It's simpler than that, actually. To meet California emissions all you need to do is tilt the emissions/power balance in favor of emissions. Backintheday this meant air pumps to scavenge stuff out of the exhaust, leaner carb mixture, and generally a bunch of shit hanging off the exhaust side of things that provided greater flow restriction (but decreased NOx, particulates, CO, etc). Manufacturers were happy to pass this along to dealers, and dealers were happy to pass this along to customers, and nobody was happy. It's the exact same issue you discuss with the Tata - if you wanted to hang all the shit necessary to get that thing up to NHTSA snuff, Tata would have to make that up somewhere in the price. Manufacturers were perfectly happy to let Californians know they were paying more than everybody else for their cars because they were trying to pressure California into relaxing CARB. But it doesn't work that way across governments. Tata doesn't get to add "Federally mandated safety and emissions equipment: $11,000" to their stickers and not make Tata (and India) look like a shithole. Especially when there are four fine manufacturers that have no difficulty whatsoever meeting American emissions and safety standards. And how many cars are you going to sell? There's the tricky part. Let's take Hyundai. Last month they sold 75,000 cars in the US. They sold 100,000 in the rest of the world. Hyundai went hard into the US market and it paid off. Mitsubishi? Quickest figures I can see say they sold 50,000 cars in the US in the first six months of 2015. Let's assume they finished out the year even, for 100k cars. they sold 400,000 cars worldwide. So yeah - it seems like a lot of business to give up - but remember, they had a plant in Illinois until last July. Now they're going to have to ship all that stuff across the ocean. TESLA: So nobody is investing in Tesla. They're speculating in Tesla. They're buying the stock now to sell it later when it's worth more. "Later" could mean "Later this year." It could mean "later this month." It could mean "later today." And they could have already sold the stock, without owning it, so that they can buy it later at a lower price and pocket the difference. That's the nature of short sales, and 1/4 of all the interest in Tesla is currently short. Put another way: one in four people with money in Tesla are expecting it to lose value. Here's what "investing" looks like: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gm/dividend-history That's reliably giving back ~30 cents a share every 3 months. Considering the stock is about 30 bucks, GM is good for a consistent yield of 1%. Not spectacular, but that means if you on 10,000 shares of GM (worth a third of a million dollars), every three months you pocket 3 grand. Here's Tesla: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/dividend-historyEither they build a set of engines that'll work for California and a set of engines that'll work for everyone else or they build a set of engines that work for both, knowing California is stricter.
Dividend History information is presently unavailable for this company. This could indicate that the company has never provided a dividend or that a dividend is pending.