Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[MTL_HABS1909]

This doesn’t look good. Elon has probably told the board he’s leaving if the vote doesn’t pass.

 

[sunwarriors]

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.

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.

 

[Southpasfan]

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.

 

[EQC_]

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?

Oh man...mainly just a joke, and NOT an argument or justification. I should have made the winky face bigger....

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.

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.

 

[willow_hiller]

This doesn’t look good. Elon has probably told the board he’s leaving if the vote doesn’t pass.

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.

 

[advocate8]

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.

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.
That pins us between him and his spin and near-cryptic one sentence pronouncements on the one hand and the idiots on YouTube and Insta hyping things to seek eyeballs, some pro-Tesla, some anti.
And so people here just reach for their preconceptions and guess, then both sides argue about it.

The company needs a proper communications staff to explain things to the degree possible (given some things are properly proprietary) ... and one that is able to do its job with only a normal level of oversight from upper management rather than to live in constant fear of a volatile reaction like the whole department being dismissed.
I don’t see that ever happening.
It’s like dealing with yet another politician who doesn’t want fact and transparency, but rather to completely control the message even when they are wrong and it’s corrosive to themselves to control it. Then their fans see it one way, everyone else another.

 

[advocate8]

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.

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.

 

[SO16]

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.

 

[sunwarriors]

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.

This is all my speculation, but I think the old business of building EVs, iterating to make it rock solid (no panel gaps, no production issues/delays, etc) is just not that interesting to Elon. Sorta like developers who only want to write code to prove something can be done, but they have, they have little or no interest in supporting it or making it actually work "good".

Before, no one has done a valid EV with range, charging, etc, now, nearly every manufacturer has something so it's nothing new now. It's boring to him. I would assume Elon would be much happier in a pure AI/Robotics/Mars mission/play at this point to go after more impossible things than something as boring as making an EV (especially a cheap $25k one).

He likes the intellectual challenge, not people managing, motivating.

All IMO. He doesn't need $$. He also wants the comp/shares for control I believe since he said he needs 25% so he can do whatever he wants without anyone challenging him. Some of the large shareholders who might vote against it maybe people who simply don't care about Elon/Ai and just wants a CEO who will make the best EV type company. xAI is sorta redundant if he wants more AI in Tesla.

 

[WattsHappening]

I 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.

 

[unk45]

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.

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.

 

[MC3OZ]

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.

You will find out what Elon is thinking on 8/8.

 

[rallykeeper]

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.

Not sure this is technically right.

Quorum includes broker non-votes (i.e., shares held through brokers for which the broker doesn't have voting discretion). So if a retail shareholder doesn't vote, the shares are still counted for quorum purposes and effectively are "no" votes.

In addition, the measure only needs a majority of the non-Elon/Kimbal votes to pass.

Tesla should, of course, still be soliciting "yes" votes because they need all the votes they can get.

My bigger concern is institutional voting (which represent more than half of the non-Elon/Kimbal shares at 44% overall). The passive index funds (maybe 20% overall?) are particularly troubling as they often following proxy advisory services and I'm guessing they will be "no" votes. (Has anyone seen any news indicating otherwise?).

I'll be pleasantly surprised if ISS or Glass-Lewis recommends approval. If that happens, the proposal would probably easily pass.

 

[wtlloyd]

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.

Sorry, but 100% speculation is not useful.

 

[ggr]

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.

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.

 

[Zero CO2]

can we rename this the dark and stormy thread ? seems like many posters are just dropping out it was a good run here while it lasted
the trolls have won... shame

 

[Zero CO2]

I 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.

what action ? today was no different from the past few week s

 

[AZRI11]

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

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).

People curious to see what an updated Model Y would look like before considering whether to buy the 3 or a Y, that could be one of the many reasons why demand dropped in the first quarter.
Tesla learned an important lesson, no major update on your second best selling car before you do a major update on your best-selling car.

 

[scaesare]

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.

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.

 

[Maarten]

This doesn’t look good. Elon has probably told the board he’s leaving if the vote doesn’t pass.

View attachment 1046856

Tesla stresses all it’s stockholders that it is important to vote.
Given the important subjects at hand in the vote that is only logical that Tesla does this.
But to suggest here now that “Elon has probably etc. etc.” comes out of thin air and is in my opinion pure FUD.
It serves no useful informational purpose.