Up up and up.
help me understand the point.
Last week, it went down, down, and down ?
Imagined sales in China. Pure speculation.
Pure speculation. You've just described the stock market, congrats.
Not every "investment" in the stock market is "pure speculation."
However, IMMEDIATELY taking a position in TSLA based on a report of a 5% investment in the company by Chinese investors in anticipation of future sales by TSLA in China seems at it's heart "purely speculative."
Taking a position in Tesla at this point for any reason is "purely speculative".
Tesla currently has a market cap approximately equal to Ford - a car company that's 113 years old, is the only major US car company which has never declared bankruptcy, sells over 6 million vehicles per year, and had revenues of $150 Billion. Tesla is 13 years old, has sold a total of 0.2 million vehicles over those 13 years, and has revenues of $7 Billion. In no rational evaluation of Tesla's stock is it worth what it's currently trading for - other than the speculation of what it'll be worth in 5 years.
@ fast girl- it was consolidation. If you know anything about investing.
I agree but I've been flamed for saying such things! My opinion is TSLA is way overvalued especially in light of its current risk profile. Even if there were no risk at all and Tesla were guaranteed to sell as many cars as Ford we're still probably talking at least 10-20 years before the returns pay for the price. But of course stock prices aren't always directly linked to logic.
In 10-20 years Tesla is likely to be the biggest company on the planet. And likely the most valuable.
Turn your eye to GM or Ford . . . Any chance you'd say the same?
Me neither. BTW . . . How much do you value the following business groups:
Tesla sells the best and most desirable vehicles
Tesla builds the best and by far, cheapest battery systems on the planet.
Tesla Vision = Mobileye, but better.
Tesla Network = Uber, but better.
Tesla Gigafactory (I.e. Alien Drednaught Factory as a product)
Supercharging Network = Exxon, but better.
"In 10-20 years Tesla is likely to be the biggest company on the planet. And likely the most valuable."
If that ends up being true then TSLA stock is a good value. But that's a really big if. And I believe the probability of that is near 0. Tesla can be a successful company but it's hard to see any path for them being the biggest company on the planet no matter what happens.
I agree with most posters here-it's going up over the long haul but it will be a bumpy road. If Elon sells Tesla or steps down to go Mars to live-well, look out below.
dd.micsol, nope I know little about buying stocks as I why I was asking what was your point :-)
I might change name to "Geek Girl". I know more about high energy physics than stocks. People think Fast Girl means something other than driving fast, and it doesn't :-)
"other than the speculation of what it'll be worth in 5 years."
If you are investing based on anything other than what the stock with be worth in 5 years (or whatever time frame) you are doing it wrong. What it is worth today is of no consequence whatsoever (as divorced from what it costs).
You can speculate that Ford will be worth the same as it is now, or go bankrupt, or be 10 times what it is now. And do you investing based on that. Investing based on current worth WITHOUT considering those options is walking on a cliff-side blindfolded and thinking you are ok because your feet are *currently* on firm ground. You don't have the option of remaining in today.
Thank you kindly.
Ford has technology that everyone else has access to in some manner.
Tesla has technology that no one else is able to copy just yet.
Let's check those valuations...
TSLA ___ 46.41 B
F ______ 47.19 B
GM _____ 53.38 B
FCA ____ 21.64 B
And isn't it true that Tesla offered to share some of their tech to the others for free to speed up the process of BEV adaptation? Think how much further along "they" (F, GM, FCA) might be today had they decided to take positive action on that offer?
sosmerc: I think they didn't like the terms of 'for free' that Tesla offered... Because it would have been mutual, meaning Tesla would have access to their patents at no charge either.... Because it would have been for long range EVs only, not the compliance cars and plug-in hybrids that traditional automobile manufacturers prefer... Because it would have been 'in good faith', so if they developed something awesome based upon information they got from Tesla, they would have to share it with Tesla, and thereby everyone else.
dd - I believe Elon once said that when Model 3 is up and running well, he will hand off his duties and only contribute on the engineering side. His focus will be on Space X and the ITS. I doubt he will sell the company though. He believes in the vision and doesn't want someone else to change the direction of the company.
Red Sage ca us:
"Tesla has technology that no one else is able to copy just yet."
There's a difference between not able to copy and chooses not to copy right now. There's nothing that Tesla has or does that other manufacturers couldn't have or do if they chose.
Yes. Elon will maintain his position as Chief Product Architect with Tesla in perpetuity. He said his money was the first put into Tesla, it will be the last to come out. But yeah, he is perfectly willing to give up the job of CEO whenever he can.
320 or bust?
Don't forget that Ford sells cars at wholesale. Tesla sells at retail.
Up $20 today.
What is happening?
Ross - Taken from an Electrek article: "The announcement of Tesla’s record deliveries for the first quarter was undoubtedly the biggest contributor to the surge this morning."
Unfortunately they also lost a bid to sell direct in the state of Utah today.
Da heck is up in UT anyway? It's as if they think Tesla is some fly-by-night criminal organization run by a huckster, charlatan, or snake oil salesman bent on visions of pyramid schemes or something. If so, who was it that put forth such a narrative anyway, and what makes them so trustworthy? This makes no sense...
@RedSage - I am assuming your questions are rhetorical in nature, but I imagine they don't like to have more than one man (charlatan) per household. All others, welcome.
Utah Supreme Court rules against Tesla in push to sell cars -- NBC 2http://www.nbc-2.com/story/35060461/utah-supreme-court-rules-against-tes...
I find it interesting that the Utah Supreme Court didn't comment on Tesla's claim that current franchise law should not be applied to them.
Let's hope this gets it to the US Supreme Court, then? Enough of this state by state BS.
Remember that car dealerships of all sorts are the type of business run by local leaders of the community, including state legislators. They have a lot of political muscle (of the grassroots, local-control, democratic sort), and see a non-dealer future as a huge threat. In a world that hates what Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Amazon and the others have done to small shops on Main Street, or even to the big mall at the end of town, this is one way of putting their foot down and saying "No More!".
As a car buyer, I want them to fail - I buy more stuff from Amazon than anywhere local. I love the variety and price I can get there. I love the ordering and pricing policies of Tesla, and as a car buyer hope that their approach upends the entire industry.
As a politically-independent, semi-libertarian, friend of the entrepreneur, however, I hope they're successful in keeping local control over products and service quality. I love that the owner of the local Chevy dealership has a son in our Little League; he brings many benefits that the store manager of the local Home Depot doesn't.
It's a tough conundrum.
I believe he was in Texas? Where Elon famously offered sponsor a little league team if that was what it took to sell cars there. Lol
Sell, sell, sell......
I sold at $293 this morning. I'm by no means a veteran stock trader, but I made $22,000. I figure I paid for all of my Model 3 options and some of the base price. In my amateur optimism, I expect a lull in a few days, and hopefully I can buy back a little lower in preparation for the bull market when the Model 3 is on delivered on time. I could have made a lot more if I had waited 'til thiz afternoon, but you know--hindsight.
The same thing that is happening in UT, is happening in VA. At least, we do have one store in northern Va, but in the rest of the state, it is easier to go to another state to buy. I ordered my Model 3 in northern Va, but will probably pick it up in NC. The Virginia Auto Dealers Association is suing to stop Tesla in Va. Virginia's loss.
They are just delaying the inevitable. It's kind of sad to see, really. So much for the free market and supporting an American company.
Frank99: No. It isn't a conundrum at all. Except that so many have apparently forgotten what the terms 'fairness' and 'integrity' mean.
Everyone else that entered the market to manufacture vehicles for sale in the U.S. before Tesla had a choice. They could choose to use Franchise, or they could choose to sell direct. But, they could not do both. That was it.
Because apparently 100% of those prior to Tesla had chosen to use Franchises, the various 'independent franchised dealerships' presumed that was not only the best possible solution, but the only one allowed. They were wrong. Just as those who claim the U.S. has a 'Two Party System' in politics are wrong, so are those who claim there is a 'Franchised Dealership System'. There isn't any law, statute, rule, mandate, obligation, or necessity to use franchises -- or there wasn't -- until the laws that governed franchised sales of new cars began to be modified, State-by-State, around mid-2013.
That choice existed everywhere right up until the point that Tesla made a splash with the Model S, becoming the MOTOR TREND Car of the Year, AUTOMOBILE Car of the Year, rated as 'Best Car We Have Ever Tested' by Consumer Reports, receiving the highest ever safety rating from the NHTSA, and outselling every single large luxury sedan in the U.S. by mid-2013. Then, all of a sudden, lobbyists for 'independent franchised dealerships' were all up in arms demanding that 'there oughtta be a law' and claiming that 'it ain't fair' and stuff -- as if they really wanted to sell Tesla vehicles and would love an opportunity to show how well they could do so -- though just a few months earlier they had all been standing ready to point and laugh and guffaw and exclaim "See? I told you so!" if Tesla had failed outright without them.
Members of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) protested that Tesla was trying to 'destroy the franchised dealership system'. No. Tesla simply wanted to make the legal choice that had been allowed to everyone else before them -- by choosing to NOT take part in franchising. Some States interpreted their laws correctly, at first, and upon learning Tesla had no franchises to compete against, either fairly or unfairly, granted the company a dealership license to sell new cars. But at some point in 2013, certain States began to drag their heels when Tesla applied to renew their license. And some of them outright denied licenses on the sole grounds that Tesla was a manufacturer, with no consideration for the fact they had no franchises.
Once again, franchise laws should apply to companies that have franchises, companies that are franchisors, not to companies that choose to sell direct.
The world has changed. There was a time when you would have to wait weeks or months to get a particular book, on special order, from the local book shop. And, you would have to pay a premium for the service. That's if it were offered at all. You might have to travel out of town, go to a particular book supplier yourself, and place the special order there, after leaving a deposit and your contact information. Today? You can place an order online at Amazon and the book will reach your doorstep the next day, often at a discounted price and with free shipping.
I grew up in a place with lots of Mom & Pop stores. Here's the thing people never relate about those quaint little shops in small towns across America. Their pricing, for pretty much everything, even the lowest quality of merchandise, was simply OUTRAGEOUS. I'm talking convenience store margins on the simplest of necessities -- socks, chewing gum, batteries, candy -- all commanded top dollar. High end pricing on the level of Neiman-Marcus for goods the quality you might see at Payless Shoes for merchandise that was often old, faded, and dusty. And the selection was poor, with little or no variation. They got away with it because they had a captive audience. There was no place to shop around, to get better pricing, because everyone there was gouging. You'd have to drive 30, 50, 100 miles away to have the slightest chance of getting a 'deal'. People often lament how Wal*Mart showed up and 'ruined everything' in their little towns... No. Wal*Mart didn't 'undercut' local stores, they simply charged fair market value for common items. Something that had never been done by those Mom & Pop shops, something they never would have done, something they didn't do -- and that's why they went out of business.
I am sick and tired of the continual myth posed by members of NADA that 'independent franchised dealerships' are representative of quaint little family owned Mom & Pop shops that are part of the community and contribute 'so much' to the towns, cities, and counties they are located in... [BOLSHEVIK]. Truth of the matter is that Billy Bob Bleuhardt's Big Blue World of Cars signed a contract to sell out to a faceless corporation twenty or more years ago and that Mom & Pop facade is only there as a smokescreen. The local family either has nothing to do with the company, or are in effect employees of the larger firm. They might get decent salaries themselves, and signed an iron clad NDA in the blood of virgins, so they'll never admit the fact publicly, but ~95% of the profits go to the bigwigs behind the scenes leaving only crumbs to run the daily operations of the dealership. And their employees all get paid horribly. That paradigm should not be rewarded a de facto monopoly on new car sales.
Baseball is not a sport (according to MLB, it is a 'pastime' instead -- not a 'sport', per their lawyers whenever antitrust investigations surface). It doesn't surprise me that 'independent franchised dealerships' love to promote themselves with baseball. You don't have a level playing field. The best odds for the Offense are four against nine. And most of the time it is only one against nine. And that doesn't even count the umpires who are effectively on the side of the Defense as well. The 'independent franchised dealerships' are not 'supporting the community' at all -- they are advertising -- and advertising is an expense of business, not a philanthropic exercise.
According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the existence of Interbrand Competition is sufficient in the absence of Intrabrand Competition. That is, arguments by NADA and their supporters that Tesla should not be allowed to have a 'monopoly' on the sale of their own cars are incorrect. As long as people have the choice to buy a Buick, Cadillac, AUDI, Alfa Romeo, Acura, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Infiniti, Lexus, Maserati, Porsche, or cars from dozens of other marques, Tesla does not need to compete against themselves.
Dell chose to build computers to order and sold them direct through mail order. They were laughed at. Many swore 'it would never work'.
Starbucks chose to open up shops everywhere they could that sold expensive coffee without donuts. They were laughed at. Many swore 'it would never work'.
Amazon chose to work on warehousing and distribution of books, and later, a plethora of different products. They were laughed at. Many swore 'it would never work'.
Wal*Mart chose to concentrate on serving rural areas, making sure they would not expand to any area until they had a distribution hub within twelve hours of the new store, so as to keep them supplied. They were laughed at. Many swore 'it would never work'.
Each of those companies was allowed the opportunity to prove themselves correct, despite all the protests and prognostications of outsiders. They have succeeded against all odds, grown to a level that their detractors never thought possible. This is the essence of innovation in the marketplace... what used to be called the 'free market'. Sink or swim on your own merit, and you are allowed to do so your own way.
What is so special about the automotive market, selling new cars, that such innovation should not be allowed? Nothing. Nothing at all. Because the world has changed. Where making the choice of using franchises may have been a very good idea for dozens, scores, or hundreds of automobile manufacturers over the past 100 years...? It may not be the best possible choice today. Especially when one looks at the graveyard of innovators that used the dealership model and did not strive, or even survive, as a result. Tucker, DeLorean, Geo, Coda, Fisker, Scion... Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Mercury, Eagle, AMC... Where are they now? Oh, yeah... Dead. Each and every one of them, along with a whole bunch more. The 'franchised dealership system' does not by any means guarantee success. But when it comes to electric cars, they seem to absolutely guarantee failure, as not one 'independent franchised dealership' network has managed to bring an electric car to market prominence or dominance.
During 2016, Tesla had less than 100 locations throughout the United States. GM's Cadillac division had over 900 locations in the nation. Tesla was effectively 'banned' in 24 States for the year. Yet somehow, the Tesla Model S -- a car purported to have an average sale price between $90,000 and $105,000 -- outsold every single individual passenger car offered by Cadillac in 2016. I see this as evidence that Tesla does not need to use 'independent franchised dealerships' in order to 'sell more cars' at all. Tesla has shown that their distribution method works, and that Customers enjoy it. Tesla has shown that their method of selling cars is more efficient, preferred by those who experience it.
If indeed NADA and others are so certain that Tesla is destined to fail, then why fight them? Some say they are 'afraid' that Tesla escaping the clutches of 'independent franchised dealerships' would set a precedent. They are afraid that other manufacturers will enter the market, and also choose to sell direct. Perhaps. But the vast majority of automobile manufacturers are locked in to remain franchisors -- in PERPETUITY -- they cannot sell direct. Ever. And fears that Chinese companies, like BYD, would sell direct are equally unfounded. Because Warren Buffett, a major stakeholder in BYD a Chinese manufacturer of electric cars, also purchased a dealership network in the United States. BYD vehicles currently in the U.S. are offered for fleet sales only in a business-to-business manner. Unless existing manufacturers find solace in bankruptcy protection, which might allow them to emerge as a 'new entity' with no ties to 'independent franchised dealerships', it is unlikely they will every escape that snare. NADA should be happy to keep the members it has, and leave Tesla alone.
That might be a record, Red. Love your posts but, TL;DR...until tomorrow. ;-)
Maybe Haggy could give a summary:)
KP in NPT: I've written more before... Ran up against the text entry limit, had to split a post into a Part I and Part II as a result!
Bighorn: In short? NADA is full of [PISS & VINEGAR].
Do you work at large company?
Red, my friend, I must take issue with your fundamental thesis.
You said " There isn't any law, statute, rule, mandate, obligation, or necessity to use franchises -- or there wasn't -- until the laws that governed franchised sales of new cars began to be modified, State-by-State, around mid-2013." This serves as one of the major themes of the rest of your posting. Unfortunately, it's wrong.
Here (https://www.justice.gov/atr/economic-effects-state-bans-direct-manufactu...), for example, is a 2009 report from the DOJ that states "In the United States, however, direct manufacturer auto sales are prohibited in almost every state by franchise laws requiring that new cars be sold only by dealers.". It references documents from 2001/2002 to make that claim, and includes a reference to a 2001 lawsuit here in my lovely state of Arizona, stating "One case involved an Arizona law that, in part, prohibited manufacturers from marketing directly to consumers."
Another reference traces the laws back even further:
"In 1937, Colorado was among the first states to start interfering in arrangements between dealers and manufacturers. It is still on the books as CRS 112-6-201 to 213, the Antimonopoly Financing law. In 72 years, just one section has been amended."http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/02/the-truth-about-car-dealer-fran...
There's no doubt that Tesla has driven a review of franchise laws on the books, and a tightening of them in many states. But to say that "Everyone else that entered the market to manufacture vehicles for sale in the U.S. before Tesla had a choice. They could choose to use Franchise, or they could choose to sell direct. But, they could not do both." is simply incorrect.
Frank99: I tend to think from a Federal perspective. I apologize for a poorly phrased position. Chances are this will be just as bad, as I'm really, really tired right now...
There was no single, overall, fully encompassing, national law of the land that mandates the use of franchises... Just as there isn't one that mandates there must be a 'Two Party System'.
But again... Even in those States that barred manufacturers from selling new cars direct, I'm fairly certain they did not mandate that new cars must ONLY be sold by Franchises. That was my point -- States like Texas, Missouri, New Jersey, Virginia, and Michigan are among those that tried to change either regulations or existing law to make it read something that it did NOT say previously. In particular, that all new cars MUST be sold through Franchises, period.
Utah may be one of those that just said 'No Manufacturers Can Sell Direct', though. And even so...? I wonder why such a law cannot be challenged, as it seems to have no merit whatsoever. I mean, why can't a manufacturer sell direct? Is there an answer beyond, "Because we said so!"...? That doesn't seem like an answer that should hold water in a court of law populated by adults.
I don't remember injunctions being filed on the behalf of Winchell's or Dunkin' Donuts protesting the expansion of either Starbucks or Krispy-Kreme.
I don't remember Wal*Mart or Best Buy suing Apple or Microsoft for opening Apple Stores or Windows Stores.
The same bag of coffee beans you can get at a Starbucks location is available on the shelves at Kroger.
You aren't mandated to only get an XBOX ONE from an 'independent franchised dealership'.
You can order a MacBook Pro directly from the Apple website. Should Dell be able to sue because they aren't selling a MacBook Pro through their website too?
Dell started with mail order, moved on to phone orders, then online orders, and now sells through third party retailers too. But they never stopped selling direct. Why should such freedom of distribution be allowed every group of manufacturers, unless or until they are making new cars, then they can't sell direct at all? I can think of no logical reason. There is only the illogical notion of protecting the interests of a middleman with deep pockets.
"Some of these state regulations have been in place for decades and reflect the long history of the American automobile industry. As far back as the 1930s, dealers were concerned that once they made major investments in buildings, inventory, parts and the like, they would be effectively at the mercy of the manufacturer with which they were affiliated. Historically, manufacturers exploited this bargaining asymmetry in a variety of ways. These abuses led dealers to appeal to their state legislatures to seek protection. For the most part, these protections persist in every state, as does the heavily dealer-oriented automobile distribution system." -- Federal Trade Commission, The FTC opens the hood on automobile distributionhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters/2015/12/ftc-op...
Tesla was founded in 2003, not the 1930s, or earlier. Their first car, the Tesla Roadster, reached the market in 2008. All of them were sold direct, over the internet, and no one complained about that when it took three years to sell roughly 2,500 of them worldwide.
Tesla never used or took part in a 'franchised dealership system', and still doesn't. None of the 'independent franchised dealerships' has ever made 'major investments in buildings, inventory, parts and the like' in order to sell Tesla products. So, Tesla owes them nothing, and the existing franchise laws have no interest of theirs to protect from Tesla.
The only way that the 'independent franchised dealerships' for competitors products are 'at the mercy of' Tesla is in direct comparison of their product lines. It is not Tesla's responsibility to convince traditional automobile manufacturers to build more compelling electric vehicles that will lead to improved sales. Nor is it Tesla's responsibility to disprove their chosen means of distribution -- direct sales -- as being invalid, as so many in the automotive industry had inaccurately predicted.
Tesla has not exploited 'independent franchised dealerships' in any way, though they have exposed them as not being as efficient as direct sales. It is patently unfair to allow 'independent franchised dealerships' to 'seek protection' against Tesla, who simply made the choice other automobile manufacturers were offered (sell direct, or use franchises) but chose a different path. By barring Tesla from selling direct, State governments effectively solidify a monopoly position whereby only 'independent franchised dealerships' are allowed to sell new cars, and the element of choice has been eliminated for all current and future manufacturers of vehicles.
Removing choice as an option, the ability to determine for themselves the best way to distribute their products, is not the best way to foster competition in this changing world.
Here’s a very common question, and the writer is usually a retailer who sells products from different manufacturers.
Q: I received notice from my supplier that the company will no longer provide its products for me to sell. Is it a violation of the antitrust laws for my supplier to cut me off?
Typically, the answer is no, it is not a violation of antitrust law for a supplier to refuse to sell to a dealer. In our free market economy, a seller generally has the right to choose its business partners, just as a dealer has the freedom to choose to sell the products of only certain manufacturers. But in a few circumstances, there may be limits on this freedom.
Here’s what the Supreme Court said:
"The purpose of the Sherman Act is to ... preserve the right of freedom of trade. In the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the act does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal."
This is known as the Colgate Doctrine, and it remains a fundamental rule of federal antitrust law.
If a manufacturer has a right to choose to and with whom they deal, then why can't a manufacturer of a vehicle choose to deal with an end user, instead of a middleman?
I fully agree with you, Red, that the Franchise laws are not in keeping with any kind of free market. After my last couple of visits to a Franchised Dealer, I'll willingly pay MORE to not have to go back. One of the references I posted noted that studies had shown that up to 30% of the cost of a car is there to support the Franchise Dealers - I'd gladly give that directly to the manufacturer to keep the GD sales manager from closing the door of his office.
Fortunately, Arizona doesn't have this limitation. I'll be able to sign over the check at one of two showrooms or one service center here in Phoenix.
Do you work at large company?"
Big . . . about the size and shape of GM. Mostly worthless, but lots of government handouts?
Ring any bells?
@Red Sage, Quote: "But again... Even in those States that barred manufacturers from selling new cars direct, I'm fairly certain they did not mandate that new cars must ONLY be sold by Franchises. That was my point -- States like Texas, Missouri, New Jersey, Virginia, and Michigan are among those that tried to change either regulations or existing law to make it read something that it did NOT say previously. In particular, that all new cars MUST be sold through Franchises, period."
But that's the one point we're trying to make. You are incorrect on that. The franchise laws state by state are written in two basic ways. One says that _IF_ a manufacturer has granted franchises, _THEN_ they cannot sell direct. NADA has tried to argue against that and play tricks with it, but the actual wording does not apply to Tesla, and they are OK.
But, there are a few states that do not have any conditional in their law. They flat out state that an automobile manufacturer cannot sell direct. Period. I have read the text of the law in Utah, and it is written that way. There is no way around it for Tesla. Now, I had some hope that the Utah supreme court would strike that law from existence, since it violates the Utah state constitution, but apparently the corruption in Utah goes up through their supreme court as well.
Here is the text from Article XII, Section 20 in the Utah Constitution.
"It is the policy of the state of Utah that a free market system shall govern trade and commerce in
this state to promote the dispersion of economic and political power and the general welfare of all
the people. Each contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint
of trade or commerce is prohibited. Except as otherwise provided by statute, it is also prohibited for
any person to monopolize, attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or
persons to monopolize any part of trade or commerce."
That should have been a knife to the heart of that franchise law, so I would like to go find the transcript of the court case to see if this was specifically brought up and what the response was to it.
BMW (BMW), Daimler (DDAIF), and Volkswagen (VLKAY) each down at least 1% today...
Rocky_H: Understood. I am wrong from time to time. You are correct. I expect that there is no response by the Court on that point at all, whether it was brought up or not. Apparently they chose to rule strictly on the complaint, and decided that the State of Utah has the right to ban Tesla or any other manufacturer from selling new cars direct because of current statute. Let us know what you find, regarding a transcript for the case.
so, consolidation finished and look where we are now. bigger than gm. love it.
Good for USA and great for Tesla. 365 is now my selling point-hoping it comes before june 2nd.
If not-could go way up or way down. hmmm....
All I know is chanos is 1.7b in the hole from shorting it.
@Red Sage, Here is the pdf of the court's ruling on it. I have not found any place with the legal briefs or transcripts presented by the parties in the case, though.https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Tesla%20v.%20State%20Tax%20Com...
And the main discussion thread at TMC:https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/2040498/