Tesla stock tanks as much as 9% after execs resign and Elon Musk smokes weed(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Tesla stock tanks as much as 9% after execs resign and Elon Musk smokes weed
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/tesla-sinks-8percent-after-bizarre-musk-podcast-appearance-cao-exit.html
39 comments
Absolutely not. CEO's particularly those in more traditional industries with traditional customers do not go on popular TV shows and smoke up.
There are many odd/interesting/unique things CEO's can do, Musk has done many of them, mostly positive - this is definitely not one of them.
Given all of the negative vibe out there about erratic behaviour, making false statements on Twitter that literally put him under investigation by the SEC - this is just bad.
It adds to the narrative that something is really wrong and he's not listening to more responsible people around him.
Sending a Tesla on a rocket to Mars was a very expensive PR stunt that was 'out there' but frankly was probably worth it. It's aspirational, quirky, got tons of press coverage.
There are some that suggest he's actually trying to get the boot, I can't imagine why though.
There are many odd/interesting/unique things CEO's can do, Musk has done many of them, mostly positive - this is definitely not one of them.
Given all of the negative vibe out there about erratic behaviour, making false statements on Twitter that literally put him under investigation by the SEC - this is just bad.
It adds to the narrative that something is really wrong and he's not listening to more responsible people around him.
Sending a Tesla on a rocket to Mars was a very expensive PR stunt that was 'out there' but frankly was probably worth it. It's aspirational, quirky, got tons of press coverage.
There are some that suggest he's actually trying to get the boot, I can't imagine why though.
The only thing immature is the reaction, it's not a professional setting and he's not abusing the substance. It's purely just down to shock media reaction. Nobody mentioned the whiskey they were drinking either but that doesn't make a headline.
They did mention it in TFA but regardless CNBC clearly thinks smoking pot is “bizarre” which I suspect is actually a pretty mundane and socially acceptable thing.
> It's purely just down to shock media reaction.
It's more than that. Journalists hate Elon Musk because he called them out a few months ago.
The same media outlets ranting and raving about how terrible our marijuana/drug laws are and how we need to legalize them are whining about musk smoking weed in california ( where it is legal BTW ).
It's just your routine biased hit piece by the media.
It's more than that. Journalists hate Elon Musk because he called them out a few months ago.
The same media outlets ranting and raving about how terrible our marijuana/drug laws are and how we need to legalize them are whining about musk smoking weed in california ( where it is legal BTW ).
It's just your routine biased hit piece by the media.
> Nobody mentioned the whiskey they were drinking either but that doesn't make a headline.
Drinking whiskey is not a federal crime. Smoking pot is.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/federal-marij...
Drinking whiskey is not a federal crime. Smoking pot is.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/federal-marij...
These articles talk little to nothing about the legality of it. Not one article claims that Musk has broken the law and should be in federal prison right now. I'm talking about the general attitude to something that is clearly no more harmful than the drink on the table or the tobacco in the joint. Everyone knows several states have decriminalized it and many celebrities and business people that have even openly supported it.
I'm pretty sure the federal government will do nothing about this, as the resource implications, political will, and the reaction from other business leaders who will look on skeptically at the governments actions over what has already been deemed to many as a victimless crime (with regards to the actual possession).
I'm pretty sure the federal government will do nothing about this, as the resource implications, political will, and the reaction from other business leaders who will look on skeptically at the governments actions over what has already been deemed to many as a victimless crime (with regards to the actual possession).
That's a legit distinction, especially for a company that wants to work with/stay in the good graces of the Federal government (e.g. now the Air Force is pondering how to respond, given their relationship with Space X).
But it's apparently too sophisticated a point for the article, which is pure clickbait.
But it's apparently too sophisticated a point for the article, which is pure clickbait.
...
> Sending a Tesla on a rocket to Mars was a very expensive PR stunt that was 'out there' but frankly was probably worth it. It's aspirational, quirky, got tons of press coverage.
They would've used a chunk of lead to test the payload capacity, instead Musk sent his car. It didn't cost them anything it otherwise would've to prove Falcon Heavy's lift capacity. It was free PR.
They would've used a chunk of lead to test the payload capacity, instead Musk sent his car. It didn't cost them anything it otherwise would've to prove Falcon Heavy's lift capacity. It was free PR.
Agree. He can do whatever he wants in private, but before doing something stupid like this in public, he should think about the 100s of 1000s of people who bet their 401k money on Tesla stock. Public behavior matters for public company CEOs.
I watched the podcast.. I found it pretty normal. He doesn't come across as unstable. They are basically discussing technology and related things at an intellectual and philosophical level (one could say geeky). Elon states that he's not a business magnate, or whatever wikipedia says he is, and that he's an engineer. His day to day is solving engineering problems. His tweets are a distraction, probably regrettable and play out of his limbic system.. the adage that you should not tweet/email/post when drunk, high etc... we see that play out everywhere. My take on why he got involved in the submarine thing was because it could be viewed as a hard engineering problem that they could help solve... even though the situation didn't necessitate new equipment per se. He's got a team of crack engineers and wants to use them to solve problems... much like Tony Stark. He wants to fix LA traffic which is unfixable unless you dig tunnels. Basically a bunch of smart engineers solving problems outside of the box.
Yes these things are often take out of context - but it doesn't matter that much that he's lucid and reasonable - the 'headline' will be 'Musk smokes pot in live broadcast'.
It's just a bad bit of PR from a guy who's usually on point.
It's just a bad bit of PR from a guy who's usually on point.
I watched it too. I watch JRE all the time. I guess now by default I'm an Elon defender because I hate slanted news and clickbait lol. He's a decent dude that I would love to sit down with.
While I get your point, Musk is pretty far from a traditional CEO. It's also important to point out that people investing in Tesla are also very likely pretty far from your traditional investor investing in a traditional industry.
> people investing in Tesla are also very likely pretty far from your traditional investor investing in a traditional industry.
Source? A lot of people invest in growth stocks, and really don't care about corporate missions. TSLA is held in some mainstream funds (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090215/4-mut...) which sends some strong signals to traditional investors.
Source? A lot of people invest in growth stocks, and really don't care about corporate missions. TSLA is held in some mainstream funds (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090215/4-mut...) which sends some strong signals to traditional investors.
Yeah but he's the cool bro CEO of a tech company. TECH COMPANY.
Losing money, it's okay because Tesla is a tech company.
Fail at core parts of a car manufacturing business, it's okay because Tesla is a tech company.
Call a pedophile, then triple down on it and... actually no that's just okay. Hope he loses that lawsuit.
Losing money, it's okay because Tesla is a tech company.
Fail at core parts of a car manufacturing business, it's okay because Tesla is a tech company.
Call a pedophile, then triple down on it and... actually no that's just okay. Hope he loses that lawsuit.
eh, whatever, it's legal in CA. if a bunch of people in new york want to freak out about it, let them.
also the execs that quit are simultaneously useless and easily replaced MBA types. call me when engineering or manufacturing brass leave. i could care less about communications officers, HR and accounting leadership.
also the execs that quit are simultaneously useless and easily replaced MBA types. call me when engineering or manufacturing brass leave. i could care less about communications officers, HR and accounting leadership.
> eh, whatever, it's legal in CA
But it's a federal crime in the USA. So maybe it wasn't a smart thing for a CEO of a publicly traded company to do on camera.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/federal-marij...
But it's a federal crime in the USA. So maybe it wasn't a smart thing for a CEO of a publicly traded company to do on camera.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/federal-marij...
Do you think he is going to be arrested by the feds? That would be an incredible media circus.
It's not like he's in Oklahoma where they could send him to jail for 12 years for that joint.
It's not like he's in Oklahoma where they could send him to jail for 12 years for that joint.
> Do you think he is going to be arrested by the feds?.
No. But I still think it was an egregious error in judgment. Do you disagree?
No. But I still think it was an egregious error in judgment. Do you disagree?
Yes. The federal government isn't going to go after individuals for smoking pot. The laws are outdated and will be changed once it makes it's way to more states and we don't have an ignorant orange muppet as a leader.
(FWIW, I don't smoke.)
(FWIW, I don't smoke.)
> Yes. The federal government isn't going to go after individuals for smoking pot.
If you think the only possible negative consequence of that act is federal prosecution, you are astoundingly ignorant of how things work in the United States. Here are a few possible consequences off the top of my head:
1. It could be used by corporate boards as grounds for his removal as a corporate officer. Or it could be used as ammunition in a shareholders' revolt.
2. It can be used as a grounds for denying his companies federal licensure for commercial activities that require it.
3. Those who politically oppose the massive federal subsidies his companies receive (and presumably want to receive more of) can demagogue this issue to mobilize public opinion against him.
> The laws are outdated and will be changed once it makes it's way to more states and we don't have an ignorant orange muppet as a leader.
Could you please keep this sort of puerile garbage off of HN?
If you think the only possible negative consequence of that act is federal prosecution, you are astoundingly ignorant of how things work in the United States. Here are a few possible consequences off the top of my head:
1. It could be used by corporate boards as grounds for his removal as a corporate officer. Or it could be used as ammunition in a shareholders' revolt.
2. It can be used as a grounds for denying his companies federal licensure for commercial activities that require it.
3. Those who politically oppose the massive federal subsidies his companies receive (and presumably want to receive more of) can demagogue this issue to mobilize public opinion against him.
> The laws are outdated and will be changed once it makes it's way to more states and we don't have an ignorant orange muppet as a leader.
Could you please keep this sort of puerile garbage off of HN?
Are you of the opinion that Trump is not an ignorant orange muppet?
If one were to use words like "peurile" and "petulant" to describe the president, perhaps the same message could be more acceptably communicated?
Disclaimer: I totally get where you are coming from, and I realize I'm kind of being an ass with this comment. I myself oscillate on this issue of determining reasonable and productive language. And I think, in general, you are correct about what is appropriate for HN. I must say, though, that lately my patience for our dear leader wears very thin...
It feels more and more as if his antics represent a dramatic paradigm shift with unknown consequences. I'm often at a loss at what to think of it all.
If one were to use words like "peurile" and "petulant" to describe the president, perhaps the same message could be more acceptably communicated?
Disclaimer: I totally get where you are coming from, and I realize I'm kind of being an ass with this comment. I myself oscillate on this issue of determining reasonable and productive language. And I think, in general, you are correct about what is appropriate for HN. I must say, though, that lately my patience for our dear leader wears very thin...
It feels more and more as if his antics represent a dramatic paradigm shift with unknown consequences. I'm often at a loss at what to think of it all.
Not to mention that Musk works closely with the DoD in his SpaceX contracts, and therefore has a top-secret security clearance for launching the X-37B.
At least for mortals, doing scheduled drugs may revoke your clearance, regardless of whether it's legal according to state law.
At least for mortals, doing scheduled drugs may revoke your clearance, regardless of whether it's legal according to state law.
> eh, whatever, it's legal in CA
No, it's not.
It's not illegal under CA state law, but it is definitely illegal in California, as the federal prohibition isn't conditioned on he existence of matching state prohibition.
No, it's not.
It's not illegal under CA state law, but it is definitely illegal in California, as the federal prohibition isn't conditioned on he existence of matching state prohibition.
"the execs that quit are simultaneously useless and easily replaced MBA types. call me when engineering or manufacturing brass leave. "
Maybe you've never interfaced at the executive level?
Maybe you've never interfaced at the executive level?
>also the execs that quit are simultaneously useless and easily replaced MBA types.
The Chief Accounting Officer (second one in less than a year) is a "useless MBA type"?
Meanwhile, company burns billions. Paging "Shit HN says".
The Chief Accounting Officer (second one in less than a year) is a "useless MBA type"?
Meanwhile, company burns billions. Paging "Shit HN says".
The chief accounting officer has nothing to do with that. That'd be the CFO+COO (which Tesla doesn't have)+CEO. CAO is a common position when you have a sprawling, complex supply chain and contractor structure (which Tesla does have).
>That'd be the CFO+COO (which Tesla doesn't have)+CEO.
Yeah, you're right, the CAO has nothing to do with accounting.
I also loved "talk to me when it's engineers!"
Since 2017:
Doug Field, head engineer, gone. Matthew Schwall, director of field performance engineering, gone. Jon Wagner, director of battery engineering, gone. Kurt Kelty, director of battery technology, gone. Chris Lattner, vice president of autopilot software, gone. Satish Jeyachandran, director of hardware engineering, gone. David Nistér, vice president of autopilot vision, gone.
So many people here turning a blind eye, much like they did on Theranos.
Yeah, you're right, the CAO has nothing to do with accounting.
I also loved "talk to me when it's engineers!"
Since 2017:
Doug Field, head engineer, gone. Matthew Schwall, director of field performance engineering, gone. Jon Wagner, director of battery engineering, gone. Kurt Kelty, director of battery technology, gone. Chris Lattner, vice president of autopilot software, gone. Satish Jeyachandran, director of hardware engineering, gone. David Nistér, vice president of autopilot vision, gone.
So many people here turning a blind eye, much like they did on Theranos.
There are more articles from corporate media about this “controversy” than there have been in the past four years regarding the prison-industrial complex and peoples' entire lives being ruined due to our expensive and racist war on drugs. Musk barely took one hit of a spliff on a podcast. Why is this an issue?
There have been hundreds of articles about those topics, and maybe a handful about Elon toking up.
It's an issue because Elon had already done a bunch of crazy shit and this just plays into the narrative of him being unsuitable for the CEO role.
It's an issue because Elon had already done a bunch of crazy shit and this just plays into the narrative of him being unsuitable for the CEO role.
There are still people who think taking a hit off a joint is "crazy shit"?
I would assume he’s referring to calling that guy a pedo, then doubling down on that again, plus setting off a serious SEC investigation because he has the Twitter discipline of an 8 year old. I agree about the pot though, I’d be no more put off if he and Joe drank a beer, which is to say, not at all put off. In 2018 smoking a joint is not news imo.
What is news is someone like Musk who seems to be cracking like an egg, giving interview about how he can’t slow down and works until 2AM, taking the time to chat awkwardly with Rogan. All he needs to do to rehabilitate his image is stfu, stop tweeting, stop calling people who helped saved more than a dozen people pedos, stop lying about going private. It’s not like he’s a good speaker so just... shut up. If he just did his job without the running batshit commentary he’d be in none of this shit now, and there would be one less SEC investigation in the world.
What is news is someone like Musk who seems to be cracking like an egg, giving interview about how he can’t slow down and works until 2AM, taking the time to chat awkwardly with Rogan. All he needs to do to rehabilitate his image is stfu, stop tweeting, stop calling people who helped saved more than a dozen people pedos, stop lying about going private. It’s not like he’s a good speaker so just... shut up. If he just did his job without the running batshit commentary he’d be in none of this shit now, and there would be one less SEC investigation in the world.
In America? Sure, there's plenty of negative narratives and stigma, often religiously-based, going around about people that smoke weed. It's not uncommon. Sessions' views are a good example of these.
In light of the other weird stuff Elon has done- the drugs (due to stigma/etc) unfortunately fit into a convenient narrative
In light of the other weird stuff Elon has done- the drugs (due to stigma/etc) unfortunately fit into a convenient narrative
Kinda interesting a CEO of a company with federal contracts can smoke weed and won't face any repercussions.
Anyone who believes that Tesla is going to be an industrial titan (not me personally) will appreciate the stock discount.