In a series of posts on X Monday night, Musk said that he would not want to grow Tesla to become a leader in artificial intelligence and robotics without a compensation plan that would give him ownership of around 25% of the company’s stock. That would be about double the roughly 13% stake he currently owns.

Just casually asking for a roughly 80 Billion dollar pay raise. But at this point would Tesla be better off without him?

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Why haven’t shareholders elected new board members? Or does his sycophants have the majority in combined total?

        • Hypx@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          There’s good reason to believe that Tesla is an Enron-esque style fraud. No one in charge has shown any business acumen, and no one can explain how it is actually profitable. But that requires only stooges and yes-men on the board. There cannot be any accountability.

          • No1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Every time I leave my house, I see dozens of Teslas driving around. If they’re not profitable, then they’re horrifically bad at making money. They’re ubiquitous. Pretty impressive market penetration for a business run by people who don’t know what they’re doing.

            • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              ·
              10 months ago

              Their single biggest revenue stream is selling carbon credits. They’re basically a regulatory arbitrage business with a side hustle in cars.

              • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Just like Amazon who is a cloud computing company with a side hustle in e-tail or Google which is an ad company with a side hustle in tech.

                In general most people don’t really understand this about big companies.

                • guacupado@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Yeah but in their cases the “hustle” got them the funds to move into their current space. Musk just had so much money that Tesla outlasted all the red it was in. Same thing going on with Twitter.

                  We all know it’ll never fully go under, he has too much money for it too. It’ll last long enough to sooner or later come back up.

                  • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    We all know it’ll never fully go under

                    No, it likely won’t, and part of that is also because of who’s invested in the company’s success. Just another example of “too big to fail”.

                  • Hypx@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    That depends on how bullshit the numbers really are. If it is just Jack Welch level of financial shenanigans, you can see a stump version of the company eventually surviving. If it is worse than that, then probably not.

            • Hypx@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Enron was a huge business that had millions of customers. It just happened to lose money while doing so. The crime was that they hid that last part.

              • Optional@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                Also they deliberately turned off people’s power for more money. Like, scum-of-the-earth.

            • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Might be area dependant. Lots of them where I work at not many at all where I live at about an hour away.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            and no one can explain how it is actually profitable.

            Hang on a sec, its publicly trade company. Its pretty easy to see how its profitable especially compared to other legacy automakers.

            Tesla vs Ford numbers:

            On the other hand, “let’s look at Tesla and the Model 3. Tesla is aiming for 25% gross margin on the Model 3 and mid-teens profit margin (let’s say 14%). The average price of the Model 3 is projected at around $42,000… [so] the average gross margin on a Model 3 would be $10,500 and profit margin would be $5,880. Compared to Ford’s average vehicle profit margin of $1,100, the Model 3 would be 5x as profitable.” source

            Disclaimer: the source is from March of 2023 and Tesla has cut prices (which means less profit) since then, but they had a lot of room to do so with so much profit per car.

            So one could say that Tesla has been able to charge a premium for a cheaper car, or they’ve been able to reduce manufacturing cost for a moderately priced car. Both result in high margin returns for the company.

            • Hypx@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              They have a direct sales model which is more expensive to operate and exaggerates profit margin. There’s also reason to believe they are wildly understating warranty costs plus ignoring R&D costs. People who look closely have consistently concluded that Tesla cannot really be making money, or have very narrow profit margins at best.

              Huge price cuts will compound these problems dramatically.

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                They have a direct sales model which is more expensive to operate and exaggerates profit margin.

                How would adding a middleman that also has to make profit make the company earn less? Wouldn’t direct sales allow Tesla to sell for a higher price because they can sell at retail instead of a “wholesale” cost normally sold to a dealership?

                People who look closely have consistently concluded that Tesla cannot really be making money, or have very narrow profit margins at best.

                I’d be interested in reading more on this assertion. Do you have a source you can point me to?

                • Hypx@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  You have to build the entire system out yourself. That costs a lot of money. The dealership model also costs the manufacturer basically zero dollars, because it really profits on used car sales and maintenance works. You don’t make anymore money by having your own dealerships. The whole argument that there’s some secret behind Tesla’s business smacks of gaslighting, not something that actually holds up to reason.

                  It’s been a long standing issue with Tesla’s accounting. No one can really explain how profits are actually being generated going back years, especially considering everyone in the West is losing money on EVs. It’s also being ran entirely by sycophants and people with minimal qualifications, with zero accountability anywhere. So it just seems, via Occam’s razor, that they’re cooking the books.

                  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    The dealership model also costs the manufacturer basically zero dollars, because it really profits on used car sales and maintenance works.

                    The manufacturer also has to pay dealerships for warranty work on vehicles. Company owned services centers wouldn’t.

                    The whole argument that there’s some secret behind Tesla’s business smacks of gaslighting, not something that actually holds up to reason.

                    I’m interested in that source you talked about the “people who looked closely”.

                • rsuri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Not OP but regarding sources, there’s a group referred to as “TSLAQ” (Q referring to a letter typically added to bankrupt stock symbols, but they’re not entirely free of conspiratorial thinking) that’s been critical of TSLA and others including David Einhorn who have criticized their accounting practices. I’ve not had time to look much into it myself but see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Accounting

                  • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Here’s the section for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

                    = In 2017, a lawsuit alleged Tesla made materially false and misleading statements regarding its preparedness to produce Model 3 cars. The U. S. Department of Justice also began an investigation in 2018 into whether Tesla misled investors and misstated production figures about the Model 3. The lawsuit was dismissed in Tesla’s favor in March 2019.

                    to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

      • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Are you certain? I’m certain James is the one who broke the story about the drug use since its also his family that runs the WSJ

    • cowpowered@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Tesla’s lofty stock price is to some extent based on hype, and Musk being credited (far too much imo) for the company’s success. If he did leave the stock price would come down to something more sensible, which at least short-term would make shareholders unhappy. But yeah leaving him in charge after what he did to Twitter must also be causing sleepless nights.