Minggu, 21 April 2019

13 American Airlines passengers hospitalized after flight to Boston - Fox News

A group of passengers were taken to the hospital after an American Airlines flight landed at Boston Logan International Airport Sunday morning.

Members from a student group flying to Boston from Miami reportedly fell ill during the flight, a spokesperson for American Airlines confirmed to Fox News.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Boston EMS responded to the airport with multiple units after receiving a call. According to Twitter, 13 passengers were transported to the hospital.

The flight landed safely and no other passengers or crew members reported feeling ill.

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK FOR MORE FOX LIFESTYLE NEWS

Those taken to the hospital exhibited “symptoms that were minor in nature,” Boston EMS wrote in the tweet.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.foxnews.com/travel/american-airlines-passengers-hospitalized-boston

2019-04-21 18:16:59Z
CBMiT2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZveG5ld3MuY29tL3RyYXZlbC9hbWVyaWNhbi1haXJsaW5lcy1wYXNzZW5nZXJzLWhvc3BpdGFsaXplZC1ib3N0b27SAVNodHRwczovL3d3dy5mb3huZXdzLmNvbS90cmF2ZWwvYW1lcmljYW4tYWlybGluZXMtcGFzc2VuZ2Vycy1ob3NwaXRhbGl6ZWQtYm9zdG9uLmFtcA

Why Stock Market Investors Should Be Extremely Cautious For The Remainder Of 2019 - Seeking Alpha

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Why Stock Market Investors Should Be Extremely Cautious For The Remainder Of 2019  Seeking Alpha

Equity market volatility has been unusually low over the past few years. And investors have been lulled into a sense of complacency that what goes up will conti.


https://seekingalpha.com/article/4255574-stock-market-investors-extremely-cautious-remainder-2019

2019-04-21 16:41:00Z
CBMiYWh0dHBzOi8vc2Vla2luZ2FscGhhLmNvbS9hcnRpY2xlLzQyNTU1NzQtc3RvY2stbWFya2V0LWludmVzdG9ycy1leHRyZW1lbHktY2F1dGlvdXMtcmVtYWluZGVyLTIwMTnSAWVodHRwczovL3NlZWtpbmdhbHBoYS5jb20vYW1wL2FydGljbGUvNDI1NTU3NC1zdG9jay1tYXJrZXQtaW52ZXN0b3JzLWV4dHJlbWVseS1jYXV0aW91cy1yZW1haW5kZXItMjAxOQ

Strong stock and bond markets at odds over global growth - Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - It looks like something has to give in global markets.

Traders work on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, U.S., April 18, 2019. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Stocks and bonds around the world have rallied atypically together since the start of the year, rewarding investors both bullish and bearish on the direction of global growth.

The main catalyst for the gains was the Federal Reserve’s surprise decision in early January to pause its tightening policy, after four interest rate increases in 2018 raised fears it was being too aggressive as the economy cooled and inflation remained minimal. Those fears helped send global markets into a tailspin in December.

Yet with the U.S. benchmark S&P 500 near a record level and corporate junk bonds notching new highs, the question stock and bond investors are asking is whether the Fed’s next move will be a rate cut that further propels risk assets or a rate hike that cuts into the stock market’s momentum.

A move by the Fed on interest rates or a communication misstep by the central bank would likely end either the rally in the stock market or in investment-grade bonds by the end of the year, restoring the traditional give-and-take between risk and safety, investors say.

“The Fed is between a rock and a hard place,” said Kathleen Gaffney, a portfolio manager at Eaton Vance Management in Boston. “They can’t go lower because there are signs that inflation is rising and they can’t go higher because of global political uncertainty. It leaves the market on pause.”

The U.S. central bank has said it will soon stop letting bonds bought during its “quantitative easing” period following the financial crisis roll off its balance sheet, which also helped push yields on safe havens like Treasuries lower and acted as a tailwind for riskier assets.

Gaffney said the Fed will likely have to raise rates again because of rising wages and other forms of inflation by the end of the year, adding that such a move will “pierce” the high valuations in both the stocks and bond markets.

TWIN RALLY

The rolling four-month percentage change in the price of the S&P 500 and the 10-Year Treasury note have both been positive for three straight months, according to a Reuters analysis. That is the longest such streak since a five-month run that ended in August 2017, it showed.

In that same 2017 period, the S&P 500 gained and 10-year Treasury yields fell as the market digested conflicting economic reports during the first year of the Trump administration, before the Federal Reserve in September began quantitative tightening that resulted in bond yields rising as the S&P 500 continued to rally.

Since January equity markets around the world have made up much of the ground they lost during a wrenching fourth quarter of 2018 that sent the U.S. stock market to the brink of a bear market.

The S&P 500 and Europe’s STOXX 600 are up almost 16% year to date, while stock indexes in China are up nearly 30%.

The ICE Merrill Lynch U.S. high yield index is up 8.6% year to date while the Merrill Lynch World sovereign bond index is up almost 1.5%.

World stocks vs bonds - tmsnrt.rs/2IrqXeF

A rally in benchmark 10-year Treasury notes, usually seen as a safe haven, undercuts the picture of a “risk on” market. Their yields have slid from 2.69% at the start of the year to as low as 2.34% in late March.

“At this point in the cycle, equity investors are trying to take any incremental news positively while fixed income investors are not,” said Jen Robertson, a portfolio manager at Wells Fargo Asset Management in London. “It’s quite delicate at the moment and any negative news out of first quarter earnings could impact this sharp bounce.”

Further uncertainty due to the economic impact of the UK leaving the European Union, which has now been pushed back to Oct. 31, or a deterioration in U.S.-China trade talks could be a “shock to the system” and derail both stocks and bonds, she said.

The spread between U.S. three-month bills and 10-year notes turned negative for the first time since 2007 in March, a bearish sign as a yield curve inversion has signaled an upcoming economic recession in the past.

The move initially boosted stock prices as investors predicted it would hem the Fed in from future interest rate hikes. But equities could fall soon if recession fears continue to grow, said Hiroaki Hayashi, managing director of Fukoku Capital Management in Tokyo.

“If you look at the past experiences, share prices have often rallied six to nine months after the yield curve initially inverted before entering a major correction. I believe we are exactly at such a phase now.”

Despite outsized gains this year, financial markets have not indicated investors have faith that the global economy can grow without historically low interest rates a decade after the end of the Great Recession, said Anwiti Bahuguna, head of multi-asset strategy at Columbia Threadneedle Investments.

“The bull market we’ve had for the past 10 years is essentially because of really low interest rates,” Bahuguna said.

“I don’t think that equilibrium will last much longer,” she added, saying rising inflation and low unemployment could soon test global markets’ ability to cope with tighter monetary policy.

Additional reporting by Hideyuki Sano in Tokyo and Terence Gabriel in New York.; Editing by Alden Bentley and Tom Brown

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-funds-globalrally-analysis/strong-stock-and-bond-markets-at-odds-over-global-growth-idUSKCN1RX0DS

2019-04-21 13:10:00Z
CBMiiAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5yZXV0ZXJzLmNvbS9hcnRpY2xlL3VzLXVzYS1mdW5kcy1nbG9iYWxyYWxseS1hbmFseXNpcy9zdHJvbmctc3RvY2stYW5kLWJvbmQtbWFya2V0cy1hdC1vZGRzLW92ZXItZ2xvYmFsLWdyb3d0aC1pZFVTS0NOMVJYMERT0gE0aHR0cHM6Ly9tb2JpbGUucmV1dGVycy5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZS9hbXAvaWRVU0tDTjFSWDBEUw

A Tale of Two Teslas: Elon Musk to Tout Robot Cars Amid Sales Slump - The Wall Street Journal

Tesla has warned it would report a loss instead of a previously expected profit in the first quarter. Photo: Zheng Huansong/Zuma Press

As Tesla Inc. TSLA 0.75% faces questions about whether demand for the Model 3 compact car is slowing, Chief Executive Elon Musk wants investors to focus on the auto maker’s road much farther ahead: vehicles driving themselves in a robot-taxi fleet.

Mr. Musk is gathering investors Monday to reveal the electric-car maker’s latest efforts to develop self-driving car technology and his strategy for deploying it. The presentation at its Palo Alto, Calif., headquarters is scheduled two days before Tesla reports quarterly financial results, which are expected to show a loss on slumping vehicle sales.

The week’s twin billing encapsulates the polarizing nature of Tesla, which has sharply divided investors between skeptics and believers. Monday’s event will likely showcase Mr. Musk as the exuberant salesman pitching his futuristic vision for Tesla. First-quarter results, on the other hand, are backward looking by definition and could prompt a defense of operational struggles.

Share Your Thoughts

How do you think Tesla’s ambitions to build a self-driving taxi service will play out over the coming years? Join the conversation below.

Some investors praised Tesla’s decision to highlight its driverless-car technology because they think it is a reason to value Tesla more highly than other auto makers. Those betting against the company said the investor day is a marketing stunt ahead of anticipated bad news.

“I’ve seen this movie before,” said David Kudla, CEO of Mainstay Capital Management, a short seller of Tesla stock. “Whether it’s launching the Tesla into space, whether it’s some sort of product reveal or some grand announcement that comes a day or two before earnings.”

Tesla declined to comment.

The investor presentation and earnings report come after Friday’s disclosure that Tesla is planning to shrink its board to seven from 11 directors as part of a series of moves designed to improve its corporate governance.

Since Tesla unveiled the Model 3 in March 2016 and received an unexpected deluge of $1,000 deposits for a car aimed at a more mainstream buyer, the company has sought to show it has the manufacturing muscle to meet customer demand.

After overcoming some production challenges for the model, Tesla now faces questions about whether it has reached a limit on buyers of a car that on average sold for $57,000 last year, according to analyst estimates.

Tesla has already warned it would report a loss instead of a previously expected profit in the first quarter and said vehicle deliveries plummeted 31% from three months earlier, citing challenges in delivering the Model 3 overseas for the first time. The company brought the car’s price down to the long-promised $35,000 after the phaseout of U.S. tax credits for buyers of electric cars.

Unlike major auto makers, Tesla doesn’t disclose how many cars and sport-utility vehicles it sells. LMC Automotive, a vehicle-forecasting firm, estimates that Tesla’s U.S. vehicle deliveries fell 57% to 31,900 from the fourth quarter and that the company will sell 13% fewer vehicles in the U.S. this year compared with 2018.

“You’re probably leveling into a more natural area of the inevitable supply-and-demand balance,” said Jeff Schuster, an industry analyst with LMC Automotive.

Mr. Musk has said he believes there is an annual demand for 500,000 Model 3s even as Americans prefer SUVs over sedans. “The demand for Model 3 is insanely high,” Mr. Musk told investors last quarter before the most recent price cuts. “The inhibitor is affordability…It’s got nothing to do with desire.”

At Monday’s driverless-car presentation—slated to be live streamed and to include test rides for investors—Mr. Musk may try to stoke demand by showing off Tesla’s technological prowess while touting his ultimate promise: fleets of robot taxis.

Tesla investor ARK Investment believes a successful robot-taxi fleet could boost the company’s stock to $4,000 a share in 2023. On Friday, Tesla’s shares closed at $273.26, down 18% for the year.

When Tesla announced April 11 that it was offering 36-month lease financing for the Model 3, the company said customers wouldn’t be able to purchase the vehicles at the end of the term because the cars would be deployed in a robot fleet. Car companies normally allow a customer to buy the car or sell it used.

Mr. Musk said the price of the so-called full self-driving feature on Tesla vehicles will increase “substantially over time” beginning on May 1.

He expects the fully self-driving system to be “feature complete” this year, meaning the vehicle will have the ability to drive to a destination without user intervention but will still require observation. The technology is improving so rapidly that it could be safe for a person in the driver’s seat to sleep in a moving vehicle by the end of 2020, Mr. Musk has said. But he has also cautioned that much depends on regulatory approval, although it is unclear what approvals are necessary.

Legislation aiming to establish nationwide regulations has stalled in Congress, leaving states to create their own rules.

Tesla vehicles currently don’t have the ability to drive themselves. Its driver-assistance system, Autopilot, requires the driver to remain in control and monitors for hand movement on the steering wheel. Mr. Musk has argued the system has improved safety, though Tesla has drawn scrutiny for its aggressive marketing and several crashes involving the system.

During an interview on YouTube with a Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher earlier this month, Mr. Musk said he expects vehicles with fully autonomous capabilities to have a value five to 10 times greater than that of other cars during the next decade.

“Buying a car today is an investment in the future,” Mr. Musk said in the video. “If you buy a Tesla today, I believe, you’re buying an appreciating asset, not a depreciating asset.”

Write to Tim Higgins at Tim.Higgins@WSJ.com

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-tale-of-two-teslas-elon-musk-to-tout-robot-cars-amid-sales-slump-11555848000

2019-04-21 12:00:00Z
52780271400258

Financial market 'pause party' makes Fed rate cut less likely - Reuters

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Risk-taking has been the rage since the Federal Reserve quit hiking interest rates at the end of last year. U.S. stocks are back near record highs and investors are stockpiling the lowest-grade corporate bonds with only a smidgen of extra compensation for the added risk.

Traders work on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, U.S., April 18, 2019. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

That rebounding mood on Wall Street may be welcomed by a president that has been demanding the Fed cut rates after markets fell sharply last year, and complaining that even pausing at the current level is the wrong call.

But if anything the ‘pause party’ on Wall Street makes it even less likely that the U.S. central bank will cut rates. Recent positive news on retail sales and exports, which have eased concerns of a sharply slowing economy, makes the case for a rate cut even weaker.

Investors at least have gotten the message, and shifted from projecting a rate cut later this year to now putting the odds at only 50-50 that the Fed will move lower by early 2020.

Wall Street celebrates the Fed's 'pause tmsnrt.rs/2VRQYqp

The state of financial markets, say some analysts, is evidence the Fed’s rate increases last year were on point, allowing the economy to continue growing while keeping risks in check. A rate cut at this stage would only be courting problems.

“The argument for why they should keep the possibility of a rate hike on the table is because of financial stability,” Citi chief economist Catherine Mann said in remarks on Wednesday to a conference on financial stability at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

After a decade of near zero interest rates, “moving toward a constellation of asset prices that embodies risks is critical for getting us to a more stable financial market,” she said, noting that both equity prices and low-grade bond yields show a market that remains too sanguine.

In their critiques of the Fed, U.S. President Donald Trump, White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow, and possible Fed nominee Stephen Moore have argued that lower rates would allow faster growth and be in line with Trump’s economic plans. They contend that, with the risk of inflation low, the central bank does not need to maintain ‘insurance’ against it by keeping rates where they are.

     Overlooked in that analysis are the financial stability concerns steadily integrated into Fed policymaking since the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis. Mann spoke at a conference named in honor of economist Hyman Minsky, who explored how financial excess can build during good times, and unwind in catastrophic fashion. The downturn a decade ago showed just how deeply that dynamic can scar the real economy.

     Financial stability isn’t a formal mandate for the Fed, which under congressional legislation is supposed to maintain the twin goals of maximum employment and stable prices. But since the crisis the central bank has concluded that keeping financial markets on an even keel is a necessary condition for achieving the other two aims.

    That doesn’t mean an end of volatility or a guarantee of profits, but rather that risks are properly priced and that the use of leverage – investments made with borrowed money – is kept within safe limits.

Keeping an eye on stock valuations tmsnrt.rs/2Dr6u5z

     That’s a key reason why even policymakers focused on maintaining high levels of employment, like Boston Fed president Eric Rosengren, at times have taken on a hawkish tone in favor of rate increases. The worse outcome for workers, Rosengren and others have said, would be to let markets inflate too much, and crash again, even if that means risking a bit higher unemployment in the interim. 

Markets are currently “a little rich,” Rosengren said in recent remarks at Davidson College in North Carolina.

Though not enough to warrant a rate increase, he said, it does argue against a rate reduction. Overall, Fed officials including Chairman Jerome Powell say they feel financial risks are within a manageable range, something policymakers feel has been helped along by the rate increases to date.

The state of financial markets is “something that the Fed has to wrestle with,” Rosengren said. “It’s appropriate for interest rates to be paused right now.”

Corporate bond valuations look frothy tmsnrt.rs/2VU0Yj3

Reporting by Howard Schneider and Trevor Hunnicut; Editing by Dan Burns and Andrea Ricci

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-risk-analysis/financial-market-pause-party-makes-fed-rate-cut-less-likely-idUSKCN1RX09V

2019-04-21 11:12:00Z
52780273784084

Carole Ghosn goes on the offensive, launching media blitz for jailed auto executive husband - The Japan Times

With no signs of Carlos Ghosn’s five-month legal drama wrapping up anytime soon, his wife has assumed a starring role in the former Nissan Motor Co. chairman’s defense, becoming his chief spokeswoman and crisscrossing the world to appeal to both the public and politicians on his behalf.

Carole Ghosn has flown to France to ask the government there to intervene in the case, returned to Japan for questioning by prosecutors and appeared in multiple media interviews in the United States where she has repeatedly proclaimed her husband’s innocence. She even penned an op-ed asking U.S. President Donald Trump to act.

But while the media blitz may generate some sympathy, it’s not likely to have a significant impact on the outcome of the case, experts interviewed by The Japan Times said Friday.

In Japan, it is highly unusual for the family member of a defendant to engage in an aggressive media campaign before a trial to assert innocence, said Kuniyoshi Shirai, a professor of risk management at the Graduate School of Information and Communication in Tokyo.

“Mrs. Ghosn has been very active and is using a variety of methods (to argue her husband’s case), hoping that he will be released soon,” Shirai said. “I am sure she is getting help from (public relations) experts.”

Carole Ghosn has been vocal about her husband’s innocence since shortly after his initial arrest. She wrote a letter to Human Rights Watch in January complaining about her husband’s long detention and the legal system as a whole and has given multiple media interviews to highlight his plight.

But her husband’s latest arrest appears to have inspired a full-scale offensive. Since April 4, she has ramped up the frequency of her media appearances and taken some particularly bold steps, such as the pleas to the leaders of France and the U.S. to help her embattled and ailing husband.

The Japan Times reached out to Carole Ghosn for comment, but she did not respond by the time of publication.

Carlos Ghosn was served with a fresh warrant on April 4, accused of misappropriating a Nissan sbsidiary’s payments to Suhail Bahwan Automobiles, a distributor in Oman. Prosecutors allege that some of the money, totaling about ¥560 million, was siphoned off to a Lebanese investment firm he effectively owns, and was tapped for personal use, such as the purchase of a yacht.

When the former auto executive was arrested that fourth time, which occurred early in the morning, Carole, by the day’s end, had given interviews with The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, giving her and her husband’s account of the event.

She said her Lebanese passport, diary, letters and cell phones were confiscated. Carole also claimed her privacy was invaded, saying that when she exited the shower that morning, she was handed a towel by a female prosecutor.

“I was treated like a criminal even though I am not a suspect, and I have not been charged with anything,” she wrote in an op-ed published by The Washington Post on Thursday. “The intent of the pre-dawn raid was clear: This was a deliberate, inhumane attempt to humiliate us, invade our privacy and violate our most basic dignities as human beings.”

There have also been media reports that suggest her involvement in the latest affair involving the Lebanese investment firm. Prosecutors believe some of the money that reportedly flowed to the Lebanese company was transferred to a firm in the Virgin Islands headed by Carole Ghosn, a Lebanese and American citizen, as well as a firm established by the couple’s son in the U.S., Kyodo News reported.

Renault SA, where Carlos Ghosn was also chairman, alerted French authorities in February that he might have misappropriated the company’s money for his Marie Antoinette-themed wedding at the Chateau de Versailles.

In The Washington Post op-ed, Carole Ghosn also bashed what she and other critics have dubbed the country’s “hostage justice” system. She said that the accused is not entitled to the same level of legal protection offered in the U.S. — citing prolonged detentions before indictments and the lack of the right to have an attorney present during questioning. She then pressed Trump to discuss the case with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe when they meet at the White House at the end of the month.

“I hope and pray that our president will urge Abe to allow my husband to obtain bail so he can prepare for trial,” she wrote.

Stephen Givens, a Tokyo-based American corporate lawyer, said the description of the raid might draw some degree of sympathy from those outside Japan.

At the same time, Givens said, the couple have not been able to refute prosecutors’ allegations, especially the latest claim involving the Oman distributor. Legal experts, including Givens, say it is the most serious charge brought so far.

Givens also warned the duo about the perils of just repeating their declarations of Ghosn’s innocence and blasting the Japanese legal system without addressing the specific charges laid against him.

“I think that proclaiming that you are innocent and a victim when there is concrete evidence to the contrary makes you look bad,” he said.

But another lawyer, Shigeru Nakajima, who practices transactional law in Tokyo, says a defendant in a criminal case rarely speaks publicly on the case itself before trial because of the danger of entrapping oneself.

Shortly after the April 4 arrest, Carole Ghosn left Japan using her American passport to travel to France. She was quoted by the media as saying she went to France for her safety and to appeal to the French government to do more.

Yasuyuki Takai, an attorney and a former prosecutor at the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office, said Carole Ghosn’s departure for France wasn’t a smart move and was one that could affect the court’s decision to grant bail. He also described her media campaign as a “futile” effort that will not influence the outcome of the case.

While she returned to Japan to answer questions by prosecutors, she then traveled to New York. There, she continued to seek media exposure, appearing on Fox Business Network and speaking to The Associated Press.

Shirai, the risk management professor, echoed the view that her media exposure would have limited impact. Despite her pleas to the French and American governments, he said they are unlikely to take action in order to avoid interfering in the internal affairs of another country.

Even in France, where the former auto titan initially saw wide support, “the government and people are increasingly growing skeptical toward him,” Shirai said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/21/national/crime-legal/carole-ghosn-goes-offensive-launching-media-blitz-jailed-auto-executive-husband/

2019-04-21 08:36:00Z
52780271697323

Sabtu, 20 April 2019

What if Elon Musk’s $420 dream hadn’t gone up in smoke? - The Verge

Last August, Elon Musk tweeted he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private. That turned out not to be true, and he eventually had to settle securities fraud charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Musk is still battling the SEC over that very same settlement, and it’s possible he will be held in contempt of court for allegedly violating it. With the decision looming, it’s worth asking: what if he had lined up funding? What did Musk stand to gain by turning Tesla, which has been publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange since 2010, back into a privately held company?

How could he have done it?

There are a few different ways Musk could have taken Tesla private. One of the most common ways would be to secure funding from a small group of institutional investors to buy out the company’s shareholders. Shareholders usually want a premium over the price of the shares at the time (like, say, $420!), and they also have to approve the deal in a vote. The investors then get an ownership stake of the company in return, but the total number of owners would be below the Securities and Exchange Commission’s thresholds for public reporting.

At first, this seemed like the path Musk wanted to take, but his subsequent tweets complicated things, according to Stephen Diamond, a law professor at Santa Clara University and an expert in securities law and corporate governance — specifically the one where Musk expressed his hope that “*all* current investors remain with Tesla even if we’re private.”

“It would be very challenging him to herd a subgroup of several thousand shareholders into some kind of entity” that the SEC would consider below those thresholds, Diamond says.

Another way to take Tesla off the public stock exchange would be to execute a “leveraged buyout,” according to Ann Lipton, an associate professor of corporate law at Tulane University. Here, the goal is the same — buy out the shareholders so only a few remain — but the source of money is different. Instead of trading ownership stakes for funding, Tesla would borrow money from entities like banks to buy out the shareholders. Finance types often call debt leverage because it sounds less dangerous; hence, “leveraged buyout” instead of “debt-fueled buyout.”

The problem with this, Lipton says, is Tesla already had a lot of debt — around $11 billion at the time of the “funding secured” tweet — and not a lot of free cash on hand.

“The theory of a leveraged buyout is you take a company with a lot of cash and you use that to pay down the debt, but that’s not Tesla,” she says.

So if Tesla were private today, probably it wouldn’t have happened through a leveraged buyout. More likely, it would have taken the first route, of a small group of investors. Had that happened, it would have cost tens of billions of dollars and been “one of the largest and most complex private equity plays,” according to Diamond. Since Musk didn’t actually have funding lined up from Saudi Arabia, he likely would have had to find it from existing or outside institutional investors, and then use it to buy out the shareholders in a transaction they’d have to approve.

Many shareholders would inevitably be upset (as some were that day in August), either by the amount Musk offered or the way the deal was executed, says Gregory Shill, a law professor at the University of Iowa. This happens in a lot of buyouts, actually. Litigation over the deal price is especially inevitable, he says. But even if Musk “dotted his i’s and crossed his t’s,” Shill says, there would probably be a lawsuit about how the process was handled.

To understand why, it helps to look at Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity. Musk was chairman of the solar energy company when he made the offer, and it was run by his cousins. He recused himself from voting on the deal, and 85 percent of shareholders approved it. And yet some shareholders still sued, alleging the process was corrupted because of the close relationship between Musk and his cousins, and the fact that Tesla’s board of directors was stacked with Musk supporters. The case is still ongoing.

Lipton says Musk “didn’t even pretend to negotiate at arms length” in the SolarCity case, and so it’s possible a similar case would have been raised if Tesla had gone private. So even if Musk had succeeded in his effort, he and Tesla would likely be defending it in court today. (Instead, they’re still fending off shareholder lawsuits about the alleged securities fraud.)

What would Musk have gained from taking Tesla private?

If Musk had taken Tesla private in a more traditional way, there likely wouldn’t have been an SEC lawsuit. That means Musk would still be chairman, would be $20 million richer, and wouldn’t have appointed independent directors in Larry Ellison and Kathleen Wilson-Thompson to the company’s board.

Had Tesla gone private, fewer people would have access to the company’s financials because it would no longer be required by the SEC to publish these figures. (Though, Lipton points out, some of Tesla’s debt is tied up in bonds that require some disclosure. So the company would have to pay off that debt to truly “go dark,” she says.) The carmaker would also be under less pressure from Wall Street analysts who view a company’s stock price as its measure of performance. The company would be released from the obligation to report its financials every quarter, too, which Musk has said puts “enormous pressure on Tesla.”

But that doesn’t mean Tesla would be free of scrutiny, according to Diamond.

“In a private setting he would have some very tough co-owners who represent very sophisticated investors,” Diamond says. Consolidating ownership means this smaller group of stakeholders would also wield a “significant amount of influence over the day to day life of the company.”

“If he thinks he’s going to find some dumb billionaires out there who are going to give him free rein, I think he’s kidding himself,” he says.

Musk would likely have more control over the company’s narrative, Diamond says.

“He would be able to avoid public scrutiny by investors, and he would be able then, with his own voice, to present the Tesla story to the public the way he wants to,” Diamond says. “The problem today is he shares ownership with other investors, and that requires him to keep them informed about what’s going on. And he has to be honest. He doesn’t have to tell them everything, but when he does speak he cannot mislead them.”

The story of Tesla is crucial to Musk, and something he’s fought to control. He’s accused the media of writing stories that misrepresent what’s going on inside the company, one time going so far as to shout “shame” on them during a conference call. He constantly claims short-sellers, people who make bets that a company will fail, spread lies about the company. “[S]hort sellers are desperately pushing a narrative that will possibly result in Tesla’s destruction,” he once told the New York Times. Musk has also accused both journalists and short-sellers of being funded by “big oil.”

Journalists would have less access to Tesla’s financials, though they wouldn’t stop covering Tesla. But a private Tesla means the short-sellers wouldn’t have a way to place those bets against the company, Shill says.

Tesla short-sellers existed long before the go-private attempt, but they’ve grown in numbers across the last year and a half as the company struggled to ramp up Model 3 production. They’ve connected on Twitter and even built a website where they display their theories and research, which they claim exposes fraudulent practices by Musk. Even if Musk had found a way to take Tesla private, this community of internet sleuths would likely still be around.

Knowing all this, Shill says Musk might have wanted distance from the SEC more than anything. Taking the company private would let Musk “stay in the public imagination, keep getting on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and be all over Twitter, but he wouldn’t have the cops knocking on his door in the form of the SEC,” he says.

Musk has taunted the SEC multiple times in the months since the two sides reached a settlement, calling it the “Short-seller Enrichment Commission,” and saying outright on 60 Minutes that he doesn’t respect the agency. Musk also continues to battle with the SEC over the settlement he agreed to last year. So it’s easy to imagine him wanting distance from the agency’s grasp.

“That was the true appeal,” Shill says.

The Tesla that never was

A private Tesla would be less exposed to the public, more under Musk’s control, and released from the pressure of reporting good quarterly performance. But that control would be set against stronger, more interested shareholders. Musk would likely still be his same mercurial (and often pugnacious) self on Twitter. The company would be locked in litigation with its former shareholders, and people who believe Tesla is a fraud would still be working to prove that out.

Meanwhile, Tesla would still be running a fledgling mass-market electric car company, one that needs a lot of money just to survive — let alone grow. So even if Tesla had gone private, it probably wouldn’t have stayed private forever, says Diamond.

“The reason you go private is to kind of focus management on solving production problems, restructuring the company, and then making it more palatable to a larger array of investors,” he says. “You want a smooth running machine.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/20/18507476/elon-musk-420-funding-secured-sec-lawsuit

2019-04-20 20:20:00Z
52780271400258