Elon Musk $41B offer for Twitter
Discussion
tangerine_sedge said:
CraigyMc said:
off_again said:
Why does anyone ever trust anything that this man says?
If you've ever driven a tesla, or watched a pair of Falcon 9's landing, that's why.No matter what kind of s
tty thing Musk does, there are always justifications. 4D chess at play and so on. Why do we think that this type of behavior is acceptable? Von Braun did help the US to win the space race, but it doesnt erase what he did in the past. Musk has managed to build Tesla to where it is today, but his current behavior with Tesla cannot be excused.KaraK said:
To a large extent we're both speculating since the meeting was apparently just the two of them we don't know how it played out, but I think where our opinions diverge is that you're adopting the view that Tinucci goofed by not acquiescing to Musk's demands for a second round of cuts to her team, whereas I'm leaning towards thinking that maybe Tinucci had good cause for taking a firmer stance, she was after all a long serving employee with a stellar reputation and I'd argue that she did the professional thing a director in her position should do when faced with carrying out a management decision that she fundamentally opposed - she offered to resign rather than do it. Musk responded by firing her and 400+ people. Like I say we'll probably never know the real events of that meeting so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about who we give the benefit of the doubt to here.
One possible scenario that I hadn't previously considered - what if the hundreds of sackings in the supercharger department weren't a toys-out-the-pram moment but the actual layoffs that Musk asked for in the first place?
Tinucci was given a direct order. Refusing such an order is often a sacking offence, especially in parts of the US that don’t have even the level of employment protections we have in the UK.One possible scenario that I hadn't previously considered - what if the hundreds of sackings in the supercharger department weren't a toys-out-the-pram moment but the actual layoffs that Musk asked for in the first place?
US firms - tech, banking, etc - do these sort of headcount reductions often. Brutal or not to our eyes, the US economy overall - and especially the performance of many of those companies - suggests this strategy may be a contributor to growth.
As the line from Margin Call (mentioned above) says (paraphrasing) “those of you remaining are the chosen ones; the number of people you were competing against for promotion has just gone down.” In a personal success oriented environment, this sort of stuff doesn’t seem to turn people off.
People have criticised Musk’s leadership for years. Yet who else has built ground-breaking companies at this rate? Let’s just recap where he is right now:
- Tesla kick-started the current EV revolution;
- SpaceX has revolutionised space flight, and is don going what others have singularly failed to do (make a go of launching affordable satellite comms);
- Neuralink is achieving groundbreaking results;
- xAI may ultimately challenge OpenAI.
Seriously, does anyone really think those things were done by behaving just like any other manager, or that just anyone could have done these things (in which case why didn’t they; what were they waiting for?)
Just arbitrarily taking potshots at Musk is as pointless as it is myopic. The bigger question is how can others learn from what Musk & co have done in order to build other large and groundbreaking endeavours?
EddieSteadyGo said:
Basically, they have been planning for something like 50% CAGR. That was the working assumption, and that expected trajectory was baked into all their investment plans, including for new factories, new models, new investment in manufacturing technology, new recruitment etc etc.
That is all good and yes, managing for growth is a massive challenge. I was told many years ago that managing 15% growth correctly is a issue, managing 50% is just not possible, something has to give. We have seen that across multiple aspects of Tesla cars. So yeah, its a challenge and I get it.EddieSteadyGo said:
But, to use the analogy from the film I mentioned, Musk now thinks the music is about to stop. Whether that is for a few year, or longer, who knows, but he has access to the latest sales data, and will be getting information from the Chinese government too. So that's why he has pushed the panic button - he has stopping much of their capital investment including some of the expected new factories, and he decided to cut staff costs drastically. I think their Q2 figures could be horrible.
This is where I see a problem. He is the CEO and this is absolutely his responsibility. A business does not just fall off a cliff in a quarter. You have teams of business analysts working on the data and figuring out what is going on. On top of that, you have people in country where you have significant investments who work with the local governments and plan for the future. For me, this shows an utter lack of awareness, understanding and planning in the business. Yes, maintaining 50% growth is hard, but that is why you have people in place to help, understand and plan for the future. This is a massive miss from Musk and he absolutely should be held accountable. If this was any other CEO they would be penalized by the board and shareholders. Wizz air CEO was denied his package, Netflix shareholders rejected its CEO pay package, Live Nation and so on. All examples of businesses that arent doing as well as they could yet the CEO gets a massive pay increase. This is what should happen - the board and shareholders MUST hold the CEO to account for the running of the business. If the CEO fails to do what they have been tasked with, then there must be a penalty.
So what I am reading here is that Musk missed the ball, didnt see the impending doom (I dont believe it is anywhere near as bad as it is being suggested) and in effort to keep his personal wealth high, sorry, share price up, he is making massive and deep cuts to the business. I see that as a failure of a CEO and as a result the board and shareholders must hold him to account. Yet its quite the opposite - Musk and now the board are pushing for a $54bn stock award package.... really? It seems that your business is screwed yet you want even more money? Wow, thats board rigging if I have ever seen it.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Having said that, whilst I think Musk's judgement on the need to cut costs urgently is probably right, the way it has been handled has been bad.
I dont disagree, but I would take this a step further though. The cuts that are being made do not make sense. No matter what strategy you decided to take out of the MBA rule book, what is happening here makes little sense. The behavior, the arbitrary nature, the lack of clarity and then the re-hirings? Wow, this is panic mode and it could well put Tesla into a death spin that would be extremely difficult to get out of. If, and I mean IF, it is that bad, this could and should have been handled so much better. It could have been managed better and as a business it MUST identify when there are slow downs and critical issues. This is a massive miss from my point of view and Musk is to blame here, the culture that he has created resulted in this.
off_again said:
...
This is a massive miss from Musk and he absolutely should be held accountable. If this was any other CEO they would be penalized by the board and shareholders. Wizz air CEO was denied his package, Netflix shareholders rejected its CEO pay package, Live Nation and so on. All examples of businesses that arent doing as well as they could yet the CEO gets a massive pay increase. This is what should happen - the board and shareholders MUST hold the CEO to account for the running of the business. If the CEO fails to do what they have been tasked with, then there must be a penalty.
....
Most companies making EVs are working on a "built it and they will come" strategy. No-one really knows what the adoption rate will be for EVs. I don't think there is much question EVs will eventually dominate, but the shape of the S-shaped curve in-between now and then is impossible to know. You might think Musk should be responsible for predicting that, but I don't think most large shareholders see if that way.This is a massive miss from Musk and he absolutely should be held accountable. If this was any other CEO they would be penalized by the board and shareholders. Wizz air CEO was denied his package, Netflix shareholders rejected its CEO pay package, Live Nation and so on. All examples of businesses that arent doing as well as they could yet the CEO gets a massive pay increase. This is what should happen - the board and shareholders MUST hold the CEO to account for the running of the business. If the CEO fails to do what they have been tasked with, then there must be a penalty.
....
off_again said:
A business does not just fall off a cliff in a quarter. You have teams of business analysts working on the data and figuring out what is going on. On top of that, you have people in country where you have significant investments who work with the local governments and plan for the future. For me, this shows an utter lack of awareness, understanding and planning in the business. Yes, maintaining 50% growth is hard, but that is why you have people in place to help, understand and plan for the future.
I think I have to take issue with this statement.Immediately after 9/11, my then business lost 2/3rds of its turnover overnight. We were heavily exposed to particular parts of the financial sector; the uncertainty and fear led to projects being cancelled literally overnight (many clients; not a concentration issue).
We had the same amidst the banking crisis / GFC. No amount of crystal ball gazing would have changed those outcomes.
The problem with today’s connected world is that the ripple effect doesn’t take months or years to travel (as it did with the 1930s “crash”); the cycle time is far shorter.
In China and elsewhere, EV companies are (using the term accurately) dumping stock at below cost in order to try to preserve or grow market share. In Europe, the cost of living crisis hasn’t gone away. In many places, interest rates are crippling expenditure.
Conventional companies are doing likewise; BMW for instance is burning cash hand over fist to try to shift vehicles right now.
Meanwhile, the regulatory framework upon which Tesla’s business plan was based - phasing out fossil fuelled vehicles by 2030 - is slipping. Governments are signalling to buyers that “hybrids are enough.” We should be seeing a huge ramping-up of infrastructure investments, stimulus packages, scrappage schemes, and so on; but they’re not there (outside the US, where EV sales are holding up). If you’re Tesla, there will be a very real prospect of the developed world’s governments collectively giving up on the necessary climate targets, which will be a huge problem.
We’ve looked at the recent UK figures before; private sales did indeed fall off a cliff in Q1, as did small-fleet / individual business purchases.
Tesla’s margins are healthy. The problem Tesla have a lot of committed expenditure, and frankly not enough capital. Against that backdrop, things like Superchargers aren’t the issue they were - Tesla’s competitors aren’t spending hand over fist on infrastructure. Sure there may be a great revenue opportunity eventually; but for now it is all cost.
Tesla has raised $19bn so far IIRC. Tiny Rivian has raised over $10bn. Tesla’s ability to execute so well and so quickly with comparatively little money is hugely impressive. Lucid has just had to raise another $1bn from the Saudis to keep the doors open. Fisker looks like it won’t raise fresh cash and will die. Arrival has closed the doors. Canoe looks to be in trouble.
The other elephant in the room is Musk’s pay package (or lack of it). It was agreed by informed shareholders some years ago. It ought to have provided the backdrop for stability and long-term planning. And yet now Musk - who hasn’t drawn a salary - is faced with the prospect of a declining share price just when he needs to win another vote on this. Of course he’s going to act fast and trim hard; and nobody should be surprised after the frankly unprecedented treatment of the Delaware court.
So backing up, it is easy to make pronouncements that are simply not true in all cases. Which is why we shouldn’t.
skwdenyer said:
Immediately after 9/11, my then business lost 2/3rds of its turnover overnight. We were heavily exposed to particular parts of the financial sector; the uncertainty and fear led to projects being cancelled literally overnight (many clients; not a concentration issue).
Thats a rather extreme example and doesnt really reflect the type of issues that a car manufacturer would be exposed to. However, its fair to look at the 2008 financial crisis and what happened then. Would we expect the big ones to know that Lehman brothers would crash? Probably not, but they should have planned for some of this - cash stockpiles, stock management etc....skwdenyer said:
The problem with today’s connected world is that the ripple effect doesn’t take months or years to travel (as it did with the 1930s “crash”); the cycle time is far shorter.
In China and elsewhere, EV companies are (using the term accurately) dumping stock at below cost in order to try to preserve or grow market share. In Europe, the cost of living crisis hasn’t gone away. In many places, interest rates are crippling expenditure.
Conventional companies are doing likewise; BMW for instance is burning cash hand over fist to try to shift vehicles right now.
Meanwhile, the regulatory framework upon which Tesla’s business plan was based - phasing out fossil fuelled vehicles by 2030 - is slipping. Governments are signalling to buyers that “hybrids are enough.” We should be seeing a huge ramping-up of infrastructure investments, stimulus packages, scrappage schemes, and so on; but they’re not there (outside the US, where EV sales are holding up). If you’re Tesla, there will be a very real prospect of the developed world’s governments collectively giving up on the necessary climate targets, which will be a huge problem.
We’ve looked at the recent UK figures before; private sales did indeed fall off a cliff in Q1, as did small-fleet / individual business purchases.
Yes, there are a number of potential impacts to the global business, but I still standby my comments here. This is why you have a team in place to look at the micro and macro issues and come up with a plan. It is a massive risk to be an EV manufactures as things could change on a penny, so I do understand there are impacts. Could Tesla have predicted everything that has happened? Probably not all of it, but they should have understood some of them and have built a plan to work how to manage things.In China and elsewhere, EV companies are (using the term accurately) dumping stock at below cost in order to try to preserve or grow market share. In Europe, the cost of living crisis hasn’t gone away. In many places, interest rates are crippling expenditure.
Conventional companies are doing likewise; BMW for instance is burning cash hand over fist to try to shift vehicles right now.
Meanwhile, the regulatory framework upon which Tesla’s business plan was based - phasing out fossil fuelled vehicles by 2030 - is slipping. Governments are signalling to buyers that “hybrids are enough.” We should be seeing a huge ramping-up of infrastructure investments, stimulus packages, scrappage schemes, and so on; but they’re not there (outside the US, where EV sales are holding up). If you’re Tesla, there will be a very real prospect of the developed world’s governments collectively giving up on the necessary climate targets, which will be a huge problem.
We’ve looked at the recent UK figures before; private sales did indeed fall off a cliff in Q1, as did small-fleet / individual business purchases.
skwdenyer said:
Tesla’s margins are healthy. The problem Tesla have a lot of committed expenditure, and frankly not enough capital. Against that backdrop, things like Superchargers aren’t the issue they were - Tesla’s competitors aren’t spending hand over fist on infrastructure. Sure there may be a great revenue opportunity eventually; but for now it is all cost.
And this is the bit that confuses me - margins have been good and still remains to be good, when compared with the whole market. But, they have a number of headwinds over the last year and their pricing has been up and down for the last 18 months to reflect this. I would be pissed if I bought a Model Y one week and then the next week it was $4k cheaper, but this is how Tesla does things, so it is what it is. They have seen the headwinds, they have managed their pricing to maximize margin and they have seen the increased competition, tax rebates and so on. This isnt a situation where suddenly everyone stopped buying Teslas in one quarter. Its been up and down for the last year and this should not have been missed.And I dont get the Supercharger direction either. Ah, its fixed so its not a problem? Really? It isnt, but its the biggest single advantage that Tesla has, and it still remains even though they have opened it up. The ease, simplicity, price and availability of the Supercharger network is still vastly superior to everything else and it seems that this just walking away from this.
But there are technicalities that are an issue here. What about the roll out of the v4 Superchargers? You know the ones that will assist in the superior charging behavior of their new products like the Cybertruck? What about newer products that arent released yet? The Semi requires the mega charger (I am totally over the naming convention they use!), so how will this impact the roll out here? Things dont add up and I am confused.
So yeah, I agree that there are some major headwinds and maybe Tesla needs to make some cuts. But I do contend that there was some awareness of this prior to this situation and it could have been managed much better than it is now. For me, it says more about how Tesla is run. What it looks like is that Musk was distracted with his other 'projects' and personal attendance at certain events. He has then turned his attention to Tesla and freaked out and made massive cuts. What he should have done is to enable senior leaders in Tesla to run the business and raise up concerns well in advance so that it can be dealt with. Again, this is a failing on Musk.
I still find it bizarre that many hundreds of pages before this, there were lots of people saying that Tesla was in a fantastic position and tons of cash to survive any issue. Its so profitable that they could see of any challengers and hence its value would only increase. That might have been the case before, but what happened over time? Did they use fuzzy accounting to show the amount of cash on had? Did they make decisions that were too ambitious and over committed? Was it as well run as everyone liked to say? Could they have predicted the current situation? I believe so. From China (seriously, you didnt realize that given what they have done in the past) to regulatory concerns (work with lobbyists to figure this crap out) to an oversupply (wow, who knew that this might happen) - these are all things that could and should have been planned for. The fact that this all happened at the same time is an issue, and I am not expecting that Tesla wouldnt be impacted, but you have to manage the business better than this.
EddieSteadyGo said:
You might think Musk should be responsible for predicting that, but I don't think most large shareholders see if that way.
Yeah, I am absolutely expecting that a CEO of a large international business is able to manage a safe and reasonable course. You build in contingency, you manage your business and ensure that you can weather impacts as needed. I am not suggesting that he needed some sort of crystal ball to figure out all of this, but he absolutely should have put in place the mechanism to identify the headwinds and how to navigate them.If I were a shareholder, I would expect a CEO to be able to manage the business effectively. I believe that 40% of Tesla is held by private owners and hence probably trust Musk implicitly, but is this the behavior we want to see from other large international businesses? Do you think that is reasonable behavior?
How would *you* plan for an 18% collapse in UK private car sales in Q1? It wasn’t forecast, as witness by the number or other brands dumping cash at promotions right now.
As regards pricing, Tesla only do in public what everyone else does in private - only fairer
I prefer the Tesla way - it is open, equal, and just like everything else we buy.
As regards pricing, Tesla only do in public what everyone else does in private - only fairer
I prefer the Tesla way - it is open, equal, and just like everything else we buy.skwdenyer said:
How would *you* plan for an 18% collapse in UK private car sales in Q1? It wasn’t forecast, as witness by the number or other brands dumping cash at promotions right now.
As regards pricing, Tesla only do in public what everyone else does in private - only fairer I prefer the Tesla way - it is open, equal, and just like everything else we buy.
Yeah, I personally think Musk has responded to a changing macro-economic environment very quickly. Many CEOs would have been too proud to admit they needed to change course, and got themselves into a deeper financial hole as a result. However, whilst the situation perhaps required someone to be ruthless, I also think he has been rather callous with how it has been implemented, and I think that could have been avoided.As regards pricing, Tesla only do in public what everyone else does in private - only fairer
I prefer the Tesla way - it is open, equal, and just like everything else we buy.And as you say with their pricing transparency, this is just a consequence of their direct to consumer model. Most car companies use their dealer network to throw a level of pricing opacity over whatever they are doing, which just means whoever is prepared to negotiate gets the best deal, whilst those who are more passive get comparatively ripped off. At least with Tesla it is more fair.
US laws in many States prevent car manufacturers selling direct to the consumer to stop monopolies and price fixing. If you "buy" a Tesla in Texas you are actually buying it in California. You pick it up in Texas and then have to pay local taxes.
Also, Musk wasn't callous in firing those people. His actions were illegal and he has no care for the laws set to protect employees from Musk who operates like a Victoria Mill owner. He would employ kids if he thought he could increase productivity.
Further up the page it was questioned why America allows Musk to advertise cars with assumed gas savings. It doesn't, Musk has been told many times to stop it but he has not.
Also, Musk wasn't callous in firing those people. His actions were illegal and he has no care for the laws set to protect employees from Musk who operates like a Victoria Mill owner. He would employ kids if he thought he could increase productivity.
Further up the page it was questioned why America allows Musk to advertise cars with assumed gas savings. It doesn't, Musk has been told many times to stop it but he has not.
The old adage - 'too big to fail' seems to be playing a part here.
As for th Musk is brilliant posts - wow.
His neurolink is reporting issues, Tesla were founded by others, Space X was on the verge of bankruptcy but NASA saw the opportunity it (rightly) presented and gave him a $900m grant.
He isn't the Messiah, he is too often wayward with the truth and willing to blatantly lie and obstificate to get his way/cloud judgement.
But yeah, he's golden.
As for th Musk is brilliant posts - wow.
His neurolink is reporting issues, Tesla were founded by others, Space X was on the verge of bankruptcy but NASA saw the opportunity it (rightly) presented and gave him a $900m grant.
He isn't the Messiah, he is too often wayward with the truth and willing to blatantly lie and obstificate to get his way/cloud judgement.
But yeah, he's golden.
dukeboy749r said:
The old adage - 'too big to fail' seems to be playing a part here.
As for th Musk is brilliant posts - wow.
His neurolink is reporting issues, Tesla were founded by others, Space X was on the verge of bankruptcy but NASA saw the opportunity it (rightly) presented and gave him a $900m grant.
He isn't the Messiah, he is too often wayward with the truth and willing to blatantly lie and obstificate to get his way/cloud judgement.
But yeah, he's golden.
Seems to me like if he buys something and lets people who know what they are doing run it, it’s fine. As soon as he gets personally involved (see Twitter) it all turns to sAs for th Musk is brilliant posts - wow.
His neurolink is reporting issues, Tesla were founded by others, Space X was on the verge of bankruptcy but NASA saw the opportunity it (rightly) presented and gave him a $900m grant.
He isn't the Messiah, he is too often wayward with the truth and willing to blatantly lie and obstificate to get his way/cloud judgement.
But yeah, he's golden.
t.There’s very much an air of emperor’s new clothes about him.
dukeboy749r said:
The old adage - 'too big to fail' seems to be playing a part here.
As for th Musk is brilliant posts - wow.
His neurolink is reporting issues, Tesla were founded by others, Space X was on the verge of bankruptcy but NASA saw the opportunity it (rightly) presented and gave him a $900m grant.
He isn't the Messiah, he is too often wayward with the truth and willing to blatantly lie and obstificate to get his way/cloud judgement.
But yeah, he's golden.
Unfortunately EddieSteadyGo and skwdenyer believe he truly is golden and a super CEO who is 100% right on everything. Everything has a justification and there is nothing that can Musk can do wrong. As for th Musk is brilliant posts - wow.
His neurolink is reporting issues, Tesla were founded by others, Space X was on the verge of bankruptcy but NASA saw the opportunity it (rightly) presented and gave him a $900m grant.
He isn't the Messiah, he is too often wayward with the truth and willing to blatantly lie and obstificate to get his way/cloud judgement.
But yeah, he's golden.
Oh well, I give up. I’ll go somewhere else.
foreright said:
Seems to me like if he buys something and lets people who know what they are doing run it, it’s fine. As soon as he gets personally involved (see Twitter) it all turns to st.
There’s very much an air of emperor’s new clothes about him.
Yet TwitSpace is still the go to resource. I don't see anyone posting up links to Parlour, or TruthSocial, or FaceBook, or anything else really.t.There’s very much an air of emperor’s new clothes about him.
hidetheelephants said:
He's so full of st.t and a complete narcissistic lying wker, who being South African, rather than American, should take his wk ego and shut the fk up. He’s a businessman, mostly, and since he’s got plenty of that to focus on, should leave the politics to, you know, politicians.
Complete f
king wkpuppet Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff