nberry:
CGX car nut:
SciFrog:
CGX car nut:

For reference linked is a Morningstar report on Volkswagen.  While the analysis is brief, it is comprehensive.  http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=860511&SR=Yahoo&yptr=yahoo

I am very surprised you missed the reference...

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/business/worldbusiness/30iht-norris31.1.17372644.html

Didn’t consider all the possible topics germane to the Tesla topic.   However, this move is legendary and one has used Porsche and Volkswagen in several talks and seminars over the years.  Not often is there a company with greater profits than revenue.   Even over that time period General Motors essentially functioned as a financial institution through General Motors Acceptance Corporation.  During the mid-00’s, the markets had signaled that GM should exit the car making business and exist as a bank.  This was apparent when one determined the book value of GMAC and the market cap of GM.   The market had placed a negative valuation on the car business. 

Only proves experts more often than not don't have a clue as to whether a business is viable or not. I suspect the same for Tesla.Smiley

Consider what happened over that time period at General Motors.  Rick Waggoner decided to sell control of GMAC to Cerberus for roughly $7.4 billion with a corresponding payout over, if one recalls correctly, ten years.  GM retained a 49.9% interest.  GM then used the proceeds to prop up its balance sheet with its large employee pension and healthcare obligations.  By August 2007, the credit crunch began and GMAC, combined with Chrysler Finance, was not able to place paper for its funding activities.  Once cars sales fell, the writing was on the wall for GM.  The rest is political; one will refrain from discussing to stay within the now established parameters of RT.