5 ms·
Getting personally hired by the CEO of a $50B company happens in pretty much every company?
by elhudy 8y ago
Getting personally hired by the CEO of a $50B company happens in pretty much every company?
- collinf 8y agoAs an intern, no less.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sschueller 8y agoIf that CEO micromanages the company the size of the company doesn't matter.
- rurban 8y agoAFAIK he is known to fire all micromanagers, and let the engineers solve the problems in their style. On the other hand GM is known to be union infected. No certificate to turn that knob? Sorry, not me. Will have to wait.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- maxxxxx 8y agoI doubt he personally supervised and hired them. He probably never met them but someone else recommended them being hired. This is just PR.
- aerigniobio 8y agoGM is worth $50 billion. Do you really want to claim that Tesla is as big as GM? Tesla has 1/5 the employees of GM, 10% of the revenue, and has sold about 200,000 cars total compared to the 9.6 million GM shipped last year alone. The story is the same for any other big manufacturer. Tesla is a pipsqueak. It's just ludicrously overpriced.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- notyourwork 8y agoWorth doesn't always correlate against size. Worth is what someone is willing to pay for something. Tesla may be overpriced but to disregard Tesla's value based on a size comparison is ill-conceived.
- aerigniobio 8y agoWe're talking about size here. Supposedly the CEO of a $50 billion company is too busy to concern himself with a lowly intern. But that $50 billion company is actually pretty small, just with a disproportionately high market cap. But also, hell yes does worth correlate with size. It's only in postmodern Silicon Valley economics that a company with twenty employees and no revenue can be worth a billion dollars. All the standard ways of pricing a stock I know of take size into account, either directly or indirectly.
- greglindahl 8y agoYou are talking about size. The person you're replying to was obviously talking about market capitalization. It'd be nice if people talked to each other instead of talking past each other. BTW, the standard ways of pricing a stock includes growth potential, which is why Tesla has that crazy valuation. It's totally fine if that's not the valuation technique you prefer, but it exists.
- adventured 8y agoYour valuation approach would have suggested that Facebook was ludicrously over priced at its IPO and that it was a pipsqueak compared to Google. Investors were betting the Facebook business would do what it has done: grow dramatically and more than offset the valuation having been pulled forward. Your approach collapses in the face of accounting for high rates of persistent growth. Tesla is growing radically faster than GM, which hasn't increased its sales or global market share meaningfully in 15 years. Tesla, 2016 -> 2017 sales growth: 67% GM, 2016 -> 2017 sales growth: Negative That kind of growth by Tesla universally gets you a huge valuation adjustment vs a company with zero or negative growth. Investors are betting that GM's future is not particularly bright, that there is no growth in the business. It is discounted accordingly, which is why it has such a hilariously low PE ratio (six times earnings in real terms). When Amazon passed Walmart in market value, it had minimal profit profit and 1/6th the retail sales of Walmart. The market isn't primarily valuing Tesla based on what it's doing today. It's a bet that Tesla will continue to produce considerable growth for many years to come.