No, Tesla Is NOT the Largest US Automaker Ever (cleantechnica.com) 145
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a CleanTechnica report: Over the last couple of days, as Tesla continues on this monstrous run, the media seems to have been noting that Tesla is now more valuable than any U.S. automaker's market cap ever. (Tesla is currently almost exactly the market cap of Ford and GM combined, around $88 billion.) Even though I would now plant myself firmly in the "bull" camp, this is completely untrue, and I think it paints a problematic picture of Tesla. Let's get right to it -- Tesla is not the most valuable U.S. automaker ever because Tesla's market cap does not have just Tesla automobiles in it.
Currently, especially to outsiders, Tesla's automobiles are the most visible aspect of its business. The problem is Tesla's business is so much more diverse and will affect so many other major industries in the future that calling Tesla an automaker is akin to saying that Google is the most valuable phone company. Sure, Google makes phones, but taking just that aspect of its business into account while ignoring the rest and then claiming it's the most valuable phone company is a mistake at best, and deceitful at worst. I sort of get it. GM doesn't produce HDTVs and Ford doesn't have a wing that runs theme parks or something, so a lot of "analysts" think of Tesla in a similar, narrow-minded way and think Tesla should only be valued based on its automobile business. Tesla's valuation includes its energy (solar and battery) division, autonomy business, and Supercharger network, which is "currently the only capable, nationwide electric vehicle 'refueling' standard," the report says. After you deduct the valuations of those divisions, Tesla becomes "a $30 billion automaker," which makes it "currently the smallest U.S.-based automaker."
In conclusion, CleanTechnica's Frugal Moogal writes: "My point is simply this -- if you're out there parading around the fact that Tesla is the most valuable U.S. automaker ever, you're missing the bigger point. The market is starting to value the rest of Tesla's business, and what I think we're seeing is the beginning of the largest vertically integrated energy and transportation company."
Currently, especially to outsiders, Tesla's automobiles are the most visible aspect of its business. The problem is Tesla's business is so much more diverse and will affect so many other major industries in the future that calling Tesla an automaker is akin to saying that Google is the most valuable phone company. Sure, Google makes phones, but taking just that aspect of its business into account while ignoring the rest and then claiming it's the most valuable phone company is a mistake at best, and deceitful at worst. I sort of get it. GM doesn't produce HDTVs and Ford doesn't have a wing that runs theme parks or something, so a lot of "analysts" think of Tesla in a similar, narrow-minded way and think Tesla should only be valued based on its automobile business. Tesla's valuation includes its energy (solar and battery) division, autonomy business, and Supercharger network, which is "currently the only capable, nationwide electric vehicle 'refueling' standard," the report says. After you deduct the valuations of those divisions, Tesla becomes "a $30 billion automaker," which makes it "currently the smallest U.S.-based automaker."
In conclusion, CleanTechnica's Frugal Moogal writes: "My point is simply this -- if you're out there parading around the fact that Tesla is the most valuable U.S. automaker ever, you're missing the bigger point. The market is starting to value the rest of Tesla's business, and what I think we're seeing is the beginning of the largest vertically integrated energy and transportation company."
Whining about Tesla doesn't change facts (Score:5, Insightful)
What a whiny little f'r.
Tesla has the largest market capitalization. End of story. Making excuses for why this "doesn't count" cause you don't like thim is literally whining.
E
Re: (Score:2)
That's like giving GMail all of Alphabet/GOOG's market cap credit. GM and Ford are nearly pure plays on cars, but Tesla has other lines of work.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at revenue streams not just a few minor tack on items. I am not sure what their solar is worth but I would guess near nothing, also the grid storage is great but I doubt that there is much revenue in it. Stock prices go up based on various things, the fact that Tesla is high is mostly because it can suck in investors who are not interested in most stocks. I think if you were to look at the company v's revenue and assets v's debt you would b
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that Tesla is high is mostly because it can suck in investors who are not interested in most stocks.
The stock price is not affected by investors but by people who already have stocks and trade them at the stock exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
The stock price is not affected by investors but by people who already have stocks and trade them at the stock exchange.
So, investors don't own stocks, and don't trade them on exchanges? I'm not sure I understand your statement.
Re: (Score:3)
...And what's wrong with that?
If I have any reason to talk about an email vendor's size, it's probably because I'm talking about what they can afford to do. In Google's case, they have the market dominance and cashflow to drive new email standards, and GMail holds enough of their customer base that I can safely bet on GMail service being around for a while. That's in comparison to, say, ProtonMail, which holds a tiny market share, and could evaporate if their funding ever runs up short.
Tesla's doesn't hold
Re:Whining about Tesla doesn't change facts (Score:4, Insightful)
These neck beards and their hate for Tesla seem contradictory. You'd think your average Linux nerd would be happy to drive a 100% electric car but instead its constant bitching and complaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whining about Tesla doesn't change facts (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It means if you were going to own a business, Tesla is considered the better bet than Ford.
No- that isn't what it means. Not even a little bit. That's simply not how publicly stocks work.
In a perfect world, sure, valuation would work that way. But the primary driver of their stock is more likely to be the potential to capitalize off of other people who want to buy into that stock, meaning it's largely a hype machine.
Stocks work that way. I'm not taking a dig at Tesla, just pointing out the reality of the system.
Your argument could be used to say that BitCoin is a better bet than US treasuries
Re: Whining about Tesla doesn't change facts (Score:3)
1. Stock sales are a part of future performance. A company with good IP but no operations can still drive a high stock price. The valuation of the underlying company would still be high
2. All the US treasury dollars are worth more than all the bitcoins. Just like stock price without taking into account outstanding shares is meaningless. The "capitalization" of the US treasury is higher than that of bitcoins.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Stock sales are a part of future performance. A company with good IP but no operations can still drive a high stock price.
Agreed. Which is precisely why it doesn't mean "if you want to own a business, stock price means Tesla is a better bet than Ford."
The valuation of the underlying company would still be high
One influencer of a billion. At the end of the day, second hand speculation sets the price of those stocks.
2. All the US treasury dollars are worth more than all the bitcoins. Just like stock price without taking into account outstanding shares is meaningless. The "capitalization" of the US treasury is higher than that of bitcoins.
OK, that's fair.
But the point remains- immediate valuation of a company is not a bellweather for whether it's a good bet to own it. It means it's a popular bet.
If a pharmaceutical company announced they had a pill that cured all forms of cancer that had passed FDA testing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dividends come when a company has matured, and reached the limits of its growth. It's not about dividends, it's about ROI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How long has he been chairman?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whining about Tesla doesn't change facts (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. It has the highest stock price. [...] shortest history [...]
Fun fact: Tesla is the second oldest US automaker, after Ford.
Both GM and Chrysler went bankrupt, and the current entities bearing
those names were created as completely separate companies in 2009.
Re: (Score:2)
Pointless technicality. The experience and people and equipment didn't disappear with those bankruptcies. If you bought a GM or Chrysler before them, your warranty was still covered by them afterward. Etc., etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The famous Tesla short Mark Spiegel argued [twitter.com]"For Tesla to meet its 2019 guidance it would have to grow faster than Microsoft did in the 1990s" and justified him being short on Tesla. And Tesla did meet its guidance, grew faster than Microsoft did in the 1990s. That probably explains the very high valuations.
The thread has the screen shots of Mark's tweets and more background info. https://twit [twitter.com]
Um no (Score:2, Informative)
Tesla stock is sky high because it is being pumped before the 4th quarter and end of year numbers come out. They will again lose about a billion of dollars in profit on declining revenue.
Re:Um no (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do I get the feeling that you won't do any of this? So odd for a person to turn down guaranteed money like that. Unless— No, surely someone wouldn't post pure bullshit speculation on the internet and try to pass it off as having a clue!
Re: (Score:2)
Look who's talking.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False [vox.com] Amazon was consistently making profits just 5 years in; They didn't lose money for that long, and the amounts they usually lost were a few tens of millions per quarter, not hundreds of millions - or billions.
Additionally, Amazon's P/E ratio is still an insane 80 - but that's 16% of TSLA.
Lastly, Amazon's quarterly revenue is 2-3 times Tesla's current ANNUAL revenue; and Ford and GM's revenues are nearly 10 times that of Tesla.
There is simply zero justification for a P/E of 500 for Tesla, other than s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THIS is the sensible position to take for TSLA, for anybody who didn't get in on the IPO.
Though - if the market cap is so high, why not just buy out GM, sell off GMC to keep the stupid trucks, and sell the Bolt with TSLA batteries as a Model 2 1/2?
Re: (Score:2)
if the market cap is so high, why not just buy out GM
Market Cap has nothing to do with how much money the company actually has. Tesla has NOWHERE near enough money to 'buy out' GM.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fuck. Q1 was a $700m loss, and you're saying they'll lose $1B on Q4?
They just posted record deliveries and the average sale price is up. Gross margins are almost certainly up as well. How, exactly, did you come upon that $1B number?
Saying the stock's in a bubble is one thing, but saying actual Q4 results will be worse than Q1?
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla bears no relationship to a Ponzi scheme. It's a startup company that is beginning the transition to sustainable operation, so much of its stock value is still based on hype rather than production. That's changing, and at some point hype will become less important than actual profits. That point hasn't yet been reached, but sustainable profits are in sight unless Tesla does something really strange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really want to know why only the stock is talked about here. It doesn't happen with any other company.
It's honestly a little scary (Score:4, Interesting)
It's honestly a little scary how vertically integrated Tesla is. They now have a vast super charging network, and are now selling thousands of cars that are engineered to use this network. (Yes you can use other charging stations or just plug in at 120v, but they are much slower to charge)
They make the solar panels, and batteries too. This would be akin to Exxon selling cars that are engineered for Exxon gas, and now Tesla is starting to make semi trucks.
Each super charging station is essentially a money printing machine for Tesla. It's still a good time to buy Tesla.
Full disclosure.... I am very long on Tesla stock
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They open-sourced the plans as part of the first phase. You want to make your own? Do it. You want to make a compatible one or adapter? Nothing is stopping you. The the barrier to entry into the market is "the company has to do work", its hard to make a case for monopoly.
Tesla saw the anti-trust lawsuit a mile away.
Re:It's honestly a little scary (Score:4, Informative)
superchargers are NOT profit center, they are cost centers.
elon did this to make buying/owning the car easier and less stressful. he is on record saying it is not planned to be a profit center.
Re: (Score:2)
They are still margin earners.
All you do is to charge slightly more than what the electricity costs, and scale will do the rest of the job, assuming they live to their life expectancy.
That said,
True. Model S and X owners get free supercharging. Why? It is built into the cost of the vehicles and most owners will charge at home daily.
Tesla is a fish dead out of water without the Superchargers. Without them you have no realistic way of leaving your home or city, without a lot of planning on how to recharge to drive more than 2-3 hours in each direction.
Maybe visit a relative and leech power over night so you can drive back home?
For cars its exactly the same: If you want to go somewhere, you need to refuel on petrol or diesel somehow. And? Driving across entire continents became possible due gasoline distribution networks, which has been around for so long now we have no clue when it became common.
I would say that the PERCEPTION is Tesla is dead without the Superchargers so they are there to alleviate market/buyer fears. The reality is that most people driving gas cars don't go to refuel every day or multiple times per day. Most people refuel there gas powered cars once every 3-5 days (or longer) because their range is 300ish-400ish miles. Tesla cars have enou
Re: (Score:2)
>So how often does the typical driver need to drive "2-3 hours in each direction
Anytime you leave your city or work area. Weekend drives to the cabin.
Shopping trips for furniture with a trailer.
Visiting relatives, when you don't trust public transportation to deliver.
The key issue has already been demonstrated for decades: The questionable BEV designs where the BEV is a upscaled moped car has and won't catch on, because it has no commute range. Add on no storage space and no passengers, and its suddenly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No excuse for not supporting CCS charging. European Teslas do because they legally have to.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's where people seem to trip up about electric vehicles. Unless you are going on a road trip, you pretty much don't need fast chargers.
Think about it - let's say you're at work, and your car will be there for the next 9 hours. It doesn't matter if your car charges up in 1 hour, 3 hours, or 8 hours - as long as it's charged by the time you leave, that's all you really care.
Same like charging at home -
Re: (Score:2)
You can charge at home with a 60amp 240v circuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This would be akin to Exxon selling cars that are engineered for Exxon gas,
It would be akin to Exxon selling cars that are engineered for Exxon gas stations.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the electricity used/generated by Tesla is somehow proprietary, you're full of shit. You don't even know you can install a 60amp 240v socket in your home and get faster charges.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not everywhere. Prime example is the Netherlands, where there are 40000 charging stations (note that that's about 1 station per square kilometer). 1200 of those are fast chargers and just 29 are owned by Tesla.
Only Tesla Auto is being priced by the market. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it has an energy business, but it is still very small. And the Solar City acquisition is mired in controversy, lawsuits and it is not clear it is adding anything to the valuation. But Elon once said the energy business could be bigger than auto. But right now I am not sure it is being priced into the valuation by the market.
The supercharger network is a loss leader. 90% of the electric miles will come from homes/hotels etc. And electric miles are four times cheaper than gas miles. So total revenue even when BEV market share reaches 100% is going to be 40 times smaller than the revenue of gas stations. So charging network is also not adding much to the valuation.
Yes, it has a battery technology. But the Maxwell Technology acquisition has minuscule revenue and I am not sure they are valuing it by much.
As far as the market is concerned it is only valuing the auto business. So in some sense it Tesla is the American auto maker with the highest valuation ever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The shorted shares fell from 44 million on Jun 19 down to 25 million, and then slowly it is inching up to 27 million. Till last week all the run up was due to longs buying the stock, not because of shorts covering. He has not reported anything this week, so dont know if this week's rally is due to short covering.
Every one is focusing on 27 million shares shorted. But Tesla has 5 billion in convertible bonds d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here's how things work. Name a Sport franchise's owner in the US. Chances are, you'll pick Jerral Jones or Robert Kraft or somebody Steinbrenner... three of the 7 most valuable US sporting teams, per Forbes [wikipedia.org] magazine.
Now, name the CEO of a major automobile manufacturer. Ford's is who? ... without a Google. Yup, it's all about recognition, especially when you're raising capital from the bankers. Sure, the Cowboys are dismal in every other category, but your value is what people think it is, and Elon's dancing [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But, at the end of the day, collectively people bought Tesla shares for 492$, that works out to a market cap of 86 billion dollars. That is the single cold hard fact. Is it justified, is it irrational, is it personality driven, short squeeze driven, ... are all just speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Markets can be irrational. Market can misjudge the value of a company. It is true for both Tesla and Ford. You can argue the market irrationality is benefiting Tesla more than it did to Ford etc.
But, at the end of the day, collectively people bought Tesla shares for 492$, that works out to a market cap of 86 billion dollars. That is the single cold hard fact. Is it justified, is it irrational, is it personality driven, short squeeze driven, ... are all just speculation.
Well then, it's a good thing speculation has never featured largely in the markets... oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't name a single sport franchise. How does this matter?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you value their autonomy tech?
If what Elon claims is true it's worth trillions. It's not true though, and it might be a massive liability when it fails to meet the promises made.
At this point all Tesla valuations are wild guesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's market cap is bigger than Ford's market cap ever was. So it is bigger than the biggest American auto company ever was.
No, it is not [marketwatch.com]. Ford's peak was at $124 billion in today's dollars. Tesla still has a way to go.
TFA missed that the same is true of, e.g. Ford (Score:5, Informative)
Currently, especially to outsiders, Tesla's automobiles are the most visible aspect of its business. The problem is Tesla's business is so much more diverse ...
But the same is true of the others. For instance: Ford.
Ford, both under Henry and his successors, got into a lot of other stuff. Aircraft (such as the Ford Trimotor), airport instrumentation (radio direction finding), satellites, etc.
Ford bought Philco and merged it into their aerospace division. That division alone built these products or parts of them:
AGM-88 HARM (subcontractor)
AIM-9 Sidewinder
AN/AAS-38 (F/A-18 FLIR)
Have Dash
LGM-118 Peacekeeper (subcontractor)
LGM-30 Minuteman (subcontractor)
MGM-51 Shillelagh
MIM-72 Chaparral
Pave Knife
Pave Tack
UGM-73 Poseidon (subcontractor)
Trident (missile) (subcontractor)
along with Apollo Mission Control.
Philco invented the high-speed surface-barrier transistor, the first transistor fast enough to replace vacuum tubes in computers, and also used it to produce the first all-transistor auto radio.
All of The Big Three were major players in the Apollo lunar program, building rockets, components of the lander, etc.
Then there were - and still are - military: Chrysler built both the Jeeps and, for decades, tanks. GM's Saginaw Steering Gear built a lot of M1 rifles for WW II (along with Rockola and IBM, all of which had industrial-scale machinery for drilling holes down steel rods). Artillery pieces, too.
Ford built steel mills, power generation dams and equipment, electric railroads (not just the equipment, but the actual lines), ... Some of this was related to supporting the auto construction - but not totally.
I could go on. What Musk is doing at Tesla is quite in line with what other US automakers have done.
This stuff was largely done in divisions, not subsidiaries. (It's much easier to share facilities that are useful across diverse product lines if they're all under the same financial structure.) So including the not-so-automotive products in the market cap of Tesla is not just fair, but necessary, if you want an apples-to-apples comparison against the historic US automakers.
General Motors was more diverse than Telsa (Score:2)
BMW+Benz joint venture buys Tesla vehicles! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's special about Tesla vehicles? They're well-integrated EVs that have long enough (200-275 miles) range to do a day's work in taxi service (isn't that what ride-hailing is, really?). The BMW 330e would also be a nice EV taxi, but only has about 100 miles range - so you would need 2 of them to cover a day's shift even if limited to the middle of downtown. That alone makes the Tesla a better deal. Mercedes, for now, has no EVs and no plans to sell one; just mild hybrids. So if the new app wants to use EV
Re: (Score:2)
Mercedes makes the EQC, a 220 mile range electric SUV. The EQV (shuttle van) is up next in their pipeline for all electrics (2021 MY). Or did you mean passenger cars only?
BMW has nothing with the range right now, but the iX3 is supposed to have 200+ miles range. Also an SUV though.
Sam
Re: (Score:2)
This is a rushed product by Mercedes, they just took GLC, threw away the ICE power train and added a battery and two motors. But the structural rigidity provided by the engine and the transmission was gone. So they added internal braces roughly simulating the engine/tranny to bring it back. Then the weight balance was off. The suspension was not designed for 50-50 weight balance of EV. So they added another 15
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is nitpicking (Score:2)
Market Cap is highly volatile and not really the size of the company.
But Tesla has a bigger Market Cap over other auto makers. Saying that they are not all cars is nitpicking. As many of their services pointed out are meant to support their car market. Solar cells to charge the car. Automation for better production.
Yes, it is. (Score:2)
Teslas primary business. Automobiles.
First GM does more than make automobiles, they also make and sell engines, parts, electric car batteries, etc. Now, lets look at these other things tesla does that TFS mentioned.
Tesla's valuation includes its
energy (solar and - horizontal integration)
battery) division, (vertical integration, they built it provide batteries for their cars)
autonomy business, and (vertical integration)
Supercharger network (vertical integration)
All of Tesla's business sectors revolve around
Stupid (Score:2)
"After you deduct the valuations of those divisions, Tesla becomes "a $30 billion automaker," which makes it "currently the smallest U.S.-based automaker." "
Did you count the many bankruptcies and bailout the other companies had?
People who bought their shares at 23$ sure don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Going from $80B+ to $30B by removing things that don't contribute much value at all is so asinine it's obviously a troll.
Another dumb claim (Score:2)
"calling Tesla an automaker is akin to saying that Google is the most valuable phone company"
So, we are supposed to discount the market cap of the non-automotive parts of Tesla, but completely ignore the fact that GM and Ford are conglomerates as well?
"currently the smallest U.S.-based automaker"
Fisker?
Rally due to longs not short squeeze! (Score:2)
Ihor Dusaniwsky
$TSLA short int is $13.69bn ; 27.82mm shs shorted; 20.79% of float; 0.30% borrow fee. Shs shorted up +464k shs, +1.7%, over last 30 days as price rose +45% & up +132k shs,+0.5%, last week. Shorts down -$2.02bn in January mark-to-market losses after being down -$632mm yesterday.
This 2 billion loss comes on top of 7.62 billion loss between 1/1/16 and 12/31/19. Word on the street is, Chinese investors are buying the stock following glowing reports of Shanghai factory and the cars being delivered. It is not a short squeeze. Yet.
Most well run funds would have hedge trades already in the books to limit their down side risk. It is possible they have bought calls and convertible bonds to hedge and close their
Monopolies (Score:2)
HA!
John D. Rockefeller would like a word.
Re:Retarded (Score:5, Interesting)
Ford Motor Company also whole owns Ford Financial Services. Is Ford therefore a bank and not an automotive manufacturer? Surely the value of the bank is factored into the market cap of Ford. Also, the solar and power pack business is NOT worth $50b. Sorry. This article is just Tesla hating. By market cap, they are the largest automobile manufacturer in the United States. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hardly Tesla Hating. It *is* pushing a narrow view of what constitutes an automaker. Perhaps more nuance is needed.
Ford and GM both have financing divisions - does that make them banks? Yes and no; the financing divisions may be set up as banks, but they support the car sales rather than providing general banking services. Initially, the Tesla battery operations supported the auto production, so they're a valid part of that part of the business; the fact that they've branched out into stationary batter
Re: (Score:2)
though they do seem (finally) to be at least breaking even on a regular basis.
No, they are not. Every single time they post a quarterly profit, all that profit and more is wiped out in the ensuing quarters. They are not 'breaking even' by any standard.
Re:Retarded (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point exactly. Where are my mod points? Oh. It's already at 5.
SUVs and vans are an artifact of regulation. (Score:3, Interesting)
Much of the "death of the American car" is an unintended side-effect of regulation - particularly the draconian Corporate Average Fleet Economy (CAFE) standards, intended to reduce pollution, fuel use, and CO2 by forcing the auto companies to build only little "fuel-sipping" cars.
These regulations killed the station wagon and other large-enough vehicles. So large families with lots of kids to move and groceries to haul had to move up to SUVs or vans (which were both "light trucks" and in a separate categor
Re: (Score:3)
The easiest way, initially, to improve fuel economy was to shrink. US cars in the '60s and '70s had plenty of room to shrink before starting to feel cramped. As usual, things went too far, and changes (like front wheel drive) were adopted as fads long before cars were engineered to use it right and effectively. Plus, of course, US cars were always designed to be a cheap to build as possible (cheap to operate depended on availability of cheap gas, not the car company's problem until people stopped buying GM
Re: (Score:2)
These regulations killed the station wagon and other large-enough vehicles.
I doubt that is what killed these vehicles. You can get just about ANY sized car that you desire before you hit the SUV/Light truck segment. The CAFE standards are failure for the simple fact that no consumer has ever made a purchasing decision because of the CAFE standards because it was essentially invisible to us. Only the auto makers had to deal with them behind the scenes.
Re: It was GM. (Score:2)
We never made a 2-liter RWD anything.
I've only owned three American cars, two of which were RWD. One had 1.6liters' displacement, the other 2.4liters. Both were 80's cars - with standard transmissions, no less.
You were saying?
Re: (Score:2)
I've owned only one American car, but several were built in the US in whole or in part.
Opel (sold by Buick) - German
Capri (sold by Mercury) - German with Pinto crate engine
AMC Hornet - US, duh
VW Rabbit Diesel - US-built with parts from all over (the German parts were the ones that broke, repeatedly)
Toyota Corolla 5-door - Japanese (only had it for 6 months before it was totaled)
Chevy Nova - Toyota Corolla built in Fremont (now the Tesla factory)
Toyota Corolla FX16 - also built in Fremont
Honda Accord, Toyota
Re: (Score:2)
Lol was it a Chevette? Must have mode a whole 40 horsepower!
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the 80s someone had cut up a chevette and dropped in a 283 (usually if you where going to do something like that it would be the vega) I have no idea what they welded under that car to hold the engine up but it was hilarious and a little terrifying. They only drove it a few times (drag racing) I'm not sure if they sold it or if what ever they rigged up for a suspension gave out.
Re: It was GM. (Score:2)
Lol was it a Chevette?
There are two answers to that question; no and yes. It was a Pontiac T1000 and it made the Chevette look reliable. Had better handling, though. :D
Re: It was GM. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RWD is entirely impractical in the majority of US states my FWD on the other hand can handle snow and ice better than many of the 4WD SUVs and the clearance is only a couple inches lower. (it doesn't hurt that I have plenty of practice driving in winter conditions)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see that happening any time soon.
Not wholly true (Score:2)
At this point Tesla credits are pretty low, yet they sell quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, Google makes phones, but taking just that aspect of its business into account while ignoring the rest and then claiming it's the most valuable phone company is a mistake at best,
This is a silly red herring.
Google doesn't really make phones (barring a very few limited exceptions that are not really worth mentioning).
GM doesn't produce HDTVs...
Another contrived example. For instance, I don't see Tesla issuing home mortgages or providing mutual funds. So compared to Tesla or to other banks, GM must be hugely undervalued I guess. The same for Ford, I don't see Tesla doing full-service real estate. I guess that means Ford is hugely undervalued as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not so much revenue. But according to TFS, it contributes a lot to the value of Tesla.
Maybe investors see more potential value in things like its power solutions than in their cars.