Tesla Motors : constructeur automobile de voitures électriques

Gaspode a écrit :

On est sans conteste à la limite d’un gros problème avec la SEC

Pas forcément. l’important est surtout que les investisseurs soient tous logés à la même enseigne et que certains ne reçoivent pas de l’information à laquelle les autres n’ont pas accès (ou pas au même moment).

La SEC avait dit en 2013 qu’utiliser les média sociaux était acceptable pour publier de l’information. Il faut normalement que la société ait indiqué quel média social serait utilisé (à voir si tesla a indiqué à un moment que Musk pouvait publier de l’info sur son compte Twitter. Il y a des chances)
SEC Says Social Media OK for Company Announcements if Investors Are Alerted

Le message complet posté par Musk sur le site de Tesla:

Elon Musk a écrit :

Taking Tesla Private - August 7, 2018
The following email was sent to Tesla employees today:

Earlier today, I announced that I’m considering taking Tesla private at a price of $420/share. I wanted to let you know my rationale for this, and why I think this is the best path forward.

First, a final decision has not yet been made, but the reason for doing this is all about creating the environment for Tesla to operate best. As a public company, we are subject to wild swings in our stock price that can be a major distraction for everyone working at Tesla, all of whom are shareholders. Being public also subjects us to the quarterly earnings cycle that puts enormous pressure on Tesla to make decisions that may be right for a given quarter, but not necessarily right for the long-term. Finally, as the most shorted stock in the history of the stock market, being public means that there are large numbers of people who have the incentive to attack the company.

I fundamentally believe that we are at our best when everyone is focused on executing, when we can remain focused on our long-term mission, and when there are not perverse incentives for people to try to harm what we’re all trying to achieve.

This is especially true for a company like Tesla that has a long-term, forward-looking mission. SpaceX is a perfect example: it is far more operationally efficient, and that is largely due to the fact that it is privately held. This is not to say that it will make sense for Tesla to be private over the long-term. In the future, once Tesla enters a phase of slower, more predictable growth, it will likely make sense to return to the public markets.

Here’s what I envision being private would mean for all shareholders, including all of our employees.

First, I would like to structure this so that all shareholders have a choice. Either they can stay investors in a private Tesla or they can be bought out at $420 per share, which is a 20% premium over the stock price following our Q2 earnings call (which had already increased by 16%). My hope is for all shareholders to remain, but if they prefer to be bought out, then this would enable that to happen at a nice premium.

Second, my intention is for all Tesla employees to remain shareholders of the company, just as is the case at SpaceX. If we were to go private, employees would still be able to periodically sell their shares and exercise their options. This would enable you to still share in the growing value of the company that you have all worked so hard to build over time.

Third, the intention is not to merge SpaceX and Tesla. They would continue to have separate ownership and governance structures. However, the structure envisioned for Tesla is similar in many ways to the SpaceX structure: external shareholders and employee shareholders have an opportunity to sell or buy approximately every six months.

Finally, this has nothing to do with accumulating control for myself. I own about 20% of the company now, and I don’t envision that being substantially different after any deal is completed.

Basically, I’m trying to accomplish an outcome where Tesla can operate at its best, free from as much distraction and short-term thinking as possible, and where there is as little change for all of our investors, including all of our employees, as possible.

This proposal to go private would ultimately be finalized through a vote of our shareholders. If the process ends the way I expect it will, a private Tesla would ultimately be an enormous opportunity for all of us. Either way, the future is very bright and we’ll keep fighting to achieve our mission.

Thanks,
Elon

Source: Taking Tesla Private | Tesla

Financement de l’opération ? Détails ? Crédibilité de toute l’histoire ? Qui vivra verra …
(EDIT: Grillé par Niceday pendant que je rédigeais, pour le lien)

Dernière modification par Mevo (07/08/2018 22h36)

J’espère (et je pense) que Musk est sérieux, parce que la SEC ne rigole pas avec les règles de retrait de la cote :

- Un résumé de la SEC des règles applicables

- Une présentation plus détaillée des règles par un cabinet d’avocats US

Davis Polk a écrit :

Both state law and federal securities laws create disclosure obligations that apply to going private transactions. As with any public deal, the timing and substance of the necessary disclosure should be considered in advance to ensure that appropriate steps are taken (or not taken) to avoid premature disclosure and that materials are prepared with the understanding that they will later be disclosed publicly. In a going private transaction, the parties need to be particularly aware of the additional disclosure requirements, the timing of this disclosure, the increased scrutiny of this disclosure and the likelihood of litigation relating to the disclosure.

If a controlling stockholder (or other beneficial owner of more than 5% of a class of equity securities) proposes a going private transaction and has previously filed a Schedule 13D without disclosing its intent to participate in a going private transaction, it must amend its Schedule 13D filing to indicate that change in intent. The SEC has indicated that this amendment must be filed promptly after the filer forms its intent to enter into the transaction, not merely on execution of formal documents or commencement of a tender offer. Consequently the acquiring stockholder must carefully consider the timing for its filing an amendment to its Schedule 13D, which may be before (but no later than) engaging in substantive discussions about a potential going private transaction with the target company’s board of directors (…)

Even parties who are not Schedule 13D filers may become subject to Section 13(d). For example:

- A person who owns less than 5% that engages in discussions with a 5% beneficial owner about a potential going private transaction may trigger a separate Schedule 13D filing obligation if a "group" as defined in Rule 13d-5(b) (1) is formed during the process.

- A potential acquiror that enters into a voting agreement with a stockholder or stockholders owning (in the aggregate) at least 5% of the target’s outstanding stock is required to file a Schedule 13D if the voting agreement gives the potential acquiror the power to vote, or to direct the voting of, the shares, which causes the potential acquiror to become the beneficial owner of the shares under Rule 13d-3.

Mon interprétation (avec des pincettes) c’est que la communication publique de Musk hier était peut-être une obligation légale avant d’engager des "substantive discussions" avec des acquéreurs potentiels.

Au niveau des transactions d’insiders, a priori rien de suspect. Musk a continué d’acheter et détient 33,74 millions actions Tesla (soit 20%, valorisés 12,8 milliards $).

Un point intéressant à suivre avec ce possible retrait de la cote est le comportement des actionnaires institutionnels (61,83% du capital), notamment les ETF : ensemble, BlackRock et Vanguard détiennent 13,17 millions actions Tesla. A priori je les verrais plutôt accepter l’offre si elle est raisonnable, mais peut-on imaginer qu’ils s’y opposent ?

Dernière modification par Scipion8 (08/08/2018 11h10)

Musk continue de se comporter comme un adolescent et veut probablement brûler les shorts.

Il va falloir trouver un partenaire aux reins solides pour apporter l’argent nécessaire au retrait de la cote; sans parler des besoins en financement importants dont Tesla va avoir besoin vu le cash burn qui va continuer d’augmenter avec la production (les économies d’échelle selon Tesla et Mr. Musk).

Ou ce Tweet va finir dans la longue liste de raisons pour qu’il finisse en prison.

Faith a écrit :

Gaspode a écrit :

il réagit visiblement mal à la pression

On parle d’un entrepreneur ayant fondé ou dirigé de multiples entreprises colossales, dont l’une tourne autour du business le plus stressant du monde: envoyer des fusées en orbite et dans l’espace… à avoir vu les fusées péter les unes après les autres pendant que son magot fondait à vue d’oeil.
S’il réagissait mal à la pression, il bosserait dans une banque, à gagner juste de quoi élever son chien et ses enfants et se payer des vacances en Floride.

Vous pourriez dire qu’il ne réagit pas à la pression comme vous vous y attendriez… mais vu son passé, est-ce que vos attentes ont un sens ?

On parle d’un CEO qui a insulté des analystes au précédent trimestre parce qu’ils osaient mettre en doute ses objectifs, qu’il a ratés ce trimestre, qui a eu 3 ou 4 diatribes contre les shorteurs depuis le début de l’année, qui se met régulièrement en colère contre les journalistes. Si vous trouvez ça normal, moi pas.

Quand à ses autres entreprises, il a jamais été coté, il a cashé out de PayPal lors de l’IPO (et btw, il n’est pas à l’origine du succès de Paypal) et SpaceX est privée.

On peut admirer ce qu’il a fait techniquement  avec SpaceX, quoique que l’entreprise étant privée, on a aucune idée si c’est soutenable ou même rentable, mais Tesla est autre chose, et en tant qu’entreprise côtée, les obligations de transparence et de communication sont différentes.