It's fun to bet against Elon Musk and Tesla – that's the best reason we can find for so many people doing it even though the man, his company and his cars are still here and still very popular. The latest name inscribed in the column labeled "Skeptical of Tesla" is John Shinal at Market Watch who, in year-end commentary on Tesla's financials, says that the "carmaker's financials are reminiscent of a dot-com's." He does not mean that in the good way.

To be fair, Shinal isn't exactly betting against Tesla, he's saying that if you check the bottom lines, the only thing keeping Tesla alive is the hundreds of millions in Federal Department of Energy loans it has received. Based on its filings, he says the company has less than six months of cash on hand, hasn't produced as many cars as it promised and had to lower its revenue forecast for 2012, has had a "year of net losses and negative operating cash flow," and was underwater by at least $37 million at the end of the third quarter.

But Shinal's not done there, summarizing Tesla as an operation with "a poor habit of failing to deliver to customers the cars it has promised them, while simultaneously raising the prices of those yet-undelivered cars," and "a lousy level of customer service." He says there are more damning things to be found in Tesla's SEC registration settlement from September, but we'll have to wait for his next column to find out what those are. The takeaway, in Shinal's opinion, is that even though Tesla will keep getting money from the government, that investors have no business dealing in Tesla stock.

Early in his piece, Shinal says Tesla's financials are worse than those of Zynga and Groupon, two hot dot-coms that have fallen on their faces since their IPOs. Shinal knows far more about finances than we do, but we wonder if it makes the most sense to compare a brand new car company developing brand new technologies – with the colossal amounts of up-front cash each one of those things requires, and a company with Tesla's record so far – to a social media game developer and an online coupon distributor. Head over to Market Watch to read the full piece.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 244 Comments
      Edward Ellsworth
      • 1 Year Ago
      Well, there's a significant difference between Tesla and dotcoms, especially ones like Zynga and Groupon. Websites do not produce any physical product, and Zynga and Groupon don't even provide an essential service. They're fluff, frou-frou. Meanwhile, Tesla produces a groundbreaking, class-leading product that people want and need. Sure - they're new, they're young, there are bound to be growing pains as they try to scale up. But they've got the product, and that's huge.
        chechnya
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Edward Ellsworth
        Groundbreaking, class-leading product.. only for those who can afford it. Is it fair to keep giving loans to a car manufacturer that builds cars for rich people? The American taxpayer is subsidizing these cars for those who can already afford them. Sickening.
          Grendal
          • 1 Year Ago
          @chechnya
          You haven't done your research. You haven't even read through the comments which answer your points clearly. "only for those who can afford it" Like those people that can afford a Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Lexus, Infiniti, or a nicely loaded truck? There are lots and lots of cars on the road for $60K to $80K. Less expensive cars will be available in 3 to 4 years, hopefully. These cars are not exclusive to "rich" people. "The American taxpayer is subsidizing these cars for those who can already afford them." The government gave Tesla a loan, there was no subsidy involved. Tesla has already begun paying it back. Are you making similar comments on every article about Ford? They received twelve times ($12 billion)as much money from the same DOE loan program. The loan program (ATVM) was created by George Bush to promote American automobile technology and interests. It seems to have been a smashing success in the case of Tesla.
      kEiThZ
      • 1 Year Ago
      The report looks to be using very dated data. There's been significant developments since 30 September 2012. In any event, investing in a company like Tesla would be like investing in Apple in the late 90s. Remember when Michael Dell suggested that Steve Jobs should shutter Apple and pay off the shareholders? Where is Apple today? And where is Dell today? Sometimes, past performance is not an indicator of future performance. This is particularly true for startups. I'm betting on Tesla. Not just because of the cars. But because of their patent portfolio and their drive to be disruptive with their business model. Musk isn't just going to sell an electric car. He's going to turn the entire personal transport sector on its head. No more gas stations. No more lube shops. No more haggling car dealers. This is exactly like betting on Apple just as they launched the first iPhone. Lots of potential that the balance sheet would never show. Would anyone ever think AAPL stock would hit $700+? There are plenty of reasons, not to invest in Tesla, of course. And to those who believe those reasons, please feel free to short the stock. Last point for those against government investment. The entire internet sector came about exactly because of the kind of investments made in Tesla. If some are ideologically opposed to these kinds of investments, so be it. There are many other countries that would be more than happy to take the jobs. Just see what the Chinese did with solar panels. And Tesla has wisely already started diversifying with their European production line. They are likely to have a bigger market in Europe too where gas prices are higher and driving ranges shorter. Over time, they may be better of leaving the USA.
        EVnerdGene
        • 1 Year Ago
        @kEiThZ
        I was a Tesla cheerleader until they got their AVTM loan. I think they should have and could have gotten where they are today without it; and saved themselves a lot of political backlash. I also think they're dreaming when they talk of a BMW 3-type luxury sedan for $30k. Tough to do when you've got a $20k storage tank underneath the thing. (ok guys tell me how the battery pack is going to be so cheap we won't even put a cost on it) Then, I wanted to puke when Tesla announced their next vehicle would be a FUV. Dan and I feel FUVs are the antithesis of efficiency. Another thing mentioned only once in all of these comments is competition. Sure there is none - for now. When the b-model starts to look promising . . .
          kEiThZ
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          Also, what's with the hate on SUVs? I get that our North American culture prefers upsized things, from cars to bums. But why the particular hate on SUVs, when carmakers seem to steer customers that way, for their profits.
          kEiThZ
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          Forget the i3. Go look at how much the BMW 3 Series hybrid costs. Same ballpark as Tesla S40. Which would you rather drive? And yes, I still think you're being pessimistic. Unless, you're actually willing to discredit Musk's statements on where he think battery prices are going forward, with evidence. Like I said, I don't think they'll build the car unless the costs are right. I don't get, why this is such a debatable point. Then again, maybe it's my nature. Us, aerospace engineers, tend to be made of more optimistic stuff.
          EVnerdGene
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          "I don't think they'll build the car unless the costs are right" Maybe Elon was overly optimisitic thinking that costs will come down faster than reality. $57K Model S ($50k after deficit funded subidy), now selling for $80k ? Like I was saying; takes a while to really get a handle on costs. Latest Automotive Engineering magazine article about how in the world we're gonna meet 56.5 MPG mandates. High on list was weight reduction and aero drag - from down-sizing. FUVs are a moronic waste of resources and energy. If we all drove 30+mpg "cars" we wouldn't need to import any oil at all, less pollution and dastardly CO2. We automotive engineers have to make a profit. err, unless heavily unionized (then the gov'ment will subsidize us).
          EVnerdGene
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          $30k Leaf econobox is a lot different than a Bimmer3 with twice the battery pack --- and we're not certain Nissan makes a profit on the Leaf. I don't expect battery prices to come down so much in the next 3 years. Pack assembly costs are probably higher than the 18650 commodity cells used in the packs. Yes, unfortunately FUV version will be popular. National obsession with FU and everyone else. Margin? Just because Elon says they have a 25% margin means little. Takes quite a bit of time to figure out what kind of margin you really have. When the b-model looks good; Toyota, VW, , , , could have equal or better technology - already working on it for when the time is ripe. Settlers make the money, pioneers get the arrows in the back. Sorry, just can't convince me there's a profitable <$50k (>120 mile reliable range) luxury sedan in this decade.
          EVnerdGene
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          "worthwhile enough for Toyota and Daimler to invest and sign deals" Toyota bought ~1800 drives and battery packs, Daimler bought 1000 drives and battery packs (at $20k per pop - yikes). Yes, it was cheaper to hire Tesla than the set-up to do it themselves for such a small production run. IP ? Connecting 6831 little batteries together is not brain surgery (I would'a said rocket science - butt). This is a costly, labor intensive, and statistically risky way to build a battery pack. I'm really doubting there is any future cost reduction for these cells; maybe slight for the pack. Cells are a mature product way beyond learning curves. If anything, I predict a price increase especially since Panasonic is hemorrhaging. Yes, since they couldn't build a little sports car at a reasonable price, the upscale S and X-FUV was a great marketing direction. I personally would pop for a Roadster at $50k, personally have no use for S or X, but that's just me. $50k roadster just can't be done or they'd do it? Even more costly to build is a Bimmer3-EV @ $50k - maybe. $30k? $40k? We've come full circle - battery costs (a very expensive fuel tank). what you call a pessimist, I call a pragmatist (typical engineer), that works in the industry; and a little jealous. I work for a company that is very conservative about bottom lines and risks.
          Grendal
          • 1 Year Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          As I've said on the Tesla forum, I don't think the $30K base model will have any bells and whistles. It will be a stripped down version that they will sell for six months to year just so they can keep their $30K promise. I expect, like the Model S, that most cars sold will be $40K+.
      gop.hates.america
      • 2 Years Ago
      Nooooooooo!!!!!!! Stop wasting our tax dollars by giving loans to an American car company, that makes the world's most innovative car, right here in America. Instead, we should give twenty times more money as tax breaks to Big Oil. That's the "patriotic" thing to do.
        AngeloD
        • 2 Years Ago
        @gop.hates.america
        Two wrongs don't make a right. Neither big oil, nor Tesla should be given taxpayer money to accomplish something the private sector should be taking care of. If there is a market for electric vehicles, the private market will fill it, just as the private market will find a price for oil independently of government control. Central planning DOES NOT WORK, EVER!. It didn't work in the old Soviet Union, nor is it working well in Obama's socialist America.
          Dave D
          • 2 Years Ago
          @AngeloD
          They are LOANS. You know, those things the company will pay back. Big Oil will not pay back the subsidies they get. There is a big difference. Yes, there is a risk that Tesla will not be able to pay the loans back, but the chance they could succeed and help us build a new industry that gets us off foreign oil one day...that's called a strategic investment.
          raktmn
          • 2 Years Ago
          @AngeloD
          AngeloD -- Why do you want to unilaterally disarm just US businesses in a global economic battlefield where all the large economic powerhouse nations are providing loans and grants to give their companies an advantage in the global market? It may make great sense to not have any gov't anywhere in the world involved in lending any money to any businesses. But unless you can also convince Japan and China and Europe to stop doing it at the same time, executing your political dogma just in the US will greatly damage the ability of US companies to compete in the global market. Soviet Communism was the last great experiment in ending pragmatic economic policies based upon reality, and replacing them with purely dogmatic political beliefs executed with blind religious zealotry. Ending our current pragmatic reality-based economic policies and replacing them with blind dogmatic religious belief in pure Laissez Faire Capitalism would be no more successful than Soviet Communism was. Pragmatic Capitalism that includes the gov't backing US Industry is the only way to stay competitive in the current global economic battle field. Confusing Pragmatic Capitalism with "Central Planning" is the kind of logical blunder that only zealots make. This is no time to unilaterally disarm the United States.
          fly by wireless
          • 2 Years Ago
          @AngeloD
          What are the 2 countries kicking America's A$$ in industry? Germany and Japan. Guess who's backing their industries with government assistance: Germany and Japan. They have the sense to know they're investing in their future and their egos are small enough and their greed is under enough control to know such investments of "their tax money" will reap fruit for them, even when the effort doesn't immediately do so. I'd much rather have Solyndras, Teslas, etc. have *loans* than to be burning trillions on all sorts of war doo-dads that often aren't needed, are extravagantly overpriced, and only serve to make fat cats fatter.
        pmpjunkie01
        • 2 Years Ago
        @gop.hates.america
        Shh, the crowd here doesn't get it without the sarcasm tag spelled out in full.
        MONTEGOD7SS
        • 2 Years Ago
        @gop.hates.america
        As long as they pay the loans back I have no problems with it. We can't afford to any more of Obama's solar flops though.
          Grendal
          • 2 Years Ago
          @MONTEGOD7SS
          They are paying their loan back. Payback started this month. The solar flops happened because the government allowed Chinese subsidized solar panels to undercut American prices.
        fly by wireless
        • 2 Years Ago
        @gop.hates.america
        Some people lack the brains and integrity to consider that the *loans* to Tesla and similar are often less then the price of a *single* fighter aircraft. But hey, Americans have degraded into a society where it's OK to make up one's own "facts."
          ElectricAvenue
          • 2 Years Ago
          @fly by wireless
          I like the comparison, though I think you're a bit off if you say "a *single* fighter aircraft". I don't think that there are any fighter planes that work out to more than $465 million per copy. The B-2 bomber is a better example - its unit cost worked out to over $1 billion taking inflation into account (so sayeth Wikipedia, anyway). Along similar lines: the United States Air Force "spends almost $10 billion every year to fuel its airplanes and power its bases". http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/July%202012/0712fuel.aspx $10 billion per year? Ok. $0.5 billion loan? OBAMASOCIALISMISRUININGTHISCOUNTRY!!!
      eye.surgeon
      • 2 Years Ago
      Tesla: showing that success in the new America has more to do with skillful lobbying for government funding than producing an economically viable product.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @eye.surgeon
        I don't believe they are the first to show that! Look at the companies selling mobile devices now, the battlefield is in the court room with all sorts of bizarre patent disputes, not in the market place. Look at the oil and natural gas industry, who have been twisting the federal government's arm to send our young men off to war, allow for riskier drilling, and get tax advantages.. this has been going on since the 1970's or even sooner.. Crony capitalism is alive and well, and if you think Tesla is the first to do it, you haven't been paying attention to what's going on in this country at all.
          Electron
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          @ 2WM: why associate Tesla's EPA loan with crony capitalism? AFAIK doesn't have an army of lobbyists in place in Washington like the financial industry, the oil industry and even the NADA as Tesla found out the hard way. Money was appropriated and Tesla qualified for a small part of it (most went to Ford, GM and Nissan) because the numbers seemed to work for what Tesla intended to do and despite Mr. John Shina's little exercise in lies and number manipulation in the Wallstreet journal there are still no indications of the contrary.
          2 wheeled menace
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Electron: it's still crony capitalism even if a small wing of government is doing all the lobbying and handing out the cash for you. I like Tesla but i also like the days when our govt wasn't involved picking the winners and losers in business. We were more prosperous then. Unfortunately these days it picks mostly losers. All the other DOE backed companies have been losers so far, and i wouldn't call Tesla a loser yet, but given that they've blown through tens - hundreds of millions a year since what, 2006? I wouldn't call them a winner either.
          American Refugee
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          When was this magic unicorn time when government didn't pick winners and losers? I'd love to go to that place. I bet their are fairies! If you have taken a train in America, you did so on a system that was built by the government picking winners and losers. In the 19th century. If you have flown on a plane, you did so because government-funded large forging presses that made it possible to make them. Those investments where made in the 1950s and have paid themselves back hundredsfold (here's a good little article about it, http://boingboing.net/2012/02/13/machines.html). If you are talking about America, you are talking about a place where the government always, always picked winners and users in the name of building the technology and infrastructure necessary to compete in the world economy. See: Eric Canal. This is what happens when myth meets ideology: you end up with an historic ignorance used to justify bad policy.
          raktmn
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          All the other DOE backed companies are losers? Where do you get that from? Do you mean Ford, Nissan and Tesla? Because they all seem to be doing fine to me. Do you mean solar companies, where aside from Solyndra and a couple of others, the failure rate on loans is lower than even the Republicans anticipated when they built in a 2.5% anticipated failure rate right into the bill that authorized the loans? Do you even know that the dollar amount of failure is still less than that 2.5% the Republicans built into the bill? Think independently of what you hear on Fox News.
          Grendal
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Panama Canal. Lockheed. McDonnell-Douglass. Haliburton. Blackwater. Boeing. All get money from the government.
        ElectricAvenue
        • 2 Years Ago
        @eye.surgeon
        eye.surgeon: showing that comments on autoblog have more to do with rhetoric based on wilful ignorance than facts and logical argument.
        purrpullberra
        • 2 Years Ago
        @eye.surgeon
        Yea for brain damaged eye surgeons! My FAVES!
        kEiThZ
        • 1 Year Ago
        @eye.surgeon
        Show me any other automaker that has won as many awards on a newly launched vehicle as Tesla has.
      Sparky5229
      • 2 Years Ago
      ANOTHER PIECE OF B. S. AND CRAP FROM THE WHITE HOUSE =TESLA THANKS OBAMA FOR PISSING AWAY MORE OF OUR MONEY.
        Grendal
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Sparky5229
        Tesla received their loan from the ATVM program that was created under George W. Bush. So you can thank Bush for helping this company to bring in more than $1.5 billion and create over 2000 jobs. And credit where it's due, Bush's administration also helped Tesla create a car that helps get the US off foreign oil and build the premiere electric car in the entire world.
          raktmn
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Grendal
          The ATVM loans are money makers. We are lending at a higher rate than we borrow the money by selling Treasury notes. We will make money in the long run on these loans, and our children will profit from the loan repayments. Even after accounting for the interest we pay on the Treasury notes. Unlike the oil subsidies and money to pay for wars in oil regions that are not loans, and will not be repaid with interest. If you were seriously worried about our children and the debt they are stacking up, you are a fool to focus on $456 million in one-time loan funds for Tesla that have already started to be repaid. But you don't sound serious. You sound like a political hack that only uses our children as a handy applause line when it suits your fickle political agenda of the moment. You sound like the folks claiming to want to balance the budget that name Big Bird as somewhere to cut, while calling for more money to build battleships on top of a Trillion dollar defense budget.
          johnmacintosh23
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Grendal
          Well said Grendal!
          EVnerdGene
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          raktmn said; "we borrow the money by selling Treasury notes" QE3 - we're buying our own T-notes because no one else wants them. We're eating our young to stay alive. and throwing money down toilets - like a pay raise for Biden and congress you can't make this stuff up
      Levine Levine
      • 2 Years Ago
      Shinal is shorting Tesla. WallSt is full of liars, scammers, Bernie Madoff, and cut-throats.
        raktmn
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Levine Levine
        I agree. There was some guy posting here who was shorting Tesla and bashing them here. He disappeared when he sold his shorts, never to be heard from again. Sadly some people took him seriously and kissed his feet. He was just another troll like Shinal selling shiny beads.
          Electron
          • 2 Years Ago
          @raktmn
          OKtrader? He was hardly the only one posting here with an agenda. I often notice that with a clever mixture of lies, flattery, intimidation and some Google skills one can quite easily establish oneself as an authority figure on this forum, and start shaping opinions.
      gattor6
      • 2 Years Ago
      Our government at work doing what it does best. Throw out money it does not have. And that my friend is why we are BROKE!!!!!
        whofan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @gattor6
        For years our government has spent trillons in foriegn countrys. When goverment spends billons in our own countries industry there`s out cry. I agree spending is a problem within the US government. I`m just pointing out that theres other more wastefull things government spends money on.
        Brodz
        • 1 Year Ago
        @gattor6
        And the taxes the workforce pay, where does that go? And surely the taxes the company pays back to the government itself? You've got to spend money to make money sometimes.
        carney373
        • 1 Year Ago
        @gattor6
        Here's why we're broke: OIL. In 1999 a barrel of oil cost $10. In 2008 it cost $140. We have to import 5 billion barrels a year because we have less than 2% of world oil reserves but more than 20% of world oil demand so we can never supply our own needs no matter how much drilling we do. In 1999 that meant $50 billion for foreign oil. In 2008 that meant $700 for the same quantity, a crushing $650 billion "tax" increase on the US economy, amounting to over $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, over $8,000 for a family of 4 when average household income is $45K, only $35K after taxes. Still a mystery why the two biggest purchases - homes and cars - dried up, pummeling both the real estate and auto industries as well as the loan industry that financed those purchases? The resulting economic crash collapsed economic activity and skyrocketed unemployment, causing huge revenue shortfalls and massive increases in spending (due to increased unemployment insurance, food stamp, etc payouts). THAT's why we're broke. The only way out is to break free from oil.
          EVnerdGene
          • 1 Year Ago
          @carney373
          "THAT's why we're broke. The only way out is to break free from oil." Real estate - govment mandating lousy loans ??? Just got back from a road-trip. Got gas at a BP-mart. Two people in line in front of me pulled up in huge, brand new sport pick-up and a FUV. Both got just 2 packs cigarettes, and lotto tickets. [Probably buy food with food stamps cards "I'm buying my cigs and lotto tickets with MY money, not the money I got from food stamps" - errrr - so why don't you buy your groceries with YOUR money??? - but I digress.]. Point is - why do they NEED huge pick-ups and FUVs to drive to the convenience store ??? If we all drove reasonably sized cars, we wouldn't need to import any oil at all. It's a national mental illness. 44mpg on my trip, and sorely missing my 60+ mpg Insight.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @carney373
          I don't think you got the point. Those cigs cost more because of the higher gas price throughout the production chain. Same for the groceries. Same for whatever snacks you bought. The huge pick-up guzzling gas is only the tip of the iceberg. Sure it is stupid to drive it around because you pay out the backside directly to buy gas for it. Meanwhile, as you are focused on that pick-up and those FUV's, you are paying out the backside even more for gas with every purchase you make, where the cost of higher gas prices is being passed from the manufacturer and transporters to you.
        Daniel D
        • 2 Years Ago
        @gattor6
        What is the alternative to innovation? Keeping making oversized pickups the rest of the world is not interested in until the gas runs out?
      Mr. Smith
      • 2 Years Ago
      So I'm the only one who thinks loaning an incompetent millionaire artificially cheap capitol, so he can produce super luxury cars for other millionaires at a tremendous loss, is a bad...O.K..., unbelievably stupid AND immoral, use of my hard earned (emphasis on the word "earned") tax ransom? God forbid but I think I'd rather buy Obamaphones with the money.
        Marcopolo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Mr. Smith
        @ Mr. Smith Lets see, Elon Musk is an incompetent billionaire (Billion, not million). Since Elon Musk is not hereditary wealthy, at what exactly is he "incompetent" ? Certainly not making money ! Certainly not incompetent at creating over 5000 jobs for American's. Ah, I got it ! He's "incompetent ' at being an envious, negative little troll !
        carney373
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Mr. Smith
        Nearly ALL new products are at first too expensive for anyone but the very rich. Then the price comes down and it becomes available to the merely affluent, than the mass market, than the poor. That's what happened with gasoline cars in the beginning. Some with computers and smart phones. The first Tesla car was a little two seater costing $100K. The Model S starts at $50K and is a BIG family sedan. Coming soon is a $30K car. Progress is being made if you had the wit to see it. You complain about "artificial" when it comes to the loans Tesla got, but not the artificially high prices OPEC rigs that drivers of oil-only cars are stuck with and forced to pay, harming their families and the economy at large. Not to mention where that money goes - overseas to terror-tyrants that are either openly hostile to us or play a sinister double game.
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        Actually, lets eliminate Oil and Gas subsidies first... then, eliminate our pledge to help defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia... see how fast Oil prices jump. Sure 3/4ths of our oil comes from North America (Canada)... but any disturbance in the Middle East still shocks the oil price. So, after we eliminate all these indirect subsidies to oil... then lets get rid of the green subsides. We won't need them with $8/gal gasoline. For those who can still afford to buy anything, an EV would be an easy choice.
          edward.stallings
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Oil and Gas do not get any money from the taxpayers. The tax revenues they bring in are huge! Our government prevents cheap domestic oil and blames someone else. - Just like you... Just to be clear: Tax break or incentive means the government takes less of what you earn. A green loan is the government loaning money to a scam where smart money stays away (money that the government idiots don't even have yet).
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        P.S. I've been to Kuwait and spoke with their military officers. You know what their national defense strategy is? To defend their country for 72 hours, wait for American troops to land. This has been the reality for decades. But all you can see and hear is the blather about "green subsidies" not playing fair. The game has been rigged by artificially low gasoline prices for decades now.
      Sparky5229
      • 2 Years Ago
      ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW THE GOVERMENT CAN PISS AWAY OUR MONEY AND WE HAVE NOTHING TO SAY.
        Grendal
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Sparky5229
        BEING. PAID. BACK. Take note that the $5.9 billion that was loaned to Ford has just begun and they have another 25 years to pay it back in full.
        purrpullberra
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Sparky5229
        I don't believe you are a tax payer or "producer" little thor, THOR SMASH TESLA, but the exact type of parasite you falsely claim Tesla to be. Just like the gimme-hand-out red states that belittle their own people hypocritically, you *are* exactly what you hate and you are just misplacing the anger because it is the only comfort you can manage to scrape together for yourself.
      ghelm92160
      • 2 Years Ago
      Well at least you may be able to drive it and park it in front of the White House before the company goes bankrupt and once again stiffs the taxpayer!
        Grendal
        • 2 Years Ago
        @ghelm92160
        The company is doing fine and they have already begun repaying the taxpayer. With the government loan given them by a G. W. Bush program: They have bought an unused factory that was gathering dust. Tesla has bought a whole lot of unused equipment and put it to use. Employed over 2000 American workers. Designed and built the very first electric car that is comparable to its equivalent gas car. You can even argue that it might be better than the equivalent gas car. Built a car that has won every major car award that they have qualified for. Built an electric drivetrain that other major manufacturers are buying from them to put in their cars. Tesla has built a car that is in high demand around the world and will be exported bringing money into the country. Tesla has built a car that can assist the country in getting off foreign oil and oil period. Tesla has built an American car, using the most American parts, employing American workers, and enhancing American industry to build what is considered the best in the world. It seems like Tesla is doing with their government loan exactly what George W. Bush intended for the ATVM loan program to do. And that is to strengthen American car technology to promote American car interests around the world and in the United States. Where have they stiffed the taxpayer before, ghelm92160? Got any facts? Or just FUD?
      grayshway
      • 2 Years Ago
      This seems incorrect to me: "a poor habit of failing to deliver to customers the cars it has promised them, while simultaneously raising the prices of those yet-undelivered cars," and "a lousy level of customer service." It is true that they did not produce as many cars in 2012 as they had hoped. But from all reports, the cars that customers received were what was promised. All reports I have heard is that Tesla exceeded everyone's expectation with the Model S. And they have raised prices on cars they have not sold yet (price goes up Jan 1, 2013) - that is very different than they raised prices on cars they have sold but not delivered, yet. He is basing the report for all of 2012 from a report on Sept 30 on a company who only started manufacturing their only product in June y -- of course that report is not going to look great! He may well still be correct that Tesla will fail in 2013 without more loans, but if that is the case it will be due to more than what he is reporting
        raktmn
        • 2 Years Ago
        @grayshway
        Agreed. Even worse, he's basing his schtick on Sept 30 numbers, when the Model S didn't go into full production at the levels they are planning for 2013 until two months later!! That's pretty crazy. His numbers would only be valid if Tesla were going to go back to September production numbers in 2013. That would be an absolutely absurd supposition.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @raktmn
          [blocked]
    • Load More Comments