Looks like Tesla gave them the minimum required by law.
Tesla has begun sending out severance info to laid-off workers. Here's how much they're getting.
Five former workers told Business Insider that Tesla's severance offer included two months' pay.www.businessinsider.com
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Doomed is too strong a word I think.
I don't believe too many long term TSLA investors are "FSD skeptics" per say, but rather many people don't think FSD will be robotaxi ready within a few years timeframe. It's getting very close now, but its not there yet. Given this reality, the very notion of focusing completely on robotaxi production right now while postponing or even scrapping the consumer $25K car seems like an extremely risky (and unnecessary) move.
It's a hail mary pass when you are 4th and inches. It's like building a network of gas stations years before the Model T goes into production. Those gas stations would just sit empty until people could buy cars to utilize them.
If Tesla gets the robotaxi line up and running before FSD is L5, what then? They'd likely have to pivot the robotaxi production line to a consumer $25K car, when they simply could have done this in the first place. Start with the steering wheel variant (for which massive demand exists right now) while FSD is being solved, and THEN switch to robotaxi's once the software is solved.
It's not a matter of Tesla being doomed, its a matter of TSLA tanking horribly due to a massive potential misstep which could easily be avoided.
Why is Elon making decisions on robotaxi/gen3, without putting this item to vote in the public town square called X? 
come on Elon let’s put this to vote, most folks are not overly optimistic like you
come on Elon let’s put this to vote, most folks are not overly optimistic like you
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
The cybertruck run rate seems to be at right around 1,000 a week. In the last video there were about 900 cyber trucks parked in the West outbound logistics lot and around giga texas. It's pretty clear that that's the number of trucks that were held back from delivery for the week during which deliveries were suspended.
Cheers!
I've also been thinking about this topic a lot.
My conclusion is that FSD (supervised) will continue to be $99 per month for a long time. But if you want FSD (unsupervised) it will be something like $299 per month. You will be allowed to take a nap. For that privilege, your $200 also pays Tesla to take on all liability for accidents while FSD (unsupervised) is active.
Furthermore, those who purchased FSD outright will also pay the $200 per month. Otherwise, you get FSD (supervised).
I know this all sounds horribly unfair and it goes against the spirit of Elon's past promises. But I think FSD (unsupervised) is easily worth an extra $200 a month to a large number of people. Also, for those with Tesla insurance, Tesla could charge dirt cheap rates for those who drive very few miles manually.
FastEddieB
Member
Forgive me if this has been mentioned - this is a hard thread to keep up with.
Analogies are, by their nature, never perfect. But someone on Threads contrasted Musk with Lee Iacocca. In that when Chrysler was struggling, Iacocca voluntarily had his salary reduced to $1 to show how serious he was about saving the company.
Now, compare this with Musk wanting to take $56 billion out of Tesla at virtually the same time as 10% of workers are losing their livelihoods, among other downdrafts for the company. Stipulated that there are myriad differences in the details, but damn, the optics here are terrible nonetheless.
Analogies are, by their nature, never perfect. But someone on Threads contrasted Musk with Lee Iacocca. In that when Chrysler was struggling, Iacocca voluntarily had his salary reduced to $1 to show how serious he was about saving the company.
Now, compare this with Musk wanting to take $56 billion out of Tesla at virtually the same time as 10% of workers are losing their livelihoods, among other downdrafts for the company. Stipulated that there are myriad differences in the details, but damn, the optics here are terrible nonetheless.
Last edited:
Since when is "demanding" (partial) previously agreed upon ownership stake called "taking billions out of Tesla"?
This is not a detail, this is pure and stupid lie.
Optics or not, the right thing to do is for shareholders to uphold their yes vote. An agreement was made and should be honored by all parties involved.
Yes optics aren’t great but neither is not getting paid since 2018.
And if Tesla didn’t do the revote, would that mean Tesla could be on the hook to pay those Lawyers 6 billion if the appeal failed?
It would be “nice” if after the vote passed, Elon would relinquish the options for optics sake but that’s his decision to make.
Yes optics aren’t great but neither is not getting paid since 2018.
And if Tesla didn’t do the revote, would that mean Tesla could be on the hook to pay those Lawyers 6 billion if the appeal failed?
It would be “nice” if after the vote passed, Elon would relinquish the options for optics sake but that’s his decision to make.
Think Tesla is on the hook to pay those lawyers regardless.
1. This would be a reaffirmation of the previously shareholder approved compensation package. There would be no net change.
2. The plan results in stock dilution which has already been included in the EPS numbers, not "taking".
3. Elon gets nothing liquid (zero) until 5 years after exercise of vested stock options due to the required holding period.
4. The plan is in shares, not dollars. $56B is wrong. That number is a gross amount before basis and taxes if stock price were at $184. Net today would be ~$24B or 155M shares, then adjust for 5 more years of stock price change.
5. The plan was based on hitting milestones for a certain period, not perpetuity.
Your perspective is mine. I have both FSD and the primitive lane keeping plus emergency warning on a Volvo. Both have interceded in ways that have averted accidents. Both have identified vehicles that were headed towards mine, allowing me to avert accidents. That includes two incidents in while children were behind my car, not visible to me, stopping when I might have continued.
It seems, according to those periodic Tesla statistical updates, the FSD makes us all better drivers. I am convinced.
Frankly I am less concerned with total autonomy than I am with making driving safer for everyone. Both Tesla and inferior solutions seem able to help with that goal. None that I have used have even come anywhere close to FSD V12xx
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
This time, the board of directors is loaded for bear: 
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Those lawyers asked for 29 million shares of tsla. Tesla creates those shares, there is no money involved. Further, because Tesla has the ability to create shares at any moment it chooses, there is no need for Tesla to provide any bond in advance of the outcome of the inevitable appeal. And this decision will be overturned on appeal, it's just going to take another 16 months, that's all.
Looks like more buying coming up if that $150 brakes( looking likely ) , said I had enough shares but this is just a fantastics price.
There is another actuarial side to this that seems to be ignored:
Accident frequency is lower with FSD already, and with art will be much lower still;
Accident severity will be higher, maybe much higher, because of the notoriety attached to automation will make payouts higher when accidents happen, so incurred liability will be negatively affected.
Combining those two, frequency and severity, results in, eventually, prices.
The archetype for this is scheduled airplane crashes, very, very infrequent and very, very severe when they do happen.
True L4 and L5 are classic examples too, by definition.
Conclusion: insurance rates probably will not decline with RT.
The whole European automotive market was weak in March (except for hybrid-electrics). The drop in sales is not necessarily due to "EV weakness."
New car registrations: -5.2% in March 2024; battery electric 13% market share
"In March 2024, battery-electric car registrations declined by 11.3% to 134,397 units, reflecting the broader market downturn. Consequently, their market share shrank from 13.9% in March 2023 to 13% in the same month of this year."
"Out of all powertrain segments, petrol and diesel were the most significantly impacted by the overall market downturn."
JusRelax
Active Member
While it's true Tesla's overall auto market share dropped and overall EV market share dropped, Tesla's European EV market share actually grew QoQ (Quarter over quarter) in Q1, from 17% to 19.1%. While good, this is still a drop YoY (Year-over-year) compared to Q1 2023, which was at 21.6% :
That is doubtful Delaware Chancery Court decisions are rarely overruled, although it famously happened in a 2021 Leow's decision that has some logical comparison to the Elon compensation decision. However, their decision forcing Elon to buy Twitter stood, and that one seemed similar in some ways to Leow's.
Key: never, ever assume higher court reversal of lower court decisions. That is a risky business.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
