MTL_HABS1909
Active Member
This doesn’t look good. Elon has probably told the board he’s leaving if the vote doesn’t pass.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maybe some day we will get the full story, but I think it was rather evident from the firing of Rebecca on Day 1 that she refused to cooperate and give Elon the 10% headcount to cut from her department. Maybe she thought the Supercharger department was immune, maybe she didn't want to make any enemies, maybe she really liked all 500 of her employees, I don't know, but it is quite clear that Elon was very serious about cutting 10% from EVERY department, and she must not have been with the program. I can't say I agree with the way it was handled, as the last thing Tesla needs right now is more reason to be publicly bashed by the media, but I'd bet that a great many of the employees will be hired back if they are still spending $500 million this year on SuCs.
So your argument is the CEO could be purposely sabotaging the company until he gets paid his record compensation package? And that's a sign he should stay as CEO and be paid whatever he wants?
Probably the same as Berlin hitting "6k/week" run rate once, though nowhere close to 80k/quarter.
Sustained rate is more important than a one-time burst rate.
This doesn’t look good. Elon has probably told the board he’s leaving if the vote doesn’t pass.
You’re putting your finger right on it. Most people -- including those here -- are left trying to figure out what is going on with the company solely by interpreting Elon’s tweets which aren’t a particularly useful source for getting at the facts.Apropos of no particular event, I would say I do not see that this forum is going downhill lately, but rather that the whole situation has changed quite a bit since late 2018 when I first saw it.
Back then, as a potential Model 3 buyer, I was mostly looking to see that if I bought one the company would survive. The FUD was strong back then, but so was the information here. And the information here was all the stuff you would not get from other sources, such as links to drone flights of giga Shanghai, plots of ROROs heading to Europe, and other, basically factual information that the sales and expansion of the company were real events.
Now, compare that to trying to figure out what Elon is thinking and you see the distinction. In 2018-2019 you could get actual, verifiable, public facts on the expansion of the company, whereas now, trying to figure out what Elon is thinking is pure speculation, and the board reads as such, and its not anyone's fault.
Investors now want to know what Elon is thinking just as badly as they wanted to know if giga Shanghai was actually going to get built. Figuring out the direction of cars vs. FSD vs. robo taxis vs. Optimus is relevant, but on those questions all actual information is, quite properly, confidential.
That's all. I felt bad last week that sunwarriors, who I first saw on the Energy board when I was shopping for my Tesla panels and powerwalls four years ago, was labeled as a troll on here.
I’ve only seen one informal poll, and it showed the measure is likely to pass, as it should. It’s compensation for past performance no sane person could argue wasn’t extraordinary.It doesn't really look "bad" either. This large push to get people to vote their shares is likely largely about achieving a quorum at the annual shareholder meeting.
Note that both Elon and Kimbal have recused themselves from the compensation vote. Together they represent something like 21.5% of voting shares. In order to achieve a quorum (a majority of all voting shares), more than 63% of all of the other shareholders need to vote their shares for the outcome to be binding either way.
Why would he?This doesn’t look good. Elon has probably told the board he’s leaving if the vote doesn’t pass.
View attachment 1046856
Why would he?
Tesla can offer a new package and if the previous one passes, it will be a miracle. Many people are not willing to keep their word. And there are many changes in share ownership since then.
That is a very helpful comment. I had nit thought about that in TSLA context, even though I’ve seen that a few times and even initiated it once.Almost all the ones I saw also involved a change in physical location also, so not necessarily identical to this case.I have seen several times in my career where a department was reorganized lets say from 100 people to 40 people.
A new organization structure would be drawn up for the 40 positions (with job descriptions). Of the 100 existing positions some would be let go immediately (say 30) and the 70 remaining associates would be asked to interview for the new 40 roles. In effect telling the 100 associates your fired but we have 40 roles you can interview for.
You will find out what Elon is thinking on 8/8.Oh man...mainly just a joke, and NOT an argument or justification. I should have made the winky face bigger....
That brought up a question of logistics in my head, especially with regard to the "best" way to ramp production.
One option is to ramp production "continuously" by striving to reach a new incremental milestone each consecutive week. Production will roughly match the supply of component parts, and as you go, you'll discover the limiting steps at each incremental production level and then work to correct them as they are discovered before the factory can ramp further. This seems to require careful coordination with suppliers...and if I remember correctly with the Model 3, there were frequently times when Panasonic was producing more cells than Tesla could use, and other times when Tesla was waiting for cell capacity increases from Panasonic.
The other option is to stockpile component parts, and occasionally do "burst rates" well above the production rate that current component supply can support. With this method, you can stress test your own factory and sortof "get ahead" of the problems that might come up before the supply chain and factory ramp up further. Ideally, this will keep the vehicle production capability ahead of what suppliers can provide...but there is probably an associated "cost" of not running the factory at full capability.
I'm not going to wade into either side of the hornets nest debate about demand issues....but if there is some (temporary) demand issue, it probably still makes sense to go with the second option above. Optimizing things via high burst rates can allow the factory to run for fewer hours or fewer shifts while production is held back, and later the factory would also be debugged and ready when higher production rates are warranted.
Not sure this is technically right.It doesn't really look "bad" either. This large push to get people to vote their shares is likely largely about achieving a quorum at the annual shareholder meeting.
Note that both Elon and Kimbal have recused themselves from the compensation vote. Together they represent something like 21.5% of voting shares. In order to achieve a quorum (a majority of all voting shares), more than 63% of all of the other shareholders need to vote their shares for the outcome to be binding either way.
Sorry, but 100% speculation is not useful.People keep clinging to 10%, but from what I've seen (articles/videos), it was a number more likely between 10%+ (and much larger) - 99%. My guess was it was much higher and we both can guess, but it probably wasn't a small number. She probably felt if she had to do this, she'd rather just call it quits already (I assume she's well off) and I don't know about you, but I certainly respect a manager willing to stand up for her team. It didn't do her no good in terms of this fight obviously, but I have respect for her and what she has accomplished.
Almost EVERY article has credited the supercharger team as one of the best run teams so people will doubt me here, but it was certainly not something a lot of folks were slinging mud at prior to this (unlike say Roadster, Semi, 4860?, CT, you can all the endless other things that seemed to be a problem).
I've said before if she didn't want to cut 10%, she was an idiot, but my guess was that it was a massively much higher number from a team that was prior to this, very well viewed in industry.
Firing then rehiring probably has side effects, such as cancelling outstanding incentives like options, RSUs, ESPP plans, whatever. If this was part of the calculation, it's pretty evil.That is a very helpful comment. I had nit thought about that in TSLA context, even though I’ve seen that a few times and even initiated it once.Almost all the ones I saw also involved a change in physical location also, so not necessarily identical to this case.
what action ? today was no different from the past few week sI was going to post something snarky about the continuing argumentative, non-productive round-and-round between two members here. But I see the mods have stepped in.
THANK YOU MODS!
I guess it's just too much to ask of some folks who are compelled to argue. But know that some of us (many, most?) are tired and bored with these spats that span multiple pages on this forum.
I think it's because Model 3 got an update and people were expecting Model Y to get one also, they waited and it didn't happen. Model 3 losing the USA tax credit also hurt (as did the shipping issues to Europe because of war in the Middle East).Hi, Unk --
Interesting, but I'm not sure on the read-through to Tesla. YTD, global auto sales are up; EV sales are up, with PHEV outperforming BEV, but BEV is still up; but Tesla is down. So, to me it's share loss that requires explanation. I guess you could argue that, because Tesla disproportionately benefitted from COVID/Ukraine disruptions, they'll be disproportionately affected by the unwind? Is that what you're getting at?
Yours,
RP
Interestingly I'm on a project today and was talking with the electrical contractor about the issues he's had on getting materials, and he said since Covid there just isn't sufficient stock for many things still.For some strange reason one of the weird tweets from Elon that sticks with me the most is from the Covid lockdown where he said "if you don't make any stuff then nobody has any stuff".
It (being any topic) is either done or it's not. If not, accept not, or change the situation until done.
This doesn’t look good. Elon has probably told the board he’s leaving if the vote doesn’t pass.
View attachment 1046856