Everything you're saying is about their sales as a whole. I'm specifically talking about eu-evs. The data is right there and there's nothing to dispute. eu-evs looks relatively strong. I do expect ASP to be lower for those, but the fact that they are selling at all helps them keep the BS going for longer than I'd like. OF course that's only 3 markets. Again, I didn't say the sales are strong everywhere.

Every single statement I made in the last post is straight out of eu-evs and from nowhere else. Did you even look at the data there? Jesus.

Thank you for (inadvertently) making my point. There is nothing to dispute in my post. Every statement comes solely from the eu-evs pivot table as of today and all are factual. The fact that you think the numbers are for "sales as a whole" shows that you don't even have a passing familiarity with the eu-evs data you're claiming is "strong".

I doubt that the SolarCity fraud case will have any meaningful impact. Remember the "Funding secured" case? How much money did people lose because of that? Why would you expect this case to go so differently?

"Funding secured" was a case brought by the SEC, which was settled rather than prosecuted because the SEC head personally intervened. Who knows who Musk called to pull strings.

This is very different - this is a class action shareholder lawsuit alleging improper dealings leading to billions in investor losses. It's a much clearer case to make imo.

I will say I've been surprised by the weakness of the courts and regulatory bodies so far on what are clear cases of fraud and lying to investors. Looking back that seems to be the pattern - it takes years for these things to work through. The difference in this one is that it proceeded to discovery, at which point a rapid Musk freakout happened...they seem to me to be pretty obviously trying to cover their tracks at this point and work SolarCity into a fake growing business ASAP (it was being progressively shut down prior to discovery going ahead).

So you're saying eu-evs isn't at 90% of Q2?

What are you looking at? It's plain as a day on the "brand q o q" graph. Only thing I haven't considered is if we have less days in this quarter.

the pivot table you're quoting supports what i'm saying as well. No idea how you're misreading this. It's tracking to ~90% of Q2 and July wasn't that far off April.

Are you only looking at Norway?

Are you assuming linear sales instead of end of quarter spike? If so I can buy that argument.

But it's very clearly at 90% of what Q2 was at this point in the quarter.

Q2 Europe bad,
Q3 trending even worse,
Better cut price now

Supplying in-house LIBs with solar panels/roofs is an obvious fit. This could work on any scale (residential, commercial, utility).

Tesla already supplied the world's largest LIB in South Australia.

Iterating on that project + also supplying solar capacity is an obvious synergy.

It's already doing this eg. the Kauai project in Hawaii: 55,000 solar panels capable of delivering 17 megawatts of peak direct-current power and 52 megawatt-hours of lithium ion battery storage in the form of 272 Powerpack 2s.

Do you just make stuff up in your head and type it out as if it's a fact?



Super unlikely that class action gets up imo.

The Solar City acquisition had terrible optics even if it was above board, maybe it would have been prudent to not do it for that reason.

It is an obvious fit but SolarCity was failing/losing massive amounts of money when they acquired it and they continued to shut it down.
I'm think you're confusing (deliberately?) Tesla powerpacks with SolarCity which has nothing to do with that. Besides that, selling repackaged commodities at a loss isn't a business model. For South Australia they bought Samsung cells, repackaged them, and took a loss.

It's Elon Musk who thinks your claims are wrong, not me. He's been progressively shutting down SolarCity.



And with good reason since SolarCity is a massive money loser:

You're also confusing SolarCity with Tesla powerpacks, which long preceded the SolarCity acquisition (they were first launched in 2015). I notice you talk above about large scale power installations which have nothing to do with SolarCity. Are you trying to throw out a red herring? Of course you are; you're a dishonest clown who shills for a liar and a fraud.

Musk had no choice but to do it if he wanted to avoid one of his companies going bankrupt and the reputation and financial hit that would come with that.

A company that was selling (or planned to sell) Powerpacks and Solar Roofs/Panels obviously had potential synergies with Solar City at the time of the acquisition.

It's not even slightly contentious.

Yes and I agreed completely. It's right there in the first line. Are you mentally challenged, dishonest, or unable to read?
The thing is, you don't spend billions to buy a Solyndra clone (owned by you and your cousins) right on the verge of bankruptcy for the "synergies". And the board agreed. They wanted nothing to do with this (despite being Musk lapdogs already) and Musk repeatedly pressed and pressed and pressed the issue until they relented. These facts are all in the lawsuit.

There is no similarity to Solyndra.

Why don't you mention the fact that Musk recused himself from the decision?

Being related to the founder doesn't ipso facto make the deal illegitimate.

It's exactly like Solyndra - an unviable solar business drowning in debt and posting massive losses:
It was bankrupt without a Tesla bailout. Their business model is simply broken - extremely high SG&A costs for aggressive sales without which they can't grow, as evidenced by the rapid crash in installations as Musk let most of his sales force go (despite the claimed Tesla "synergies" of selling to their car customers, sales have crashed to near nothing as the sales force was let go). The other thing that makes their business model broken is a 30 year timeline on a rapidly obsoleting product, mortgaged. Those are worse than subprimes (good luck with repossessing roof tiles).
Everyone knows that Musk recused himself and in fact he had to given the massive conflict of interest (it wasn't a choice). His recusal is irrelevant though when he de facto controls the board (filled with relatives and people who owe him - he himself admits that he controls the board) and lies about a new upcoming product (solar roofs) which is pure vaporware. It was him who brought this awful deal to the board and who pressed it again and again after it was rejected by the board precisely because it was an awful deal. The testimonies and board minutes are right in the lawsuit.
Pushing for the purchase of a soon-to-be-bankrupt business and then lying about the state of the business and its products does. The cousins are just icing on the fraud cake.

I mean, notice the pattern here. Musk has a long history of lying his face off in blatant frauds when he needs money. This is just a fraction of recent examples:

Claim: Billions in solar roofs coming soon.

In October 2016, Solarcity is failing and he wants it bought out. He comes out with a flash presentation called solar roofs which he claims are coming soon but are pure fraud and vaporware. Helps the deal go through some weeks later.

Claim: 20,000 Model 3s per month by December 2017

July 2017, Tesla is bleeding huge amounts of money even after capital raises earlier in the year, and decides to go to the junk bond market. Elon Musk tweets:



This statement is pure fraud; Musk knew for a fact this wasn't possible as he admitted in the Q4 2018 conference call. Some weeks later

Claim: 1 million autonomous robotaxis in 2020

April 2019: Tesla is once again near broke after a shocker quarter, and they need to raise again with the stock cratering. Musk moves up earnings by a week and holds an "autonomous investor day", where he promises 2020 robotaxis. Some weeks later:

Musk will go to prison once it all collapses and be sued into bankruptcy for the rest. But I think it has to collapse first - even with Enron and Theranos and Crazy Eddie massive frauds, nothing happened until the stock market turned. I do think this lawsuit has potential however given how ****-scared Musk seems to be of it.

Solyndra was a failed technology play. Solar City didn't really innovate on tech and its business model is viable and works in a number of markets internationally (many of which were direct rip offs of Solar City).

There is nothing fraudulent about purchasing a failing business. Lying about the state of the business and its products would be fraudulent but I have not seen any evidence that occurred. You might say it's in the lawsuit, well that's obviously not an objective source. Courts should do a reasonable job of vetting the evidence.

"Icing on the fraud cake" was hilarious and made me lol.

Second only to ponzi waves.

Why would Larry Ellison agree to chair the board if it was a flaming pile of fraud?

The guy has everything to lose, is super smart, and and has an outstanding reputation.

Would make zero sense.

Ellison is so incredibly stupid he couldn't spot what many others did - that Theranos was a fraud. He was deeply involved in it:
I don't think anything else needs to be said.

Was he ever chairman of the board at Theranos?

That is yet another sloppy comparison. He probably invests in anything Tim Draper does and being an advisor means absolutely nothing.

OK. I ignored this the first time but wtf are you talking about?

Robin Denham is chairman of the board. She lives in Australia and works as an executive for an Australian telecommunications company. She's not even present, she's there in name only while Musk runs the joint as before. Ellison is merely a board member which means nothing (Enron was staffed by a large and diverse number of luminaries, businessmen and former high level politicians). There's a reason Musk brought in a friend and investor as an "independent" board member. Ellison gets a title and fingers in another pie and the naive people like you go "it can't be fraud if this guy is involved!" Enron used the same reasoning in stacking their board with various luminaries. So did Theranos. It's standard operating procedure for frauds - companies that aren't frauds tend not to do this as they want competent full time directors actually involved in the serious business of running the company, not empty names for credibility.

It's clear you have zero clue how the world works. You're totally oblivious and comically gullible besides. Classic Musk fodder.
He was more involved in Theranos than he is in Tesla. Regardless, this is comedy gold:

despacito opinion: "Ellison is super smart and wouldn't be involved in a fraud"
real world fact: "Ellison was a big investor and advisor in Theranos"

Lol bro, I should pay you to be my sockpuppet, everything you post unintentionally makes you look silly and Tesla look bad.

I borderline think you're a Tesla fan posing as a bear to discredit other bears.

No you don't. Even you know you're getting owned here, although it's mostly self ownage.

You couldn't own me on the owningest day of your life if you had an electrified owning machine.

If you had even the slightest clue about how to solve real problems, you should throw your hat in the ring and go for it, rather than self-righteously tearing down those who have the courage to try.

But you don't have a clue. You're a rent seeker who lives by sucking value from the interstices of value creation.

I don't need to with comments like that; you're doing all the work.

Yeah man, it takes real courage to suck up billions in taxpayer money (that could go to actual research rather than pure wealth destruction and sports cars for rich people) by lying to people.

And I don't tear down anybody who's innovating. I point out frauds and liars. Musk is both. If he actually had talent he wouldn't need to commit fraud and lie. Pretty simple really.

I pay taxes so I'm a rent giver. Musk receives billions in taxes while destroying vast amounts of wealth; he's the ultimate rent seeker, a welfare check billionaire if you will (he's on the street without the government and his lies bailing him out).

Okay, I get it now. You're 12.

There's an electrified owning machine now? Damn, I can't wait to unload my ancient ICE owning machine! It's not a SolarCity brand, is it? I hear they're going bankrupt so the warranty's prob worthless...