Elon created a $18 billion company out of thin air!! It is still not enough to cover the loss of value from the Twitter acquisition, but it’s getting there and then some. Those who voted NO take note. There’s still time to change your vote.
-
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
Elon created a $18 billion company out of thin air!! It is still not enough to cover the loss of value from the Twitter acquisition, but it’s getting there and then some. Those who voted NO take note. There’s still time to change your vote.
Turning impossible into late is still the appropriate saying I believe.
The Cravath law firm legal briefing for the appeal will have plenty of argument on this point, and it is likely to be successful.
Until then, this judge was way out of line in that:
1. she applied law that applies to company transforming change-of-control transactions, not mere compensation decisions
2. she fundamentally doesn’t understand that compensation decisions (where the board needs to work with the CEO that they are compensating) is fundamentally different from a change-of-control transaction where the parties will go their separate ways after the transaction.
3. she manufactured a phony disclosure violation (failure to disclosure a single phone call in early stages of the compensation process) that in no way affected the total mix of information that was material to shareholders
4. she manufactured a phony independence violation (Elon and Ehrenphreis were friendly and had business dealings)
5. The remedy, purporting to put the parties back in the position they were in before the contract, is laughable as Elon already performed his part of the agreement.
6. Delaware got to where it is by having a predictable law through a combination of clear statutory and predictable judicial law — this decision introduces massive uncertainty and unpredictability into Delaware corporate law.
7. The text of the opinion drips with immature snark and unprofessionalism and reads like someone with an agenda more than any other opinion coming out of the normally fair and professional Delaware courts.
Tornetta was a poor legal opinion and will eventually be revealed as such through further litigation.
This shows investors' trust in Elon Musk has not been eroded, once again proves the so called "brand damage" is BS.
Also part of the xAI pitch is that it'll be an AI that is not trained to be politically correct but will speak the truth, and one of the company's advantages will be access to twitter data. Investors throwing big money at xAI shows Elon's adventure into these areas are not as counter-productive as some of the people here made it out to be.
I would say this shows the incredible valuations given to Ai. It also shows that EM is starting far short of the pole position. It also shows that EM can pump a stock valuation. You don't see mark Z launching a separate Ai company though do you? Or S Brin? Other than showing that EM continues to divert his attention from Tesla how is that relevant to tesla?
While AI is hot it doesn't mean investors would just give anybody $6B. In fact this may be one of the biggest funding rounds ever, 2nd biggest after 2018 funding round by Alibaba's Ant Financial fintech affiliate.
That's hardly new to him, both SpaceX and Tesla started from very primitive state comparing to established industry giants.
He can pump it because he has accomplished pretty much everything he set out to do. He gets results, that's why investors trust him.
Zuckerberg doesn't launch a separate company because he has absolute voting control of Meta due to its dual-class stock structure. Elon doesn't have the same control with Tesla, that's why he's starting a new company which he fully controls.
Well I did read it, and I agree that her judgement was based more on her own feelings than actual legal precedent. In fact her ruling goes against established legal precedent.
I sometimes wonder if you argue with people simply for the sake of arguing?
I'd say you were off the mark in some of those and if Tesla is turning to Cravath...well that is interesting and I'll leave it at that. Saying Ehrenphreis is independent is mind boggling to me, not just a business pal of EM but also a social pal that was hoping to participate in all of EMs other ventures. I'd say Ehrenphreis is a big part of the problem with the Tesla board. That and Kimball ..JFC..Kimball has no business on any company board. I'd have a hard time looking at any VC partner and saying they were independent.
I think she understands that the board has voided huge control to EM who has not acted in a manner that was in the best interest of tesla shareholders, from diverting attention across so many businesses to a compensation scheme that created every incentive to pump stock without incentives to create long term value. As Munger says, show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome. His incentive was to pump the stock and pump it he did with roadster announcements, semi announcements, battery day, CT being an effort level far beyond the model X doors (and what lesson learned?), FSD pumping, solar roof pumping, etc etc. It's not that he didn't do good things it's that he had every incentive to make announcements that were simply designed to generate stock movements and which were never supported or were poorly matched to business realities. The battery issue is particularly egregious- 100 staff on the 4680 is mind boggling. By now CATL has moved prototypes of high efficiency 4680 close to market. EM didn't have to follow through on any of those and his compensation was not tied to the mission of the company.
Anyhow the board did a piss poor job representing tesla shareholders. A judge has intervened. The board signed EMs contract so I feel they can't just go back and rip it all up but...if anyone provides incentive to do so it is EM.
Cravath has been their counsel on this all along. There is no recent turning to them.
Independence is often never crystal clear, which is why the NASDAQ rules defer to the Board to make their own determinations, but the board’s application of independence guidelines from NASDAQ, SEC and Delaware is well documented in the briefing.
smh
The comp absolutely incentivized long term value by requiring not just market cap but also operational milestones and awarded equity that was locked up for years.
If one feels compelled to comment on the plan, consider reading at the least the basic comp plan and ideally the proxy to fill these obvious knowledge gaps before polluting the thread with incorrect claims. You will then learn about the revenue and EBITDA operational milestones that had to be achieved as well as the above avg five year lock up of equity awards. Short term stock pumps are meaningless. I’ve found that people who allege “stock pumps” often do so in lieu of having anything substantive to say.
It is hard to imagine a comp plan that was more aligned with and incentivized long term shareholder value.
I actually think there is so much $$/wealth/excess assets in the world, especially when stocks are hitting all time highs that plenty of people have no problems dumping $$ into investments. Add in Elon and you will have lots of takers as well so not everyone can get $6 billion, but it's not as hard as you make it out to be.
That said, isn't this just a further sign already that Elon is moving AI away from Tesla as we speak? He has a company valued at $18 ->$26 billion from funding. Why develop AI further other than RT when you have a shiny new toy here with "possibly", FAR greater upside if people are now buying into AI because Elon did it so it must be good?
Unlike being the pioneer in EVs and being first when the dominant legacy car makers simply didn't care, xAI is probably playing catchup against extremely well capitalized competitors who do care and have no qualms spending tens of billions as well (with far more free cash flow to do it).
Can someone share what has Grok done who is more familiar with it?
Or to get an early notice of teslas defense strategy. I hope all with inside knowledge keep their cards close to the chest.Well I did read it, and I agree that her judgement was based more on her own feelings than actual legal precedent. In fact her ruling goes against established legal precedent.
I sometimes wonder if you argue with people simply for the sake of arguing?
Does anyone know how much Model Y Austin production has been cut? We hear China cut 20%,. Watching Joe T's videos the last few weeks, there are noticeably more CT's in the outbound lot in Texas than Model Y. So Model Y Texas production could be cut to a 50k/yr run rate right now.
IIRC this was the judge that in her ruling the judge called Musk's compensation an 'unfathomable sum.'.
What bearing does the amount have on if it's a legal agreement or not?
Seems a bit that feelings may have influenced the ruling to some degree.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
FWIW- I've agreed with that several times
My reply was addressing the guy who claimed the decision had no basis in law whatsoever--that it was just because she has "connections" (entirely unspecified) politically- not that the judge based it in law but applied that law incorrectly (which is what your reply--- and the appeal--- will be about).
Not every court decision eventually appealed is the result of a judges 3rd cousins brothers co-workers former roommates ex-girlfriend having once been a volunteer on the "other" guys political campaign. Sometimes one court just interprets the law differently from what the higher courts review finds is correct... .(and often the higher court finds some WAS correct even if some was not).
yes- clearly there's folks discussing the case here in hopes Elons lawyers will post their confidential strategy in a reply. That totally makes sense.
Holy Carmark some folks will make anything intro a conspiracy theory.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
2170s from Nevada 100%-- that's why they all still get the tax credit (and 4680 Ys stopped being produced some while back- a number of posts in here previous claimed the equipment for the structural 4680 packs for Y has been repurposed for other things but I've not personally dug much into that).
All the 2170s Panasonic is making over in NV are going to Y with the exception of the Performance Model 3 (again why that one, only, get the IRA credits for the buyer)
This does mean if there's a legit significant cut in Y production overall in the US it might free up 2170s to enable LR AWD to get the credit (which it really needs right now because currently it's $250 more expensive than the Performance model with the $7500 factored in so it's in a really weird spot in the lineup today other than if you lease, which still has no option to own).
New Updates: How Long Do Electric Car Batteries Last?
We get a lot of questions from our community about electric car batteries. That is partly because the cost of battery replacement is so high (more on that later), but it is also due to limited information.
www.recurrentauto.com
Some great info in this report:
64% range on my 2018 310 mile car would be only 200 mile. Mine is at 270. Our p3d from 2022 after 2 years is at 280 mile epa down from 300 with the larger tires.New Updates: How Long Do Electric Car Batteries Last?
We get a lot of questions from our community about electric car batteries. That is partly because the cost of battery replacement is so high (more on that later), but it is also due to limited information.
Some great info in this report:
View attachment 1051061
These numbers look much worse than my experience
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
