DAX+0,57 % EUR/USD+0,32 % Gold0,00 % Öl (Brent)-0,18 %

ROUNDUP/'WSJ': FBI ermittelt wegen Falschangaben zu Model 3 gegen Tesla (Seite 44) | Diskussion im Forum

Begriffe und/oder Benutzer


Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 60.203.391 von faultcode am 26.03.19 22:43:37
U.S.: Opinion: The potholes in our roads are about to get worse because of electric cars
Published: Mar 26, 2019 8:28 a.m. ET

Gasoline taxes already don’t cover the full cost of building and maintaining our roads

U.S. roads and bridges are in abysmal shape — and that was before the recent winter storms made things even worse.

In fact, the government rates over one-quarter of all urban interstates as in fair or poor condition and one-third of U.S. bridges need repair.

To fix the potholes and crumbling roads, federal, state and local governments rely on fuel taxes, which raise more than $80 billion a year and pay for around three-quarters of what the U.S. spends on building new roads and maintaining them.

I recently purchased an electric car, the Tesla Model 3. While swerving down a particularly rutted highway in New York, the economist in me began to wonder, what will happen to the roads as fewer and fewer cars run on gasoline? Who will pay to fix the streets?

Fuel taxes 101

Every time you go to the pump, each gallon of fuel you purchase puts money into a variety of pockets.

About half goes to the drillers that extract oil from the earth. Just under a quarter pays the refineries to turn crude into gasoline. And around 6% goes to distributors.

The rest, or typically about 20% of every gallon of gas, goes to various governments to maintain and enhance the U.S. transportation’s infrastructure.

Currently, the federal government charges 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline, which provides 85% to 90% of the Highway Trust Fund that finances most federal spending on highways and mass transit.

State and local government charge their own taxes that vary widely. Combined with the national levy, fuel taxes range from over 70 cents per gallon in high-tax states like California and Pennsylvania to just over 30 cents in states like Alaska and Arizona. The difference is a key reason the price of gasoline changes so dramatically when you cross state lines.

While people often complain when their fuel prices go up, the real burden of gasoline taxes has been falling for decades. The federal government’s 18.4 cent tax, for example, was set way back in 1993. The tax would have to be 73% higher, or 32 cents, to have the same purchasing power.

On top of that, today’s vehicles get better mileage, which means fewer gallons of gas and less money collected in taxes.

And electric vehicles, of course, don’t need gasoline, so their drivers don’t pay a dime in fuel taxes.

A crisis in the making

At the moment, this doesn’t present a crisis because electric vehicles represent only a small proportion of the U.S. fleet.

Slightly more than 1 million plug-in vehicles have been sold since 2012 when the first mass market models hit the roads. While impressive, that figure is just a fraction of the over 250 million vehicles currently registered and legally drivable on U.S. highways.

But sales of electric cars are growing rapidly as how far they can travel before recharging and prices fall. Dealers sold a record 360,000 electric vehicles last year, up 80% from 2017.

If sales continue at this breakneck pace, electric cars will become mainstream in no time. In addition, governments in Europe and China are actively steering consumers away from fossil fuels and toward their electric counterparts.

In other words, the time will come very soon when the U.S. and individual states will no longer be able to rely on fuel taxes to mend American roads.

What states are doing about it

Some states are already anticipating this eventuality and are crafting solutions.

One involves charging owners of electric cars a fixed fee. So far, 17 states have done just that, with annual taxes ranging from $100 to $200 per car.

There are a few of problems with a fixed-fee approach. For example, the proceeds only go to state coffers, even though the driver also uses out-of-state roads and national highways.

Another is that it’s regressive. Since a fixed fee hits all owners equally, regardless of income or how much they drive, it hurts poorer consumers most. During debate in Maine over a proposed $250 annual EV fee, opponents noted that the average person currently pays just a third of that — $82 — in state fuel taxes.

Oregon is testing another solution. Instead of paying fuel taxes, drivers are able to volunteer for a program that lets them pay based on miles driven rather than how many gallons they consume. The state installs tracking devices in their cars — whether electric or conventional — and drivers get a refund for the gas tax they pay at the pump.

The program raises privacy and fairness concerns especially for rural residents who have few other transportation options.

Another way forward

I believe there’s another solution.

Currently, carmakers and others are deploying large networks of charging stations throughout the country. Examples include Tesla’s Superchargers, Chargepoint, EVgo and Volkswagen’s proposed mobile chargers.

They operate just like gas pumps, only they provide kilowatts of electricity instead of gallons of fuel. While electric vehicle owners are free to use their own power outlets, anyone traveling long distances has to use these stations. And because charging at home is a hassle — requiring eight to 20 hours — I believe most drivers will increasingly choose the convenience and speed of the charging stations, which can fill up an EV in as little as 30 minutes.

So one option could be for governments to tack on their taxes to the bill, charging a few extra cents per kilowatt “pumped into the tank.” Furthermore, I would argue that the tax, whether on fuel or power, shouldn’t be a fixed amount but a percentage, which makes it less likely to be eroded by inflation over time.

It is in everyone’s interest to ensure there are funds to maintain the nation’s road. A small percentage tax on EV charging stations will help maintain U.S. roads without hurting electric vehicles’ chances of becoming a mass-market product.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 60.193.583 von faultcode am 26.03.19 03:01:25
SEC vs EM: Oral argument ("mündliche Verhandlung") am 4.4.2019 --> Do nächste Woche
Zitat von faultcode: ...--> dann kann ab morgen die Richterin mMn entscheiden --> ich bin oben von spätestens bis Di nächster Woche ausgegangen..



(Volumen stimmt wahrscheinlich hier nicht, wie ich mal feststellte - Preise sollten stimmen)

=> ich setzte heute einen eher aggressiven KO Turbo Short (OE) mit z.Z. ~USD329 ab morgen auf Stop Loss, da ich von einer positiven Marktreaktion im Q1-Berichtsumfeld ausgehe: "Doch nicht so schlimm, wie alle sagen!"

=> alle anderen (gestaffelten) Short-Positionen bleiben allerdings drin, da ich mit ihnen bislang ganz gut durchgekommen bin. Also Abstand zur "Rape zone" ~USD255...~USD320 und zeitlich, bei Put OS, auch noch mit Puffer versehen --> Stichwort hier "Theta Burn"
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 60.203.907 von faultcode am 27.03.19 00:56:11Tesla's Elon Musk, SEC to face off in U.S. court on April 4


Legal experts have said a contempt finding could subject Musk to a higher fine, further restrictions, or even removal from Tesla’s board or as chief executive.

So weit waren wir auch schon mit unseren Vermutungen ...
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 60.207.414 von xwin am 27.03.19 11:49:16
persönliches Erscheinen von EM notwendig?
Merci für die Link --> lässt diese Frage aber auch offen für mich:

Lawyers for Elon Musk and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will square off in a Manhattan courtroom next week over whether the Tesla Inc chief executive should be held in contempt over one of his tweets.

--> ich schätze, im Laufe der Woche wird Klarheit herrschen, ob EM nur wieder seine Anwälte vorschicken kann, oder vor der Richterin in person antanzen muss...

--> die Anwälte aus den SEC-Dokus werden mMn sowieso persönlich dort auftreten

--> soweit ist gestern noch erkennen konnte, sind "normale" Prozessbeobachter, außerhalb der Presse, zugelassen (falls Platz!)

--> das wird ein Riesending mMn, sollte EM selber der Richterin Rede und Anwort stehen müssen!
Die ganze Sache wird im Vorfeld der Anhörung immer pikanter :

Tesla’s New Chairman Says Elon Musk Uses Twitter ‘Wisely’


Bestätigt, dass das Board Musk überhaupt nicht kontrolliert bzw. keine Veranlassung sieht, ihn zu kontrollieren. Und die Aussage kommt von Denholm unmittelbar vor der Anhörung. Ist sie unfassbar dumm oder sehr schlau und will Musk loswerden ?

Es ist halt die Frage, welche Schlüsse die Richterin daraus zieht. Ansich kann sie ja nur einen Schluss ziehen aber Musk hatte bis jetzt immer so viel Glück gehabt.

Zu Robyn Denholm, die von Telstra (CFO) zu Tesla (Board Chairman) gewechselt ist:

Scheinbar hat sie bei ihrem einzigen Auftritt als Telstra CFO falsche Zahlen vorgetragen :

Overburdened Robyn Denholm reads out wrong numbers


But everyone was working from the wrong set of figures, Denholm included. In her first and last briefing as CFO (she only assumed the role last October), she committed the unenviable sin of reading out inaccurate numbers in her opening statement.

Man bekommt den Eindruck, dass diese Frau sich nicht so sehr für Details interessiert aber eben einen grossen Willen zur Macht hat. Ob ihr irgendwann klar wird, dass sie auch Mitverantwortung trägt ? Vielleicht nach der Insolvenz von Tesla, wenn es möglicherweise Klagen wegen Bilanzbetrugs gegen das Unternehmen gibt ?
Elon Musk just emailed all Tesla employees to 'clear things up' about the company's plan to close stores

• Elon Musk sent an email to all Tesla employees Wednesday with details about the company's plan for retail stores.

• In February, the company blindsided many employees when it announced it would close many of its stores and shift all sales online.

• In his company-wide email Wednesday, Musk said that while all sales will be online, some customers still want to speak to a Tesla representative or take a test drive.

• He also said that underperforming stores will be given a fair opportunity to prove they deserve to stay in business.


--> unten EM's Original-Email: daraus:

...What is meant by "all sales will be online" is just that the act of purchasing a Tesla will always be done via the potential new owner’s phone or computer. This is true whether they are at home or in a store. Unlike buying from other carmakers, ordering a Tesla doesn’t require any *physical paperwork*...
(FC: Format)

--> "physical paperwork" würde auch möglicherweise zu viele Spuren hinterlassen :D
--> daher auch besser nur mit Kunden-Geräten bestellen

=> ich bin mir jetzt schon sicher: auch dieser Aspekt der Geschichte wird einen Tages aufgegriffen werden
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 60.213.245 von faultcode am 27.03.19 21:00:51..und EM beim Suspendieren der unangenehmen Wahrheit:


--> https://twitter.com/ElonBachman --> "Account suspended"

--> allerdings kann diese Aktion (mMn) diesmal nach hinten losgehen
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 60.192.359 von faultcode am 25.03.19 20:52:31
Zitat von faultcode: ...
While PwC audits Tesla’s consolidated financials, subsidiaries may use local auditors, e.g. Tesla’s Singapore entity it moved $610 million through on 11-Feb-2019 (likely in relation to the Gigafactory 3 construction in Shanghai)....

=> aus MM04/2019:

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 60.214.304 von faultcode am 28.03.19 00:56:35=> der Protest hat geholfen: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-27/twitter-suspends-t…

...Perhaps this Twitter suspension will also have the opposite of its desired effect and divert attention to the Tesla related deaths that were brought to light in the above linked spreadsheet...

--> so ist es. Aber das lernt der Mann, der erst fast alle seine Verkaufsgeschäfte schliessen will, um sie kurze Zeit später teilweise wieder zu öffnen, erst noch.

Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben