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

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

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

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

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

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

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