2020 Model 3 2020 Long Range Awd Autopilot Nav Pano Blind 39k on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Musk says New York Times debacle may have cost Tesla $100 million

Despite the old chestnut that there's no such thing as bad publicity, there's always a cost incurred - sometimes it's hidden, and sometimes it's front and center. Enigmatic Tesla CEO Elon Musk seems to think his company's now-infamous Model S range dustup with The New York Times is falling squarely into the latter category. According to Musk, fallout from the back-and-forth battle over the newspaper's cold-weather road trip story may have decimated Tesla's stock value by as much as $100 million. Musk believes the report resulted in a lot of cancelled orders, probably costing Tesla "a few hundred" Model S purchases.
According to the report, Tesla's shares have tumbled some 12 percent (going from $39.24 to $34.38) since the report was published. Bloomberg further notes that the company's market capitalization has skidded by around $553 million over that same period. With the company's stock-market value pegged at $3.91 billion, $100m represents a not insignificant chunk of money to Tesla.
So how does Musk feel about embattled Times writer John Broder, whose controversial report he previously called "fake"? During the interview with Bloomberg TV, which you can watch below, Musk opines, "I don't think it should be the end of his career - I don't even think necessarily he should be fired - but I do think he fudged an article." No word has surfaced about any actions taken against Broder after his boss admitted he did "not especially" exercise "good judgement" in the course of his reporting.

FTC staff comes out in favor of Tesla, direct vehicle sales

On the subject of Tesla Motors and its efforts to legally sell its electric vehicles directly to consumers without franchised dealerships, the FTC has taken aim at Missouri and New Jersey. The Commission hasn't made any nationwide decision on the subject quite yet, but in a May 16 statement it encouraged the two states to reconsider policies that would further prohibit automakers from selling directly to consumers. And the FTC didn't mince words, calling such laws an example of "protection that is likely harming both competition and consumers." This is much further than the FTC has ever gone before in support of direct vehicle sales. FTC didn't mince words, saying such laws were "likely harming both competition and consumers." The statement follows an April blog post from three FTC officials, who wrote that the anti-direct sales mandates were "protectionist" and "bad policy." Tesla has been doing battle with a number of states as well as lobbying efforts from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which represents 16,000 new car and truck dealerships representing about 32,000 domestic and international franchises. The NADA has been supporting dealers who oppose Tesla's direct sales for years. In fact, Jonathan Collegio, vice president of public affairs for the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), maintained that the states need to retain the right to regulate the automobile sales distribution channel. "These arguments ignore the fact that fierce competition between local dealers drives down prices both within and across brands. When three Ford dealers compete for the same customer, the customer wins, period," Collegio wrote in an e-mail to AutoblogGreen. "Finally, it's a major fallacy to compare buying cars with buying other goods, like books or computers. New cars are major purchases that require licensing, insurance, complex financing involving trade-ins, contain hazardous materials, and if operated incorrectly can cause serious bodily injury." Tesla representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from AutoblogGreen. New Jersey and Missouri have both been in the news lately. Garden State politicos have created a bit of a grey area, first voting in mid-March to stop Tesla stores from selling cars starting April 1, then extending the deadline to April 15.

Panasonic ready to start big investment in Tesla Gigafactory

To paraphrase Dr. Evil from Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, why spend a trillion when you could spend ... billions? That's what Panasonic is saying about its investment in Tesla's gigafactory, though there's a catch. The billions are in Japanese yen. Yes, Panasonic will invest "tens of billions of yen" into the Gigafactory slated for the great state of Nevada, Reuters says, citing comments from Panasonic Chief Executive Kazuhiro Tsuga. That's not exactly specific, but 10 billion yen is equal to about $92 million. We've heard Panasonic's share of the new factory could be as high as $2-3 billion, but at least now we have a starting point Whatever Panasonic's kicking in, Nevada is also ponying up a pretty penny. Last month, Tesla said it would build the factory near Reno after reaching an agreement that calls for about $1.2 billion in incentives from the state over a 20-year period. Tesla and lithium-ion battery maker Panasonic officially announced their gigafactory partnership in late July, though Panasonic wasn't talking numbers at the time. All told, the plant is expected to cost about $5 billion to build and is considered necessary for Tesla to reach the scale to build its planned $35,000 EV, the Model 3. That's because the factory is will have the capacity to produce about a half-million (no, we didn't say "billions") electric vehicles a year.