For those who. hate Elon Musk

Waltz - really?

'Devastating agenda': Top Minnesota lawmaker sounds alarm on businesses fleeing Walz's 'socialist crusade' (msn.com)

"I've talked to a lot of businesses that either have left or when they expand are not expanding in Minnesota," GOP Rep. Pete Stauber, who represents Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District, told Fox News Digital. "I mean, hundreds of millions of private investment are leaving Minnesota under Walz's watch."

"He's supported the highest income tax rate in the nation at 10%, he has taken a $19 billion surplus and the next year added a $10 billion tax on the hardworking Minnesotans. He's increased government spending by almost 50%. Very little growth in the private sector. I think if you look at North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, our neighboring states are growing the private sector jobs three and four times more than Walz."

Increasing Government spending by 50% is minding your own buisness?
Something not aligning here!

 

"Musk acknowledged he is "quite concerned" about Tesla's inability to access the top-tier Nvidia graphics processing units, or GPUs, because of skyrocketing demand for microprocessors within the tech sector."
Elon Musk Doubles Down on Tesla's Dojo to Compete With Nvidia - Business Insider

Yet...

"Musk also has asked for GPUs that were reserved for Tesla to be redirected to xAI and X."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/how-elon-musk-is-using-tesla-and-his-other-companies-to-kickstart-xai/ar-AA1oBbqt

Tesla shareholders voted to give Musk his pay package, and he is still going through with moving AI to his private companies.

 

yep - here it comes ... cross the political ideology & you have to pay the price. If he became or could become the US president, he would be getting lawfair impeached, right now ...
a page right out of the kremlin's playbook. Had he aligned himself with the other political party, he would be home free - ah la hunter.
.

 

i wish she would stick to going after wall street, (not that it's done any good) but it makes good sound bites

 

Got anything to counter the Senator's claims?

Tesla is traded on Wall St, and the letter is an attempt to get the board to do its job for the shareholders.

 

The old saying "physician heal thyself" comes into play here. Our ever-so altruistic legislators seem to find a way to trade on Insider information that they bring about through legislation comes to mind.
Meanwhile - those who believe in companies that go long-term, are still sitting pretty;



How much did it help GM to have status quo corporat leadership rules for board members when GM leadership drove their ship into bankruptcy. Then had the gall to fly into Congress on private jets? Massive Superfund toxic waste sites that cost billions to taxpayers?
Compared to Forest planting by tesla, Massive solar Farms to run their factories, picking up the slack when NASA or Boeing can't compete? Duno - doesn't seem like their leadership is doing that bad - comparatively speaking. But that's not going to stop all the armchair quarterbacks from picking them apart.

 

I’d say most share holders are pretty happy.
She’s had a bee in her bonnet over musk for a long while

 

How is this a counter to the claim that Musk running a competing AI company is conflict of interest, that could harm shareholders, to him running Tesla, which is now an AI company?

He has hired AI specialists away from Tesla for xAI. He told Nividia to send GPUs ordered for Tesla to xAI and X(twitter). Doesn't Tesla need those resources for itself now that it is an AI company? In what way is that good for a Tesla shareholder?

 

Turns on if it truly effects tesla. It's neither evident by their cash reserves no their valuation long-term. But when legislators want to drop the hammer on Tesla & yet did nothing as GM (old GM) made their massive acreage sites toxic ... it's smacks as a huge impropriety to say the least.
.

 

Let's say I own 2 construction companies and there is a lumber shortage. Each company pre-orders a truck-full of lumber while the lots are being prepped and permits being obtained. One day a truck shows up to first first lot but it isn't ready to use the lumber. The other company's lot is ready but won't get delivery for a few months, so I redirect the truck and have the bill switched to the other company and when the next truck shows up I'll switch it and the billing as well.
Isn't this, essentially, what happened? How is this not a smart move?

Mike

 

It could be. That seems to be the question Warren is asking.

 

And the moving of employee talent?

But you don't own the two companies; just one. While you may have a large share of the other, it is also owned by other shareholders. Then the board should be employing some oversight. Asking questions like, Are you sure the next shipment of lumber will arrive in time, and not delay the public company's project" and "what if the lumber shortage gets worse?"

 

i own stock in 50 companies. the boards don't domuch of anything in most cases, except reward good short term moves that result in bad long term stock price.
this is a hatchet job by one of the many haters due to politics.

 

Do we know that the employees were unhappy or asked to move or were going to quit otherwise?
I have no idea.

Shareholders don't get involved in what vendors the company chooses to use, delivery schedules or terms.

Mike

 

Slow day, so actually read Warren's letter.

Maybe GM and Boeing wouldn't have happened if the boards had done more, or the regulators were more proactive with enforcing laws.

How many hatchet jobs cite sources?

If that is so, then she probably has issues with him beyond politics.

"Tesla, which relies on Nvidia’s GPUs to train its self-driving technology, has similarly felt the
squeeze. Mr. Musk has commented on the sharp increase in demand, stating that “t seems like
everyone and their dog is buying GPUs at this point,” and affirmatively declaring that two of his
companies, Tesla and X, “are certainly buying GPUs.”7 During a 2023 earnings call with Tesla
shareholders, he went as far as to say that Tesla would “take Nvidia hardware as fast as Nvidia
w[ould] deliver it.”8 Against this backdrop, Mr. Musk’s decision to prioritize Nvidia GPUs for X
over Tesla raises a glaring conflict of interest between his financial interest in the former company
and his fiduciary duties toward the latter.

Mr. Musk has attributed the GPU diversion to logistical difficulties. In a post on X in June, he
claimed that “Tesla had no place to send the Nvidia chips to turn them on, so they would have just
sat in a warehouse.”9 Such an explanation would be plausible if it were not blatantly contradictory
of many of Mr. Musk’s other statements. During Tesla’s first-quarter earnings call in April of this
year, Mr. Musk doubled down on his 2023 remark about the company’s appetite for Nvidia GPUs,
stating that Tesla would increase the number of Nvidia chips it uses from 35,000 to 85,000 by the
end of 2024.10 As some Tesla shareholders have pointed out themselves, “[a]midst great
competitive pressure and falling profits, why would Tesla order Nvidia’s expensive and highly
sought-after GPUs if it had no use for them?”11"

So which is it?
Is Musk lying to stock holders when he says Tesla needs and could use the GPUs now, or when he said Tesla couldn't use them now?
Some are waiting years for these chips. If Tesla couldn't use them now, was there guarantees that they wouldn't be waiting on the chips by diverting them to his private companies?

They did quit and move. It wasn't a case of them moving to some other division or office. Tesla and xAI are separate companies. That's why Warren sent the letter, and why some shareholders are now suing.

" In July 2023, Mr. Musk announced the launch of his new
startup xAI.17 It quickly became apparent that this move represented by what all accounts appears
to be a conflict of interest for Mr. Musk, as a group of Tesla shareholders responded by filing a
lawsuit against Mr. Musk and members of Tesla’s board.18 In their complaint, the shareholders
explain that, “[g]iven the unique dynamics of the burgeoning AI industry—including
extraordinarily intense competition for talent and resources—Tesla and xAI are clear
competitors.”19

Interestingly, the shareholders’ assertion is supported by Mr. Musk’s own past statements and
actions. After co-founding OpenAI years ago, Mr. Musk resigned from that company’s board in
2018.20 At the time, Mr. Musk attributed the decision to the fact that Tesla was developing
Autopilot, an AI-powered driver-assistance technology,21 and had thus started competing with
OpenAI for talent.22"

Maybe Musk was going to use xAI for hiring those unwilling to work for Tesla, but he has been poaching talent away from Tesla. That doesn't help Tesla out. Neither will xAI using Tesla's data if xAI doesn't pay for it. Instead it appears Musk wants Tesla invest $5 billion into xAI. Sure seems shady. State Tesla is an AI company, start up a private competitor AI company, then get Tesla to pay to use the resources diverted away from it.

They don't, but neither are the CEO and board suppose to lie to them.

You left off the part about it being a house for Musk. It's likely fine for the owner of a private company to use employees and company resources for private use, but for the CEO of a publicly traded one to do so.

 

Don't have hate him.

Just see him as stupid and ignorant when it comes to history and social issues.