4 ms·

A company that was founded based on his suggestion, with his financial and leadership support. He was there from day zero. Solar City is not just a solar cell

A company that was founded based on his suggestion, with his financial and leadership support. He was there from day zero. Solar City is not just a solar cell company. It is a power generation and distribution company. Which clearly ties into charging electric cars. Another (very) common early criticism of Tesla: You’re just filling up with coal power. And. Risky for sure. Elon Musk obviously doesn’t shy from risky. He sets goals that solve existential problems. In this case, our reliance on fossil fuels.

jacquesm 7y ago
There is a huge difference between risky and dumb. If you create different legal entities then you do so for a reason: to ensure that if one tanks it doesn't bring the rest down. Tying them back together in this way risks all of the companies with none of the benefits of having them all under one legal entity. Besides that it opens you up to minority shareholder lawsuits that have a very high probability of sticking. Musk is a genius but more and more of his moves are showing a disconnect that makes no sense to me.
- patagonia 7y ago
  “Dumb”. Is that a financial term? Or a legal term? Perhaps we are able to benefit from hindsight? I’m just saying that, calling vertical integration by a company that doesn’t have widespread industry support and is moving very fast and needs to control as many of the required moving parts as possible, calling that corruption, nepotism, fraud, and dumb,,, not a balanced argument.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    There were plenty of people calling it dumb when it happened.
    - patagonia 7y ago
      Oh, my bad. Didn’t know that. I guess that settles it.
mrfredward 7y ago
>A company that was founded based on his suggestion, with his financial and leadership support. He was there from day zero. And that's part of the huge conflict of interests being discussed here. The process didn't start with Tesla execs saying "hmm, we should acquire a solar company, let's look at a dozen potential targets and see which one is the best fit." It started with SolarCity needing a bailout and Musk finding a way to justify it as supposedly in Tesla's interests. Tesla could have waited for SolarCity to go under and bought the assets and tech for much less, without the broken business model attached, but instead it overpaid in order to let Musk's family save face (and have a payday).
- kmonsen 7y ago
  There was a step in between, SolarCity was in trouble so they issued SolarBonds. Musk and some of his companies, notably SpaceX, decided to buy these since there were not enough interest. So this final buyout was not to save SolarCity, but to save Musk and his companies that had previously rescued SolarCity.
javagram 7y ago
> Another (very) common early criticism of Tesla: You’re just filling up with coal power. Also an incorrect criticism since plenty of power in the USA is generated by natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and utility scale solar and wind.
danso 7y ago
> And. Risky for sure. Elon Musk obviously doesn’t shy from risky. He sets goals that solve existential problems. In this case, our reliance on fossil fuels. What is the relevance of these platitudes? Are they intended to be a catchall explanation/excuse for every time Musk makes an objectively terrible business decision? That we have to consider Musk cares so much about ending fossil fuels and factor that into the criticism? Musk (at least based on his Twitter persona) doesn't seem to be the type to buy into the mindset of "the most important thing is that you cared", so I don't think it's ultimately respectful to him to moderate criticism based on his announced ideals. I'll accept the premise that Elon Musk is special, that he, as you say, "sets goals that solve existential problems." What facts/assertions in the posted article reflect or are a consequence of his higher thinking? What existential-problem-solving goal does Musk have that gives us confidence him paying $5B for SolarCity and assuming $3B of debt is a shrewd, deliberate move, and not the inexplicable clusterfuck we would happily label it were it done by some other company? The posted story focuses almost exclusively on SolarCity's solar panel production, and makes no mention of it being a "power generation and distribution company". Did the reporter deliberately omit mentioning it, because they want to focus on SolarCity's failures? I googled around for SolarCity and power generation and/or distribution, and I only skimmed the first pages of results, but I didn't see a headline post-2017 that didn't describe something negative, e.g. `Tesla to close a dozen solar facilities in 9 states`. Is it possible that SolarCity no longer meaningfully competes in power generation/distribution?
- patagonia 7y ago
  It was literally an offhand comment speaking to a small portion of the preceding comment. And you manage to spend 3 paragraphs tearing apart my “logic”. Aren’t we supposed to “Assume good faith.”
  - danso 7y ago
    Only my first paragraph complains about the "platitudes". I apologize if it wasn't clear that the second paragraph is taking you in good faith. I mean, it literally begins with "accept the premise that Elon Musk is special" and all the other things he's respected for. I don't think it's controversial or wrong to really believe that of him, but if you're saying it's just an offhand-comment that has nothing to do with the financial decisions the article describes, I'll take your word for it. My third paragraph was also taking you at good faith. You made this factual claim: > Solar City is not just a solar cell company. It is a power generation and distribution company. Which clearly ties into charging electric cars. And that seems like a reasonable assertion? You likely know more about SolarCity than I do. I said I wasn't able to find recent news or articles about how SolarCity's power generation and distribution business, despite you implying they were key parts of the business. So do you know of any? Or is it possible SolarCity in 2019 has changed its portfolio?

jacquesm 7y ago

There is a huge difference between risky and dumb. If you create different legal entities then you do so for a reason: to ensure that if one tanks it doesn't bring the rest down. Tying them back together in this way risks all of the companies with none of the benefits of having them all under one legal entity. Besides that it opens you up to minority shareholder lawsuits that have a very high probability of sticking. Musk is a genius but more and more of his moves are showing a disconnect that makes no sense to me.

patagonia 7y ago
“Dumb”. Is that a financial term? Or a legal term? Perhaps we are able to benefit from hindsight? I’m just saying that, calling vertical integration by a company that doesn’t have widespread industry support and is moving very fast and needs to control as many of the required moving parts as possible, calling that corruption, nepotism, fraud, and dumb,,, not a balanced argument.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  There were plenty of people calling it dumb when it happened.
  - patagonia 7y ago
    Oh, my bad. Didn’t know that. I guess that settles it.

mrfredward 7y ago

>A company that was founded based on his suggestion, with his financial and leadership support. He was there from day zero. And that's part of the huge conflict of interests being discussed here. The process didn't start with Tesla execs saying "hmm, we should acquire a solar company, let's look at a dozen potential targets and see which one is the best fit." It started with SolarCity needing a bailout and Musk finding a way to justify it as supposedly in Tesla's interests. Tesla could have waited for SolarCity to go under and bought the assets and tech for much less, without the broken business model attached, but instead it overpaid in order to let Musk's family save face (and have a payday).

kmonsen 7y ago
There was a step in between, SolarCity was in trouble so they issued SolarBonds. Musk and some of his companies, notably SpaceX, decided to buy these since there were not enough interest. So this final buyout was not to save SolarCity, but to save Musk and his companies that had previously rescued SolarCity.

javagram 7y ago

> Another (very) common early criticism of Tesla: You’re just filling up with coal power. Also an incorrect criticism since plenty of power in the USA is generated by natural gas, hydro, nuclear, and utility scale solar and wind.

danso 7y ago

> And. Risky for sure. Elon Musk obviously doesn’t shy from risky. He sets goals that solve existential problems. In this case, our reliance on fossil fuels. What is the relevance of these platitudes? Are they intended to be a catchall explanation/excuse for every time Musk makes an objectively terrible business decision? That we have to consider Musk cares so much about ending fossil fuels and factor that into the criticism? Musk (at least based on his Twitter persona) doesn't seem to be the type to buy into the mindset of "the most important thing is that you cared", so I don't think it's ultimately respectful to him to moderate criticism based on his announced ideals. I'll accept the premise that Elon Musk is special, that he, as you say, "sets goals that solve existential problems." What facts/assertions in the posted article reflect or are a consequence of his higher thinking? What existential-problem-solving goal does Musk have that gives us confidence him paying $5B for SolarCity and assuming $3B of debt is a shrewd, deliberate move, and not the inexplicable clusterfuck we would happily label it were it done by some other company? The posted story focuses almost exclusively on SolarCity's solar panel production, and makes no mention of it being a "power generation and distribution company". Did the reporter deliberately omit mentioning it, because they want to focus on SolarCity's failures? I googled around for SolarCity and power generation and/or distribution, and I only skimmed the first pages of results, but I didn't see a headline post-2017 that didn't describe something negative, e.g. `Tesla to close a dozen solar facilities in 9 states`. Is it possible that SolarCity no longer meaningfully competes in power generation/distribution?

patagonia 7y ago
It was literally an offhand comment speaking to a small portion of the preceding comment. And you manage to spend 3 paragraphs tearing apart my “logic”. Aren’t we supposed to “Assume good faith.”
- danso 7y ago
  Only my first paragraph complains about the "platitudes". I apologize if it wasn't clear that the second paragraph is taking you in good faith. I mean, it literally begins with "accept the premise that Elon Musk is special" and all the other things he's respected for. I don't think it's controversial or wrong to really believe that of him, but if you're saying it's just an offhand-comment that has nothing to do with the financial decisions the article describes, I'll take your word for it. My third paragraph was also taking you at good faith. You made this factual claim: > Solar City is not just a solar cell company. It is a power generation and distribution company. Which clearly ties into charging electric cars. And that seems like a reasonable assertion? You likely know more about SolarCity than I do. I said I wasn't able to find recent news or articles about how SolarCity's power generation and distribution business, despite you implying they were key parts of the business. So do you know of any? Or is it possible SolarCity in 2019 has changed its portfolio?