Mr. Musk âwent overnight from being a genius to an idiot,â said Joseph Dennison, portfolio manager at Zevenbergen Capital Investments, a large Tesla shareholder.
Largely overlooked in the din, however, is that few, if any, of Teslaâs harshest critics are Teslaâs current shareholders. And they are the only ones who truly matter, because theyâll have a vote on the deal and itâs their money on the line.
Teslaâs four biggest shareholders after Mr. Musk are mutual fund managers, including the industry giants Fidelity, Vanguard and T. Rowe Price. None have announced how theyâll vote, but they have a history of supporting management generally, and specifically Mr. Musk.
Even before the deal was announced, a Fidelity portfolio manager, Gavin Baker, told investors, âWe are fans not just of Tesla products but of the concepts underpinning the firm and potential future partnerships ahead of it.â
Ronald Baron, founder of Baron Capital, which owns 1.5 million Tesla shares, said his initial reaction was, âWhy on earth would anyone want to do this? Canât you buy these panels much cheaper in China?â
He said he had looked into investing in SolarCity several times, and each time decided to pass (a wise decision considering that SolarCity shares have fallen more than 50 percent this year.)
But after further research and discussions with Tesla management, Mr. Baron told me his concerns had been largely assuaged. âUntil I read the proxy, I canât tell you how Iâm going to vote,â he said. âBut the more we researched this, the more sense it made to combine Tesla with solar panels. We believe they can make better products, make them more efficiently, and realize tremendous savings by selling the two products together.â
From Zip2 to OpenAI, a look at the entrepreneurâs many companies.
Other investors have also been reconsidering the merits of the deal. Tesla shares have more than recovered what they lost after the deal was announced. And investors brushed off an announcement on Wednesday of worse-than-expected quarterly losses, focusing instead on higher vehicle production and new orders.
Tesla tried to do its best to allay concerns about Mr. Muskâs conflict of interest. Mr. Musk will not vote, nor will other insiders who own shares in both companies, a step that was not mandated by law.
Tesla maintains that various committees of directors that it says are independent vigorously negotiated terms of the deal, and that Mr. Musk did not know the price before it was agreed on. When the deal became final on Monday, the price was slightly lower than that announced in June, suggesting some genuine haggling went on.
But realistically, Mr. Muskâs dominant role in both companies means that âitâs an intractable problem,â said Charles M. Elson, an expert in corporate governance at the University of Delaware. âThereâs no way to resolve this. The only way would be not to do it.â
Tesla says that would elevate corporate governance purity at the expense of common sense. âWeâve tried to take every appropriate stepâ to minimize the conflict issues, Todd A. Maron, Teslaâs general counsel, told me this week. âBut if there are synergies, which there are, and we can make the best product under one companyâs ownership, and we can persuade the independent shareholders to support the deal, there shouldnât be a strict prohibition just because someone is on both sides.â
Mr. Dennison of Zevenbergen Capital said that focusing on conflicts âis missing the bigger picture.â
âTo make these future products as good, integrated and efficient as possible,â he added, âyou need the two companies working together.â He said his firm had not announced how it would vote, but he has typically sided with management.
As for making its own batteries and solar panels and being vertically integrated, Tesla maintains it had little choice. âTesla does not believe in vertical integration as an objective in and of itself,â Mr. Maron said, but âgoes down that path because thereâs no better option.â Tesla has said its planned auto production volume would consume âtodayâs entire worldwide production of lithium ion batteries.â
Given Teslaâs longer-term vision and strategy, the deal should not have come as any great surprise. Mr. Musk talked about solar power in his âmaster planâ 10 years ago, and last month he elaborated in his âmaster plan, part deux.â
âCreate a smoothly integrated and beautiful solar-roof-with-battery product that just works, empowering the individual as their own utility, and then scale that throughout the world,â he said. âWe canât do this well if Tesla and SolarCity are different companies, which is why we need to combine and break down the barriers inherent to being separate companies.â
Admittedly, thatâs a long-term vision that has little to do with the latest quarterly earnings. If Tesla owners were plugging their cars into outlets with electricity from coal-fired power plants, there would not be much sustainability to get excited about.
âMuskâs vision from Day 1 10 years ago was to accelerate sustainable energy, â said Mr. Dennison. âThatâs a much bigger vision than building cars.â
And vision is what Teslaâs shareholders are buying into, just as Amazon investors put their faith in Jeff Bezos. Thatâs why, for all the controversy, the SolarCity deal will almost surely be approved by Tesla shareholders.
âIf youâre investing in a Musk business, youâre investing in something that hasnât happened yet, so itâs risky,â said Mr. Baron. âBut I love the guy. Heâs totally focused. Heâs already accomplished what people said could never be done.â
Mr. Dennison agreed. âYouâre investing in the people who make and execute decisions,â he said. âThis is obviously tied to a bigger picture and a longer-term road map than most. But Tesla management has executed on all the goals theyâve laid out. Iâd say this is an investment based on faith, but not blind faith.â