Elon Musk’s Subsidy Aggregation

Elon Musk didn’t become a billionaire without brass, and this week he floated one of his most outrageous bets: an offer by his taxpayer-subsidized Tesla Motors to buy his taxpayer-subsidized SolarCity. Tesla shareholders and Wall Street analysts are howling, but didn’t they always know they were buying a business model that depended on the kindness of politicians?

The electric-car maker offered to acquire the solar panel company at a more than 20% premium over SolarCity’s previous share price in an all-stock transaction. “Tesla customers can drive clean cars and they can use our battery packs to help consume energy more efficiently,” the company said in a blog post, “but they still need access to the most sustainable energy source that’s available: the sun.”

The ostensible plan is to set up a one-stop shop so folks buying $85,000 Teslas don’t have to walk across the street to buy solar panels, among other “synergies.” Mr. Musk predicted, with his typically modest ambition, that the merger will lead to a Tesla valuation of $1 trillion, or about 34 times what it was Wednesday.

He may need one of his SpaceX rockets to get there. Tesla shares fell 10% Wednesday, or more than the $2.8 billion value of SolarCity, as investors asked why one money-losing company would be better off buying another money-losing company. SolarCity was once a darling of the green energy set, but its shares have fallen more than 50% in the past year as its political advantage ebbs.

CNBC Tears Down Elon Musk’s Snarky Response To A Coal CEO

CNBC corrected Tesla CEO Elon Musk Monday after he falsely claimed in a tweet that the coal industry receives more government handouts than renewable energy companies.

Musk, who owns more than 20 percent of Tesla, tweeted out a response to comments made by Murray Energy CEO Robert E. Murray on “Squawk Box” suggesting that Tesla “has gotten $2 billion from the taxpayer,” and “has not made a penny yet in cash flow.”

The government could shutter every single coal plant in the country, Murray added, and not see any discernible reduction in the Earth’s temperature.

Musk apparently didn’t take kindly to the inference that one of his companies is failing despite being recipients of heavy government subsidies, so he took to Twitter, and wrote: the “real fraud going on is denial of climate science.” He attached the video of Murray to the tweet.

Tesla receives far less in subsidies than the coal industry, Musk added, “How about we both go to zero?”

The High Cost of Rooftop Solar Subsidies

Section VII: Conclusion

Current solar subsidies and net metering schemes through U.S. states continue to draw capital away from its most efficient use, often at the benefit of U.S. solar panel producers and installation companies, such as SolarCity, but at the expense of electricity consumers.

The costs associated with facilitating these distortions are numerous. Given that solar customers are often paid the retail rate for excess electricity produced, and do not share the burden of maintenance costs, electrical grids are finding they cannot keep up with the current dichotomy they are facing of rising costs and a decreasing customer base. Thus, many studies conducted by states have found evidence of cross-subsidization between non-solar customers, who are often less-affluent, and solar customers, who are often more-affluent.

Proponents of government assistance of solar energy have attempted to highlight job growth as a means to justify the immense support needed by the solar industry in order to stay afloat. These job growth estimates not only employ skewed survey data, but also fail to take into account many of the dynamic effects that result from the government’s intervention, such as the consequences of draining tax revenues and foregone investments, increased cost of energy utilizing a greater share of consumers’ budgets, jobs foregone by investing in solar energy production, and jobs created in the base case scenario if solar energy were not subsidized in its current form.

States should seek to restructure their net metering schemes and subsidies in order to promote the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars and normalize investments based on the fundamentals of different electricity generating methods. While utility-scale solar has proven more efficient than residential solar installations, both continue to lag behind traditional electricity generation methods that are able to generate greater output per dollar.

Any future technological development of solar energy alternatives relies heavily on whether the government will be able to take a step back and allow the market to distribute capital efficiently, thereby allowing the most competitive electricity options to survive and facilitate effective progress of solar power and other electricity options.

Overview

Elon Musk has controlling stakes in 3 companies: Tesla, SolarCity, and SpaceX. Tesla and SolarCity are publicly traded. SpaceX is not publicly traded. This document’s focus will be soley on the financial interdependencies of the companies. There are also incestuous business practices, and nepotism within the leadership of each company Musk controls.

We hope to illustrate simply and clearly the immense risk the US government has taken with your money by giving it to a man who is essentially telling them what they want to hear while picking their pockets doing it.

Background

Tesla borrowed Venture Capital (VC) money from Elon Musk at VC rates. It borrowed VC money from taxpayers at non-VC rates

Tesla needed $500MM to get started in 2008. The US Government lent $465MM to Tesla at 3% interest under its push for Green Energy. Elon Musk lent the company $38MM at10% interest plus stock options. Here are the profits on those loans:

Elon Musk’s $38MM generates profit of $1.4BB, or 3,600% ROR- a VC payout
Taxpayers’ $465MM- generates profits of $12MM or 2.6%ROR- not a VC Payout

Taxpayers took VC risk without VC returns. The table is set for Elon to arbitrage the Government’s largesse much more. All in, the US Government committed about $4.9BB to finance Tesla’s operations

Musk Gets More Government Money

Using Government loans, Elon Musk creates 2 more companies; SolarCity and SpaceX. He now controls three government sponsored clean energy companies financed by taxpayer money.

The Companies

Tesla- makes electrical cars, develops technology for same. Loses money hoping for future profits

Loans money to SolarCity via its own stock
Borrowed $465MM from Gov’t at 3% and $38MM from Elon Musk at 10% plus stock options
Does not make money

SolarCity- makes and leases solar panels to homeowners. Loses money hoping for a back-end profit

Borrows money from Tesla
Borrows Money from SpaceX
Does not make money

SpaceX- will provide future service related to satellite launches. It makes money via prepaying customers

Loans money to SolarCity at approx. 10%
Borrows Money from Government at approx. 4%
Makes money

Elon Musk now has 2 companies that do not make money. He has 1 that makes money from prepayments for services yet to be given. All are financed by the US taxpayer at ridiculously below market rates. The table is now set for financing using inflated currency (sound familiar?) in the form of Tesla stock to get real cash in Mr. Musk’s pockets.

The SolarCity Problem

Despite gov’t subsidies SolarCity still needs money to operate. SpaceX, while not profitable, has cash on hand form prepayments and Gov’t subsidies. Tesla, also not profitable, has no cash, but has highly (over)valued stock it can use as currency or loans for cash. Elon Musk owns major stakes in all 3 companies.

SolarCity borrows $165MM from SpaceX at market rates of about 4.4%
SpaceX uses govt loans (2.0%?) to lend $165MM SolarCity
SolarCity borrows another $90MM from SpaceX to avoid defaulting on first SpaceX loan

Yet SolarCity is still in trouble. It needs cash. Government subsidies are on hold. Its stock price is sinking and it is in danger of defaulting on existing loans. Enter Tesla and Elon Musk

Tesla and Musk Bail Out SolarCity

Elon Musk and Tesla loan stock to SolarCity. SolarCity margins that stock for cash so they can make their loan payments to SpaceX.

Elon Musk used money loaned to him at 2.6% to generate 3,600% from Tesla stock sales
SolarCity was failing. If It failed, it likely would take SpaceX with it.
Elon Musk and Tesla used his govt sponsored inflated currency (Tesla stock) to prop up a failing SolarCity.

Not Enough

But that was not enough money. Tesla then makes a bid outright to buy all of SolarCity at above market valuations using Tesla stock. This essentially ensures a payout to himself and his partners at SolarCity while eliminating the SpaceX debt. Now it all depends on the price of Tesla stock. And Tesla has been punished by the market since the announcement.

Finally there is the loaned stock by Elon Musk to SolarCity. If Tesla drops enough for amargin call, it is all over in our opinion. what we have not covered includes the valuation offerred to buy SolarCity. Public shareholders of Tesla should be incensed atthe price being paid for SolarCity. Meanwhile, much of SolarCity’s stock is still in the hands of Musk and family members.

If Tesla stock drops enough, it could take out potentially all 3 companies. Essentialy Musk is at the center of an American Keiretsu.

Conclusion

The interdependent relationships between the 3 government subsidized companies Elon Musk owns or has a controlling stake in are an abuse ofgovernment largesse towards Green Energy. Taxpayer money is being used at market risk without market returns to prop up 3 unprofitable companies. While we do not debate the technology Tesla has developed, we question the leverage with which these companies are able to operate under. If something were to go wrong, we feel an eventual Solyndra Greenmail situation would occur. Tesla would be TBTF to the Government and have to pay. We feel Elon Musk knows this and is will play that card if need be.

Luxury automakers to Tesla: We’re coming for you

The message from Dieter Zetsche was clear.

Shortly after the Daimler chairman unveiled Mercedes-Benz’s concept electric SUV at the Paris Motor Show Thursday, CNBC asked if the German automaker was fighting back against Tesla and its growing hold on the luxury electric car market.

“If you want to interpret it that way it’s fine,” Zetsche told CNBC. “Tesla is a successful electric automotive company…[but] we want to be No. 1 by latest 2025 in the electric premium segment.”

Make no mistake: Mercedes, BMW, Audi and practically every other luxury automaker is gunning for Tesla with a slew of high-end electric vehicles scheduled to come out over the next several years.

Mercedes, for instance, plans to release 10 new electric models. BMW says it will introduce an electric version of every model it sells. And Audi plans for 25 percent of its sales by 2025 to come from electric vehicles.

“Tesla is highly likely to lose its dominant position,” UBS told investors last week, describing the coming wave of electric cars from established luxury brands as a “tsunami.”

Stephanie Brinley, senior auto analyst for IHS Markit, agrees Tesla will feel some pressure.

“The mainstream luxury brands can really reach beyond the early adopters in a way Tesla cannot,” he said. “They have the dealer network, strong brand recognition and strong customer loyalty.”

The high cost of rooftop solar subsidies

Renewable energy like wind and solar has become politically popular in recent years. So much so that Hillary Clinton is proposing to install half a billion solar panels if she is elected president. Yet her plan for “a solar panel on every roof” doesn’t reconcile with her stated concern for lower-income Americans. A new study shows that solar energy is driven by subsidies that increase electricity rates of poorer Americans and send that money to richer Americans.

One of the most significant solar subsidies is called net metering. Net metering is a program through which home and business owners with solar panels are credited for the excess energy they send to the electric grid. A new study by Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, commissioned by my organization, the Institute for Energy Research, shows that the default pricing structure and the intermittent nature of solar energy make these programs a bad deal.

The biggest flaw with net metering is the price paid to customers with solar panels. The default is to pay customers with solar panels the retail rate instead of the wholesale rate for the electricity they produce. This causes huge distortions in the way we all pay for the power grid.

The net metering subsidy creates a strong incentive for building owners to enter the solar market and indeed states have been flooded with applications to join net metering programs, which is why many states are now capping or reforming their net metering programs. In other words, many property owners are eager to be on the winning side of the cost shift.

The problems with net metering go beyond the wholesale vs. retail price. As the technology stands today, electricity at utility scale cannot be stored in batteries in a cost-effective way. That means grid operators must be on the ready 24/7 to increase or reduce the amount of energy flowing onto the system in response to electricity demand. Too much or too little at any given time can lead to power outages and the inconveniences and productivity slowdowns they entail. This recently happened in South Australia when wind power fell very quickly and the region was hit with a blackout.

It doesn’t take a degree in photovoltaics to recognize how solar energy exacerbates this issue. Solar energy is only accessible when the sun is shining, which means even on the sunniest days of the year there is a strong mid-day peak preceded and followed by hours-long valleys. Unfortunately, electricity demand is frequently highest in the early evening when the sun is setting.

This means grid operators have to accommodate for massive influxes of solar energy for a few hours each sunny day, but then need to ramp up the delivery of other energy sources when high demand hits later on. This ramping up and down taxes the system more than simply matching demand with electricity supplied from traditional power plants. The result is that net metering customers are actually making the grid more difficult and costly to operate. Much worse, these costs are transferred to the rest of the utility’s customers, who face higher utility bills as a result.

Arizona’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service, found that a net metering customer avoids around $1,000 annually in costs they impose on the electric grid, which results in the rest of their customers being on the hook for $16.80 more. This may not seem like much, but as the pool of net metering customers grows, so too does the cost for non-solar customers.

When we look closer at the breakdown of net metering customers and regular customers, the policy is downright regressive. According to the California Public Utilities Commission, the average net metering customer in California has an annual income that is over one and a half times that of California’s average annual income. The expenses involved in installing a solar energy system on a home make the prospect cost-prohibitive for all but the upper echelon of income earners which means that net metering is essentially welfare for wealthy people.

As the Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics study clarifies, our public utility policies don’t reflect the costs that net metering imposes. It’s time to reform net metering policies so that the general public no longer subsidizes those wealthy enough to afford solar panels. The sun, it seems, is not free after all.

Has Elon Musk Finally Run Out Of Rope?

Summary

The public’s willingness to take everything Elon Musk says at face value appears to be wearing thin.

Elon’s long-established pattern of following bad news with grandiose announcements and, frankly, truckloads of baloney, has lost its appeal and is having an ever more minor and temporary effect on Tesla shares.

Even Tesla’s biggest institutional supporters appear to be losing patience and casting a skeptical eye toward his plans, and this does not bode well for TSLA investors.

And this is not even a comprehensive list of all the signs of eroding confidence in Elon.

Conference calls have transitioned from seemingly scripted softball sessions to something approaching real conference calls with poignant and skeptical questions coming from those in attendance.

The financial community is no longer taking everything Elon tells them at face value. I don’t know of a single analyst that believes Tesla will sell 500,000 vehicles in 2018, as Elon promised during the Q2 earnings call.

All in all, the rose-colored glasses are coming off and there are signs that reality is beginning to carry the day.

Stop Elon From Failing Again

THE ONE STOP DATABASE ON STOPPING ELON MUSK

Links