Moderator Note #1:
Cut it out. All of you know who you are, and you know what.
Moderator Note #2:
I find it curious and unfortunate that a thread dedicated to and populated by investors has shown, in the past twelve hours' posts, a tedious repetition of misunderstanding and calls for clarification of what has occurred wrt this capital raise. Folks: THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF! If you're going to be active on this board it is not necessary always to read every post <unless you're a mod....grrrr....> BUT - when an event like this occurs what on earth are you doing with your time if not scouring the other recent posts to learn the not-always straightforward ins and outs....BEFORE you post?????? There have been some excellent discussions, explanations and analyses of this action by Tesla in the past several pages and it really, really has not been necessary to raise the same questions, delve down the wrong paths, come up with garbled half-interpretations when the hard work already has been done with admirable clarity minutes or a few hours before.
Non-moderator Note #3:
With respect to the question as to why Tesla is raising only $1.4bn or so at present - I have two possible answers.
1. The first is that Some Money now can be better than More Money later, even if it doesn't forestall that more later still will be necessary. It will be the case that the second, later tranche will be cheaper (ie, less dilutive, for a given definition of dilution)....IF this hereupon strengthened balance sheet combines with other, both market and non-market factors to raise the stock price.
2. The second is that yesterday's announcement could be an interesting one-player activity. Let's suppose some Deep Pocket <WarrenB...GeorgeS....AudubonB...> takes an interest in, say, a $1.4bn position in TSLA. It is effectively impossible to obtain such an amount in the open market, given the common stock distribution. So Mr. DP goes to GS (now you know it's not me, as I've said time and again I nevermore will deal with Pumpman Sachs) and strikes the kind of deal we've seen. All straightforward...except that, even more than during normal secondaries, the rest of the market players get left out (as in: "Oh, Fidelity? Thank you for your request for 366,000 additional shares. We have been able to allocate you 200. You're welcome!").
Now, I don't give high credence to #2 - but it could occur. I still am scratching my head as to why we're seeing in this tranche a straightforward equity offering rather than a convertible preferred, however, so - perhaps - this is one logical answer: because for whatever reason one single large player needed/wanted straight equity rather than a debenture.
Carry on. Equably, now....