Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
It was a 10-year contract. We are six years in. Does Tesla still meet the market cap, revenue, and income metrics?
Today's jump pushed TSLA market cap back above the 10th market cap milestone of 550b, but still short of the final two 600b and 650b triggers. The revenue and EBITDA milestones were kind of a joke - at least the first 8-10. Model 3 demand was well established and Y demand pretty clearly follows. There were a few failure scenarios still in play at the time -- e.g. what if Jerome Guillen and team hadn't jury-rigged Model T-style manual production lines out of spare parts from Musk's Alien Dreadnought debacle? But apart from self-inflicted catastrophes the die was pretty much cast.

That said, Tesla could slip back below the final 14b EBITDA milestone for full year 2024 if vehicle deliveries crash to ~1.6m.
 
So Tesla is expecting ~ 25 GWh delivered this year, even though their Megapack production rate is ~20 GWh annualized right now.

~ 20 make sense from Megapack, maybe they are ramping Powerwall volumes signficantly?

Thanks @Doggydogworld for correcting my fat finger mistake.

While Powerwall likely explains part of the difference, Megapack ramp is likely the bulk of it, @Zaddy Daddy.

Just the ramping will add a few more GWhs over the course of the year to get to 25-ish. (Plus, we really don't know their in-process projects so there is likely some hiding in there too).

Of all of Tesla's overpromises, I don't doubt this one. It really does seem reasonable.
 
Has this changed? I always thought that the default vote for shares held in "street name" were
for whatever management wants.

Default votes are only for "routine" matters.

Brokers don't have discretion for non-routine matters like this one.

Tesla's proxy statement has several FAQs on this if you really want to get into the weeds.
 
But they- the new shareholder- has no obligation at all based on how someone ELSE voted on something in the past.

Doubly so when a court voided that thing.


But let's look at it a different way-- if you had voted AGAINST in 2018-- are you free to do so again today?

Why are you, who voted against then, bound to vote FOR now because other shareholders did something different either time?

If you're still on-board at that point, why is a NEW shareholder even more obligated than an old one to vote in a way he doesn't feel is correct for his view?





They could've bought the stock after the case of course.

But apart from that- they're voting TODAY.

Today, that compensation plan was voided by a court- it legally does not exist under the current ruling.


So if that new shareholder is someone who would've voted no in 2018, them voting no now seems to be something you can make a pretty reasonable argument for.

I mean- if there's no actual choice why bother with a vote?






See above. For one- Currently there is no agreement. That's WHY there's a new vote.

The court found voters weren't fully informed for the original vote- thus deal is void. New vote.

For another do you think someone who voted NO in 2018 (or would have, but wasn't a shareholder till later) is ALSO obligated to vote different now? If so why?




Again, I voted my thousands of shares yes- it was a good deal in 2018 and I still think it's a good deal now regardless of the court.... but the idea there's no rational argument for anyone to do or think otherwise just ain't so even if you don't agree with the argument. It still exists.






Again- there is no agreement currently- not legally.

And they never voted FOR the one that did exist in the past.




Except, of course, those contracts and obligations still exist

They don't get a vote on them.
Friends dont let friends vote NO
 
After doing almost 4000 km north to south of Italy and back, a lot of it on autopilot, I really hope these new regulations for driving assistance pass

So dumb the artificial limitations put of it that actually make it way more dangerous, braking mid corner to not exceed the G limits or flat out disengaging, because that is what the law makes it do

But on the roads where it wasn't being pushed to the limit and hitting them, so awesome, made driving way nicer and I finally get what most have been saying for years
 
I don’t recall any of the other companies I have invested in paying money to advertise an upcoming shareholder vote. Has anyone else ever seen that? This is a weird move.

Advertising is a little less common but it happens. And, companies often pay for more traditional forms of solicitation like mailings, calls, emails, etc.

This is particularly true in harder votes (whether it's contested or not) like compensation decisions, mergers, structural changes, etc.

I can't find it easily, but I'm fairly certain Disney advertised on social media and in some trade publications for their recent proxy contest with Peltz (and maybe even in broader media). Certainly, Peltz did.
 
Fair? How can that be a fair argument? Buying a company/ shares thereof means also acknowledging its obligations.
The fact that there was an already vested compensation plan did not dissuade them from purchasing the stock, but now they refuse to honor that agreement? Nothing fair about that.
What next for them, supporting canceling lifetime premium connectivity/ Supercharging, vehicle warranties, paying off loans, and remitting taxes?
The only way I can see this as being seen as fair is if the investor has a victim mentality. 'It's not my fault my investment decision went against me. It's Elon's fault, it's the board's fault, I'm just a victim.'

Pathetic. Victim mentality is one of the top things I am teaching our daughter to not have, EVER.
 
There really is no such thing as an "exact science". Check out Heisenberg:
Science, by definition is as precise as humans can make it be, but still it is not absolute.
Almost everyone does not understand that, even though every Physics course should and usually does explain that.
Were it to have been exact, matter would be exact. The universe would not be constantly changing.

Elon is 'wired' for continuous improvement, he deeply understand the universe and physics end out being, as far as we know, probabilistic.

Here is the quintessential example, at least in historical context:

None of that explains why Elon's practice is to guess the best solution at all times, after using everything one can immediately know. Then, correct the mistakes one has made when fining better information.

That describes the Scientific Method which Elon uses in everything. He calls it First Principles, since that sounds less obscure to non-scientists.:
Brittanica has a decent explanation:

In short, science is empirical, it is also probabilistic.

I belabor that because so many of us seem to think that science does not work in social context. It does!

Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series shows where science could go in social context...and he was a scientist as well as a prolific writer. Elon read it all and studied.
Yes Elon has said his objective is to be the "Least Wrong" as is possible. This engineer loves this attitude.
This implies that a prior strategy or opinion can get radically changed as new information is obtained.
Many interpret any change in direction as "Elon lied!"
This explains a lot about his actions.
 
It’s interesting, but it is no way to manage people for high performance. Even on the unlikely change it improves performance slightly on the SC team, if there ever is one, it will add to the increasing sense company wide that the place is managed by fear, which has long been known to work short-term but not long term.
What he describes is a kind of way to short-circuit your team so you can micromanage.
And if this is actually what he was doing, it’s also simply no way to treat humans.
It seems lot more likely that it was just a reactionary decision and Jordan, being a fanboy like Sandy etc is coming up with a rationalization for it that is about three levels more clever than the actual motivation.
Jordan and Sandy are only Fanboys due to the facts in front of them. You are just keeping the ridiculous hand wringing alive in this board and it is just tedious. Elon dumps hard. WE know this. He tells us this repeatedly. Move on if that is not your bag.
 
Jordan and Sandy are only Fanboys due to the facts in front of them. You are just keeping the ridiculous hand wringing alive in this board and it is just tedious. Elon dumps hard. WE know this. He tells us this repeatedly. Move on if that is not your bag.
I’m just responding to claims that aren’t based on anything more firm than my own views. I’m not pushing this stuff. noice attitude. will take it under advisement. If you don’t like my approach you’re welcome to move on as well. cheers.
 
There really is no such thing as an "exact science". Check out Heisenberg:
Science, by definition is as precise as humans can make it be, but still it is not absolute.
Almost everyone does not understand that, even though every Physics course should and usually does explain that.
Were it to have been exact, matter would be exact. The universe would not be constantly changing.

Elon is 'wired' for continuous improvement, he deeply understand the universe and physics end out being, as far as we know, probabilistic.

Here is the quintessential example, at least in historical context:

None of that explains why Elon's practice is to guess the best solution at all times, after using everything one can immediately know. Then, correct the mistakes one has made when fining better information.

That describes the Scientific Method which Elon uses in everything. He calls it First Principles, since that sounds less obscure to non-scientists.:
Brittanica has a decent explanation:

In short, science is empirical, it is also probabilistic.

I belabor that because so many of us seem to think that science does not work in social context. It does!

Isaac Asimov's Foundation Series shows where science could go in social context...and he was a scientist as well as a prolific writer. Elon read it all and studied.
No. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines “exact science” as “a science (such as physics, chemistry, or astronomy) whose laws are capable of accurate quantitative expression.” Some say that the exact sciences (also known as “hard sciences”) are those that don't require you to figure out human psychology.
That was my meaning and clearly it was a legitimate use of the phrase.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: madodel and unk45
He’s not really wired to manage people. It’s not the sort of exact science that implies.
For how many multibillion dollar companies are you currently the chief executive officer? You understand both Tesla AND SpaceX are consistently in the top 5-10 companies where engineering graduates want to work?
 
No. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines “exact science” as “a science (such as physics, chemistry, or astronomy) whose laws are capable of accurate quantitative expression.” Some say that the exact sciences (also known as “hard sciences”) are those that don't require you to figure out human psychology.
Merriam-Webster has this wrong then. It is correct to say "Hard science" although that is an antiquated form since the evolution of quantum physics in general understanding.
By definition no science is 'exact' despite Merriam-Wesbter's misunderstanding.

'accurate' itself is a generalization, as is 'precise'. Neither is absolute.
As for use of the Scientific Method, that applies to all arenas of investigation. There is no distinction or elimination of any given subject.

This subject goes off-topic except when trying to evaluate the CEO's decision making process. That is our subject. He applies that quite widely, even in areas other people think are inapplicable to such reasoning. The very proof is that he describes an iterative process to all decisions, revising each decisions as new information can be found.
 
Merriam-Webster has this wrong then. It is correct to say "Hard science" although that is an antiquated form since the evolution of quantum physics in general understanding.
By definition no science is 'exact' despite Merriam-Wesbter's misunderstanding.

'accurate' itself is a generalization, as is 'precise'. Neither is absolute.
As for use of the Scientific Method, that applies to all arenas of investigation. There is no distinction or elimination of any given subject.

This subject goes off-topic except when trying to evaluate the CEO's decision making process. That is our subject. He applies that quite widely, even in areas other people think are inapplicable to such reasoning. The very proof is that he describes an iterative process to all decisions, revising each decisions as new information can be found.
Agreed. I define science as a method of investigation. Its touchstone is repeatability by others. Changing input variable can make the repeatability test fail, in which case something is learned.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: unk45 and 2daMoon

Timing of publishing the article as always , is impeccable.
 

Timing of publishing the article as always , is impeccable.


I feel that's a little unfair. One thing I've noticed as a pattern with Tesla/Musk in general is they don't respond unless they are sued. They also claim to never settle any unjust cases (so a lot of these are just?) so a lot of these just need to go through the legal process, but takes a long time and this case possibly started as far back as 2018. I don't think I'd want anyone to be dumping toxic mats next to where I live, but until lawsuits fly, there is a history of Tesla (and his companies) not paying, etc. More links of settlements, not paying bills even in TX, etc unless sued.


"It’s led to dozens of outstanding liens since 2019. In total, Reuters reports that more than two dozen companies have filed 72 liens, 41 of which were filed this year, adding up to more than $2.5 million due in payments. "



Musk is also quick to claim legal action/sue against anything against him too:
 
More comedy gold! 🤣

Tesla, not managing people for high performance. That is rich. I nearly spit my coffee reading that.

What else you got?
I’ve noticed that a lot of very smart people do high impact dumb stuff. It works out if they have a feedback mechanism and not a feedback loop. The alien dreadnaut disaster was resolved because Elon had a team to bail him out and who anticipated he was wrong. That feedback process seems gone for Cybertruck, 4680 cells, Roadster, Model 2 and possibly the semi. Most of the delays are due to the 4680 failure, but how does this fail for 3 years and not get path corrected. Elon is brilliant, but also his own worst enemy.
 
NEWS: xAI has been talking to Oracle executives about spending $10 billion to rent cloud servers from the company over a period of years. The proposed $10 billion deal would be similar in size to the deals OpenAI and Anthropic struck with Oracle’s bigger cloud competitors.

Edit:
https://twitter.com/xDaily
X Daily News

The cloud negotiations are ongoing and there’s no guarantee the two companies will sign a deal.
 
Last edited: