Tesla and SolarCity Merger Gets Approval From Shareholders (cnbc.com) 36
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Shareholders for SolarCity and Tesla voted Thursday to approve merging the two companies. "Tesla's shareholders have overwhelmingly approved our acquisition of SolarCity," said a statement from Tesla sent to CNBC. "Excluding the votes of Elon and other affiliated shareholders, more than 85% of shares voted were cast in favor of the acquisition. With SolarCity's shareholders also having approved the acquisition, the transaction will be completed in the coming days." The deal has divided investor and analyst opinion. Some Tesla shareholders have filed lawsuits against the deal, and critics have called it a bailout for SolarCity. Chairman Elon Musk, who holds about 22 percent of SolarCity stock and 22 percent of Tesla's, has recused himself from both votes, as have other insiders such as director Antonio Gracias and J.B. Straubel. Gracias, the founder of Valor Equity Partners, sits on both companies' boards, and Straubel was part of Tesla's founding team and serves as its chief technical officer, according to company filings. The merger comes as the solar energy business is showing signs of a slowdown.
Let me be the first to say congrats. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The synergy makes sense. I like the roof idea.
I'm somewhat hopeful but there are lots of uncertainties and we don't yet know the price for those roof tiles or the complexity of getting them installed.
Will my roofer now need to be an electrician?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Crony Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If the subsidies were not a competitive advantage, Tesla would refuse them.
Other automakers can have the same kinds of subsidies if they sell the same kinds of cars. It's not a handout to Tesla, it's a handout to anyone who wants to sell EVs. It's not Tesla's fault that nobody else can make an EV as good as theirs, in spite of being multi-billion-dollar-revenue automakers which make literally millions of vehicles every year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mi doesn't bother with facts.
It's easier for him to spew his BS that way.
Re: (Score:2)
LIHEAP is NOT about the utilities, but about home owners who still have inefficient HVAC. That needs to be stopped and instead, pour the money into UPGRADING the home.
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome to the US, you must be new here. Unfortunately subsidies are the norm these days for larger businesses, this happens at both the local, state and national level. For example when a couple manufactures moved into a city near me a decade ago they basically got a pass on their property taxes as part of the agreement for quite a few years, then when the agreement ended they both threatened to scale back operations if they didn't get a partial extension. Fossil fuels get tens of billions of dollars in
Re: (Score:2)
What this allows is for Tesla to sell branded home solar energy systems. So buy the Tesla 1000 or pay extra for the Tesla X10000, depending on how much energy you need. You need a branded system so that you can incorporate that in the sales data when you want to sell the property so that it will add value to the property. So say a Tesla 2500M with so many hours of operation has a value of .... This to promotes sales ie add value to your property with a Tesla E5000 system with all of it shared branded model
Re: (Score:3)
I like the roof idea.
Me too. I buried my panels in the backyard for better aesthetics, but it didn't work out.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. "Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts."
There's zero reason to get your solar panels from your car-maker. It's just as easy to hire two different companies for those two very different jobs. There is no synergy here. Well, maybe a little bit of marketing (Solar City ads shown to Tesla customers), but that's it.
This looks like a complete bailout of one of Musk's failing business units, by another. The kind of thing Marti
Re: (Score:3)
The vast majority of the affected shareholders agreed and it was their decision to make. They can sell their
Re: (Score:2)
No, they do not. Batteries are an expensive and inefficient waste of money and energy, when you have a grid connection.
There are innumerable electricians out there, and they're all certified for such tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
Power companies shortly will no longer be required to purchase electricity from homeowners, so the grid is not a storage alternative. Additionally, batteries are a backup solution in the event the grid doesn't supply power.
>There are innumerable electricians out there, and they're all certified for such tasks.
Absolutely correct. That's why Solar City certifies, trains and hires l
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity from the grid always costs less than electricity from batteries, for residential users. If you have excess solar and can't sell it, your best bet is just throwing it away.
But besides that, only Nevada has allowed electric companies to stop buying residential solar electricity. It's unlikely the rest will.
Re: (Score:1)
Well duh (Score:3)
If we didn't believe Musk knew what he was doing, we'd simply sell.
A no vote would equate to a vote of no-confidence for stock which is largely driven by speculation. As of this exact moment, neither Tesla nor SolarCity are super-profitable or dominant in their industries. But we're hoping it gets big. Why would we tank stock we own?
The recommended action (which was right above the ballot) was to vote yes. Duh, it's their idea in the first place. And most people won't rock the boat.
And business-wise, it DOES kinda make sense. The two are related. Kinda. There's not a great reason why they couldn't be two different companies though.
The downside is that this might be an example of Musk having one of his companies eat and absorb the losses of one of his failures which he doesn't REALLY want to admit is a failure. I dunno, I'm too busy to really dig into it. I know I probably couldn't find anything meaningful if I did go digging. And I don't have all that much money in there.
Re: (Score:3)
A no vote would equate to a vote of no-confidence for stock which is largely driven by speculation. As of this exact moment, neither Tesla nor SolarCity are super-profitable or dominant in their industries. But we're hoping it gets big. Why would we tank stock we own?
As an employee I probably shouldn't say anything - but I'm willing to quote others:
https://cleantechnica.com/2015... [cleantechnica.com]
(as of 2015):
The market share of the leading US residential solar installers in this period are listed as follows:
SolarCity 34.1%
Vivint Solar 11.6%
Sunrun 2.6%
NRG Home Solar 2%
Sungevity 1.9%
Maybe triple the next largest installer isn't dominating?
Re: (Score:3)
It's certainly a strong market position, but says nothing about the profitability and sustainability of the company.
Re: Well duh (Score:2)
Next merger (Score:3)
Then in a bizarre twist, Tesla City merges with the relatively unknown Spatula Designs, to form Spatula City! [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
They'll then work to ensure women have the vote everywhere, to form Suffragette City [youtube.com]!!
Re: (Score:2)
Wham, bam, thank you. ma'am
Re: (Score:2)
If the powerwalls fail it'll be Dark City.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:shocked! (Score:4, Informative)
Mr. Musk didn't vote.
"cost synergies” (Score:2)