Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Elon Musk: On Second Thought, Tesla Won't Go Private

      Too much of a hassle

    Over two weeks ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk took everyone by surprise by announcing his intention to take Tesla private. But those plans have been scrapped.

    Last night, Musk published a blog post saying that he had met with the board and “let them know that I believe the better path is for Tesla to remain public. The Board indicated that they agree.”

    "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was ‘please don’t do this,” wrote Musk.

    In a separate statement, Tesla's board of directors confirmed Musk's decision.

    "Yesterday, we held a Board meeting, during which Elon reported on the work he and his advisors have been doing in connection with this effort. Elon communicated to the Board that after having done this work and considered all factors, he believes the better path is to no longer pursue a transaction for taking Tesla private. After discussing this, we dissolved the Special Committee. The Board and the entire company remain focused on ensuring Tesla’s operational success, and we fully support Elon as he continues to lead the company moving forward," the statement says.

    This saga began with a tweet back on August 7th,

    This tweet sent everyone into a tizzy and caused NASDAQ to halt trading of Tesla stock for a few hours. There was one big question, how was Tesla going to fund this? Musk revealed a week later that it would be Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, though reports say the fund isn't so thrilled about this idea. As we reported earlier this week, the fund is in talks with another electric automaker, Lucid Motors.

    The announcement has prompted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to subpoena the company, along with a number of lawsuits from upset investors.

    Source: Tesla, Bloomberg

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Of course this was to never happen but I bet SEC will still fine him as he played the Short sellers. This was a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum.

    I find the investment in Lucid Motors to be very interesting. Karma is another that will be interesting to see where it goes.

    I honestly do not expect all these new electric startups to survive past 2025. Some will be bought out, others will just fold and 1 or 2 might survive, mostly those that open up shop in China and give away a chunk of their wealth and technology with it.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • It's amazing how a leather wrapped steering wheel changes the experience at the wheel for the better (it seems to make for an almost different car from the model with a urethane steering wheel).
    • Another thing to think on is the evidence bullet proof? Sadly, the same type of people who have said an eye for an eye, death penalty if you took a life have convicted others with hate in their heart only to have science prove the convicted innocent.  In this regards I wish all guns had palm / finger tip readers to confirm who last fired the gun. While others might say the death penalty is cruel, how is it when the person if proved beyond a reasonable doubt took a life? What about serial killers who are sitting for life, a burden on society in jail because folks feel there should be no death penalty and yet they took multiple lives themselves. Would it not be better for society if that person was no longer around, a burden on the tax payers? Many good questions to be asked. Lets take this a step further, auto makers who due to a focus on profits take shortcuts on safety of an auto, who should be held accountable for the deaths related to their products and how do you hold them accountable? An example of profit before safety, FORD PINTO Details of the Pinto's flawed fuel system: Location and construction: The sheet-metal gas tank was placed behind the rear axle, a design common at the time, but the Pinto's tank was made with exceptionally thin walls. It was held in place by two metal straps. Vulnerable parts: During rear-end impacts, bolts protruding from the differential housing could puncture the thin-walled tank. Additionally, the fuel-filler neck could tear away from the tank itself. Internal cost analysis: Internal Ford documents revealed that engineers were aware of the risks in pre-production crash tests and considered inexpensive fixes, including adding a rubber bladder to the tank. Alternative designs rejected: Engineers considered safer alternative designs, such as placing the tank above the axle (a design used on the Ford Capri), but this was rejected due to cost and styling constraints. Final design choice: Executives opted not to make these changes after a cost-benefit analysis concluded it would be cheaper to pay out potential lawsuits and settlements than to implement the repairs.  So who do you hold accountable for the deaths?
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search