’m curious why couldn’t this wait until the annual shareholder meeting in the summer?
I agree with the implication that there is a reason. Possible categories (not equal in likelihood) include:
1. There is a secondary time-dependent decision (e.g. a potential CEO replacement for Elon needs to decide between Tesla and another opportunity).
2. PR - a desire to avoid contentious discussion at the annual shareholders meeting (get it all out now and let the dust settle before the summer meeting). Unlikely.
3. A procedural effect on the vote (e.g. if a proxy vote now makes it easier for “yes” votes or more difficult for “no” votes to be cast). Unlikely
4. Tesla valuation will favorably change in the next 6 months, such that the first milestone(s) will be closer, giving credence to the argument that the early tranches are too easy to achieve.
5. The Board expects Tesla to struggle in the next six months such that voters will be less favorably disposed to retaining Elon at the cost of a generous compensation package.
I favor #4. The Board thinks there is some factor in the offing that is not currently priced in the stock, such as:
- an impending acquisition or joint venture (e.g. Waymo and Tesla share mutually advantageous technology and/or talent analogous to the cooperation between Google and SpaceX on Starlink).
- step change in autonomy
- step change in Tesla Energy (grid scale contracts, battery tech improvement, etc)
- step change in some other technology (e.g. solar cells, materials science, etc)
- a business model disruption by Tesla that the market is not pricing (e.g. Tesla Network rollout, etc)
- improvement in Model 3 ramp to a degree not currently considered plausible by the market
- information regarding Model Y and/or semi (timing of launch, factory location, etc).
- information regarding additional Gigafactory locations and/or partners
