Musk's assets are now at the level such that only a complete failure/bankruptcy of Tesla would actually hurt his plans for Mars. And even then if SpaceX and it's subsidiaries flourish that may not even hurt his assets position with respect to his Mars plans.
he has a controlling interest (I think? Perhaps not any more)
Quote from: Redclaws on 09/08/2020 02:16 pmhe has a controlling interest (I think? Perhaps not any more)He doesn't have anywhere near a controlling interest of Tesla. He owns ~20%.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 09/08/2020 02:21 pmQuote from: Redclaws on 09/08/2020 02:16 pmhe has a controlling interest (I think? Perhaps not any more)He doesn't have anywhere near a controlling interest of Tesla. He owns ~20%.Elon owns the majority of the voting shares.
As a public company, Tesla’s ability to do stuff because Elon feels like it is actually relatively limited - he has a controlling interest (I think? Perhaps not any more) but he also legal has duties to other shareholders and cannot just make the company subsidize unrelated things. He can do a little stuff because he’s successful and people won’t complain, but he cannot use Tesla to push the Mars effort as suggested, it would be illegal.
Quote from: Redclaws on 09/08/2020 02:16 pmhe has a controlling interest (I think? Perhaps not any more)He doesn't have anywhere near a controlling interest of Tesla. He owns ~20%. Tesla has only one share class.This is dissimilar to SpaceX. Musk has a controlling interest by virtue of him owning more shares of the voting share class.
Quote from: Redclaws on 09/08/2020 02:16 pmAs a public company, Tesla’s ability to do stuff because Elon feels like it is actually relatively limited - he has a controlling interest (I think? Perhaps not any more) but he also legal has duties to other shareholders and cannot just make the company subsidize unrelated things. He can do a little stuff because he’s successful and people won’t complain, but he cannot use Tesla to push the Mars effort as suggested, it would be illegal.If Tesla decides to invest in a Mars colony, by building a factory on Mars, paying SpaceX for transport, and maybe selling vehicles to SpaceX, that is all perfectly legal. And long as Tesla doesn't transfer money directly or indirectly into his private bank account, no laws are broken.Of course, shareholders may kick up a fuss if they don't like it. Musk does not have a controlling interest, so they could get together and out vote him. Shareholders could also sue Tesla on various grounds, but that would be a civil action. Musk would try to persuade shareholders that investing in Mars is smart move and will make lots of money, quite possibly shareholders will believe him.Edit: Musk owns about 21% of Tesla.
Change Mars to Lower Slobvinea, which has few developed natural resources, a tight labor pool and by normal standards, a small market for Tesla derived vehicles. Building a factory would be a massive money sink and would violate the only core legal requirement of a US corporation - to enhance shareholder value. It would be a non-starter.
Quote from: butters on 09/08/2020 02:23 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 09/08/2020 02:21 pmQuote from: Redclaws on 09/08/2020 02:16 pmhe has a controlling interest (I think? Perhaps not any more)He doesn't have anywhere near a controlling interest of Tesla. He owns ~20%.Elon owns the majority of the voting shares.No. He owns ~20% of Tesla and has ~20% of the vote. Tesla has only one share class.
Quote from: OTV Booster on 09/08/2020 04:41 pmChange Mars to Lower Slobvinea, which has few developed natural resources, a tight labor pool and by normal standards, a small market for Tesla derived vehicles. Building a factory would be a massive money sink and would violate the only core legal requirement of a US corporation - to enhance shareholder value. It would be a non-starter.It's a widespread myth that company directors have a legal obligation to increase shareholder value. There is no such law.Anyway, how could a court of law possibly decide beyond any reasonable doubt that investing in Lower Slobvinea would ultimately decrease shareholder value? Such a law would be totally unenforceable.https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 09/08/2020 02:24 pmQuote from: butters on 09/08/2020 02:23 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 09/08/2020 02:21 pmQuote from: Redclaws on 09/08/2020 02:16 pmhe has a controlling interest (I think? Perhaps not any more)He doesn't have anywhere near a controlling interest of Tesla. He owns ~20%.Elon owns the majority of the voting shares.No. He owns ~20% of Tesla and has ~20% of the vote. Tesla has only one share class.Wait, are you sure? I thought one of the reasons the S&P gave for not including Tesla is that Tesla has multiple share classes.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/08/2020 06:08 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 09/08/2020 02:24 pmQuote from: butters on 09/08/2020 02:23 pmQuote from: RedLineTrain on 09/08/2020 02:21 pmQuote from: Redclaws on 09/08/2020 02:16 pmhe has a controlling interest (I think? Perhaps not any more)He doesn't have anywhere near a controlling interest of Tesla. He owns ~20%.Elon owns the majority of the voting shares.No. He owns ~20% of Tesla and has ~20% of the vote. Tesla has only one share class.Wait, are you sure? I thought one of the reasons the S&P gave for not including Tesla is that Tesla has multiple share classes.IMO one of the key reasons why S&P has not (yet) listed Tesla is that the majority of it's profits currently come from regulatory credits (>half a billion dollars last year) and these are not seen as sustainable in the long term.
It's a widespread myth that company directors have a legal obligation to increase shareholder value. There is no such law.
As a public company, Tesla’s ability to do stuff because Elon feels like it is actually relatively limited ....... has duties to other shareholders and cannot just make the company subsidize unrelated things. He can do a little stuff because he’s successful and people won’t complain, but he cannot use Tesla to push the Mars effort as suggested
Quote from: Redclaws on 09/08/2020 02:16 pmAs a public company, Tesla’s ability to do stuff because Elon feels like it is actually relatively limited ....... has duties to other shareholders and cannot just make the company subsidize unrelated things. He can do a little stuff because he’s successful and people won’t complain, but he cannot use Tesla to push the Mars effort as suggestedOf course there’s an assumption here that investing in Mars is a bad investment.
Elon will be trying to persuade thousands of companies that investing in Mars is a good move, and he believes it. So you can bet he’ll be trying to persuade Tesla to get involved. Tesla makes related products. It makes strong glass (and glass made of metal), solar panels, batteries, AI for navigation, roof tiles, as well as vehicles. But they also consider their gigafactory to be a product they make.
Quote from: Frogstar_Robot on 09/08/2020 04:54 pmIt's a widespread myth that company directors have a legal obligation to increase shareholder value. There is no such law.Yes. Tesla giving away its patents is also non commercial. But matches its mission statement. He’s successful doing things differently to other companies.
A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; ormarketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an association with or endorsement by Tesla) or provided any material assistance to another party doing so."
