The Tesla Motors IPO is the talk of the town today, but to me it is a bad flashback to the poor IPO practices of the 1990s. The electric car company priced 1 million shares yesterday at $17 per share and it is expected to start trading today.

Tesla doesn't make a dime, and it's still a cash-flow negative entity, bringing back fond memories of the late 1990s when hundreds of unprofitable venture-capital backed firms were floated on the public markets, making entrepreneurs and venture capitalists rich while draining the accounts of millions of unsuspecting investors. A very small percentage of these compeanies ended up doing well. It's a high-risk prospect. This is not an IPO for my taste. When investing in public companies, I prefer companies that actually make money.

But set aside these fiscal details for a moment and consider this: Tesla sells expensive electric cars -- each of which require complex battery packs made up of thousands of cells -- for close to $100,000 each. They are trying to market this product in the teeth of the worst recession in 100 years.

Here are some more facts about Tesla you may want to consider before you buy any of the stock:

  • The company's loss in the first quarter rose to $29.5 million from $16 million a year ago
  • Production of Tesla's sedan, which is years behind schedule and is consider the key to making the company money, has slipped again. The big guys, such as GM and Nissan, are catching up in electric vehicle production.
  • The company will have a market cap around $1.3 billion after it floats.
  • Venture Beat did some fine work in uncovering that founder and CEO Elon Musk has been having cash-flow issues. Might that have rushed the IPO along?

Good luck, Tesla.

I found it kind of bizarre that Tesla Motors has filed for an IPO and is looking to raise $100 million from public investors. This comes about four months after the company landed a $465 million taxpayer loan to build factories to churn out really expensive money-losing cars that help rich people boost their egos and make them feel more "green." Let me get this straight: After borrowing half-a-billion dollars from you and I as taxpayers, they want to sell $100 million of stock to the public, of which half will be reserved to pay off the money they borrowed from the taxpayers? Okay. The fact is the company has been bleeding money for years and says it doesn't have any designs on being profitable until 2012, according to the filing. Huh? I thought that the "new IPO market" was supposed to be for profitable companies, not for extremely high-risk speculative car companies that have no track record of making money. Remember, after the tech bubble we were supposed to dial back on venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, investment bankers, and other snake-oil salesman from robbing granny's retirement funds for speculative IPOs. What, is it 1999 again?
Greentech Media, a fine place to go for everything green and techy, says that 2010 promises to be a big year in the green technology IPO market, with potential IPO candidates stacking up like cars on the 405 in L.A. Companies making a bid for public market debuts include thin-film solar play Solyndra, Chinese solar firm JinkoSolar, and yet another Chinese solar polysilicon maker Daqo Energy. Those companies filed for IPOs seeking to raise $300 million, $100 million, and $100 million, respectively. That's $500 million in capital among four companies, for those of you who can't bother with the math. Greentech says that other companies that might seek IPOs include Nanosolar once it gets to $50 million in revenue.   SunRun and SolarCity are other potential IPOs. Greentech says other potential companies include: We can only hope the markets hold up to support these IPOs, which would make for a very interesting 2010 and bring a lot of fresh capital to the green technology market.