9 ms·

A short while ago (per my comment history), I asked whether Elon Musk should remain as CEO of Tesla. I think, for my part, the answer is clearly no. He might b

• drawkbox 8y ago
  If Elon Musk is removed as CEO at Tesla, Tesla is over. I find it curious that an innovative American company pushing to help our carbon problem by going electric is so lambasted, shorted, constantly under attack. It cannot be argued that Tesla pushed forward both electric cars and self-driving vehicles as a major force (original self-driving push was a DoD X-Prize) Personally I like when American companies succeed and push innovation forward. I would have zero hope of that happening if they bring in some generic C level executive like back in the day at Apple when they ousted Steve Jobs and brought in John Sculley.
  • arawde 8y ago
    It's not shorted because of its mission, its shorted because of the negative cash flow. Musks' public persona doesn't exactly give off the aura of a man who has his companies operating expenses and profitability under control.
    • toomuchtodo 8y ago
      So, I get it. This is how capitalism is supposed to work. But I don't think anyone is going to care about the wealth of these short sellers when the climate is irreversibly changed. China is smart. They don't fuck around with tax incentives and other silly market manipulators. They use central policy planning to drive forward renewables and battery electric vehicles at nation state scale, and it's a damn shame the United States and other first world countries don't have the same fortitude; yet, our markets will rail against someone who has bet his personal fortune to accomplish these goals.
      • ivraatiems 8y ago
        In my opinion: We (as a society and a country) need Tesla to succeed. Tesla can't succeed with Elon Musk as CEO at this point. So Elon should be removed.
        • toomuchtodo 8y ago
          Owning about 12k shares of TSLA, having followed the company closely since inception (when it was ran by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning), I can't see Tesla succeeding without Musk. It'll end up acquired, or as a boutique manufacturer like Ferrari. Tesla's value is Musk's determination. Still, he needs to choose his actions more wisely, clearly.
          • kgwgk 8y ago
            > It'll end up acquired, Maybe. The main question is whether it will happen before or after bankruptcy (chapter 11 reorganization).
          • spookthesunset 8y ago
            > Owning about 12k shares of TSLA If only all of the TSLA fanboys posted how much money they have on the line. After reading this, all the rest of your comments suddenly make sense. Pro Tip: Don't get emotional over your investments or you are gonna lose the ability to think rationally and get burned.
  • throwaway5752 8y ago
    "I find it curious that an innovative American company pushing to help our carbon problem by going electric is so lambasted, shorted, constantly under attack" I'm not sure if you're being tongue in cheek, but that is precisely why he's being attacked.
  • amyjess 8y ago
    Musk brought this on himself. All he had to do was not make false financial statements on Twitter. For that matter, he'd be better served if he didn't libelously call people pedophiles, try to start a war with the media, subject his factory workers to unsafe working conditions, and engage in union busting. Ultimately, these are all going to bite him in the ass, and he will have brought it all on himself.
  • neaden 8y ago
    Why? Honestly, what does Musk bring right now? If Tesla's product is good, if it's technology is good why shouldn't they succeed without Musk providing an inconvenient distraction.
    • vkou 8y ago
      The thing is, the product is not good, yet. They've yet to ship a $35,000 car, they've yet to hit their production goals, they've yet to justify their sky-high valuation, and their current build quality is below what one would expect for a $50,000 car. This doesn't mean that failing to fix those problems will kill Tesla. It may, however, cause a large drop in stock price, massive losses for shareholders at large, and E.M. in particular, restructuring of their debt, and possibly acquisition for pennies on the dollar by another auto manufacturer.
      • gsnedders 8y ago
        That sounds like what they need is someone like Tim Cook: someone with a background in operations management. Like, when I step back and look at Tesla's current challenges, they have two big ones: delivered products to meet demand and improving their driver assistance/autonomous driving offerings.
        • toomuchtodo 8y ago
          Which is why Jerome Guillen was promoted to President of Automotive [+] weeks ago. "Jerome Guillen has been promoted to President, Automotive, reporting directly to me. In his new role, Jerome will oversee all automotive operations and program management, as well as coordinate our extensive automotive supply chain. Jerome has made major contributions and acquired deep knowledge of Tesla’s operations over the past eight years at our company, from being the first Model S Program Manager to managing all vehicle programs, then all vehicle engineering and worldwide sales & service. Recently, Jerome played a critical role in ramping Model 3 production, leading what almost all thought was impossible: creation of an entire high-volume General Assembly line for Model 3 in a matter of weeks. Before coming to Tesla, Jerome was responsible for creating and running the most successful semi truck program in history at Daimler’s Freightliner division." [+] https://www.tesla.com/blog/company-update https://www.tesla.com/blog/company-update
  • ryandrake 8y ago
    What’s wrong with someone else stepping in to run things? Why is E.M. the one person out of 7 billion on Earth who can possibly run the company? People said the same thing about Jobs, but here Apple is, still printing money.
    • kitsunesoba 8y ago
      I think the primary fear is that he’d be replaced with a visionless drone and the company would cease to push any kind of bar, sliding into the same sort of profitable stagnancy found at every other American carmaker. The impact would be reduced now that the big guys are finally starting to take full electric seriously, but the impact would still be there. Without Tesla’s constant pressure I could see full BEV adoption being delayed by 5 years or more.
      • adventured 8y ago
        There's already a solution for what you're describing. She's running SpaceX. They're already doing it there. You make Musk the product lead or equivalent, chief visionary. The CEO is a specialist focused on operations, manufacturing. You don't need the CEO to be the chief visionary so long as you have Musk in the company. There's no good reason he needs to be overseeing every detail of manufacturing, there are people far better at that than he is.
      • jsight 8y ago
        I get that argument, but I'm pretty sure that a stagnant Tesla still ships the Semi, Model Y, the new Pickup Truck, that little something else that keeps getting whispered about, and maybe even the Roadster. Maybe the timeframes for each elongate by a few years, but there is still a pretty clear pathway to success. And the cool thing? Elon Musk could join a competitor, grow them over 6 years, and leverage their sales to regain control of the business. That last bit is mostly joking, but good on you if you get history that it references.
    • aquadrop 8y ago
      Apple is a bad example, since it literally almost failed after they ousted Jobs... And yeah, Musk is one of very few who created major changes in several industries, and 7 billion people didn't. Removing Musk now, when Tesla is on a brink of becoming profitable can create an avalanche of bad things that will destroy it. I agree though, that tweet was very unfortunate, really doesn't seem like clever thing to do if you can't back it up.
  • ivraatiems 8y ago
    I don't agree. I don't believe in the "key man" clause. Apple wasn't over when Jobs passed. Microsoft wasn't over when Gates left. But supposing I did agree - > I find it curious that an innovative American company pushing to help our carbon problem by going electric is so lambasted, shorted, constantly under attack. It cannot be argued that Tesla pushed forward both electric cars and self-driving vehicles as a major force (original self-driving push was a DoD X-Prize) It can't be argued. But their CEO is a self-aggrandizing buffoon who is hurting himself and the company, and now, because the board couldn't or wouldn't stop him, the SEC will. I don't like it, either. I really honestly want Tesla to succeed. Elon is preventing them from doing that now. If there's any hope for them to survive, in my opinion, it is without him. Even if that's riskier. Edit: Accidentally killed Bill Gates :(. Sorry Bill!
    • dpcx 8y ago
      For the record, Gates isn't dead. He just isn't the CEO of Microsoft any longer.
      • ivraatiems 8y ago
        Whoops! Fixed that. My apologies to Bill. I knew that, I swear.
    • SatvikBeri 8y ago
      > I don't agree. I don't believe in the "key man" clause. Apple wasn't over when Jobs passed. Microsoft wasn't over when Gates died. I think most people believe Ballmer did a terrible job as CEO – Microsoft's stock was basically flat for the 12 years after Gates left, and only really started to climb again after Nadella took over. That seems to be some evidence for key men.
    • lorenzorhoades 8y ago
      >Microsoft wasn't over when Gates died? When did Gates die? On a more serious note, they left after significant pass over and forsight that they were stepping down. They were both profitable, and they were not forced to step down. When Steve Jobs left the first time he was forced to, Apple almost went out of business.
  • MisterTea 8y ago
    > I find it curious that an innovative American company pushing to help our carbon problem by going electric is so lambasted, shorted, constantly under attack. You're not the only one who smells something funny.
  • ckastner 8y ago
    > If Elon Musk is removed as CEO at Tesla, Tesla is over. What if Tesla's progress wasn't because of Musk, but in spite of Musk? He's chased away dozens of key people and his intolerance for criticism is well known. Apart from attracting cash, do you really think his contribution to the operation was that significant? > I find it curious that an innovative American company pushing to help our carbon problem by going electric is so lambasted, shorted, constantly under attack. Working towards a worthwhile cause does not mean nobody can call you out on bullshit. And he bullshits a lot.
    • mtgx 8y ago
      > What if Tesla's progress want because of Musk, but in spite of Musk No way that's true. No way. If you believe that then you must also believe SpaceX and him leading the company to create re-usable rockets was also just a fluke. So Musk somehow just stumbled upon a highly successful, innovative, and cost-effective private rocket company, while also stumbling upon the first new American company to survive (for now, and as long as it has) in the car market in 100 years and also one that happens to build EVs from scratch. Musk must have one hell of a luck to keep stumbling upon these sort of companies that "could have succeeded even without him."
      • ckastner 8y ago
        SpaceX is a genuine astounding success, no doubt about it. My opinion is that this success has clouded his judgment. "Everybody told me SpaceX can't work, and I made it work. Everybody is telling me $THING at Tesla can't work, therefore I know I'll make it work, and everybody else must be wrong". SpaceX was a novel endeavor. Building a car production plant is not.
      • gamblor956 8y ago
        Elon Musk doesn't run the day-to-day at SpaceX. That's been someone else, Gwynne Shotwell, for several years, and everyone credits her with getting SpaceX on track and meeting its contractual deadlines--which was something it wasn't managing when Musk was in charge.
  • lafar6502 8y ago
    yep they should not be bothered with law or taxes. This lambasting is reserved for the less great
  • scythe 8y ago
    I think that might have been true before July. As of now, it looks very likely that Tesla can produce the Model 3 at scale. The current drought in production appears to be due to a shortage: https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/force-manure-tesla-way-short-of-m3-goals-silicon-carbide-shortage-explanation-C-dmo-YZxkiD25lPsUIh1w/ https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/force-manure-tesla-... That's bad news for Tesla's fiscal situation, but a shortage of semiconductor wafers isn't indicative of some major flaw in the actual manufacturing process. Also, Tesla currently dominates the market for these wafers: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-infineon-technol-results-idUSKBN1AH4EY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-infineon-technol-results-... https://semiengineering.com/sic-chip-demand-surges/ https://semiengineering.com/sic-chip-demand-surges/ which suggests that any potential competitors will face the same limitations, because SiC inverters dramatically improve the performance of electric motors: https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1330491 https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1330491 The global supply chain has to adapt to high demand for high-powered electric motors. Anyway, once Tesla has successfully produced and sold a mass-market car, the need for a mythical figure at the top fades away. Since it looks like they're close to doing that, they're also close to doing away with Elon.
  • rayiner 8y ago
    > It cannot be argued that Tesla pushed forward both electric cars and self-driving vehicles as a major force (original self-driving push was a DoD X-Prize Sure it can. Tesla has done basically nothing for self-driving cars, it's technology is glorified lane-keeping. As to electric cars, the Model S is the third best-selling electric car ever, after the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt. Both of those cars were introduced before the Model S. Electric cars are not yet mainstream, but when the become mainstream, they're going to look a lot more like a Chevy Volt than a Model S or Model 3. (The sport-sedan market Tesla is targeting is a niche, even if a very lucrative one. What people really want is a $25,000-35,000 small cross-over SUV or pickup truck.)
    • beamatronic 8y ago
      An electric 4WD minivan would be nice too.
    • colordrops 8y ago
      You are missing a few facts that completely oppose the point of your comment: the model S is not Tesla's first electric - that would be the Roadster, which was release a couple years before the other cars you mention. Chevy Volt is not full electric and can't get very far on pure electric. And the Nissan Leaf is a glorified golf cart that doesn't surpass 100 miles on a charge. The frank truth is that both the better design and range of Tesla vehicles set the stage for electric cars to be adopted by everyone rather than just special interest groups. You can be assured that every manufacturer in the world, such as BMW, is building up electric manufacturing capability due to the success of Tesla, and not Nissan.
      • rayiner 8y ago
        The Volt was also not GM’s first EV. Both the Roadster and GM’s EV 1 were niche products. You can call the Leaf a golf cart, but it’s sold more vehicles than the Model S. Yes the Model S has more performance, but it’s also a vastly more expensive car. As to other manufacturers, they were “building up electric manufacturing capability” before Tesla. Toyota was selling thr first RAV 4 EV before Tesla was even founded. Tesla didn’t have the first EV. It may have the best EV now, but that hardly says anything—it’s much easier to make a $50-100,000 EV than on at a mainstream price point. The remaining question is who is on track to create products in the form factors people care about (not sports sedans) at prices they can afford? At this rate, that’s not Tesla either.
  • bduerst 8y ago
    If Elon Musk is the reason Tesla goes bankrupt, does it matter?
  • garyclarke27 8y ago
    Agreed this would be a tradgedy, if Tesla and it’s truly ground breaking innovation, is killed off, by a boring SEC parasitic bureaucrats, anally following rules, for rules sake. Yes the SEC has some purpose, to protect investors from outright fraud, they don’t need protection from taking late night impetuous tweets from notoriously emotional Musk too seriously. Tesla is not a fly by night sham, it is a serious long term business, and with inherent risks involved. Musk is obviously a genius and of course eccentric, he is still indespensible to Tesla. Reminds me of when the UK government destroyed their own genius of the 20th century - Alan Turing - please don’t repat the same tragic mistake.
• dasil003 8y ago
  I tend to agree, but it’s a double-edged sword. Without Musk’s cult of personality it’s unclear whether sufficient capital can be secured to bridge Tesla to a sustainable future. Of course given his recent behavior it may not matter either way.
  • pslam 8y ago
    Spare a thought for all the other perfectly reasonable, and achievable goals which companies did not achieve, because the funding they needed went to Elon Musk companies instead.
  • bufferoverflow 8y ago
    It would be interesting if China offered Musk their resources if he really gets banned from holding an executive position at Tesla.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
• chrisco255 8y ago
  There are few leaders in the business world as capable as Musk. Would we even be having this conversation without Twitter? Social media considered harmful.
  • gamblor956 8y ago
    Most business leaders in the world are far more capable than Musk at actually running successful companies. You just don't hear about them because they spend their time running their companies or with their families instead of bragging about what a great job they're doing on twitter. (Here's a hint: if you have to publicly brag about doing a great job, you really aren't.)
    • chrisco255 8y ago
      No, they're not. If they did, they'd be making headlines. A lot of execs are good at extracting value from pre-established business models, but few would have the intuition, intelligence, and risk-taking capacity to create the kind of innovative companies that Musk has.
      • gamblor956 8y ago
        It's generally not news for a businessperson to be doing a good job, because that's expected of them, especially in an up-economy. intuition, intelligence, and risk-taking capacity to create the kind of innovative companies that Musk has. Citations needed. Paypal's success was based on Thiel's technology and IP, not Musk's. SpaceX was a non-contender until Shotwell took over running things. Hyperloop hyper-hasn't gone anywhere in 5 years. Tesla has missed every deadline and milestone its ever set for itself, and has never made a profit--it's only cash-flow positive quarter was from a one-time flash sale of emissions credits.
        • chrisco255 8y ago
          Citations are not needed, my friend. This is not a college report or a Wikipedia article. This is a discussion. But since you made a bunch of loose cannon statements without citations yourself... Peter Thiel himself would tell you, that "he would never compete with Musk" [1]. He went on to say, in an interview with Rubin, "...after Paypal, Elon set off to start both the rocket company and the electric car company, Space X and Tesla, and I think the conventional wisdom about Elon was that if one of them succeeded, you'd have to question it, but when both of them succeeded, it suggests, you know, he knows something that other people don't." I'm not going to comment on SpaceX. As CEO since 2002, Musk is instrumental in the operations of SpaceX, and ultimately the buck stops with him. [2] As for Hyperloop, that was an idea that Musk put forward. I imagine that he would create a Hyperloop company, if he wasn't already CEO of two companies (SpaceX, Tesla) and core founder of a third (The Boring Company). Tesla could die tomorrow and you would still have to call the company a huge success. 10 years ago, nobody thought that big oil's hold on the transportation industry would ever end. The establishment auto companies piddle paddled for decades with fuel cells [3]. Even by missing whatever bold milestones Tesla has ever set for itself, it has surpassed any other company's progress in producing oil-free autos. Now, it's within reach, and that's in no small part due to Tesla. Sure, I suppose you can look at quarterly profit, if that's your sole metric for success. And I suppose a lot of bean counter types would look at that metric, but what I'm telling you is, if you only looked at metrics like that and raw odds of financial success...those same bean counter types would never, ever take the same risks that Musk took. By the way, Amazon was criticized for years for never showing a profit, they kept re-investing their profits in their business [4]. And what they've transformed themselves into is a nearly unstoppable behemoth. That's because Bezos is a visionary, like Musk. And people like that, are not a dime a dozen. They're exceedingly rare. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h10kXgTdhNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h10kXgTdhNU [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_vehicle [4] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why-it-works https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-...
• rhema 8y ago
  He may deserve that, but I believe that public perception is that Elon Musk is Tesla. In the same way that Bill Gates was Microsoft and Steve Jobs was Apple, Musk commands a huge moral force (in a Clausewitz sense... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz). Fire Musk and you need to hire a press team, rebrand, and basically become seen as a stuffy company instead of the hip trendy up-and-comer. How much perceived valuation does Musk create? 20%, 50% of the company? Hard to say, but I bet it's a big number.
  • ivraatiems 8y ago
    It's big, but is it irrecoverable? Because the current situation might be.
    • mtgx 8y ago
      Fire Musk and the board could also risk a situation similar to Apple's board firing Steve Jobs. Musk is taking too many chances with too many things, often unnecessarily, but without him Tesla could be trampled by the big carmakers in the coming years in the EV market. Who at Tesla will still want to add rocket alloy to their cars to make them the safest ever cars? Chances are whatever new CEO they hire will see that as a huge cost-cutting opportunity to be "more in line with the rest of the industry."
      • user5994461 8y ago
        The big car makers will be flooding the EV market, irrelevant of Musk presence.
        • kazen44 8y ago
          Also, the big car manufacturers have a huge head start in terms of actually producing a very large volume of cars across the globe. If toyota decides they can make a yaris or aygo as a purely electric vehicle, tesla will be nearly unable to catch that large, low end market segment. Also, you need low-end, mass volume cars to be able to push eletric infrastructure and replace the current gas infrastructure. (although i think using hydrogen and reusing the gas infrastructure might even be a better solution personally).
• tomphoolery 8y ago
  Ousting Elon Musk will only make Tesla's eventual takeover of the auto industry take longer. Tesla will have a "John Scully" character who ruins/devalues the whole company to the point where Elon can buy it back, then he will take the company so far that it makes every other auto manufacturer obsolete.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• bdcravens 8y ago
  Note that Tesla requires a super-majority vote for major changes, and with Elon's ownership (as well as insiders who may toe the line) it would take an almost 90% vote. https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-elon-musk-controls-tesla-with-only-a-minority-stake-14564491 https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-elon-musk-con... (Obviously the SEC can take action that supersedes those rules) Even if Musk is removed, his votes give him an extraordinary amount of control over Tesla's day to day operations, until they change the supermajority rule (which in itself would require a vote subject to the rule)
  • gamblor956 8y ago
    Shareholders don't have control over day-to-day operations. They get to pick the board, which picks the management team that actually runs day-to-day stuff. If (after this all goes down) Elon were to effectuate day-to-day control, he would be treated as an officer of Tesla in violation of the SEC order and they would likely seek jail time the second time around.
• tbabb 8y ago
  Agree. I want Elon's companies to succeed. I don't care if Elon himself is part of the equation, and it's starting to look like they might be better off if he is not. Either way, he committed something between gross negligence and fraud. He should be held accountable and isn't above the law just because some of us like the work his companies are doing.
• PunchTornado 8y ago
  What? Elon Musk is Tesla. I would sell everything if he gets ousted...