Cont: Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla II

[Gulliver Foyle]

My point was that he spends so much time on external activities that he can't be running either company, at least not on an operational level. I apologise for not listing all of his external activities, but it doesn't change the point.


SpaceX has a virtually continuous programme of raising external finance. I believe Musk is integral to the success of that. No investment and SpaceX either goes bankrupt or has to cut back on its non profitable activities. It's difficult to say what at SpaceX is profitable and what isn't, but Starship is definitely a big revenue sink at the moment and it's a fair bet that Starlink does not make money either. Falcon 9 is probably profitable, but it would not surprise me if it eventually turns out it isn't. No Musk means much less external investment which means a smaller or bankrupt SpaceX.

Without Musk Tesla's share price has a massive downward adjustment to the level of other car companies of its size. Given that they have significant challenges with an aging model fleet and sales that are flat, I would expect their shares to become cheap for a car company of their size. I think that would make them an acquisition target for somebody else.

Without Musk, both companies would go through some pain but would be stronger if they survive the transition.

I beileve about the only part of SpaceX that is currently profitable is the section of Falcon 9 that is profitable, and that is only because they are charging the same eye-gougey prices the Ruzzians used while also getting a free pass on a lot of the launch costs, because they have free use of Cape Kennedy and other military facilities.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

the only thing that makes SpaceX profitable is Starlink - it's putting money from one pocket into the other and dazzle investors with the cash-flow.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

He's an existential threat. And it isn't the left's job to please a multi-billionaire. He all of a sudden hates the left because they refuse to support his union busting? Or that a judge refused his scheme to make him 50 billion dollars wealthier in a stock scheme?

Musk wasn't always a billionaire. His net worth is entirely dependent on the value of his shares. In 2018 TSLA was worth ~$20 per share. In a pay package approved by shareholders, Musk was given 10 years of performance targets to hit. If all targets were met he would receive stock options equivalent to ~12% of Tesla stock. He had 28 targets to meet, with a 0.5% stock option per target. Many said the targets were impossible and there was no way he would meet any of them. But they were wrong. He met all but a few of them, and today Tesla stock is worth $454, 23 times what it was in 2018. That means Musk should have earned options equivalent to ~$56 billion at the current stock price.

However a single investor who bought 6 shares took Tesla to court arguing that the pay package was approved without shareholders being properly informed - and won. Initially the judge awarded this investor and his lawyers $5 billion in Tesla stock, however that shakedown was later reduced on appeal to $345 million (still a tidy sum for complaining about your shares increasing in value by 23 times!). The shareholders then voted again for the package, and the same majority approved it again. Still no dice, the judge stuck to her original ruling and Musk received nothing.

That's perfectly fair, right? Other CEOs usally get cash payments that they get to keep even if the company goes belly up, which many pundits predicted would happen to Tesla. In the early days this was a real possibility. Musk sunk all the money he recevied from selling his previous business into SpaceX (which was only one bad rocket launch away from bankruptcy) and Tesla, trying to pass the 'valley of death' into profitability. Many laughed at his stupidity. Why throw away all that money when you could do nothing and have a comfortable lifestyle on $160 million?

The detractors were right of course. Musk should have sat on his money and done nothing, then he wouldn't be the target of so much hate. There would be no SpaceX, and NASA would be paying double for Boeing to not deliver. There would also be no Tesla, and the most popular car model of any type in the World wouldn't be an EV. Democrats would love that, because they don't really care about stopping global warming. And Musk could go on Twitter spouting garbage like the rest of the idle rich and wanabbes do - and noone would bat an eye.

As for 'union bashing', this is regrettably all too common in the US and elsewhere. But to a large extent the unions bring it on themselves. I was in a union once as a government employee, even taking an active role in union affairs. We tried to keep a good working relationship with upper managment. However we were associated with another union which decided to strike over an issue that had nothing to do with us (and in my opinion was bogus) and we were forced to strike in sympathy. It is any wonder that relations deteriorated after that?

Later I started my own small business and nobody mentioned unions because I made sure they were happy. But imagine if I made the mistake of hiring someone who was hot on unions and decided to use my business as a political football. It would be hard to stay positive.

United Auto Workers Seek to Shed a Legacy of Corruption

Aug. 1, 2022

After his predecessors’ imprisonment, the union’s president is being challenged for re-election in the first direct vote by its membership.

For the United Auto Workers, the last five years have been one of the most troubling chapters in the union’s storied history.

A federal investigation found widespread corruption, with a dozen senior officials, including two former presidents, convicted of embezzling more than $1 million in union funds for luxury travel and other lavish personal expenses. Since last year, the union has been under the scrutiny of a court-appointed monitor charged with ensuring that anticorruption reforms are carried out.

The scandal tarnished a once-powerful organization and left many of its 400,000 active members angry and disillusioned...

One potentially serious challenger is Shawn Fain, an electrician who has been a U.A.W. member for 28 years and holds a post with the union’s headquarters staff. He is part of a slate of candidates for senior posts, and is backed by a dissident group, Unite All Workers for Democracy...

The opposition candidates have called for the U.A.W. to take a more confrontational line in contract negotiations to win back concessions...

When you read news like that it's hard to feel good about unions trying to take over your factory, especially when everything you have is riding on gettig out a radically new product while supercillious know-it-alls salivate at the thought of you going down.

Musk said:-

A lot of times people think creating companies is gonna be fun. I would say it’s not, it’s really not that fun. I mean, there are periods of fun. And there are periods where it’s just awful. And particularly if you’re CEO of the company. You actually have a distillation of all the worst problems in a company.

There’s no point in spending your time on things that are going right, so you’re only spending your time on things that are going wrong. And those are other things that are going wrong that other people can’t take care of. So you have it the worst. You have a filter for the crappiest [sic] problems in the company. The most pernicious and painful problems.

So, I wouldn’t say it’s… I think you’d have to feel quite compelled to do it and have a fairly high pain threshold. A friend of mine says, starting a company is like staring into the abyss and eating glass. And there’s some truth to that.

The staring into the abyss part is that you’re constantly going to be facing the extermination of the company. Cause most startups fail. It’s like 90% or 99% of startups fail. So that’s the staring in the abyss part. So you’re constantly saying ‘if I don’t get this right, the company will die.’ Which can be quite stressful.

And then the eating glass part is that you got to work on the problems that the company needs you to work on, not the problems you want to work on. And so you end up working on problems that you really wish you weren’t working on. And so that’s the eating glass part. And that goes on for a long time.”

This is the kind of stress that changes people. I felt a bit of it in my own company, but nothing like what Musk must have felt. You saw it change him. Mix that in with hatred from all sides and toxic social media, and you have the formula for what he is now.

It didn't have to be this way, but actually it did - because as soon as someone becomes 'rich and famous' the haters pile on. Everyone from jealous 'progressives' to power-mad judges to out of touch presidents. Any time I see a sentence that starts with "Elon Musk, the richest man in world..." I know the rest will be BS.

 

[dirtywick]

He's an existential threat. And it isn't the left's job to please a multi-billionaire. He all of a sudden hates the left because they refuse to support his union busting? Or that a judge refused his scheme to make him 50 billion dollars wealthier in a stock scheme?

so for years it was dont give that guy too much money, he’s a greedy, bad guy and look at all the bad things he’s done. they blew off the warnings as just haters and we hate him for his politics and he’s actually a good guy.

well he’s used all that money and super involved in his right wing politics and corruption and he’s been in it for himself the whole time. it’s not somehow still the lefts fault. you guys were wrong, he was a bad guy the whole time. it’s settled.

 

[acbytesla]

Musk wasn't always a billionaire. His net worth is entirely dependent on the value of his shares. In 2018 TSLA was worth ~$20 per share. In a pay package approved by shareholders, Musk was given 10 years of performance targets to hit. If all targets were met he would receive stock options equivalent to ~12% of Tesla stock. He had 28 targets to meet, with a 0.5% stock option per target. Many said the targets were impossible and there was no way he would meet any of them. But they were wrong. He met all but a few of them, and today Tesla stock is worth $454, 23 times what it was in 2018. That means Musk should have earned options equivalent to ~$56 billion at the current stock price.

However a single investor who bought 6 shares took Tesla to court arguing that the pay package was approved without shareholders being properly informed - and won. Initially the judge awarded this investor and his lawyers $5 billion in Tesla stock, however that shakedown was later reduced on appeal to $345 million (still a tidy sum for complaining about your shares increasing in value by 23 times!). The shareholders then voted again for the package, and the same majority approved it again. Still no dice, the judge stuck to her original ruling and Musk received nothing.

That's perfectly fair, right? Other CEOs usally get cash payments that they get to keep even if the company goes belly up, which many pundits predicted would happen to Tesla. In the early days this was a real possibility. Musk sunk all the money he recevied from selling his previous business into SpaceX (which was only one bad rocket launch away from bankruptcy) and Tesla, trying to pass the 'valley of death' into profitability. Many laughed at his stupidity. Why throw away all that money when you could do nothing and have a comfortable lifestyle on $160 million?

The detractors were right of course. Musk should have sat on his money and done nothing, then he wouldn't be the target of so much hate. There would be no SpaceX, and NASA would be paying double for Boeing to not deliver. There would also be no Tesla, and the most popular car model of any type in the World wouldn't be an EV. Democrats would love that, because they don't really care about stopping global warming. And Musk could go on Twitter spouting garbage like the rest of the idle rich and wanabbes do - and noone would bat an eye.

As for 'union bashing', this is regrettably all too common in the US and elsewhere. But to a large extent the unions bring it on themselves. I was in a union once as a government employee, even taking an active role in union affairs. We tried to keep a good working relationship with upper managment. However we were associated with another union which decided to strike over an issue that had nothing to do with us (and in my opinion was bogus) and we were forced to strike in sympathy. It is any wonder that relations deteriorated after that?

Later I started my own small business and nobody mentioned unions because I made sure they were happy. But imagine if I made the mistake of hiring someone who was hot on unions and decided to use my business as a political football. It would be hard to stay positive.

United Auto Workers Seek to Shed a Legacy of Corruption

When you read news like that it's hard to feel good about unions trying to take over your factory, especially when everything you have is riding on gettig out a radically new product while supercillious know-it-alls salivate at the thought of you going down.

Musk said:-

This is the kind of stress that changes people. I felt a bit of it in my own company, but nothing like what Musk must have felt. You saw it change him. Mix that in with hatred from all sides and toxic social media, and you have the formula for what he is now.

It didn't have to be this way, but actually it did - because as soon as someone becomes 'rich and famous' the haters pile on. Everyone from jealous 'progressives' to power-mad judges to out of touch presidents. Any time I see a sentence that starts with "Elon Musk, the richest man in world..." I know the rest will be BS.

Seriously, you're saying his typical, CEO, I deserve 60 billion dollars in compensation and the workers can go straight to hell is justified? Even before the lawsuit Musk was worth an insane amount of money. At that time the wealthiest person on the planet. People forget the United States government loaned Tesla a billion dollars of funding money when it wasn't profitable. Not to mention government programs that has offered many thousands of dollars in rebates that made their vehicles affordable.

He is hated because he is a selfish self centered billionaire who thinks he has all the answers. And anyone who dares get in his way of obtaining his vision of a dystopian future should be crushed.

 

[8enotto]

The US can refuse all Chinese made goods they want, including EV cars completely.
Meanwhile México and most of the rest of the world is rather welcoming of them as they get geared up for domestic production.

Musk likes the embargo on the cars a lot as he has US production facilities already.
But he seems to be OK with a few parts from abroad.

China will still lead the way for most buyers for a while.

 

[dirtywick]

It means you can spam any thread you like with personal attacks on Musk?

just the ones where it's on topic i suppose. but i'd never pass up an opportunity to do it

 

[jeremyp]

the only thing that makes SpaceX profitable is Starlink - it's putting money from one pocket into the other and dazzle investors with the cash-flow.

I don't think Starlink is profitable. I think the cost of maintaining the satellite constellation will sink it in the end.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's why I said one pocket to the other.
Starlink launches fill up the gaps in SpaceX launches when no one else wants anything in orbit. At special rates.
That way it looks like SpaceX is way more busy and cheaper than anything else when all they do is waste Starlink Investor's money (and the DoDs) instead of just SpaceX investors.

 

[angrysoba]

Not paid much attention to Tesla recently.
Can anyone tell me if Cybertruck has been roaring success or a cringe-inducing embarassment? (or some combination... a roaring embarassment or a cringe-inducing success?)

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think Starlink is profitable. I think the cost of maintaining the satellite constellation will sink it in the end.

Do you know how expensive the satellites are to maintain? I would think 95% of their expense is launching the satellites.

I'd like to buy their Starlink mobile priority service because I often sail off shore. But $250 or a $1,000 a month is insane.

 

[The Don]

Not paid much attention to Tesla recently.
Can anyone tell me if Cybertruck has been roaring success or a cringe-inducing embarassment? (or some combination... a roaring embarassment or a cringe-inducing success?)

In the United States, it's the best selling electric pickup. Given that North America is its main (effectively sole, because it can't be sold in the EU and not many other countries have enough rich people to buy them in bulk) market then that's a success IMO.

It seems to be something of a niche vehicle so it's unlikely to be sold in the millions but it has kept the Tesla brand in the public consciousness.

There are lots of YouTube videos out there where technical flaws (real and/or imagined) of the Cybertruck are discussed at length but the US truck buying public are voting with their wallets.

 

[dirtywick]

the best selling electric truck sold about 27k since its launch. the us truck buying public buys ice

 

[acbytesla]

the best selling electric truck sold about 27k since its launch. the us truck buying public buys ice

Other than the cybertruck, I only know of the Ford Lighning. My neighbor bought one. He likes and hates it.

 

[Bogative]

I beileve about the only part of SpaceX that is currently profitable is the section of Falcon 9 that is profitable, and that is only because they are charging the same eye-gougey prices the Ruzzians used

Liar.

The last time NASA bought rocket tickets for its astronauts from Roscosmos in 2018, the Russian space agency charged $86 million per seat.

I should point out that these savings are conservative. Using different data points, SpaceNews.com calculates that the per-seat ticket price offered by SpaceX is actually closer to $65 million than $75 million. By that metric, SpaceX's Commercial Crew flights represent savings of $128 million over Roscosmos and $140 million over Boeing.

How SpaceX Saves NASA $100 Million Per Flight | The Motley Fool

SpaceX Crew Dragon flights offer ticket prices unmatched by any alternative.

www.fool.com

while also getting a free pass on a lot of the launch costs, because they have free use of Cape Kennedy and other military facilities.

More gibberish.

What the ◊◊◊◊ is a "Cape Kennedy?"

 

[Trebuchet]

Rivian. I see as many, if not more, of those around here than Cybertrucks. And they look much better. Amazon is also using their technology in delivery vans, which seem like a good application for electric vehicles.

 

[dirtywick]

well they have a handful of competitors that also don't sell a lot of trucks

 

[Bogative]

They started developing Starship in 2012. When does early development end? For perspective, the entire Apollo Space Programme lasted eleven years - less than Starship has been in "early development".

Yes, and the Apollo program was a US national priority, a nationwide effort and cost to US taxpayers over $200,000,000,000 in today's money. Starship is a mainly private effort by a company founded and ran by a gamer dork with an estimated development cost of $10,000,000,000.

Payload estimates the total research and development costs for Starship will total about $10 billion

Rocket Report: A new estimate of Starship costs; Japan launches spy satellite

One space tug company runs into financial problems; another says go big or go home.

arstechnica.com

Ah yes. The competitors to Starship for HLS had mock ups of their landing craft including the interiors a year or two ago. SpaceX had managed to create a crane to get people onto the ground, sort of. And yet, SpaceX got the contract on the decision of a NASA administrator who went on to take a nice job at SpaceX. Hmmm....

SpaceX's lunar lander competitor has a mockup already? Amazing! How many successful rocket launches has it had? Because the important part about landing humans on the moon is having a mockup and not a rocket that has launched several times.

My guess is that Starship is a boondoggle.

Many said the same thing about Falcon 9. Time will tell.

Actually, Starship v3 will be able to lift much more than that, unless Musk is lying again. The trouble is that it was meant to be putting Starlink satellites into orbit in 2023. Late again.

Blue Origin, an HLS competitor to SpaceX, has existed for 25 years and has yet to put one single rocket into orbit. Their latest rocket, New Glenn, was supposed to launch over 5 years ago, it still hasn't.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wrong thread.

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Rivian. I see as many, if not more, of those around here than Cybertrucks. And they look much better. Amazon is also using their technology in delivery vans, which seem like a good application for electric vehicles.

Amazingly, they pulled off an unprecedented design coup of not making it look like a triangle drawn by a child