3 ms·

Without wsj paywall: https://outline.com/LHX3V9 https://outline.com/LHX3V9

dlp211 9y ago
And then there is this: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/06/technology/tesla-semi-delay/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/06/technology/tesla-semi-delay/... When will investors punish Tesla for this constant non-sense. Anyone else would have been ejected by the board by now and shareholders would be gnashing their teeth for some accountability, but not the holy Musk.
- adventured 9y ago
  Anyone else that delivered on what Musk actually has delivered, would not have been ejected by the board or shareholders by now. Specifically because of Tesla's $59 billion market cap and the extraordinary return Musk has produced for shareholders. That sweet thousand percent return over the last five years. Yeah, shareholders are just chomping at the bit to get rid of Musk.
  - quickben 9y ago
    A subsidized car, a government contract limited run space shuttle and some house tiles and batteries that didn't quite take off. Objectively, the stock is overhyped, and somebody will retire nicely from shorting it fairly soon.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      Objectively, you haven't understood the efficient market hypothesis. Subjectively, the house tiles and batteries were never meant to take off, SpaceX had rockets to orbit before they ever got a NASA contract, the subsidies on the car were negligible in the scheme of things, and also available to anybody else.
      - quickben 9y ago
        "the subsidies on the car were negligible " $14000 in Ontario.
- matt4077 9y ago
  > Anyone else would have been ejected by the board The board's on it! They'll replace Musk the second they find anyone else capable of creating both a profitable orbital launch company and a profitable electric supercar company, simultaneously. Of course Musk is a controlling stakeholder on those boards. And while he's really going to get to fire himself any day now, it does appear as if it may take a day or two more than anticipated. But once these last kinks are taken care off, it'll be a revolutionary rethinking of what it means to be fired. Order now!
- factsaresacred 9y ago
  > Anyone else would have been ejected by the board by now and shareholders would be gnashing their teeth for some accountability Perhaps it's for the best that Elon seems an indispensable part of Tesla's success. Ejecting CEOs and shuffling the boardroom because value will be realized - shock, horror - a few weeks later is akin to corporate dowsing: questionable actions with dubious results. Shares can be sold. The idea that holding stocks of a company make one some kind of philosopher-king who need not deign themselves with concepts of patience and time horizons needs to go away. Investment in shares is risk in hope of return, not a whip.
- spiorf 9y ago
  So you have a guy with a proven track record of companies that manage to make products that 15 years ago were thought to be impossible to make, that is personally invested in those companies, that does so with a clear intention of bringing some much needed revolutions in the whole transport and rocket industry, and he should be fired... Besides, shareholders bought shares of a company whose stated purpose is "to accelerate the advent of sustainable mobility", not "maximize profit for shareholders".
woodandsteel 9y ago
Thank you. I don't understand why people put up wsj links on HN. If you're a wsj subscriber, you've probably read it already. If you're not, you can't, unless someone puts up an alternative link. At the least, someone who puts up a wsj link ought to include an alternative link.
- jseliger 9y ago
  I don't understand why people put up wsj links on HN Because the WSJ does a lot of reporting that can't be found anywhere else. Furthermore, a lot of people also decry the way advertising has distorted the web and media orgs. There are two major ways to pay for news: ads and subscriptions. People who don't like the former ought to like the latter. Before someone points this out, let me say that I'd love to see micro-payments work out but we have not seen this work yet even after twenty years of prognostication on the topic.
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    I see I didn't make my point clear enough. I am saying that a wsj link put up on HN has no utility, because the people who could read it likely already have, and the link does no good for the people who can't read it. I agree entirely about the problem with advertising, and the need for something micro-payments.
- matt4077 9y ago
  I wonder if there's any overlap between the group of people who always complain about ads, those that complain about paywalls, and maybe even those that say journalism is worthless "because they're all just rewriting the AP ticker". Because it appears as if people think the future of journalism is hundreds of high-quality, independent, investigative newspapers. Who each have one subscriber who summarises the articles for their ad-free blog.

And then there is this: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/06/technology/tesla-semi-delay/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/06/technology/tesla-semi-delay/... When will investors punish Tesla for this constant non-sense. Anyone else would have been ejected by the board by now and shareholders would be gnashing their teeth for some accountability, but not the holy Musk.

adventured 9y ago
Anyone else that delivered on what Musk actually has delivered, would not have been ejected by the board or shareholders by now. Specifically because of Tesla's $59 billion market cap and the extraordinary return Musk has produced for shareholders. That sweet thousand percent return over the last five years. Yeah, shareholders are just chomping at the bit to get rid of Musk.
- quickben 9y ago
  A subsidized car, a government contract limited run space shuttle and some house tiles and batteries that didn't quite take off. Objectively, the stock is overhyped, and somebody will retire nicely from shorting it fairly soon.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Objectively, you haven't understood the efficient market hypothesis. Subjectively, the house tiles and batteries were never meant to take off, SpaceX had rockets to orbit before they ever got a NASA contract, the subsidies on the car were negligible in the scheme of things, and also available to anybody else.
    - quickben 9y ago
      "the subsidies on the car were negligible " $14000 in Ontario.
matt4077 9y ago
> Anyone else would have been ejected by the board The board's on it! They'll replace Musk the second they find anyone else capable of creating both a profitable orbital launch company and a profitable electric supercar company, simultaneously. Of course Musk is a controlling stakeholder on those boards. And while he's really going to get to fire himself any day now, it does appear as if it may take a day or two more than anticipated. But once these last kinks are taken care off, it'll be a revolutionary rethinking of what it means to be fired. Order now!
factsaresacred 9y ago
> Anyone else would have been ejected by the board by now and shareholders would be gnashing their teeth for some accountability Perhaps it's for the best that Elon seems an indispensable part of Tesla's success. Ejecting CEOs and shuffling the boardroom because value will be realized - shock, horror - a few weeks later is akin to corporate dowsing: questionable actions with dubious results. Shares can be sold. The idea that holding stocks of a company make one some kind of philosopher-king who need not deign themselves with concepts of patience and time horizons needs to go away. Investment in shares is risk in hope of return, not a whip.
spiorf 9y ago
So you have a guy with a proven track record of companies that manage to make products that 15 years ago were thought to be impossible to make, that is personally invested in those companies, that does so with a clear intention of bringing some much needed revolutions in the whole transport and rocket industry, and he should be fired... Besides, shareholders bought shares of a company whose stated purpose is "to accelerate the advent of sustainable mobility", not "maximize profit for shareholders".

woodandsteel 9y ago

Thank you. I don't understand why people put up wsj links on HN. If you're a wsj subscriber, you've probably read it already. If you're not, you can't, unless someone puts up an alternative link. At the least, someone who puts up a wsj link ought to include an alternative link.

jseliger 9y ago
I don't understand why people put up wsj links on HN Because the WSJ does a lot of reporting that can't be found anywhere else. Furthermore, a lot of people also decry the way advertising has distorted the web and media orgs. There are two major ways to pay for news: ads and subscriptions. People who don't like the former ought to like the latter. Before someone points this out, let me say that I'd love to see micro-payments work out but we have not seen this work yet even after twenty years of prognostication on the topic.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  I see I didn't make my point clear enough. I am saying that a wsj link put up on HN has no utility, because the people who could read it likely already have, and the link does no good for the people who can't read it. I agree entirely about the problem with advertising, and the need for something micro-payments.
matt4077 9y ago
I wonder if there's any overlap between the group of people who always complain about ads, those that complain about paywalls, and maybe even those that say journalism is worthless "because they're all just rewriting the AP ticker". Because it appears as if people think the future of journalism is hundreds of high-quality, independent, investigative newspapers. Who each have one subscriber who summarises the articles for their ad-free blog.