[sobbybutter]

I think this is really foolish. Yes, there is a benefit to the consumer but it brings with it a very large liability risk for Tesla. I would much rather purchase a large-ticket item such as an automobile from a company that is robust enough to service the thing 10 years down the road than get a better upfront deal with the possibility that the company will go bust. I hope and believe that Tesla will succeed, but what if there are unforeseen problems with the cars later on? In that case, I'd want Tesla to be financially healthy enough to take large, unpredictable blows.

[ghaff]

I suppose you could cynically say that if things evolve in such a way that this creates a huge liability (batteries don't last, reliability is bad, etc.), then Tesla doesn't really care because they're toast anyway.

[sobbybutter]

Just because there is risk in the current state doesn't make it okay to add more risk. This gives small upside to the customer with potentially large downside. And the effect of these risks may not be linear. For instance, imagine two events: 1) There is a major recall that puts a strain on the Tesla's finances, but Tesla remains solvent. 2) Residual value is less than anticipated (for whatever reason), costing Tesla a lot of money, but Tesla remains solvent. Now imagine a situation where #1 correlates to #2, say that there is a major recall that also negatively affects residual value. That blow could be much worse than each of these events occurring independently. I'm not trying to predict the future here, all I'm saying is that being less fragile is inherently better than being more fragile.