Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfarnsworth | Hacker News Reader

Neither are proven profitable businesses. $2.6B is a hell of a bet to make on the hope of something working out, with a company that is bleeding money. Two cash-flow-negative companies combined together doesn't magically result in more money, if anything it hastens the death of both companies.

View on HN

> Neither are proven profitable businesses.

I'm not sure you understand what that means?

The only profitable business is a business that has reached market saturation. A business that can't grow its market share by re-investing the margin on its products. Both businesses are in fledgling industries and are nowhere near saturation. In fact, both companies are expanding their respective markets, not merely gobbling up the shares of other companies. It would make no sense for either to be profitable.

> $2.8B is a hell of a bet to make on the hope of something working out

That's a relative statement. Relative to what? Microsoft just bought a shitty website for $26.2 billion.

> Two cash-flow-negative companies combined together doesn't magically result in more money

Their cash-flow is irrelevant, Tesla has had little difficulty raising capital.

> if anything it hastens the death of both companies

So the death of both is already etched in stone and this just hastens things? Nonsense.

I'm pretty sure based on your answers you have no idea how things work in the real world. Reading "The Lean Startup" or "The Art of the Start" doesn't really qualify you to make such nonsensical statements about how a multi-billion-dollar publicly traded company should behave. A startup burning through $10M of VC funding is completely different from a publicly traded company burning through $2B in funding. You can't even justify it at this point. Tesla Energy is a dream, you can't waste $2.6B on an unproven dream and then buy a completely unprofitable cash-bleeding company when you yourself are bleeding cash. He needs to have much better sense than that as a CEO, his duties to his shareholders demand it.

> Reading "The Lean Startup" or "The Art of the Start" doesn't really qualify you to make such nonsensical statements about how a multi-billion-dollar publicly traded company should behave.

I've read neither, I do have a degree in economics though... does that count?

Do you have a short position on SCTY? If so, then I understand your "comments" and why you're pissed. Sorry? LOL

> He needs to have much better sense than that as a CEO, his duties to his shareholders demand it.

Last time I checked, he recused himself and the shareholders have to approve the deal ... what are you going on about?

> I've read neither, I do have a degree in economics though... does that count?

Nope. Economics != Finance, sorry. And it shows from your misunderstanding of "running" a business. A profitable business only happens when you have market saturation? LOL that's some economics education...

> Do you have a short position on SCTY? If so, then I understand your "comments" and why you're pissed. Sorry? LOL

Nope.

> Last time I checked, he recused himself and the shareholders have to approve the deal ... what are you going on about?

He's the one that came up with the deal, and bid on SCTY with a 30% premium. Given the dire situation the company is in, and given how it's the worst performing solar company, they will have no choice but to accept.

The Tesla shareholders still have to approve it.

But hey, they can always issue more TSLA shares right?

That's their main product right now.</satire>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com