8 ms·

This is just speculation. The story constantly says 'suppliers' when it is just one person at one supplier who has corroborated the story. "Some suppliers cont

This is just speculation. The story constantly says 'suppliers' when it is just one person at one supplier who has corroborated the story. "Some suppliers contacted about the request said they were unaware of such a demand." => They didn't find any other suppliers who had received the said memo.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
WSJ won’t even provide or quote the memo in question from their sole supplier source.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bjl 8y ago
  That's not at all surprising, though, that's how journalism has always worked (protecting one's sources). I certainly trust the WSJ over anything that comes out of Musk's mouth, especially after those pedo accusations.
  - PakG1 8y ago
    Musk has been a little weird these past few days. Like he really had time to go off to Thailand when he wasn't going to contribute in any way because at this late stage of the game, he definitely couldn't be a plan A, and there was only one shot given the rainfall timeline? This isn't the picture of the guy who sleeps on the factory floor to get them out of production hell. Besides that, he looked petty on Twitter. I know that he's always used Twitter for marketing but he looked dare I say Trumpesque.
    - griffordson 8y ago
      Every once in a while I feel exactly what many Trump voters claim to feel when I see/hear this attitude. If a guy like Musk gets shredded for being authentic and at times a bit manic seeming, then it's no wonder polite society is such a sham. Real people who do stuff in the real world have off days. They make mistakes that they genuinely regret not because they got caught, but because those incidents represent them at their worst and they strive to spend more time at their best. Let's all cut everyone a little slack. Hanlon's razor applies when dealing with humans, no matter what their IQ and accomplishments.
      - bjl 8y ago
        Eh, I don't know, I've never felt the need to call someone a 'pedo' with absolutely no evidence. That kind of thing is completely beyond the pale.
      - Fricken 8y ago
        Musk has hasn't just had a bad day. He's made a whole series of colossal strategic errors in stubborn defiance of conventional wisdom over the past couple years. The pedo comment is just the cherry on the tip of the iceberg. The delusional mini-sub stunt wonderfully encapsulates his whole approach to running the company. For years I've just been shaking my head as people try to rationalize his bullshit over and over, but those chickens are coming home to roost.
        nugga 8y ago
        You seem to be referring to the erroneus and hostile narrative on the thai sub thing. Apparently Elon was in contact with the people leading the rescue and seemed to be level headed and cautious and courteus in dealing with them and approaching the situation when he offered to help, as can be seen from the tweets and what appear to be email exchanges between someone close to the rescue team and him. Of course he capitalized on the publicity but he it seems like his effort was trying to do good and did not impede the rescue efforts as far as I can tell. The pedo thing was a stupid mistake stemming from anger that got lit up by accusations by someone criticizing what Elon probably perceived as sincere offer of help, and he says to have later apologized. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1019471467304513537 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1019471467304513537 https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-full-story-behind-Elon-Musks-involvement-with-the-Thai-cave-rescue-effort https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-full-story-behind-Elon-Musks...
        nugga 8y ago
        I thought this was a sincere reading of the situation minus the typos. Is it too naive to trust Elon's word or is there something wrong here?
      - PakG1 8y ago
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Puer 8y ago
"Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed." The Wall Street Journal is one of the most reputable sources for business journalism. Claiming that they would publish this article without proper vetting is ridiculous and equating it to "fake news" is shameful.
- seldon999 8y ago
  A few months ago the WSJ reported that the aerospace supplier Woodward was in talks to be acquired by Boeing. [1] After the market closed, Woodward came out and categorically denied the WSJ's report, saying that it was not in talks. Period. Its not necessarily nefarious, but the WSJ does in fact publish stories that rely on questionable sources. It's absolutely not out of the question that that could have happened here as well. Note that since [1] was published, Woodward has not been acquired by Boeing, and its stock took a dive after the WSJ's poorly sourced story caused the stock to shoot up ~10% when it published. A lot of people that bought it on the WSJ's bad report lost a lot of money. 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-in-talks-to-buy-aerospace-parts-maker-woodward-1518104707 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-in-talks-to-buy-aerospac...
  - Puer 8y ago
    Just because the company denied the report it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't true. Companies deny things all the time in accordance to whatever suits their current interests. "Several hours after The Wall Street Journal reported on the talks, Woodward issued a news release saying that it “is not in discussions with Boeing over a possible acquisition of Woodward... After the statement, the people familiar with the matter said the companies remained in talks." The Wall Street Journal has a long history of thorough research and well-respected publications. There's no doubt that the vetting process for industry sources is extensive. Remember when a right wing group tried to approach the Washington Post with a fake story and how quickly they were able to expose it? It's entirely possible for sources to give occasionally incorrect or unreliable information based on changing events, but the notion that the WSJ consistently relies on "questionable sources" is ignorant of how extensive the process is. Just because it isn't transparent (which is precisely to protect the quality of their sources) it doesn't mean it isn't reliable.
daveguy 8y ago
Counter -- - The supplier provided the memo. - The memo included that all suppliers were asked. - Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo, but confirmed that it had asked this of some suppliers.
- pyre 8y ago
  > - Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo, but confirmed that it had asked this of some suppliers. Tesla confirmed that it was seeking "price reductions." Tesla's statement is not confirmation that they are running to suppliers asking for refunds.
  - daveguy 8y ago
    Seeking price reductions from suppliers "some dating back to 2016"... In other words: running to suppliers asking for refunds.
    - Someone 8y ago
      Not necessarily refunds. It could be about bills they didn’t pay yet, for example because they had to be paid within 30 or 60 days, and that period hasn’t passed yet. Asking “do you want 95% now or see whether we can pay back 100% in 20 days, when we have to pay you?” is fairly standard practice for companies that are running low on cash. If all parties involved think there’s a >5% chance they won’t be able to eventually pay back, the rational thing to do is to accept that offer. Also, the first to accept the offer is more likely to get the money. (But _if_ the end result is bankruptcy, the trustee appointed might order you to pay back that money, so that debtors who have more rights to be repaid can be paid back with it)
      - donarb 8y ago
        The very first line in the article: "Tesla Inc. TSLA -2.08% has asked some suppliers to refund a portion of what the electric-car company has spent previously, ..." That is a refund, you can't explain it any other way.
pvg 8y ago
This is just speculation. They have a memo, they talked to Tesla who do not appear to challenge their narrative. Plus, it's a business story in the WSJ, not some random blog post.
heyoni 8y ago
This story is such bullshit. It smells like someone's stuck in a short position over Tesla stock and wants to create a dip in it...maybe it's the same guy Elon insulted on that last quarterly earnings call.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Tesla themselves said it is true.
  - heyoni 8y ago
    I’ll read the whole article when the paywall comes down or someone else publishes it again. Either way, I’m highly suspicious of articles like this considering the personal gain some individuals stand to win.
    - compcoffee 8y ago
      Who stands to "gain" more, people long or short? Why do you think only one side is corrupt?
    - jonknee 8y ago
      You could say the same thing about any business article the WSJ publishes--all sorts of people have potential gains and losses with any business news. That doesn't make it untrue. You haven't even read the story and yet call it fake news. It sounds to me that you're the one living in a fake news world where it's not the facts that matter, but the source. Telsa is on record saying that it's true, so what exactly is fake? > Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed. The company called such requests a standard part of procurement negotiations to improve its competitive advantage, especially as it ramps up Model 3 production.
      - sjwright 8y ago
        > Telsa is on record saying that it's true What Tesla confirmed is nothing more than standard business practice—and indeed good business practice. You should always be questioning whether your suppliers are giving you their best possible price.
sandworm101 8y ago
Suppliers are probably under NDAs covering non-contract communications, things they need not tell thier shareholders about right away.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

WSJ won’t even provide or quote the memo in question from their sole supplier source.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bjl 8y ago
That's not at all surprising, though, that's how journalism has always worked (protecting one's sources). I certainly trust the WSJ over anything that comes out of Musk's mouth, especially after those pedo accusations.
- PakG1 8y ago
  Musk has been a little weird these past few days. Like he really had time to go off to Thailand when he wasn't going to contribute in any way because at this late stage of the game, he definitely couldn't be a plan A, and there was only one shot given the rainfall timeline? This isn't the picture of the guy who sleeps on the factory floor to get them out of production hell. Besides that, he looked petty on Twitter. I know that he's always used Twitter for marketing but he looked dare I say Trumpesque.
  - griffordson 8y ago
    Every once in a while I feel exactly what many Trump voters claim to feel when I see/hear this attitude. If a guy like Musk gets shredded for being authentic and at times a bit manic seeming, then it's no wonder polite society is such a sham. Real people who do stuff in the real world have off days. They make mistakes that they genuinely regret not because they got caught, but because those incidents represent them at their worst and they strive to spend more time at their best. Let's all cut everyone a little slack. Hanlon's razor applies when dealing with humans, no matter what their IQ and accomplishments.
    - bjl 8y ago
      Eh, I don't know, I've never felt the need to call someone a 'pedo' with absolutely no evidence. That kind of thing is completely beyond the pale.
    - Fricken 8y ago
      Musk has hasn't just had a bad day. He's made a whole series of colossal strategic errors in stubborn defiance of conventional wisdom over the past couple years. The pedo comment is just the cherry on the tip of the iceberg. The delusional mini-sub stunt wonderfully encapsulates his whole approach to running the company. For years I've just been shaking my head as people try to rationalize his bullshit over and over, but those chickens are coming home to roost.
      - nugga 8y ago
        You seem to be referring to the erroneus and hostile narrative on the thai sub thing. Apparently Elon was in contact with the people leading the rescue and seemed to be level headed and cautious and courteus in dealing with them and approaching the situation when he offered to help, as can be seen from the tweets and what appear to be email exchanges between someone close to the rescue team and him. Of course he capitalized on the publicity but he it seems like his effort was trying to do good and did not impede the rescue efforts as far as I can tell. The pedo thing was a stupid mistake stemming from anger that got lit up by accusations by someone criticizing what Elon probably perceived as sincere offer of help, and he says to have later apologized. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1019471467304513537 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1019471467304513537 https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-full-story-behind-Elon-Musks-involvement-with-the-Thai-cave-rescue-effort https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-full-story-behind-Elon-Musks...
        nugga 8y ago
        I thought this was a sincere reading of the situation minus the typos. Is it too naive to trust Elon's word or is there something wrong here?
    - PakG1 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Puer 8y ago

"Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed." The Wall Street Journal is one of the most reputable sources for business journalism. Claiming that they would publish this article without proper vetting is ridiculous and equating it to "fake news" is shameful.

seldon999 8y ago
A few months ago the WSJ reported that the aerospace supplier Woodward was in talks to be acquired by Boeing. [1] After the market closed, Woodward came out and categorically denied the WSJ's report, saying that it was not in talks. Period. Its not necessarily nefarious, but the WSJ does in fact publish stories that rely on questionable sources. It's absolutely not out of the question that that could have happened here as well. Note that since [1] was published, Woodward has not been acquired by Boeing, and its stock took a dive after the WSJ's poorly sourced story caused the stock to shoot up ~10% when it published. A lot of people that bought it on the WSJ's bad report lost a lot of money. 1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-in-talks-to-buy-aerospace-parts-maker-woodward-1518104707 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-in-talks-to-buy-aerospac...
- Puer 8y ago
  Just because the company denied the report it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't true. Companies deny things all the time in accordance to whatever suits their current interests. "Several hours after The Wall Street Journal reported on the talks, Woodward issued a news release saying that it “is not in discussions with Boeing over a possible acquisition of Woodward... After the statement, the people familiar with the matter said the companies remained in talks." The Wall Street Journal has a long history of thorough research and well-respected publications. There's no doubt that the vetting process for industry sources is extensive. Remember when a right wing group tried to approach the Washington Post with a fake story and how quickly they were able to expose it? It's entirely possible for sources to give occasionally incorrect or unreliable information based on changing events, but the notion that the WSJ consistently relies on "questionable sources" is ignorant of how extensive the process is. Just because it isn't transparent (which is precisely to protect the quality of their sources) it doesn't mean it isn't reliable.

daveguy 8y ago

Counter -- - The supplier provided the memo. - The memo included that all suppliers were asked. - Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo, but confirmed that it had asked this of some suppliers.

pyre 8y ago
> - Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo, but confirmed that it had asked this of some suppliers. Tesla confirmed that it was seeking "price reductions." Tesla's statement is not confirmation that they are running to suppliers asking for refunds.
- daveguy 8y ago
  Seeking price reductions from suppliers "some dating back to 2016"... In other words: running to suppliers asking for refunds.
  - Someone 8y ago
    Not necessarily refunds. It could be about bills they didn’t pay yet, for example because they had to be paid within 30 or 60 days, and that period hasn’t passed yet. Asking “do you want 95% now or see whether we can pay back 100% in 20 days, when we have to pay you?” is fairly standard practice for companies that are running low on cash. If all parties involved think there’s a >5% chance they won’t be able to eventually pay back, the rational thing to do is to accept that offer. Also, the first to accept the offer is more likely to get the money. (But _if_ the end result is bankruptcy, the trustee appointed might order you to pay back that money, so that debtors who have more rights to be repaid can be paid back with it)
    - donarb 8y ago
      The very first line in the article: "Tesla Inc. TSLA -2.08% has asked some suppliers to refund a portion of what the electric-car company has spent previously, ..." That is a refund, you can't explain it any other way.

pvg 8y ago

This is just speculation. They have a memo, they talked to Tesla who do not appear to challenge their narrative. Plus, it's a business story in the WSJ, not some random blog post.

heyoni 8y ago

This story is such bullshit. It smells like someone's stuck in a short position over Tesla stock and wants to create a dip in it...maybe it's the same guy Elon insulted on that last quarterly earnings call.

Someone1234 8y ago
Tesla themselves said it is true.
- heyoni 8y ago
  I’ll read the whole article when the paywall comes down or someone else publishes it again. Either way, I’m highly suspicious of articles like this considering the personal gain some individuals stand to win.
  - compcoffee 8y ago
    Who stands to "gain" more, people long or short? Why do you think only one side is corrupt?
  - jonknee 8y ago
    You could say the same thing about any business article the WSJ publishes--all sorts of people have potential gains and losses with any business news. That doesn't make it untrue. You haven't even read the story and yet call it fake news. It sounds to me that you're the one living in a fake news world where it's not the facts that matter, but the source. Telsa is on record saying that it's true, so what exactly is fake? > Tesla declined to comment on the specific memo. But it confirmed it is seeking price reductions from suppliers for projects, some of which date back to 2016, and some of which haven’t been completed. The company called such requests a standard part of procurement negotiations to improve its competitive advantage, especially as it ramps up Model 3 production.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      > Telsa is on record saying that it's true What Tesla confirmed is nothing more than standard business practice—and indeed good business practice. You should always be questioning whether your suppliers are giving you their best possible price.

sandworm101 8y ago

Suppliers are probably under NDAs covering non-contract communications, things they need not tell thier shareholders about right away.