Tag Archives: Musk
(Reuters) – Tesla’s Elon Musk provoked another twitter storm on Friday by briefly smoking marijuana on a live web show with comedian Joe Rogan.
Elon Musk in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California, U.S. May 17, 2018. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson
The forty-seven year old billionaire spent two and a half hours on a podcast late Thursday discussing everything from artificial intelligence and its impact on humankind to flame throwers and social media.
Taking a puff from a joint – which Rogan said was a blend of tobacco and marijuana and legal in California – Musk said he “almost never” smoked.
“I’m not a regular smoker of weed,” Musk said. “I don’t actually notice any effect…I don’t find that it is very good for productivity.”
Tesla was not immediately available for comment.
Musk stunned investors a month back with tweets saying he had funding to take the company private for $ 420 per share. He then backed off from his plan saying Tesla was better off as a public company.
He followed it up with fresh attacks on British cave diver Vernon Unsworth. Buzzfeed News reported earlier in the week that Musk, in an email to the news site, called Unsworth a “child rapist.”
Neither Tesla nor Musk have commented on the Buzzfeed report.
Musk apologized to Unsworth in July for similar insults he made on Twitter following the rescue of a dozen Thai schoolboys and their football coach from a cave in Thailand.
The billionaire’s behavior has raised concerns about his leadership and several Wall Street analysts have called for the company to appoint a strong No. 2 to prop up Tesla’s operations and standing with investors.
His followers on Twitter went into a frenzy following the podcast. Several followers questioned if it was against the company’s policy, while others mocked the CEO’s initial $ 420 bid, a number that has become code for marijuana.
“Elon getting high on weed and whiskey is the first reason to go long on $ TSLA in a while. He needs to relax a bit,” a tweet bit.ly/2M5PdAo by user @jkmcnk said.
Another user tweeted bit.ly/2MT7aY4: “This guy is completely off the rails.”
Shares of Tesla fell 1.3 percent in trading before the bell. They have fallen about 18 percent since Musk’s tweet on taking the company private on Aug. 7.
Reporting by Nivedita Balu and Ismail Shakil in Bengaluru; Writing by Sweta Singh
(Reuters) – Tesla Inc and Chief Executive Elon Musk were sued on Friday by an investor who said they committed securities fraud in a scheme to “completely decimate” short-sellers that included Musk’s proposal to take the electric car company private.
FILE PHOTO: Elon Musk, founder, CEO and lead designer at SpaceX and co-founder of Tesla, speaks at the International Space Station Research and Development Conference in Washington, U.S., July 19, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein/File Photo
The proposed class-action complaint filed by Kalman Isaacs in San Francisco federal court accused Tesla and Musk of trying to artificially manipulate the company’s stock price.
It said this occurred largely through a series of tweets by Musk on Aug. 7, including when he said he might take Tesla private and that there was “funding secured.”
Musk’s tweets helped push Tesla’s stock price more than 13 percent above the previous day’s close.
The stock has since retreated, in part following reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had begun inquiring about Musk’s activity.
Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.
Isaacs accused Musk of making false and misleading statements to inflate Tesla’s stock price, and that Tesla “doubled-down” on those statements by failing to correct them.
According to the complaint, Isaacs bought 3,000 Tesla shares on Aug. 8 to cover his short position, or bet that the price would decline, in the company.
The complaint said the class period begins on the afternoon of Aug. 7, when the defendants launched their “nuclear attack” on short-sellers, and ends the next day.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Rosalba O’Brien
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Chief Executive Elon Musk said on Tuesday he is considering taking Tesla Inc private in what would be the largest deal of its type, moving the electric car maker out of the glare of Wall Street as it goes through a period of rapid growth under tight financial constraints.
“Am considering taking Tesla private at $ 420. Funding secured,” Musk said on Twitter bit.ly/2Om3gn3. At $ 420 per share, a deal would be worth $ 72 billion overall.
In a letter to Tesla employees published more than an hour later on the company’s blog here, Musk explained that going private would be “the best path forward.” Such a move – over which no final decision had been made – would let Tesla “operate at its best, free from as much distraction and short-term thinking as possible,” he wrote.
Tesla shares closed up 11 percent at $ 379.57, slightly below their all-time high.
Asked on Twitter whether Musk would continue to be CEO under such a scenario, he replied there would be “no change.”
Musk has been under intense pressure this year to turn his money-losing, debt-laden company into a profitable higher-volume manufacturer, a prospect that has sent Tesla’s valuation higher than that of General Motors Co.
The company is still working its way out of what Musk called “production hell” at its home factory in Fremont, California, where a series of manufacturing challenges delayed the ramp-up of production of its new Model 3 sedan, on which the company’s profitability rests.
The Silicon Valley company faces a make-or-break moment in its eight-year history as a public company as competition from European automakers is poised to intensify with new electric vehicles from Audi and Jaguar, with more rivals to follow suit next year.
Meanwhile, Tesla has announced plans to build a factory in Shanghai, China, and another in Europe, but details are scarce and funding unknown.
Going private is one way to avoid close scrutiny by the public market as Musk and the company face those challenges. Musk has feuded publicly with regulators, critics, short sellers and reporters, and some analysts suggested that less transparency would be welcomed by Musk.
“Musk does not want to run a public company,” said Gene Munster of Loup Ventures, as Tesla’s ambitious mission makes it “difficult to accommodate investors’ quarterly expectations.”
Musk owns nearly 20 percent of the company. He said in his letter to employees he did not seek to expand his ownership.
A price of $ 420 per share would represent a nearly 23 percent premium to Tesla’s closing price on Monday, which gave the company a market value of about $ 58 billion.
In his letter, Musk suggested a choice for shareholders of selling their shares for $ 420 each or remaining investors in a private Tesla. He said he hoped all current investors would remain were the company to go private.
He made no mention in his tweets nor his letter where the funding for a deal would come from, and the letter did not discuss funding for the plan.
Like any other investor, Musk is beholden to securities laws and several securities attorneys told Reuters he potentially could face lawsuits if it was proven he did not have secure financing at the time of his tweet.
(GRAPHIC-Market value of Tesla, Ford, GM: tmsnrt.rs/2n4mFjh)
BIGGEST GO-PRIVATE DEAL
If Musk were to succeed in taking Tesla private, it would be the largest leveraged buyout of all time, beating the record set by the $ 45 billion deal for Texas power utility Energy Future Holdings, which ended in bankruptcy in 2014.
Raising both the debt and equity required for such a deal would be a challenge. Many major Wall Street bankers contacted by Reuters said on condition of anonymity they were not aware of Musk’s plans ahead of his tweets, and several expressed skepticism that a leveraged buyout of Tesla could be financed given the company’s negative cash flow.
“It’s unfathomable to me that anyone would finance the acquisition of such a liability-laden company that is losing so much money and have massive capex requirements going forward,” said Mark Spiegel, portfolio manager of hedge fund Stanphyl Capital Partners, who holds a short position in Tesla and has been a vocal critic of Musk on Twitter.
The most obvious equity partners for Musk would be a sovereign wealth fund such as Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) or major technology investment funds such as SoftBank Group Corp’s Vision Fund, bankers said.
China’s Tencent Holdings, which took a 5 percent stake in Tesla last year, is another possible partner.
Such foreign sources of capital would be subject to scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which looks closely at deals for potential national security risks.
Earlier on Tuesday, a source familiar with the matter said Saudi Arabia’s PIF had bought a minority stake of just below 5 percent in Tesla.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment on Musk’s tweet, but the agency allows companies to use social media outlets like Twitter to announce key information in compliance with its fair disclosure rules if investors are alerted about which social media outlets will be used.
Tesla alerted investors in a 2013 SEC filing that they should follow Musk’s Twitter feed for “additional information” about the company. There is no reference to Musk’s Twitter account on the company’s investor relation page under “investor communication,” although Tesla’s Twitter feed is included.
In his letter to employees, Musk wrote that, “as the most shorted stock in the history of the stock market, being public means that there are large numbers of people who have the incentive to attack the company.”
A short squeeze is a trading scenario that occurs from time to time in heavily shorted stocks, when bearish traders are forced to buy shares to avoid big losses – something that ends up pushing the stock only higher.
Short interest in Tesla on Tuesday stood at nearly $ 13 billion, according to S3 Partners, a financial analytics firm.
(GRAPHIC-Tesla shares jump 10 percent, near record high: tmsnrt.rs/2MbzJin)
Reporting by Sonam Rai in Bengaluru, Alexandria Sage in San Francisco, Carl O’Donnell, Liana Baker, David Randall in New York and Pete Schroeder in Washington; editing by Saumyadeb Chakrabarty, Bill Rigby and Chris Reese
Fresh off hitting an elusive production target for the Model 3 electric sedan – and a weekend offer to help rescue the young soccer players trapped in a Thai cave – Tesla CEO Elon Musk popped up in Shanghai to unveil plans for his long-held goal of a massive Chinese plant. What wasn’t mentioned was how Tesla will cover the facility’s multi-billion dollar price tag.
Dubbed Gigafactory 3 the project envisioned for the Shanghai Lingang industrial zone will be able to build 500,000 electric Teslas a year, as well as all the batteries and motors they’ll need, according to a city government statement provided by Tesla. The plant, which Shanghai said would be the largest foreign-backed industrial project in its history, could also cost as much as $ 5 billion, according to Robert W. Baird & Co. equity analyst Ben Kallo.
“That’s a good starting point,” Kallo said in a Bloomberg interview. “The biggest question right now for investors, bulls and bears alike, is how are they going to pay for it?”
Never one to think small, billionaire Musk is adding the project as Tesla continues to smooth out and accelerate Model 3 production after its tortured 12-month rollout. The company is already on the hook to continue funding its original Sparks, Nevada, battery Gigafactory, also a $ 5 billion undertaking, endless modifications to its main Fremont, California, plant, development costs for the Model Y crossover, a new Roadster sports car, its heavily promoted Tesla Semi and maybe a pickup truck. Oh, and if those capital costs weren’t enough, it’s also funding a self-driving technology initiative being done entirely in-house.
“As Laozi said in the Tao Te Ching, long journeys begin with small steps,” Barclays equity analyst Brian Johnson, wrote in a research note. “And to Tesla’s credit, today’s announcement is that small step – but we also note that there will a long journey ahead (with needs for funding, plant location and construction, battery partners and supply chains) before locally made vehicles reach Chinese streets.”
Financial details of the project weren’t mentioned at a press conference in Shanghai today, and a Tesla company spokesman declined to provide a cost estimate. The facility will be wholly owned and operated in Lingang by Tesla, and conduct R&D and local sales operations as well as manufacturing, according to a statement.
“It will be a state-of-the-art vehicle factory and a role model for sustainability,” Musk said in a statement. “We hope it will be completed very soon,” without elaborating.
Establishing a production foothold in China is essential for Tesla to grow in that market and avoid its painful tariffs on imported vehicles that would otherwise make Model 3 and other Tesla vehicles unaffordable for all but a few local buyers. Chinese government support for electric vehicles has made that market one that’s too big to ignore, particularly for a company that wants to dominate global EV sales.
“Tesla’s investment will further cement China’s position as the undisputed global center for EV production,” Michael Dunne, a longtime China watcher and CEO consultancy ZoZo Go, told Forbes. Potential financial support for the factory could come from Chinese internet search powerhouse Tencent, which bought a 5% stake in Tesla in 2017, or perhaps from the Shanghai government itself, Dunne suggested.
Given the complexity of setting up a major Chinese manufacturing hub, Gigafactory 3 may not ready to go until the early 2020s, Barclays’ Johnson said, which could be a problem.
“While Tesla no doubt can enjoy some brand cachet in China as a tech innovator, which at least ensures a niche position, in the meantime local OEMs, European and US automakers are readying themselves for a speedy uptake of BEVs in China,” he said. Volkswagen, General Motors and BYD have already laid out plans for large-scale battery electric vehicle sales in China, and new players including Byton, XPeng are also readying luxury models that would potentially compete for the premium buyers Tesla targets.
Undoubtedly, Tesla will have to raise further capital to pay for the plant, Kallo told Bloomberg. Like Dunne, he also thinks a potential partner will step in to help defray some of the investment expenses, much as Tesla battery partner Panasonic at the Nevada Gigafactory.
“I’m not saying Panasonic will be the partner but you’ll see someone step in there,” he said. “We’ll hear more about that in the months ahead.”
The target for a Chinese plant to have a half million units of production capacity matches Tesla’s goal for Fremont, which it hasn’t yet attained even with the burst of Model 3 production at the end of June. First-half production at the plant that also builds Model S sedans and Model X SUVs was 87,833 units. After numerous delays, Tesla said this month it was finally building that car, nominally priced from $ 35,000, at a rate of 5,000 units per week. Musk aspires to take that level higher, but the company hopes sustained production at that volume will allow it to generate sufficient cash to fund its growing list of initiatives and, for the first time, some form of profitability.
Musk has vowed that Tesla will be in the black in this year’s third and fourth quarters, a tall order since it’s only had two, non-consecutive profitable quarters since its 2010 IPO. If the company actually achieves that, raising money for the Chinese plant should be easier.
“The access to the equity markets is there if they have growth opportunities,” Kallo said. “The important thing is the second of the year to actually show a return on this invested cap they’ve been putting in for the Model 3. Then investors will get comfortable with that and will be willing to finance other growth opportunities.”
Who wins in the melee between Musk and the media?
The Model 3. And the Model Y that comes after that.
Consumers are interested in the cars not spats with the media. In the end, it’s free publicity that just raises the company’s profile and drives demand for its cars. As if Tesla needs any free advertising. (It doesn’t.)
And it’s all happened before and is now pretty predictable and pretty boring. Musk says something to defend his company, media umbrage ensues. (See this CNBC story for the most recent tiff and this New York Times piece for the same kind of bickering that took place a couple of months ago.)
And I’ll insert that there are a few journalists (or self-styled “journalists”) that believe they’re on some sacred mission to expose Tesla as a fraud or Ponzi scheme. I’m not talking about responsible business journalists who report on Tesla aggressively but fairly. But those who are ignorant of the niceties of car manufacturing and, as a result, are susceptible to believing sketchy information that comes their way. (See this Electrek story starting at paragraph #6.)
What most people really pay attention to
It’s clear that hundreds of thousands of consumers worldwide want a Model 3. And it’s likely that hundreds of thousands more will want a Model Y (a cheaper version, more or less, of the Model X). So, if you’re a consumer in the market for a Tesla, what rivets your attention?
Price, styling/design, features, technology, availability, service, and reputation. And of course quality.
The latter is the source of a lot of the tension* between Musk and the media. But it’s often hard to tell what’s a real story about quality issues and, on the other hand, what’s an unreliable accusation. (See: “Tesla and Luxembourg squabble over failed Model S braking test” — Engadget via Electrek.)
Quality will get better as the young car maker gets a handle on manufacturing a mass-market car. The problem is, the media often goes too far by attributing some nefarious motive for issues (real or otherwise) that the company is having with Model 3 production (see Electrek link above).
The chasm between negative media coverage and the average Tesla buyer’s sentiment gets no wider than on YouTube (as I’ve written before). There Model 3 owners post overwhelmingly glowing reviews. And even when reviewers do complain, it’s typically a brief sidebar amid a long stream of fulsome praise. In the end, owners just want to be assured that Tesla stands behind the car and they’ll continue to get OTA updates.
*Remember the Consumer Reports kerfuffle? That made headlines when CR said, “Tesla Model 3 Falls Short of a CR Recommendation” though the Overall Score was high (and close to the highly-rated and recommended Chevy Bolt). After some back and forth with Tesla, Consumer Reports upgraded the Model 3 to “recommendation.”
When Elon Musk was a kid, he had so much trouble managing his time, that his younger brother Kimbal would lie to him about the bus schedule. Elon would show up a few minutes after the supposed arrival—and have just enough time to hop aboard. A few decades on, the whole world knows about Elon’s habit of blowing deadlines. And he admits it can be a problem.
“This is something I’m trying to get better at,” he said from the stage of Silicon Valley’s Computer History Museum on Tuesday afternoon, at Tesla’s annual shareholders meeting. “I’m trying to recalibrate these estimates.”
A few days after a Twitter rage fest aimed at the media, a month after refusing to answer questions about Tesla’s financial state during an investors’ call, and two months after getting in a public spat with the feds investigating a deadly crash in one of his cars, Musk’s attitude when he appeared before his fellow shareholders was conciliatory. He even seemed emotional at times. “We build our cares with love,” he said, with a slight quaver in his voice. And he noted how brutal the auto industry can be, especially to newcomers. “It’s insanely hard just staying alive.”
For an hour and a half, Musk patiently fielded questions on just about every part of Tesla’s sprawling business. He said the Model 3 production rate will hit the long-promised 5,000 cars a week rate later this month, predicted an enormous increase in battery production, announced upgrades to the Autopilot semi-autonomous system, and even appeased PETA. If you missed the meeting, here are the key takeaways.
Elon Retains the Reins
The official business of the meeting included voting on the reelection of venture capitalist Antonio Gracias, Elon’s bus-catching brother Kimbal, and 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch to Tesla’s board of directors. (Only a third of the nine board members come up for election at a time—it’s like the US Senate that way.) Last month, activist investor the CtW Group urged Tesla shareholders to replace the trio with people who had automotive and manufacturing expertise. Another investor, Jing Zhao, filed a proposal to strip Musk of his position as Tesla’s chairman, which he has held since 2004 (he took the CEO job in 2008). But the shareholders stuck with Musk, reelecting the board members and nixing the leadership change by an overwhelming majority. (Tesla will file the exact vote count with the SEC in the next few days.)
The loss didn’t surprise CtW executive director Dieter Waizenegger, who argues control of Tesla is too concentrated in people tied to Musk. “This opinion is shared by a significant number of shareholders of Tesla,” he says. “We expect the final vote tally to reveal that.” Even if he’s right, Musk remains fully in charge.
More Model 3
Musk’s acknowledgement of his timeline trouble didn’t stop him from announcing that, by the end of the month, Tesla will be building 5,000 Model 3 sedans every week, which should be enough to start turning a profit on the car. The uptick is thanks to Tesla’s rebalancing of the workload between humans and robots in its factory in Fremont, California, where the company is adding a third Model 3 production line. It is also planning to open a factory in China, to go with its plants in Fremont and the Netherlands.
Meanwhile, Tesla is gradually expanding options for Model 3 owners, who so far have been limited to the version with an upgraded battery and premium interior, which starts at $ 56,000. By the end of this year, Musk hopes to start production of the version closer to the car’s $ 35,000 base price, with the smaller battery pack. Also coming soon: right hand drive.
Even as it struggles to build the Model 3, Tesla is planning on three new vehicles: the Semi truck, the revived Roadster, and the still mysterious Model Y. Musk told shareholders he’s hoping to start production of all three in the first half of 2020, though he has yet to specify where he’ll do that, or how. He’ll unveil the Model Y in March (it will be “something super special”), and expects the truck and the sports car to deliver better specs than the already very impressive numbers he announced last fall. Oh, and he’ll never build an electric motorcycle.
Without getting into details, Musk said Tesla is making steady progress to improve its Autopilot feature, and is now working on adding the ability to change lanes and handle highway on- and off-ramps (Musk noted he was testing new software around 1 am this morning). For drivers who aren’t sure they want to spend $ 5,000 on the feature, Tesla will soon start offering free trials. Musk also reaffirmed his distaste for lidar, the laser shooting sensor most autonomous vehicle developers say is key to building a safe, capable robo-car.
Tesla now runs nearly 10,000 Supercharger stations around the world, the stations where its drivers (and no one else) can plug in and charge a depleted battery to about 80 percent in 30 minutes. And Musk is working to keep improving charge times, saying a three- or four-fold improvement is possible. (That’s only true for relatively new cars, he added, disappointing the 2012 Model S owner who asked him about it.)
Unlike many automakers, Tesla has been offering leather-free versions of its cars for years, appealing to its vegan and vegetarian fans. But it’s still using some leather in its steering wheels, and a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) rep took the mic to press Musk on it. He explained Tesla can make leather-free steering wheels, but the work has to be done it its design studio, making it something of a pain. But he promised it’ll be easier once the Model Y comes around. Now he’s just gotta hit that 2020 goal.
More Great WIRED Stories
In the early 1500s, England faced an existential economic crisis: Demand for their most lucrative export, woolen cloth, was plunging in Europe. They needed to find new markets for their product –and fast.
So a group of merchants set their sights on the vast market of Cathay –the word used at the time to refer to China –then the largest economy in the world, with nearly 30 percent of global GDP. (By comparison, India during this period produced roughly 20-25 percent of global GDP. England was peripheral to the world economy, producing an inconsequential 1 percent of global GDP.)
These English merchants sent expeditions in search of a new overland sea route that, they hoped, would take them over the European continent to China, enabling them to avoid having to sail through waters controlled by the Spanish and the Portuguese, their arch rivals.
After failing to reach Cathay (though they did make it as far as Moscow), they decided to turn westward, eventually reaching the shores of America, where they established small trading outposts and, eventually, full-fledged colonies.
This is how the tale begins in a captivating new book by Simon Targett and John Butman, New World, Inc.: The Making of America by England’s Merchant Adventurers. Through meticulous research and a flair for bringing a colorful cast of long-deceased characters back to life, Targett and Butman tell the story of the founding of one of history’s most successful startups: America.
“It’s the ‘prequel’ to the Pilgrims,” Targett told me in a recent podcast conversation. “You can’t really understand America today if you only go as far back as the Pilgrims. Of course they are an important part of the founding. But there were many trips for 70 years before the Pilgrims, who eventually arrived in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. As we delved further, we tracked and traced an unbroken chain of voyages. And we felt the story of these merchant adventurers –what we call the ‘forgotten founders’ – provide a better narrative.”
Targett and Butman relate the fascinating and largely untold story of the earliest days of globalization, of innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking, and of the creation of some of the earliest venture-financed companies in the world.
“What they did initially was to setup a company,” explains Targett. “This we think of as perhaps the forefrunner of all modern corporations. It was called ‘The Mysterie, Company, and Fellowship of Merchant Adventurers for the Discovery of Regions, Dominions, Islands, and Places Unknown.'”
This was a period when the newly-coined word, “company,” was just starting to become a part of the English language. In a fascinating bit of etymology, Targett explains how the word was formed through the conjunction of the Latin words, “com,” meaning “together,” and “panis,” meaning, “bread.” Together, the word loosely means, “the breaking of bread together.”
Of course, English merchants had supported and funded voyages for decades, and these had often been funded either by private individuals or private syndicates. “But the idea of going across the world required a higher level of organization and financing, so they set up this company which not only allowed them to pool their resources, but also allowed them to attract their resources from people who didn’t want to get involved in the mundane running of company.”
Like the startups of today, most of which are statistically prone to flop, failure was very much a part of the story. “It’s remarkable how many setbacks these people experienced and yet they continued to believe there was a pot of gold or a fortune to be made at the end of it,” observes Targett. “And, in a way, that driving spirit was key to these people. It’s another feature of a modern America that we feel needs to be traced back to before the Pilgrims.”
Targett compares these risk-taking, adventurous ‘forgotten founders’ of 16th and 17th-century England to one of the boldest entrepreneurs of our era, Elon Musk. “To some extent the people that we write about, these ‘forgotten founders,’ were venture capitalists. They were very much the Elon Musks of their day. Just as he is dreaming of new worlds, in his case Mars, their new world was America. And he’s pulling together some of the best minds to help him design some of the rockets and the spaceships that will be needed. Likewise, the merchants pulled together the very best minds of their days, the scientists, the navigators, the buccaneers, the marketers.”
“These ‘forgotten founders’ and the people they sent across were the first people to really experience and live the American dream. These were the people that often went across with nothing but made their place and made their home. They didn’t all make fortunes but they found a life, they found a place in society.”
Elon Musk’s ongoing criticism of the media took a strange turn late Saturday when he praised an analysis of media bias produced by a website linked to NXIVM, a group which federal prosecutors have described as an exploitative pyramid scheme. Keith Raniere, the group’s charismatic leader, was arrested in March on sex-trafficking charges, with charging documents describing a system of sexual blackmail and domination. The article Musk praised looks conventional enough, and there’s no evidence he was aware of its troubling origins—but the incident highlights the double-edged nature of campaigns to discredit the media.
Musk retweeted a link to an article on TheKnifeMedia.com Saturday evening, writing “This analysis is excellent.” The linked article applied numerical scores for factors like “spin” and “logic” to coverage of Musk’s recent critiques of the media, finding that outlets including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times were “slanted.”
The problem with Musk’s endorsement is that The Knife, previously known as The Knife of Aristotle, has been linked to NXIVM, a marketing company that is allegedly a front for a secret group known as DOS, and which has been described as a cult by experts. NXIVM’s leader, Kieth Ranier, was arrested in March on charges of sex trafficking and abuse, including branding female members of DOS. The FBI’s efforts to rein in the group are ongoing.
Musk has since deleted his endorsement, which was archived by Slate. After being alerted to the article’s problematic origins, though, Musk seemed to double down, writing that the article “had better critical analysis than most non-cult media.”
Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter.
Links between NXIVM and The Knife/The Knife of Aristotle were unearthed last year by investigative reporter Brock Wilbur, writing in Paste. Wilbur found that the Knife shared leadership with NXIVM—including Battlestar Galactica actress Nicki Clyne—and speculated that its efforts to hire journalists were a form of recruitment for the broader group. The Knife and NXIVM have since scrubbed evidence linking the two entities.
Musk’s recent criticism of the media started as pushback against coverage of Tesla’s troubles, including Autopilot-linked wrecks, labor battles, and Model 3 production delays. On the Autopilot topic in particular, Musk has a very fair point—the event-driven nature of media coverage means a few wrecks could easily overshadow the life-saving potential of A.I. driver assistance.
But Musk has broadened his critique, painting the media as a whole as “holier-than-thou,” “sanctimonious,” and lacking integrity, and suggesting that he himself could restore that integrity by building a site to rate media outlets’ credibility. His attacks have invited comparisons to President Donald Trump’s remarks against the media, and highlighted Silicon Valley billionaires’ broader distaste for criticism.
Tesla stock dropped a bit after Elon Musk dismissed a some analyst questions, calling them “boring” and “bonehead.” The take from the business press was that Musk‘s behavior was “bizarre” (Marketwatch) and “irksome” (Wall Street Journal).
“The 2 questioners I ignored on the Q1 call are sell-side analysts who represent a short seller thesis, not investors.”
In other words, these were analysts who had a drum to beat (hardly an unusual circumstance, as I’ll explain below). Musk continued that the first question was boneheaded because
“it had already been answered in the headline of the Q1 newsletter he received beforehand, along with details in the body of the letter.”
In other words, the analyst who asked the first question didn’t bother to read the materials he’d been given (again, not unusual with analysts) or, if he did read them, he wasn’t able to absorb the information because he was filtering it through his preconceptions.
Musk continued to explain that the second question (about Model 3 demand) was absurd because
“Tesla has roughly half a million reservations, despite no advertising & no cars in showrooms [and] even after reaching 5k/week production, it would take 2 years just to satisfy existing demand even if new sales dropped to 0.”
In other words, the analyst who asked the second question either can’t understand, or is willfully deciding to ignore, basic math and simple logic.
Now, I don’t know those analysts personally and, for all I know, they may be frelling brilliant, but in my experience financial analysts are a fairly dim lot.
Look, anyone can be an “analyst.” The title carries exactly as much weight as “consultant.” Maybe less. To be an analyst, all you really need is the ability to look credible, ask obvious questions, and then write a semi-coherent paragraph that fits within the parameters set by whomever is paying your salary.
The only other job requirement is the shamelessness to promote the few times your predictions turn out to be true and quietly bury the many times your predictions turn out to be wrong. And even then, you can hedge your bets by being vague about the time line.
Analysts are never, ever called to account when their predictions go wrong. For example, Lawrence Kudlow has has been predicting rampant inflation for decades. But rather than being laughed off the air, he’s now Trump’s Director of the National Economic Council.
While clueless Kudlow might be an extreme case, there are dozens of similar examples. Just look at what happened to the careers all the analysts who were predicting Y2K disasters. (Hint: they moved on and got promoted.)
As for the analysts who follow Tesla, Elon Musk surely knows that most of them are full of bullsh*t, because the games they play are painfully obvious. No CEO of any intelligence (much less Musk, who is genuinely brilliant) would give a two-cent stamp for the opinion of ANY analyst on earth were it not for the lemming-like behavior of a certain class of easily-bamboozled investors, not to mention a small army of business reporters who depend upon the analysts for juicy quotes.
Seriously, imagine what it must be like to be Elon Musk surrounded by people of average or slightly above average intelligence who continually ask silly questions. It would be like you or me being forced to spend 24 hours answering questions from toddlers. It’s a wonder he doesn’t go crazy.
Anyway, what’s truly “irksome” about this entire situation is that, rather than asking ludirous questions, the analysts could have asked questions that actually meant something, like:
- “Why are you simultaneously promoting the idea of self-driving cars and the notion that AI constitutes a threat to humanity?”
- “How can you prove 100% that the supply chain for all your component parts have zero child labor or slave labor?
Yes, I realize those aren’t the sort of questions that financial analysts are supposed to ask at an earnings call but that’s the point. If you want to understand the earnings, read the damn report.
Don’t waste Musk’s time–or ours–trying to work your own lame agenda.
OpenAI, a nonprofit research lab started by Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk released the salary details of it’s employees–and they are striking. The organization’s top researcher was paid more than $ 1.9 million in 2016, and another leading researcher who was only recruited in March was paid $ 800,000 that year, according to a recent article in the New York Times.
Salaries for top A.I. researchers have skyrocketed because there is high demand for the skills–thousands of companies want to work with the technology–and few people have them. So even researchers at a nonprofit can make big money.
It likely has more to do with competition than interest in the field itself, however. The Times points out that both of the researchers employed by OpenAI used to work at Google. At DeepMind, a Google-owned A.I. lab in London, $ 138 million was spent on the salaries of 400 employees, translating to $ 345,000 per employee including researchers and other staff, the Times reports.
OpenAI was started by Musk who recruited several engineers from Google and Facebook, two companies pushing the industry into artificial intelligence. People who work at major companies told the Times that while top names can expect compensation packages in the millions, even A.I. specialists with no industry experience can expect to make between $ 300,000 and $ 500,000 in salary and stock as demand for the skills continues to outstrip supply.