Hacker News Reader

Comment by Analemma_ | Hacker News Reader

> Egomaniacal, narcissistic, who cares? There is decent consensus that these qualities benefit entrepreneurs and leaders.

It's possible that they benefit leaders on average but can also cause black-swan cases of terrible decision-making, which I think is the argument against the SolarCity purchase here. Tragic flaws and all that.

> I'm not aware of anyone doing this strategically, building bridges from both the supply and demand side, and at this scale.

I mentioned this in a previous comment about the SolarCity merger: most people agree it makes sense strategically. We're wondering whether it's a good move tactically, for a company in a stable-but-iffy cash flow situation to buy another company that was hemorrhaging cash and wasn't expected to continue as a going concern for much longer.

View on HN

What are the alternatives? I think we can make an objective judgment on this tactic vs. any other?

The safe alternative (from Tesla's perspective) would have been to let SolarCity die. That's why people are questioning Musk's actions on this deal: they look like he's putting his own interests ahead of Tesla's.

First, my point is that there is a larger objective where synergy between the companies exist and serve a strategic purpose. Namely, each is a component in building a next-gen energy company.

So, the tactics Analemma_ 50 and I are discussing are what other sustainable, renewable supply options exist. Because that is what SolarCity represents. Does it make sense to buy troubled SolarCity before they go under, or does it make more sense to buy another solar (or insert renewable here), or does it make more sense to start over on that component. Those are the alternative tactics I am interested in, which I am not aware of.

>>building a next-gen energy company Agreed. They're aiming for GE, not GM. (to repeat myself from the last thread on TSLA)

>>Does it make sense to buy troubled SolarCity before they go under

From an investment standpoint, I think optimally you let Solar City go into bankruptcy, buy it for pennies on the dollar, and then you cherry pick the components you want and sell off any others that you think you can. Can someone do that as a chair of both though, not sure (i guess so?).

Maybe they didn't do that because they see someone else coming in - a new challenger? Or, he sees long term something that others don't. Or maybe he's just ego-maniacal.

All fair options, but sacrificing one group of shareholders for another seems to carry its own risks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com