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

[aubreymcfato]

Re bikes, Boryana Straubel, JB's wife, died while biking in 2015. So I have no doubt FSD will be a net improvement in safety for cyclists.

(funny enough, she was employed by the now CEO of NPR, Katherine Maher, at the time head of the Wikimedia Foundation. I probably even met Boryana at some conference).

 

[totoro722]

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?


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.

He tried to get out of the PRICE, which seemed exorbitant once he had access to more company information.

 

[DarkandStormy]

I appreciate that DarkandStormy put the word "threat" in quotes here...

By defining it as a threat, Electrek is making the same logical mistake that a poster here elegantly pointed out last week.

Something like: " 'If A, then B' is not the same as 'If NOT A, then NOT B.' "

Sad that so many in the media, etc. have latched onto this "threat" word...putting it on full display that they don't remember the basic tenets of logic that they should have learned in high school geometry (at least that's where I was first introduced to logical argument...not sure why it was specifically part of a geometry course).

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

 

[sunwarriors]

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?


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.

You can read these old articles for the why:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/tech/elon-musk-twitter-deal-exit/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/14/tech/elon-musk-twitter-offer/index.html

"According to an SEC filing, Musk has offered to acquire all the shares in Twitter he does not own for $54.20 per share, valuing the company at $41.4 billion. That represents a 38% premium over the closing price on April 1, the last trading day before Musk disclosed that he had become Twitter’s biggest shareholder, and an 18% premium over its closing price Wednesday."

"Musk said the cash offer was his “best and final offer,” according to the SEC filing, adding that if it’s not accepted he would have to reconsider his position as a shareholder."



It's mostly that he overpaid when Twitter was highly priced (TSLA was $300+ around that time in 2022), he offered more on top and signed paperwork (because I doubt a verbal comment is enforceable) to do it, then changed his mine when the market started pulling back a bit.

I'm guessing this is like saying you'll buy a home with no inspections nor contingencies and here is my serious offer in a legal document, then you change your mind and say, nah, I didn't want it "really" that much, so we'll go to court and say you had a contract breach. As usual Musk fashion, when the court case gets close, you settle because you were probably going to lose in court anyways (like the solar roof lawsuit threats) and he was stuck with it.


I don't have much to comment on the comp plan other than even if he gets the 51 billion comp plan, I've read they'll have to issue another plan soon after for him to have over 25% stake. One question I do have is if it's about control, can the board just settle this by giving him higher voting power stock, but not dilute any existing shareholders instead? This is done for other firms, but it's done pre-IPO. From the supporters, it seems like shareholders would win giving him control, but not further and further dilution to get to 25%.

 

[willow_hiller]

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

You're taking that out of context. Elon does not want to contribute to products that can constitute an "existential AI risk" at Tesla without more control. None of Tesla's current products pose that risk, so the compensation package doesn't affect Elon's ability to deliver on FSD.

And I agree with Elon that building potentially dangerous AI in a publicly-traded company is a massive risk to humanity. OpenAI is a non-profit, on paper, but they're still pushing the boundaries with little regard for safety in the name of profit.

 

[hpiv]

Through the SEC, Tesla today distributed institutional opinions that are contrary to some Tesla BoD recommendations.
Giving some consideration to opinions contrary to one's initial reactions can be beneficial no matter what the subject.
Link: Notice of exempt solicitation (voluntary submission)

If they submitted this today, aren't they a little late? A few weeks ago I would have agreed that Elon seemed to prioritize most other things over Tesla, but lately he has seemed very involved in Tesla indeed.

They also do not seem to address the fact that Tesla is likely affected significantly by the current high-interest environment. I don't think we can blame Elon for all of Tesla's underperformance since interest rates started rising at a record rate.

(The filing does make many good points, mind you, and I definitely do not disagree with everything. But in this post I wanted to bring up a couple of points where I feel they could have made a better argument.)

 

[ggies07]

I was recently testing out FSD 12.3.6 on an hour drive on the highway and noticed it did not try and get over when there was a cop on the side of the road. I thought we were taught to do this, or if you can't, to slow way down, neither of which the car did and we had to turn it off for a brief moment. It would be nice for it to try and move over to the other lane for any car of the side of the road, as it's just a safe thing to do.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791996645682667956

 

[DarkandStormy]

You're taking that out of context. Elon does not want to contribute to products that can constitute an "existential AI risk" at Tesla without more control. None of Tesla's current products pose that risk, so the compensation package doesn't affect Elon's ability to deliver on FSD.

And I agree with Elon that building potentially dangerous AI in a publicly-traded company is a massive risk to humanity. OpenAI is a non-profit, on paper, but they're still pushing the boundaries with little regard for safety in the name of profit.

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?

 

[hpiv]

He tried to get out of the PRICE, which seemed exorbitant once he had access to more company information.

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.

 

[willow_hiller]

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?

Not necessarily. Humanoid robots that use AI for understanding and navigating the world don't pose any more of a risk than FSD using cameras to navigate a road. And Tesla is already on a track for both of those products to use AI in a responsible way.

But if Elon doesn't have a good grip on the development of Optimus and AI is used in such a way that allows it to be trained to harm people, then absolutely. The compensation vote is a matter of whether Elon thinks he has enough control to steer the company toward new and innovative developments, while also keeping themselves from purposefully or accidentally creating an AI risk.

 

[durkie]

You're taking that out of context. Elon does not want to contribute to products that can constitute an "existential AI risk" at Tesla without more control. None of Tesla's current products pose that risk, so the compensation package doesn't affect Elon's ability to deliver on FSD.

And I agree with Elon that building potentially dangerous AI in a publicly-traded company is a massive risk to humanity. OpenAI is a non-profit, on paper, but they're still pushing the boundaries with little regard for safety in the name of profit.

But isn't he saying that if things don't go his way, instead of building AI products at Tesla he'd go build it at xAI, where he has probably close to 100% control and can't be overturned?

 

[Linkmeup]

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?

Hi - from my vantage point - in startups and product development, one builds towards an eye on satisfying customer needs in the beginning (get that first customer, then 5, then 10, 25, 100, 1000, etc.). Only a very few know what customers are going to end up wanting before they build it over a long enough time horizon. Elon's one of the few scientists/engineers/business owners/entrepreneurs that can and has, probabilistically, understand and understood what's likely to happen with technology. Tech can be built to do great things and horrible things, as an idiom.

We build tech in order to progress as a society. If there was another way of improvement that didn't require technology to improve the human condition, I'm sure many stores of value would be put into that channel of improvement. For AI/Bot, its not the first time we've built something being scary of the potential for negative outcomes...but it is the first time it's being developed in the open and not owned by the government from what I can tell and read on the subject.

So, yes, there's potential for existential AI risk because we don't know what all the possibilities are, both positive and negative, right now. A working production model doing lots of activities in the factory will decrease the chatter of negative possibilities. Though, selling it to the public and allowing developers to develop on that platform (e.g. Windows Bot, Apple Bot, Tesla Bot, etc.) may open up possibilities for anyone to go towards long-term existential AI risk.

 

[jerry33]

Now now, some of them might have as many as nine shares...

I have one account with only nine shares. Fortunately my other accounts have a lot more.

 

[Joe F]

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? I

Since this is NOT the Twitter thread, please ask elsewhere, or better yet, ask Elon Musk. I'm sure he can provide the reasons and satisfaction you seek.

We all thank you in advance.

 

[2daMoon]

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.

What if the purchase wasn't only about free speech?

What if Elon has had a decades-old plan, originally introduced back when he was running PayPal, to create an "Everything App" that includes social media, finance, shopping, etc. all in one place? This project not being pursued there was the reason he sold his share of PayPal, then invested that money in SpaceX and Tesla.

What if Twitter was both:

• a social media app with a broad user base that could be acquired as step one toward creating the Everything App, and,
• a highly biased source of information being manipulated to affect decisions that had significant impact (often negative) on all sorts of things in the world?

Purchasing purchasing an existing site was easier than building a social media site from scratch, and it desperately needed to be managed more efficiently and more ethically than it had been up until its sale.

3-D chess, 2 birds, 1 stone.

For more info, read / post in this thread...

X App Discussion

It's crazy how many bots are on X these days. It might even be worse than the Twitter days. As fast as you block them there remains a truly endless supply of bots. POS!

teslamotorsclub.com

Edit: I couldn't find THE Twitter Thread in a search. If someone could DM it to @hpiv that would be helpful.

 

[2daMoon]

I have one account with only nine shares.

We know. And we are watching you.

 

[2daMoon]

But isn't he saying that if things don't go his way, instead of building AI products at Tesla he'd go build it at xAI, where he has probably close to 100% control and can't be overturned?

No, that is not what he is saying.

Tesla will still build all the products based upon the AI.

xAI, for instance, as a private entity can shepherd the AI development to assure it won't be adversely affected by scary, greedy people purchasing enough shares in a public company to exercise control over AI development to create something malevolent, like a HAL 9000, a Skynet, or a Matrix world.

Knock Knock Neo...

 

[EQC_]

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?


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.

It is indeed hard to understand anything when key details are left out and ignored. The main answers to most of those points are: life is complicated in general, and many of the complications are left out of the narrative presented above, likely causing the confusion and need to question.

For example:

"First he wanted to acquire Twitter. Then he tried to get out of the deal.... if acquiring Twitter was extremely important, why did he try to get out of the deal?"

Much of your confusion on the events surrounding Twittter can be answered by reading and thinking about the Wikipedia article:

Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your narrative leaves out key details. Some that make a pretty big difference:

1. Elon never said it was important to acquire Twitter no matter what the cost or price premium.
2. The purchase of Twitter was never going to be Elon walking in with a sack of cash...it was always going to involve multiple other investors, debt, etc., and those others might have different ideas of the importance.
3. Elon's original offer, on April 14, 2022, was made assuming some value of the company. Part of that value is an assumption on how many real users actually use it. This is not just important for the actual revenue-generation capability of Twitter, but also in the value of Twitter as a free-speech haven for HUMAN discourse. A town square isn't a useful place for people to engage each other if it is full of loud robots shouting advertisements and scams. Elon brought up the question of whether useless/valueless bot traffic was included in the company's own "usage" metrics, and per wikipedia, that was part of his reason for trying to pull out of the deal: "In July, Musk announced his intention to terminate the agreement, asserting that Twitter had breached their agreement by refusing to crack down on spambot accounts."
4. Also between when Elon made the offer and when he tried to back out, the stock price dropped a bit. His premium went from 20% to 40+%. And, keep in mind, again, there were other investors and debt involved, and many of those would back out and/or want to reduce their involvement to make the purchase. This shift likely put even more cost directly on Elon.
5. When forced to buy, Elon ended up paying a higher price than he thought fair (because conditions and knowledge of the company had changed), and he probably also had to bare a larger burden of the purchase himself than he had intended (because other investors may have backed out and/or reduced their contribution).

And, relating to the Tesla/25%, this was all back in 2022. Things change with time. Back in 2022, Elon didn't know a guy with 9 shares and a Delaware court would be trying to take away a significant fraction of his company ownership. He also may not have realized the potential value and/or risk of Tesla's future AI back then. Also, I'd be willing to bet that Elon's tweet in February of 2023 may have marked a trigger for him to realize that he might want more personal control of AI development:

"OpenAI was created as an open source (which is why I named it “Open” AI), non-profit company to serve as a counterweight to Google, but now it has become a closed source, maximum-profit company effectively controlled by Microsoft.Not what I intended at all."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1626516035863212034

 

[indysurfer]

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

I believe Elon was trying to get a better price after he learned how much of the old Twitter was dominated by fake accounts and bots.

Regardless, he followed through and despite cutting 80% of the Twitter staff - Twitter (X) works just fine today and even has more features.

BTW - Elon ended up hiring back some of the Twitter folks he fired during the mass layoffs, just like he has been doing with Tesla. Elon has famously said "If you are not adding back 10%, you didn't cut enough".

While the rest of the major automakers are saddled with expensive and difficult to fire union labor and working out of antiquated factories, Elon is staying ahead of the demand downturn and reducing costs. I am sure many other Auto CEO's wish they could have the ability to enact change in their organizations like Elon routinely does.

 

[Blue horseshoe]

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