Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[EQC_]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1746999488252703098

Since your response is a few tweets without your own explanation/commentary, I'll assume you do view Elon as making a threat.

To that I'll point out two things:

• Elon's words, from the tweet you quoted, were: "I am uncomfortable growing Tesla to be a leader in AI & robotics without having ~25% voting control. Enough to be influential, but not so much that I can’t be overturned. Unless that is the case, I would prefer to build products outside of Tesla."
  • By my read, "I am uncomfortable" and "I would prefer" are two of the most non-threatening phrases I can imagine.

• From the most recent conference call, the transcript* shows that one of the analysts asked Elon about the 25% thing, and Elon's answer was pretty calming if you actually read it.
  • The Analyst asked: "Elon, you've spoken about your desire to obtain 25% voting control of the company. And I understand completely why that would be. So, I'm not necessarily asking about that. I'm asking if you've come up with any mechanism by which you can ensure that you'll obtain that level of voting control. Because if not, then the core part of the thesis could potentially be at risk. So, any additional commentary you might have on that topic?"
  • Elon's answer (there may be a few mis-transcriptions here): "Well, I think no matter what Tesla -- even if I get kidnapped by aliens tomorrow, Tesla will solve autonomy, maybe a little slower, but it would solve autonomy for vehicles at least. I don't know if we would win on with respect to Optimus or with respect to future products, but it would that -- that there's enough momentum for Tesla to solve autonomy even if I disappeared for vehicles. Yes, there's a whole range of things we can do in the future beyond that. I'll be more reticent with respect to Optimus, if we have a super-sentient humanoid robot that can follow you indoors and that you can (can't?) escape, we're talking terminator-level risk.
    And yes, I'd be uncomfortable with. If there's not some meaningful level of influence over how that is deployed. And there's shareholders have an opportunity to ratify or reratify the sort of competition [[compensation?]] because I can't say that. That is a fact.
    
    They have an opportunity. And yes, we'll see. If the company generates a lot of positive cash flow, we could obviously buy back shares.
  • Again, by my read/summation I see:
    • Elon is saying that, even if he completely disappeared tomorrow, he believes Tesla would still complete FSD for cars and likely succeed in the needed AI for Optimus. There is exactly zero threat to remove either of those....althought Elon does predict it would go slower without him involved. And then he says that at the level of a super advanced Optimus Terminator, that's where there is simultaneously increased risk for humans, and where he would insist on more thoughtful control (not just maximizing profit...cough...OpenAI...cough...Microsoft) of how it is developed and deployed. I find nothing objectionable in these statements.
    • At the end, Elon also points out that there are other ways (potential share buybacks if Tesla makes tons of money) to get him to 25%. That looks to imply that two things shareholders normally love -- huge positive cash flow, and share buybacks -- might offer a way for him to get near the 25% he desires.
    • Relatedly, I believe in another tweet someplace else, it was hinted that re-incorporating in Texas might also create an avenue to allow some other share or voting class, which could also be used to get Elon to 25%.

* Tesla (TSLA) Q1 2024 Earnings Call Transcript | The Motley Fool

 

[SOULPEDL]

This was discussed when that pic first showed up.... and it seems to be an illusion/perspective issue.

The left side of the car is closer to the camera than the right. You can see the body line is not parallel to the bottom edge of the pic. The wheels are both inset from the lower body sill/frame.

Each wheel is over a seam in the concrete, and you can see the front seam appears to end at the bottom of the pic, whereas that back one ends before the edge of the pic.

View attachment 1048867

Both of these red lines in the pic are the same length, it was just copied and flipped horizontally:

View attachment 1048869

I'm not sure what was concluded or confirmed yet, so here's my take.

Based on looking at new and old pics, I'd say (25% conf) that the entire tail section is tapered for drag efficiency (and costs). This works to a point, then you just cut off the tail with nice sharp edges.

The Tri-wheeler encourages this approach, but I'm not ready to accept that yet unless the suitcases are sticking out the back and that dummy tire is too big for the model. But even 4 wheels could still taper the car (single motor in front). And it would be like Tesla to make it the most drag efficient vehicle in production.

(Edit: Imagine freeways going 55 mph to save energy? Hell no... people will want 75mph (and on 4 wheels). Low drag is critical for this one especially if we want it to catch on for interstate use. The 2-seater enables this approach. (Tapered rear design - 75% confident now.)

 

[Zaddy Daddy]

The two people I've known killed on motorcycles were both sitting at stoplights and were plowed into from behind. This generally won't happen on a bicycle. Maybe my observation isn't the most common way people die on motorcycles but I suspect it's one of the most common. Never the less, I'm basically paranoid if I'm on a bicycle and sharing the road with motor vehicles.

Anecdote is irrelevant when there is vast data. All the data says motorcycle death rates are way higher than for cyclists (3x at worst when "per mile") but more like 10x for "per hour".

Also, physics.

 

[EQC_]

I suppose Optimus constitutes an "existential AI risk," then? Just the product that's supposed to redefine what an economy is and be bigger than all other business units of Tesla combined?

What Elon has actually said is simple and clear....see the above notes on Optimus from the recent Conference Call.

To summarize, Elon believes::

Optimus (sub-prime) as currently being developed: fine and not scary for humans, and should be just as successful (though perhpas developed slower) even if Elon departs Tesla immediately due to alien abduction.

Future Terminator-class Optimus: should not be developed and deployed purely with Profit in mind (cough again...Open AI...Microsoft...cough), but should have much more careful consideration, which Elon believes he is willing to do and could do with 25% voting.

 

[GOVA]

Went to local Tesla store. CrAzy busy. 6 cyber trucks on the lot. 3 to be picked up. People test driving 3/y. No parking spots available at 4pm.

The new colors are okay. I had high hopes for the liquid silver. In overcast weather it looks just light gray.

Never seen that place this busy.

 

[SOULPEDL]

Ridiculous. This thread is bogged down... it'll settle over time but this is a sad state of affairs

Ya, mostly I see blocked people - STILL. I just skip a lot now. This is a rare day for me... 3 comments!

I have a theory: TMC management encouraged some bickering to drum up more traffic and appear less fan-boy.
I don't have any better explanation, do you?

 

[scaesare]

First he wanted to acquire Twitter. Then he tried to get out of the deal. Then he was forced to go through with it anyway. And after that he kept talking about how acquiring Twitter was vitally important to preserve free speech. However, he didn't actually want to buy it but was forced. So apparently he changed his mind on free speech in the middle of the process? Was free speech important or not? Or was it just important after he was forced to go through with the acquisition?

Please tell me how claiming that free speech is the most important thing and therefore acquiring Twitter was very important, after he desperately tried to get out of the deal?


Yes, but if having a 25% ownership stake in Tesla is that important, why did he decide to sell a ton of shares? In fact, if he hadn't sold, he would have been close to 25%, but not above it, right?

So again, please tell me how he can claim that owning 25% of Tesla is vitally important to him after he dumped a ton of shares and contributed to crashing Tesla stock?

(Edit: By the way, if you are now saying that he thought that he could dump a significant amount of shares on the market and still maintain a higher ownership rate through the compensation plan and this was what he thought he would get away with, is this not exactly against the interests of shareholders? If the 2018 compensation package allows him to sell out of other positions in Tesla and cash in for whatever reason, this seems to go against the claim that the compensation package would incentivize him to focus on Tesla for at least the next decade or so.)


Because, again, if acquiring Twitter was extremely important, why did he try to get out of the deal?

If owning 25% of Tesla was extremely important, why did he dump tons of shares and sell significantly down in the company?

How are these not mutually exclusive? They do not add up as far as I can tell. Even just looking at the Twitter acquisition his actions and words were self-contradictory (said it was very important to acquire Twitter, but tried to not do it).


I can only share my personal opinion of course. And I am also hoping someone will explain to me what I'm missing here, so that I can see how his actions actually do match his words. I just don't see that at the moment.

I used to be a huge fan of his. I would love for there to be an explanation to this that doesn't make him look like either a liar or someone who's extremely confused and/or erratic.

Do you not understand the difference between the objective, and the method to accomplish it?

Elon wanted a way to enable a town-square type platform for free speech at scale. He initially anticipated acquiring Twitter would be the best way to do that. At some point, that value judgement change, the reasons for which other posters have already supplied. However at that point it was too late to back out.

Had he been able to do so, doesn't mean he no longer felt the objective wasn't worth while. He might have bought another platform. Or rolled his own. Or waited until the price was again more favorable. Or....

He's done similar more than once when he realized the initial approach was too costly/slow/complicated/architecturally incorrect: MobileEye, Recaro seats, assembly line machinery, etc... It's one of the reasons Tesla is so highly vertically integrated...

 

[Zaddy Daddy]

Cannot see how a consumer version of this car is competitive.

My interpretation of the earnings call is that they are not going to.

The "next-gen" vehicles on the Model 3/Y lines are probably going to be smaller versions of the Y and maybe a van, but not a compact car.

The compact car is now only for the compact robotaxi.

 

[scaesare]

Ok, but why is he saying now that Twitter was so extremely important to preserve free speech that he was willing to sacrifice part of his ownership in Tesla for it? It still doesn't make sense to me. Surely, if free speech is the #1 priority, he shouldn't care if he overpaid? (And indeed, the way he waived any due dilligence indicates that he might have found it to be so important he wanted to buy it no matter what?)

But on the other hand, if preventing evil takeovers of Tesla was the #1 priority, why did he choose to sell down significantly?

Was free speech the #1 priority, or was maintaining a high ownership stake in Tesla to prevent hostile takeovers the #1 priority?

Preserving free speech or preventing AI from destroying us? Which one is it? These are both mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell, seeing as the Twitter acquisition relied on using Tesla as a cash cow.

Again: His actions still don't seem to match his words, even with your argument here.

But I thank you for making an attempt at showing me specifically where I could be wrong, although I don't agree that your argument is sound. It doesn't address the core of my concerns.

You don't seem to realize things are on spectrum and different fields can have different priorities competing for resources. Tesla is a priority for reducing global emissions. Free speech is a priority for ensuring societal freedom. SpaceX is a priority for making mankind multi-planetary. Nueralink is a priority for addressing brain/nerve function impairment. These all compete for resources like time and money, and each has a ton of ever-changing external influences.

Pursuing more than one does not imply the others are not (equally) as important. That's a hard juggling act. Toss in Boring tunnels and trying to have a life for fun.

 

[wipster]

Ya, mostly I see blocked people - STILL. I just skip a lot now. This is a rare day for me... 3 comments!

I have a theory: TMC management encouraged some bickering to drum up more traffic and appear less fan-boy.
I don't have any better explanation, do you?

Yes. Mods get busy, or are overseas, or are living their lives with all the money they make by being Mods (like none). But this is just one thread of many, and yes it gets carried away sometimes, and yes I (and others) would like to see it restructured in order to reply to posts several pages before or to keep conversations and direct replies following the initial post. But in the interim, there is still no better forum for all things TSLA and Tesla... QED

IMHO that is.

 

[TN Mtn Man]

Anecdote is irrelevant when there is vast data. All the data says motorcycle death rates are way higher than for cyclists (3x at worst when "per mile") but more like 10x for "per hour".

Also, physics.

Got a link to that? What I saw was the opposite, that bicyclist death rates per mile were much higher than motorcyclists. But the data is scarce and I have spent a fair amount of time searching. Seems reasonable though-bicyclists are less predictable and are typically holding up traffic, as well as passing where not expected for drivers (right side/shoulder).

 

[Curt Renz]

If they submitted this today, aren't they a little late?...

According to the Tesla shareholder ballot, "Votes can be changed until the voting deadline."

 

[SOULPEDL]

Yes. Mods get busy, or are overseas, or are living their lives with all the money they make by being Mods (like none). But this is just one thread of many, and yes it gets carried away sometimes, and yes I (and others) would like to see it restructured in order to reply to posts several pages before or to keep conversations and direct replies following the initial post. But in the interim, there is still no better forum for all things TSLA and Tesla... QED

IMHO that is.

And probably why I might still chime in on occasion, even with my assumptions. I have a strong sense of presence from many sides on this forum, would be surprised by who's who.

I only hope they put that in the movie credits. I wonder which one of you is Jim Cramer? (I know dude, I'm laughing too!) And Mary B... you lurking here too?

 

[Spacep0d]

If pedestrians decide to run down a highway at 80mph I bet they would have worse than donor cycles 400% increase in accidents and 1600% increase in mortality and I absolutely would not care. Motorcyclist know they are engaging in an extremely risky behavior, if they wish to engage in that it is on them. I don't have sympathy for skydivers either if you were going to ask, and I've been on donor cycles and used to skydive. Giant risks, don't expect society to baby proof the world when the problem is the user who makes a conscious choice to engage in risky behavior.

Ask me how I feel about bicyclist /s

Teslas and many other modern cars with accident avoidance systems are probably saving a lot of donor cycle lives. Tesla will probably be the best at scale of all of them.

Attitudes like yours are why FSD is already superior to humans. You write like someone who's never ridden a motorcycle in your life. Obviously, FSD is not just about the driver, it's about protecting all other motorists (and pedestrians) from the mistakes error-prone humans make, including but not limited to homicidal ideation, extreme narcissism, distraction, low-skill, drug-affected brain states, etc. This is the point Dan O'Clown keeps trying to make about FSD allegedly running over humans in tests designed to fail as part of a greater FUD campaign against Tesla, FSD, and Elon.

Nobody is asking for your sympathy, just that you pay attention, don't do stupid things that harm other people on or near the road, and don't be a homicidal maniac. Most of these are already part of state law and vehicle codes where we live. Certainly it should be part of any ethical standard.

Of course, the onus is also on riders not to ride like maniacs either.

 

[Spacep0d]

At 74, I still love to ride, albeit a bit slower and more cautiously than I did in those heady days of youth. I moved to where I live now due primarily to the wonderful motorcycle roads in the area. Been riding for the better part of 60 years, and I’ll continue as long as I am able.

As far as “no armor”, cautious riders have an acronym: ATTGAT. All The Gear All The Time. Helmet, armored jacket and pants*, boots and gloves. All The Time. Such gear has saved me from serious injury more than once.

https://flic.kr/p/arVchG

As an aside, I feel far more vulnerable on a bicycle than I do on one of my motorcycles.

*I admittedly sometimes forgo the riding pants, and just go with jeans when riding locally. My bad.

ATGATT is the ONLY way to ride responsibly. All The Gear, All The Time. I designed this suit to look like the Apollo 16 Commander's EVA suit and had it custom-made. It came in handy when I was building my audience as a motovlogger on YouTube. I even met some JPL employees this way, one of whom asked to copy the suit for himself. Of course I agreed, because I copied NASA.

Speaking of Apollo 16 (and 15 and 17), they used an electric vehicle on the moon! This speaks to the superiority of EVs in that they don't need to 'breathe' and aren't bothered by the vacuum of space or air density as it relates to power.

FSD is going to help drivers see motorcyclists like myself better than they sometimes do along with anyone else on or near the roads—from pedestrians to their pets or a duck and her ducklings crossing the street. I no longer ride motorcycles, but EVs definitely scratch the itch for me when I feel the need for acceleration.

This is my gear (not my bike). The bike is a Honda Vultus, which reminds me a whole lot of Kaneda's bike from Akira.

 

[wipster]

And probably why I might still chime in on occasion, even with my assumptions. I have a strong sense of presence from many sides on this forum, would be surprised by who's who.

I only hope they put that in the movie credits. I wonder which one of you is Jim Cramer? (I know dude, I'm laughing too!) And Mary B... you lurking here too?

I doubt we're that important... but who knows?

 

[Cattledog]

I think I see a way through this: FSV.

Full Self Voting.

In the app, you authorize the company to vote your shares. No talk of yoke, stalks, LIDAR, comp packages, etc.

Simply, do you believe?

I still hear the bells...

 

[wipster]

ATGATT is the ONLY way to ride responsibly. All The Gear, All The Time.

This is my gear (not my bike). The bike is a Honda Vultus, which reminds me a whole lot of Kaneda's bike from Akira.

And always always assume you're invisible. Saved my butt numerous times.

But the worst almost wreck I ever had was going road race style to Ice Harbor Dam into a 90° left hander on my Honda 550 when the beige jacket I had strapped on the seat slipped off and became entangled with the chain and sprocket, locking up the rear wheel at about 40! The bike went right, left, right again, and then the jacket tore. Was able to stay upright, but I got off, down on my knees and thanked whatever powers there are for saving my ass (and everything else). Luckily a bathroom was just down the road...

I put said jacket into the proper receptacle afterwards and went shaft drive on my next bike.

 

[geometro]

Ok, but why is he saying now that Twitter was so extremely important to preserve free speech that he was willing to sacrifice part of his ownership in Tesla for it? It still doesn't make sense to me. Surely, if free speech is the #1 priority, he shouldn't care if he overpaid? (And indeed, the way he waived any due dilligence indicates that he might have found it to be so important he wanted to buy it no matter what?)

But on the other hand, if preventing evil takeovers of Tesla was the #1 priority, why did he choose to sell down significantly?

Was free speech the #1 priority, or was maintaining a high ownership stake in Tesla to prevent hostile takeovers the #1 priority?

Preserving free speech or preventing AI from destroying us? Which one is it? These are both mutually exclusive, as far as I can tell, seeing as the Twitter acquisition relied on using Tesla as a cash cow.

Again: His actions still don't seem to match his words, even with your argument here.

But I thank you for making an attempt at showing me specifically where I could be wrong, although I don't agree that your argument is sound. It doesn't address the core of my concerns.

Not disagreeing but is it difficult to see that he is fallible and made a mistake? Hence the inconsistency.

 

[Stretch2727]

This picture was in the Shareholder vote video released recently. Possibly the Cybercab? Looks like they may use the same process as Cybertruck for the panels as it is completely angular with no curves. Probably why Elon referred to it as the Cybercab.

Speculating, but I could imagine lower grade stainless, all angular to save on tooling and painting, bolted to a single piece casting if this is a 2 seater. Perfect billboard for some advertising revenue as well with printed wraps.