Episode 39
Elon Musk and the Cult of Tesla | Are We Seeing a Bursting Bubble in Tech? | Mark Spiegel
Episode 39
Mark Spiegel
Elon Musk and the Cult of Tesla | Are We Seeing a Bursting Bubble in Tech? | Mark Spiegel
summary
When asked to name a hero of the modern age, most people don’t have to think long before giving their answer. Elon Musk is the man who sits at the helm of this era’s most disruptive industries. Through SpaceX, Musk is democratizing space and leading humanity into an era that’s dominated by privately held companies — an era in which anyone can, quite literally, reach for the stars. His Boring company is set to revolutionize travel by making vacuum-powered, ultra-high-speed transportation systems a reality. And Elon Musk is even transforming that which is most immutable: the human brain. In 2016, Musk founded Neuralink to develop implantable brain-computer interfaces and meld the human mind with machines. Then, of course, there is Tesla, the electric car company that has shaken the foundations of the fossil fuel industry and given society its first self-driving vehicles. Or, has it?
The cult of Elon Musk surpasses anything we have seen in decades. Even Steve Jobs did not command as much adoration from his congregations of the faithful. And yet, something is rotten in the state of Denmark…
Tesla sits at the intersection of a number of powerful forces: the ready availability of cheap financing, the growing wealth and income gap, and the preponderance of technology in popular culture. In this sense, Tesla is about more than just electric vehicles or the car manufacturing business. It is a poster child for the financial excesses, stock price manipulations, and cult-like followings of Silicon Valley.
And as the Federal Reserve continues to tighten by raising interest rates, companies like Tesla, which have relied on cheap financing in order to fund their businesses, are feeling increasing pressure. Exhibit A: the company’s stock, which was besieged by speculative shorts and heavy selling in March of this year. Tesla’s stock recouped more than half of those losses shortly thereafter but, serious questions remain about the company’s path towards profitability. Indeed, does it even have one?
Even if Tesla can raise the capital it needs from investors over the next six months, can it manage to overcome the major production challenges that have plagued the Model 3? What happens when Jaguar, Audi, Mercedes, and Porsche each come to market with their own electric vehicles, some of which are cheaper than Tesla’s suite of electric cars? Finally, what about Elon Musk?
The famous short seller Jim Chanos, who took down Enron in the early 2000’s for defrauding its investors, has made similar claims against the popular Silicon Valley car executive. And Chanos isn’t alone in his rebukes. Mark Spiegel, Managing Member and Portfolio Manager of Stanphyl Capital Partners, has also been openly critical of Elon Musk, whom he believes is committing securities fraud by misleading investors about the capabilities of Tesla’s present and future products and financial prospects.
In last week’s episode, we asked about the path towards profitability for Tesla. In this week’s episode, host Demetri Kofinas is joined by Mark Spiegel, who questions the credibility of Elon Musk as CEO of the electric car company. We examine whether Tesla can survive the onslaught of bad publicity amid a rocky period for capital markets and for the company’s stock. Ten years from now, will we look back at Tesla as the poster child for this latest bull market?
As always, this episode of Hidden Forces is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as the basis for financial decisions. All views expressed by Demetri Kofinas and podcast guests are solely their own opinions and should not be construed as financial advice.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
bio
Mark is an Investor, Managing Member of Stanphyl Capital, and perpetual wiseguy. He has noted that he “buys deep value and short bubbles, and I doesn’t do it quietly.”
Twitter – https://twitter.com/markbspiegel
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nemo nostrum istius generis asotos iucunde putat vivere. Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Praeclare hoc quidem.
Ad eos igitur converte te, quaeso. Ista ipsa, quae tu breviter: regem, dictatorem, divitem solum esse sapientem, a te quidem apte ac rotunde; Atqui eorum nihil est eius generis, ut sit in fine atque extrerno bonorum. Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Ergo id est convenienter naturae vivere, a natura discedere. Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem. Isto modo, ne si avia quidem eius nata non esset. Bona autem corporis huic sunt, quod posterius posui, similiora.
Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Aufert enim sensus actionemque tollit omnem. Itaque vides, quo modo loquantur, nova verba fingunt, deserunt usitata. Idem fecisset Epicurus, si sententiam hanc, quae nunc Hieronymi est, coniunxisset cum Aristippi vetere sententia.
Nam de isto magna dissensio est. Eam tum adesse, cum dolor omnis absit; Quippe: habes enim a rhetoribus; Tu autem negas fortem esse quemquam posse, qui dolorem malum putet. Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. Si id dicis, vicimus. Itaque primos congressus copulationesque et consuetudinum instituendarum voluntates fieri propter voluptatem; Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet.
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ergo adhuc, quantum equidem intellego, causa non videtur fuisse mutandi nominis. Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Si quae forte-possumus. Ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt. Cur post Tarentum ad Archytam?
Haec mihi videtur delicatior, ut ita dicam, molliorque ratio, quam virtutis vis gravitasque postulat. Et non ex maxima parte de tota iudicabis? Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Negabat igitur ullam esse artem, quae ipsa a se proficisceretur; Saepe ab Aristotele, a Theophrasto mirabiliter est laudata per se ipsa rerum scientia; Verba tu fingas et ea dicas, quae non sentias?
Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? Itaque ad tempus ad Pisonem omnes. Contemnit enim disserendi elegantiam, confuse loquitur. Deinde qui fit, ut ego nesciam, sciant omnes, quicumque Epicurei esse voluerunt? Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata.
Immo videri fortasse. Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo. His enim rebus detractis negat se reperire in asotorum vita quod reprehendat. Sint ista Graecorum; Ergo in utroque exercebantur, eaque disciplina effecit tantam illorum utroque in genere dicendi copiam. Sed id ne cogitari quidem potest quale sit, ut non repugnet ipsum sibi. Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Nihil enim iam habes, quod ad corpus referas;
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Tum ille timide vel potius verecunde: Facio, inquit. Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. Stoici autem, quod finem bonorum in una virtute ponunt, similes sunt illorum; Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Honesta oratio, Socratica, Platonis etiam. Hoc non est positum in nostra actione.
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Idem etiam dolorem saepe perpetiuntur, ne, si id non faciant, incidant in maiorem. Deinde disputat, quod cuiusque generis animantium statui deceat extremum. Teneo, inquit, finem illi videri nihil dolere. Isto modo ne improbos quidem, si essent boni viri. Collige omnia, quae soletis: Praesidium amicorum. Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. Tum ille: Ain tandem?
Sed ne, dum huic obsequor, vobis molestus sim. Hic nihil fuit, quod quaereremus. Sed plane dicit quod intellegit. Non enim quaero quid verum, sed quid cuique dicendum sit. An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. Quod autem satis est, eo quicquid accessit, nimium est; Inscite autem medicinae et gubernationis ultimum cum ultimo sapientiae comparatur. His enim rebus detractis negat se reperire in asotorum vita quod reprehendat. Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem.
Immo alio genere; Sed vos squalidius, illorum vides quam niteat oratio. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Qui enim voluptatem ipsam contemnunt, iis licet dicere se acupenserem maenae non anteponere. Hanc ergo intuens debet institutum illud quasi signum absolvere. Huius ego nunc auctoritatem sequens idem faciam. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Quid, si non sensus modo ei sit datus, verum etiam animus hominis?
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nonne igitur tibi videntur, inquit, mala? Dolere malum est: in crucem qui agitur, beatus esse non potest. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Gracchum patrem non beatiorem fuisse quam fillum, cum alter stabilire rem publicam studuerit, alter evertere. An, partus ancillae sitne in fructu habendus, disseretur inter principes civitatis, P. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas? Nec vero sum nescius esse utilitatem in historia, non modo voluptatem. Eaedem enim utilitates poterunt eas labefactare atque pervertere. Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat.
Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Eadem fortitudinis ratio reperietur. Sed fac ista esse non inportuna; Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus; Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem;
Roges enim Aristonem, bonane ei videantur haec: vacuitas doloris, divitiae, valitudo; Quae cum essent dicta, finem fecimus et ambulandi et disputandi. Non quaero, quid dicat, sed quid convenienter possit rationi et sententiae suae dicere. Quis animo aequo videt eum, quem inpure ac flagitiose putet vivere? Idemne, quod iucunde? Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur.
Satis est ad hoc responsum. Claudii libidini, qui tum erat summo ne imperio, dederetur. Quaesita enim virtus est, non quae relinqueret naturam, sed quae tueretur. Nec lapathi suavitatem acupenseri Galloni Laelius anteponebat, sed suavitatem ipsam neglegebat; Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus. Et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat; Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est? Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus.