5 ms·

Tesla Is Going Public

45 points by mlinsey 17y ago

Shamiq 17y ago
Holy wow. Maybe we'll get to see where these guys are spending their money.
- phil 17y ago
  Why wait? http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312510017054/ds1.htm#toc51863_4 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/0001193125100...
rms 17y ago
Who's buying?
electromagnetic 17y ago
Maybe it should go Government, then perhaps the outrageous prices and its haemorrhaging of cash won't seem out of place . . . just a suggestion. I'd much prefer my tax dollars subsidizing my car than subsidizing cheap fishing and agriculture.
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  > its haemorrhaging of cash Could you cite your sources please.
  - defen 17y ago
    From the article: The SEC filing provides the first clear look at the company’s finances. It notes that Tesla has lost "approximately $236.4 million from our inception through Sept. 30, 2009"
    - coffeemug 17y ago
      From what I understand their inception is 2001, which means they've lost about $30mil/year. That doesn't sound excessive to me at all. Software startups normally count $15k/employee/month as a reasonable expense (including hardware, rent, benefits, etc.) Given how massive the equipment and production expenses for an auto company can be, I wouldn't be surprised if their number is three times as high. At only 500 employees (again, a very small estimate for an auto company) that would put their expenses at 45k/month * 12 * 500 = $270mil/year. Considering that they've lost only $240 mil in eight years, they're doing extremely well. I can't even imagine the amount of effort and capital required to pull something like this off. If anything, I'm surprised how well they're actually doing so far.
      - gd123 17y ago
        I'm sorry, but losing $30M in one year is bad. Losing $30M for 8 years is excessively bad. Tesla is bleeding cash left and right and its CEO is flying jets to get around while taking in $450M in taxpayer money for loans, and then files for an IPO a week later. Musk (its CEO) had mentioned that Tesla would be profitable in 2009, and that's clearly not the case. Stating that losing $240 million in 8 years is doing "extremely well" is irresponsible to impressionable investors looking forward to Tesla's IPO.
        halo 17y ago
        As a data-point, Amazon lost $3b over their first 6 years before turning a profit (citation: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/dotcom-delight-as-amazon-makes-first-profit-after-3bn-losses-665950.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/dotcom-delig...) .
        yahoog 17y ago
        Apples and oranges. Amazon put profits back into their company. They had a business model that worked. Tesla doesn't.
        jbooth 17y ago
elblanco 17y ago
Fail....ah heck...I'll probably buy a few shares anyways...who knows...
plutus 17y ago
The U.S. government provided a $465 million loan to a tiny money-losing startup and got no equity in return. Now Tesla insiders are leveraging that taxpayer loan to IPO. Is this free enterprise or just corruption?
- jbooth 17y ago
  A) Compare that number to the amount that defense contractors receive for not even delivering anything. The Tesla car works. B) Compare that number with the inflation-adjusted amount that the government has put into other research ventures. Like, say, THE INTERNET. C) Tesla says that it is now profitable http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/tesla-says-it-is-now-profitable-ships-109-roadsters-in-july/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/tesla-says-it-is-now-pr.... What's your problem with better technology here?
  - plutus 17y ago
    My problem is that taxpayers have the most at risk with this company, but get none of the upside. There is a huge difference between government funding for basic research, and government funding to bring a privately owned product to market. Even worse, since Daimler is a Tesla shareholder, U.S. taxpayers are underwriting tech that is partially owned by a foreign competitor.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      The department of energy routinely gives low-interest loans to interesting energy startups because there's a compelling national interest in renewable energy. So, yeah, we're on the hook for 500m. But we just spent a trillion in Iraq. And when we hit peak oil and hit a point of total supply inelasticity for energy, we're really gonna be up a creek. There are literally thousands of companies that get these loans. I invested in one called Beacon Power, they build electrical grid stabilizers based on flywheels -- suck in excess power during supply peaks, then spit it back out if everyone turns on their AC units at once. Great idea. Helps the whole economy if they succeed, not just them. So the dept of energy took the long view and threw them a few million dollars as a loan. All in all, this stuff adds up to way less than 1% of domestic federal spending -- which itself is less than 1/6 of the total federal budget. If a few of them pan out and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, then it's a win.

45 points by mlinsey 17y ago

Shamiq 17y ago

Holy wow. Maybe we'll get to see where these guys are spending their money.

phil 17y ago
Why wait? http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312510017054/ds1.htm#toc51863_4 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/0001193125100...

rms 17y ago

Who's buying?

electromagnetic 17y ago

Maybe it should go Government, then perhaps the outrageous prices and its haemorrhaging of cash won't seem out of place . . . just a suggestion. I'd much prefer my tax dollars subsidizing my car than subsidizing cheap fishing and agriculture.

MikeCapone 17y ago
> its haemorrhaging of cash Could you cite your sources please.
- defen 17y ago
  From the article: The SEC filing provides the first clear look at the company’s finances. It notes that Tesla has lost "approximately $236.4 million from our inception through Sept. 30, 2009"
  - coffeemug 17y ago
    From what I understand their inception is 2001, which means they've lost about $30mil/year. That doesn't sound excessive to me at all. Software startups normally count $15k/employee/month as a reasonable expense (including hardware, rent, benefits, etc.) Given how massive the equipment and production expenses for an auto company can be, I wouldn't be surprised if their number is three times as high. At only 500 employees (again, a very small estimate for an auto company) that would put their expenses at 45k/month * 12 * 500 = $270mil/year. Considering that they've lost only $240 mil in eight years, they're doing extremely well. I can't even imagine the amount of effort and capital required to pull something like this off. If anything, I'm surprised how well they're actually doing so far.
    - gd123 17y ago
      I'm sorry, but losing $30M in one year is bad. Losing $30M for 8 years is excessively bad. Tesla is bleeding cash left and right and its CEO is flying jets to get around while taking in $450M in taxpayer money for loans, and then files for an IPO a week later. Musk (its CEO) had mentioned that Tesla would be profitable in 2009, and that's clearly not the case. Stating that losing $240 million in 8 years is doing "extremely well" is irresponsible to impressionable investors looking forward to Tesla's IPO.
      - halo 17y ago
        As a data-point, Amazon lost $3b over their first 6 years before turning a profit (citation: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/dotcom-delight-as-amazon-makes-first-profit-after-3bn-losses-665950.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/dotcom-delig...) .
        yahoog 17y ago
        Apples and oranges. Amazon put profits back into their company. They had a business model that worked. Tesla doesn't.
        jbooth 17y ago

elblanco 17y ago

Fail....ah heck...I'll probably buy a few shares anyways...who knows...

plutus 17y ago

The U.S. government provided a $465 million loan to a tiny money-losing startup and got no equity in return. Now Tesla insiders are leveraging that taxpayer loan to IPO. Is this free enterprise or just corruption?

jbooth 17y ago
A) Compare that number to the amount that defense contractors receive for not even delivering anything. The Tesla car works. B) Compare that number with the inflation-adjusted amount that the government has put into other research ventures. Like, say, THE INTERNET. C) Tesla says that it is now profitable http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/tesla-says-it-is-now-profitable-ships-109-roadsters-in-july/ http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/tesla-says-it-is-now-pr.... What's your problem with better technology here?
- plutus 17y ago
  My problem is that taxpayers have the most at risk with this company, but get none of the upside. There is a huge difference between government funding for basic research, and government funding to bring a privately owned product to market. Even worse, since Daimler is a Tesla shareholder, U.S. taxpayers are underwriting tech that is partially owned by a foreign competitor.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    The department of energy routinely gives low-interest loans to interesting energy startups because there's a compelling national interest in renewable energy. So, yeah, we're on the hook for 500m. But we just spent a trillion in Iraq. And when we hit peak oil and hit a point of total supply inelasticity for energy, we're really gonna be up a creek. There are literally thousands of companies that get these loans. I invested in one called Beacon Power, they build electrical grid stabilizers based on flywheels -- suck in excess power during supply peaks, then spit it back out if everyone turns on their AC units at once. Great idea. Helps the whole economy if they succeed, not just them. So the dept of energy took the long view and threw them a few million dollars as a loan. All in all, this stuff adds up to way less than 1% of domestic federal spending -- which itself is less than 1/6 of the total federal budget. If a few of them pan out and we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, then it's a win.