Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 169 posts

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#141

Post by whamlastxmas »

konschubert wrote: post #132
starbugs wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just one very popular example: the length of the Walkman lifecycle was about 30 years. How long was the lifecycle of the iPod? Do you have any evidence to support your claim? I'd be honestly interested.

Let's say the speed of long distance travel. I dropped dramatically when railways were invented and dropped again when commercial airliners became common. In between these short bursts of innovation, not much has happened. I just noticed though that I may be talking about a slightly different thing here, speed of innovation vs product life cycles.

If you're going to look as far back as the creation of the railway, I think a more accurate perspective is that it took a few thousand years from the dawn of civilization to the railway, a hundred years from rail to cars, a couple decades from cars to popular commercial aviation. Speed of innovation accelerating still applies.

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#142

Post by unethical_ban »

dnautics wrote: post #111
unethical_ban wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can want a risk taking, belligerent CEO with huge expectations that demand results. I can also want that same person not to make unfounded, potentially illegal, and highly monitored claims regarding the company's trading status that could land them in court. And not insult rescuers as pedophiles, etc. Basically, what chipotle_coyote said.

You can want these things but the world does not have to deliver for you. A institutionalized version of that mentality is exactly the problem; organizations like the SEC fundamentally exist because 'someone has to protect' people's ability to inflation-proof their nest-egg. People should not question why their nest-egg should have to be made inflation-proof in the first place.

You really think that demanding that stock prices aren't unfairly manipulated by inside players is a step too far? That insider trading should be alright?

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#143

Post by Steel_Phoenix »

nikofeyn wrote: post #46
Steel_Phoenix wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no shortage of boring automotive companies to invest in if that's what they want. Invest in Musk if you believe the future won't happen fast enough if you don't. A corporate board making all the decisions would have been long ago crushed by big oil or bigger manufacturers, or their patents bought and buried to continue the status-quo.

how is tesla the future? they are still figuring out how to reliably manufacture a very small number of stagnant models, whereas every other car manufacturer iterates on multiple models every year, and it all works like clockwork and yields very reliable and safe cars. my kia optima sxl is much less than 50% of a tesla and yet has a higher fit and finish and is more safe.

Whether Tesla itself is the future or not, I don't know. I doubt Musk really wanted to be in the business of building cars. I think he did it to change the way everyone else builds cars. Not by decree of some minor increment in emissions standards, but by showing that an electric car would be cheaper, cleaner, faster, and sexier. He did it at a time when Prius was the laughing stock of the evening news, with stories of Prius tipping, and jokes about its drivers. Does Kia really have a higher safety rating than Tesla?

I agree with other comments that things like his fight with the diver was unhelpful. I don't know what was really behind the threat to take things private. Hopefully he learned something and will focus again on what he does best.

Sometimes, established industry needs someone from outside to threaten do do something even if it isn't the most profitable thing to do. I remember when iphones were charging for ringtones and wallpaper. Google's decision to make an open source OS, and threat to build a phone for it if no one else would, changed the whole game.

I'd rather invest time or money in Musk, despite the risk, just because he built the car, landed the rocket, and I want him to be able to do it again. I can respect an investor who just wants a safe return, but they should invest elsewhere and good riddance. He doesn't need that kind of investor always threatening to pull their money if he doesn't play it safer. Maybe instead of going public, he should start the world's largest Kickstarter.

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#144

Post by justtopost »

miemo wrote: post #118
tbabb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time seeing arguments against the SEC taking action-- especially here-- as anything but overcomplicated rationalizations rooted in a personal adoration of Elon Musk. Basically, "I like Elon Musk and so I don't want anything bad to happen to him." But (a) laws don't work like that (b) selectively enforcing rules (especially those designed to prevent fraud and deception) isn't justice or ethics, and (c) h…

This reminds me of the heart surgeon student who avoided jail time for attacking her partner with a knife because she 'showed potential'. People are perhaps sympathetic to Elon because he shows more potential than other CEOs, no? Did the judge in the case above show leniency because 'he liked her'? For b) rather than selectively enforcing rules, this would be an example of discretionary punishment, which is absolutel…

Disgressionary punishment is based on the severity of the crime, not the 'potential' of the person. You just described bias.

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#145

Post by justtopost »

aries1980 wrote: post #99
starbugs wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the Tesla situation. Product is OK. Customers are enthusiastic. Production is in trouble. Cost and labor hours per car are way too high. The financial situation isn't good. That's usually when the board and stockholders put in an operations-oriented CEO. And in doing so risk that the company becomes another GE-like corporate which is no longer able to innovate and inspire people. Things have changed. Markets…

> Innovation cycles have become much shorter. Yes, but you need to build up a world-wide customer support network that is willing to learn these new innovations that fast at a modest rate. If Tesla would stay in the performance car segment, then the company doesn't need to scale the customer service that much. If you smash a bit your McLaren, you accept that only a handful of companies can fix it. But when you want t…

You, nor your local mechanic, can work on teslas. While your mclaren dealer would freakout, and your value perhaps drop, you can poke into whatever guts you want. Until you can OWN a tesla, I think they will stay a cult minority.

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#146

Post by justtopost »

refurb wrote: post #133
JoshCole wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, she didn't.

You’re right. It was a random comment by a friend of his gf who claimed to have visited his house during the crisis.

Who also leaked some other info about elon, from his gfs texts, about things less concerning to investors, but indicitave that the allegations hold more weight than just some random comment.

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#147

Post by ricardobeat »

justtopost wrote: post #144
miemo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the heart surgeon student who avoided jail time for attacking her partner with a knife because she 'showed potential'. People are perhaps sympathetic to Elon because he shows more potential than other CEOs, no? Did the judge in the case above show leniency because 'he liked her'? For b) rather than selectively enforcing rules, this would be an example of discretionary punishment, which is absolutel…

Disgressionary punishment is based on the severity of the crime, not the 'potential' of the person. You just described bias.

should be. In reality it is at the discretion of the judge.

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#148

Post by antidesitter »

unethical_ban wrote: post #142
dnautics wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can want these things but the world does not have to deliver for you. A institutionalized version of that mentality is exactly the problem; organizations like the SEC fundamentally exist because 'someone has to protect' people's ability to inflation-proof their nest-egg. People should not question why their nest-egg should have to be made inflation-proof in the first place.

You really think that demanding that stock prices aren't unfairly manipulated by inside players is a step too far? That insider trading should be alright?

> That insider trading should be alright?

Not commenting on the specifics of this case, but some economists argue that insider trading should be legalized:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading#Arguments_for_...

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#149

Post by Apocryphon »

pvg wrote: post #15
Apocryphon wrote: post #2

Is this him resigning in the same way Yukio Mishima committed suicide? Hyperbolic, sure, but the article has a Yale prof straight-up invoking Jonestown in describing this move.

No? Mishima committed actual suicide, this is a quote by someone metaphorically describing the 'strategic plan' of the board, rather than 'this move'.

I mean, a move so elaborate and outrageous, it’s nothing more than a showy way to be terminated on one’s own terms and to save face. Like Mishima’s quixotic coup.

Re: Elon Musk’s Ultimatum to Tesla: Fight the S.E.C., or I Quit

#150

Post by pbreit »

jonathankoren wrote: post #59
pbreit wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had planned it including a communication to the board. he had talked to at least 1 investor plus himself so felt he could round up the funding. His other company has overcome the shareholder limit. He said he was “considering” it. It was twitter. Shareholders are much better with him at the helm. Etc, etc.

This is simply not true. Having a hunch you can get some money, is not securing funding. This is just like when Bart Simpson tells Milhouse he can read lips, and then admits he doesn't know what's being said. ("I thought you said you could read lips!" "I thought I could!")[0] It's fraud. He said "funding secured" after an initial 30 minute chat. That's not a deal. That's not even a verbal agreement to make an LOU. He…

I'm not sure why anyone would think a tweet that included "considering" would constitute a "deal".

The tweet came from IR, not the board. The board had been apprised of his considerations.

Post reply on HN