General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[anon]

I think he's referring to demand for the products being negatively affected by media coverage.

 

[K_Dizzle]

I think he's referring to demand for the products being negatively affected by media coverage.

That’s not just short sellers then, it’s also OEM competitors

 

[schonelucht]

He's paranoid. I know I get dislikes, but it is evident.

Of course shorts _want_ to destroy Tesla, but they don't have any means to do so.

This is actually the most benign conclusion. Because if shorts really do have the means to kill Tesla, then they will and the only reasonable action for a current shareholder is then to sell while the stock still has some value.

 

[Akspai]

Today is a bad macros day.

 

[Navin]

This is actually the most benign conclusion. Because if shorts really do have the means to kill Tesla, then they will and the only reasonable action for a current shareholder is then to sell while the stock still has some value.

Bought shares premarket. Thanks. You can only poke a lion so much before he bites your head off. FUD is one thing - abuse is another. Good luck to you in your short position and/or consulting gig once tesla goes private

 

[The Blue Owl]

From the interview with the NYT



Genuine question here : what is Elon referring to when he says that short-seller's narrative can possibly result in Tesla's destruction? Just to be clear : this is not about mundane stuff like talking down the stock price for a few months or even years, we are talking about full blown bankruptcy ('destruction'), and he seems very earnest in this interview. It's not some off-hand April Fool's joke on Twitter. I honestly see no way how shorts could but Elon clearly has an infinitely deeper insight in the company and he is evidently worried about the short story. That means he sees a risk that I don't see. Shorts have been talking down Tesla build quality for years, demand has only grown : so it isn't that. Shorts have been trying to depress the stock for years, still keeps on rising and rewarding employees : so it isn't that. Shorts have been trying to shut Tesla out of the capital market but the company has raised with ease. And besides, there is no need to raise due to profitability/cash flow positivity : so it isn't that. US incentives are running out naturally for Tesla, and sales restrictions on Tesla are over time easing, not getting harder. Not that either. So my question remains. What risk are we missing that is so front and center on Elon's mind.

Through what mechanism can the short's narrative lead to Tesla's destruction?

I suspect he is referring to the machinations described by @jesselivenomore in his short sellers thread. Musk retweeted Jesse's article. As long as the company is dependent on the financial markets to stay alive, it is vulnerable. Also, overwhelmingly negative coverage of the company, especially if sustained for long periods of time, can easily drown the truth and has a very corrosive effect. Yes, Tesla is on the cusp of breaking out, but obviously he feels it's still not guaranteed.

 

[anon]

Is anyone else concerned about the statement the board put out? They firmly state Elon's commitment to the company, but they didn't go as far as reiterating their faith in him, inside only citing his past achievements. I have trouble imagining that they are planning to fire him, but asking him to take a break or accept a COO may be likely, as the statement didn't go as far as it could have done.

“There have been many false and irresponsible rumors in the press about the discussions of the Tesla board. We would like to make clear that Elon’s commitment and dedication to Tesla is obvious. Over the past 15 years, Elon’s leadership of the Tesla team has caused Tesla to grow from a small start-up to having hundreds of thousands of cars on the road that customers love, employing tens of thousands of people around the world, and creating significant shareholder value in the process.”

 

[hobbes]

From the interview with the NYT



Genuine question here : what is Elon referring to when he says that short-seller's narrative can possibly result in Tesla's destruction? Just to be clear : this is not about mundane stuff like talking down the stock price for a few months or even years, we are talking about full blown bankruptcy ('destruction'), and he seems very earnest in this interview. It's not some off-hand April Fool's joke on Twitter. I honestly see no way how shorts could but Elon clearly has an infinitely deeper insight in the company and he is evidently worried about the short story. That means he sees a risk that I don't see. Shorts have been talking down Tesla build quality for years, demand has only grown : so it isn't that. Shorts have been trying to depress the stock for years, still keeps on rising and rewarding employees : so it isn't that. Shorts have been trying to shut Tesla out of the capital market but the company has raised with ease. And besides, there is no need to raise due to profitability/cash flow positivity : so it isn't that. US incentives are running out naturally for Tesla, and sales restrictions on Tesla are over time easing, not getting harder. Not that either. So my question remains. What risk are we missing that is so front and center on Elon's mind.

Through what mechanism can the short's narrative lead to Tesla's destruction?

While we see the FUD directed at Tesla the company, I think Elon takes it personally. And the fact that it gets to him that much combined with my assumption that he doesn´t think Tesla would survive without him at the moment poses an existential risk to the company from his point of view.

EDIT: An alternative interpretation would be that he wants push the narrative of Tesla being at danger from the shorts to support going private (no more shorts, that danger gone).

 

[jelloslug]

While we see the FUD directed at Tesla the company, I think Elon takes it personally. And the fact that it gets to him that much combined with my assumption that he doesn´t think Tesla would survive without him at the moment poses an existential risk to the company from his point of view.

At this point, many people think that Tesla would not survive without him.

 

[lklundin]

"The production process involves only 43 steps/stations, 25-33% of the number found in traditional auto."

"It is worth noting that even Musk’s estimates about Tesla making potentially 1m cars a year in 2020 do not require Fremont to operate at 10,000 cars a week, because he hopes Tesla’s Chinese factory will be in operating by then."

Thanks.

1) I almost missed it myself, so I will rephrase the above "25-33%" sentence to:
"traditional auto has 3-4 times as many steps/stations as the Model 3 production process in the Sprung structure".

2) An annual 1M production equals a weekly one of 20k, so even achieving 10k/week at Fremont would require the Shanghai GF to also be at its projected full capacity of 10k/week in 2020. However, the Shanghai GF is not projected to be producing at full capacity from the start of 2020, but rather for production to start in 2020.

Tesla makes Gigafactory 3 in China official, plans to start production in 2 years

 

[Boomer19]

He kicked things into high gear. Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. are you kidding us?
Dick Cheney? Oh, well. If you don't know history then you'll probably just keep repeating it. good luck.

it was a joke. relax tiger.
did you watch the youtube clip?
he’s a nutless monkey in those clips, it’s hilarious

 

[Bobfitz1]

Why would Elon give an interview to the NYT now? If he were down in the dumps, it seems unlikely that he would turn to the NYT as a shoulder to cry on. I believe Elon when he emphasizes the pain endured this year. I also believe that he is being genuine with the NYT, but I doubt that the purpose is to show his soft underbelly. I suspect that there is more. I do not view this as an attempt at damage control. If it is ‘an attempt’ at something, I suspect that it is of a more aggressive nature. Despite his sacrifices, fatigue, crushing stress, etc, I think this NYT interview fits into Elon’s plan for the long game. Elon’s friends have stated that when most stressed, Elon becomes hyper rational. The NYT interview is intentional.

Yes, why would Elon give an interview to a media outlet hostile to him for years? Especially when he is feeling too emotionally vulnerable to hold it together?

It's about as rational a decision as sending the going private tweet while driving his car to the airport without reviewing the action with any of his trusted advisors or attorneys.

"Mr. Musk has said he saw the tweet as an attempt at transparency. He acknowledged Thursday that no one had seen or reviewed it before he posted it. "

Sorry to be so direct, but imagining this interview was part of Elon's master plan is delusional.

 

[mongo]

Yes, why would Elon give an interview to a media outlet hostile to him for years? Especially when he is feeling too emotionally vulnerable to hold it together?

It's about as rational a decision as sending the going private tweet while driving his car to the airport without reviewing the action with any of his trusted advisors or attorneys.

"Mr. Musk has said he saw the tweet as an attempt at transparency. He acknowledged Thursday that no one had seen or reviewed it before he posted it. "

Sorry to be so direct, but imagining this interview was part of Elon's master plan is delusional.

I apparently have a more active imagination...

Rope-a-dope...
Ambush...
It's a trap...
Ash's words of wisdom....

 

[Unpilot]

He's paranoid. I know I get dislikes, but it is evident.

Of course shorts _want_ to destroy Tesla, but they don't have any means to do so.

Read the chapter in "The Divide" by Matt Taibba about Fairfax and what Jim Chanos Et.al tried to do to that company.
Then read the summation by Jessy on this forum and you will have your answer.

 

[Intl Professor]

To me the most telling aspect of the NYT article, if true, was the final statement attributed to Musk:

"Mr. Musk said he had no plans to relinquish his dual roles as chairman and chief executive.

"But, he added, 'if you have anyone who can do a better job, please let me know. They can have the job. Is there someone who can do the job better? They can have the reins right now.'”

Source: Elon Musk, Amid Tesla Furor, Tells of ‘Most Difficult’ Year

There is no one better. For his personal health now is the time to relax and let go. Why?

The company is now self-sustaining as will be shown by Q3 results. Aware of the risks of analyzing someone else's personal psyche there is one issue not considered here. The stress of a truly heroic effort on Musk's part is about to be relieved. That is sometimes threatening, like a mother losing her beloved child to college or marriage. Hanging on is not the way to go but the change is frightening, especially when abrupt.

The Buddha has said, "all I know is from my personal experience." I had such an experience after but a tippy toe immersion into stress compared to what Musk has been through when I led a successful political campaign. When it was over despite knowing it was over, psychologically it was hard to let go. Fortunately for me and the movement I did some stupid things and slipped away. Also fortunate, I am lazy and so gave up the fight.

Musk is neither stupid nor lazy. Going private will ease the itch festering on his soul and ours. Physics first principles remain the same. The balm of time will work its wonders. A variety of stakeholders provide a safety net for the future. The board will do its work. Now the indispensable man is no longer needed. Maybe that fateful tweet was just the secret plan part three.

Worked out well for Space X, didn't it?

 

[electracity]

Good catch! Thanks for the correction. I got my copy and pastes crossed. Yes, Latham & Watkins is the one representing shareholders. They are a top law firm. One of the largest in the world. Best of the best here representing both parties.

The largest firms are not the "best of the best". Both Munger and Wachtell representing Musk is using would fit the "best of the best". Latham and other firms with large transnational practices fill many roles that firms like Munger doesn't do.

The more Musk says dumb stuff the more lawyers he is going to need. The NYT interview is pathetic.

 

[Matias]

The more Musk says dumb stuff the more lawyers he is going to need. The NYT interview is pathetic.

I feel sorry for him. If the board is up to its tasks, it will order him to take couple of months off.

 

[Intl Professor]

We know the names of the three directors in charge of Tesla's report on going private. But who are they? Is much known about them? That should be the practical issue for us here.

 

[RubberToe]

Now we are halfway through the quarter where we are going to turn the corner into being a profitable company. Current stock trend is down. Is this the ultimate "sell on the news" scenario, or the 420 hangover effect?

RT

 

[The Blue Owl]

The more Musk says dumb stuff the more lawyers he is going to need. The NYT interview is pathetic.

The problem is we don't really know how that interview went. We only know NYT's retelling. I subscribe to the paper, but I don't believe for a second this was an accurate portrayal of what went down.