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

[insaneoctane]

I preferred when Musk's animosity was aimed at a terrible Delaware judge. I'm not looking forward to it being aimed squarely at Tesla stockholders if this vote fails to reinstate the original compensation agreement. I'm struggling knowing that the world's hardest working CEO has been working for free years after delivering on all unlikely milestones. Somehow testing "he couldn't leave..." isn't soothing to me...

 

[insaneoctane]

One hell of a walk down this morning. Unfortunately, perfectly predicted in @Papafox thread.

 

[Tachyon]

Robinhood says they will start sending out ballots today .FYI.

 

[Knightshade]

Elon says 12.4 is a 5x to 10x improvement in miles per intervention over 12.3. No matter what number you start from, it's quite significant. Rate of improvement is what matters here, even without all the details we would like to have.

But that's not useful for giving us an idea how far from unsupervised we are.

interventions every 1 miles becoming every 5 or 10 miles is absolutely a significant improvement. But it's a really really long way from RTs.

Going from interventions every 10k miles to every 50k is a much larger step.

Without knowing the base # just saying 5x isn't useful other than telling us they haven't hit a local maximum. Nice to know, but not informative to how close to the actual goal they are.

But if you assume that Elon is intentionally trying to mislead us, then I guess you are right to be skeptical.

I think there's at least 2 ways to read it.

The skeptical way is the base # is still quite low. The FSD tracker says we're at 140 miles between critical disengagements right now, so 5x-10x would be ~700-1400 miles between. Still a LONG way from RTs. And thus Elon doesn't want to say the base #.

The optimistic way is the base # is quite good but Elon just didn't bother saying what it was when he indicated a 5-10x improvement on it.


Unfortunately the FSD tracker is the only data we have either way on this.... and Occam tells us the longer that remains true the more likely the real base # isn't awesome- when has Tesla been shy about publishing excellent numbers? (see the quarterly safety report for example)

 

[Usain]

True, but the FSD tracker should provide some clarity on that. I'm expecting to see the average number of kms between interventions go from 100km to 500-1000km.

As I said before, I put no stock in the FSD tracker. The data collection methodology is deeply flawed.

Testers come and go. Definitions of disengagement is open to interpretation. Consistency in reporting is not enforced. Consistency of routes and time of day is not enforced. The number of testers from one release to the next is vastly different. I could go on.

Using its internal testing team, Tesla should be able to come up with numbers that are pretty good. Even then, 5x to 10x is quite a large range. So even under the best conditions, measuring this stuff appears to be hard.

Again, noticeable improvement is what matters at this stage. V12 is noticeably better than V11. At 5x or more improvement, I'm expecting 12.4 to be noticeably better than 12.3.

 

[FreqFlyer]

One hell of a walk down this morning. Unfortunately, perfectly predicted in @Papafox thread.

Man look at Nvidia, keep thinking that bubble will bust. Maybe Tesla needs to rename FSD............AI.

 

[spacerfc]

I don’t think Elon will quit. His ego won’t let him.

I wouldn't be so sure. Yes he has a big ego, but he also has much more ambitious projects lined up than building EVs. For example his ego can be much better stroked by doing this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1790739864658526356

If he put a man on Mars, let alone build a colony, he'd be remembered for the next 1,000 years, regardless of what happens to Tesla.

 

[GatorMeat]

Another example of why you should go full BEV or bust....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1790381580847870448

someone needs to write this up in a more concise and easily digested format for all the medias to pick up and push out to the ignorant masses. My neighborhood is full of inefficient, over-priced 'hybrids' (what an awful name when it's more a battery assisted, ICE dominant system, not 'hybrid')

 

[rentierparasit]

So, your strategy is to read a news article from a source you agree can be sketchy, at best, and has a reputation for being more consistently wrong in its reporting on Tesla, historically.

Then, based upon how this story makes you feel (because unsubstantiated rumor is nothing to base critical thinking upon), you imply this is the moment to decide how seriously to take it?

It is a story, not fact, not supported, a rumor at best, and you feel it necessary to take it seriously because this "rings true" in your opinion?

Critical thinking should avoid taking rumor as if it is fact in any instance. (this is the very essence of the "critical" aspect)

Critical thinking would dictate holding the information and waiting to decide until AFTER you have found factual data to support it, or, the rumor is determined to be unfounded.

If you are unable to find support for the story in facts, critical thinking dictates that it NOT be taken seriously at all.

Hi, 2daMoon --

> a reputation for being more consistently wrong in its reporting on Tesla, historically.

I asssume we're discussing Reuters. Could you provide a few examples of things they've been wrong about?

Yours,
RP

Moderator: Actually, No. We are NOT discussing Reuters. That series of unfortunately infantile posts is done.

If anyone has something both informative and useful, PM a Mod first so that Mods don’t have to delete it later.

 

[Usain]

But that's not useful for giving us an idea how far from unsupervised we are.

I don't care about that just yet. Overall improvement is what matters to me now.

The reason is that Tesla is betting that its end-to-end system will continue to improve as more data and compute are added. There is reason to believe that Tesla will not hit a local maximum any time soon. But if they did, that would be a major problem.

So right now, improvement is all I care about. If the system continues to improve at a very high rate then "unsupervised" will happen soon enough.

Even if you assume we are starting at 1 mile per disengagement and you get a 5x improvement with each release, you hit almost 2 million miles per disengagement after only 9 releases. And you hit almost 10 million miles per disengagement after 10 releases.

Release​	Miles per disengagement​
0​	1​
1​	5​
2​	25​
3​	125​
4​	625​
5​	3,125​
6​	15,625​
7​	78,125​
8​	390,625​
9​	1,953,125​
10​	9,765,625​

I don't expect it to play out this way, but you get my point. Right now, improvement is what matters. What we don't want to see is diminishing returns.

 

[Rarity]

Musk is expected to be in Bali on Sunday Indonesia time to introduce Starlink with President Jokowi, according to the Coordinating Minister of Maritime Affairs and Investment. Nothing regarding Tesla is mentioned in CNN Indonesia's article, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Tesla discussed, given all of the long-lived ongoing negotiations regarding nickel and batteries.

Luhut Klaim Starlink Lebih Murah Ketimbang Layanan Internet Lain

Biaya layanan internet Starlink yang berbasis satelit diklaim akan lebih murah ketimbang layanan lain. Benarkah demikian?

www.cnnindonesia.com

 

[rentierparasit]

I don't care about that just yet. Overall improvement is what matters to me now.

The reason is that Tesla is betting that its end-to-end system will continue to improve as more data and compute are added. There is reason to believe that Tesla will not hit a local maximum any time soon. But if they did, that would be a major problem.

So right now, improvement is all I care about. If the system continues to improve at a very high rate then "unsupervised" will happen soon enough.

Even if you assume we are starting at 1 mile per disengagement and you get a 5x improvement with each release, you hit almost 2 million miles per disengagement after only 9 releases. And you hit almost 10 million miles per disengagement after 10 releases.

Release​	Miles per disengagement​
0​	1​
1​	5​
2​	25​
3​	125​
4​	625​
5​	3,125​
6​	15,625​
7​	78,125​
8​	390,625​
9​	1,953,125​
10​	9,765,625​

I don't expect it to play out this way, but you get my point. Right now, improvement is what matters. What we don't want to see is diminishing returns.

Hi, Usain --

Agreed that it's the rate not the starting point that's important now. Note, though, that Musk could be wrong about the rate of 12.4 without lying, in the same way he's been wrong about other things without lying.

Yours,
RP

 

[Fred42]

Yeah, I'm thinking the comp plan reinstatement will be voted down. With Elon and Kimbal abstaining, I don't see where enough "yes" votes will come from. The glimmer of hope is that for the comp plan vote, they only need a majority of those voting.

This analysis from Harvard says that the move from Delaware to Texas has even less of a chance of passing because that one requires a majority of all stockholders, again with abstention from Elon and Kimbal.

The Gist of Tornetta

Sounds like a novel, right? Rather than our effort to distill to its essence the complicated, enormous lawsuit that TSLA shareholder Richard Tornetta won ...

corpgov.law.harvard.edu

I understand Elon's abstention from the vote on his pay, but why abstain from the vote on changing the state of incorporation?

 

[GatorMeat]

I preferred when Musk's animosity was aimed at a terrible Delaware judge. I'm not looking forward to it being aimed squarely at Tesla stockholders if this vote fails to reinstate the original compensation agreement. I'm struggling knowing that the world's hardest working CEO has been working for free years after delivering on all unlikely milestones. Somehow testing "he couldn't leave..." isn't soothing to me...

Elon is not the hardest working CEO- he holds multiple jobs and he has been ignoring his role at Tesla.
Elon already cashed out $40B, 1,000x more than he put in, more that Tesla total profits to date, and he still holds 13%. Many shares came from his previous comp plan.
No other Mag7 founder has been handed multi-billions in stock options. They all have enough skin in the game to make this unnecessary. The current 10-year comp plan from 2018 is absolutely ridiculous from all angles.

Substitute Elon and Tesla in the comp plan for any other CEO and company and you all would see it's an insane comp plan.

 

[insaneoctane]

I don't care about that just yet. Overall improvement is what matters to me now.

The reason is that Tesla is betting that its end-to-end system will continue to improve as more data and compute are added. There is reason to believe that Tesla will not hit a local maximum any time soon. But if they did, that would be a major problem.

So right now, improvement is all I care about. If the system continues to improve at a very high rate then "unsupervised" will happen soon enough.

Even if you assume we are starting at 1 mile per disengagement and you get a 5x improvement with each release, you hit almost 2 million miles per disengagement after only 9 releases. And you hit almost 10 million miles per disengagement after 10 releases.

Release​	Miles per disengagement​
0​	1​
1​	5​
2​	25​
3​	125​
4​	625​
5​	3,125​
6​	15,625​
7​	78,125​
8​	390,625​
9​	1,953,125​
10​	9,765,625​

I don't expect it to play out this way, but you get my point. Right now, improvement is what matters. What we don't want to see is diminishing returns.

This ^^^
Continuing to see significant improvement is the sign that this is the right path. Just consider how much better 12.x already is vs the almost decade of previous efforts....and it continues to get significantly better each build....

 

[GatorMeat]

Hi, Usain --

Agreed that it's the rate not the starting point that's important now. Note, though, that Musk could be wrong about the rate of 12.4 without lying, in the same way he's been wrong about other things without lying.

Yours,
RP

Musk has already claimed that 12.3 is mind-blowing and interventions are rare. So we are already at a very high mile per intervention rate and it will now 5x - 10x.

 

[Usain]

Hi, Usain --

Agreed that it's the rate not the starting point that's important now. Note, though, that Musk could be wrong about the rate of 12.4 without lying, in the same way he's been wrong about other things without lying.

Yours,
RP

That's true. If he's wrong we should know very soon. Either 12.4 will be noticeably better or it won't.

 

[EQC_]

I don't see any scenario in which the CEO of a company employing ~140 000 people gets angry at one person and ends up firing 500 instead can be painted in a good light. And I don't think any sane person that's actually highly skilled and in demand with a shred of dignity would go back after being fired in such a tantrum. ...

I'd suggest removing the assumed emotion from the story. Many people tend to paint a picture that includes Elon being "angry" and throwing a "tantrum," etc. I don't think I've ever seen any first hand sources claiming this sort of thing, and it only sounds plausible because these sorts of things get repeated by complete outsiders so often...

Even the Yahoo story doesn't go the emotional route: "Musk, the employees said, was not pleased...When she balked, saying deeper cuts would undermine charging-business fundamentals, he responded by firing her and her entire 500-member team."

Adding and/or repeating emotion words (angry, tantrum) with certainty, as you did, tends to cloud judgement. In any business enviornment, it is far more likely that it was a boring, cold calculation -- CEO asked manager to do something, manager could not or did not, CEO decided do the restructuring himself quickly. Period.

Next: realize that these so-called "firings" were probably, legally, grouped in as part of the layoffs, and therefore legally fell under the requirements/protections of the WARN act.

In that case, what very likely happened was:

1) 500 employee group was told, one way or another: "go home and receive full pay for doing nothing. You may be laid off in 2 months, at which time that pay will end."
2) Some days or weeks later, many of those folks were called up and told "come back and work...you won't be laid off."

But that is boring. Nobody is going to go viral saying "I got sent home for a few weeks at full pay, and then got called back in," so that story isn't going to spread.

Negativity and emotion sells...but while it may be good for generating clicks, judging any situation based on imagined emotions is a flawed path.

*Small edits for clarity.

 

[Knightshade]

BTW some fun inside baseball on the compensation vote-- -per Teslas proxy it must pass in a way that meets 3 different standards--- for 2 of them abstains do not count as a no... for the third they DO. Elon and Kimbals shares are voting abstain on this. Might be relevant.

From the proxy- a few bits bolded


Required Vote
We ask our stockholders to approve the Ratification. The proposal to approve the Ratification requires the following votes of Tesla’s Stockholders:
(1)
the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the total votes of shares of Tesla common stock cast in person or by proxy at the 2024 Annual Meeting on the proposal, pursuant to the rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (the “NASDAQ Standard”),

and
(2)
the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting power of the shares present in person or represented by proxy at the 2024 Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on the proposal, pursuant to Tesla’s amended and restated bylaws (the “Bylaws Standard”),

and
(3)
The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the total votes of shares of Tesla common stock not owned, directly or indirectly, by Mr. Musk or Kimbal Musk, cast in person or by proxy at the 2024 Annual Meeting on the proposal, pursuant to the resolutions of the Board approving the Ratification (the “Ratification Disinterested Standard”).

With respect to the approval of the Ratification, you may vote “FOR”, “AGAINST” or “ABSTAIN”. Abstentions will be counted toward the tabulations of voting power present and entitled to vote on the Ratification. If you vote to abstain, it will have the same effect as a vote against the Ratification under the Bylaws Standard, but will have no effect on the Ratification under the NASDAQ Standard or the Ratification Disinterested Standard.

 

[rentierparasit]

Yes, that comment was about Reuters' being rather dependable about publishing hit-pieces on Tesla and Elon. They are not alone in this by any stretch of the imagination.

Here's a starting point within this forum. Feel free to work your way through the results in that search and it should offer examples of bad reporting and posts describing what they got wrong, assumed, or simply took out of context for effect.

Here's a broader set of responses to a "Reuters' hit pieces on Tesla" search using DuckDuckGo. Try the same search on Google as well if you prefer that search engine.

If you have long-term knowledge of Tesla, it should be easy to pick out the blatant bias from Reuters' perspective. If you don't, then you might be trusting enough to take it as gospel without verifying the story.

Next, as you continue to follow this thread, and as reports are posted here about Reuters' inaccuracies, someone here will point out what they, ahem, misrepresented. Inaccuracies which their readers and news channels picking up the story will parrot as if it is fact.

Lastly, to better understand what is the point in Reuters and others doing this, take a look at

Hi, 2daMoon --

> Here's a broader set of responses to a "Reuters' hit pieces on Tesla" search

I imagine that search would be just as useful as searching for "Musk lies again", you're just going to turn up a bunch of things that agree with the search query.

I don't feel like spending a lot of time on this, which I think you would have to do to get anywhere, I was just wondering if anybody had a short and easy to understand list of things where Reuters was *definitely* wrong, as later events showed. Note that I wouldn't regard a Musk/Tesla denial of a story as any kind of proof one way or the other for obvious reasons, "Corporation denies negative story" is to be expected.

As an example of the kind of thing I don't want to wade into, from:

Tesla responds to Reuters’ claims of faulty suspension issues

Tesla's response, which was posted on X, provided a thorough rebuttal of the claims outlined in Reuters' investigation.

www.teslarati.com

found as a result of your search, my eyes were attracted to:

----

Misleading headline:

“Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective.”

Reality (buried in the article):

Tesla paid for most of the 120,000 vehicle repairs under warranty.
----

OK, so here we're complaining about the headline, which the "reality" part *doesn't even actually contradict* due to the use of weasel-wordy "most".

I don't want to turn into Knightshade -- who I respect! just kidding, Knightshade! -- here. If anybody could provide a short list of Reuters articles that were definitely wrong *in substance* -- that is, we're not arguing about incorrect details -- I'd appreciate it.

Yours,
RP