount of time, and no known return date, should I bother to continue to report you to the SEC? I mean, you aren't *doing* anything in the company. So by definition, you are no longer material to the company and therefore I can tell the SEC that reporting is no longer required.

Also note that George had a slightly different title than Jerome did. I believe this to also be a game with the SEC since they both took leaves of absence, so the position is still there for them someday. Although once they drop reporting it doesn't matter either way... the guy can quit or be fired and there is nothing further to report about it.

I think this was a nice way to let them go without making it look bad that they left. But saying that the company is doing something illegal? Hardly.

Anyway, I hope this clears things up on their 10-K and 8-K filings, and explains which Executive positions are even reportable in the first place. Of course Board Members are also all reportable, but as far as I am aware they have been taking care of those correctly as well, and hadn't seen anyone complain about them in any case.

 

[Papafox]

Here's an article on businessinsider that says Tesla made a big mistake (again) by producing a sedan instead of an SUV:
Tesla is about to repeat a huge mistake — and this time it could be even worse
I think the author's point is that SUVs sell better than sedans, so this decision is a mistake. What the author doesn't consider is that EVs see far greater increases in energy consumption with high aerodynamic forces than ICE vehicles do. Granted, both types of vehicles are subject to the same law of physics that determines how much extra power is needed to more a less-efficient vehicle through the air, but since the ICE engine is so inefficient at lower power settings, the change in aerodynamic drag results in a much larger range penalty for the EV compared to the ICE vehicle. In order to build an EV SUV instead of sedan (X vs S), you need to either give up range (220 miles vs. 240 miles) or install a larger battery. When you're trying to hit the $35,000 price point as a vehicle for the masses, a streamlined sedan makes far more sense than starting off with an SUV.

Plus... Tesla hasn't exactly had difficulties selling the Model S, either. We've lost nothing by building S before X. And look at Model 3. Just when do we expect to run out of people willing to buy a Model 3? When you come down to think about it, the article is pretty absurd because it argues that Tesla could sell more vehicles if it made an SUV instead, but it simultaneously acknowledges that Tesla is going to have a difficult time meeting demand for quite some time. See any problem with this reasoning?

 

[Johan]

@Papafox: I read that article. Respectfully, I must say it's a journalistic piece of garbage.

Yes, 325,000 deposits on an as-yet-constructed automobile is unprecedented in the auto industry. It might be unprecedented in any industry. (The only thing I can think of that comes close would be that time Led Zeppelin broke the internet when the band staged a one-off reunion in 2007, and seemingly every music fan on earth wanted a ticket.)

Good, right? Let's see how I can twist this in a negative way:

Tesla has every right to celebrate, and possibly panic. The carmaker so far has built 50,000 cars in a year. In 2016 it is aiming for between 80,000 and 90,000, but it isn't off to a good start. And those 325,000 Model 3 preorders, and counting, represent about 200,000 more Teslas than are on the road globally.

Wait, why panic? Let's go on...

But there's a bigger problem than not being able to build the Model 3. Tesla may have repeated a mistake it made before, just on a much larger scale.

Nice. Without discussion, giving reasons, the author simply concludes Tesla won't be able to build the Model 3. Classy. So now for the mistake they're going to repeat:

However, for three years, as SUV sales bounced back robustly, and it started to become obvious that the family sedan might be in terminal decline, Tesla wasn't selling a ute.

But the 3 unveiling mirrors Tesla's past: The original two-seat Roadster was followed by a large four-door sedan, and that sedan has been followed by a smaller version.

Given the state of the US market especially — and for now, the US is largely where Tesla's sales are concentrated — it might have made more sense to skip the midsize sedan version of the 3 and roll out a compact SUV as the mass-market product.

OK, we get it, in your "expert" opinion Tesla should have built the X before the S, and the Y before the 3 sedan. Thing is, customers vote with their wallets.. facts are proving him wrong. Ever heard of the term "production constrained"? I heard Elon mentioning it once or twice.

The problems keep coming

Does this guy write his own chapter headlines?

There's another problem: The Model 3 preorder customers won't be able to configure their vehicle for some time. It makes sense that Tesla will have between now and 2017 or 2018 to develop a Model 3 crossover, and many customers may choose the truck over the car.

Tesla should be able to build just about any type of vehicle at this point. It has abundant excess production capacity at its plant in California; electric cars are simpler to assemble than gas-powered ones; and this isn't exactly experimental particle physics we're talking about here. Traditional automakers build everything from luxury sedans to big pickup trucks without breaking a sweat.

For a journalist allegedly covering the auto industry he sure shows a complete nonchalance toward the actual process of designing and testing a car model, putting it in production and ramping up said production.

It gets worse

One more great headline.

The situation could be worse in 2017, when the first Model 3s are supposed to hit the streets. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles CEO Sergio Marchionne has argued that sedans are finished and the market has made a permanent structural shift to SUVs and crossovers.

Yup, Sergio Marchionne, the auto CEO to go to for a glimpse in the future of the auto industry. (from greencarreports: He believes carmakers will lose this last reserve of oversight if they switch to electric powertrains. "If we start losing any of that," Marchionne said, "we will not be able to hang on to any proprietary knowledge and control of that business.")

 

[ggr]

Tesla's market is the whole world. The SUV madness mostly infects the US.

 

[EinSV]

Here's an article on businessinsider that says Tesla made a big mistake (again) by producing a sedan instead of an SUV:
Tesla is about to repeat a huge mistake — and this time it could be even worse
I think the author's point is that SUVs sell better than sedans, so this decision is a mistake. What the author doesn't consider is that EVs see far greater increases in energy consumption with high aerodynamic forces than ICE vehicles do. Granted, both types of vehicles are subject to the same law of physics that determines how much extra power is needed to more a less-efficient vehicle through the air, but since the ICE engine is so inefficient at lower power settings, the change in aerodynamic drag results in a much larger range penalty for the EV compared to the ICE vehicle. In order to build an EV SUV instead of sedan (X vs S), you need to either give up range (220 miles vs. 240 miles) or install a larger battery. When you're trying to hit the $35,000 price point as a vehicle for the masses, a streamlined sedan makes far more sense than starting off with an SUV.

Plus... Tesla hasn't exactly had difficulties selling the Model S, either. We've lost nothing by building S before X. And look at Model 3. Just when do we expect to run out of people willing to buy a Model 3? When you come down to think about it, the article is pretty absurd because it argues that Tesla could sell more vehicles if it made an SUV instead, but it simultaneously acknowledges that Tesla is going to have a difficult time meeting demand for quite some time. See any problem with this reasoning?

This article is ridiculous but given how fast the CUV market is growing the author's central premise -- that Tesla could sell more CUVs (Model Y) than sedans (Model 3) -- could turn out to be right.

With 325,000 reservations in one week for what the author believes is the 'less popular' sedan, that would mean that Tesla does have a big problem -- figuring out how to double its production once Model Y is released. Seems like a pretty good problem to have!

 

[Electroman]

That articles premise that CUVs are more popular than sedans is spot on. For the past 15 odd years I have stayed away from sedans and been driveinh minvan, CUVs or SUVs for the ingress/egress comfort and all around good visibility. I missed that greatly in Leaf and more so in Model S. Tried real hard to buy an RAV4 EV, only to be given the middle finger by Toyota

 

[Papafox]

That articles premise that CUVs are more popular than sedans is spot on. For the past 15 odd years I have stayed away from sedans and been driveinh minvan, CUVs or SUVs for the ingress/egress comfort and all around good visibility. I missed that greatly in Leaf and more so in Model S. Tried real hard to buy an RAV4 EV, only to be given the middle finger by Toyota

mkjayakumar, we're not denying that there's a big SUV market out there, the Model X is going to prove it on the top end. The argument is that sedans can be built with lower battery sizes because of aerodynamic drag, and as the cost of batteries comes down, EV SUVs and trucks make more sense than leading with one of these two types of vehicles. An SUV built on the Model 3 platform will come to market way before there's a need to go looking for more demand. For this reason, building a sedan first definitely is not a mistake. If you want an SUV at a near-Model 3 price point, hope that Tesla expands production capabilities quickly. As long as demand far outstrips production capability, there's less need to speed up the reveal of an affordable EV SUV.

 

[Papafox]

@Papafox: I read that article. Respectfully, I must say it's a journalistic piece of garbage.

Good, right? Let's see how I can twist this in a negative way:

Wait, why panic? Let's go on...

Nice. Without discussion, giving reasons, the author simply concludes Tesla won't be able to build the Model 3. Classy. So now for the mistake they're going to repeat:

OK, we get it, in your "expert" opinion Tesla should have built the X before the S, and the Y before the 3 sedan. Thing is, customers vote with their wallets.. facts are proving him wrong. Ever heard of the term "production constrained"? I heard Elon mentioning it once or twice.

Does this guy write his own chapter headlines?

For a journalist allegedly covering the auto industry he sure shows a complete nonchalance toward the actual process of designing and testing a car model, putting it in production and ramping up said production.

One more great headline.

Yup, Sergio Marchionne, the auto CEO to go to for a glimpse in the future of the auto industry. (from greencarreports: He believes carmakers will lose this last reserve of oversight if they switch to electric powertrains. "If we start losing any of that," Marchionne said, "we will not be able to hang on to any proprietary knowledge and control of that business.")

Yes, I wasted too many words on this article too. It is clearly clickbait to get eyeballs to view it because of the provocative headline. The text of the article is ridiculous.

 

[dpeilow]

FUD in the British right wing press. Whoda think it?

Don't be fooled - Elon Musk's electric cars aren't about to save the planet

 

[tander]

Reading the Onion today and thinking about how honest some of their headlines are, and how some of the FUD articles would be titled by the Onion. My guess for some of them; "Man Who Has Never Driven Electric Car Nor Has Open Mind To Understand Them And Is Employed By Oil Company Condemns Electric Cars and Tesla To Certain Failure. Suggests Staying Away From Electric Car Purchase Because Of Minute Danger Of Non-Fatal Fire and You Don't Get To Spend As Much Time With Mechanic. Also Suggests Not Investing In Tesla Stock Because of Imminent Bankruptcy Due To Unscientific Global Warming Ponzi Scheme, At Least That's What Someone At His Oil Company Told Him At A Fracking Seminar."

 

[dc_h]

New hit piece in LA Times.

Despite the hype for Tesla's Model 3, electric car sales are far from robust

 

[Electroman]

The content and tone of that article is a balanced one. The title is a click-bait.

The bigger problem is, it attracts a bunch of haters in the comments section, like flies to sh**t

 

[Papafox]

New hit piece in LA Times.

Despite the hype for Tesla's Model 3, electric car sales are far from robust

The LA Times probably takes the crown away from the WSJ as the most anti-Tesla major newspaper around. You can pretty much count on the LA Times for such FUD. I suppose one only needs to look at the newspaper's owners or major advertisers to understand the bias.