1. Introduction
To maximize shareholder value, the company engaged in the practice of financial risk control and increased the value of the company if it was done and created for value of our shareholders by implication. Value-added generated by two sources as follows: (1) to minimize taxes of the costs of financial distress (2) to minimize the possibility of the company that may be forced to give up a positive project because of its lack of internally generated funds to do so. Opposite to maximize shareholder value, it is the management of risk aversion hypothesis that the manager will seek to maximize their own personal well-being. This means that the management staff at the time, engaged in financial risk control for practices at the expense of shareholders. Especially when the shareholders of interests are not exactly the same managers who may pursue risk management strategies, and it is changed in their personal wealth, interest rates, commodity prices or the value of foreign currency cash. These steps can be taken, regardless of the wealth of the shareholders of the consequences of those decisions. Therefore, whether to maximize shareholders’ value or financial risk control for driving the participation of force in risk management practices that must be followed. Financial risk arises from the uncertainty in a given counterparty's ability to meet its obligations. More types of opponents and expanding various forms of obligations means that the financial risk control has arrived to the forefront of risk control activities in the service industry companies. One of the most important forms of these practices is related to financial risk control, especially for the companies in the automotive industry (Bodnar, 2005).
Tesla Motors, as a Silicon Valley company, possesses design, production and sale of electric vehicles and electric vehicle power components. Tesla Motors is a publicly traded company, which has been widespread concern in the stock exchange. Tesla in the automotive industry is the second model of the Tesla Roadster and the first all-electric sports car. Its s-type is all-electric luxury sedan. Although still expensive, it is basically a cheaper sports car. Tesla also sells electric power components, including lithium-ion battery pack, and the other carmakers are Daimler and Toyota. It is envisioned as an independent car manufacturer that is special for Tesla with the final quality of the production of all-electric vehicles at affordable ordinary consumers (Glaum, 2007).
The purpose of this study is to provide some of the answers in this regard. More specifically, its goal is to reveal the state of financial risk control for Tesla Motors in the automotive industry.
2. Main Body
2.1 Tools for financial risk control
With the tips in some cases through regulatory tasks, other financial institutions have been looking for new means to measure and control its financial risk. Adding fuel to the fire carried out a series of related activities, it involves the rapid pace of product innovation, further financial institutions to diversify into new geographic and product markets area, as well as an enhanced credit intermediation rate. The effect has been that we have witnessed the development of more sophisticated financial risk measurement and management methods. It has been the introduction of more complex hedging method. Even more interesting, especially interested in, it has been the development of the model that can be used to migrate to measure financial risk at the portfolio level, and it can also be used to allocate the capital. These can be broadly divided into two types; proprietary financial risk control models and the vendor's sales model. Despite the nature of their general application, it is almost universally quite complex. As clear reasons, there is not enough information you can get about the ability for the former category of these models. However, some of the details are generally the latter category. This category includes financial risk control models as follows.
First, for JP Morgan sales, its financial risk control is one of the first model portfolios and developed for the assessment of financial risk. It incorporates a method for evaluating changes in counterparty financial quality of the portfolio's value-at-risk generated. It establishes a risk profile for each counterparty portfolio and combined with the volatility of individual instruments to model the volatility of the total portfolio. The loan loss reserve sets methods to make it assess the risk capital illiquid loans environment. Therefore, the method may be better suited for a company whose loan portfolio of retail and institutional rather than those bonds (Fatemi, 2009). In addition, as a loan pricing corporation, KMV portfolio manager measures the risk and return characteristics of the portfolio, and allows users to explore personal assets at risk to change the incremental effect. It also provides a large combination of changes to assess the potential changes and inspection of the tactical and strategic effect. It can be a valuable tool to determine the allocation of the total capital requirements and economic capital (Luck, 2011). Finally, McKinsey Company financial risk concept is achieved in default, and the financial risk control is estimated in specific countries and industries. It uses the default rates of speculation into national and industry-specific global macroeconomic development. It then maps these price cumulative probabilities of migration by country and industry (Howton, 2010).
This brief description of these models have shown that increasing the complex of financial risk control has been caused by the same set of complex design models to measure and manage the risk. Then it is to provide a picture of financial results for Tesla Motors in the United States using these models as above.
2.2 Financial risk control for Tesla Motors
Income for the second quarter of 2011 was $ 28.4 million, which is a 36% increase than in the previous quarterly report. The gross profit margin increased to 22%, including 19% from the previous quarter and 8% from the second quarter of 2010. The net loss for the quarter to $ 29.5 million, compared to the previous quarter to $ 38.5 million. It is reported that higher gross margins and stable top-line growth are driven by the best quarter since the third quarter of 2009, with new sports car orders and growing power activities. It is shown that people can drive the beautifully designed and high-performance electric cars, and it stressed Tesla's technology leadership. With respect to the S-type development, it can make its components and vehicle production for facilities in Tesla Motors (Dolde, 2005). However, there are certain risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially from those projected. Following important factors, it could cause actual results and different material with these forward-looking statements: consumers are willing to adopt electric vehicles and Tesla's electric vehicles, especially Tesla's ability to draw down of facilities related to the risk of the U.S. department of energy. Tesla is able to execute its planned development, production and marketing and sales of the planning mode trumpet electric car, in order to reduce the cost of full control and management of its business and competition in the automotive market generally and the alternative fuel vehicle market, especially by establishing, maintaining and strengthening the brand. Although Tesla Motors has its cutting-edge technology, and many of its competitors have several generations for people, and be able to achieve production efficiency of facilities, the Tesla Motors can only fall over itself at this point. In addition, they also have a comprehensive network of services and strong customer loyalty. According to these data, Tesla Motors’s financial position seems relatively stable, but its future health is heavily dependent on the successful model of S. As of now, they have a loan facility of up to $ 465 million and have raised about $ 480 million dollars in funds from the stock issue. Start in December this year to repay the loan, which may have a direct impact on mobility. Management believes that it will meet the needs of working capital, cash inflow generated in the case of sales shortage of the Model S, and there is always the possibility of another stock issue, although this is not a desirable option (Mian, 2009).
3 Discussion
From the above analysis, it can be quite easily seen that other companies in the automotive industry use or intend to use the internal financial risk control model. Interestingly, with only one exception, Tesla Motors use its own proprietary models financial risk control and can also use the supplier sales model. Therefore, it is used for financial risk control, through an internal model and proprietary one, but also to be done so. The most widely used models on the market are the second type between the proprietary models, but others are not widely used. In addition, it seems wider for the use of these non-models trading than their trading bonds.
4 Conclusion
In this paper, it can be found that Tesla Motors in the automotive industry determines the financial risk control by taking advantage of models as above. Nearly half of the models surveyed are able to deal with the financial risk. Surprisingly, only a small number of the models are used for proprietary or vendor sales risk model. Interestingly, those who use their own internal models also use the vendor's sales model. Overall, it is a wide application of these models for financial risk control.
5 References
Bodnar, G. (2005). How corporations use derivatives. Financial Management, 24, 104-25.
Dolde, W. (2005). Hedging, leverage and primitive risk. Journal of Financial Engineering, 6, 187-216.
Fatemi, A. (2009). Risk management practices in German firms. Managerial Finance, 26, 114-30.
Glaum, M. (2007). The management of foreign exchange risk in UK multinationals: an empirical investigation. Accounting and Business Research, 21, 3-13.
Howton, S. (2010). Currency and interest-rate derivatives use in US firms. Financial Management, 27, 111-21.
Luck, W. (2011). Elemente eines risiko-managementsystems. Der Betrieb, 51, 8-14.
Mian, S. (2009). Evidence on corporate hedging policy. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 6, 419-39.
1。介绍
为了实现股东价值最大化，公司从事财务风险控制的做法，增加了公司的价值，如果有人做过暗示，并为我们的股东价值创造。增值所产生的两个来源如下：（1）金融危机（2）尽量减少税收成本，该公司可能被迫放弃了积极的项目，因为它缺乏内部产生的资金的可能性降到最低这样做。相反的，以实现股东价值最大化，它是管理的风险厌恶情绪假说经理将寻求最大限度地发挥自己的个人福祉。这意味着，管理人员的时候，从事财务风险控制的做法以牺牲股东。尤其是当股东的利益是不完全一样的经理人可能追求风险管理策略，并改变他们的个人财富，利率，商品价格或价值的外币现金。可以采取这些步骤，不管这些决定的后果股东的财富。因此，无论是股东价值最大化或金融风险的控制，用于驱动力在风险管理实践中，必须遵循的参与。金融风险来自指定对手方履行其义务的能力的不确定性。更多类型的对手，扩大各种形式的义务意味着，金融风险控制在服务行业公司的风险控制活动的前沿已经抵达。这些做法的最重要的形式之一，是关系到金融风险控制，尤其是在汽车行业的公司（博德纳尔，2005年）。
特斯拉汽车公司，作为一家硅谷公司，拥有设计，生产和销售电动汽车和电动汽车动力组件。特斯拉汽车公司是一家上市公司，它已经在证券交易所的广泛关注。特斯拉在汽车行业的第二个模型的特斯拉Roadster和第一台全电动跑车。其S型电动豪华轿车。虽然仍然是昂贵的，它基本上是一个便宜的跑车。特斯拉还销售电力组件，包括锂离子电池组，和其他汽车制造商戴姆勒和丰田。它是作为一个独立的汽车制造商特斯拉是专门为负担得起的普通消费者（Glaum：2007）的全电动汽车生产的最终质量的设想。
这项研究的目的是在这方面提供了一些答案。更具体地说，它的目标是揭示财务风险控制的状态，特斯拉汽车公司在汽车行业。
2。主体
2.1财务风险控制工具
在某些情况下，通过监管任务的提示，其他金融机构一直在寻找新的手段来衡量和控制财务风险。添加燃料的火开展了一系列相关活动，它涉及到产品创新的快速步伐，进一步的金融机构多元化发展至新的地理和产品市场区，以及作为增强信用中介率。效果一直，我们亲眼目睹了更复杂的金融风险度量和管理方法的发展。它一直是引入更复杂的对冲方法。更有趣的，特别感兴趣的是，它一直模型可以用来迁移来衡量金融风险，在投资组合层面的发展，它也可以被用来分配资本。这些可以大致分为两种类型;专有的金融风险控制模型和供应商的销售模式。尽管他们普遍应用的性质，这几乎是普遍相当复杂。作为明确的原因，没有足够的信息，你可以得到关于前一类这些模型的能力。然而，一些细节上一般都属于后一类。此类别包括金融风险控制模型如下。
首先，摩根大通的销售，其财务风险控制是金融风险评估和开发的第一款车型组合。它集成了一个方法，用于评估交易对手的金融投资组合的价值在风险产生质量的变化。它建立了一个各交易对手的投资组合的风险状况，并结合个别工具的波动模型的总投资组合的波动性。贷款损失准备金设置的方法，使评估非流动性贷款的风险资本环境。因此，该方法可能更适合散户及机构投资者，而不是那些债券（法特米，2009），其贷款组合的公司。此外，由于贷款定价公司，KMV公司的投资组合经理衡量风险和收益特征的投资组合，并允许用户探索个人资产风险，改变增量效果。它还提供了一个大的变化相结合的战略和战术的效果，以评估潜在的变化和检查。它可以是一个有价值的工具来确定分配的总资本要求和经济资本（运气，2011）。最后，麦肯锡公司财务风险的概念，实现在默认情况下，估计在特定的国家和行业的财务风险控制。它采用炒作成国家和特定行业的全球宏观经济发展的违约率。然后迁移这些价格的累积概率映射国家和行业（Howton 2010）。
这简要说明这些模型已经表明，越来越复杂的财务风险控制已经造成相同的一组复杂的设计模式来衡量和管理风险。然后，它是提供一个图片使用上述这些模型在美国特斯拉汽车公司的财务业绩。
2.2特斯拉汽车公司的财务风险控制
2011年第二季度的收入为28.4百万美元，这是一个增长36％，比前一季度报告。毛利率上升至22％，包括从上一季度的19％和8％，从2010年第二季度。本季度的净亏损至2950万美元，与上一季度相比到38500000美元。据悉，较高的毛利率和稳定的顶线增长带动2009年第三季度以来最好的一个季度，新跑车的订单和不断增长的电力活动。这表明，人们可以开车精美的设计和高性能电动车，并强调特斯拉的技术领导地位。对于S型发展，它可以使其组成部分和车辆的生产设施在特斯拉汽车公司（Dolde，2005年）。不过，也有一定的风险和不确定性，实际结果可能大不相同从这些预测。以下重要因素，它可能导致实际结果和不同的材料，与这些前瞻性陈述：消费者愿意采用电动汽车和特斯拉的电动汽车，尤其是特斯拉的美国能源部门的风险有关的设施绘制下来。特斯拉是能够执行其计划的开发，生产和市场营销和销售规划模式小号电动车，以减少成本的全面控制和管理其业务及在汽车市场上的竞争和替代燃料汽车市场，特别是通过建立，维护和强化品牌。虽然特斯拉汽车公司拥有尖端技术，它的许多竞争对手有几代人，并能够实现生产效率的设施，特斯拉汽车公司只能自行翻倒在这一点上。此外，他们也有一个全面的网络服务和强大的客户忠诚度。根据这些数据，特斯拉汽车公司的财务状况似乎相对稳定，但其未来的健康是严重依赖的成功模式S.截至目前，他们的贷款融资高达20-100元万，并已筹集了约480亿美元资金从股票发行。在今年12月开始偿还贷款，这可能直接影响到流动性。管理层认为，它将满足营运资金，现金流入在S型销售短缺的情况下产生的需求，总是有另一个股票发行的可能性，虽然这不是一个理想的选择（勉，2009）。
3讨论
从上面的分析，可以很容易地看出，在汽车行业中的其他公司使用或打算使用内部的金融风险控制模型。有趣的是，只有一个例外，特斯拉汽车公司使用其自己的专有模型财务风险控制，也可以使用供应商的销售模式。因此，它用于财务风险控制，通过一个内部模型和专有的一方，但也可以这样做。市场上最广泛使用的模型的第二类型之间的专有模型，但其他没有被广泛使用。此外，它似乎更广泛的使用这些非模型交易比交易债券。
4结论
在本文中，就可以发现，特斯拉汽车公司在汽车行业，通过上面的模型优势决定了财务风险控制。近一半接受调查的车型都能够处理的财务风险。令人惊讶的是，只有少数的机型用于自营或供应商的销售风险模型。有趣的是，那些使用自己的内部模型还使用供应商的销售模式。总体而言，它是一个广泛应用这些模型，金融风险控制。
5参考
博德纳，G.（2005）。企业如何运用衍生工具。财务管理，24，104-25。
Dolde，W.（2005）。对冲，杠杆和原始风险。 [金融工程，6，187-216。
法特米，A.（2009）。德国企业风险管理实践。金融管理，26，114-30。
Glaum，M.（2007）。在英国的跨国公司的外汇风险管理的实证调查。会计和商业研究，21，3-13。
Howton，S.（2010）。货币及利率衍生工具在美国公司使用。财务管理，27，111-21。
运气好的话，W.（2011）。菁元素risiko eines managementsystems。明镜Betrieb，51，8-14。
勉，S.（2009）。企业对冲政策上的证据。金融与定量分析，6，419-39。
