Meet Russia’s answer to Tesla, the Kalashnikov CV-1

Kalashnikov Group
Kalashnikov unveiled the CV-1, an electric car prototype, at a Russian defense expo on Aug. 23 2018.

The Russian manufacturer of the infamous AK-47 assault rifle has unveiled a prototype vehicle that it claims can compete with Elon Musk's Tesla range.

Kalashnikov Group presented the retro-style electric car at an exhibition of Russian defense and civilian products just outside Moscow on Thursday.

The powder-blue model is dubbed the CV-1. Kalashnikov said in a statement on its website that its boxy design is inspired by a Soviet hatchback car developed in the 1970s.

According to several media reports, the company told reporters attending the expo that the car featured technology that would “let us stand in the ranks of global electric car producers such as Tesla.”

The company's website said the vehicle can travel 217 miles on a single charge and can reach 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour) in six seconds.

Opinion on social media website Twitter was divided, with one poster asking Tesla's Elon Musk for his thoughts.

As it is at the prototype stage, the vehicle's price tag has not yet been estimated or disclosed.

UBS repeats: Tesla will lose money on $35,000 Model 3

Tesla analyst: The company needs to increase price of Model 3 just to break even
4 Hours Ago | 03:09

Buyers waiting for that long-promised $35,000 Tesla Model 3 sedan probably shouldn't hold their breath.

After UBS recently pulled apart a Model 3 and compared its quality and estimated costs with two competitors, UBS analyst Colin Langan said he thinks Tesla will never be able to make money at the $35,000 the company originally planned to charge for an entry-level model designed for the masses.

“This car needs to sell in the low $40,000's to break even, and I think they're a long way from the 25 percent growth margin target, unless they can sell it well over $50,000,” Langan said Tuesday on CNBC's “Power Lunch.”

UBS hired a team of engineers to pull apart three different electric cars to compare their technology and production costs: a new Tesla Model 3, a 2014 BMW i3 and a 2017 Chevy Bolt.

The team examined a $49,000 2018 Model 3 and were “crazy” about the powertrain, “highlighting next-gen, military-grade tech that's years ahead of peers,” Langan said in a note dated Aug. 15. But the costs were higher than expected, and the cars would lose about $6,000 each at Tesla's original plan to sell an entry model at $35,000, he said.

It is another sign Tesla may have trouble turning into the mass-market automaker it said it wants to become.

Plans to manufacture the lower-cost vehicle have been delayed since its announcement in 2016 as the electric car manufacturer struggled to meet demand. CEO Elon Musk said in May that manufacturing the Model 3 at that price “right away” would cause Tesla to “die.”

Instead, Tesla focused on higher-cost versions that yield better margins, and that move may help Tesla post the profit in the third quarter of 2018 Musk said he expected. The cheapest model available now is $49,000, and buyers can add options that hike the price up to $80,000. Langan estimated the profit margin on the $49,000 version UBS tore apart was about 18 percent.

The problem is those prices aren't sustainable for a midsize sedan like the Model 3, Langan said. Even though the Model 3 is a battery electric, Langan said at least some of its buyers will also be shopping midsize sedans with internal combustion engines that are priced in the mid-$40,000 range, such as the BMW 3-Series.

The UBS engineers gave a breakdown of each car's powertrain and battery, electronic controls, frame and body as well as interior and safety features. They evaluated each part's design, ease of manufacturing and cost.

Tesla beat its two competitors in cost, but the Model 3 didn't have as big a lead over the other automakers as UBS had expected. However, some of the Model 3's technology seemed to be far ahead of that found on the Chevrolet and BMW. In particular, Tesla's electric powertrain stood out as exceptionally simple and flexible.

UBS based its estimates on consultations with engineers and industry research.

Tesla was not immediately available for comment.

Chevrolet and BMW did not comment on the original UBS report.

WATCH: Tesla whistleblower tweets details about allegedly flawed cars

Tesla whistleblower tweets details about allegedly flawed cars
4:55 PM ET Thu, 16 Aug 2018 | 01:21

Tesla shareholders face possible capital gains tax bill if company goes private

There's another reason Tesla's faithful investors might want to scrutinize CEO Elon Musk's public musings on taking the company private: Shareholders would likely face a tax bill.

Musk's surprise announcement last week — which is under review for possible violations of securities laws, according to various published reports — included his hope to let shareholders remain invested in a special fund if the company were to go private. He also said he would offer $420 per share.

Musk reiterated in a blog post on Monday that he would want current shareholders to remain invested if they choose to. He also said the $420 price he floated would be for those who don't want to stay.

Ray Tamarra | Getty Images

“My best estimate right now is that approximately two-thirds of shares owned by all current investors would roll over into a private Tesla,” Musk wrote.

However, if that were done via a special fund as he initially said, shareholders likely would need to sell their Tesla shares and purchase fund shares.

“It would be like buying a mutual fund, only the fund only invests in one stock,” said Bill Smith, managing director at CBIZ MHM's National Tax Office in Washington.

And for investors with profits from the sale of their shares, those gains would be taxed regardless of what they do with the money.

Short-term gains — shares held less than a year — are taxed as ordinary income. Long-term gains are those for shares that were held longer than that, and the rate is either zero percent, 15 percent or 20 percent, depending on your overall income.

Goldman Sachs moves Tesla to 'not rated' status while acting as financial advisor
1:02 PM ET Wed, 15 Aug 2018 | 01:08

Longtime Tesla shareholders could be on the hook for a big bill. In June 2010, Tesla went public with an opening share price of $19. Since then, its stock has climbed to $340 or so — and that's despite the company continuing to post losses. In 2017, Tesla had a reported a net loss of $2.24 billion, widening from $773 million in 2016.

Nevertheless, $10,000 invested in Tesla when it went public eight years ago would be worth close to $179,000 today. That gain of $169,000, taxed at the top rate of 20 percent, would generate a tax bill of $33,800. And depending on the investor's total adjusted income, an additional 3.8 percent tax could be due.

While there are company structures and accounting strategies that in theory can help shift shareholders from public to private without taking a tax hit, Tesla's size pretty much rules that out.

“For Tesla's size, it's highly unlikely,” said JR Lanis, a partner at the Los Angeles office of national law firm Drinker Biddle. “If we were talking about a much smaller company, maybe.”

More from Personal Finance:
Why ghosting a potential employer is a huge no-no
Do this now to avoid a tax surprise next spring
Your debts and shopping could become an addiction. Here's what recovery looks like

Beyond the tax implications of staying invested with Tesla through a fund, investors should be aware of other issues.

For starters, it's unclear exactly how a special fund could be structured in a way that would allow all shareholders to stay if they want, despite Musk's hope.

“It's hard to do these types of big-dollar transactions under the best of circumstances,” Lanis said. “If you bring in smaller investors, it's a coordination nightmare.”

Generally speaking, private companies are allowed to have up to 2,000 regular shareholders without triggering SEC reporting requirements. If a fund were created, it could be a way to sidestep the limit.

However, in that case, experts say the investors would need to be accredited — meaning they need to have at least $1 million in investable assets excluding the value of their home or average yearly earnings of $200,000 ($300,000 for married couples).

“It's hard to do these types of big-dollar transactions under the best of circumstances. If you bring in smaller investors, it's a coordination nightmare.”
-JR Lanis, Partner, Drinker Biddle

In other words, that would remove the option to remain invested for anyone who could not meet those minimum requirements.

“The profile of the typical Tesla investor is someone who is wealthy and a young tech investor, who may or may not be accredited,” said certified financial planner James Gambaccini, a managing partner at Acorn Financial Services in Reston, Virginia.

Even for those who could stick with the company, it would mean less flexibility in when you can buy or sell shares. Musk's email to employees said he envisioned allowing shareholders to buy or sell about every six months.

Additionally, there's a big difference between being invested in a public company — one whose stock trades on a U.S. stock exchange — and a private one.

Public companies must adhere to stricter reporting requirements, including filing quarterly financial statements that can be viewed by the public on the Securities and Exchange Commission's website. They also face prying questions from Wall Street analysts, whose reports can sway investor opinion.

Private companies, on the other hand, generally can avoid publicly sharing their financial information. That might be a bonus for the company itself due to reduced scrutiny, but it leaves investors with less ongoing information to base investment decisions on.

Getaround car-share service raises $300 million in new funding round

Source: Jill Silvestri

Getaround, the car-share company that lets drivers rent their vehicles to strangers, is gearing up for more growth fueled by a new round of funding.

The San Francisco company has raised $300 million in Series D funding led by the SoftBank Vision Fund. Toyota and company insiders also provided money in the latest financing round. Getaround has raised $400 million in total capital so far.

“We are confident in our product, playbook, and team,” Sam Zaid, Getaround founder and CEO said in a statement. “We look forward to leading the growth of next-generation carsharing.”

Since starting in 2010, Getaround has steadily grown its car-share network to include several thousand vehicles in 66 U.S. cities. In the last year, Getaround has seen a sevenfold Increase in booked hours.

For SoftBank, the investment comes just months after the Japanese company agreed to buy a 20 percent stake in GM's autonomous vehicle subsidiary Cruise Holdings for $2.25 billion. SoftBank also has invested $9.3 billion in Uber, becoming the ride-hailing company's largest investor.

“SoftBank sees carsharing as an accelerating trend that will disrupt car ownership”, said Michael Ronen, managing partner of SoftBank Investment Advisers.

Car-sharing, which allows members to rent a vehicle for a few hours or several days, has been around for more than 15 years. Zipcar may be the best-known car-share company with more than 12,000 vehicles available for rent. In recent years the industry has picked up momentum with Daimler subsidiary Car2Go and GM subsidiary Maven both steadily growing their networks.

Questions? Comments? BehindTheWheel@cnbc.com.

After an inside look at Tesla’s Model 3 factory, one analyst says producing 8,000 cars a week is possible

Mason Trinca | The Washington Post | Getty Images
Damien Boozer and Paul Jacob work on the general assembly of the Tesla Model 3 at the Tesla factory in Fremont, California, on Thursday, July 26, 2018.

Tesla is on track not only to churn out 5,000 Model 3s per week, but could even ramp production up to 8,000 with little impact on its spending.

“Tesla seems well on the way to achieving a steady weekly production rate of 5,000 to 6,000 units per week,” Evercore ISI analyst George Galliers said in a note following an inside tour of the company's facilities.

“We are incrementally positive on Tesla following our visit. We have confidence in their production. We did not see anything to suggest that Model 3 cannot reach 6,000 units per week, and 7,000 to 8,000 with very little incremental capital expenditure.”

The numbers appear so good, Galliers said, that the brokerage's current Model 3 production estimates for the second half of the year may be as much as 7 percent too low.

In a note entitled “Just Got Back from Tesla…,” the team of Evercore analysts detailed what they considered a number of optimistic signs at the company's Fremont, California facility. Among the operations the analysts visited, the team was most impressed with Tesla's general assembly and stamping segments, which “met or exceeded all the benchmarks which [they] had been for.”

A major component of the production process, stamping involves the molding of sheet metal into auto parts.

“From what we saw, it appeared that Tesla's Model 3 press is able to run two parts together (both right and left door),” Galliers explained. “While we were unable to determine hits per hour, when we asked an engineer, the response was a confident 'we're not telling you that but plenty.' Stamping seemingly has the capacity and capability to support all Model 3 targets and potentially future vehicle models as well.”

The analyst also commented on what's become known as “The Tent” at Tesla, a new assembly line sheltered under a tent in the company's parking lot.

In its race to both drive cash flow and pacify increasingly irate bondholders, the company quickly added the second assembly line, officially known as General Assembly 4. Musk has since confirmed that the line was making all of the high-spec Model 3s.

The upbeat comments from Galliers come amid a growing cloud for Tesla chief executive Elon Musk, who recently tweeted that he would be privatizing the electric automaker at $420 per share.

“Focusing on the fundamentals and setting aside talk of privatization, we are incrementally positive on Tesla following our visit,” the analyst said in the note Thursday.

Here's what seven experts are saying on Tesla potentially going private
12:36 PM ET Wed, 8 Aug 2018 | 02:37

The Securities and Exchange Commission has served Tesla with a subpoena, according to The New York Times, following Musk's claim that the funding to take the company off the public market has already been secured.

Evercore has an inline rating on Tesla's shares and a $301 price target; the stock closed Wednesday at $338.69 and was up down about 1 percent in early trading Thursday.

The analyst said he would consider moving his target price and earnings forecasts higher only after making material adjustments to his Model 3 revenue per unit (RpU) and gross margin assumptions. The “key questions” remaining are whether Tesla can sustain current RpU through 2019 and can hold a 25 percent gross margin.

Disclaimer

Tesla Model 3 is ‘military-grade tech years ahead of peers’ but still expected to lose money

Early Tesla employee's insight into working with Elon Musk
1:06 PM ET Thu, 16 Aug 2018 | 04:02

Tesla's Model 3 sedan is blowing engineers away, but it might be a big headache for folks in finance.

Analysts at UBS pulled apart three different electric cars to compare their technology and production costs: a new Tesla Model 3, a 2014 BMW i3 and a 2017 Chevy Bolt.

The engineers hired by UBS to examine a $49,000 2018 Model 3 were “crazy” about the powertrain, “highlighting next-gen, military-grade tech that's years ahead of peers,” said UBS analyst Colin Langan in a note dated Wednesday. But the costs were higher than expected, and the cars would lose about $6,000 each at Tesla's original plan to sell an entry model at $35,000, he said.

It is another sign Tesla may have trouble turning into the mass-market automaker it said it wants to become.

Plans to manufacture the lower-cost vehicle have been delayed since its announcement in 2016 as the electric car manufacturer struggled to meet demand. CEO Elon Musk said in May that manufacturing the Model 3 at that price “right away” would cause Tesla to “die.”

The company had originally billed the Model 3 as a sleek electric vehicle for the masses, and the car that would turn Tesla from a smaller maker of expensive electric cars to a volume manufacturer.

Instead, Tesla focused on higher-cost versions that yield better margins. The profit margin on the $49,000 version UBS tore apart was about 18 percent, for example.

UBS hired the engineers for a breakdown of each car's powertrain and battery, electronic controls, frame and body as well as interior and safety features. They evaluated each part's design, ease of manufacturing and cost.

Tesla beat its two competitors in cost, but the Model 3 didn't have has big a lead over the other automakers as UBS had expected. UBS based its estimates on consultations with engineers and industry research.

Tesla, Chevrolet and BMW were not immediately available for comment.

However, some of the Model 3's technology seems to be far ahead of Chevrolet and BMW. In particular, Tesla's electric powertrain stood out as exceptionally simple and flexible.

WATCH: Tesla whistleblower tweets details about allegedly flawed cars

Tesla whistleblower tweets details about allegedly flawed cars
4:55 PM ET Thu, 16 Aug 2018 | 01:21

A choked up Elon Musk says his health has suffered and that he believes ‘the worst is yet to come’

Here's what experts think of Elon Musk's interview with the New York Times
10:54 AM ET Sun, 19 Aug 2018 | 02:00

Elon Musk was at home in Los Angeles, struggling to maintain his composure. “This past year has been the most difficult and painful year of my career,” he said. “It was excruciating.”

The year has only gotten more intense for Mr. Musk, the chairman and chief executive of the electric-car maker Tesla, since he abruptly declared on Twitter last week that he hoped to convert the publicly traded company into a private one. The episode kicked off a furor in the markets and within Tesla itself, and he acknowledged on Thursday that he was fraying.

At multiple points in an hourlong interview with The New York Times, he choked up, noting that he nearly missed his brother's wedding this summer and spent his birthday holed up in Tesla's offices as the company raced to meet elusive production targets on a crucial new model.

Asked if the exhaustion was taking a toll on his physical health, Mr. Musk answered: “It's not been great, actually. I've had friends come by who are really concerned.”

More from The New York Times:

Inside Tesla's Audacious Push to Reinvent the Way Cars Are Made

A Tesla Take-Private Bid Would Be More of the Same for Silver Lake

Elon Musk's Effort to Take Tesla Private to Get Board Oversight

The events set in motion by Mr. Musk's tweet have ignited a federal investigation and have angered some board members, according to people familiar with the matter. Efforts are underway to find a No. 2 executive to help take some of the pressure off Mr. Musk, people briefed on the search said. And some board members have expressed concern not only about Mr. Musk's workload but also about his use of Ambien, two people familiar with the board said.

Pressure is starting to break Tesla's Elon Musk, says NYT's Kate Kelly
11:28 AM ET Fri, 17 Aug 2018 | 03:22

For two decades, Mr. Musk has been one of Silicon Valley's most brash and ambitious entrepreneurs, helping to found several influential technology companies. He has often carried himself with bravado, dismissing critics and relishing the spotlight that has come with his success and fortune. But in the interview, he demonstrated an extraordinary level of self-reflection and vulnerability, acknowledging that his myriad executive responsibilities are taking a steep personal toll.

In the interview, Mr. Musk provided a detailed timeline of the events leading up to the Twitter postings on Aug. 7 in which he said he was considering taking the company private at $420 a share. He asserted that he had “funding secured” for such a deal — a transaction likely to be worth well over $10 billion.

That morning, Mr. Musk woke up at home with his girlfriend, the musician known as Grimes, and had an early workout. Then he got in a Tesla Model S and drove himself to the airport. En route, Mr. Musk typed his fateful message.

Mr. Musk has said he saw the tweet as an attempt at transparency. He acknowledged Thursday that no one had seen or reviewed it before he posted it.

Tesla's shares soared. Investors, analysts and journalists puzzled over the tweet — published in the middle of the day's official market trading, an unusual time to release major news — including the price Mr. Musk cited. He said in the interview that he wanted to offer a roughly 20 percent premium over where the stock had been recently trading, which would have been about $419. He decided to round up to $420 — a number that has become code for marijuana in counterculture lore.

“It seemed like better karma at $420 than at $419,” he said in the interview. “But I was not on weed, to be clear. Weed is not helpful for productivity. There's a reason for the word 'stoned.' You just sit there like a stone on weed.”

Mr. Musk reached the airport and flew on a private plane to Nevada, where he spent the day visiting a Tesla battery plant known as the Gigafactory, including time meeting with managers and working on an assembly line. That evening, he flew to the San Francisco Bay Area, where he held Tesla meetings late into the night.

What Mr. Musk meant by “funding secured” has become an important question. Those two words helped propel Tesla's shares higher.

But that funding, it turned out, was far from secure.

Mr. Musk has said he was referring to a potential investment by Saudi Arabia's government investment fund. Mr. Musk had extensive talks with representatives of the $250 billion fund about possibly financing a transaction to take Tesla private — maybe even in a manner that would have resulted in the Saudis' owning most of the company. One of those sessions took place on July 31 at the Tesla factory in the Bay Area, according to a person familiar with the meeting. But the Saudi fund had not committed to provide any cash, two people briefed on the discussions said.

Another possibility under consideration is that SpaceX, Mr. Musk's rocket company, would help bankroll the Tesla privatization and would take an ownership stake in the carmaker, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Musk's tweet kicked off a chain reaction.

An hour and 20 minutes after the tweet, with Tesla's shares up 7 percent, the Nasdaq stock exchange halted trading, and Tesla published a letter to employees from Mr. Musk explaining the rationale for possibly taking the company private. When the shares resumed trading, they continued their climb, ending the day with an 11 percent gain.

The next day, investigators in the San Francisco office of the Securities and Exchange Commission asked Tesla for explanations. Ordinarily, such material information about a public company's plans is laid out in detail after extensive internal preparation and issued through official channels. Board members, blindsided by the chief executive's market-moving statement, were angry that they had not been briefed, two people familiar with the matter said. They scrambled to cobble together a public statement trying to defuse a mounting uproar over the seemingly haphazard communication.

Mr. Musk said in the interview that board members had not complained to him about his tweet. “I don't recall getting any communications from the board at all,” he said. “I definitely did not get calls from irate directors.”

But shortly after the Times published its interview with Mr. Musk, he added through a Tesla spokeswoman that Antonio Gracias, Tesla's lead independent director, had indeed contacted him to discuss the Aug. 7 Twitter post, and that he had agreed not to tweet again about the possible privatization deal unless he had discussed it with the board.

Joshua Lott | Getty Images
Engineer and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk of The Boring Company talks about constructing a high speed transit tunnel at Block 37 during a news conference on June 14, 2018 in Chicago, Illinois.

In the interview, Mr. Musk added that he did not regret his Twitter post — “Why would I?” — and said he had no plans to stop using the social media platform. Some board members, however, have recently told Mr. Musk that he should lay off Twitter and focus on making cars and launching rockets, according to people familiar with the matter.

The S.E.C. investigation appears to be intensifying rapidly. Just days after the agency's request for information, Tesla's board and Mr. Musk received S.E.C. subpoenas, according to a person familiar with the matter. Board members and Mr. Musk are preparing to meet with S.E.C. officials as soon as next week, the person said.

In the interview on Thursday, Mr. Musk alternated between laughter and tears.

He said he had been working up to 120 hours a week recently — echoing the reason he cited in a recent public apology to an analyst whom he had berated. In the interview, Mr. Musk said he had not taken time off of more than a week since 2001, when he was bedridden with malaria.

“There were times when I didn't leave the factory for three or four days — days when I didn't go outside,” he said. “This has really come at the expense of seeing my kids. And seeing friends.”

Mr. Musk stopped talking, seemingly overcome by emotion.

He turned 47 on June 28, and he said he spent the full 24 hours of his birthday at work. “All night — no friends, nothing,” he said, struggling to get the words out.

Two days later, he was scheduled to be the best man at the wedding of his brother, Kimbal, in Catalonia. Mr. Musk said he flew directly there from the factory, arriving just two hours before the ceremony. Immediately afterward, he got back on the ..

With Elon Musk’s visibility ‘there is incredible isolation,’ leadership expert says

Many leaders feel like Elon Musk does, says expert
3:46 PM ET Fri, 17 Aug 2018 | 03:34

Tesla CEO Elon Musk's feelings of exhaustion “are not uncommon for leaders” in his position who face growing pressure, leadership wellness expert Lowinn Kibbey told CNBC on Friday.

“I think what Musk has done is illuminate an issue that many leaders feel,” Kibbey said on CNBC's “Closing Bell.”

Following months of bizarre behavior from Musk, The New York Times published an extended interview with the Tesla CEO in which he said the past year has been “excruciating” and “the most difficult and painful” of his career. In the emotional interview, Musk revealed he has been working as much as 120 hours per week, which caused him to work through his birthday and almost miss his brother's wedding. The CEO also revealed that when he gets a rare moment of shut-eye, it is often with the help of sleep aid Ambien.

Shares of Tesla tumbled 8.9 percent Friday after the interview was published.

Kibbey is global head of the Johnson & Johnson Human Performance Institute, which runs a program that works with athletes, the military and Fortune 500 CEOs to train them for high-pressure roles. He said the nature of the CEO role, as well as other high-level executive roles, has become more stressful with the advent of social media.

“The CEO role is an incredibly, highly visible role. There is tremendous stress in it. And over the last, say, five years, that stress has grown even greater, with complete visibility — from social media, pressure from activist shareholders, short sellers,” Kibbey said.

“With that visibility, though, there is incredible isolation. It is very difficult to share what's going on in a way where you feel that people can have empathy and that you can trust them,” he added.

It's Musk's erratic behavior, both on social media and off, that has invited much of the recent criticism of his character and management style. Most recently, his tweet that he would take Tesla private at $420 per share and had “funding secured” has invited scrutiny from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In July, he took to Twitter to call a British cave diver who assisted in the rescue of a Thai boys soccer team a “pedo guy.” During Tesla's first-quarter earnings call in May, Musk dissed analysts, cutting off Sanford Bernstein's Toni Sacconaghi because of what he called a “boring, bonehead” question. Musk later apologized to Sacconaghi and to the diver, Vernon Unsworth, for his comments.

As executive roles change, companies should change their approaches to training those executives, Kibbey said.

“There has to be a whole-person approach to this. No one has talked about this before; it's always been about what results have you driven in Q3 or Q4,” Kibbey said. “But the truth is, if that leader is not showing up physically well … if the mental, emotional resilience is not there, if the character-driven leadership is not there, that creates risk.”

The stakes may be high, but Kibbey said that doesn't mean Musk should step down as CEO and chairman. Instead, he applauded the entrepreneur for his transparency.

“This problem is common, and what Elon has done today is courageously talked about the pressure of that role,” Kibbey said.

Elon Musk’s stunning interview was a $1 billion gift to the short sellers he loathes

VCG | Getty Images
Elon Musk, Tesla CEO, addresses a press conference in October 2015.

The investors betting against Tesla just got a gift from the company's chief executive, Elon Musk.

Mr. Musk opened up on Thursday in an emotional interview with The New York Times about the toll the past year has taken on him, blaming those so-called short-sellers for much of his stress. It followed his cryptic tweet last week about converting the publicly traded company into a private one, which created a frenzy in the market.

The day after the interview, the stock of the electric-car maker tumbled 9 percent to $306.

Those losses were gains for the short-sellers. The slide in Tesla's shares generated more than $1 billion in profits for short-sellers, according to S3 Partners, a financial technology and analytics firm, which tracks the positions held by those investors.

The stock drop helped them recover much of their losses that came on Aug. 7, the day Mr. Musk tweeted he was considering taking Tesla private at a stock price of $420. Short-sellers lost $1.3 billion that day after Tesla's shares jumped 11 percent on the news.

Read more from The New York Times:

Elon Musk Details 'Excruciating' Personal Toll of Tesla Turmoil

Tesla Directors, in Damage Control Mode, Want Elon Musk to Stop Tweeting

Did Elon Musk Violate Securities Laws With Tweet About Taking Tesla Private?

Mr. Musk had long sparred with investors who make money when the company's stock falls. And he is bracing for the fight to get worse. Mr. Musk told The New York Times that he was expecting ''at least a few months of extreme torture from the short-sellers, who are desperately pushing a narrative that will possibly result in Tesla's destruction.''

Tesla is among the most shorted stocks in the United States. More than a quarter of its stock valued at more than $11 billion is being shorted, according to S3 Partners.

Short-sellers have increased their bets against Tesla this year as its struggles have mounted. The company has continued to lose money. Its Model 3, crucial to the company becoming profitable, has faced glitches and delays.

In March, a driver was killed after a Model X crashed into a concrete highway divider while Autopilot, Tesla's driver-assistance feature, was in use.

That same month, Moody's Investors Service downgraded the company's credit rating, concerned that the company was burning through cash.

It has made for a bumpy ride for Tesla investors — on either side of the trade.

Through it all, Mr. Musk's public attacks on shorts have only intensified.

In May, he took to Twitter and warned of the ''short burn of the century comin soon.'' A month later, he predicted that those wagering on the stock's decline ''had three weeks before their short position explodes.'' He even taunted David Einhorn, whose Greenlight Capital hedge fund has performed poorly this year in part because of its short bet on Tesla.

Mr. Musk has pointed to short-sellers as a reason he is considering taking Tesla private. In a message to employees explaining his thinking, he wrote: ''As the most shorted stock in the history of the stock market, being public means that there are large numbers of people who have the incentive to attack the company.''

He isn't exactly right on his history of short-sellers. At various points in the past 10 years, the value of bets against Procter & Gamble, General Electric, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson exceeded Tesla's high of roughly $13 billion, according to IHS Markit.

The value of short bets against Alibaba currently stands at $25 billion.

Even by the percentage of shares being shorted, it is not the highest. It's not even the biggest of 2018. So far this year, 26 companies have had a higher percentage of their stock shorted than Tesla did at its peak of 33 percent in May.

But he does have a point about the persistence of short-sellers trying to profit on Tesla's troubles. The short position in Tesla's shares has remained above $10 billion for nearly five months. In the past decade, short-sellers have not held a position valued at more than $10 billion in any other American company for more than three months, according to IHS Markit.

Betting against Tesla has been expensive. Since 2016, short-sellers collectively have lost $5 billion, as the company's shares rose 27 percent.

Even this year, amid all of Tesla's woes, betting on a decline in the company's share price has not been a winner. Its short-sellers remain down $650 million this year.

TSLA