Big Baby

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's name has clearly lost its luster among the parents of newborns.

According to BabyCenter's review of the data the name "Elon" has cratered in popularity over the last year, dropping from 120 babies per million in 2021 to just 90 babies per million, falling in the popularity rankings by 466 spots.

The name had seen a meteoric rise over the last seven or so years, but is currently falling out of favor big time, plummeting back down to 2019 levels.

The read? It seems like Musk's public reputation has been taking a significant hit.

Name Game

There are countless reasons why Musk could be less popular public figure than he was three years ago.

Especially since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Musk emerged as a controversial figure, speaking out against vaccinations and lockdowns. He has also become synonymous with an unhealthy work culture, firing practically anybody standing in his way and forcing his employees to work long hours.

The fiasco surrounding Musk's chaotic takeover of Twitter has likely only further besmirched his public image.

For reference, other baby names that have fallen out of fashion include "Kanye" — almost certainly in response to the travails of rapper Kanye West, who's had a years-long relationship with Musk — which fell a whopping 3,410 spots over the last year.

More on Elon Musk: Sad Elon Musk Says He's Overwhelmed In Strange Interview After the Power Went Out

The post "Elon" Plummets in Popularity as a Baby Name for Some Reason appeared first on Futurism.

View original post here:

"Elon" Plummets in Popularity as a Baby Name for Some Reason

A provocative manslaughter case is about to kick off in Los Angeles later this month, involving a fatal crash caused by a Tesla vehicle that had the company's controversial Autopilot feature turned on.

It's the first case of its kind, and one that could set a precedent for future crashes involving cars and driver-assistance software, Reuters reports.

We won't know the exact defense until the case gets under way, but the crux is that the man who was behind the wheel of the Tesla is facing manslaughter charges — but has pleaded not guilty, setting up potentially novel legal arguments about culpability in a deadly collision when, technically speaking, it wasn't a human driving the car.

"Who's at fault, man or machine?" asked Edward Walters, an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University, in an interview with Reuters. "The state will have a hard time proving the guilt of the human driver because some parts of the task are being handled by Tesla."

The upcoming trial is about a fatal collision that took place in 2019. The crash involved Kevin George Aziz Riad, who ran a red light in his Tesla Model S, and collided with a Honda Civic, killing a couple who were reportedly on their first date.

According to vehicle data, Riad did not apply the brakes but had a hand on the steering wheel. Perhaps most critically, though, the Tesla's Autopilot feature was turned on in the moments leading up to the crash.

Riad is facing manslaughter charges, with prosecutors arguing his actions were reckless.

Meanwhile, Riad's lawyers have argued that he shouldn't be charged with a crime, but have so far stopped short of publicly placing blame on Tesla's Autopilot software.

Tesla is not directly implicated in the upcoming trial and isn't facing charges in the case, according to Reuters.

A separate trial, however, involving the family of one of the deceased is already scheduled for next year — but this time, Tesla is the defendant.

"I can't say that the driver was not at fault, but the Tesla system, Autopilot, and Tesla spokespeople encourage drivers to be less attentive," the family's attorney Donald Slavik told Reuters.

"Tesla knows people are going to use Autopilot and use it in dangerous situations," he added.

Tesla is already under heavy scrutiny over its Autopilot and so-called Full Self-Driving software, despite conceding that the features "do not make the vehicle autonomous" and that drivers must remain attentive of the road at all times.

Critics argue that Tesla's marketing is misleading and that it's only leading to more accidents — not making the roads safer, as Tesla CEO Elon Musk has argued in the past.

In fact, a recent survey found that 42 percent of Tesla Autopilot said they feel "comfortable treating their vehicles as fully self-driving."

Regulators are certainly already paying attention. The news comes a week after Reuters revealed that the Department of Justice is investigating Tesla over Autopilot.

Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced an investigation of accidents in which Teslas have smashed into emergency response vehicles that were pulled over with sirens or flares.

This month's trial certainly stands the chance of setting a precedent. Was Riad fully at fault or was Tesla's Autopilot at least partially to blame as well?

The answer now lies in the hands of a jury.

READ MORE: Tesla crash trial in California hinges on question of 'man vs machine' [Reuters]

More on Autopilot: Survey: 42% of Tesla Autopilot Drivers Think Their Cars Can Drive Themselves

The post Manslaughter Case Has a Strange Twist: Tesla That Killed Couple Was on Autopilot appeared first on Futurism.

Follow this link:

Manslaughter Case Has a Strange Twist: Tesla That Killed Couple Was on Autopilot

Jeff Bezos' former housekeeper is suing the Amazon founder for workplace discrimination that she says forced her to literally climb out out the window of his house to use the bathroom.

In the suit, filed this week in a Washington state court, the former housekeeper claimed that she and Bezos' other household staff were not provided with legally-mandated eating or restroom breaks, and that because there was no "readily accessible bathroom" for them to use, they had to clamber out a laundry room window to get to one.

In the complaint, lawyers for the ex-housekeeper, who is described as having worked for wealthy families for nearly 20 years, wrote that household staff were initially allowed to use a small bathroom in the security room of Bezos' main house, but "this soon stopped... because it was decided that housekeepers using the bathroom was a breach of security protocol."

The suit also alleges that housekeepers in the billionaire's employ "frequently developed Urinary Tract Infections" that they believed was related to not being able to use the bathroom when they needed to at work.

"There was no breakroom for the housekeepers," the complaint adds. "Even though Plaintiff worked 10, 12, and sometimes 14 hours a day, there was no designated area for her to sit down and rest."

The housekeeper — who, like almost all of her coworkers, is Latino — was allegedly not aware that she was entitled to breaks for lunch or rest, and was only able to have a lunch break when Bezos or his family were not on the premises, the lawsuit alleges.

The Washington Post owner has denied his former housekeeper's claims of discrimination through an attorney.

"We have investigated the claims, and they lack merit," Harry Korrell, a Bezos attorney, told Insider of the suit. "[The former employee] made over six figures annually and was the lead housekeeper."

He added that the former housekeeper "was responsible for her own break and meal times, and there were several bathrooms and breakrooms available to her and other staff."

"The evidence will show that [the former housekeeper] was terminated for performance reasons," he continued. "She initially demanded over $9M, and when the company refused, she decided to file this suit."

As the suit was just filed and may well end in a settlement, it'll likely be a long time, if ever, before we find out what really happened at Bezos' house — but if we do, it'll be a fascinating peek behind the curtain at the home life of one of the world's most powerful and wealthy men.

More on billionaires: Tesla Morale Low As Workers Still Don't Have Desks, Face Increased Attendance Surveillance

The post Jeff Bezos' Housekeeper Says She Had to Climb Out the Window to Use the Bathroom appeared first on Futurism.

See original here:

Jeff Bezos' Housekeeper Says She Had to Climb Out the Window to Use the Bathroom

Now that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has taken over Twitter, the billionaire has been frantically shuffling through ambitious plans to turn the ailing social media platform into a revenue-driving business.

Case in point, according to internal email obtained by The Washington Post, Musk is plotting for Twitter to charge users to view videos posted by content creators and take a cut of the proceeds — a highly controversial idea that's already been met with internal skepticism.

The team of Twitter engineers has "identified the risk as high" in the email, citing "risks related to copyrighted content, creator/user trust issues, and legal compliance."

In short, Musk is blazing ahead with his infamously ambitious timelines — a "move fast and break things" approach that could signify a tidal change for Twitter's historically sluggish approach to launching new features.

Musk has already made some big structural changes to Twitter, having fired high-up positions at the company and dissolved its board of directors.

The company will also likely be facing mass layoffs, according to The Washington Post.

The new feature detailed in the new email, which is being referred to as "Paywalled Video," allows creators to "enable the paywall once a video has been added to the tweet" and chose from a preset list of prices, ranging from $1 to $10.

"This will also give Twitter a revenue stream to reward content creators," Musk tweeted on Tuesday, adding that "creators need to make a living!"

But whether Twitter users will be willing to pay for stuff that was previously free remains anything but certain.

Musk has already announced that he is planning to charge $8 a month for Twitter users to stay verified, which has been met with derision.

The billionaire CEO is facing an uphill battle. Now that the company is private, he has to pay around $1 billion in annual interest payments, a result from his $44 buyout, according to the WaPo.

Compounding the trouble, Reuters reported last week that Twitter is bleeding some of its most active users.

Meanwhile, Musk's chaotic moves are likely to alienate advertisers, with the Interpublic Group, a massive inter-agency advertising group, recommending that its clients suspend all paid advertising for at least the week.

That doesn't bode well. It's not out of the question that a paywalled video feature may facilitate the monetization of pornographic content, which may end up scaring off advertisers even further — but Twitter's exact intentions for the feature are still unclear.

According to Reuters, around 13 percent of the site's content is currently marked not safe for work (NSFW).

It's part of Musk's attempt to shift revenue away from advertising on the platform. In a tweet last week, he promised advertisers that Twitter wouldn't become a "free-for-all hellscape."

But that hasn't stopped advertisers from already leaving in droves.

All in all, a paywalled video feature could mark a significant departure for Twitter, a platform still primarily known for short snippets of text.

For now, all we can do is watch.

READ MORE: Elon Musk’s Twitter is working on paid-video feature with ‘high’ risk [The Washington Post]

More on Twitter: Elon Musk Pleads With Stephen King to Pay for Blue Checkmark

The post Twitter Working on Plan to Charge Users to Watch Videos appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original:

Twitter Working on Plan to Charge Users to Watch Videos

Advertisers are fleeing Twitter in droves now that Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has taken over control.

Ever since officially closing the $44 billion deal, Musk has been busy gutting the company's executive suite and dissolving its board. Senior executives, as well as Twitter's advertising chief Sarah Personette, have departed as well.

After all, Musk has been very clear about his disdain for advertising for years now.

The resulting uncertainty has advertisers spooked — major advertising holding company IPG has already advised clients to pull out temporarily — and the billionaire CEO is in serious damage mode.

Now, Reuters reports, Musk is spending most of this week meeting with advertisers in New York, trying to reassure them that Twitter won't turn into a "free-for-all hellscape."

According to one of Reuters' sources, the meetings have been "very productive" — but plenty of other marketers are far from satisfied.

Advertisers are reportedly grilling Musk over his plans to address the rampant misinformation being spread on the platform, a trend that Musk himself has been actively contributing to since the acquisition.

And if he's succeeding in ameliorating advertisers in private, he's antagonizing them publicly. On Wednesday, Musk posted a poll asking users whether advertisers should support either "freedom of speech," or "political 'correctness'" — a type of false dichotomy that echoes the rhetoric of far-right conspiracy theorists and conservative pundits.

"Those type of provocations are not helping to calm the waters," an unnamed media buyer told Reuters.

Some are going public with the same sentiment.

"Unless Elon hires new leaders committed to keeping this 'free' platform safe from hate speech, it's not a platform brands can/should advertise on," Allie Wassum, global media director for the Nike-owned shoe brand Jordan, wrote in a LinkedIn post.

So far, Musk's plans for the social media platform remain strikingly muddy. In addition to the behind-the-scenes advertising plays, he's also announced that users will have to pay to retain their verification badge, though he's engaged in a comically public negotiation as to what the cost might be.

He's also hinted that previously banned users — former US president Donald Trump chief among them — might eventually get a chance to return, but only once "we have a clear process for doing so, which will take at least a few more weeks."

The move was seen by many as a way to wait out the impending midterm elections. After all, Twitter has played a huge role in disseminating misinformation and swaying elections in the past.

While advertisers are running for the hills, to Musk advertising is clearly only a small part of the picture — even though historically, social giants like Twitter have struggled to diversify their revenue sources much beyond display ads.

Musk nodded to that reality in a vague open letter posted last week.

"Low relevancy ads are spam, but highly relevant ads are actually content!" he wrote in the note, addressed to "Twitter advertisers."

Big picture, Twitter's operations are in free fall right now and Musk has yet to provide advertisers with a cohesive plan to pick up the pieces.

While he's hinted at the creation of a new content moderation council made up of both "people from all viewpoints" and "wildly divergent views," advertisers are clearly going to be thinking twice about continuing their business with Twitter.

With or without advertising, Twitter's finances are reportedly in a very deep hole. The billions of dollars Musk had to borrow to finance his mega acquisition will cost Twitter around $1 billion a year in interest alone.

The company also wasn't anywhere near profitable before Musk took over, losing hundreds of millions of dollars in a single quarter.

Whether that picture will change any time soon is as unclear as ever, especially in the face of a wintry economy.

But, of course, Musk has proved his critics wrong before. So anything's possible.

READ MORE: Advertisers begin to grill Elon Musk over Twitter 'free-for-all' [Reuters]

More on the saga: Elon Musk Pulling Engineers From Tesla Autopilot to Work on Twitter

The post Elon Musk Meeting With Advertisers, Begging Them Not to Leave Twitter appeared first on Futurism.

The rest is here:

Elon Musk Meeting With Advertisers, Begging Them Not to Leave Twitter

Tesla was founded in 2003 by a group of engineers who wanted to prove that people didnt need to compromise to drive electric that electric vehicles can be better, quicker and more fun to drive than gasoline cars. Today, Tesla builds not only all-electric vehicles but also infinitely scalable clean energy generation and storage products. Tesla believes the faster the world stops relying on fossil fuels and moves towards a zero-emission future, the better.

Launched in 2008, the Roadster unveiled Teslas cutting-edge battery technology and electric powertrain. From there, Tesla designed the worlds first ever premium all-electric sedan from the ground up ModelS which has become the best car in its class in every category. Combining safety, performance, and efficiency, ModelS has reset the worlds expectations for the car of the 21st century with the longest range of any electric vehicle, over-the-air software updates that make it better over time, and a record 0-60 mph acceleration time of 2.28 seconds as measured by Motor Trend. In 2015, Tesla expanded its product line with ModelX, the safest, quickest and most capable sport utility vehicle in history that holds 5-star safety ratings across every category from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Completing CEO Elon Musks Secret Master Plan, in 2016, Tesla introduced Model3, a low-priced, high-volume electric vehicle that began production in 2017. Soon after, Tesla unveiled the safest, most comfortable truck ever Tesla Semi which is designed to save owners at least $200,000 over a million miles based on fuel costs alone. In 2019, Tesla unveiled Model Y, a mid-size SUV, with seating for up to seven, and Cybertruck, which will have better utility than a traditional truck and more performance than a sports car.

Tesla vehicles are produced at its factory in Fremont, California, and Gigafactory Shanghai. To achieve our goal of having the safest factories in the world, Tesla is taking a proactive approach to safety, requiring production employees to participate in a multi-day training program before ever setting foot on the factory floor. From there, Tesla continues to provide on-the-job training and track performance daily so that improvements can be made quickly. The result is that Teslas safety rate continues to improve while production ramps.

To create an entire sustainable energy ecosystem, Tesla also manufactures a unique set of energy solutions, Powerwall, Powerpack and Solar Roof, enabling homeowners, businesses, and utilities to manage renewable energy generation, storage, and consumption. Supporting Teslas automotive and energy products is Gigafactory 1 a facility designed to significantly reduce battery cell costs. By bringing cell production in-house, Tesla manufactures batteries at the volumes required to meet production goals, while creating thousands of jobs.

And this is just the beginning. With Tesla building its most affordable car yet, Tesla continues to make products accessible and affordable to more and more people, ultimately accelerating the advent of clean transport and clean energy production. Electric cars, batteries, and renewable energy generation and storage already exist independently, but when combined, they become even more powerful thats the future we want.

Read the original post:

About Tesla | Tesla

Tesla just filed its annual proxy statement with the SEC and revealed it plans a three-for-one stock split, and that board member Larry Ellison does not plan to stand for re-election.

Shares of Tesla were up by more than 1% after-hours having closed at $696.69 on Friday.

In the filing, the company wrote of the proposed stock split, "Our success depends on attracting and retaining excellent talent," and that "highly competitive compensation packages," offering every employee an option to receive equity, helped Tesla to do that. "We believe the Stock Split would help reset the market price of our common stock so that our employees will have more flexibility in managing their equity."

A stock split is cosmetic and could mean that smaller investors feel they can afford the stock, but those investors are minuscule compared to major institutions. Many brokerages already offer investors fractional trading, allowing small investors to buy a slice of seemingly expensive stocks.

In its 2022 proxy filing, the electric vehicle and renewable energy business, also revealed that board member Larry Ellison currently owns 1.5% of Tesla shares. Ellison plans to relinquish his duties as a member of Tesla's board of directors.

The filing also says that Tesla CEO Elon Musk currently holds 23.5% of Tesla shares and Vanguard holds 6% of Tesla shares. Musk sold a considerable chunk of his Tesla holdings since late 2021, in part to shore up a stake in Twitter, the social networking giant he agreed to acquire for around $44 billion.

Tesla announced a similar five-for-one stock split in August 2020.

In thirteen different proposals suggested by shareholders,Teslais being asked to examine and disclose more about its: anti-harassment and discrimination efforts, lobbying practices, supply chains and labor, and details about its own water use and water-related climate impacts and risks.

The company plans to hold its annual shareholder meeting online and with a limited number of shareholders invited to attend in person at the new Tesla factory in Austin, Texas on August 4, 2022.

Visit link:

Tesla files for 3-for-1 stock split

SI unit of magnetic field strength

The tesla (symbol: T) is a derived unit of the magnetic B-field strength (also, magnetic flux density) in the International System of Units.

One tesla is equal to one weber per square metre. The unit was announced during the General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1960 and is named[1] in honour of Serbian-American electrical and mechanical engineer Nikola Tesla, upon the proposal of the Slovenian electrical engineer France Avin.

The strongest fields encountered from permanent magnets on Earth are from Halbach spheres and can be over 4.5T. The record for the highest sustained pulsed magnetic field has been produced by scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory campus of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, the world's first 100-tesla non-destructive magnetic field.[2] In September 2018, researchers at the University of Tokyo generated a field of 1200T which lasted in the order of 100 microseconds using the electromagnetic flux-compression technique.[3]

A particle, carrying a charge of one coulomb, and moving perpendicularly through a magnetic field of one tesla, at a speed of one metre per second, experiences a force with magnitude one newton, according to the Lorentz force law. As an SI derived unit, the tesla can also be expressed as

(The last equivalent is in SI base units).[4]

Where A = ampere, C = coulomb, kg = kilogram, m = metre, N = newton, s = second, H = henry, V = volt, J = joule, and Wb = weber

In the production of the Lorentz force, the difference between electric fields and magnetic fields is that a force from a magnetic field on a charged particle is generally due to the charged particle's movement,[5] while the force imparted by an electric field on a charged particle is not due to the charged particle's movement. This may be appreciated by looking at the units for each. The unit of electric field in the MKS system of units is newtons per coulomb, N/C, while the magnetic field (in teslas) can be written as N/(Cm/s). The dividing factor between the two types of field is metres per second (m/s), which is velocity. This relationship immediately highlights the fact that whether a static electromagnetic field is seen as purely magnetic, or purely electric, or some combination of these, is dependent upon one's reference frame (that is, one's velocity relative to the field).[6][7]

In ferromagnets, the movement creating the magnetic field is the electron spin[8] (and to a lesser extent electron orbital angular momentum). In a current-carrying wire (electromagnets) the movement is due to electrons moving through the wire (whether the wire is straight or circular).

One tesla is equivalent to:[9][pageneeded]

One tesla is equal to 1 Vs/m2. This can be shown by starting with the speed of light in vacuum,[11] c = (00)1/2, and inserting the SI values and units for c (2.998108m/s), the vacuum permittivity 0 (8.851012As/(Vm)), and the vacuum permeability 0 (12.566107Tm/A). Cancellation of numbers and units then produces this relation.

For the relation to the units of the magnetising field (ampere per metre or Oersted), see the article on permeability.

The following examples are listed in ascending order of field strength.

More here:

Tesla (unit) - Wikipedia

Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company headquartered in Austin, Texas. Tesla designs and manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage from home to grid-scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products and services. Tesla is one of the world's most valuable companies and remains the world's most valuable automaker with a market capitalization of more than US$760 billion. The company had the most worldwide sales of battery electric vehicles and plug-in electric vehicles, capturing 21% of the battery-electric market and 14% of the plug-in market in 2021. Through its subsidiary Tesla Energy, the company develops and is a major installer of photovoltaic systems in the United States. Tesla Energy is also one of the largest global suppliers of battery energy storage systems, with 3.99 gigawatt-hours installed in 2021.Tesla was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors. The company's name is a tribute to inventor and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla. In February 2004, via a $6.5 million investment, Elon Musk became the largest shareholder of the company. He has served as CEO since 2008. Wikipedia

Link:

Tesla Inc (TSLA) Stock Price & News - Google Finance

Tesla (TSLA) is expected to be about to finally get rid of its junk bond rating and become a blue chip something somewhat overdue for the sixth most valuable company in the world.

Despite delivering profits for more than two years straight and building a cash position of over $18 billion while sitting on very little debt, Tesla is still rated as a junk bond by rating companies like S&P Global Ratings and Moodys Investors Service.

Now rating experts and analysts are expecting Tesla to finally be upgraded by the end of the year.

Bloomberg Intelligence credit analyst Joel Levington commented:

Tesla is still generating a huge amount of cash. At some point ratings companies will have to act and I wouldnt be surprised to see an upgrade to investment-grade happen before year-end.

While this may not be important for the average investor and Tesla shareholders, but it is a big deal for some large funds that often have a policy not to invest in companies that have anything less than an investment grade rating often referred to as blue chips. This has been preventing some large funds from investing in Tesla.

This resulted in Tesla having a smaller percentage of its shares being held by large institutional investors compared to its peers with extremely large valuations, like Apple and Amazon.

Tesla was upgraded to BB+, one step below investment grade, by S&P last October and by Moodys in January.

Nishit Madlani, the head of North American auto-sector ratings at S&P, even stated in June that Tesla is likely going to be upgraded by the end of this year.

This is one of the last things that Tesla needs to solidify it as a blue chip company.

Obviously, I think that some funds are still going to have issues holding Teslas stock for other reasons, like how controversial Elon Musk can be for some people, but for the most part, this is the last of the manageable hurdles.

Now what does it change?

Not much really other than it can bring more stockholders, which reduces the number of shares available to buy and can therefore boost the stock price.

In turn, Tesla can use that to raise more money to put toward its mission though the automaker doesnt really need more money right now.

Subscribe to Electrek on YouTube for exclusive videos and subscribe to the podcast.

See original here:

Tesla (TSLA) is about to earn its blue chip status and climb out of the junk bond dumpster - Electrek.co

U.S. luxury electric vehicle startup Lucid Motors may hail from Californias Silicon Valley, but its future will be won or lost in the arid plains of Arizona.

On Wednesday, chief executive Peter Rawlinson shocked investors with weak quarterly figures and a surprise cut to the vehicle production forecast in the face of severe problems at its Casa Grande factory near Phoenix.

Rawlinson, former chief engineer of the Tesla Model S, placed blame primarily on the growing pains associated with ramping up production, where parts need to arrive just in time and in the right cadence depending on an individuals customized order.

Our revised outlook guidance for the year reflects the logistics challenges as we began scaling, which exposed the immaturity of our logistics processes, Rawlinson told investors during a call.

Shares in the company slumped more than 10% on Thursday, as Lucid has been considered one of the EV startups outside of Chinabest positioned to survivethe industry shake-up along with Amazon-backed Rivian.

Thats because the Lucid Air is arguably the most advanced car in terms of electrification currently on the market, easily beating anything Tesla has to offer.

Not only does it have the longest range at an EPA-rated 517 miles, but it is also the most efficient in terms of stored energy with 4.6 miles per kilowatt hour of battery. It also boasts the fastest recharge speeds thanks to a 900-volt electrical architecture, helping it win Motor Trends prestigious Car of the Year awardin November.

Realizing investors would be rattled by the news, Rawlinson tried to assuage his shareholders that he was well on top of the situation.

I do believe weve identified the primary bottlenecks and have already taken steps to begin to remedy the situation, he said, after unveiling $97 million in quarterly revenue. This badly missed a consensus estimate of $145 million, and came amid a $220 million net loss that was even deeper red on an operating level.

But the problems do not stop at the slow pace of production due to a mismatch of when parts arrive at its Casa Grande factory. They go much deeper.

Rawlinson conceded that a material number of vehicles built had not been shipped to customers due to quality he felt was subpar for a luxury model like the Air, and pledged to stay behind in Arizona, engaging directly with the staff on the shop floor to iron out the problems.

These related to mainly cosmetic issues like unusually large or uneven gaps in the body panels or surfaces not being flush with others.

While Tesla is famous for getting away with poor build quality, this type of fit and finish, as it is called in the industry, remains a hallmark of the German premium brands Mercedes-Benz and BMW and is expected by discriminating buyers who plunk down $100,000 on a new car.

As a result, Rawlinson said many new changes would be overseen by experienced logistics and quality assurance managers that he poached from industry rivals Mercedes and Stellantis.

Quality simply must take priority over volume as we establish our brand reputation, he explained.

Lucids problems mimic the months of production hell at Tesla that saw Elon Musk famously sleeping at the factory, when Model 3 midsize sedans were beingassembled out in the open air, an absolute no-go for the industry.

Only this time, instead of struggling with its first mass-market car built in the hundreds of thousands, Lucid is already experiencing problems with its premier model, a low-volume luxury sedan positioned at the very pinnacle of the market.

All told, only 679 Lucid Air cars were shipped to customers in the second quarter, prompting Rawlinson to predict just 6,000 to 7,000 would be made during the full year.

This amounts to just half of what itpreviously promisedin May and a sharp decline from its original goal of 20,000 vehicles. That still means a sharp ramp-up in the second half, as so far only about 1,400 Lucid cars have been built.

For Tesla, the news is further welcome proof of its edge over key competitors. Lucid had been considered a threat by CEO Elon Musk, especially with an experienced Tesla engineer running the show.

Just days after Rawlinson debuted the technical specs of its series-production Air sedan inSeptember 2020, Musk followed with the announcement of a Model S that would have a range of over 520 miles, at least three better than the competitor from Lucid.

Popular EV website Elektrek, long notable for its Tesla-friendly coverage, even ran a story about Musks newly unveiled model with the improved range, suggesting a proof of concept had been built and tested ahead of its 2021 launch. Fans speculated the considerable boost to range over the regular Plaids 348 miles must come from using the next-generation 4680 cells designed to cement Teslas technological lead.

In the end, the so-called Plaid Plus turned out to be nothing but vaporware, and Tesla is still working out the kinks with its 4680 cells.

Musk first accepted deposits from paying customers and then promptly cancelled on them, automatically switching their orders to the regular Plaidthat he argued was just as good.

In the meantime, the tactic may have succeeded in keeping enough Model S owners from switching over to Lucid.

Why was Musk worried? It may have something to do with the bottomless pockets of Lucids backers, the Saudis.

As long as Rawlinson can keep the Kingdom convinced he will deliver a return on its investment, up to and including theconstruction of an assembly plant in the Arabian desertto fulfill a Saudi dream, then he can likely keep the company afloat while other rival startups like Lordstown Motors and Faraday Future flounder.

Lucid recently struck a deal to sellup to 100,000 cars to the Kingdomin addition to the 37,000 current reservations he already has on hand. This should help keep the company paying its bills until well into next yeareven longer if management stretches the budget, as finance chief Sherry House claimed on Wednesday.

In the meantime, Rawlinson made a clear signal toanother California company, Apple, and any other tech firms, by saying he may be in need of a partner and was open for businessperhaps to hedge his Saudi bet.

The Air and its Gravity SUV sibling due in 2024 are big enough to fit all the necessary sensors and computing power for a future autonomous robotaxi fleet.

Many of these characteristics and attributes[of our vehicles]would potentially make us a fantastic partner for one of these groups, he said, with CFO House noting that she was even keenly open to discussing partnership options.

Amid the poor results, Rawlinson made a concerted effort not to further undermine investor confidence in management, suggesting the hiccups were a perfectly normal development that became more apparent as we started to scale.

Instead of dwelling on mistakes, he emphasized his pride at what Lucids workforce and suppliers could accomplish in the face of adversity and suggested the brand would be around for a long time to come thanks to an upcoming midsize model that will arrive later in the decade.

But I want to be clear that right now, my relentless focus is with this great team right here in Arizona, the Lucid CEO said. I remain confident that we shall overcome these near-term challenges with a relentless tenacity and a steely determination, and in so doing put in place appropriate processes that will serve us well for the future.

Sign up for theFortune Features email list so you dont miss our biggest features, exclusive interviews, and investigations.

More:

Teslas Saudi-backed rival just spooked investors by cutting targets in half. But Lucids CEO says trust me, I got this - Fortune

Back when Tesla launched the Model S, much of the automotive world thought of the brand as a bit of a moonshot. Today, the entire industry is now racing to catch up and the biggest brands are all in the competition. We wonder which one has the best chances of actually knocking Tesla off the top of the EV mountain.

As the transition to electric continues just about every single big automotive brand is jumping into the fray. Ford is doing everything it can to beat Tesla including poaching top employees from the Texas-based company and doubling production capacity at EV-focused cites.

General Motors has gone a step further and specifically said that it wants to beat Tesla and be number one by 2025. Thats a bold claim but GM might have the ammo to do it with what it hopes will be 30 different EVs on sale by then.

Read More:BYD Overtakes Tesla In Global NEV Sales In The First Half Of The Year

Volkswagen is also in the conversation and ended up third worldwide in EV sales last year. Of course, the ID.4 isnt much in the way of competition for Tesla but the brand has plans for more appealing products coming online soon.

For all we know it might end up actually being Kia or Hyundai that does the deed by reeling in Tesla first. While they would have to leapfrog Volkswagen here in the USA and Chinese brands for the worldwide lead, we think theres a chance as they currently sit in third place in the US market. Weve tested both the EV6 and the IONIQ 5 and found both to be exceptional values for money.

If buyers wise up to how little theyre getting from big name brands like GM, VW, and Ford in comparison to Hyundai and Kia we could see the Korean companies meteoric rise over the last decade continue. That would certainly send shockwaves through the rest of the industry.

Who do you think will be the first to outsell Tesla in total EV sales over the course of a year? Will it be one of the companies we mentioned or someone completely different? Let us know in the comments below!

Read the original:

Which Traditional Car Brand Has The Most Chances Of Beating Tesla At Their Own EV Game? - CarScoops

Twitter wants all of Teslas documents and communications related to Elon Musks bid to take over the social media company, according to a new subpoena filed August 2nd. The electric car maker is the latest company to be drawn into the increasingly sticky mess that Musk created when he first proposed and later attempted to abandon a plan to buy Twitter.

Twitter is suing Musk in Delaware court to force him to go through with his $44 billion plan to buy the San Francisco-based company. Musk is attempting to abandon the deal, claiming Twitter violated their agreement by failing to disclose accurate information around spam accounts. Twitter argues that Musk signed a contract to buy the company, and is using spam accounts as a false pretense to worm his way out of the deal.

Twitters subpoena outlines a list of 27 requests for Tesla, including internal communications at Tesla about Musks takeover plan, all communications between Musk and Twitter and between Musk and his co-investors (like Larry Ellison), and all documents related to the roughly $8.4 billion worth of Tesla stock that Musk sold to finance the takeover bid.

Musk is Teslas biggest shareholder, owning around 15.6 percent of the companys shares, or about 175 million shares in total. Musk has sold large batches of shares before. Last year, he sold 15 million shares, worth more than $16 billion, after polling his followers on Twitter. Teslas share price is up slightly since the market opened today.

Twitter is also seeking materials related to the $6.25 billion margin loan commitment that Musk took out in May. The Tesla CEO had originally planned to take out a $12.5 billion margin loan, but later reduced it to $6.25 billion after bringing in co-investors on the deal. In April, Musk lined up $46.5 billion in debt and equity financing to buy Twitter, with Musk himself committing $33.5 billion.

Tesla will need to cough up all documents and communications related to Musks tender offer for some or all of Twitters shares, as well as any internal documents related to Musks May 13th tweet in which he announced that the Twitter deal was on hold pending additional information about spam bots on the platform.

Twitter also wants all of Teslas communications with media outlets regarding the merger deal which could be interesting, considering that Tesla dissolved its public relations division in 2019 and typically ignores reporters requests for comment.

The Tesla subpoena is the latest in a flurry of information requests sent by Twitters legal team as the October 17th trial in Delaware Court of Chancery nears. Twitter has also subpoenaed a number of leading tech CEOs and venture capitalists, including Marc Andreessen, founder of VC firm Andreessen Horowitz; former Facebook exec and CEO of Social Capital Chamath Palihapitiya; and David Sacks, the founding chief operating officer of PayPal and current general partner at Craft Ventures.

According to the subpoena, the automaker has seven days to produce all the materials requested to Twitters legal team.

View original post here:

Tesla is the latest company to be drawn into the Elon Musk-Twitter legal mess - The Verge

The Tesla Model Y and Model 3 represent the most affordable vehicles in the California marques electric vehicle (EV) lineup. However, the lower price tag doesnt mean that the diet-Teslas have compromised in every way. Both EVs get top scores in safety and crashworthiness from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS). Still, is the Tesla Model Y safer than the Model 3?

The Tesla Model Y gets a Top Safety Pick+ rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The Top Safety Pick+ rating is the agencys highest award and represents good ratings in nearly every category and subcategory. While good may not sound like high praise, it is the highest rating the IIHS gives for individual evaluations. In the Model Ys case, the Tesla SUV scores high marks in every one of the IIHS six crashworthiness tests, as well as front crash protection and roof strength.

In addition to superior roof strength, the Model Y is balanced in such a way that it resists rolling over. This is due to the Teslas battery placement. When a side impact force strikes the Model Y, it will often right itself rather than roll over like other SUVs.

The Tesla Model 3 is a very safe car. Like its sibling vehicle, the Model 3 gets a Top Safety Pick+ from the IIHS. For instance, the baby Tesla got high scores in front crashworthiness tests. That is primarily thanks to the absence of an internal combustion engine (ICE) in the front. While EVs have a stigma about fire issues like thermal runaway, ICEs are inherently more fire-prone. That fire risk is due to a gas-powered engines flammable liquids, friction, and high heat.

Furthermore, much like the Tesla Model Y, the Model 3 has outstanding roof strength scores. In fact, one of the baby Teslas resisted a felled tree as it crashed down onto its roof. In addition to resisting roof-crushing weight, the Tesla EV protected its occupant from any physical harm.

Both EVs are very safe vehicles and boast top scores from the IIHS. Additionally, both Teslas have five-star ratings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However, there are two categories where the Model 3 outshines its sibling, if just barely. First, the Tesla Model Y Long Range gets an acceptable rating from the IIHS for its headlights.

Furthermore, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that the Model Y resisted 19,188 lbs of crushing force to its roof. However, the smaller Model 3 resisted 20,835 lbs of crushing force. That gives the Model 3 a strength-to-weight ratio of 5.85 to its siblings 4.42.

While the Tesla Model 3 is safer on paper, the safety differences between the two models are negligible. If you want a larger EV in the Tesla lineup, youd be fine buying a Model Y. However, if you want to save some money and reap the benefits of one of the safest EVs on the market, buy the baby Tesla.

Scroll down to the following article to read more about EVs!

RELATED: Electric Vehicles: Are EVs Really Environmentally Friendly?

Read the rest here:

Is the Tesla Model Y Safer Than the Model 3? - MotorBiscuit

Tesla is one of the worlds 20 fastest-growing companies for 2022, Fortune reported, adding that last year was a record for growth and recovery across its Top Global 500 list. Although many of the companies on the list reported revenue gains, only a few grew by leaps and bounds.

This growth enabled them to climb higher up the ranks. This years list of the 20 fastest-growing companies was measured by how many spots they jumped ahead. These companies advanced by around 126 spots and recorded an average 70.8% revenue growth. Altogether, these 20 companies held a combined $1.2 trillion in revenue and $102 billion in profits.

Although Chinese companies were the fastest growing, Tesla was the fastest growing company in the U.S. Last year, it was 392 out of 500. This year, it jumped up to 242 on the Fortune Global 500 list.

Out of the top 20 fastest growing companies, Tesla was number 4 on the list following China National Coal Group, CMA CGM, and Ansteel Group. A quick look at the industries shows that automotive as a sector is growing rapidly.

It also reflects what Elon Musk said about Teslas real competition being fossil fuel companies such as Aramco. When Elon Musk said that he thinks Tesla has the potential to become the most valuable company ever, he noted that for this to happen Teslas market cap would have to exceed Aramcos.

In 2021, I wrote this article in CleanTechnica. Cathie Wood of ARK Invest said that she believed that Teslas share price would reach the $3,000 mark by 2025. When this happens, its market cap would reach as high as $4 trillion in their best-case scenario.

ARK used a Monte Carlo simulation mode with 34 inputs to come to this conclusion. And it included a worst-case scenario which has Teslas 2025 price target at $1,500.

Although I am not a stock analyst, it doesnt take a genius to see how quickly Tesla is growing. And as it grows, its pushing the automotive industry to grow with it. Ford, General Motors, Volkswagen, and many others are now producing and marketing EVs.

Once, long ago, it was thought that this would be impossible.

Disclaimer: Johnna is long Tesla.

Id love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1

Read the original post:

Tesla is one of the worlds 20 fast-growing companies - Teslarati

Almost three years since its release, Smart Summon is still one of the best ways for Teslas to make an impression on the public. This was experienced recently by a Tesla owner in New Zealand, who ended up confusing and impressing a passerby after moving his vehicle from its parking spot to his location at night.

The video, which was shared by u/Matt_NZ in the r/TeslaMotors subreddit, featured dash cam footage from a Tesla as it engaged its Smart Summon feature. During the maneuver, which involved the vehicle cautiously navigating a parking lot at night, a passerby could be seen being completely befuddled by the all-electric car. Its still rare to see unmanned cars driving around at night, after all.

In later comments, the New Zealand-based Tesla owner admitted that he actually does not use Smart Summon that much since it could very well become a nuisance in a busy parking lot. But since the area where he parked at was unlit at the time, there were puddles everywhere, and the parking lot was relatively empty, he decided to use the FSD feature while he chatted with the people he had dinner with.

Overall, the experience seemed to have left a notable impression on the gentleman who was confused by the driverless all-electric car.

I dont often use Smart Summon as its often more of a nuisance for others in the car park, but on this evening, the car park was relatively quiet. I waited for a few people to finish leaving just to make sure my car wouldnt get in the way.

As it trundled across the car park, this guy happened to cross paths with it and resulted in a genuine double take when he noticed that there was no one driving it. We ended up having a short conversation about it, and Im sure hell be talking about the encounter for a few weeks down at the local pub with his mates, the Tesla owner shared in a later comment.

Smart Summon could be extremely impressive when it works smoothly, but its slow speed and overly cautious nature has resulted in numerous Tesla owners admitting that they rarely use the feature. It could definitely be considered as one of Teslas party tricks, though whether it works well or not depends on the circumstances. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that in times like those shared by the New Zealand-based Tesla owner, Smart Summon definitely leaves a strong impression on people.

Watch the Tesla owners video below.

Dont hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.comto give us a heads up.

More here:

Tesla Smart Summon still a showstopper almost three years since its release - Teslarati

On July 27, 2022, The Republican Study Committee published a Memorandum titled The War on American Energy: Ground Zero expressing its concern about Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). The memo was sent by RSC Chairman Rep. Jim Banks (R-03), Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)), and Reps. French Hill (AR-02), Andy Barr (KY-06), and Bill Huizenga (MI-02).

The memo starts by explaining that ESG refers to the progressive scheme through which the Left pressures corporate America to take positions on social and political issues that have nothing to do with business. In an exclusive piece published on the same date as the memo, Breitbart opined that ESG funds advance leftist goals such as climate change, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. I really doubt that leftists have a of goal creating climate change, thereby exacerbating material risk to companies. Rather, they think its a problem that needs to be addressed. I suspect that many on the Right recognize it is a problem as well. Honest differences can exist about the best way to address it. Name calling isnt a way of doing so.

Similarly, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) has become emblematic of the broader culture war going on in this country. Lets leave DE&I aside since the focus of the memo is the claim that ESG is going to war with the American energy industry.

The memo further argues that Companies should focus on maximizing profit for their shareholders, instead of paying for their employees travel expenses to get abortions. Abortion is one of the most polarizing issues in America today and the language in the memo clearly reflects one point of view. But since the focus of the memo is American energy, Im not sure why its mentioned and so I will leave this aside as well. But I do want to note that the Breitbart piece defining ESG links to the CFA Institute. Here is the first sentence in how the Institute defines ESG investing: Investors are increasingly applying these non-financial factors as part of their analysis process to identify material risks and growth opportunities. This sounds like smart investing. It also sounds like the Breitbart reporter Sean Moran didnt bother to read whats on that link he put in his piece.

waving flag, us republican party elephant emblem, background, 3d illustration

In a previous piece I announced my commitment to meet with anyone in the GOP who has concerns about ESG and Woke Capitalism. Here I would like to extend this to the authors of this memo. And in the spirit of seeking to lay some groundwork for a dialogue, let me start with points in the memo I agree with. The Representatives cite a FINRA Investor Education Foundation and NORC at the University of Chicago (emphasis mine) study based on a survey of 1,228 retail investors which found that only 28 percent of investors report being at all familiar with ESG investing. Only 24 percent of study participants can correctly define ESG investing, and only 21 percent know what the letters in ESG stand for. This is obviously quite problematic if these investors are buying a fund with any kind of ESG label and they dont know what it means. Blame lies in some combination of the retail investor, their financial advisor (if they are using one), and the firm marketing the fund.

Another valid concern raised in the memo comes from citing a Wall Street Journal article that notes that ESG ETFs are 43 percent more expensive those not labeled as such. Perhaps there is some justification for this, but this would require clear language on the part of the firm selling the fund to acknowledge it and explain why. Its also worth noting that some of these ESG funds actually hold oil and gas stocks. I can see the logic for this given the business model transformation some of them are undertaking in order to continue to deliver long-term shareholder value in the energy transition. But given the different views on oil and gas stocks, such holdings should be disclosed.

And, of course, theres the issue of performance. There is no clear conclusion here since it depends on time frames. Some ESG funds did well when tech stocks were booming and oil stocks were lagging, but the reverse is now sometimes true. Not always. The Parnassus Endeavor Trust fund which doesnt hold oil and gas companies has outperformed the comparable SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust over a 15 year period of time. For those investing for the long term, its simply too soon to tell whether so-called ESG funds overperform or underperform since most of these funds are rather new. A further complication, as noted in another article from Investors Business Daily cited in the memo, is that The question of performance boils down to the wide variation of what's considered an ESG company. More on this below.

What the memo fails to say is that the study also found that Most retail investors believe investing is a way to make positive change in the world. This is at the center of the current debate about whether ESG investing can make the world a better place without sacrificing returns. There is no denying the fact that there is a tremendous amount of greenwashing in the marketing of ESG funds with claims about making the world a better place when in fact its not clear at all that they are. An ESG fund holding a bunch of high tech stocks and no oil and gas stocks doesnt solve the problem of climate change. Thus, the situation is even worse than the memo suggests. With the now-famous DWS whistleblower, Desiree Fixler, I have written about how to improve clarity regarding ESG investingbut without making it a political punching bag. Fortunately, regulators such as the SEC and the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority are looking to instill some truth in labeling on these funds.

Not surprisingly, there are also some points in the memo where I have a different view, one in between ESG Can Save the World! and ESG Could Be the End of the World! After describing ESG as the progressive scheme through which the Left the memo claims ESG doesnt work since A companys ESG ratings does not reflect its environmental impactExxon Mobile (sic) received a higher ESG rating than Tesla. There are three basic problems with this statement.

First, ESG isnt just about the environment. And I note the obvious irony of depicting ExxonMobil as bad for the environment while Tesla is good for it. This irony comes from the second problemthe memos failure to accept the simple fact that in an investment context, ESG is simply about quantifying the material issues that matter to company profitability and long-term value creation for shareholders. These are industry specific.

The Material ESG Issues for Oil & GasExploration & Production

For an oil and gas company doing exploration and production, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), of which I am the founding Chair, has identified 10 material issues, four of which are environmental: GHG Emissions, Air Quality, Water & Wastewater Management, and Ecological Impacts. These are topics an oil and gas company needs to manage in a responsible way. A high ESG rating for ExxonMobil simply means it is doing so on these issues and the other six. It is not a judgement about whether ExxonMobil is a good or bad company in some fundamental existential sense.

Material ESG Issues for TransportationAutomobiles

According to SASB, there are only four material issues in the automotive industry and none of them are environmental: Product Quality & Safety, Labor Practices, Product Design & Lifecycle Management, and Materials Sourcing and Efficiency. The reason Tesla gets a low ESG rating is because of extensive problems with Labor Practices including a stressful working environment, racial discrimination, and an anti-union attitude on the part of Mr. Elon Musk. In one of his countless Tweets, Mr. Musk complained that Exxon is rated top ten best in world for environment, social & governance (ESG) by S&P 500, while Tesla didnt make the list! ESG is a scam. It has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors. Sounds to me that Mr. Musk is trying to deflect attention from the material ESG factors that matter to his industry. Im also struggling with the notion that phony social justice warriors are behind ExxonMobils high ranking given the many concerns these warriors have about ExxonMobil. Mr. Musk, the RSC, and others in that camp are the ones who are weaponizing ESG.

BERLIN, GERMANY DECEMBER 01: SpaceX owner and Tesla CEO Elon Musk arrives on the red carpet for the ... [+] Axel Springer Award 2020 on December 01, 2020 in Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Britta Pedersen-Pool/Getty Images)

Third, in its ExxonMobil/Tesla comparison the RSC confounds ESG with impact. In fairness this is a common practice across the entire political spectrum. The distinction is a simple but important one. ESG is about a companys operations and activities. Impact is about the positive and negative externalities of a companys products and services. Applauding Tesla for creating electric cars that dont burn oil and gas is to recognize the positive impact of its products in reducing carbon emissions. Although these products require the mining of metals which makes Materials Sourcing & Efficiency a material issue, an issue on which Tesla does not disclose.

Criticizing ExxonMobil for being an oil and gas company is based on the negative impact of carbon emissions from the use of its products, such as energy production for electricity, transportation, and certain manufacturing industries (the top five being paper, food, petroleum refining, chemicals, and metals/minerals). Oil and gas companies alone cant solve this problem since alternative sources of energy must be found. Here too there are vast differences of opinion about the urgency and best way of doing so. This is a discussion Americans across the political spectrum need to be able to have with each other if we are going to address a problem that matters to all of us, regardless of which state we live in.

Critics of ESG from the Left complain that these ratings fail to address the issue of impact and are only focused on issues that matter to shareholder value creation. Thus, we have the curious situation where the Right is claiming that ESG hurts profitability while the Left is complaining that ESG is only about profitability. Which probably means that the term ESG is no longer a useful one for a productive conversation about creating shareholder value in a way that isnt destructive to the world we all live in. Sadly, I dont think the term ESG will disappear any time soon because it has entered the cultural wars in the political realm and is being weaponized by both the Left and the Right. The extremes on both sides are holding onto it for reasons that have nothing to do with shareholder value creation.

Continue reading here:

Some Reflections On An RSC Memo, ExxonMobil, And Tesla - Forbes

EAST WINDSOR After the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission rejected a plan to bring a Tesla dealership to town, East Windsor officials say they would welcome such an establishment.

East Windsor First Selectman Jason Bowsza sent a letter on July 29, making it known that the town is interested in a Tesla dealership on Route 5.

On July 26, South Windsors PZC rejected the proposed text amendment allowing the sale of electric vehicles in the Buckland Road Gateway Zone.

After hearing about the rejection, Bowsza wrote to Jon Hauser, managing partner for Drake Real Estate, stating that he would invite him to consider East Windsor as a potential site for the Tesla project.

According to Bowsza, East Windsor would be a great place for a Tesla dealership because the town is equal distance from Springfield and Hartford.

East Windsor is home to many thriving automotive businesses along our Route 5 corridor, Bowsza added.

The fear of Buckland Road becoming similar to Route 5 is exactly what drove the majority of the South Windsor PZC to reject the text amendment.

During the July 26 meeting, South Windsor PZC Chairman Bart Pacekonis and Vice Chairman Kevin Foley suggested that Hauser open a dealership on Route 5.

Hauser said that Tesla wanted to be in the Buckland area of South Windsor because of the great names in the area like Apple, Whole Foods, and Nike. He said he was unlikely to relocate to the South Windsor portion of Route 5.

Bowsza said East Windsors PZC is in the process of amending the towns zoning regulations with the intention of easing the restrictions on electric vehicle charging station placement.

The PZC will hold a public hearing on the proposal on Tuesday at 6:30 p.m.

Collin covers East Windsor and Windsor Locks for the Journal Inquirer.

Go here to read the rest:

East Windsor wants Tesla to come to town - Journal Inquirer

Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) shares have become one of the most famous investments in the world over the past few years.

Helped by a number of factors, including the companys breakneck growth, the eccentricities of Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and sometimes feverish dedication from its base of retail investors, Tesla shares have long been one of the most-watched stocks on the US markets.

The elephant in the room is of course the life-changing stock price gains this company has given investors in recent years. Back in 2019, the electric vehicle and battery manufacturer was a US$40 stock. Today, it has just closed at US$925.90 a share, representing a gain of almost 2,000% over the past three years.

Late last year, Tesla shares reached a record high of US$1,243.49 each, which was a gain approaching 3,000% from the benchmark we just discussed. As the company stands today, Tesla is now the fifth-largest share on the US markets by market capitalisation.

Its now larger than companies like Johnson & Johnson and Warren Buffetts Berkshire Hathaway.

But right now, the Tesla stock price could be described as prohibitively expensive for many investors. After all, an investor wanting to open a position in Tesla would need US$925.90 (or almost $1,324 in our currency) just to buy a single share.

Well, that looks like it is about to change.

According to reporting in Forbes, Tesla shareholders have just approved a stock split for the company.

A stock split is where a company splits and reissues its shares at a lower price. The volume increases but the value decreases. To use the common metaphor, it is akin to reslicing a pizza into smaller slices. The overall valuation of a company doesnt change, only the number and individual value of the shares.

In Teslas case, a three-for-one split was approved. This means that when the split takes effect, Teslas share count will be increased by a factor of three, which means that each share will be worth a third of what it used to be.

So if an investor owned 10 Tesla shares, each worth US$925.90 today, they would own 30 Tesla shares, each worth approximately US$308.63, if the split went ahead.

As you can see, the investor still owns a total of US$9,259 worth of Tesla under either scenario. Thus, the size of the pizza remains the same.

So why do companies do stock splits then, if the outcome is so inconsequential?

Well, a smaller individual stock price can increase the liquidity of a companys stock, for one. It also helps smaller, individual retail investors access the now-cheaper shares. Additionally, it creates some publicity for the company too (here we are talking about it).

In the past, we have seen many different stocks rally after the announcement and execution of a stock split. Thats despite the fact it does not increase the underlying fundamental value of a company, as weve discussed.

Tesla is not the only big-name company to undertake a stock split in 2022. Weve also seen stock splits from Amazon.com Inc (NASDAQ: AMZN) and Alphabet Inc (NASDAQ: GOOG)(NASDAQ: GOOGL) this year. Both of these were 20-to-1 splits.

Indeed, it was only back in 2020 that Tesla undertook its last stock split, a five-to-one division at the time. We dont know yet when this latest split will take effect, but no doubt the company will announce this soon.

Tesla shares remain down close to 23% in 2022 thus far, although the company has rallied by almost 33% over the past month alone.

At the companys last stock price, Tesla has a market capitalisation of US$967.1 billion.

View original post here:

Think you can't afford to buy Tesla shares? Think again... - The Motley Fool Australia

Tesla (TSLA) - Get Tesla Inc. Reportis further tightening its grip on the U.S. auto sector.

The list of trophies won by the manufacturer of premium electric vehicles continues to grow. Elon Musk's firm is the world's largest automotive group by market capitalization with a market value of over $896 billion at the time of writing. Ford's valuation is $57.2 billion and GM's is $52.1 billion.

This crazy valuation makes Tesla the sixth most valuable company in the world behind Apple (AAPL) - Get Apple Inc. Report, oil giant Saudi Aramco, Microsoft (MSFT) - Get Microsoft Corporation Report, Alphabet (GOOGL) - Get Alphabet Inc. Report,and Amazon (AMZN) - Get Amazon.com Inc. Report.

But if there is a crown that should delight its fans and investors, it is that Tesla earns much more money than its main American rivals Ford (F) - Get Ford Motor Company Reportand General Motors (GM) - Get General Motors Company Report.

For the second consecutive quarter, Tesla has just announced a net profit higher than that of its Michigan rivals, according to their respective earnings reports.

Tesla reported net profit of $2.3 billion for the second quarter ended June 30, up 98% year-over-year, outperforming GM whose net profit was $1.7 billion, down 40.3%. The Austin, Texas automaker even made three times more money than Ford, which reported a net profit of $667 million, up 19% year-over-year.

The manufacturer of the electric pickup/truck F-150 Lightning explained, however, that its profits have been reduced by a $2.4 billion decline in the value of its stake in the young rival Rivian (RIVN) - Get Rivian Automotive Inc. Report.

Rivian stock prices fell 49% in the second quarter. Ford announced in regulatory filings that it had sold a total of 15 million Rivian shares. The Dearborn group still holds 86.95 million Rivian shares, making it one of the main shareholders alongside Amazon and the legendary financier George Soros.

Scroll to Continue

Ford therefore prefers to highlight its adjusted earnings before interest and taxes (adjusted Ebit) which amounts to $3.7 billion.

But looking at margins before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, or adjusted EBITDA margin, which is another gauge of profitability, Tesla maintains leadership. Its adjusted EBITDA margin was about 22.4% in the second quarter compared to 20.8% in the second quarter of 2021.

GM's adjusted EBIT margin -- margin before interest and taxes -- was 6.6%, halved year-over-year. Ford's adjusted EBIT margin is 8.8%. Basically, Tesla is significantly more profitable than Ford and GM.

Tesla makes the difference on costs. The company seems to have better control over its costs, which is easy when you spend $0 on marketing, while rivals are flooding consumers with ads touting the merits of their latest models.

For example, Ford's total costs increased year on year by 39.4% in the second quarter.

Tesla's performance is all the more spectacular as the disruptor produces and delivers far fewer cars than its two rivals. In the second quarter, Musk's group produced over 258,000 vehicles and delivered over 254,000 vehicles worldwide.

GM delivered 582,401 vehicles in the U.S alone, while Ford delivered 483,688 new vehicles to U.S customers.

In the first quarter, Tesla just reported a net income of $3.31 billion.By comparison, GM recorded a net profit of $2.93 billion in the same period.

Ford, for its part, posted a net loss of $3.1 billion.

View original post here:

Tesla Makes More Money Than GM and Ford - TheStreet