220.10 +0.34 (0.15%)
After hours: 7:59PM EDT
|Bid||220.10 x 800|
|Ask||220.90 x 800|
|Day's Range||219.50 - 225.34|
|52 Week Range||176.99 - 387.46|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.03|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||N/A|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk had said last month that the company was on course to deliver a record number of cars in the quarter, beating the 90,700 it sent to customers in the final quarter of last year. Electrek did not give any delivery number for international markets for the quarter. The report said that when international market numbers are added, especially in places like Norway and China, Tesla will get pretty close to a new record.
Shares of Tesla, which have risen for most of June, could get a further boost from the car maker’s second-quarter delivery and production report.
The U.S. solar market installs 2.7 gigawatts direct current (GWdc) of solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity, leading to the strongest Q1 in the industry's history.
On June 24, the Department of Commerce approved Tesla’s request “to waive 10% tariffs on imported aluminum from Japan.” On June 25 at 8:45 AM ET, Tesla stock rose 0.2% for the day in the pre-market session.
(Bloomberg) -- Early this morning at Cape Canaveral, employees of Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. rejoiced.A Falcon Heavy delivered 24 satellites into three distinct orbits while the rocket’s twin boosters landed safely back on Earth almost simultaneously. Apart from the failure of the center booster to land on a drone ship in the Atlantic Ocean, the mission that Musk had described as SpaceX’s toughest test yet had been a success.Read more: SpaceX launches Falcon Heavy rocket in toughest liftoff yetThe launch underscores SpaceX’s status as one of the world’s most valuable closely held companies. It’s worth $34 billion, according to an analysis by EquityZen, a marketplace for shares of tech firms that haven’t yet gone public.While investors are clamoring for a piece of Musk’s space company, they’ve been less sanguine lately about the fortunes of his publicly traded Tesla Inc. Shares of the electric carmaker have tumbled 33% this year amid concern that consumer demand is slackening and competition stiffening.The divergence has reshaped one of the world’s biggest fortunes. Musk is the world’s 41st richest person with a net worth of $22.4 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. SpaceX now makes up two-thirds of his wealth, with Tesla accounting for most of the remaining third. That’s a reversal from previous years where Tesla was responsible for the bulk of his fortune on Bloomberg’s ranking.SpaceX’s success still hasn’t been enough to completely offset the decline in Musk’s wealth this year. It has dropped by $1.7 billion.\--With assistance from Dana Hull.To contact the reporter on this story: Tom Metcalf in London at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Pierre Paulden at email@example.com, ;Craig Trudell at firstname.lastname@example.org, Peter Eichenbaum, Steven CrabillFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The consequences for board members of corporations found to violate the law and ethical norms are rare and usually minor. Here's a look at what the board is supposed to do - and sometimes doesn't.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Dan Loeb wants to split up Sony Corp. to enhance its value. The company isn’t the only household name in Japanese electronics that might benefit from the treatment.Panasonic Corp. shares have dropped more than 40% over the past 12 months after a partnership with Tesla Inc. disappointed; the company forecast earnings will decline; and a restructuring plan put forward last month failed to convince investors. The firm is trading on a multiple of 3.8 times enterprise value to Ebitda, compared with a five-year average of 4.6 times.Loeb’s Third Point LLC has called for a spinoff of Sony’s semiconductor business, aiming to reduce the stock’s so-called conglomerate discount – the situation where a company is valued at less than the sum of the different businesses it owns. It’s an analysis that could equally be applied to Panasonic.Last month, the Osaka-based company released a mid-term plan that will increase its number of divisions to seven from four. Panasonic aims to shift its focus away from the automotive business, which is struggling under the shadow cast by the difficulties in its relationship with Tesla. The electronics maker also announced a series of partnerships and alliances, and estimated restructuring costs of about 90 billion yen ($840 million), according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.Analysts say Panasonic still doesn’t have a coherent strategy, and investors clearly want more change. So could a breakup be the solution?The answer from a sum-of-the-parts analysis is a clear: maybe. If Panasonic listed all its business segments separately and they traded at the mid-point of their peer-group ranges of between 4 times and 9 times enterprise value to Ebitda, then the combined value would be 2% higher than the company’s current market capitalization of about $20 billion. At the high end of the ranges, Panasonic could increase its value by as much as 32%. At the low end, though, there’s a similar amount of downside.(1)Analysts in Japan have questioned Loeb’s proposal for Sony. While they lauded his effort to improve the company’s valuation, they also cast doubt on whether the activist investor’s proposals were feasible or made strategic sense. A Sony split may unlock value now but, as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Tim Culpan asked, what’s the vision for the future? As Sony analysts have pointed out, Loeb has reversed course since 2013, when he recommended that the company sell part of its film unit.This uncertainty is precisely where a breakup proposal may make sense for Panasonic, though. Pulling apart its various businesses – grouped broadly under appliances, automotive and industrial systems, connected solutions and eco solutions – would enable investors to put their money where they see value and growth prospects, without being encumbered by laggard businesses.For instance, sales for the connected solutions segment rose 6.9%(2) in the 2019 fiscal year, helped by the Tokyo Olympics in 2020 and growing demand from businesses to help automate tasks. Itochu Techno-Solutions Corp., which competes in a similar business, is trading on a forward price-earnings ratio of 23 times.Panasonic thought the automotive business would drive its profitability over the past three years. Even here, running the unit separately could create more value. Panasonic has teamed up with Toyota Motor Corp. and already has partners other than Tesla. With demand for electric cars and the pace of adoption being reassessed, the company could take time to leverage its technology advantage. In the process, the segment’s rising fixed costs won’t weigh down other more profitable businesses. In fact, investors might give a standalone battery business a higher valuation, as they’ve done with South Korean battery-makers Samsung SDI Co. and LG Chem Ltd.Analysts at Credit Suisse AG downgraded the stock on Friday, noting that they see “no signs of a rebound in earnings in the near term,” and that it was unclear how the company and its profit would look after the restructuring. Earnings at the auto business, where the analysts earlier saw potential for sales growth, is unlikely to improve over the medium term, they said.There are additional reasons why a breakup should be considered. For one, the government is incentivizing spinoffs with tax breaks. Meanwhile, domestic institutional investors are becoming more activist: The rejection rate for takeover defense measures has risen over the past six years to 80.5% from 40%, according to Goldman Sachs. That’s close to the 85% rate for foreign investors.Panasonic has some thinking to do. Loeb, meanwhile, might just have a new target. --With assistance from Elaine He. (1) Sum-of-the-parts analysis for Panasonic is based on FY2019 operating profit for each segment and used the following assumptions:1. Average enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for peer group of each segment.2. A range of two times above and below average multiple.(2) Includes exchange-rate effects.To contact the author of this story: Anjani Trivedi at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Matthew Brooker at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Anjani Trivedi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies in Asia. She previously worked for the Wall Street Journal. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The U.S. Commerce Department has agreed to Tesla Inc's request to waive 10 percent tariffs on imported aluminium from Japan used in the manufacture of battery cells at Tesla's Nevada Gigafactory, government documents show. The Commerce Department said in a document dated June 5 and posted on a government website in recent days that the aluminium "is not produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality." The waiver is good for one year. Tesla did not immediately comment.
In December 2017, we saw a sharp rally in almost all asset classes as markets started pricing in what many called “synchronized global growth” for 2018. However, as 2018 started drawing to a close, fears of a synchronized global slowdown hit markets. All leading economies were expected to grow at a slower pace in 2019 as compared to 2018.
(Bloomberg) -- Workers at a major auto parts plant in Michigan are poised to return to work after a brief strike Friday, alleviating the threat of a supply disruption for carmakers Ford Motor Co., Tesla Inc. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV.The United Auto Workers called the strike early Friday morning after failing to reach a tentative contract agreement with Faurecia SA. A tentative deal has been reached, Misty Matthews, a Faurecia spokeswoman, said by phone.Faurecia’s plant in Saline, about 40 miles west of Detroit, employs 1,900 UAW members. The factory makes instrument panels, center consoles and other parts and supplies them to Ford, Tesla and Fiat Chrysler.To contact the reporter on this story: Kyle Lahucik in Southfield at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Craig Trudell at firstname.lastname@example.org, David WelchFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur and philanthropist from New York, has drawn less attention than most of his counterparts. But he has been noticed for one big, bold proposal -- a universal basic income, or UBI, which would give every American $12,000 a year with no strings attached. Yang has thus become the most public champion of an idea that is gaining currency in some corners of the left and the right.Basic income has a long and interesting history, with similar proposals dating back at least to the 1500s. It was championed in the 1700s by Revolutionary War pamphleteer Thomas Paine, and in the early 20th century by populist Louisiana Governor Huey Long. In the 1960s, economists on both the political left and right, including big names like Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, James Tobin and John Kenneth Galbraith, all supported either basic-income schemes or the similar idea of a negative income tax. President Richard Nixon tried to implement a guaranteed income program, but it was defeated in Congress, while Nixon's 1972 election opponent George McGovern floated an even more ambitious plan. Yang is therefore reviving an old idea -- it’s only the size of his proposal that is new and radical.But the case for basic income is being hampered by dubious arguments being made on its behalf. Yang, for example, claims that UBI is necessary to save people from the penury they will experience once automation makes them obsolete as workers:Technology is quickly displacing a large number of workers, and the pace will only increase as automation and other forms of artificial intelligence become more advanced. ⅓ of American workers will lose their jobs to automation by 2030 according to McKinsey.This assertion echoes similar sentiments from many in the technology industry, such as Tesla founder Elon Musk and YCombinator Chairman Sam Altman.The problem is, there’s no indication that automation is going to make human workers redundant anytime soon. Technologists probably tend to believe in automation-induced job loss because they’re familiar with the inventions that are constantly forcing people to change what they do for a living. But even as these new technologies have been rolled out, the fraction of Americans with jobs has remained about the same over time. Meanwhile, evidence that automation causes job losses throughout the economy is slim.In other words, automation so far shows no sign of having the kinds of effects Yang claims are imminent. The dire-sounding number Yang cites from McKinsey should be given little credence. Studies like this simply ask engineers how many existing jobs could be done by machines; even if the engineers’ guesses are right, they fail to say how many new jobs will be created in the process, so they don’t give any picture of technology’s overall impact on the labor market.Thus, when UBI proponents make the dubious claim that basic income is necessary to save people from the rise of the robots, they undermine their case. They also send the message that they think a huge percent of American workers are simply too useless to be gainfully employed in the future -- hardly an appealing message.The second dubious reason to support UBI is the idea that it can replace traditional forms of welfare spending, like food stamps and housing vouchers. Libertarian economist Milton Friedman supported a negative income tax for this reason, and modern-day libertarians often espouse this view as well.But there are reasons UBI will never be a one-size-fits-all solution. First, it’s expensive. Giving all Americans $12,000 a year costs a lot more than giving money to poor people only. Income taxes would need to be raised on the middle class and rich -- effectively swallowing up the UBI payments for all but the poor. But such high taxes can distort the economy in various ways. Second, food stamps and housing vouchers are typically used to increase consumption of food and housing -- things that society generally believes poor people ought to be spending their money on. So although UBI might allow the government to spend somewhat less on other forms of assistance, it shouldn’t be viewed as a full replacement for these programs -- and people are unlikely to embrace it as a replacement.These flawed justifications for UBI have won the idea an eclectic base of support. But they serve to distract the public from the simplest, most reasonable case for UBI. Basic income, unlike minimum wage and the earned income tax credit, provides money for those who are unable to work. In doing so, it doesn’t pay people not to work, because poor people’s benefits don’t decrease when people get jobs (at much higher income levels, the taxes needed to pay for UBI might discourage work, but that is a different issue). In other words, UBI is a form of welfare that doesn’t require people to be able-bodied but also doesn’t incentivize them to be indolent.Basic income is an interesting idea worthy of more attention and more experiments, like the one in Finland. Proponents should stop trying to frighten people about automation or create a false tradeoff between UBI and other forms of welfare. Instead, if they are going to argue for UBI, they should simply emphasize the idea’s simplicity and fairness.To contact the author of this story: Noah Smith at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- One of Tesla Inc.’s biggest fans among Wall Street brokers said the carmaker’s share price decline in 2019 has been “humbling,” slashing its price target by a quarter while still recommending investors buy the stock.“We got it wrong so far this year, but remain convinced there is significant value,” Jefferies analysts Philippe Houchois and Himanshu Agarwal wrote in a note Friday, cutting their full-year gross profit estimates by 20%. Performance in coming quarters will remain volatile as the company’s manufacturing and model range expand, they said.Tesla’s stock fell 1.3% in pre-market trading in New York, adding to a 3% decline a day prior as analysts at Goldman Sachs and RBC Capital Markets both raised alarm bells about the company’s sales outlook.However, Jefferies says current negativity around demand and competition is “excessive,” given Tesla’s technology edge and tested path to profitability compared with legacy original equipment manufacturer peers.The bank cut its price target to $300 a share from $400, compared with an average of $270.4 among analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. The shares are down 34% year-to-date, closing at $219.6 on Thursday.Meanwhile, R.W. Baird, another broker with a buy rating on Tesla, on Friday raised its price target to $355 a share from $340, saying it expects the stock to react positively to quarterly delivery numbers in the first week of July given current low expectations.The bears’ argument that Model 3 demand has softened is “unsubstantiated,” analyst Ben Kallo said.(Updates with Friday’s pre-market trading in third paragraph.)\--With assistance from Dana Hull.To contact the reporter on this story: Joe Easton in London at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Beth Mellor at firstname.lastname@example.org, John ViljoenFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The problem: Driversdon't understand the limitations of these systems, according to two newstudies released Thursday by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Tesla is no longer market leader in the residential solar PV market according to energy consultancy WoodMackenzie, and has seen its sales slump significantly in Q1 2019