(BN) Google Said to Have Negotiated Deal to Buy Tesla in Early 2013


Google Said to Have Negotiated Deal to Buy Tesla in Early 2013
2015-04-20 12:00:13.213 GMT


By Ashlee Vance
(Bloomberg Business) -- This story is excerpted and adapted
from Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic
Future, due out May 19 from Ecco, an imprint of HarperCollins.
On May 8, 2013, Tesla Motors shocked just about everyone by
posting its first-ever quarterly profit, reporting higher-than-
expected demand for its Model S electric sedan. That moment
marked the beginning of a turnaround for Elon Musk’s tumultuous
automaker. The next year would see the Model S win most of the
automotive industry’s major awards and Tesla’s share price rise
roughly fivefold, to more than $200. The 2013 profit
announcement was fortuitous. Just weeks before, Tesla had been
on the verge of bankruptcy.
Earlier in 2013 the company was struggling to turn
preorders of its vehicles into actual sales. As Musk put his
staff on crisis footing to save Tesla, he also began negotiating
a deal to sell the company to Google through his friend Larry
Page, the search giant’s co-founder and chief executive officer,
according to two people with direct knowledge of the deal. Tesla
spokesman Ricardo Reyes and Google spokeswoman Rachel Whetstone
declined to comment. “I don’t want to speculate on rumors,” Page
said when I asked him if Google had considered buying Tesla,
adding that a “car company is pretty far from what Google
knows.”
Although Tesla spent several years designing and building
its flagship Model S, the car was still missing some features
when it went on sale in June 2012. Its safety elements,
software, and interior room were better than those of most
luxury cars, but it didn’t offer the parking sensors and radar-
assisted cruise control of rivals like BMW and Mercedes-Benz.
Glitches with the 2012 Model S door handle irked early buyers,
as did some aesthetic choices such as the car’s sun visors,
which had unsightly seams.
A big part of the problem was a lack of resources, says
former Tesla engineer Ali Javidan. “It was either hire a team of
50 people right away to make one of these things happen, or
implement things as best and as fast as you could.” Musk chose
the latter, Javidan says. Tesla also strugged to get top-rate
suppliers to take it seriously, says chief designer Franz von
Holzhausen. With the sun visors, he says, “We ended up having to
go to a third-rate supplier and then work on fixing the
situation after the car had already started shipping.”
“I don’t care what job you were doing. Your new job is
delivering cars.”
Tesla’s first customers were proto-typical early adopters
who wanted a computer on wheels. By the end of 2012, many were
grumbling about the bugs still to be worked out, and sales
slowed to a trickle. “The word of mouth on the car sucked,” Musk
says. By Valentine’s Day 2013, Tesla was heading toward a death
spiral of missed sales targets and falling shares. The company’s
executives had also hidden the severity of the problem from the
intensely demanding Musk. When he found out, he pulled staff
from every department — engineering, design, finance, HR — into
a meeting and ordered them to call people who’d reserved Teslas
and close those sales. “If we don’t deliver these cars, we are
f---ed,” Musk told the employees, according to a person at the
meeting. “So I don’t care what job you were doing. Your new job
is delivering cars.”
Musk fired senior executives, promoted hungry junior
employees, and assigned former Daimler executive Jerome Guillen
to fix Tesla’s repair service and get its glitchy cars back on
the road. He also proposed what eventually became his public
guarantee of the resale price of the Model S: Unsatisfied buyers
would get their money back from Musk personally if they couldn’t
sell their car at a price comparable to that of another luxury
model.
In the first week of March 2013, Musk reached out to Page,
say the two people familiar with the talks. By that point, so
many customers were deferring orders that Musk had quietly shut
down Tesla’s factory. Considering his straits, Musk drove a hard
bargain. He proposed that Google buy Tesla outright — with a
healthy premium, the company would have cost about $6 billion at
the time — and pony up another $5 billion in capital for factory
expansions. He also wanted guarantees that Google wouldn’t break
up or shut down his company before it produced a third-
generation electric car aimed at the mainstream auto market. He
insisted that Page let him run a Google-owned Tesla for eight
years, or until it began pumping out such a car. Page accepted
the overall proposal and shook on the deal.
In the weeks that followed, Musk, Page, and Google’s
lawyers negotiated the specific terms of the deal. There were a
couple of sticking points around Musk’s financial demands that
complicated the talks and kept the two sides apart.
While the two companies were negotiating, Tesla’s frenzy of
sales calls began to pay off, and a lot more people started
buying the Model S. With its quarter drawing to a close and two
weeks worth of cash in its coffers, Tesla began selling
thousands of cars, enough to post an $11 million quarterly
profit on $562 million in revenue.
Within two weeks of that announcement, the company’s shares
had doubled, and Tesla had repaid its $465 million loan from the
U.S. Department of Energy early, with interest. Musk broke off
his negotiations with Google. He no longer needed a savior.Read
this next: 
* Will Tesla Ever Make Money?
* Why Everybody Loves Tesla
* Want Elon Musk to Hire You at Tesla? Work for Apple


To contact the author on this story:
Ashlee Vance at avance3@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor on this story:
Jeff Muskus at jmuskus@bloomberg.net

>>> Morgan Stanley beats by $0.06, beats on revs --> +2.10% in pre mkt (150k)

Morgan Stanley beats by $0.06, beats on revs

Reports Q1 (Mar) adj. earnings from continuing operations of $0.85 per share, excluding a $0.29 tax benefit, $0.06 better than the Capital IQ Consensus of $0.79; GAAP revenues rose 10.1% year/year to $9.91 bln vs the $9.19 bln consensus.
  • Institutional Securities net revenues excluding DVA were $5.3 billion. Revenues for the quarter reflect strong performance in Equity sales and trading across products and regions, improved performance in Fixed Income and Commodities sales and trading on higher levels of client activity and solid results in Investment Banking.
  • Wealth Management net revenues were $3.8 billion. The pre-tax margin was 22%.6 Fee based asset flows for the quarter were $13.3 billion, with total client assets of $2.0 trillion at quarter end.
  • Investment Management reported net revenues of $669 million with assets under management or supervision of $406 billion.
  • The annualized return on average common equity from continuing operations was 14.2% in the current quarter, or 10.1% excluding DVA and the net discrete tax benefit

>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers
Gapping up: GENE +26.5%, PVCT +13.3%, HAS +8.2%, HQCL +6.9%, VPCO +6.3%, CLLS +5.8%, GFI +3%, FSM +2.9%, HMY +2.6%, JKS +2.4%, SVA +2.4%, MRK +2%, MS +2%, NVO +1.8%, HSBC +1.6%, RIO +1.5%, CHRS +1.4%, BHP +1.4%, COST +1.3%, MAT +1.3%, ING +1.3%, FB +1.3%, PBR +1.3%, ABBV +1.1%, RDN +1%, MTG +1%, PLD +0.5%

Gapping down: WPCS -23.1%, FARO -8.4%, ADXS -5.8%, NBG -3.4%, CRIS -3.2%, JRJC -2.8%, WUBA -2.1%, TEDU -1.5%, SLV -1.4%, LFC -1.1%, KORS -1%, TEVA -1%, SAN -1%

(BFW) Nokia Said to Plan Return to Consumer Phone Mkt in ’16: Re/Code


Nokia Said to Plan Return to Consumer Phone Mkt in ’16: Re/Code
2015-04-20 10:18:34.845 GMT


By Christopher Kingdon
(Bloomberg) -- Co. aims to rejoin the consumer mobile
market as early as next year, Re/code reports, citing two
unidentified people briefed on Nokia’s plans.
* Co. has number of other technology projects, incl. some in
the virtual reality arena
* NOTE: Nov. 2014, Nokia Introduces Android Tablet in Return
to Mobile Devices NSN NF8I276S9729<GO>


For Related News and Information:
First Word scrolling panel: FIRST<GO>
First Word newswire: NH BFW<GO>

To contact the reporter on this story:
Christopher Kingdon in London at +44-20-3525-0872 or
ckingdon@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Clyde Eltzroth at +1-212-617-1879 or
celtzroth1@bloomberg.net
Christopher Kingdon

Wansquare : Hedge funds : small is beautiful

A l’heure où les obligations affichent des rendements très faibles, voire négatifs, alors que les prix des actions s’envolent, de plus en plusm d’investisseurs se tournent vers les hedge funds, en privilégiant les petits.

Les investisseurs changeraient­ils de stratégie ? Selon une étude du HFR (Hedge Fund Indices) pour le Wall Street Journal, les petits hedge funds ont collectémautant de fonds que les « titans», un changement de cible pour les investisseurs qui ont pendant longtemps privilégié les grands noms du secteur. En effet, les hedge funds de moins de 5 milliards d’actifs ont réussi à capter la moitié des m76,4 milliards de dollars apportés par les investisseurs l’année dernière, après mavoir recueilli 37% des nouveaux capitaux investis en 2013. Un revirement en contraste avec les quatre dernières années, où les grands hedge funds ont dominé le marché avec 93 milliards de fonds collectés contre 63 milliards pour les petits et moyens fonds de couverture.

Plusieurs explications peuvent être apportées à cette mutation, tout d’abord, le contexte économique actuel est favorable aux hedge funds en général : la forte volatilité des marchés financiers, la chute des cours du pétrole, la faiblesse de certaines monnaies et surtout les rendements obligataires très faibles voir négatifs ainsi que le prix des actions élevées poussent les investisseurs à migrer vers d’autres actifs beaucoup plus rentables. Ensuite, certains investisseurs ne se privent pas de rejoindre des plus petits hedge funds tels que Hutchin Hill Capital ou Birch Grove Capital, dégageant de meilleures performances pour des frais moins élevés, comparés aux grands mastodontes : « Je préfère investir dans des fonds qui sont petits ou de taille moyenne, où les gestionnaires sont très motivés et plus alignés avec nous », déclare Jagdeep Singh Bachher, directeur des investissements pour l'Université de Californie, qui compte environ 91 milliards de dollars en actifs de placement.

GOOGLE TRANSLATION
At a time when bonds have very low or even negative returns, while stock prices soar, more and plusm of investors turn to hedge funds, focusing on children.
They change investor strategy? A study of the HFR (Hedge Fund Indices) for the Wall Street Journal, small hedge funds collected as much money as the "Titans", a change of focus for investors who have long favored the big names in the industry. Indeed, hedge funds under 5 billion of assets managed to capture half of m76,4 billion made by investors last year, after MAView collected 37% of new capital invested in 2013. A turnaround in contrast to the past four years, where large hedge funds have dominated the market with 93 billion funds raised against 63 billion for small and medium hedge funds.
Several explanations can be made to this mutation, first of all, the current economic climate is favorable for hedge funds in general: the high volatility of financial markets, oil prices fall, the weakness of certain currencies and especially bond yields very low negative view and the high share prices pushing investors to migrate to other more profitable assets. Second, some investors do not hesitate to join smaller hedge funds such as Hutchin Hill Capital or Birch Grove Capital, generating better performance for lower fees compared to the great behemoths: "I prefer to invest in funds that are small or medium size, where managers are very motivated and aligned with us, "said Jagdeep Singh Bachher, chief investment officer for the University of California, which has about $ 91 billion in investment assets.