What's Wrong With Tesla? How Much Time Do You Have?

whats wrong with tesla how much time do you have

I’ve been warned before by the B&B not to read too much into the forward-looking statements in SEC filings, especially the ones where companies ruminate over all the things that could still go wrong with their struggling firms. These legal disclosures of worst-case-scenarios often reflect unlikely scenarios and can be downright misleading, so we held off from diving too deep into Tesla’s IPO S-1 filing [complete document here]. Others around the web have jumped in without compunction, and this week has yielded a steady drip of troubling revelations. It’s a wild and woolly collection of issues, but given that people are going to be asked to invest in this nightmare of a company, it’s only fair that we give the grievances an airing.

One serious issue hidden in the forced doom-contemplation exercise is this one, uncovered by Wired Autopia: Tesla doesn’t own the name Tesla in Europe. It has two trademark filings pending, but these

are subject to outstanding opposition proceedings brought by two prior owners of trademarks consisting of the word Tesla

Egads! How did that one slip by Tesla’s leadership? Speaking of which, another worrying issue is the fact that Tesla can’t dump its chief egomaniac officer, Elon Musk, before the Model S goes into production. Wired Autopia teased this nugget out of the S-1 filing, and strangely, it seems that keeping Musk is a condition of Tesla’s DOE loan. Per the S-1:

Our DOE Loan Facility provides that we will be in default under the facility in the event Mr. Musk and certain of his affiliates fail to own, at any time prior to one year after we complete the project relating to the Model S, at least 65% of the capital stock held by Mr. Musk and such affiliates as of the date of the DOE Loan Facility.

This is mainly troubling in the sense that the S-1 reveals Musk “does not devote his full time and attention” to Tesla, a wholly unsurprising disclosure in light of Musk’s other ventures like private space firm start-up Space X. Musk’s history of Nixonian tendencies doesn’t make a strong case for lashing him to the wheel either.

Meanwhile, Wired dug up another interesting bit: Daimler, which invested $50m into Tesla requires Musk to stay in charge until the Model S rolls out, or the end of 2012, whichever comes first (bets, anyone?). Moreover, Daimler’s investment fund Blackstar enjoys

a right of notice on any acquisition proposal we receive for which we determine to engage in further discussions with a potential acquiror or otherwise pursue. Blackstar then has a right, within a specified time period, to submit a competing acquisition proposal.

And yet, Gawker’s Valleywag suggests that Google could be moving to rescue Tesla through some convoluted financial manouvering. This would be the final nail in Tesla’s coffin, proving once and for all that it’s a Silicon Valley toy company (the alleged Google front is also investing in a zeppelin company) rather than the world-changing automaker Musk has thus far touted it as.

A Google-backed buyer is possible in the sense that Daimler is developing its own battery thermal management system and has other, bigger irons in the battery-supplier fire. Besides, Tesla’s deal was only to supply drivetrain components for an EV version of the dead-in-the-water Smart. In short, the only OEM to touch Tesla with a 50-foot pole has largely moved on. Meanwhile, BMW is showing Daimler how the EV-development game is played, getting overenthusiastic early-adopters to shell out $850 per month for the right to be guinea pigs for its MINI E development. Not only is this a smarter model than investing in start-ups like Tesla, it also soaks up the rather limited EV-at-any-price demand that might otherwise spend their money at Tesla.

All in all, the signs don’t look good.

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 9 comments
  • Ingvar Ingvar on Feb 05, 2010

    I don't buy this "the Roadster will be discontinued due to Lotus ending the platform" bogus. It's complete and utter bullshit. First, the Elise is Lotus most prolific model. The generation 1 was out in 1996, generation two in 2000. It's due for replacement, but considering that they happily part out platforms to any third party automaker that pays up the price, I'm sure they would've obliged to Teslas wishes and continued to make that particular generation of Elise just for Tesla. Second, if not, and the second gen Elise is due for discontinuation, wouldn't the Tesla deal simply transfer to the up comming third gen Elise? Lotus would shoot themselves in both feet if they didn't take the chance and continue the Tesla relationship, I guess they make quite a handful of money on selling that platform to a competitor that isn't even competing on the same demographic. It's a win-win for Lotus, as they say. The Tesla has been in production for two years, it took one and a half year to make the first 500 cars, they have just recently made their first thousand cars. It's ludicrous to the point of criminal negligence to have a car with such prolonged development phase, just to have it ended because the platform it's based on was supposed to be discontinued within the year. Surely, it can not be any news to Tesla that being the case? And equally logic, they would've taken that into account some way or another. Either plan for the Tesla to transfer to the third gen Elise, or persuade Lotus to continue with the production of the second generation. The point is, it's complete und utter bullshit that this problem comes up now as some sort of news, it's merely an excuse to junk the Roadster and play the blaming game. "It wasn't me!"

  • Doug Doug on Feb 06, 2010

    "...proving once and for all that [Tesla]’s a Silicon Valley toy company ... rather than the world-changing automaker Musk has thus far touted it as." I think it's fair to say that Tesla has already had a major influence on the automotive world. Nearly every major automaker has an EV in the works now. I don't think that would be the case if Tesla never existed.

  • 285exp I am quite sure that it is a complete coincidence that they have announced a $7k price increase the same week that the current administration has passed legislation extending the $7k tax credit that was set to expire. Yep, not at all related.
  • Syke Is it possible to switch the pure EV drive on and off? Given the wonderful throttle response of an EV, I could see the desirability of this for a serious off-roader. Run straight ICE to get to your off-roading site, switch over the EV drive during the off-road section, then back to ICE for the road trip back home.
  • ToolGuy Historical Perspective Moment:• First-gen Bronco debuted in MY1966• OJ Simpson Bronco chase was in 1994• 1966 to 1994 = 28 years• 1994 to now = 28 yearsFeel old yet?
  • Ronnie Schreiber From where is all that electricity needed to power an EV transportation system going to come? Ironically, the only EV evangelist that I know of who even mentions the fragile nature of our electrical grid is Elon Musk. None of the politicians pushing EVs go anywhere near it, well, unless they are advocating for unreliable renewables like wind and solar.
  • FreedMike I just don’t see the market here - I think about 1.2% of Jeep drivers are going to be sold on the fuel cost savings here. And the fuel cost savings are pretty minimal, per the EPA: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=1&year1=2022&year2=2022&make=Jeep&baseModel=Wrangler&srchtyp=ymm&pageno=1&rowLimit=50Annual fuel costs for this vehicle are $2200 and $2750 for the equivalent base turbo-four model. I don’t get it.
Next