GM Exec Comments On Tesla Market Value

6 months ago by Eric Loveday 92

Tesla Model S P100D

History was made when Tesla’s market value shot past General Motors a couple weeks back. What does General Motors have to say?

Just two weeks ago, Tesla’s market value zipped past General Motors, making Tesla the most valuable American automaker.

TSLA Stock Hovering Around $300

Related articles:

What To Make Of Tesla’s Unique Market Cap

Tesla Market Cap Rises To 88% Of Ford’s 49 Billion

Initially, General Motors didn’t comment on the situation, but now, via Detroit News, we’ve got some statements on the matter from Mark Reuss, General Motors’ executive vice president.

According to Reuss, the balance sheets and bottom lines don’t seem to matter out in Silicon Valley where market cap is driven largely by future expectations. However, at GM, those figures, as well as delivery numbers, are key. Quoting Reuss:

“What we look at here is delivering. I’m a big, big proponent of that. And doing or saying or explaining things that may or may not come true, we don’t have the luxury of doing that in General Motors. I think other people may have that luxury. We do not.”

“When we come out and talk about what we’re going to do, we’re going to do it. And that is the single-mindedly focused belief and culture in the company. And so anything that doesn’t fit into that category, we just don’t have the luxury of doing.”

“We don’t manage our company on day-to-day stock. We’re just going to stay laser-focused… I’m confident that over time, we’re going to create value for our shareholders.”

Reuss never once mentioned Tesla by name during the interview.

Reuss even commented on autonomous vehicles, stating:

“We’re going to be the best at semi-autonomous, or Super Cruise-like, execution. We will be the only true hands-free driving experience safely in the market here very shortly.”

The Detroit News reached out to Tesla for comment. Tesla declined requests.

Source: Detroit News

Tags: , , , , ,

92 responses to "GM Exec Comments On Tesla Market Value"

  1. Driverguy01 says:

    ”we’re going to create value for our shareholders”
    How about creating value for your customers instead? shareholders value should inevitably follow…

    1. ClarnsonCote says:

      A company’s legal, fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders. You can do tons of things to make the customer happy instead that could result in class action lawsuits for violating that responsibility.

      In other words, the actions of EVERY publicly traded company must be intended to keep the owners’ best interests in mind.

      1. ffbj says:

        Right the responsible GM: Yes, like not telling your shareholders/bondholders you were going to going bankrupt.
        What a crock!

      2. Nick says:

        Such a common cop out.

        Amazon has shown that taking care of customers == taking care of shareholders.

        They say we don’t care about stock price and don’t seek short term investors.

        Benefit corporations are another option.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “In other words, the actions of EVERY publicly traded company must be intended to keep the owners’ best interests in mind.”

        Well, that’s the ideal. But having participated in TheEEStory forum for many years, I know as a matter of fact that often that’s not what actually happens. Executives of companies can and quite often do hide or at least strongly downplay materially important facts from stockholders. “Spin” isn’t aimed at only customers; it’s often aimed at stockholders too.

        1. EEStorFanFibb says:

          Lensman, are you keeping up with EEStor these days? Did you know that EEStor is NOW making good on their original mission?

      4. Scramjett says:

        It didn’t used to be that way. Before the 80’s, the order of priority was 1) Customers; 2) Employees; 3) The Company itself; and 4) The shareholders. And it worked well. Companies before the 80’s did way better than they are doing now. Customers were more satisfied with the goods or services they received and workers felt more fulfillment.

        Then the law changed in the 80’s with the erroneous belief that you please the shareholders, the rest will follow. Except, reality didn’t follow that flawed bass ackwards logic. The continuing demise of manufacturing is proof. And before you hit me with the usual “globalization,” “automation,” “offshoring” arguments, I would remind you that Germany and France both faced the same trifecta, yet their manufacturing sector is quite strong.

        1. Sean Wagner says:

          Hear hear.

        2. Timmy says:

          Yep, I bet it was Greenspan (with Reagan, but mostly GS).

      5. Timmy says:

        How new is that whole “Fiduciary Responsibility” crap I mean law? Is that something that the feral cat I mean Greenspan ushered in? Way back, didn’t corporations have to apply for and receive a *revocable* charter from the government that was only granted and renewed if the business served the public in some positive way? Or am I just imagining this? I wonder when the government last revoked a corporate charter. And we worry about other *countries* invading or reducing our sovereignty. Multinationals are doing it every day!

  2. fasterthanonecanimagine says:

    They just don’t get it. Tesla is the only producer not having to carry the burden of phasing out their ICE lines: The problem and its HUGE cost will become visible maybe 5 years down the road. It might even mean Chapter 11 or worse for GM et al. That’s why their valuation is depressed as compared to Tesla.

    1. F150 Brian says:

      That makes no sense. They phase out models (and re-tool factories) all the time. The ICE lines actually become cash cows with very little investment. GM is very good at milking $$$ out of models they plan to drop.

      The cost of entering a new market is real, one GM is well on the way to completing.

      1. fasterthanonecanimagine says:

        e.g. They will have to keep spare parts for a dozen years after stopping ICE car production and dealerships will dilute and disappear, so how to maintain quality service and reasonably priced spare parts? They need to keep their customers loyal, after all they want them to later switch to one of their BEV brands, so they can’t just increase spare part prices according to cost or ignore the service needs. Then there is the problem of ‘reverse economy’ of scale when ICE car numbers throughout all brands and lines become smaller. Also, production of EVs needs less workforce, so the traditional car makers will face problems with the Unions and have problems when closing sites or adjusting wages. Today’s cash cows will turn into cash eaters.

        1. Spider-Dan says:

          There is no meaningful difference between Nissan in 2022 carrying parts for a 2011 Cube or a completely obsolete 2011 Leaf. Spare parts for deprecated models are what they are.

          Isn’t Tesla still required to stock parts for the Roadster?

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “Isn’t Tesla still required to stock parts for the Roadster?”

            Perhaps not. Mr. Google says the meme that Auto makers are required by federal law to stock parts for automobiles for 10 years after manufacturing ends… is a myth.

            “Internet commenters and forum aficionados… point to some parts law that supposedly forces manufacturers to provide parts for 10 or 20 years after they kill a model, but no such law exists. While there are laws like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act that provide some protection in certain situations, it’s nowhere near the 10-year mark.”

            Full article here:

            http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/07/orphan-cars-10-year-parts-myth/

            1. Nix says:

              I’ve done that same research before, and I came to the same conclusion.

              The only thing I found was a requirement for companies to honor emissions warranties. That would require parts be available through the end of any federal or state mandated warranty period. But that wouldn’t be every part for the whole vehicle, just emissions parts:

              https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/warranty.pdf

        2. Mister G says:

          Very insightful post, I would add costs of maintaining vacant facilities, property taxes, security etc…ICE manufacturers will probably need another bailout to complete EV transition.

      2. Mister G says:

        F150…GM is very good at begging for government cheese lol…GM will be begging for more government cheese to transition from ICE to EV production, unless Tesla or Rivian buy GM.

      3. Mister G says:

        F150…GM=GOVERNMENT MOTORS LOL

    2. DJ says:

      What in the heck are you talking about???

    3. Nick says:

      Yep! Massive legacy infrastructure which is not needed for EVs but needs to be wound down. Lots of liability.

      Same reason the old companies often don’t move with the times, and go out of business.

  3. Rob Stark says:

    Super cruise will be the only semi-autonomous system to buzz you if the car’s cameras believe your eyes are not focused on the road.

    I will withhold final judgement until driving it myself but that seems more annoying that having to touch the steering wheel every now and again.

    And apparently GM feels free to abandon Europe,Russia,Indonesia, sell one of two plants in India, and is not done “pruning.” By which they mean they might leave Mercosur Brazil,Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

    1. Neromanceres says:

      You won’t have to touch the steering wheel. GM’s system looks at the drivers eyes to make sure that they are paying attention. Though I agree it will be interesting to see what the system considers “paying attention” based on your eyes.

      I wonder if you could fool the system by wearing glasses with painted eye’s on them. Not that I would ever try that.

      1. Bacardi says:

        Can you even “supercruise” with sunglasses on?

        1. Spider-Dan says:

          Yes, you can. Supercruise will look through eyewear.

    2. Bacardi says:

      “Super Cruise will use visual and audible alerts along with the eye-tracking tech to ensure safe keeping; if you continue to ignore the alerts, an OnStar representative will chime in and speak with you over the intercom.”

      ALSO:

      ““We have lights on the steering wheel that will flash and illuminate and get your attention.” He added the system will also prompt periodic check-ins to ensure the driver is alert and conscious. If the driver does not respond, “the vehicle does have the ability to come to a stop safely,” Vivan assured.”

      http://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/09/cadillac-super-cruise-will-feature-eye-tracking-tech-to-monitor-driving-behavior/

      http://gmauthority.com/blog/2017/01/super-cruise-scheduled-to-launch-during-the-second-half-of-2017/

  4. Open-Mind says:

    GM should be exploiting Voltec across their entire product line. It would crush most of the competition today, especially in larger vehicles. But after 10 years, it’s still only available in one compact car model. Shameful.

    GM has some brilliant engineers but their genius mostly languishes under a mostly visionless management team.

    1. georgeS says:

      10/4 on that open mind. Great engineering, visionless management.

      They could have had a knockout with both the Voltec power train and the Bolt EV power train….but they purposely put those power trains in vehicles they knew would have limited sales….which is what they want: limited sales.

      We can help them with limiting their sales. Just buy from the one company that wants to sell EV’s-Tesla.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        georgeS said:

        “They could have had a knockout with both the Voltec power train and the Bolt EV power train….but they purposely put those power trains in vehicles they knew would have limited sales….which is what they want: limited sales.

        Sadly, I must agree. It does look very much like this was and is a deliberate strategy on the part of GM. 🙁

        1. georgeS says:

          OK thx PMPU I appreciate that. I had my Volt for 3 years and loved the car.

          I was as supportive as one could be and, despite what GM did with the EV1 I thought that was a great engineering accomplishment as well.

          But the latest behavior by their management in trying to kill the EPA standards really dis appointed me. If they had any guts they would have stood up and said:

          GM is well positioned to easily handle the new standards”….which is totally true.

          but as we all know they didn’t.

          1. Scramjett says:

            I guess that means it’ll be a cold day in hell when we finally see a Voltec powered SUV like the MPV 5 eh? That bites because after a year with my Volt, I really love the Voltec powertrain.

        2. Mevp says:

          I really, really want a Voltec in a small-to-mid sized SUV. Or in a compact pickup. Make that and TAKE MY MONEY!

      2. theflew says:

        Or they realize the cost structure just isn’t there to support adding $15k of parts in a car/truck. They would sell of well in the green community, but there is 98% of the market that just isn’t willing to pay more for quieter rides, skipping gas stations and smoothness of an EV. We’ll get there just not as fast as EV enthusiast think or would like. GM is building expertise and experience waiting for the shift.

        1. TomArt says:

          It’s not that much – and seeing the ridiculous prices people are willing to pay for pickups and SUVs…GM would have NO PROBLEM selling every Voltec vehicle they would make.

      3. Nix says:

        George — At least when it comes to the original Volt, I have to disagree. The Volt was supposed to leap-frog the Toyota Prius at a point when GM and Toyota were fighting over who would be the #1 company in global sales. This was after Toyota had stuck their nose into the Full Size Truck market, and GM wanted to cut into Toyota’s Prius market as a counter-move.

        GM definitely thought the Volt had the potential to cut deeply into the 100,000 to 200,000 unit per year Prius sales numbers.

        I don’t think they were intentionally trying to limit sales.

        1. georgeS says:

          Nix,
          read my reply to PMPU upstream. I loved my volt and was totally supportive of their effort.

          But if they were really serious about Voltec they would have put it into a bigger SUV like vehicle where it belongs.

        2. Scramjett says:

          Yes, but the one mistake GM made with the Volt is keeping it as a compact rather than upscaling to a mid-size like Toyota did with the Prius. Toyota even hybridized one of their SUVs (Highlander) not long after 2nd Gen Prius. If GM was serious about wanting to undercut Toyota, they should have mid-size the Volt and introduced a Voltec SUV. The fact is, they have no interest in this because they won’t make as much profit as they do selling their trucks/SUVs.

          1. BenG says:

            “If GM was serious about wanting to undercut Toyota, they should have mid-size the Volt and introduced a Voltec SUV.”

            Truth.

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Nix said:

          “George — At least when it comes to the original Volt, I have to disagree… GM wanted to cut into Toyota’s Prius market as a counter-move.”

          I would agree that GM did mean for the Volt 1.0 to sell well when it was new. Didn’t they even pay for a couple of Superbowl ads for the Volt?

          But the question is whether or not GM’s failure to put Voltec into any other car — other than the failed and overpriced Cadillac ELR — was or wasn’t an intentional strategy on GM’s part to not make a compelling PHEV which might cut into their own gasmobile sales.

          Perhaps you’re right, Nix; perhaps it was neglect or lack of imagination on GM’s part, rather than intentional suppression of the technology. Or perhaps, having failed to reach the sales target with the Volt, they were doubly reluctant to put it into a larger car… but then why the Cadillac ELR?

          Perhaps I’m being overly cynical or overly suspicious. To quote Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

          Nonetheless, I retain my belief that GM’s disinterest in developing PEV tech following Voltec 1.0 was a deliberate strategy, and it’s not hard to understand the motive. Here’s a relevant quote from a few years back:

          Until we see Audi, Mercedes, VW, Toyota, GM, Ford deliver a BEV that similarly dusts their own top-of-line ICE product in performance AND value for money, there will be no effective BEV competition for Tesla. And this isn’t going to happen for a LONG time, not for technical reasons, but because ICE carmakers cannot remain viable companies if they start killing off their highest margin products. The ICE carmakers will put batteries into version of their products for the customers who ask for ‘the electric one’. They will build low-end, compliance BEVs to earn the ZEV credits they need without cannibalizing their high-end ICEs. They will build hybrids and PHEVs to get their CAFE and CO2 g/km numbers. But they aren’t going to deliberately kill off their top profit making products just to compete with Tesla — at least not until Tesla gets a whole lot bigger than they are now.

          — Randy Carlson

          Of course, just because others agree with me on this issue doesn’t mean we’re right. But if I’m wrong, I think I’m in good company! 🙂

          1. TomArt says:

            Brilliant and prophetic quote – thanks.

          2. Nix says:

            I believe GM went into developing the Volt 1.0 fully expecting success.

            Things certainly did change after a global economic crash, a bankruptcy, being put under conservatorship, a bailout, massive political backlash, having their EU sales killed by the Outlander PHEV, and failing to come anywhere near their 60,000 unit per year target.

            Yes, GM has become more pragmatic about their EV/PHEV’s than they were when developing the original Volt. But they ain’t no Fiat who is being drug into the EV revolution kicking and screaming.

    2. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

      Maybe the Voltec drivetrain design is really not that scale able at all.

      The only two products are the Volt and Caddy CT6 that it can handle.

      Small cars.

      1. MTN Ranger says:

        CT6 is an EPA large car with 125 cf of interior space compared to 120 cf Model S.

        1. terminaltrip421 says:

          while large I read an article that noted the extreme lengths they went to to keep weight down.

      2. Bacardi says:

        You also have the Malibu hybrid yet that always uses gas…

        We all know they should have Volteced the AWD Equinox…

        1. BenG says:

          “We all know they should have Volteced the AWD Equinox…”

          Exactly.

      3. Neromanceres says:

        The CT6 is a small car? I suppose a BMW 7 series is also small then? What would you consider a mid-sized car? A semi Truck?

      4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Maybe the Voltec drivetrain design is really not that scale able at all.”

        Well, that’s what GM has claimed; that the Voltec drivetrain can’t be scaled up.

        Why not? Is there anything special about the gears, clutches, electric motors, etc. used in Voltec which can’t be beefed up or replaced with more powerful motors? I’m not an engineer, but I find it difficult to believe that’s true.

        Now, it may be that scaling the drivetrain makes it rapidly more expensive, so that larger heavier cars using Voltec would be less economically competitive against gasmobiles of comparable size. Not that I believe that to be the case, but it seems reasonable to think that is at least not impossible.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          “I’m not an engineer, but I find it difficult to believe that’s true.”

          Well, if you scale them up by using different parts, then doesn’t that defeat the entire purpose of leveraging the parts?

          In addition, dropping them in existing ICE vehicles will actually get a very poor mileage and EV range as the CT6 has shown. It would have to be designed with the powertrain in mind to start with.

          Using those Voltec in a relatively smaller vehicles or lighter vehicles is actually easier than “beefing” them up for a much larger vehicle and application.

          CT6’s efficiency is significantly lower than the Volt mostly due to the vehicle size/weight and performance.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            MMF said:

            “Well, if you scale them up by using different parts, then doesn’t that defeat the entire purpose of leveraging the parts?”

            Certainly scaling up Voltec would require making new parts, but that’s not the question under discussion. GM said Voltec can’t be scaled up; GM didn’t say “Well, we could scale up Voltec, but then we’d have to design and build new parts.”

            * * * * *
            MMF continued:

            “In addition, dropping them in existing ICE vehicles will actually get a very poor mileage and EV range as the CT6 has shown. It would have to be designed with the powertrain in mind to start with.”

            Absolutely. All compelling PEVs (Plug-in EVs) are designed from the ground up. Again, that’s not the question under discussion here. The Volt 1.0 and the Volt 2.0 were designed from the ground up (despite the Volt 1.0 sharing the front end of its body with the Cruz).

            Why not also design larger PHEVs from the ground up? Sooner or later, that’s got to happen. Unfortunately, it seems to be later.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              “Why not also design larger PHEVs from the ground up? Sooner or later, that’s got to happen. Unfortunately, it seems to be later.”

              Because ground up design would lower the profit further.

              A product can’t sustain itself without profit. There might be buyers for a $100K Tesla, there certainly won’t be a buyer for a $100K Chevy in the same quantity.

              GM can’t even find 40K/year buyer on the Volt regardless how “good” the car is. (you can stop the whining about the marketing or lack of, the demand is just not there), why would you think GM would dump more money into it and lose even more money?

              Sure, people will make the claim that there are 400K buyers waiting for a $35K Tesla, until Tesla can show that Model 3 is profitable and there are sustained demand for that, most other business owners will ditch their current business to jump in.

              Tesla has nothing to ditch but have no choice in that it is only way for it to succeed.

      5. theflew says:

        You do realize the two mode hybrid of the Volt started in their SUV’s? It’s very scalable, but they have to remain cost competitive with their competitors as well.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          Yes, but that SUV was really a compact/midsize crossover with no more towing capabilities and relatively light in weight.

          I would doubt it would work in something like a Tahoe or Traverse. Equinox should work but it would probably add at least $10K to the cost directly.

          1. Neromanceres says:

            The Two mode hybrid was put in the Tahoe/Yukon/Escalate/Silverado and Sierra

            And even had a decent tow rating. The two mode was actually scaled down from busses.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              But it didn’t have a plug and EV mode operation was basically an assist rather than stand alone EV mode..

              And it was pricey so nobody bought it.

              1. Doggydogworld says:

                And a plug-in two-mode Tahoe with 40 mile range would be much pricier…

                1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                  AT $60k+ price, nobody would buy it either.

      6. georgeS says:

        Trollnon,
        “Not scalable”

        It is totally scalable. GM has the perfect Voltec power train to put in a Silverado pick up truck right now. It is already developed. It operates the same way as a Volt transmission. It is the CT6 EREV power train.

        1. DonC says:

          I agree it’s scalable but the CT6 hybrid is not an EREV. Can’t remotely get to its top speed or accelerate as fast as possible without engaging the engine.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Yes, but is that because there is something inherently limited with a Voltec-type design; something which limits its performance as a full-fledged “switch hitter” to small vehicles such as the Volt? Or is it merely that GM didn’t make a serious effort to make the CT6 a true switch-hitting PHEV as they did with the Volt?

            I have been assuming the latter; have been assuming that GM simply wasn’t interested in making the CT6 a robust PHEV in the way that the Volt is.

            I could be wrong. But if there is some inherent limitation with a Voltec type design, then I don’t think GM has ever explained what that limitation is. Or at least I’ve never seen any explanation for GM’s claim that Voltec can’t be scaled up.

        2. abc123 says:

          Let me know how the Voltec can be scaled to RWD/AWD/4WD vehicles…

          The segment of cars that most people want the Voltec to go into are SUV’s and crossovers. Well, everybody, including Tesla that competes in this segment has a 4wd/awd version.

          I’ve even seen somebody mention trucks… don’t even think about it, unless you want to mount the voltec in the rear cargo bed.

          As you probably know, the Voltec drivetrain consists of 2 motors, inverter, and gears ALL HOUSED in a single unit. If GM were to put the Voltec into an SUV, the best they can do are FWD versions. Because of the different modes of operation in a Voltec, it is not as simple as hooking up a new motor on the rear axle and calling it a day.

          In Canada, a very significant portion of Mercedes vehicles sold are 4-matic. Where I live, on the west coast, there are a ton of b250’s (not sold in the US), and I have yet to see one that is NOT 4Matic.

          While most Californians who have never seen a flake of snow in their lives will suffice with a FWD SUV, the rest of the world will not be buying these FWD only vehicles when other options exist.

          I think when GM says it’s not scalable, it means that the Voltec drivetrain cannot do all configurations of what is out there (RWD and AWD). In other words, it makes zero sense to have a Voltec FWD crossover, then redesign another drivetrain to cover AWD version… in effect having 2 completely different systems in the same model.

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            CT6 PHEV is RWD, no?

            So, it did scale into RWD.

            For AWD, it can’t be scaled “mechanically”. But what it can do is to add a second motor for the other axle and a separate controller like what Toyota does with its Hybrid system.

            Of course it will cost more for sure.

      7. Scramjett says:

        It actually is very scalable. Most of the tech is in the drivetrain which can easily swap out the gearing and other mechanical systems and scale up the battery as needed. I suspect LG Chem is more than capable of providing a battery that can be designed and sized for something larger like a truck or SUV. Hell, if they can do it for Chrysler, they can do it for GM.

    3. Scramjett says:

      I don’t think they’re convinced that scalability will apply to the more expensive electrification components (read: battery). Mind you, this is not excusing GM. It’s just an explanation of their mentality. One that I don’t buy at all. And frankly, I don’t think it matters. If they doubled down on Voltec and Bolt tech, then they would be in great position to be one of the dominate players in the auto world (like they used to be and like Tesla may be).

      But, right now, they’re so afraid of failure that they don’t want to succeed.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        That is my opinion, also: That when GM says “We can’t scale up Voltec”, what they actually mean is that scaling it up for a larger vehicle would require a significantly larger battery pack (the economy of scale unfortunately works in reverse here), which would make the vehicle considerably more expensive, and possibly price it out of the market. Of course, that situation will go away over time as the price of batteries continues to come down. In fact, possibly it has already gone away, since the price of batteries has dropped significantly since the Volt was new.

        The idea that the Voltec gears, clutches, electric motors, etc. would somehow not work properly if they were scaled up… that just doesn’t make any sense to me.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          “The idea that the Voltec gears, clutches, electric motors, etc. would somehow not work properly if they were scaled up… that just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

          They don’t.

          gears need to be beefed up. That requires new part and redesign combined with more testing.

          Electric motors need upgrade in power and tuning which means a redesign for the higher power application. At the end it is a “leveraged” redesign which is somewhat cheaper than completely new design but still cost significantly more than “reuse or leverage”.

    4. TomArt says:

      Agreed 100%, O-M!

  5. Chris O says:

    GM is definitely the one that is delivering today. But the market seems to wonder who will be delivering tomorrow…

    1. pjwood1 says:

      +1 It’s discouraging what great guts a company can put into a car, and then be ignored because of other baggage. I sold the Volt today. Sad.

      There’s something to be said for being first with so much of what is putting PHEV on the map. Voltec could be in more cars, but at least the ones where you find it aren’t two-toned, don’t have crazy doors, “87 miles” or bicycle tires. It makes up for a lot of things. Even to some extent, their hostility toward direct sales.

  6. ffbj says:

    GM has no credibility whatsoever.

  7. Bacardi says:

    Love it, not mentioning “Tesla” by name says more than had Reuss said it…

  8. Nix says:

    Seems like a reasonable response, that avoided being bombastic.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Yup. I see a lot of GM bashing in comments here. And while GM certainly is due some harsh criticism from EV advocates, I don’t see anything in that PR statement from GM that seems inappropriate or unfair.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        All you need is to mention the word “GM” here on inside EV, there will be a flock of GM haters posting their hate here for whatever reasons..

        That is “business as usual”.

        1. Scramjett says:

          It’s not entirely undeserved. This is the company that crushed hundreds of EV1s. Cars that people loved and wanted to keep. Even if the leadership is different today, I can see how some people would still be sore with GM. It’s the kind of huge cluster***k that would permanently turn someone off to a company.

          1. Mr. M says:

            From a Company view I would rather crush all than have a lawsuit because of a old prototype not behaving correctly.

            1. Mr. M says:

              Especially not a lawsuit in the US.

          2. abc123 says:

            The demise of the EV1’s affected only the EV enthusiasts. However, the bankruptcy and subsequent bailout affected every American… and Canadian to a lessor extent.

  9. TM says:

    Intel mission statement 2013. “Delight our customers, employees, and shareholders by relentlessly delivering the platform and technology advancements that become essential to the way we work and live.”Sep 14, 2013. Customers come first, then employees, then Shareholders

  10. ModernMarvelFan says:

    “we don’t have the luxury of doing that in General Motors. I think other people may have that luxury. We do not.””

    That basically sums up how Tesla can “get away” with it.

    But that is basically how Wall Street treats all high growth tech company in Si valley anyway.

  11. james says:

    “When we come out and talk about what we’re going to do, we’re going to do it.”

    We’re declaring bankruptcy and you are going to pay for it… and they did it.

    1. Mister G says:

      Government Motors wants government cheese lol

  12. DL says:

    Beanie Babies, Chia Pets, Pet Rocks, etc. were all quite valuable at one time. Without underlying fundamentals, you are just betting on the hype. If you play the cards right, you could make a lot of money. Otherwise, you are financing the house.

  13. Scramjett says:

    “What we look at here is delivering. I’m a big, big proponent of that … I’m confident that over time, we’re going to create value for our shareholders.”

    Ah, never ceases to amaze me how similar corporate speak and politispeak sound alike.

    1. Mister G says:

      Government Motors will be with hand out begging for government cheese lol

      1. TomArt says:

        Mmmmmm…64 slices of American cheese…mmmmm…

  14. Ron M says:

    I think when Tesla releases the quarterly report in May. Analyst will see not only will the Model 3 begin on schedule that it will achieve it’s 500,000 mark on schedule.
    Plus I. think they will realize the number of orders they have for there solar roofs and batteries that will be much higher than anyone is currently projecting

  15. TomArt says:

    Tesla is an energy and technology company that heavily leverages it’s tech and equity toward compelling and autonomous EVs. Quarterly sales may be a majority of Tesla’s valuation, but it’s only a slight majority.

  16. Steve says:

    Numbers are one thing. Sustainability is going to be the future, we won’t have a choice at a certain point
    https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk