9 ms·

Tesla’s Elon Musk May Have Boldest Pay Plan in Corporate History

71 points by dynofuz 9y ago

Aloha 9y ago
I suspect I hold a minority opinion - but I think Tesla is woefully overvalued for what it is, and what it sells - yes, it has interesting new technology, but I have doubts about its ability to execute at the scale required to dominate the market as they wish. Tesla has a market cap of 56 billion dollars - compared to Ford at 45 billion, and GM at 61 billion. Tesla I believe sold around 100,000 cars in 2017, and 76,000 in 2016, in the US alone Ford and GM sold 2.5 and 3 million respectively in 2016 - to give you scale GM sold 10 million worldwide (again, in 2016). Scaling manufacturing operations is one of the hardest things to do - so I dont see it to be possible for Tesla to chase after the mass market, or do anywhere near the sales of the other manufacturers.
- qaq 9y ago
  I don't think you are alone on the other hand I view holding Tesla stock not so much as an investment but as a way to support a "brighter" version of the future :)
- traviswingo 9y ago
  I feel like too many people hold a short sided “stock market only” view of Tesla. Its not, long term, an auto maker. Its solar panels, energy storage, energy management...everything that will be necessary to survive somewhere coal wont be available to burn. There is a long term vision that is funded by capitalizing on short term markets along the way. That vision is much larger than P/E ratios... Thus I’m not surprised when i hear about Elon being sad or annoyed with “shareholders” and the board, because he holds a vision for our future that Wall Street just cant comprehend, and thats depressing.
  - snuxoll 9y ago
    I see Tesla’s vision, and I think it’s where we as a species need to be headed - but their ability to execute is sorely lacking and that goes far beyond P/E ratios.
    - erikpukinskis 9y ago
      Who is executing better in large scale batteries?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - prklmn 9y ago
    His vision is highly dependent on levering up the company even further and selling more equity in the future. What happens when their cash flow dries up during the next recession, which by the way last happened nearly 10 years ago, and they can’t meet their debt obligations? When there is chatter that PE ratios don’t matter, it’s time to run for the hills as irrationality has set in. Also, Tesla doesn’t have a PE ratio because they don’t generate profit. The stuff that gets companies trough difficult economic times. Also, on the batteries and solar endeavors - sure it’s a growth opportunity but does Tesla really have that much of a competitive advantage beyond their brand name? One final thing. Don’t forget that Musk does not have shareholders’ best interests in mind. He bailed out solar city, which was heading for bankruptcy, using Tesla as his piggy bank. And then got shareholders to drink the kool aid that it was a smart move when in reality he could have simply bought it out of bankruptcy - but that would have cost him personally, so he didn’t. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/01/teslas-solarcity-buyout-looking-worse-by-the-day.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/01/teslas-solarcity-b... EDIT: Levering, not leveling
  - meritt 9y ago
    Ford does ~$150B in revenue per year and they are worth $46B. Ford's P/S is 0.31 GM does ~$166B in revenue per year and they are worth $61B. GM's P/S is 0.37. Tesla does ~$12B in revenue per year and they are worth $56B. Tesla's P/S is 4.67 I'd argue that Wall Street has an extremely optimistic view of Tesla's future since they are worth 12-15x more than Ford and GM on a revenue basis. I can't really compare on a profit basis since Ford and GM are profitable and Tesla has never made a profit and their production/delivery numbers have been basically flat (~25k units) per quarter for a year and a half.
    - dmode 9y ago
      What’s the EBITDA comparison ?
      - meritt 9y ago
        F=15.7B, GM=20.9B, TSLA=0.26B
- andars 9y ago
  Tesla, the car company, probably will never come close to the market caps thrown around in the article. Tesla, the energy company, might.
- snuxoll 9y ago
  Especially now that Tesla has the bolt to compete with, which has been selling well and it seems GM has been able to keep up with production. Tesla needs to get production capacity on track fast, or they will get left in the dust as other major players hop on board the EV wagon.
  - elihu 9y ago
    Like Tesla, I think the other manufacturers are constrained by the supply of battery cells. In order for GM or Ford or Toyota or whoever to "leave Tesla in the dust", they would need to fix that somehow. Maybe some of the major car manufacturers will build their own battery plants or some new supplier will fill the market demand, but that takes time. Until then, the incumbent manufacturers will continue to sell mostly gas cars because they have no alternative.
  - wonder_bread 9y ago
    https://electrek.co/2017/12/01/chevy-bolt-ev-us-sales-records/ https://electrek.co/2017/12/01/chevy-bolt-ev-us-sales-record... When I initially read your comment I was inclined to disagree with another automaker incumbent-smashing opinion but upon researching, I have to say, 2,000 units a month in the nascent mainstream market for EV's is definitely impressive. Kudos to GM there
- elchief 9y ago
  Everyone I know says their current car is their last gas car. Ford can't yet compete on electric cars
- ggm 9y ago
  I too find the notional valuations confusing for Tesla, and other entities. Comparing net worth, listed worth against industrial titans like Ford or GM is very hard for me because they are involved in supply chain logistics and dynamics of goods sold and bought on a scale which justifies their apparent net worth, when Tesla is a giant speculative 'maybe' play. But the thing is, I'm just as confused understanding how IBM is worth anything any more, now that it has no core central logic except "do stuff, for money, for big clients" Or why any of this matters, when Chinese state enterprises are worth more than all of this put together. CNOOC, the state oil company, is 1.17 trillion in 2014 CNY terms. thats $180b US for a shipping company alone. That, I can relate to. I can't conceive of enough uses for things in space, to justify Tesla rockets being so valuable but then I can't conceive of that many creme eggs, bought with that much money either.
  - andars 9y ago
    > Tesla rockets Tesla is distinct from SpaceX.
    - ggm 9y ago
      good call. unsay those rocket words. on the up side his roof tile PV thing is a clean slate (hah) which has a huge market out there, irrespective of the supply chain dynamic questions behind EV. And his batteries are going gangbusters attached to solar and wind farms so there are sound, large business models behind tesla. But.. making them add up to the same net worth as GM which has factories and dealerships and side deals in ship engines, energy, military, worldwide... I am still adrift. Tesla is talking about gigafactory sites outside of the USA. GM owns factory sites worldwide.
- tedsanders 9y ago
  Market cap is not the right comparison. Ford has a substantially higher enterprise value than Tesla: like 157B vs 66B. The reason Tesla has a higher market cap is that Ford is carrying more debt (which has little to do with expected future production and sales).
- aphextron 9y ago
  >Tesla I believe sold around 100,000 cars in 2017, and 76,000 in 2016, in the US alone Ford and GM sold 2.5 and 3 million respectively in 2016 - to give you scale GM sold 10 million worldwide (again, in 2016). And I'm certain Casio sold millions more watches than Rolex last year. The fact is that consumers are rational in their choices with respect to not just actual utility, but perceived social value. High end brands have an undeniable, albeit intangible, value.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    It's a luxury brand that has yet to reach profitability. If you cant be profitable in a luxury good market, you're doing it wrong.
    - jryle70 9y ago
      This is short sight. Their goal is to make EV affordable for the mass. Doing this requires huge investment. They aren't content to stay in luxury segment. If they were models S and X would have been enough.
- mtgx 9y ago
  And Nokia used to sell 300x as many phones as Apple did at one point. Giants don't tend to adapt well to paradigm shifts in the industry, and make no mistake, switching to EVs is a huge paradigm shift. Everything from factory tools, supplier partnerships, type of employees, and even business model is different here.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    Nokia still sells millions of phones... The market got bigger. Nokia did not.
    - dirtyaura 9y ago
      This is not true. Nokia sold over 450M phones per year in 2007-2010, but started to lose marketshare quickly, and from 2010 onwards the number of phones sold dropped fast. Then Nokia sold it’s phone business to Microsoft. Now it is returning, but it’s not anymore core focus of the business and the numbers are small.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Everyone keeps saying that EV's are a huge paradigm shift, but they don't explain how - in the end its a car - and not much more inherently high tech than many other cars - replacing the method of propulsion, does not fundamentally alter how you build it, or how you source the parts to build it.
    - mschuster91 9y ago
      > replacing the method of propulsion, does not fundamentally alter how you build it, or how you source the parts to build it. There are fundamental changes in car design. No need for a huge tunnel and axle in RWD cars, and no huge, loud, hot and vibrating engine in the front. In addition the battery pack shifts down the centre of gravity (thus making the car way better in handling curves), and the now free space in the front (what Tesla calls "frunk") is a huge crumple zone. Also, with the engine there goes a huge complex part with many different highly specialized suppliers - granted, it's replaced by another set of parts, but fundamentally it's orders of magnitude less parts, and easier to install.
- panarky 9y ago
  Nobody is buying Tesla shares based on 2017 sales. They're buying an option on the future. You may think the company's future isn't worth a $56 billion present value, but comparing Tesla's historical production against Ford and GM is completely missing the point. That would be like comparing Google's revenue in 2004 against its competitors in the advertising industry. Investors who bought Google's IPO were valuing the company's potential in 2014 and 2024, not its minuscule market share in 2004. Google's 2004 IPO valued the company at $23 billion, twice as much as WPP Group even though WPP had much higher revenue than Google. Today Google is worth 35 WPPs, and Tesla investors think it could be worth multiple GMs and Fords ten years hence.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aloha 9y ago
    How does it make sense that Tesla could be worth several Fords, or General Motors in ten years? The automotive market is stable, something on the order of 80 million cars a year, and I don't see Tesla vanquishing one of the incumbents either. I guess my argument is that an Electric Car is not a whole new category of vehicle (like a flying autonomous car might), anymore than diesel cars are looked as a separate market than gasoline ones. Whereas Google created an entirely new category of advertising, that didn't even really exist before they arrived and the market grew by two or three orders of magnitude.
    - dirtyaura 9y ago
      I assume battery sales for energy producers will play a big role in Elon’s plans. Is he right? Maybe, if there is political will to fight climate change.
      - Aloha 9y ago
        If batteries go like you suppose they will, they will quickly become a race to the bottom, battery packs are not terribly complex to make.
    - deleted 9y ago
- kumarvvr 9y ago
  Tesla has pretty big moats around it's business. 1. Tesla can always enter into the ICE market with ease, not that they will do it, but they can and probably will succeed. The big 3 have had a lot of difficulty in getting into the EV market. Sure, they have competing vehicles, but lack the marketing power of Tesla. 2. Tesla is the new cool factor. Undeniably. People get mocked for driving a Prius. Owning a Tesla evokes a more positive response. 3. Tesla has it's supercharging network, which I think is a very smart move. That's a pretty big moat. 4. Tesla's marketing machine is immense and enormously efficient. I remember Elon writing a blog article about a journalists negative review of their car and the discussion about Tesla dominated social media for a few weeks. No one even bothers about the management at the big 3, but Elon is a celebrity who is given geek god like status.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
    What was "cool" to the parent's generation is often considered "uncool" to the children's generation. That is why it is very dangerous to build a business on "cool".
    - mschuster91 9y ago
      > What was "cool" to the parent's generation is often considered "uncool" to the children's generation. Yeah but the "parent generation" is the one which has the cash to buy a Tesla. My generation, unless made rich by bitcoin trading or stocks? Lol used VW junker it is. For my generation, I'd bet that access to (autonomous?) car sharing will be the cool thing - and, guess what, Tesla has the upper hand there. Every vehicle transmits data back to homebase... and that data is why Tesla is so hyped and highly valuated, not the cars or the patents, probably not even Elon Musk himself. They may sell the car at a hardware loss, but gain so much data for which they'd have to pay test drivers instead and still get a dime of the percentage they now get. Hell Tesla could close down shop today and I bet there would be waaaaay more than enough cash from companies willing to buy that data. The only exception I can think of is Google with its Maps/Streetview cars as these have enormous, probably even better, sensors by design and in theory Google could get by just fine - but the amount of data is a blip compared to the miles already driven by all the Teslas out there. Further adding to the value of Tesla is that they are trying (and often have succeeded) in breaking down the "dealership" structures... while the "old" car makers are more or less stuck to that structure (they don't want to piss off existing dealers), Tesla can react way quicker to demand. edit: oh, and "modern" infotainment? App connections? Nothing the big car makers have to show comes even remotely close to what Tesla can do - their entire model is different. Digital services are at the core of any Tesla, so deep in fact that Tesla can dynamically "unlock" more capacity in the batteries, with frequent software updates - while even a top-notch VW has to visit a dealer to get a de-stinker firmware update. And don't get me started about the quality of the software in any non-Tesla car. No one comes remotely close to that level, and no one comes close in development speed/agility.
- llsf 9y ago
  I am not sure it completely accurate to compare Tesla with GM or Ford. Tesla is not a car company (they removed the word "Motors" from the original "Tesla Motors", like Apple removed "Computers" earlier). They do sell some vehicles (electric ones), but they also sell batteries, and solar panels. And they sell those just to show what their main product can do. Tesla main product is the Gigafactory. The factory is the product. Tesla is in the business of building factories, new generation of factories. Now, is it business worth ~$56B ? And what could it be worth in one year, 5 or 10 years ?
- MarkMc 9y ago
  How many vehicles do you think Tesla will sell in 2021?
  - Aloha 9y ago
    I don't know. But I know without a second factory, they're unlikely to make more than 500,000 a year.
    - MarkMc 9y ago
      OK, but it seems likely that Tesla will have a second factory by 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-07/tesla-plans-to-build-new-plant-for-model-y-crossover-musk-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-07/tesla-pla...
rdlecler1 9y ago
This is. win-win for Elon. He’s already a billionaire so salary doesn’t move the needle. At the same time it sends a message of confidence to investors. If his net worth was $5m would he make the same bet?
- olivermarks 9y ago
  "Even though Mr. Musk’s shares have vested, he has not sold them except to pay the taxes on the grants. His current stake is worth $13 billion." "Mr. Musk does not take a salary, although under California State law, Tesla is required to pay him at least minimum wage." "To afford to live, Mr. Musk has borrowed against his shares, a practice that some corporate executives have questioned" All seems rather odd to me.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    He borrows with the shares as collateral, he retains voting rights, and only needs to sell the shares if his net worth on paper goes negative. It’s the same as Zuckerberg diluting with nonvoting shares. It allows him to sell profit shares without selling voting rights.
  - twblalock 9y ago
    After a certain point, it's better to borrow against investments than to pay cash for things. This is especially true when selling your investments would trigger a capital gains tax, which would normally have a far higher rate than a loan with your investments as collateral. Plus, your investments stay in the market the whole time unless you default. One of the life lessons I've learned from wealthy people is that they know how to use debt as a tool to keep their investments in the market and avoid taxes.
    - MarkMc 9y ago
      Similarly I did not want to sell my shares in Google to buy shares in the Facebook IPO (even though I felt Facebook would generate better returns) because I would have to pay capital gains tax. This shows why a simple model for capital gains tax leads to inefficient capital allocation. Instead, the CGT rules should be cumulative like this: Let's say you buy at $1 million and then sell at $10 million after 10 years: That is an annual return of 25.9%. If the annual capital gains tax rate is 20%, that would leave you with a return of 20.7% per annum. So after 10 years your $1 million investment is worth $6.56 million after tax. That is, you must pay $3.44 million in capital gains tax.
trafnar 9y ago
Is this more bold than Steve Jobs' $1/year pay plan?
- brwnll 9y ago
  Yes, since stock compensation is only granted if the market value of the company hits a threshold.
- ctdonath 9y ago
  Yes. There's actually a financial incentive, and pays out only if very aggressive goals are reached. Jobs wanted to make the very best computers. Musk is trying to open Mars to humanity.
taeric 9y ago
How is this bolder than what Steve Jobs did?
- andars 9y ago
  Jobs had a $1 salary and no bonuses. That doesn't say anything about stock options, grants, etc. It sounds like Musk will get minimum wage and no stock anything if Tesla doesn't meet the thresholds.
  - taeric 9y ago
    I question if either was really bold. Neither man really needs the extra income... So nothing at stake. It is neat and getting good press, but bold?
jameshart 9y ago
A guy who plans to retire on Mars has a very different comp negotiation strategy than the average ceo.
maehwasu 9y ago
As someone in a similar situation, at much lower numbers, I can say this is likely primarily about tax optimization, with the optics being a nice side benefit. If you're fairly liquid and decently bullish on your company, then holding off and taking your income later as capital gains makes a lot of sense. And as seen in the article, he can borrow against the shares to achieve as much liquidity as he wants/needs for his lifestyle without having to pay ordinary income taxes. I guess I'm impressed by Elon that he can get such puff from the NYT for some basic tax structuring.
- cycrutchfield 9y ago
  Presumably his compensation would be in the form of stock grants, which are taxed as income. Why are you talking about capital gains?
- MarkMc 9y ago
  If it's primarily a tax dodge, why is it so uncommon? Seems that most CEOs get paid very well even if they underperform but Musk will get paid nothing.
brwnll 9y ago
The interesting part is how this contradicts what Elon's original stated goal of the company was. I am a Musk believer, and when he started Tesla he stated his goal wasn't to be a major car manufacturer but to be a proof of concept to push the major players into the space. He demonstrated this by the open sourcing of EV patents. Tying compensation to cap value of Tesla means that he no longer believes the major players will adapt (although there is strong evidence that his original plan has worked and the other manufacturers are making much larger investments in EV), or that the auto's segment will grow as a whole so significantly, that Telsa, as a minority player, will still be able to reach a 10x size over the next decade.
- kumarvvr 9y ago
  He even agreed to share core patents royalty free, and I haven't heard any news a major manufacturer took up on the offer.
- andars 9y ago
  Or he plans on growth in other segments (solar, batteries, ?)
c3534l 9y ago
I believe in game theory this is called signalling. If you think he's full of bluff and marketing, it certainly seems he believes it himself.
cmsmith 9y ago
>If Mr. Musk were somehow to increase the value of Tesla to $650 billion — a figure many experts would contend is laughably impossible and would make Tesla one of the five largest companies in the United States, based on current valuations — his stock award could be worth as much as $55 billion Except that as the article says, he already owns 20% of Tesla, so his current shares would rise in value by $110B. He could fail to meet any of performance targets and still be pulling in a billion dollars a year in capital gains.
j7ake 9y ago
Bold would be if he would donate his entire net worth if Tesla fails to meet goals. This is not bold because he would still be a billionaire if Tesla failed.
mcot2 9y ago
Tesla is not a car company. Here are some other markets they are in: * Energy storage. See the giant battery in Australia. * Residential solar and solar roof tiles. See Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo New York. * Electric vehicle charging. See the supercharger network. * Battery cell production. See Gigafactory 1 in Nevada. They have also said they are exploring: * Launching a ride sharing service using autonomous cars. * Capitalzing on the supercharger network with retail and food. * Moving into trucking and logistics with the semi project. This is why people invest in Tesla.
xiphias 9y ago
As much as I love Tesla, I believe a big part of whether it can achieve the $650M valuation depends more on the macroeconomic effects of the stock and bond market and the central banks than anything Elon does (I'm fairly confident about Tesla's strategy and execution, less about the US bond valuations).

71 points by dynofuz 9y ago

I suspect I hold a minority opinion - but I think Tesla is woefully overvalued for what it is, and what it sells - yes, it has interesting new technology, but I have doubts about its ability to execute at the scale required to dominate the market as they wish. Tesla has a market cap of 56 billion dollars - compared to Ford at 45 billion, and GM at 61 billion. Tesla I believe sold around 100,000 cars in 2017, and 76,000 in 2016, in the US alone Ford and GM sold 2.5 and 3 million respectively in 2016 - to give you scale GM sold 10 million worldwide (again, in 2016). Scaling manufacturing operations is one of the hardest things to do - so I dont see it to be possible for Tesla to chase after the mass market, or do anywhere near the sales of the other manufacturers.

qaq 9y ago
I don't think you are alone on the other hand I view holding Tesla stock not so much as an investment but as a way to support a "brighter" version of the future :)
traviswingo 9y ago
I feel like too many people hold a short sided “stock market only” view of Tesla. Its not, long term, an auto maker. Its solar panels, energy storage, energy management...everything that will be necessary to survive somewhere coal wont be available to burn. There is a long term vision that is funded by capitalizing on short term markets along the way. That vision is much larger than P/E ratios... Thus I’m not surprised when i hear about Elon being sad or annoyed with “shareholders” and the board, because he holds a vision for our future that Wall Street just cant comprehend, and thats depressing.
- snuxoll 9y ago
  I see Tesla’s vision, and I think it’s where we as a species need to be headed - but their ability to execute is sorely lacking and that goes far beyond P/E ratios.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    Who is executing better in large scale batteries?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- prklmn 9y ago
  His vision is highly dependent on levering up the company even further and selling more equity in the future. What happens when their cash flow dries up during the next recession, which by the way last happened nearly 10 years ago, and they can’t meet their debt obligations? When there is chatter that PE ratios don’t matter, it’s time to run for the hills as irrationality has set in. Also, Tesla doesn’t have a PE ratio because they don’t generate profit. The stuff that gets companies trough difficult economic times. Also, on the batteries and solar endeavors - sure it’s a growth opportunity but does Tesla really have that much of a competitive advantage beyond their brand name? One final thing. Don’t forget that Musk does not have shareholders’ best interests in mind. He bailed out solar city, which was heading for bankruptcy, using Tesla as his piggy bank. And then got shareholders to drink the kool aid that it was a smart move when in reality he could have simply bought it out of bankruptcy - but that would have cost him personally, so he didn’t. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/01/teslas-solarcity-buyout-looking-worse-by-the-day.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/01/teslas-solarcity-b... EDIT: Levering, not leveling
- meritt 9y ago
  Ford does ~$150B in revenue per year and they are worth $46B. Ford's P/S is 0.31 GM does ~$166B in revenue per year and they are worth $61B. GM's P/S is 0.37. Tesla does ~$12B in revenue per year and they are worth $56B. Tesla's P/S is 4.67 I'd argue that Wall Street has an extremely optimistic view of Tesla's future since they are worth 12-15x more than Ford and GM on a revenue basis. I can't really compare on a profit basis since Ford and GM are profitable and Tesla has never made a profit and their production/delivery numbers have been basically flat (~25k units) per quarter for a year and a half.
  - dmode 9y ago
    What’s the EBITDA comparison ?
    - meritt 9y ago
      F=15.7B, GM=20.9B, TSLA=0.26B
andars 9y ago
Tesla, the car company, probably will never come close to the market caps thrown around in the article. Tesla, the energy company, might.
snuxoll 9y ago
Especially now that Tesla has the bolt to compete with, which has been selling well and it seems GM has been able to keep up with production. Tesla needs to get production capacity on track fast, or they will get left in the dust as other major players hop on board the EV wagon.
- elihu 9y ago
  Like Tesla, I think the other manufacturers are constrained by the supply of battery cells. In order for GM or Ford or Toyota or whoever to "leave Tesla in the dust", they would need to fix that somehow. Maybe some of the major car manufacturers will build their own battery plants or some new supplier will fill the market demand, but that takes time. Until then, the incumbent manufacturers will continue to sell mostly gas cars because they have no alternative.
- wonder_bread 9y ago
  https://electrek.co/2017/12/01/chevy-bolt-ev-us-sales-records/ https://electrek.co/2017/12/01/chevy-bolt-ev-us-sales-record... When I initially read your comment I was inclined to disagree with another automaker incumbent-smashing opinion but upon researching, I have to say, 2,000 units a month in the nascent mainstream market for EV's is definitely impressive. Kudos to GM there
elchief 9y ago
Everyone I know says their current car is their last gas car. Ford can't yet compete on electric cars
ggm 9y ago
I too find the notional valuations confusing for Tesla, and other entities. Comparing net worth, listed worth against industrial titans like Ford or GM is very hard for me because they are involved in supply chain logistics and dynamics of goods sold and bought on a scale which justifies their apparent net worth, when Tesla is a giant speculative 'maybe' play. But the thing is, I'm just as confused understanding how IBM is worth anything any more, now that it has no core central logic except "do stuff, for money, for big clients" Or why any of this matters, when Chinese state enterprises are worth more than all of this put together. CNOOC, the state oil company, is 1.17 trillion in 2014 CNY terms. thats $180b US for a shipping company alone. That, I can relate to. I can't conceive of enough uses for things in space, to justify Tesla rockets being so valuable but then I can't conceive of that many creme eggs, bought with that much money either.
- andars 9y ago
  > Tesla rockets Tesla is distinct from SpaceX.
  - ggm 9y ago
    good call. unsay those rocket words. on the up side his roof tile PV thing is a clean slate (hah) which has a huge market out there, irrespective of the supply chain dynamic questions behind EV. And his batteries are going gangbusters attached to solar and wind farms so there are sound, large business models behind tesla. But.. making them add up to the same net worth as GM which has factories and dealerships and side deals in ship engines, energy, military, worldwide... I am still adrift. Tesla is talking about gigafactory sites outside of the USA. GM owns factory sites worldwide.
tedsanders 9y ago
Market cap is not the right comparison. Ford has a substantially higher enterprise value than Tesla: like 157B vs 66B. The reason Tesla has a higher market cap is that Ford is carrying more debt (which has little to do with expected future production and sales).
aphextron 9y ago
>Tesla I believe sold around 100,000 cars in 2017, and 76,000 in 2016, in the US alone Ford and GM sold 2.5 and 3 million respectively in 2016 - to give you scale GM sold 10 million worldwide (again, in 2016). And I'm certain Casio sold millions more watches than Rolex last year. The fact is that consumers are rational in their choices with respect to not just actual utility, but perceived social value. High end brands have an undeniable, albeit intangible, value.
- Aloha 9y ago
  It's a luxury brand that has yet to reach profitability. If you cant be profitable in a luxury good market, you're doing it wrong.
  - jryle70 9y ago
    This is short sight. Their goal is to make EV affordable for the mass. Doing this requires huge investment. They aren't content to stay in luxury segment. If they were models S and X would have been enough.
mtgx 9y ago
And Nokia used to sell 300x as many phones as Apple did at one point. Giants don't tend to adapt well to paradigm shifts in the industry, and make no mistake, switching to EVs is a huge paradigm shift. Everything from factory tools, supplier partnerships, type of employees, and even business model is different here.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  Nokia still sells millions of phones... The market got bigger. Nokia did not.
  - dirtyaura 9y ago
    This is not true. Nokia sold over 450M phones per year in 2007-2010, but started to lose marketshare quickly, and from 2010 onwards the number of phones sold dropped fast. Then Nokia sold it’s phone business to Microsoft. Now it is returning, but it’s not anymore core focus of the business and the numbers are small.
- Aloha 9y ago
  Everyone keeps saying that EV's are a huge paradigm shift, but they don't explain how - in the end its a car - and not much more inherently high tech than many other cars - replacing the method of propulsion, does not fundamentally alter how you build it, or how you source the parts to build it.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > replacing the method of propulsion, does not fundamentally alter how you build it, or how you source the parts to build it. There are fundamental changes in car design. No need for a huge tunnel and axle in RWD cars, and no huge, loud, hot and vibrating engine in the front. In addition the battery pack shifts down the centre of gravity (thus making the car way better in handling curves), and the now free space in the front (what Tesla calls "frunk") is a huge crumple zone. Also, with the engine there goes a huge complex part with many different highly specialized suppliers - granted, it's replaced by another set of parts, but fundamentally it's orders of magnitude less parts, and easier to install.
panarky 9y ago
Nobody is buying Tesla shares based on 2017 sales. They're buying an option on the future. You may think the company's future isn't worth a $56 billion present value, but comparing Tesla's historical production against Ford and GM is completely missing the point. That would be like comparing Google's revenue in 2004 against its competitors in the advertising industry. Investors who bought Google's IPO were valuing the company's potential in 2014 and 2024, not its minuscule market share in 2004. Google's 2004 IPO valued the company at $23 billion, twice as much as WPP Group even though WPP had much higher revenue than Google. Today Google is worth 35 WPPs, and Tesla investors think it could be worth multiple GMs and Fords ten years hence.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Aloha 9y ago
  How does it make sense that Tesla could be worth several Fords, or General Motors in ten years? The automotive market is stable, something on the order of 80 million cars a year, and I don't see Tesla vanquishing one of the incumbents either. I guess my argument is that an Electric Car is not a whole new category of vehicle (like a flying autonomous car might), anymore than diesel cars are looked as a separate market than gasoline ones. Whereas Google created an entirely new category of advertising, that didn't even really exist before they arrived and the market grew by two or three orders of magnitude.
  - dirtyaura 9y ago
    I assume battery sales for energy producers will play a big role in Elon’s plans. Is he right? Maybe, if there is political will to fight climate change.
    - Aloha 9y ago
      If batteries go like you suppose they will, they will quickly become a race to the bottom, battery packs are not terribly complex to make.
  - deleted 9y ago
kumarvvr 9y ago
Tesla has pretty big moats around it's business. 1. Tesla can always enter into the ICE market with ease, not that they will do it, but they can and probably will succeed. The big 3 have had a lot of difficulty in getting into the EV market. Sure, they have competing vehicles, but lack the marketing power of Tesla. 2. Tesla is the new cool factor. Undeniably. People get mocked for driving a Prius. Owning a Tesla evokes a more positive response. 3. Tesla has it's supercharging network, which I think is a very smart move. That's a pretty big moat. 4. Tesla's marketing machine is immense and enormously efficient. I remember Elon writing a blog article about a journalists negative review of their car and the discussion about Tesla dominated social media for a few weeks. No one even bothers about the management at the big 3, but Elon is a celebrity who is given geek god like status.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  What was "cool" to the parent's generation is often considered "uncool" to the children's generation. That is why it is very dangerous to build a business on "cool".
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > What was "cool" to the parent's generation is often considered "uncool" to the children's generation. Yeah but the "parent generation" is the one which has the cash to buy a Tesla. My generation, unless made rich by bitcoin trading or stocks? Lol used VW junker it is. For my generation, I'd bet that access to (autonomous?) car sharing will be the cool thing - and, guess what, Tesla has the upper hand there. Every vehicle transmits data back to homebase... and that data is why Tesla is so hyped and highly valuated, not the cars or the patents, probably not even Elon Musk himself. They may sell the car at a hardware loss, but gain so much data for which they'd have to pay test drivers instead and still get a dime of the percentage they now get. Hell Tesla could close down shop today and I bet there would be waaaaay more than enough cash from companies willing to buy that data. The only exception I can think of is Google with its Maps/Streetview cars as these have enormous, probably even better, sensors by design and in theory Google could get by just fine - but the amount of data is a blip compared to the miles already driven by all the Teslas out there. Further adding to the value of Tesla is that they are trying (and often have succeeded) in breaking down the "dealership" structures... while the "old" car makers are more or less stuck to that structure (they don't want to piss off existing dealers), Tesla can react way quicker to demand. edit: oh, and "modern" infotainment? App connections? Nothing the big car makers have to show comes even remotely close to what Tesla can do - their entire model is different. Digital services are at the core of any Tesla, so deep in fact that Tesla can dynamically "unlock" more capacity in the batteries, with frequent software updates - while even a top-notch VW has to visit a dealer to get a de-stinker firmware update. And don't get me started about the quality of the software in any non-Tesla car. No one comes remotely close to that level, and no one comes close in development speed/agility.
llsf 9y ago
I am not sure it completely accurate to compare Tesla with GM or Ford. Tesla is not a car company (they removed the word "Motors" from the original "Tesla Motors", like Apple removed "Computers" earlier). They do sell some vehicles (electric ones), but they also sell batteries, and solar panels. And they sell those just to show what their main product can do. Tesla main product is the Gigafactory. The factory is the product. Tesla is in the business of building factories, new generation of factories. Now, is it business worth ~$56B ? And what could it be worth in one year, 5 or 10 years ?
MarkMc 9y ago
How many vehicles do you think Tesla will sell in 2021?
- Aloha 9y ago
  I don't know. But I know without a second factory, they're unlikely to make more than 500,000 a year.
  - MarkMc 9y ago
    OK, but it seems likely that Tesla will have a second factory by 2021: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-07/tesla-plans-to-build-new-plant-for-model-y-crossover-musk-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-07/tesla-pla...

rdlecler1 9y ago

This is. win-win for Elon. He’s already a billionaire so salary doesn’t move the needle. At the same time it sends a message of confidence to investors. If his net worth was $5m would he make the same bet?

olivermarks 9y ago
"Even though Mr. Musk’s shares have vested, he has not sold them except to pay the taxes on the grants. His current stake is worth $13 billion." "Mr. Musk does not take a salary, although under California State law, Tesla is required to pay him at least minimum wage." "To afford to live, Mr. Musk has borrowed against his shares, a practice that some corporate executives have questioned" All seems rather odd to me.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  He borrows with the shares as collateral, he retains voting rights, and only needs to sell the shares if his net worth on paper goes negative. It’s the same as Zuckerberg diluting with nonvoting shares. It allows him to sell profit shares without selling voting rights.
- twblalock 9y ago
  After a certain point, it's better to borrow against investments than to pay cash for things. This is especially true when selling your investments would trigger a capital gains tax, which would normally have a far higher rate than a loan with your investments as collateral. Plus, your investments stay in the market the whole time unless you default. One of the life lessons I've learned from wealthy people is that they know how to use debt as a tool to keep their investments in the market and avoid taxes.
  - MarkMc 9y ago
    Similarly I did not want to sell my shares in Google to buy shares in the Facebook IPO (even though I felt Facebook would generate better returns) because I would have to pay capital gains tax. This shows why a simple model for capital gains tax leads to inefficient capital allocation. Instead, the CGT rules should be cumulative like this: Let's say you buy at $1 million and then sell at $10 million after 10 years: That is an annual return of 25.9%. If the annual capital gains tax rate is 20%, that would leave you with a return of 20.7% per annum. So after 10 years your $1 million investment is worth $6.56 million after tax. That is, you must pay $3.44 million in capital gains tax.

trafnar 9y ago

Is this more bold than Steve Jobs' $1/year pay plan?

brwnll 9y ago
Yes, since stock compensation is only granted if the market value of the company hits a threshold.
ctdonath 9y ago
Yes. There's actually a financial incentive, and pays out only if very aggressive goals are reached. Jobs wanted to make the very best computers. Musk is trying to open Mars to humanity.

taeric 9y ago

How is this bolder than what Steve Jobs did?

andars 9y ago
Jobs had a $1 salary and no bonuses. That doesn't say anything about stock options, grants, etc. It sounds like Musk will get minimum wage and no stock anything if Tesla doesn't meet the thresholds.
- taeric 9y ago
  I question if either was really bold. Neither man really needs the extra income... So nothing at stake. It is neat and getting good press, but bold?

jameshart 9y ago

A guy who plans to retire on Mars has a very different comp negotiation strategy than the average ceo.

maehwasu 9y ago

As someone in a similar situation, at much lower numbers, I can say this is likely primarily about tax optimization, with the optics being a nice side benefit. If you're fairly liquid and decently bullish on your company, then holding off and taking your income later as capital gains makes a lot of sense. And as seen in the article, he can borrow against the shares to achieve as much liquidity as he wants/needs for his lifestyle without having to pay ordinary income taxes. I guess I'm impressed by Elon that he can get such puff from the NYT for some basic tax structuring.

cycrutchfield 9y ago
Presumably his compensation would be in the form of stock grants, which are taxed as income. Why are you talking about capital gains?
MarkMc 9y ago
If it's primarily a tax dodge, why is it so uncommon? Seems that most CEOs get paid very well even if they underperform but Musk will get paid nothing.

brwnll 9y ago

The interesting part is how this contradicts what Elon's original stated goal of the company was. I am a Musk believer, and when he started Tesla he stated his goal wasn't to be a major car manufacturer but to be a proof of concept to push the major players into the space. He demonstrated this by the open sourcing of EV patents. Tying compensation to cap value of Tesla means that he no longer believes the major players will adapt (although there is strong evidence that his original plan has worked and the other manufacturers are making much larger investments in EV), or that the auto's segment will grow as a whole so significantly, that Telsa, as a minority player, will still be able to reach a 10x size over the next decade.

kumarvvr 9y ago
He even agreed to share core patents royalty free, and I haven't heard any news a major manufacturer took up on the offer.
andars 9y ago
Or he plans on growth in other segments (solar, batteries, ?)

c3534l 9y ago

I believe in game theory this is called signalling. If you think he's full of bluff and marketing, it certainly seems he believes it himself.

cmsmith 9y ago

>If Mr. Musk were somehow to increase the value of Tesla to $650 billion — a figure many experts would contend is laughably impossible and would make Tesla one of the five largest companies in the United States, based on current valuations — his stock award could be worth as much as $55 billion Except that as the article says, he already owns 20% of Tesla, so his current shares would rise in value by $110B. He could fail to meet any of performance targets and still be pulling in a billion dollars a year in capital gains.

j7ake 9y ago

Bold would be if he would donate his entire net worth if Tesla fails to meet goals. This is not bold because he would still be a billionaire if Tesla failed.

mcot2 9y ago

Tesla is not a car company. Here are some other markets they are in: * Energy storage. See the giant battery in Australia. * Residential solar and solar roof tiles. See Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo New York. * Electric vehicle charging. See the supercharger network. * Battery cell production. See Gigafactory 1 in Nevada. They have also said they are exploring: * Launching a ride sharing service using autonomous cars. * Capitalzing on the supercharger network with retail and food. * Moving into trucking and logistics with the semi project. This is why people invest in Tesla.

xiphias 9y ago

As much as I love Tesla, I believe a big part of whether it can achieve the $650M valuation depends more on the macroeconomic effects of the stock and bond market and the central banks than anything Elon does (I'm fairly confident about Tesla's strategy and execution, less about the US bond valuations).