4 ms·

The safe alternative (from Tesla's perspective) would have been to let SolarCity die. That's why people are questioning Musk's actions on this deal: they look l

• endswapper 10y ago
  First, my point is that there is a larger objective where synergy between the companies exist and serve a strategic purpose. Namely, each is a component in building a next-gen energy company. So, the tactics Analemma_ 50 and I are discussing are what other sustainable, renewable supply options exist. Because that is what SolarCity represents. Does it make sense to buy troubled SolarCity before they go under, or does it make more sense to buy another solar (or insert renewable here), or does it make more sense to start over on that component. Those are the alternative tactics I am interested in, which I am not aware of.
  • mholmes680 10y ago
    >>building a next-gen energy company Agreed. They're aiming for GE, not GM. (to repeat myself from the last thread on TSLA) >>Does it make sense to buy troubled SolarCity before they go under From an investment standpoint, I think optimally you let Solar City go into bankruptcy, buy it for pennies on the dollar, and then you cherry pick the components you want and sell off any others that you think you can. Can someone do that as a chair of both though, not sure (i guess so?). Maybe they didn't do that because they see someone else coming in - a new challenger? Or, he sees long term something that others don't. Or maybe he's just ego-maniacal.
    • endswapper 10y ago
      All fair options, but sacrificing one group of shareholders for another seems to carry its own risks.