...The sovereign funds in particular would have massive conflicts of interest as investors. Tesla would likely be worth more to them dead, or at least crippled, than alive...I have not looked into it, but is there anything stopping a third party from taking over Tesla in a hostile takeover?...perhaps I am missing something?
1. That a KIO or SIF or any of the other sovereign funds
could successfully mount a hostile takeover is possible only in theory.
2. That they or any other hyper-deep-pocketed organizations would want to is even less likely.
3. Were it to occur I would rejoice, not mourn.
Here is why:
With few exceptions, the operations and structure of the funds are such that they are run quite independently of the forces that generate their base moneys. This is the weakest of arguments, as the conspiratorially-minded always can look to nefarious deeds by the Emir of Durka-durkastan as changing her mind, and so on.
More appropriately, as Crown Prince Mohammed has revealed, the O&G-based funds are actively
and have a deep history of looking for opportunities to diversify away from their traditional revenue sources. These peoples are playing a very, very long game. The non O&G funds include the ForEx-rich centers like China, HK and Singapore. The latter two are far too-well experienced in the world of business to have any interest in such shenanigans; that leaves only China. I'll state unequivocally right here that the possibility that China would be permitted to a hostile takeover of a successful Tesla Motors is exactly zero, regardless of what political parties are in control of what portions of D.C.
Tesla's equity ownership is a lot less liquid than would be required for a hostile takeover. We can posit, first, that Mr Musk's 37% (is that the correct amount? I know it's close). Other insiders bring that to about 40%. Devoted "super-long" individual investors hold, at a guess, 5%. FMR controls about 10% and other US-based fund management companies another 20-25%.
Now, of these those fund management companies can and rightly should be considered swayable. Their fiduciary responsibility is to their fund shareholders, never to corporate management. Leaving them out, however, it remains all but impossible to amass a 50% stake. More fundamentally, however, is that there are no plausible scenarios under which a sovereign fund's representatives could be shown to claim a seat on a TM board. Such actions occur
only during conditions of corporate weakness; never during strengths. And Tesla is definitely
not the former, irrespective of any bear claims of cash flow crunches.
Most wonderfully delicious of all, however, is that Tesla long since has guaranteed, through a gaspingly audacious move, that a hostile takeover could not occur. Which is.....bear with me now and we'll take a walk down Improbability Lane:
1. Hostile Fund X mounts a takeover attempt. How much for the shares? $500 won't do it - that's a mere doubling of current prices. $1,000? Bare minimum but let's go with that.
2. Oops. There's a 30-million-odd short overhang. Mother Of Squeezes occurs; all of a sudden we're talking meltdown numbers here: let's bring the price to $5,000 per share and that's likely to be conservative.
3. Not only does my portfolio leap into the HolyMoly category, as do those of most on this forum, but Mr Musk is the
cashed-out!!!! wealthiest person on the planet.
AND....
4. With it he and the rest of the critical management team walk away and make use not only of that capital but.......THE FREE USE OF ALL TESLA'S PATENTS to create a little company they're going to call, let's say, Tezla Motors.
QED
Have I placated your concerns?
