Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorKeeed
Grizy,
This sort of analysis of bond issuance strikes me as the corporate finance equivalent of dudes who live in their mother's basement flying drones around Tesla parking lots obsessing about a few dozen cars that have been parked there a month. You obviously know more than anyone else ITT about this sort of thing, making these sorts Tesla inferences about what seems to be a pretty minor finance hiccup at a whole other company is nuts, right?
The only thing unusual about what happened was Musk fired GS. Typically, and I've been personally in rooms where this happened, the lenders/bankers and founders would negotiate over how much to give, rates (usually the least cared about), and covenants. I think what happened was Musk told GS to **** off hoping BoA would acquiesce and was surprised to find he wasn't getting better terms. So he got less money, probably planning to use the 250m to pay for some big PR stunt that he thinks might give him a stronger bargaining position.
It is EXTREMELY unusual that a company of Tesla's (SpaceX too) size (not just market cap anymore, but also in revenues) gets as much rope as Tesla+Musk does but they have obviously been getting the rope for years.
For good reason. What some people in this thread don't seem to realize is, up to this point, early investors in Elon's ventures have made out extremely well and Tesla still hasn't failed its investors yet.
Pyramid scheme? Maybe. But like I said before, the bull thesis, almost by design, is unfalsifiable in the short term with people already anticipating the worst of management excesses/shenanigans that fall just short of legal fraud.