• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meanwhile the Boring Machine keeps on boring away.

The Boring CompanyWP

The 2024 Boring Company Update Is Here!


Some of the prophecies seem somewhat . . . huge. :boggled:
 
https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/4/24171165/elon-musk-tesla-x-nvidia-ai-chips-divert

…snip….

Elon Musk ordered thousands of Nvidia-made AI chips destined for Tesla to be diverted to his social media company X, according to emails from the chipmaker obtained by CNBC. The move has the potential to delay Tesla’s acquisition of $500 million worth of processors by months, the outlet reports.

Tesla is supposed to be stocking up on Nvidia’s H100 artificial intelligence chips in order to power its transformation into “a leader in AI and robotics,” according to Musk. In an Tesla earnings call earlier this year, he said the company would increase its acquisition of H100s from 35,000 to 85,000 by the end of this year. And later, in a post on X, Musk said that Tesla would spend $10 billion “in combined training and inference AI, the latter being primarily in car.”





…snip…
Click to expand...


Serious question - is that even legal, Tesla is not one of his vanity companies, surely he can’t just transfer stuff from the publicly listed company to a privately owned one?
 
https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/4/24171165/elon-musk-tesla-x-nvidia-ai-chips-divert

…snip….

Elon Musk ordered thousands of Nvidia-made AI chips destined for Tesla to be diverted to his social media company X, according to emails from the chipmaker obtained by CNBC. The move has the potential to delay Tesla’s acquisition of $500 million worth of processors by months, the outlet reports.

Tesla is supposed to be stocking up on Nvidia’s H100 artificial intelligence chips in order to power its transformation into “a leader in AI and robotics,” according to Musk. In an Tesla earnings call earlier this year, he said the company would increase its acquisition of H100s from 35,000 to 85,000 by the end of this year. And later, in a post on X, Musk said that Tesla would spend $10 billion “in combined training and inference AI, the latter being primarily in car.”





…snip…
Click to expand...


Serious question - is that even legal, Tesla is not one of his vanity companies, surely he can’t just transfer stuff from the publicly listed company to a privately owned one?
 
Serious answer:
Musk doesn't care. By the time someone figured out the crime, found someone entitled to sue, found a lawyer able to make a case, found a judge to start trial proceedings...

all will be irreversibly done, and at worse Musk will have to settle for a small sum.
That's the cost of being a criminal when you are Rich.
 
The source article is a little less misleading and describes it as xAI's orders jumping Tesla's orders in the queue.

Edit: Sorry, I guess you could read this either way:

“Elon prioritizing X H100 GPU cluster deployment at X versus Tesla by redirecting 12k of shipped H100 GPUs originally slated for Tesla to X instead,” an Nvidia memo from December said. “In exchange, original X orders of 12k H100 slated for Jan and June to be redirected to Tesla.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
yeah it’s pretty unusual for a company to redirect an order for parts they already paid for to another company. why would an independent board of directors be ok with this?

if it’s not obvious by now there’s some pretty serious financial shenanigans going on with musks various intermingling business ventures. just so when pro publica finally cracks it you shouldn’t be all like “oh well this is normal you just hate him because he’s conservative” or whatever you guys tickle his balls with
 
dirtywick said:
yeah it’s pretty unusual for a company to redirect an order for parts they already paid for to another company. why would an independent board of directors be ok with this?
Click to expand...

An independent board of directors would not be OK with it unless there was some compensation given by X (Twitter) to offset the opportunity cost of not having the processors in a timely fashion.

Of course nobody believes Tesla's board of directors is independent, except maybe some of Tesla's shareholders.
if it’s not obvious by now there’s some pretty serious financial shenanigans going on with musks various intermingling business ventures. just so when pro publica finally cracks it you shouldn’t be all like “oh well this is normal you just hate him because he’s conservative” or whatever you guys tickle his balls with
Click to expand...

I'm surprised there weren't more questions raised when Tesla loaned some of its software engineers to Twitter after Musk bought Twitter. Given the lateness of FSD, they should all already have been under immense time pressure.
 
The Don said:
If the board isn't doing their job then it's up to the shareholders to apply pressure.

The trouble seems to be that too many of the shares are held by Musk and his fanbois. In a "normal" company with a "normal" shareholder base, the institutional shareholders have a lot of leverage and would now be putting a lot of pressure on to protect their investment. I recall a long time ago when I was briefly a director of a publicly quoted company that an awful lot of time and effort was expended by the board members keeping the shareholders on board.
Click to expand...

For quite a large number of US companies voting rights are only held by a small number of shares. The majority of shareholders have no rights other than to a share of dividends. Tesla is no different and IRRC Musk holds an absolute majority of voting shares, enough to dictate every member of the board.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
For quite a large number of US companies voting rights are only held by a small number of shares. The majority of shareholders have no rights other than to a share of dividends. Tesla is no different and IRRC Musk holds an absolute majority of voting shares, enough to dictate every member of the board.
Click to expand...

Not typically the case for companies with stock market listings because institutional shareholders don't want to be subject to the whims of a handful of preferred shareholders.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
For quite a large number of US companies voting rights are only held by a small number of shares. The majority of shareholders have no rights other than to a share of dividends. Tesla is no different and IRRC Musk holds an absolute majority of voting shares, enough to dictate every member of the board.
Click to expand...

You recall incorrectly. Musk does not remotely hold a majority of the voting shares. If he did, the board wouldn't be desperately shilling for him in the run up to the new vote on his compensation package, nor would he be demanding that he be given 25% of the voting shares.
 
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle said:
t's become common practice in the US.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't, or more accurately it hasn't for companies with a listing on major stock markets

It may be the case for privately owned corporations or those listed on more sketchy markets. Perhaps you could list some examples of NYSE companies where the majority of the voting rights are held by a small number of preferred shareholders and the majority of shares are held by people and institutions with no voting rights.

There are many companies where a handful of shareholders (rich individuals and/or large institutional investors) wield significant power but that's because they hold a majority, or significant minority, of the shares, not a different class of shares
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom