SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Chief Executive Elon Musk said on Tuesday he is considering taking Tesla Inc private in what would be the largest deal of its type, moving the electric car maker out of the glare of Wall Street as it goes through a period of rapid growth under tight financial constraints.
“Am considering taking Tesla private at $ 420. Funding secured,” Musk said on Twitter bit.ly/2Om3gn3. At $ 420 per share, a deal would be worth $ 72 billion overall.
In a letter to Tesla employees published more than an hour later on the company’s blog here, Musk explained that going private would be “the best path forward.” Such a move – over which no final decision had been made – would let Tesla “operate at its best, free from as much distraction and short-term thinking as possible,” he wrote.
Tesla shares closed up 11 percent at $ 379.57, slightly below their all-time high.
Asked on Twitter whether Musk would continue to be CEO under such a scenario, he replied there would be “no change.”
Musk has been under intense pressure this year to turn his money-losing, debt-laden company into a profitable higher-volume manufacturer, a prospect that has sent Tesla’s valuation higher than that of General Motors Co.
The company is still working its way out of what Musk called “production hell” at its home factory in Fremont, California, where a series of manufacturing challenges delayed the ramp-up of production of its new Model 3 sedan, on which the company’s profitability rests.
The Silicon Valley company faces a make-or-break moment in its eight-year history as a public company as competition from European automakers is poised to intensify with new electric vehicles from Audi and Jaguar, with more rivals to follow suit next year.
Meanwhile, Tesla has announced plans to build a factory in Shanghai, China, and another in Europe, but details are scarce and funding unknown.
Going private is one way to avoid close scrutiny by the public market as Musk and the company face those challenges. Musk has feuded publicly with regulators, critics, short sellers and reporters, and some analysts suggested that less transparency would be welcomed by Musk.
“Musk does not want to run a public company,” said Gene Munster of Loup Ventures, as Tesla’s ambitious mission makes it “difficult to accommodate investors’ quarterly expectations.”
Musk owns nearly 20 percent of the company. He said in his letter to employees he did not seek to expand his ownership.
A price of $ 420 per share would represent a nearly 23 percent premium to Tesla’s closing price on Monday, which gave the company a market value of about $ 58 billion.
In his letter, Musk suggested a choice for shareholders of selling their shares for $ 420 each or remaining investors in a private Tesla. He said he hoped all current investors would remain were the company to go private.
He made no mention in his tweets nor his letter where the funding for a deal would come from, and the letter did not discuss funding for the plan.
Like any other investor, Musk is beholden to securities laws and several securities attorneys told Reuters he potentially could face lawsuits if it was proven he did not have secure financing at the time of his tweet.
If Musk were to succeed in taking Tesla private, it would be the largest leveraged buyout of all time, beating the record set by the $ 45 billion deal for Texas power utility Energy Future Holdings, which ended in bankruptcy in 2014.
Raising both the debt and equity required for such a deal would be a challenge. Many major Wall Street bankers contacted by Reuters said on condition of anonymity they were not aware of Musk’s plans ahead of his tweets, and several expressed skepticism that a leveraged buyout of Tesla could be financed given the company’s negative cash flow.
“It’s unfathomable to me that anyone would finance the acquisition of such a liability-laden company that is losing so much money and have massive capex requirements going forward,” said Mark Spiegel, portfolio manager of hedge fund Stanphyl Capital Partners, who holds a short position in Tesla and has been a vocal critic of Musk on Twitter.
FILE PHOTO: Elon Musk listens at a press conference following the first launch of a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, U.S., February 6, 2018. REUTERS/Joe Skipper/File Photo
The most obvious equity partners for Musk would be a sovereign wealth fund such as Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) or major technology investment funds such as SoftBank Group Corp’s Vision Fund, bankers said.
China’s Tencent Holdings, which took a 5 percent stake in Tesla last year, is another possible partner.
Such foreign sources of capital would be subject to scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which looks closely at deals for potential national security risks.
Earlier on Tuesday, a source familiar with the matter said Saudi Arabia’s PIF had bought a minority stake of just below 5 percent in Tesla.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment on Musk’s tweet, but the agency allows companies to use social media outlets like Twitter to announce key information in compliance with its fair disclosure rules if investors are alerted about which social media outlets will be used.
Tesla alerted investors in a 2013 SEC filing that they should follow Musk’s Twitter feed for “additional information” about the company. There is no reference to Musk’s Twitter account on the company’s investor relation page under “investor communication,” although Tesla’s Twitter feed is included.
In his letter to employees, Musk wrote that, “as the most shorted stock in the history of the stock market, being public means that there are large numbers of people who have the incentive to attack the company.”
A short squeeze is a trading scenario that occurs from time to time in heavily shorted stocks, when bearish traders are forced to buy shares to avoid big losses – something that ends up pushing the stock only higher.
Short interest in Tesla on Tuesday stood at nearly $ 13 billion, according to S3 Partners, a financial analytics firm.
FILE PHOTO: A Tesla sales and service center is shown in Costa Mesa, California, U.S. June 28, 2018. REUTERS/Mike Blake
Reporting by Sonam Rai in Bengaluru, Alexandria Sage in San Francisco, Carl O’Donnell, Liana Baker, David Randall in New York and Pete Schroeder in Washington; editing by Saumyadeb Chakrabarty, Bill Rigby and Chris Reese
Project: Time Off’s State of American Vacation 2018 report found that 52% of American workers have unused vacation days. This leads to a total of 705 million unspent vacation days, 212 million of which cannot be reimbursed. Thus, the result was American employees leaving $ 62 billion – or $ 561 per person – on the table, so to speak.
The average American takes only 17.2 vacation days each year, though most will only spend 8 of those days traveling. Think about that for a second. In an entire year, most Americans will spend a little over a week using their vacation days as intended.
Using those extra 9.2 days makes a significant difference. How much so? Those who use all or most of their days off are:
56% happier with their health
20% happier with their relationships
28% happier with their companies (hello employee longevity)
24% happier with their careers
18% more likely to have gotten a promotion within the last two years (when compared to infrequent travelers)
The takeaway: if you use your vacation, you’ll be promoted. Just kidding, but the statistics are legitimately both compelling & startling.
Happy = Productive
As we all know, happy employees are the most productive. They’re also even more creative, efficient, loyal, and can help significantly improve the company’s bottom line. Employees that are happy with their company will surely feel obligated to give each day their best effort.
Treat your employees well and your company will blossom in return. And keep in mind, taking breaks has many benefits too. It helps workers remain productive, retain information, and avoid burnout.
But won’t taking all my vacation make me look bad?
Well, Tom, I’m glad you asked that thought-provoking question to yourself. Sure, many workers fear taking advantage of all their vacation time can make them appear disinterested and replaceable. Au Contraire — let’s myth-bust this real quick with the managerial take on it:
90% of managers think that workers who plan their vacations ahead of time are responsible.
85% of say that planning ahead makes it easier to schedule work around an employee’s absence.
43% of managers say that they often can’t approve vacations since the worker didn’t give enough notice time.
It’s a win/win, people.
It’s time to start treating yourself to the vacations you deserve. America is the only developed country where employers aren’t obligated to provide workers with paid vacation days or holidays (and on that note, American employees aren’t entitled to sick days or maternity leave either). In fact, a quarter of Americans don’t get a single paid day off all year. Meanwhile, New Zealand, Italy, Austria, Belgium, France, and several other countries all give workers at least a month off every year.
So be thankful, take advantage of what you have, and go somewhere nice. The dividends will pay off…literally.
When he uploaded his first YouTube video, there was no way Kumar could have expected that he’d become a public face of H-1B visas: an advocate—and a whistleblower—for a way of life he can barely tolerate.
On his channel, Kumar Exclusive, Kumar serves as an everyman narrator of the experience of recipients of the coveted H-1B skilled worker visa, which allows foreign workers to fill technical jobs in America. His dispatches offer both user-friendly how-tos (how to find a job, how to avoid scams, how to win at an American-style interview) and warnings (tales of abusive bosses, short-term contracts, employees faking resumes to win visas, and companies that use lies to tempt foreign workers to the West). On YouTube, he’s amassed a small group following, whose members regularly watch his dispatches to gain practical advice for securing their spots as technical workers abroad.
Kumar’s first video was an afterthought—something he made on his lunch break. He’d left the low-slung office building where he worked processing data, sat in his car, and filmed with his cell phone on the dashboard. Quickly, he learned two things: There was an audience for his videos; he loved making them. It was also a distraction from his life on said visa, where he spends his time circling the country in search of short-term jobs that pay crap wages. His wife doesn’t like his hobby; she worries it’ll hurt his visa renewal. His friends have pointed out the people that threaten him, regularly, in the comments section.
None of this has stopped Kumar from filming thousands of videos. After all, he tells me, what else is he supposed to do?
“I don’t sleep, Alexis,” he says.
In a way, Kumar’s life is one big, messy juxtaposition. Our interview is yet another example of this. He’s eager to talk to me about the crappiest parts of the H-1B visa. Then again, our calls are frequently interrupted, because Kumar is looking for his next gig and needs to pick up call waiting in case it’s a recruiter.
By the time he got his H-1B visa, Kumar had been trying to enter the program for almost a decade. H-1B visas—which are granted each year to just 85,000 recipients, who hail predominantly from India and China—are tough to get; demand far outweighs supply. Though his bachelor’s degree was in literature, Kumar went back to school to earn a technical degree that would make him eligible for the program. Back in India, he’d been laid off from his government job when he received the news: His visa application had been approved.
The visa was tied to a job in New Jersey. The company would sponsor him and pay him a starting salary of $ 55,000 a year. In the summer of 2008, Kumar’s employer sent a plane ticket and he boarded a flight to Newark, leaving his wife and young son with his mother-in-law.
It felt like a fresh beginning. But quickly, he realized, he’d been unaware of the fine print. That job in New Jersey wasn’t quite a job—it was a project that would last for an uncertain amount of time. On paper, H-1Bs are tied to a specific company, making changing jobs or advancement difficult. (That’s one of the reasons the more flexible Optional Practical Training visa, or OPT, has become more popular.) But in practice, H-1B recipients are responsible for ensuring their continued employment, with jobs that could end at any moment.
Reading Kumar’s resume from his time in the United States, it would seem like he was working as a spy, or running from the law. In the 10 years he’s lived in America, he’s held jobs in over a dozen different cities. In 2010 alone he worked in North Carolina, Montana, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. (The project in Massachusetts lasted just 36 hours.) Eventually, he developed a system: He’d roll into town and stay in a motel while he looked for a more permanent place to live.
Kumar’s first job lasted just a few months. He picked up another project, this time in Maryland. He stayed in a motel for a week while he looked for housing, eventually decamping to the home of an Indian acquaintance, where he paid $ 700 a month for a room in the basement. When that job ended, he found another in Pennsylvania. He found himself criss-crossing through a strange country, whose small towns were proving trying.
The next year, he returned to India for surgery. But his visa required that he return to America within a few weeks, before he’d fully recovered. He was on bed rest, staying with a friend in Michigan, when he picked up his next contract—this time in North Carolina. He packed up his van and drove. Kumar was lonely; he was in pain. He cried for most of the trip.
By 2011, he’d saved up enough money for his wife and sons to join him. (That’s right: He now had two sons; his second son was born during the years he was working abroad.) Eventually, Kumar settled on the environs of Rochester, which is when he started commuting. He was hesitant to uproot his family for his erratic schedule, so he found himself driving wherever he got a project.
On Sunday evenings he’d drive 375-miles to a small Rhode Island city from Rochester. During the week he’d stay in a motel, and then dart off on Friday evenings for the trip back home. Another commute, this time to Ohio, was grueling enough that he thought about uprooting his family. But his manager was elusive on how long the job would last. His family stayed put.
Kumar says that the videos were a natural progression from his daily life. Despite his problems, Indian acquaintances often asked him for dispatches on his life in America. Once he started filming the videos, Kumar found that he had lots to say. His earliest videos are filled with practical advice. In one, titled “[sic] How to Get First Job,” he gives basic advice. (“Your resume is not your autobiography, if you put everything in the resume then what do you speak of in the interview?”) In another, called “Work Culture in America,” Kumar advises on how to get along with colleagues who might be annoyed by being around a foreigner. Over the years, his videos have become more controversial. He warns prospective visa recipients on what to avoid: fake job postings, lawyers who run away with H-1B money, and vendors who try to convince immigrants that fees should come out of their own pocket. He considers himself, in many ways, a truth teller.
Over the course of more than a thousand videos, Kumar’s production quality has improved a bit. Instead of speaking from memory, he now types up his points and reviews them off of a sheet of paper. He still films in his car or office, while pointing the camera at himself, selfie-style. Sometimes he films videos solely intended to delight. Last month, a Kumar video titled “[sic] The Beauty of America in fall season, NY,” showed a lake surrounded by trees with brilliant orange and red leaves.
In his YouTube bio, Kumar writes that the “highest ambition for any Indian” is coming to America, learning from the West, and returning back to India to change the system. And, as Kumar is the first to point out, without the H-1B program, he never would’ve gotten the chance to come. But that experience has been grueling. His kids, however, are thriving in American school. He’s not like other Indian parents, he tells me. He doesn’t force his kids to study; he doesn’t care if they become doctors. His oldest son, who is in seventh grade, likes basketball and dreams of going pro. He thinks adjusting to life back in India would be hard for them.
At one point, when his wife’s visa expired, Kumar suggested that she fake her resume and apply for an H-1B. Unlike her husband, she decided it wasn’t worth the hassle.
The Internet of things is no good without a way to act on the data it generates. A new partnership between two of the biggest IoT players promises to put smart collection and advanced analysis of data right where it’s needed.
IBM and Cisco Systems have worked out how to run components of IBM’s Watson IoT analytics on Cisco edge devices. This will bring more intelligence closer to where the action is, helping enterprises run things like factories and oil rigs more efficiently.
In 2014, Cisco unveiled small routers and switches that could be embedded in facilities and vehicles located far from any data center. The devices could take in data from local sensors and analyze it on site with a small, built-in Linux computer. Among other things, this “fog computing” system could decide what data was interesting enough to send to the cloud and what could just be thrown away.