Crown

Elon Musk held in contempt of court by the SEC: https://jalopnik.com/elon-musks-tweets-could-get-him-held-in-contempt-of-cou-1832884548. The link is one of the most balanced articles on this emerging issue; however, it is highly probable that he will be removed from the company following his latest action.  

It is not highly probable (where did you read that? Fake news), it is the most extreme thing that could happen though. If it was HIGHLY PROBABLE stock would be down 50% today.

Most likely is they will finally put in place a system to muzzle him for real this time and slap another fine.

From the linked article: 

“The SEC can't ban Musk from tweeting, but it can stop him from serving as CEO, according to Charles Elson, chair of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.

"In other similar situations, CEOs at this point ... would have been terminated," he said, describing the SEC's latest action as "quite serious."

Elson pointed out that other companies "may end up in the same situation, and the SEC has to be consistent and firm on its enforcement of the disclosure requirements."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/tech/elon-musk-sec-settlement-contempt/index.html

Mad Money’s Jim Cramer has called for the removal of Musk from the company too: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/26/cramer-elon-musk-should-be-removed-as-tesla-ceo-for-attacking-the-sec.html

The “highly probable” part is your own hugely biased opinion (which we still do not know the motivation behind) and extremely speculative.

TSLA stock up today, go figure... was there even a bad news somewhere? Well the Macan being full EV is going to be a problem for the Model Y, but only in 2022...

Cramer? Seriously? When was the last time the opinion of a TV entertainer mattered in finance? CNBC is an all day TV show for mom and pop trying to trade stocks on the internet. They care more about celebrities and sports along with their personal agendas and their huge egos than finance or anything that matters in the world.

Have either of you read the SEC Show of Cause document filed with the court yesterday?  

It succinctly outlines the case the SEC is making against Musk, and Tesla, for their failure to comply with the October 16, 2018, Final Judgment Agreement in conjunction with the 10(b)-5 violations the SEC filed in September.  These were very serious charges and the SEC, at that time, requested the removal of Musk from both the Chairmanship as well as the CEO position from Tesla.  The parties hammered out an agreement that a) Musk would resign as Chairman; b) the company would add two independent board members; c) Musk and Tesla would pay a fine of $20 million each; and d) Tesla would set up a policy and program to review each and every material communication made by Musk.  It is that final point that the SEC has taken umbrage with and it hasn't helped Musk's case when he very publicly told Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes that he refuses to comply with the SEC's final Judgment Order. 

Few recall that coupled with the SEC's 10(b)-5 action against Musk and Tesla for Musk's infamous $420 going private Tweet, that the Department of Justice opened an investigation into validity of Tesla Model 3 reported production levels.  The DOJ investigation is still ongoing.  

Tesla has become a revolving door for executive employment and nearly 90 executives have left in the past few years including Tesla General Counsel Dane Butswinkas, who resigned one day after Musk sent his Tweet that set up the SEC's current contempt of court filing.  Interestingly, Butswinkas was on the job for only two months.  Also recall that the Chief Accounting Officer resigned in September 2018, after being on the job for less than one month and the CFO recently resigned too.  This is highly abnormal and not conducive to efficient operations of a business facing turbulent times in the next few quarters.  These are the very types of activities and actions that raise red flags among federal regulators.  The SEC's singular role is to protect U.S. equity holders and tax payers by promoting market efficiency, order and fairness by facilitating capital formation.  It is not there to protect Elon Musk or Tesla.  

Being in the private investment industry concentrating on late stage venture with the occasional buyout transaction, I know the importance of good corporate governance and the operations of the SEC and DOJ.  Elon Musk has been treated more than fair by the federal regulators and others have suffered for far fewer violations.  Several years ago we had to replace as CEO and Chairman the founder of one of our investee companies.  His actions were far less than those of Musk, and this wasn't even a publicly-held entity, but we needed to make that hard decision; however, that decision insured that the company survived and prospered.  At this juncture, Musk's puerile actions are negatively impacting Tesla, regardless of today's market performance, and distracting the company's board from the hard decisions  they face moving the company forward.

You once again try to apply “normal” procedures and economics to a company that does not fit in that mold, or at least tries to. Nothing makes sense about Tesla, the valuation, the governance, the turnover, the tent, you name it. And yet they defy every doom and gloom prediction.

Just look at recent months: everyone said they would not make money and they they would need to raise cash. We are almost in March and all the prediction were wrong. The mere existence of Tesla was predicted to be impossible and yet they are now the largest luxury’s sedan seller in the USA. You can hate them as much as you want, you just don’t understand them as they don’t fit in your “mold”. Rejection is the normal reaction to incomprehension.

Rules and accountability: http://thedrive.com/tech/26650/elon-musk-vs-the-sec-a-hypebeasts-progress 

Well written article but completely missing the facts that Tesla makes 250,000 cars a year and makes money...

SMH.  It was about Musk and his ego and how Tesla would be stronger without the narcissist.

The regulatory issues of OTA patching in the auto industry: http://thedrive.com/tech/26679/why-havent-over-the-air-updates-taken-over-the-auto-industry.  Anticipating a cacophony of retorts from the usual choir members.  

CGX car nut:

The regulatory issues of OTA patching in the auto industry: http://thedrive.com/tech/26679/why-havent-over-the-air-updates-taken-over-the-auto-industry.  Anticipating a cacophony of retorts from the usual choir members.  

Article written by Bertel Schmitt. One of the "famous" anti-Tesla profiles out there in good company with Mark B Spiegel & Co. Will go down in history as the most bullying and tragic bunch of short sighted people out there. Trying to put everything Tesla does in a bad light seems to be an art form for those idiots. There are many of examples where they bully Tesla on a certain topic and when another company in the auto industry does the exact same thing they can't stop shouting out how good it is. It's a bit of a laugh checking out these guys tweets from time to time 

What is more interesting is what news is coming out tonight... Warren Buffet buy out entire TSLA from the stock market? or will we just get some minor news like updated supercharing speed, new gigafactory in Europe or some more details about upcoming Model Y. Time will tell 

lukestern:

CGX car nut:

The regulatory issues of OTA patching in the auto industry: http://thedrive.com/tech/26679/why-havent-over-the-air-updates-taken-over-the-auto-industry.  Anticipating a cacophony of retorts from the usual choir members.  

Article written by Bertel Schmitt. One of the "famous" anti-Tesla profiles out there. Buddy of Mark B Spiegel & Co. Will go down in history as the most bullying and tragic bunch of short sighted people out there. Trying to put everything Tesla does in a bad light seems to be an art form for those idiots. There are many of examples where they bully Tesla on a certain topic and when another company in the auto industry does the exact same thing they can't stop shouting out how good it is. It's a bit of a laugh checking out these guys tweets from time to time 

What is more interesting is what news is coming out tonight... Warren Buffet buy out entire TSLA from the stock market? or will we just get some minor news like updated supercharing speed, new gigafactory in Europe or some more details about upcoming Model Y. Time will tell 

Right on cue and the reason for the language in my posting.  I am very familiar with the history of Bertel Schmitt; however, valid points are raised in the article by other auto executives about OTA.  But, let’s not address those issues found in other markets beyond the United States. 

From the headline:
>>Tesla has had OTA updates for years. Big established automakers still aren't adopting them at scale.
This is not correct. Major car makers (incl commercial vehicles) have OTA updates for years. Nowadays this feature is mainly used to fix bugs rather than retrofit open fire; but this is about to change. Except new services in the near future ...

Valid points? They pull out "type approval" as a reason there are legal issues with OTA-updates? I mean... type approval occur with new models/MY, but in between many cars will get software updates to fix issues, but all this is done without re-do type approval. Performing the update OTA or connect the car via a cable to do the same thing in a workshop is no difference. The later is just a bit more complex and cost more for both the customer and the company providing the service.

I just think the auto execs do realize that their organizations are not build up to support this new and more cost efficient way of servicing/improving their cars. They will then find issues with OTA like written in this article. At least until they do it themselves...

Maybe I am totally missing the point but there is zero legal difference doing an OTA update or having the dealer pug in a device to update the software.

This article is biased propaganda posted by our usual non biased residents.

schmoell:

From the headline:
>>Tesla has had OTA updates for years. Big established automakers still aren't adopting them at scale.
This is not correct. Major car makers (incl commercial vehicles) have OTA updates for years. Nowadays this feature is mainly used to fix bugs rather than retrofit open fire; but this is about to change. Except new services in the near future ...

That is addressed in the article, but the major point is that the majors aren't doing OTA patching over mission critical and/or safety related systems.  However, Tesla is doing exactly that and on several occasions rolled out patches in a few days.  The example given is when Consumer Reports brought the braking distance issue to Tesla's attention, Tesla quickly produced a solutions soon afterwards.  While this is admirable, the question remains of how did Tesla approve a rapid fix and know that new issues were not introduced.  If, on the other hand, Tesla was aware of the Model 3 braking issue, why did it wait until Consumer Reports brought the issue to the company's attention.  

That is one issue.  The other issue is will an OTA patch always solve the intended issue of a mission critical system.  At this time, the major automakers mitigate the potential risk by having the update occur at a dealership.  Large corporations tend to be risk adverse as a bad outcome can create a large liability for the company.  For example, look at the liability Volkswagen Group created with the diesel emissions issue.  It's modularity and component sharing approach to automobile production resulted in tens of millions of units being similarly affected with intentional defective emission systems software.  The company is still expending cash to cover the liability.  Fortunately, Volkswagen Group had the cash on balance sheet as well as the credit facilities to handle this potential existential liability.  

CGX car nut:

schmoell:

From the headline:
>>Tesla has had OTA updates for years. Big established automakers still aren't adopting them at scale.
This is not correct. Major car makers (incl commercial vehicles) have OTA updates for years. Nowadays this feature is mainly used to fix bugs rather than retrofit open fire; but this is about to change. Except new services in the near future ...

That is addressed in the article, but the major point is that the majors aren't doing OTA patching over mission critical and/or safety related systems.  However, Tesla is doing exactly that and on several occasions rolled out patches in a few days.  The example given is when Consumer Reports brought the braking distance issue to Tesla's attention, Tesla quickly produced a solutions soon afterwards.  While this is admirable, the question remains of how did Tesla approve a rapid fix and know that new issues were not introduced.  If, on the other hand, Tesla was aware of the Model 3 braking issue, why did it wait until Consumer Reports brought the issue to the company's attention.  

That is one issue.  The other issue is will an OTA patch always solve the intended issue of a mission critical system.  At this time, the major automakers mitigate the potential risk by having the update occur at a dealership.  Large corporations tend to be risk adverse as a bad outcome can create a large liability for the company.  For example, look at the liability Volkswagen Group created with the diesel emissions issue.  It's modularity and component sharing approach to automobile production resulted in tens of millions of units being similarly affected with intentional defective emission systems software.  The company is still expending cash to cover the liability.  Fortunately, Volkswagen Group had the cash on balance sheet as well as the credit facilities to handle this potential existential liability.  

*Edit: Added link to "How Many Millions of Lines of Code Does It Take?"

I can assure you, that updates for safety critical components - like powertrain - are possible and are increasingly  done for a significant number of vehicles. Think about a country like Brazil, where the nearest dealership might be 1000 miles away. The problem OEMs face (and this is esp true for Volkswagen) is not the update itself but the outrageous complexity [1] due to different models, platforms, suppliers, ECU revisions etc. This is where Tesla has an (slowly vanishing) advantage.
From my own experience I'd say, that Teslas QA needs a lot more love​​​​; but overall the traditional OEMs are trying to catch up with Tesla.

[1]  https://www.visualcapitalist.com/millions-lines-of-code/

schmoell:

CGX car nut:

schmoell:

From the headline:
>>Tesla has had OTA updates for years. Big established automakers still aren't adopting them at scale.
This is not correct. Major car makers (incl commercial vehicles) have OTA updates for years. Nowadays this feature is mainly used to fix bugs rather than retrofit open fire; but this is about to change. Except new services in the near future ...

That is addressed in the article, but the major point is that the majors aren't doing OTA patching over mission critical and/or safety related systems.  However, Tesla is doing exactly that and on several occasions rolled out patches in a few days.  The example given is when Consumer Reports brought the braking distance issue to Tesla's attention, Tesla quickly produced a solutions soon afterwards.  While this is admirable, the question remains of how did Tesla approve a rapid fix and know that new issues were not introduced.  If, on the other hand, Tesla was aware of the Model 3 braking issue, why did it wait until Consumer Reports brought the issue to the company's attention.  

That is one issue.  The other issue is will an OTA patch always solve the intended issue of a mission critical system.  At this time, the major automakers mitigate the potential risk by having the update occur at a dealership.  Large corporations tend to be risk adverse as a bad outcome can create a large liability for the company.  For example, look at the liability Volkswagen Group created with the diesel emissions issue.  It's modularity and component sharing approach to automobile production resulted in tens of millions of units being similarly affected with intentional defective emission systems software.  The company is still expending cash to cover the liability.  Fortunately, Volkswagen Group had the cash on balance sheet as well as the credit facilities to handle this potential existential liability.  

I can assure you, that updates for safety critical components - like powertrain - are possible and are increasingly  done for a significant number of vehicles. Think about a country like Brazil, where the nearest dealership might be 1000 miles away. The problem OEMs face (and this is esp true for Volkswagen) is not the update itself but the outrageous complexity due to different models, platforms, suppliers, ECU revisions etc. This is where Tesla has an (slowly vanishing) advantage.
From my own experience I'd say, that Teslas QA needs a lot more love​​​​; but overall the traditional OEMs are trying to catch up with Tesla.

The best analogy is Apple iOS and Google Android.  Apple has a much higher adoption rate for its iOS compared to that with Google Android because of the continuity of the Apple platform.  Once Google licensed Android to myriad handset manufacturers have made small differences that make a standard update more difficult and this is reflected in the adoption rates of new Android updates.

At least Herbert Diess seems to be rather open about that Tesla got some advantages...

“I think Tesla is doing a good job. They don’t have to care about the legacy. They don’t have to care about the next generation of gasoline in motors and so they can really focus on the future. It’s an advantage.”

“Some of our competitors have much more speed when it comes to software — software deployment and capabilities where we are still lagging behind. But we are good at scale and so we have a chance.”

https://electrek.co/2019/02/28/vw-admits-tesla-advantage-protect-gas-car-business/

lukestern:

At least Herbert Diess seems to be rather open about that Tesla got some advantages...

“I think Tesla is doing a good job. They don’t have to care about the legacy. They don’t have to care about the next generation of gasoline in motors and so they can really focus on the future. It’s an advantage.”

“Some of our competitors have much more speed when it comes to software — software deployment and capabilities where we are still lagging behind. But we are good at scale and so we have a chance.”

https://electrek.co/2019/02/28/vw-admits-tesla-advantage-protect-gas-car-business/

Good.  

>>The best analogy is Apple iOS and Google Android.  

Well, I'd argue differently, since Tesla uses quite a lot of standard components from the usual suppliers like Bosch/Conti/etc.

An OEM will usually have more than one supplier for a certain function. They do that in order to a) achieve the best price and b)  not be dependent on a single tier 1.  Now let's assume that 50% of a certain vehicle type is equipped with the function from supplier A and the rest from supplier B. Thats good so far. Now supplier A finds out, that the hardware must  change, because a certain component is no longer available.  1 yr later supplier B does the same. Now you have 4 different versions of that function in the field. The same will happen with all the other functions in the vehicle, like brakes, engine control, doors, infotainment, air bags, you name it. So after a couple of years you'll end up with a huge number of vehicles, that are all slightly different and updating such a fleet without causing "side effects" on the CAN is almost impossible without extensive QA.  I assume that Tesla is running into the same problem and that's why my friends pre facelift P90D does not get any updates. It's a can of worms for everyone (but so is updating in the workshop)

schmoell:

>>The best analogy is Apple iOS and Google Android.  

Well, I'd argue differently, since Tesla uses quite a lot of standard components from the usual suppliers like Bosch/Conti/etc.

An OEM will usually have more than one supplier for a certain function. They do that in order to a) achieve the best price and b)  not be dependent on a single tier 1.  Now let's assume that 50% of a certain vehicle type is equipped with the function from supplier A and the rest from supplier B. Thats good so far. Now supplier A finds out, that the hardware must  change, because a certain component is no longer available.  1 yr later supplier B does the same. Now you have 4 different versions of that function in the field. The same will happen with all the other functions in the vehicle, like brakes, engine control, doors, infotainment, air bags, you name it. So after a couple of years you'll end up with a huge number of vehicles, that are all slightly different and updating such a fleet without causing "side effects" on the CAN is almost impossible without extensive QA.  I assume that Tesla is running into the same problem and that's why my friends pre facelift P90D does not get any updates. It's a can of worms for everyone (but so is updating in the workshop)

What you described still fits into the Apple iOS v. Google Android ecosystem analogy, with Tesla moving into Android space as the company builds more and varied product.  

I don't if it is still true but a couple of decades ago Mazda, when it was a Ford investee company, purchased surplus wiring for its wiring harnesses.  I found this out during a conversation with a Service manager for a Mazda dealership that shared space with a Porsche/Audi/Volkswagen dealership.  He lamented the fact that it was nearly impossible to troubleshoot any wiring problems with a Mazda because of the non-standardized color codes caused by using surplus wiring.  He was very envious of those standardized color codes found in products on the other side of the dealer lot.

>> He lamented the fact that it was nearly impossible to troubleshoot any wiring problems with a Mazda because of the non-standardized color codes caused by using surplus wiring.

I bet this was because Mazda could save $1,20 per car, or at least one accountant had a spreadsheet that said so  

With the ever increasing amount of software, cars are more and more becoming  the modern version of a Windows 95 PC.  There are some initiative to fix that, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Finally that thread is complete OT without even mentioning R8, Huracan or climate change . Sorry for that 

schmoell:

>> He lamented the fact that it was nearly impossible to troubleshoot any wiring problems with a Mazda because of the non-standardized color codes caused by using surplus wiring.

I bet this was because Mazda could save $1,20 per car, or at least one accountant had a spreadsheet that said so  

With the ever increasing amount of software, cars are more and more becoming  the modern version of a Windows 95 PC.  There are some initiative to fix that, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Finally that thread is complete OT without even mentioning R8, Huracan or climate change . Sorry for that 

Getting back on topic, we can't determine if Tesla follows a similar cost savings strategy as no one seems able to purchase replacement parts for the cars through the Tesla retail/service outlets.   

Telsa is launching the $35,000 Model 3 variant with a 220 mile range battery pack.  It also is offering FSD for $7,000.00.

CGX car nut:

Telsa is launching the $35,000 Model 3 variant with a 220 mile range battery pack.  It also is offering FSD for $7,000.00.

Actually the base model is not $35,000 but $24,450, of course, based on potential incentives and gas savings...Once again, the company resorts to that sleight of hand.

Dropping the retail outlets?  Explains why the company worked on reducing delivery processing times with an app and has a drop-off to deliver cars to one's house.  That would free up some capital and release additional cash flow but having someone view the car beforehand has some value.  

Correct!  Tesla is closing most of its retail locations.   https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/28/18245296/tesla-stores-closing-online-only-car-sales?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=cho...

Well, that's one way to shakeup the marketplace.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/35000-tesla-model-3-available-now

Drive it for a week and return it if you don’t like. 1000 miles. Buy using your phone in one minute. If the stock really is dropping this would be a good time to buy.  Awesome marketing. Don’t care what the haters say. Btw the stock is not halted and a 2% drop for Tesla is a walk in the park. Keep an eye on this one tomorrow. One way or another it will move.  I don’t have he balls to short this puppy.