Batteries

Published on June 25th, 2016 | by Zachary Shahan

47

74% Of Cleantech Enthusiasts Support Tesla’s SolarCity Acquisition Offer

June 25th, 2016 by  

After first publishing about Tesla’s offer to buy SolarCity, I thought it would be interesting to see what our cleantech-loving readers thought of the acquisition proposal — beyond the dozens of people who carried on the discussions in comments under that article and our next two on the topic.

I’m honestly a bit surprised to show that a solid 74% of respondents thought it was a good idea. That’s the side I’m on, but there has been much criticism of the proposal. Maybe that just comes back to the point that people are more likely to chime in if they have something critical to say.

Tesla SolarCity

After days of discussing the matter though, I want to also lay out a more thorough take on the pros and cons of the potential acquisition. Naturally, if you think I miss something big, chime in. There’s a decent chance I’ll update the article if feedback seems to warrant it.

(Note that I own stock in SolarCity and Tesla. I don’t think that significantly colors my vision, even though it does make me more personally concerned regarding the cons and hopeful regarding the pros.)

Cons of Tesla’s Potential SolarCity Acquisition

$$$: SolarCity is in debt, big debt, and its growth model has basically been about accumulating debt and expecting it to be paid off by customers over the course of 20–30 years. With about $3.25 billion in debt, and a lot of it being short-term debt, there’s concern that SolarCity could go bankrupt, and could also take Tesla with it. (Note that Tesla isn’t yet profitable itself due to its fast growth plan.)

Sales tactics: SolarCity has developed a fairly negative relationship for pushy, shady sales tactics (note that this point is just anecdotal, but based on a lot of anecdotes) and fine print. There’s concern that this reputation could tarnish Tesla’s brand, which is known for non-pushy sales tactics and superb customer service. Naturally, there’s also hope that Tesla would change how things are done, but what if it doesn’t? Also, Elon Musk is Chairman of SolarCity’s board, so why haven’t the sales tactics been improved by now anyhow?

Solar panel prices: As I reported previously, SolarCity’s prices are reportedly much higher than the average in California, and presumably elsewhere. Again, anecdotes point to prices even 50% higher than the norm. The Pick My Solar analysis found them to be 34% higher than the California average. If there are reasons for the high prices that can’t (or can’t easily) be resolved, does that actually put SolarCity at a big competitive disadvantage? If so, is Tesla going to get burned if it acquires SolarCity (rather than, say, Sungevity)?


 

Pros of Tesla’s Potential SolarCity Acquisition

Huge customer base and market share: SolarCity is far and away the rooftop solar installation leader in the United States — it has 34% of the market, compared to 12% for #2 Vivint Solar. This is a large network of “salespeople” who could bring in many more solar buyers and also drive EV sales via low-cost referrals. Of course, that’s also assuming that many of them become Tesla customers.

Vertical integration, and “easy” sales at much-reduced cost: Tesla’s main case for the offer was the synergies between solar–storage–EVs and presumable efficiencies and other improvements that Tesla’s engineers could bring to SolarCity’s solar panels and installation. Presumably, there are also some economies of scale that might come from production of some of the components, and definitely with marketing, paperwork, and financing. Several commenters have argued that this is not as big of a benefit as it is made out to be, but other than Tesla’s argument that this is big, Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s head of energy storage market analysis, Logan Goldie-Scott, noted that Tesla was right to “identify product synergies between the two companies.” Going on: “EV owners are more likely to install rooftop PV and vice versa. Furthermore, residential PV and storage may prove to be a lower-cost gateway product for wannabe customers of Tesla’s Model S and Model X,” he said. “Beyond product offerings, the future of Tesla Energy (SolarCity) may be in virtual aggregation services and management of solar, storage and EV charger fleets. In a Tesla-SolarCity home ecosystem, the company could have control over the largest demand source in the house (the EV), the largest demand response unit (the home storage system) and the only generation source (rooftop PV).” (Nonetheless, he also noted that vertical integration hasn’t gone well in the solar industry so far, and highlighted the debt issues noted above.)

At-cost electricity for factories, stories, Superchargers: Of course, if SolarCity was part of Tesla, Tesla could get at-cost solar power for its factories, gigafactories, some stores, and some Supercharger sites. If someone wants to crunch the numbers on this, I’d love to see some estimates, but I think it’s safe to say that the savings could add up quite a bit over 20–30 years.

Better financing: Presumably, Tesla could work out better financing to deal with SolarCity’s debt, putting it in a better position than  SolarCity is in. Importantly, I’d say SolarCity’s debt situation is what “puts it on the market” for Tesla to buy, and sense it does so, Tesla could just see this as a great price on a solar giant just when the industry is getting going. If SolarCity pulls through under Tesla and starts making a profit in a few years, that could again boost Tesla’s ability to get financing for its car and battery factories.

Update: Kurt Lowder fleshed out the details of the pros a lot better in the comments, so I’m reposting his comment (with slight edits) here:

You covered a great deal, but I have a few points to add along with a few more specifics. Most of these points come from the Tesla conference call. Sorry if I make redundant points. I will put them in bullet form:

  • Musk and others have kicked this merger idea around for a long time. He said arguably this should have been done sooner. He said that it certainly is not being done too soon. Well, if they had done this earlier, they would have had to pay much more because SolarCity has dropped to almost a 1/3 of its value. The timing is also great because of the rollout of Model 3 and SolarCity will be producing its own panels soon.
  • You mentioned installation — Musk said what was done in 2–3 visits can now be done in one visit.
  • You mentioned marketing — to be a little more specific, SolarCity has been doing paid advertising, but Tesla as far as I know has not or rather very little. Tesla gets a lot of free coverage and has a larger following on social media. Therefore, it would make sense that less will be spent on advertising with the merger. To put it in other words, if SolarCity remains its own entity, it will have to spend more on advertising.
  • To date, SolarCity has, I believe, 300,000 customers. Currently, there are ~400,000 Model 3 orders. Would it not better to have a Tesla rep to contact them as opposed to a SolarCity rep to add the purchase of solar power plus battery system.
  • With all three being installed at the same time, there is less of a chance of problems occurring.
  • If something goes wrong with your solar power system or car, you have only one contact person. If and when there is a service call, the entire system and vehicle can be checked.
  • Both SolarCity and Tesla have referral programs, with thousands of ambassadors. Now, with the merger, those ambassadors can offer all products and receive referral fees on all products.
  • Musk said that the value of SolarCity has been determined by the market and the premium being paid is rather average.
  • Musk said, looking back, the price will seem really small, and he envisions Tesla being a trillion-dollar company.
  • Tesla will be growing fast and will need more employees. SolarCity employees are already very familiar with Tesla vehicles, Tesla culture, and Tesla work ethic. Accordingly, training costs and employee turnover will be reduced. Also, fewer workers will have to be hired than if the two companies remain separate.
  • Tesla is a better brand than SolarCity, so SolarCity by itself has much less goodwill.
  • Tesla solar panels and Powerwalls will be visible and in a way will act as billboards. I am sure many customers would love to put up a sign that says something like “Powered by Tesla.”
  • Going back to the SolarCity referral program: Ambassadors regularly have parties and events with a SolarCity rep there. Sounds like a great time for a test drive, since it will now be a Tesla rep who has to drive there. Also, more people will show up to party if a Tesla vehicle is going to be there. Tesla is known for throwing great parties.
  • Future production facilities can be located on the same grounds. I think Tesla has plenty of land left over in Nevada at the location of the Gigafactory. New roads, power lines, and utilities had to be built. Also, Tesla obviously produces its own power on site. It will be cheaper if Tesla’s solar plant can reach greater scale to power both factories. Furthermore, Tesla already has relationships with many communities and cities that lobbied for Tesla to build facilities there.
  • Tesla and SolarCity have to store incredible amounts of data, which can now be stored at the same facility.
  • You mentioned this already, I think: Superchargers will be able to showcase Tesla solar power systems. More free advertising!
  • The new Silveo solar panels have much better aesthetics than anything else available. Musk has said they look so good, that they will add value to homes. This goes along with Tesla’s great styling.
  • Elon Musk’s time is incredibly valuable. Merging the companies will free up more time for him and/or allow him to be more involved in solar aspects.
  • Elon has said this is such basic common sense based upon his first principles analysis, which are based upon science and the big picture. This merger will make everything easier, not harder. Critics of the merger are stuck in a corporate quarter-to-quarter frame of reference. They are looking at only the financials of the companies. They are not looking at the physics of it. Nor are they thinking from the perspective of a customer.
  • 15 years ago, people were paying $90,000 for solar power + a battery system. Now, you can get a way better system, plus likely the best car ever built, for $70,000.

Well, that’s more than enough. Once again, sorry for the redundancy. This merger has been so exciting and I cannot wait for all the morons in the media to be proven wrong again.

Thanks, Kurt!

***

In the end, with financial stories like this, it comes down to your appetite for risk and your faith in the new company being able to better execute the bought company’s vision. This is a controversial story largely because of the debt issues SolarCity faces, but also because a lot of people (including shareholders) have a lot of faith in Tesla and its cars and batteries, but don’t have faith in SolarCity’s overall business model. For those of us in that boat, the question is whether Tesla can turn things around at SolarCity and make it the solar company we’d like it to be … but none of us know if that’s the case.

Of course, there are others who just aren’t bullish on solar or SolarCity’s potential at all. I don’t know what to say for those people. Solar is the future, and if nothing else, SolarCity has a big foot in the door to that future.

But if you look at the results of our survey, it seems the majority are simply in the camp that Tesla and SolarCity both have bright futures, and Tesla’s decision to try to buy SolarCity at a low price is a good move.

We’ll see!


Check out our new 93-page EV report.

Join us for an upcoming Cleantech Revolution Tour conference!

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech daily newsletter or weekly newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: , , , , ,


About the Author

is tryin' to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the typed word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he's also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession, Solar Love, and Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and energy storage expert. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in.



  • CaptD

    Tesla can change the rules anytime they like, which gives the a huge advantage!
    One example might be to offer a 40 year panel warranty, since they are making them themselves!
    Another example is to offer a longer finance period which would make buying from Tesla far more affordable!

  • Johnny Le

    I support the merger because it’s definitely great for the solar industry. Elon could do great things for it, but the deal is too expensive. SolarCity is $3.25 billion in debt, which makes the deal roughly $6 billions. SolarCity has 275,000 customers, which makes $22k per customer.

    How much is an average solar job these days? $22k/customer seems overpaid.

    The other concern is that Tesla is growing too fast. $5 billions for the gigafactory; $9 billions for the new factory in China; they need to ramp up the current factory for model 3; and now $3 billion for solar city. If they use investor’s money, meaning no interests, then that’s fine, but if they have to pay interests, they could easily implode.

  • neroden

    Good summary — *especially* for the cons, since those are the three big Con arguments, and they’re all convincing.

    You left out a major pair of pro arguments, however….

    * Silevo factory in Buffalo. If this is everything it’s supposed to be, it might have a huge competitive advantage.
    * Zep Solar. Their racking may have a competitive advantage.

  • Bryan

    SolarCity is no longer competitive. The discounters are rapidly taking market share away from them. I don’t think this bailout would be a good move for Tesla.

    • neroden

      SolarCity as it was is dead. The PPA model is dead, the lease model is weak, they’re too expensive to compete with other installers, they have a bad quality reputation, they have poor financing.

      However, nearly everything Musk talked about on the conference call was about Silevo. And about vastly reducing SolarCity’s “cost of sales”. And SolarCity has been specifically talking about trying to move into the direct bank loan business. Sooooo Musk is looking at a company which basically hasn’t started operating yet….

      • Bob_Wallace

        The next several months are going to be interesting as we see where Musk takes SolarCity.

        Will they do like First Solar and go vertical from panel factory to finished solar farm? Tesla could probably absorb the output from a farm or two just to run its factories and supply its charging system.

        • CaptD

          Bob — One learns not to question the Captain at the start of a long journey!

        • neroden

          I was trying to work out how much Tesla could absorb in order to:
          (1) Install solar carport canopies over every single Supercharger stall, as they’ve promised
          (2) Cover the Gigafactory roof in solar panels, as they’ve promised

          …this is actually quite a lot already

    • Is there anything fundamental about SolarCity that makes it uncompetitive? I can’t think of anything, but can think of several things that might make it more competitive:

      1) strong purchasing power that can perhaps get it great deals on solar panels.
      2) potentially market-leading Silevo solar panels.
      3) potentially low-cost, efficient marketing/sales through Tesla stores and email.

      • CaptD

        See my comment above.

  • Kurt Lowder

    You covered a great deal, but I have a few points to add along with a few more specifics. Most of these points come from the Tesla conference call. Sorry if I make redundant points. I will put them in bullet form:
    -Musk and others have kicked this merger idea around for a long time. He said arguably this should have been done sooner. He said that it certainly is not being done too soon. Well if they had done this earlier they would have had to pay much more because Solarcity has dropped to almost a 1/3 of its value. The timing is also great because the roll out of model 3 and solarcity will be producing its own panels soon.
    – you mentioned installation, Musk said what was done in 2-3 visits can now be done in one visit.
    -you mentioned marketing. to be a little more specific. Solarcity has been doing paid advertising, but Tesla as far as I know has not or rather very little. Tesla gets a lot of free coverage and has a larger following on social media. Therefore, it would make sense that less will be spent on advertising with the merger. To put it in other words, if solarcity remains its own entity it will have to spend more on advertising.
    -To date, Solarcity has I believe 300,000 customers. Currently, there are 400,000 model 3 orders. Would it not better to have a Tesla rep to contact them as opposed to solarcity rep to add the purchase of solar power plus battery system.
    -With all three being installed at the same time there is less of a chance of problems occuring.
    -If something goes wrong with system or car you have only one contact person. If and when there is a service call, the entire system and vehicle can be checked.
    -Both solar city and Tesla have referral programs, with thousands of ambassadors. now with the merger, those ambassadors can offer all products and receive referral fees on all products.
    -Musk said that value of solarcity has been determined by the market and premium being paid is rather average.
    -Musk said looking back the price will seem really small, and he envisions Tesla being a trillion dollar company.
    -Tesla will be growing fast and will need more employees. Solarcity employees are already very familiar with Telsa vehicles, Tesla culture, and Tesla work ethic. Accordingly, training costs and employee turnover will be reduced. Also, less workers will have to be hired than if the two companies remain separate.
    -Tesla is a better brand than Solarcity, so Solarcity by itself has much less goodwill.
    -Tesla solar panels and Powerwalls will be visible and in a way will act as billboards. I am sure many customers would love put up a sign that says something like “powered by Telsa”.
    -Going back to Solarcity referral program. Ambassadors regularly have parties and events with a Solarcity rep there. Sounds like a great time for a test drive, since it will now be a Telsa rep who has to drive there. Also, more people will show up to party if a Tesla vehicle is going to be there. Tesla is known for throwing great parties.
    -Future production facilities can be located on the same grounds. I think Telsa has plenty of land left over in Neveda location of giggafactory. New roads, power lines, and utilities had to be built. Also, Tesla obviously produces its own power on site. It will be cheaper if Tesla’s solar plant can reach greater scale to power both factories. Furthermore, Tesla has already has relationships with many communities and cities that lobbied for Telsa to build facilities there.
    -Tesla and Solarcity have to store incredible amounts of data, which can now bet stored at the same facility.
    -you mentioned this already I think. superchargers will be able to showcase Tesla solar power systems. More free advertising!
    -the new Silveo solar panels have much better aesthetics than anything else available. Musk has said they look so good, that they will add value to homes. This goes along with Tesla’s great styling.
    -Elon’s musk’s time is incredibly valuable. Merging the companies will free up more time for him and/or allow him to be more involved in solar aspects.
    -Elon has said this is such basic common sense based upon his first principles analysis, which based upon science and the big picture. This merger will make everything easy not harder. Critics of the merger are stuck in a corporate quarter to quarter frame of reference. They are looking at only the financials of the companies. They are not looking at physics of it. Nor are they thinking about from the perspective of a customer.
    -15 years ago people were paying 90,000 for solar power plus battery system. Now you can get a way better system plus likely the best car ever built for $70,000.
    well thats more than enough, once again sorry for the redundancy. This merger has been so exciting and I cannot wait for all the morons in the media to be proven wrong again.

    • Thanks for fleshing out the arguments with more details. 😀

      I will add this to the article.

      • Kurt Lowder

        yeah I have been on a island in thailand for a month recovering from back surgery. finally sick of the beach and jungle. never thought that would happen! just stayed inside for two days reading and writing.

  • Frank

    Maybe solar city employees can install level 2 chargers in peoples garages, and give people a great deal if they can do it while installing solar pannels.

    • Jenny Sommer

      For a proper socket you need an electrician then you can just plug in your charger. I don’t see much opportunity there.

      • Frank

        Solar city must employ electricians. Tesla’s have big batteries. Charging with 110v is slow.

  • Jenny Sommer

    I am not that great a fan of PV. Here are some good points are raised but who knows the complete truth of it. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/04/how-sustainable-is-pv-solar-power.html
    The EROEI of PV just concerns me a little.
    I wonder why Musk doesn’t do unconventional wind power…
    Someone ought to ask his opinion on that some day.

    • Ivor O’Connor

      However, a more critical analysis shows that the cumulative energy
      and CO2 balance of the industry is negative, meaning that solar PV has
      actually increased energy use and greenhouse gas emissions instead of
      lowering them.

      The problem is that we use and produce solar panels in the wrong
      places. By carefully selecting the location of both manufacturing and
      installation, the potential of solar power could be huge.

      So they say a critical analysis, (which they don’t go into), says the CO2 balance is negative. If somebody says that they need to back it up.

      Then they imply if the product were built at one place it would be CO2 positive? Wow! I bet they don’t buy bananas because the transportation involved?

      I’ll continue reading…

      • Ivor O’Connor

        I read as much as I could stomach. I disagree with it.

        • Hahaha. The initial comment had keywords in it I long ago discovered were code for B.S. 😀 Figured I’d let someone else respond in detail regarding why it’s nonsense. 😀

      • Bob_Wallace

        The energy payback period for silicon panels is less than two years. Expected lifetime is 25, 30, 40, how many years?

        At only 25 years the EROEI for solar panels is >12.5 (25 / <2).

        That article is a pile of fail.

        • Ivor O’Connor

          Reminded me of FOX news where they cherry-pick their facts and then extrapolate to never-never land.

          • Bob_Wallace

            There are simply a lot of failures to think logically.

            Were the first panels “carbon heavy”? Sure. The grid was carbon heavy. As each of those panels were added to the grid then the grid gets cleaner. Even in China.

            Does it matter where the panels are installed? Any CO2 avoided anywhere in the world decreases our CO2 problem.

            “This (cost decrease) acceleration has nothing to do with more efficient manufacturing processes or a technological breakthrough. Instead, it’s the consequence of moving almost the entire PV manufacturing industry from western countries to Asian countries.”

            Except that solar panels are still being manufactured outside of Asia and for about the same cost as those manufactured in Asia.

            Plus the claim that the cost decrease has nothing to do with more efficient manufacturing is 100% bogus. Just the ability to cut thinner slices of wafer with less waste is a big cost cutter. Whoever wrote this article doesn’t know what they are talking about.

            They make the argument that if panels were manufactured on the very cleanest grids and installed in the very sunniest of places then we’d produce less CO2. There’s some truth in that, but it’s not what is happening. There’s no worldwide governing body that could force that to happen so it’s an idea going nowhere.

            Solar is taking off. Grids are becoming cleaner, even in China. Coal and NG use is being displaced. It’s good….

        • Jenny Sommer

          There are a lot of numbers floating around (in that paper they say EROEI 9-17. https://www.google.at/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/knapp/pvepbtpaper.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwimiNeTrMTNAhVMKsAKHSuuBIQQFggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNFukpJnJ0ifamNFbQYH0bkN_LCqQA&sig2=BG8rwfJeAGVkDbAZbuCKgw ) and thinfilm is often sayed to be above 1:40.
          Wind is still up to 1:80 and probably better deployed on average…not all private PV pannels will be oriented perfectly or produce 30+ years.
          In wonder if someone could filter that out of some PV production data.Somebody should know how many pannels are installed in Germany for example and know what they could produce if perfectly deployed.

          I’d still ask Musk the question if I had the chance. He already voiced opinions about fuel cells and nuclear after all.

          • Bob_Wallace

            EROEI simply no longer is a big deal. The concept became important as it became harder to extract oil. The world has run out of easy to extract oil and it takes more and more of a shrinking resource to extract, refine and deliver the resource to market.

            As one approaches an EROEI of 1 for oil it becomes more and more expensive to produce oil. It becomes very important to not use more energy than it takes to bring the energy to market. Makes no sense to use $1 worth of oil to produce $1 worth of oil.

            Sunshine? We can waste all we want. We can’t possibly use what hits the Earth in even an hour.

            Cost of sunshine? Zero.

            Cost to turn sunshine into electricity? Dropping. Fast.

            Cost of the energy in a solar panel? At $0.50/watt there can’t be very much. That half dollar has to cover not only energy but all the materials, labor, transportation and industrial infrastructure used to manufacture the panel. And we should be down to $0.35/watt before long. Low price for panels last week was $0.43/watt.

        • neroden

          Yeah. We don’t even know how long solar panels typically last. The panels from the
          1970s are still operating, so at least 40 years for silicon panels; I’m guessing more than 50 years.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Unconventional wind power is being ignored because, obviously, no one important sees value. The history of wind power is littered with ideas that someone thought workable but just weren’t good enough. Early on over 200 large vertical axis wind turbines were installed. That idea failed. Turbines with more than three blades, turbines with the blades mounted downwind, turbines with cowls, weird blade shapes – tried. Abandoned.

      Lots of ideas have been floated over the recent years. The best get funded and implemented. The others just fade away. A few of them linger as the developers create a salary for themselves by scraping up a little money here and there.

      • Jenny Sommer

        That’s why I am not asking for your opinion on the topic.
        It takes time and effort to develope new ideas. The tech we do have now wasn’t available 5 years ago.
        There are hundreds of people working on high altitude wind energy right now.
        This is not like your average small wind turbine that pops up every now and then without any data to prove it.

        • Bob_Wallace

          Flog that dead horse, Jenny.

          With traditional onshore wind now approaching 3c/kWh the threshold is very high. I’ve seen no one believe enough in kites to invest any serious money.

          • Jenny Sommer

            That’s only true for the very best US onshore sites. Offshore wind and even Onshore in Europe is much more expensive.

        • Read this: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/03/airborne-wind-energy-platypuses-instead-cheetahs/

          Digest it.

          Forget about high-altitude wind.

          Forget about rooftop wind turbines.

          They just don’t make sense.

          • neroden

            I’ve always wondered about putting turbines atop NYC (and similarly tall) skyscrapers, where the wind is always incredibly strong and you’re actually higher than the average wind turbine, but it’s probably too specialized a field to bother to develop….

            I think that’s not what most people are thinking of when they think “rooftop wind”, however

  • Ivor O’Connor

    We may not understand what is happening but we have faith in Musk’s decisions.

    • Hmm, that might be the biggest factor.

      He was doubted so much for so long that I think many of us are not inclined to bet against him.

      • Ivor O’Connor

        I don’t think I’ve ever doubted anything other than his timetables. Which I still do doubt.

        • Ha, yes, it seems like there should be a website called “ElonTime.com” by now. 😛

        • neroden

          The thing is…. in a lot of stuff, missing timetables is not so bad.

          When it comes to paying off debt and avoiding going bankrupt, it’s *disastrous*. A one month delay makes the difference between success and “Hi, we’re the bondholders and we’re here to repossess your company”.

          • Ivor O’Connor

            True. But Musk has magic powers.

          • lol 😀

  • Robert Fahey

    Tesla Energy and SolarCity already share toothbrushes. Just tie the knot already.

  • Kieran Delaney

    Well Elon’s brother runs SolarCity doesn’t he? And isn’t Elon a shareholder and board member?

    I think it seems like a good situation for both companies. SolarCity needs to reduce it’s panel costs…hugely, if they want to continue to compete..

    • Joe Viocoe

      It’s cousin, and Elon is chairman of that board.

  • mikgigs

    Why so enthusiastic? Apparently, the ship is sinking.

  • J.H.

    May be these articles will be helpful for the shareholders of both company’s to come to the same conclusion.

    • Barbara7878

      I basically get paid in the range of 6-8 thousand dollars /month with an online job. So if you are ready to work easy at home jobs for 2-5 hours /day at your home and get good payment in the same time… Try this job TINY.PL/g9hw4

      rwesrtywrty

Back to Top ↑