Elon to Become a Trillionaire?

[bjurasz]

@flyerboys

Most of this discussion ignores the crucial fact that Elon is an extremely brilliant inventor, visionary, and manager who also is obviously nuts.

Agreed but I’d go further. I was an Elon fan many years ago. I even wanted his cars (no longer, is why I bought a ZDX). But something happened to the guy. He is not the same person. I’d also say he is not extremely brilliant. Very smart for sure. But this guy is put on a pedestal that nobody can actually occupy.

I’m not sure what changed. Maybe the stress of running too many companies. Maybe it just all went to his own head. He had a Howard Hughes moment? I don’t know. But for me I started changing my tune on the guy many years ago, pre-pandemic, when he was running too many companies. When he constantly over-promised on FSD and RoboTaxi “by the end of this year”. When he kept delaying the affordable Model 2. When the Semi rolled out and then… nothing. Roadster nowhere in sight. The Cyber Truck disaster. FSD still not here. RoboTaxi behind Waymo, still. And then, sorry, the guy has gone full-blown f@scist.

This is what current investors seem to be completely blind to. This is not the same guy. He is not delivering. He is just promising. Over and over again.

Past performance does not equal future results. But that is what everyone is arguing here.

Now, to SuperChargers. It’s no longer that they have a big advantage here as some people think. The newest hardware being installed by Electrify America, EVgo, Ionna all have excellent reliability, and greater charging capabilities than Tesla. 350kW and even 400kW, up to 800V. And they truly can charge any vehicle, with no fanfare. There are still unreliable older units in those networks, but the new stuff, up-to-snuff and better than Tesla units. And, I’ll add, easier for non-Tesla owners to charge at. (they take credit cards! look ma, no app! gasp!)

Tesla, on the other hand, fired their SC staff. Something the cult here seems to think was a great move. Very odd. There is a Buc-ees in Hillsboro, TX that has had a SuperCharger setup in the works for OVER A YEAR now and still not complete. Chargers on the ground, still wrapped up, since at least last November. Gee, maybe they need more staff on that team. That very same Buc-ees is now adding a set of Mercedes-Benz chargers, and I’ll bet those complete before the Tesla units.

[albaby1]

@dividends20

You are not a shareholder.

So what? It’s still very interesting to see what they’re doing. Just like you will comment on Waymo despite not being a shareholder in Waymo. It can be interesting to talk about companies that you’re not a shareholder of.

[1poorguy]

@dividends20

This is false. Tesla’s EV charging network is very good and expanding rapidly.

It’s not false. What you say is true, but what I say also is true. Both can be true at once. Tesla is only one of several companies building out their charger network. Tesla’s is still the most extensive, but it is only a matter of time before other companies achieve such saturation.

As for being a shareholder or not, that is irrelevant. You can have a clueless shareholder, or a very knowledgeable non-shareholder. Being a shareholder doesn’t make one an expert. So albaby, or me, or flyerboys can opine all we like. Whether or not we own shares isn’t relevant to the accuracy of our statements.

[Leap1]

File under an old Irish saying, “If my mother had wheels, she’d be a bicycle”. Fits with Elon’s failures and future failures, the drug abuse, the 14 children, and the purchase of X. He certainly has his successes but he has left the public imagination behind him.

[Hawkwin]

@albaby1

despite not being a shareholder in Waymo.

If you own the S&P500, you own Tesla. It is fair to state that the majority of stockholders in America likely own some Tesla.

[dividends20]

Non Tesla shareholders have no vote on this.

You can discuss all you want but shareholders are going to pass this.

[dividends20]

@albaby1

Just like you will comment on Waymo despite not being a shareholder in Waymo.

I own Google / Alphabet. They should shut down Waymo. It is a dead end.

[wecoguy]

Spotted this just now…

Having milked the promise for all its worth, Tesla abandons autonomous driving

[1poorguy]

There was a NOVA special a few years ago. Something like “Look who’s Driving”. It was about autonomous driving. Before I saw that, I thought it was right around the corner. After I saw that, I realized it may not happen in my lifetime. Probably won’t, in fact. It seems easy to us (i.e. driving), but it’s really difficult for a machine to do it given all the situations that arise every day.

If Tesla dropped it, I am not surprised. It is remarkable what their cars can do in terms of autonomous driving, but they aren’t a substitute for a human driver. As bad as human drivers are, we process sensory input faster and better (at least while driving).

[btresist]

@albaby1

Tesla’s going to give Musk one that’s worth about $89 billion on the day of granting.

No one wants to put things in context anymore. For shame. Those 96 million shares given on day one is largely in recognition for services to Tesla since 2017, for which Musk has never been paid. You may recall that his earlier compensation package was blocked by the courts. If on appeal the early package is reinstated, those 96 million shares disappear.

@albaby1

if: i) 25% ownership actually would give him control in a way that’s different than what he has now;

From Musk himself: ““If I have 25%, it means I am influential, but can be overridden if twice as many shareholders vote against me vs for me. At 15% or lower, the for/against ratio to override me makes a takeover by dubious interests too easy.” Musk has his reason for the magic 25% ownership…he is going to do revolutionary and high risk projects and he doesn’t want that big chunk of more conservative institutional stock holders (who own about 50% of Tesla) to too easily over-ride him. Makes sense to me. You may disagree with that reasoning, but so what?

@albaby1

As noted upthread, Jensen Huang took NVDA from a $100 billion company to a $4 trillion company - and he didn’t get awarded 1/10th of the shares in a new grant. He’ll get $50 million.

Tesla currently has a 200 p/e. NVDA has a 50 p/e. I’m guessing there are a fair number of CEO talent who could keep NVDA at near 50 p/e given the recent performance of the company. I’m guessing only Musk has even a shred of a possibility of keeping TSLA within hailing range of a 200 p/e over the short term.

Musk is far, far more valuable to Tesla shareholders than Huang is to NVDA shareholders.

[albaby1]

@btresist

No one wants to put things in context anymore. For shame. Those 96 million shares given on day one is largely in recognition for services to Tesla since 2017, for which Musk has never been paid. You may recall that his earlier compensation package was blocked by the courts. If on appeal the early package is reinstated, those 96 million shares disappear.

I wasn’t talking about that. Tesla has to determine the NPV of the new options package for accounting purposes. Even though the shares are contingent on future events, and will not vest for years, the value of the grant today is not zero. There’s an EV for any options grant. Tesla valued the new options package at about $89 billion. Which makes sense - if he collects the first three tranches, they’re worth about $100 billion and the market cap levels are well within what a “typical” S&P 500 company will do over ten years. And, of course, the product-defined Operational Milestones are pretty simple to hit: the automobile deliveries are almost a layup, and Musk could just go out and buy the FSD subs and bots himself.

@btresist

“If I have 25%, it means I am influential, but can be overridden if twice as many shareholders vote against me vs for me. At 15% or lower, the for/against ratio to override me makes a takeover by dubious interests too easy.”

I disagree with his reasoning. I think it’s balderdash. He has 15% now - does anyone honestly think that a “takeover by dubious interests” to oust Musk today would be easy? Would it be easy in a world where he has increased the market cap of Tesla by 8x (which is the timeline where he gets these shares)?

It’s balderdash. He might want to have 25%, but it’s just because he wants it - not because there’s the least possibility that the extra 10% of ownership in a world where Tesla is an $8T company might actually matter.

@btresist

Musk is far, far more valuable to Tesla shareholders than Huang is to NVDA shareholders.

Is he? I mean, sure, Huang took the “easy” way out and just increased the earnings of his company from ~$10B to ~$90B in five years - whereas Musk has increased the market cap of Tesla without actually creating the products or earning the income that would underlie that market cap yet. So - bad on Huang for actually increasing earnings, rather than just selling the potential of increased earnings to eager shareholders? He shouldn’t be compensated for actually delivering the longshot that Musk is promising?

But 2000x more valuable? And a board that was actually representing the interests of shareholders instead of giving Musk what he wants (not needs for control) couldn’t knock that down to, I don’t know, only ~1000x more remunerative? Or create a separate share structure to give him control but not transfer wealth? Or create a poison pill that keeps shareholders from ousting him?

I know that shareholders will approve this, because they view this as a binary - Musk shouldn’t work for free, he needs to get some pay package, so we have to approve this pay package rather than tell him he should work for free. But this pay package is ridiculously more generous to Musk than is necessary to either fairly compensate him for his services or to incentivize him to work for Tesla.