Tesla board should rein in Elon Musk’s tweets and appoint a second in command: Former Toyota exec

Elon Musk needs a number two to help run Tesla: Experts
3 Hours Ago | 06:19

Tesla CEO Elon Musk should not step down, but the board should really consider regulating Musk's Twitter use and appointing Musk a “No. 2,” Jim Press, former COO and president of Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., told CNBC on Monday.

“Twitter helps instantly communicate, so there are some advantages to it, but it needs to be disciplined and needs to be throttled in, I think,” Press, who was also the deputy CEO of Chrysler, said on CNBC's “Closing Bell.”

Just weeks after an Aug. 7 tweet in which Musk said he was considering taking Tesla private at $420 per share and had “funding secured,” he abandoned the idea. In a Friday blog post, Musk explained that “it's apparent most of Tesla's existing shareholders believe we are better off as a public company.”

But that may not be enough to dissuade the Securities and Exchange Commission, which, according to a New York Times report on Aug. 15, served Tesla with a subpoena to determine whether Musk violated securities laws by claiming he had funding for the take-private maneuver.

Furthermore, Musk himself has been criticized for erratic behavior, both online and off. He confessed in an interview with The New York Times the toll of the “excruciating” year he has had leading Tesla, particularly when crunching to meet Model 3 production goals.

“Twitter has become this direct line of public communication,” Press said. “And in a good company with governance, you've got coordination, and you're working through a communications strategy within the organization. It seems to me that [Tesla's Twitter activity] needs to go through a more formal channel to be part of exactly what the company is saying.”

Vocal Tesla short Gabe Hoffman, who founded activist hedge fund Accipiter Capital Management, thinks Musk's go-private tweet was more than just a slip-up in corporate communications.

“This was, in my view, the most egregious and naked example of securities fraud I have ever seen from a CEO in my 18 years as a hedge-fund manager,” Hoffman said Monday on “Closing Bell.”

“I believe imminently, in the next couple of months, Elon Musk will be removed as CEO of Tesla,” Hoffman added.

William G. Pietersen, businessman and professor at Columbia University Graduate School of Business, placed some of the blame for the behavior of an “overwhelmed and emotionally exhausted” Musk on Tesla's board.

“If you think about a board's responsibility of oversight — to make sure there's a strong strategy in place to lead the company to a good place, that there's a team that's able to implement that strategy and to be able to … insist that the CEO, in the interest of shareholders, undertakes those steps — I think there's a fundamental governance issue of responsibility here,” Pietersen said in a “Closing Bell” interview.

But critical of the situation as Pietersen was, he said the frazzled CEO doesn't necessarily need to leave the company. He should really rethink how the company is being run, Pietersen said.

“The truth of the matter is this classic dilemma of whether the original visionary can lead a large, complex organization with a lot of operating problems,” Pietersen said. “Leadership is a team sport; it's not a solo effort. And I think if you show me a successful company, I'll show you a strong leader that can lead a strong team.”

Press, who just last week defended Musk's vision, agreed and maintained that Musk was still the right one to lead Tesla, so long as he had a team underneath him.

“He's really the visionary; he's the creative genius. His imprint is really on the company, but he has to stay high enough to stay strategic and let somebody else worry about the day-to-day business. A 'No. 2' makes a lot of sense,” Press said.

“It seems logical as this company grows to bring in somebody to worry about growing the company, operating it day-to-day, and allowing him to really focus on strategy,” he added.

Tesla closed down 1.10 percent at $319.27. Tesla is down about 8.3 percent year over year.

Tesla: Bull and Bear investors debate
4 Hours Ago | 05:20

Inside Elon Musk’s reversal on taking Tesla private

Lucy Nicholson | Reuters
Elon Musk speaks at Boring Company community meeting in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California, May 17, 2018.

When Elon Musk declared this month that he wanted to take Tesla private, his board was caught off guard. Barely three weeks later, the chief executive told the board he had changed his mind. Tesla would be staying public, after all.

The startling reversal — announced late Friday in a blog post, a day after he discussed it with directors — capped a tumultuous series of moves that drew in Wall Street's biggest investment banks, prompted an investigation by regulators and raised fresh questions about Mr. Musk's leadership.

In that time, according to five people close to the events, Mr. Musk came to realize that his thinking had been overly simplistic. While going private might have removed some problems, it would have introduced new ones.

Among his concerns were ceding too much control to private investors — including conventional car companies and Saudi Arabia, a symbol of big oil — and shutting out smaller investors who might be unable to retain a stake.

Those were issues both symbolic and substantive for Tesla, which has staked its future on making electric vehicles the transportation of choice — a vision that has made it the nation's most highly valued car company. Even with its shares worth $55 billion, it faces concerns common to many young companies, including its vulnerability to the whims of public shareholders.

For his part, Mr. Musk has come under new scrutiny as his impulsiveness has played out in real time in the stock market, with billions of dollars on the line.

And even with the decision to stand pat, Mr. Musk and the company could remain in the sights of the Securities and Exchange Commission over the circumstances of the original announcement.

“Tesla investors must realize that they have a panicky, erratic, possibly self-destructive C.E.O. at the helm,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. “No C.E.O. is ever this confused and confusing.”

If Elon Musk left Tesla, the stock would go up: Expert
4:43 PM ET Fri, 17 Aug 2018 | 06:14

For years, Mr. Musk had romanticized the idea of Tesla going private. Doing so, he has mused publicly, would free him from the short-term pressures of the public markets, unburden him of the distractions of a volatile stock price and, more recently, get rid of the short sellers betting that Tesla would fail. Instead, Mr. Musk believed he could focus on Tesla's work of popularizing electric vehicles and reducing the world's dependence on fossil fuels.

But from the moment of his nine-word
announcing his thoughts on Aug. 7 and saying that he had “funding secured,” other considerations came into play.

In his note announcing that Tesla would remain public, Mr. Musk cited four main factors that changed his mind: existing shareholders believe Tesla is better off as a public company; not all existing investors would be able to own shares of a private company; it wasn't clear how individual investors would take part in a deal; and the process could distract the company from production of its first mass-market offering, the Model 3, which is crucial to its financial health.

By the account of people familiar with Mr. Musk's thinking, deepening ties with new private investors presented its own challenges. By taking money from Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund — something Mr. Musk said he believed was a sure thing — Tesla would have been teaming up with a country whose very foundation is fossil fuels, and one often criticized on human-rights grounds.

That cognitive dissonance — an electric-car company backed by big oil — was pointed out to Mr. Musk several times, these people said.

As Tesla representatives reached out to officials at the Saudi fund and other sovereign funds, it also became clear that they might want more than just Tesla equity in exchange for an investment. Some, said someone briefed on those talks, would expect Tesla to open manufacturing operations in their countries, for example.

And while several big carmakers approached Tesla about funding a deal, people familiar with the discussions said, there were issues there, too. Some of those companies have their own reputational baggage. And Mr. Musk, proud that Tesla's cars are made in America, did not want to let foreign interests dictate his decisions about manufacturing.

At the same time, it became clear that not all of Tesla's big institutional shareholders would have been able to take part in a buyout. Many big investors hold Tesla stock in funds that can only own publicly traded stocks.

“On the whole, some of our clients will find it very difficult to follow,” James Anderson, a partner at Baillie Gifford, which is Tesla's largest shareholder after Mr. Musk, said in an interview before Mr. Musk called off a deal. “We've had this conversation with Mr. Musk himself. He understands that there is an issue here.”

The same was probably true for other institutional investors in Tesla, including T. Rowe Price, BlackRock and Fidelity. And Mr. Musk heard from many individual investors who wanted Tesla to stay public. On Thursday, a small Tesla investor released a public letter imploring Mr. Musk to keep Tesla public.

Those pleas were notable because many individual investors are not able to invest in private companies for regulatory reasons.

On Thursday morning, Elon Musk and Tesla's board gathered for a meeting on the factory floor of the company's manufacturing plant in Fremont, Calif., people with knowledge of the events said. They were joined by representatives from the investment bank Goldman Sachs and the private equity firm Silver Lake, which were advising on a deal.

After a Silver Lake representative made a presentation expressing confidence in their ability to manage the process of taking Tesla private — a transaction that could have required $24 billion or more — the Wall Street representatives left the room, and the floor was given to Mr. Musk.

But instead of telling his board just how far he'd come in securing new investors for a potential deal, Mr. Musk backtracked: He no longer believed going private was in the best interest of the company, and he would not be bringing forward a proposal to buy out the company.

Doing so would be too distracting, big institutional investors could not all take part and there was no easy path for retail shareholders to be involved, he told the board.

The directors — some of whom have expressed concern about Mr. Musk's use of Twitter and erratic behavior — were supportive.

Tesla's Elon Musk apologizes: 'There's really no excuse for bad manners'
11:45 AM ET Thu, 2 Aug 2018 | 01:38

During the meeting, the board voted to dissolve the special committee established to evaluate a potential deal. And before lunchtime, the meeting — held in the same room where Mr. Musk sometimes sleeps during late nights at the factory — was over.

Later that day, Mr. Musk drafted a statement announcing that Tesla would remain public, which the board approved Thursday night. On Friday, working from the office of SpaceX, his private rocket company, based near Los Angeles, Mr. Musk and his team refined the letter.

In the statement, even while retreating from the idea of going private, Mr. Musk doubled down on his original assertion that he had the financial backing. “My belief that there is more than enough funding to take Tesla private was reinforced during this process,” he said.

Still, the S.E.C., which is investigating whether Mr. Musk's original tweet about a potential buyout violated securities law, may have more to say about the sequence of events — particularly the “funding secured” declaration. The initial tweet sent Tesla's stock soaring and caused a halt in trading pending a fuller announcement. The stock tapered off in ensuing weeks and never came close to the $420 buyout price that Mr. Musk had said was in prospect, indicating investor skepticism.

“In a sense it lessens the impact of the initial tweet,” Peter Henning, professor of law at Wayne State University, said of the reversal. “But the S.E.C. looks at what happens at the time of the disclosure. Walking it back later doesn't necessary mitigate the effect. And it was clearly incomplete.”

“You can't throw out information that moves the market and say, 'Never mind,'” Mr. Henning added. “This is the C.E.O. of the company. His statements are the company's statements. Will they make an example of him? Maybe.”

And while Mr. Musk may have appeased some constituencies, management experts were left shaking their heads at the chaotic process, wh..

Elon Musk will sabotage his own plans if he takes Tesla private, Tesla bull says

Tesla investor writes open letter to Elon Musk on keeping Tesla public
5 Hours Ago | 02:43

Tesla CEO Elon Musk will sabotage his own goals for the electric car maker if he takes it private, said ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood, who predicted Tesla stock could reach $4,000 per share.

“By going private [Musk] would deprive Tesla of reaching his own priorities — mobility as a service, autonomous truck platoons, utility energy storage, even air passenger drones,” Wood said Friday on CNBC's “Closing Bell.” “He's got big plans, and he needs to scale these plans. We don't think that it will happen nearly as effectively in the private markets as in the public.”

Tesla has battled widespread scrutiny, following Musk's Aug. 7 tweet that he was planning to take Tesla private and had “funding secured.” The Securities and Exchange Commission served Tesla with a subpoena last week, as it looks into whether Musk violated securities laws by claiming he had funding for the maneuver. In addition, Musk himself has been criticized for erratic behavior. He confessed in an interview with The New York Times the toll of the “excruciating” year he has had leading Tesla, particularly when crunching to meet Model 3 production goals.

Through it all, Wood, who is CEO of innovation-focused investment service ARK Invest, has remained bullish. Known for making bold calls, the money manager first revealed her $4,000 per share call in February. On Wednesday, she published a letter to Musk and Tesla's board of directors, imploring them not to take the company private. She sees the company trading anywhere from $700 to $4,000 per share within five years if it remains public.

Tesla closed the day up 0.85 percent at $322.82 per share, having gained 5.67 percent on the week.

Central to Wood's argument that Tesla could trade as high as $4,000 per share is the idea that Tesla will orient itself away from the capital-intensive vehicle manufacturing business toward software. And that's where Tesla excels, she said.

“We think he's already way ahead of the game. He's got the data, he's got the chip that's three years ahead of Nvidia's chip … He's got batteries, which are three years ahead of any other company's batteries. And he's had the vision about autonomous taxi networks from the very beginning,” Wood said on Friday.

Pierre Ferragu, head of technology infrastructure research at New Street Research, said, “Tesla will become one of the major premium car manufacturers, like Audi and Jaguar … within the next seven years,” but its success will be from a purely go-to-market perspective, as Tesla has lower costs for marketing and distribution than other automakers.

“Maybe one day mobility-as-a-service will be a thing, but today there is nothing tangible there,” he said.

New Street Research placed a 12-month price target of $530 on Tesla and sees it reaching $1,200 to $2,000 by 2025. It all hinges on production numbers.

“They have seven years to be able to produce 2.5 [million] to 3 million cars a year. As you can imagine, getting to the first couple hundred thousand is the most challenging part,” he said. “Once they are at scale of BMW, they will be significantly more profitable than” BMW.

On production, Wood was bullish, saying Tesla will “iterate and iterate until they get it right, and then, they are going to be able to scale enormously when they get it right.” But Wood's biggest hopes for the company concern software, and she worries those lofty mobility-as-a-service goals won't come to fruition if Tesla goes private.

Musk is “the kind of person you need, one with vision who ends up at times very frustrated with the short time horizon of public markets. But the public markets will reward him handsomely if he just sticks with it and starts performing with the production schedules,” she said.

Tesla had a fire in its Fremont factory on Thursday night

Tesla experienced another fire at its Fremont, California, car plant on Thursday night around 5:20 p.m. No injuries were reported and the fire is not expected to impact production.

“Some cardboard and shipping materials being prepared for recycling on our southern fence line caught fire, along with a small patch of grass next to a Tesla parking lot,” a company spokesperson said. “We would like to thank the Fremont Fire Department for their rapid response.”

While Tesla handles some of the fires at its Fremont factory with its own, internal fire brigade, the outdoor fire on Thursday was extinguished by the local Fremont Fire Department.

The factory has a history of frequent fires within its paint shop, including a significant one in April that temporarily halted Tesla's electric vehicle production. However, the Thursday fire took place outside, near a tent on the south side of Tesla's property, away from the main facilities where cars are assembled and painted.

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.