Oh, no. I’m a broad market index funds kind of person - I’m not trying to beat the market. I just find these discussions interesting. And Tesla’s approach to corporate governance is also pretty fascinating, considering that it’s one of the largest companies in the country.
I find it astounding that the CEO of a company could simultaneously identify a product line as an essential part of his company’s business (“people should be thinking of Tesla as an AI robotics company”) and then suggest that he might instead pursue that business as an independent venture outside the company…while presumably staying on as CEO. That’s just bonkers, in terms of fiduciary duty or even just what the scope of his job is as the CEO of Tesla. So I’m really curious whether people who are far more invested in Tesla (literally and figuratively) think he might actually do that.
I think it’s a head fake.
It “might” happen. Maybe. But I think it’s unlikely.
Musk is famous for doing things that “shock”.
Partly, I think Musk just likes the attention from spinning the Musk haters up.
Me? It makes me laugh, too.
Partly, it has brought into the limelight that he’s NOT BEING PAID. He currently has NO compensation package.
Me? I would want compensation for my contributions.
Supposedly the lawsuit over the previous comp package is holding things up. IDK but Musk might be stirring the pot to get a comp package arranged?
As for AI, FSD, robotics etc being moved to a different company, I expect current shareholders would be compensated in some way. Some ways are better than others.
I wouldn’t be averse to owning shares in another Musk company.
Musk is adept, a veritable wizard at keeping Tesla “in the news”!
He’s GENIUS level at getting free advertising.
FWIW, I wrote some cash secured Puts on TSLA as a buy the dip type strategy.
So, yeah, I still “believe”. LOLOLOL.
ralph owns TSLA shares. In both a LTBH pot and a trading pot.
I think he would but I doubt it will happen. The board will give him what he wants. All they have to do is think about Sam Altman and OpenAI or remember Apple and Steve Jobs.
Companies driving on disruptive technology cannot be led by committee. Challenging the status quo almost by definition requires leadership that is idiosyncratic, innovative, risk-taking, and a POV that is not shared or even understood by the majority. That typically means control by a single person, whether it be Henry Ford, Jeff Bezos, Howard Hughes, or Bill Gates.
I agree. I think Musk actually has good relations with the board so if he were to leave I think it would be some spinoff of sorts.
AI has become the technology wild west, lots of potential with few rules. It is a field that will likely be dominated in the near future by individual genius rather than corporate-think. I’m willing to take my chances with Elon, warts and all.
I have zero advice. I want no part in this as far as suggesting what to do.
This can go either way in a heartbeat.
Somewhere (Dealbook perhaps) Musk has xAI. He would mainly want to shift the key manpower. This not only can happen in a flash but then xAI might dominate Ford and GM among others in the EV fleets. This could be like Microsoft’s OS in olden days. Because whoever comes up with the AI for FSD controls much of the market.
I do not know what the Chinese are doing for FSD.
Adding this is like AMD v Intel. The designers got stock options. Musk only needs to tell a few important AI programmers they will get better options. Tesla can still do something in house but it will be worthless. Tesla would need xAI’s expertise. That is not a conflict. Hire who you want and pay to get the job done.
There’s two kinds of money, smart money and dumb money . Smart money are all those accredited Wall St. types that manage and kibitz OPM. Dumb money is the rest of us, retail investors, Tesla fanbois, and assorted clueless riffraff. Smart money worries, Dumb money is too dumb to worry. There is a third class of money, Tesla/Elon haters, who tell all who will listen that Tesla is kaput!
The linked video is by no-worries dumb money
Tesla’s 10T Bot Opportunity (Part 2) w/ Chris Camillo
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
I agree that humanoid robots could be Tesla’s most profitable business line which I based on selling the robots. Chris Camillo gets to $10T based not on sales but on rental or leasing which is much more profitable. Until a Consent Decree forced IBM to sell then only rented on monthly basis.
(b) IBM is hereby ordered and directed, beginning not later than one year after the entry of this Final Judgment, to offer
(1) to sell, at any time during the period of 18 months next thereafter, to the lessee of any IBM tabulating or electronic data processing machine each such machine being used by such lessee;
This precedent might cut short the rental or leasing of robots.
In the happy-talk they ignore market forces. At some point humanoid robots become commodities which cuts pricing power significantly. It’s already happening with EVs.
Despite these two considerations, I still think humanoid robots could be Tesla’s most profitable business line.
Not me. Tesla would come roaring back with FSD and the internet hours onboard. Or xAI or whichever Musk company would be an excellent investment if you see FSD as feasible. I am on the fence. I think it is doable depending on limiting accidents some more.
Your description is for people who are not giving it much valuable thought even if they live with it.
adding
Kaput is not the issue here at all for me. Buying high or low is a reality. It is a scary reality if you hit a snag. This should not be confused with anything. It is not an ending.
If you own Tesla this is what you are up against.
The statement here that this “is a new company” is a bad omen.
Musk might be jive asking for 25% of Tesla.
Commoditization only occurs when the product line has matured. EVs are nowhere near product or tech maturity. Probably at least a decade away.
Wanted to add that I do think Musk is motivated to stay with Tesla. Developing AI is going to take mucho dollars. Maybe Musk can raise the funding on his own but I don’t think he really wants the hassle. Much easier to use the Tesla money machine to fund AI. The overlap between AI, FSD, Bots, and EVs is obvious and I think both Musk and the Board can see that.
Not a chance. He’s whatever the polite was of saying ADHD is. Tesla is old news to him, just like digging tunnels and solar panels, which isn’t to say he has no interest, just that it’s not the focus.
No question AI is huge with both cost and risk. So what? That’s his wheelhouse.
Tesla told employees today that it will do another pay adjustment, a second in a few weeks, after employees expressed disappointment with the last one. But the automaker has now delayed the second pay increase, which is happening amid the CEO, Elon Musk, asking for a historic compensation package.
Much has been said about Tesla factory workers getting pay bumps following the auto workers union’s win over the Big Three Automakers, putting more pressure on non-unionized automakers like Tesla.
However, not all Tesla employees have been happy with the pay adjustments.
The pay increase was also less than anticipated for hourly employees amid the high inflation environment.
Just how dependent is Tesla on a happy engineer and factory production workers?
How easy is it to replace such workers?
Construction of the Nuevo Leon factory, which had been slated to make Tesla’s cheaper next-generation vehicles, is delayed due to Musk’s misgivings about the global economy. Other problems, including permitting delays and a dearth of infrastructure, also have plagued the process.
Now, it’s unclear whether the plant will open even in 2025.
Musk said in October that while he still plans to build the plant, the chief executive officer was reluctant to move forward at “full tilt” because of high interest rates. In a more recent interview, Musk said that Tesla will produce its next-generation entry-level vehicle at its Texas factory first, since the Mexico facility won’t be ready in time.
So the introduction of the Tesla 2 is not endangered.
Musk seems to be taking a cautious approach due macroeconomic viewpoint eg danger of a recession.
And GM production date of the next gen Bolt seems to be 2025.
BYD is now importing their model Seal [$44,600] to Mexico and will build a factory in Mexico. The beginning stage of a China EV invasion of North America.
So it seems 2025 will be very eventful in determining the speed of EV adoption.
TBH, it never occurred to me that “publicity stunt” might be a reason why he made those statements. But it’s certainly a possibility. He is quite good at that.
There are many circumstances in which fiduciary duties exist, not just among financial professionals. Executives have fiduciary duties to their corporation and the shareholders.
Well, I’ve already thrown in my two cents on how unlikely this is to actually happen for Tesla. It’s true that those robots could be insanely profitable, but only in the same sense that having a solar roof that was as cheap and easy to install as shingles would be an insanely profitable business, or having a tunneling machine that was vastly more efficient than other tunneling machines, or having a working robotaxi would be insanely profitable. The markets are huge, but Musk couldn’t actually create the technology, so it doesn’t matter how big the “opportunity” was.
No, it doesn’t. All executives in every industry owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and their shareholders. They don’t owe a fiduciary duty to the customers, but they do have a fiduciary duty to the company and its shareholders.
Agree 2024 looks like a lean year for Tesla as cybertruck is only new model ramping and unclear how many they will sustainably sell. Tesla is certainly well ahead of the legacy companies in EV space, but IMO they need to build out their model lineup to meaningfully gain more share.
Tesla and Musk have a hit with EV rollout over last few years.
But does Musk have another hit up his sleeve with Tesla? It might be asking a lot of one person. Solar roof? FSD? The machine that makes the machine in factory automation? We are waiting.
FB pivot to Metaverse?
Seems very difficult for lightning to strike twice, even for smart people with mucho financing.
True…I am wrong…but it is not simple. People are claiming a fiduciary responsibility to Tesla.
The fiduciary responsibility is to xAI and the top talent there.
Are directors liable for breach of fiduciary duty?
Courts have held that officers, directors, and managers owe a duty of loyalty, care, and good faith to their organizations. Accordingly, they can be liable for breach of that duty if they engage in self-dealing, misuse of corporate assets, or other actions that harm the organization or its stakeholders.
With Tesla and xAI you have a problem making any case. XAI has been around for close to a year with valuable AI projects that work with Tesla. There is no reason Tesla can not go it alone but the expertise will be paid more at xAI. In the case of that level of expertise in AI you need the talent.
When I say no fiduciary duties I meant something quite different as I studied money management. You can not put your clients into risky investments. That is stating it in simple terms.
What CEOs can do gets very creative. What a CFA does or a CFP does is not nearly as creative. It is not supposed to be. That is night and day. The application of the word fiduciary is very different and uneven.
