3 ms·

I don’t know, but I suspect people may be reacting negatively because, as they say, hindsight is 20/20. The bet didn’t work out, but that doesn’t mean it was a

by alwa 2y ago

I don’t know, but I suspect people may be reacting negatively because, as they say, hindsight is 20/20. The bet didn’t work out, but that doesn’t mean it was a self-evidently stupid thing to try from the perspective of 2020/2021. It seems to me that sometimes somebody has to try a thing for us all to find out that it doesn’t work. If people with money in the company were sure it was a dumb idea all along, couldn’t they have sold their shares? Or even done fancy options trades to profit from their contrarian certitude? Why would a court be involved in something like this, where management very clearly said what they were going to do, they did it, and it just didn’t work out the way they’d hoped?

lenerdenator 2y ago
>hindsight is 20/20 If Tesla's lack of parts is the problem - and the article asserts that as a possible problem - then it's nothing to do with hindsight. Tesla either had the demonstrable ability to provide repair/replacement parts on time, or they didn't. You get that in writing and you have people actually dig to see if the supply chain was there. That's something you check before you ink the deal. The article also mentions that there are other EVs in the fleet that haven't caused the financial problems. In other words, there's something about how Hertz structured the Tesla deal that was less-than-brilliant. > Why would a court be involved in something like this, where management very clearly said what they were going to do, they did it, and it just didn’t work out the way they’d hoped? Because they may not have done their due diligence in signing the deal with Tesla, and it's costing shareholders money. Making bets is one thing; making one that deals with something outside of your ken is another. Your job as a board or c-suite is to find the people to give you the straight dope on things you don't know about, not be distracted by new shiny from Silicon Valley.

by alwa 2y ago

lenerdenator 2y ago

>hindsight is 20/20 If Tesla's lack of parts is the problem - and the article asserts that as a possible problem - then it's nothing to do with hindsight. Tesla either had the demonstrable ability to provide repair/replacement parts on time, or they didn't. You get that in writing and you have people actually dig to see if the supply chain was there. That's something you check before you ink the deal. The article also mentions that there are other EVs in the fleet that haven't caused the financial problems. In other words, there's something about how Hertz structured the Tesla deal that was less-than-brilliant. > Why would a court be involved in something like this, where management very clearly said what they were going to do, they did it, and it just didn’t work out the way they’d hoped? Because they may not have done their due diligence in signing the deal with Tesla, and it's costing shareholders money. Making bets is one thing; making one that deals with something outside of your ken is another. Your job as a board or c-suite is to find the people to give you the straight dope on things you don't know about, not be distracted by new shiny from Silicon Valley.