California Senate Scraps $3 Billion Electric-Vehicle Subsidy Bill -- The Washington Free Beacon -- September 6, 2017

Back on August 26, 2017, I posted the following:

From The Los Angeles Times:

Over seven years, the state of California has spent $449 million on consumer rebates to boost sales of zero-emission vehicles.

So far, the subsidies haven’t moved the needle much. In 2016, of the just over 2 million cars sold in the state, only 75,000 were pure-electric and plug-in hybrid cars. To date, out of 26 million cars and light trucks registered in California, just 315,000 are electric or plug-in hybrids.

The California Legislature is pushing forward a bill that would double down on the rebate program. Sextuple down, in fact.

If $449 million can’t do it, the thinking goes, maybe $3 billion will.

That’s the essence of the plan that could lift state rebates from $2,500 to $10,000 or more for a compact electric car, making, for example, a Chevrolet Bolt EV electric car cost the same as a gasoline-driven Honda Civic.

Outside observers and analysts raise eyebrows at the $3-billion budget line. Supporters say the money will come mainly from the state’s cap-and-trade auction revenue, although they are vague on details. 

I say "go for it." The Danes learned the hard way that rebates on EVs were a really, really dumb idea.

$3 billion / $10,000 = 300,000 vehicles. About where they are now.

Apparently, California lawmakers have voted AGAINST this. The story is not getting widespread attention. The link is here.

The late Friday move came after criticism that the bill was short on details and failed to demonstrate exactly where the money would come from to pay for it.

The state Finance Department had opposed a previous version of the bill because it appropriated billions of dollars "without identifying a funding source."

************************************

The Apple Page 

From MacRumors: Samsung's OLED display monopoly may explain iPhone 8's rumored $1,000 price.

Samsung is one of the only companies able to reliably mass produce OLED displays suitable for Apple's smartphone needs, giving Samsung a monopoly over OLED panel display and allowing the South Korean company to charge high prices.

[An analyst suggests that the] OLED iPhone panel supply is "controlled wholly by Samsung," with Samsung likely charging Apple $120 to $130 per OLED panel module, which is approximately $75 more than the 5.5-inch LCD module price of $45 to $55 for "Plus" sized iPhones.

The high price Apple is currently shelling out for OLED displays explain in part why we're hearing rumors suggesting pricing on the upcoming OLED-equipped "iPhone 8" could start at somewhere right around $1,000 for the entry-level model. Along with an OLED panel, it also uses 3D sensor camera components for facial recognition and many other advanced components that could also add a premium to the price.

*************************

Am I Missing Something?

From The WSJ today: Goldman Sachs Group Chairman Lloyd Blankfein on Wednesday sounded a warning about the markets, saying that some of what he sees “unnerves” him.

Mr. Blankfein said the current market environment “doesn’t feel like tulip-bulb-mania,” a reference to the famous speculative bubble in the Netherlands in 1637, but was nonetheless concerning.

“Things have been going up for too long,” he told attendees at a Handelsblatt business conference in Frankfurt. “When yields on corporate bonds are lower than dividends on stocks? That unnerves me.”

With regard to dividend yields, as far as I know, there are only two ways to lower the yield. But, then again, maybe I'm missing something.