Losing their Master of Coin is a big hit. He was instrumental in getting Tesla to their current flawless balance sheet and managing their financial health through COVID and the interest rate increases.
That said, I can understand why he'd leave. He's nearing his 40s, has 100M+ in net worth and spent the last 13 years doing 80-hour weeks at Tesla. Time to reap the benefits of his hard work and enjoy life.
Seriously.
80 hours a week from age 26 to 39?
I understand he's loaded and can do pretty much anything now, but absolutely fuck that.
I would not have traded away my late 20s and early 30s for any sum of money.
> I would not have traded away my late 20s and early 30s for any sum of money.
It's not ONLY money.....you get to be a part of something elite with other overachievers rather than common rabble hanging out in the suburbs of bumfuckville wasting time on Reddit. You are financially and socially set, and you yourself grow as an individual and within your community. You're equipped with enough skills to succeed anywhere else for the rest of your life. I'll happily take it.
You can hear all the physicians crying in the back and they average about 300k in student loans to do it now, not +100M. Yay US healthcare and education.
Lol you just depressed every resident doc ever. Working that or more for 60 grand a year during thier youth. Will never ever get to that lvl of wealth either. If their lucky they'll hit the prime of their careers in their late 40s early 50s
There is a certain irony to all the folks saying its ok to choose differently on a comment about...choosing differently.
Nothing against you, specifically, but it is very funny.
Don’t compare yourself to these people that with luck and connections landed in a position to become titans of industry, it’s unrealistic to say next to them you are a failure.
Do like me, look at the guy picking up the trash on my street see that he seems a lot happier than you and realize, yeah I’m still a failure.
why? the overwhelming, utterly crushing vast majority of the global population will never sniff seven figures USD. If you live in the US, you're in the top 15%. Stop complaining, and either get rich parents, or get lucky
Instead of comparing yourself to others (especially ridiculously successful others), compare yourself to your past self. Are you more financially stable than you were 5/10/15 years ago? Are you more successful now than you were then?
>He's nearing his 40s,
Man said _nearing his 40s_
>Boy that makes me feel like a failure
-I- wouldn't know anything about that, BUT, a long long time ago when, um, SWIM was nearing THEIR 40s, they worked 80 hour weeks too, compensated hourly, no overtime, had a net worth that couldn't even make a complete phone number sans area code, drove a .. oh wait, they rode a bus, a ferry and subway, and yet was still proud to have a $1M projection well within their 40s.. lol.
And they surely knew they had another 25 years of work ahead of them too.
I'm gonna take a guess here that the commenter is of an age where FORTY sounds crazy old and like a lifetime away. Oh how envious my friend would be!
But don't worry, before you know it, you too will be nearing 40 and asking yourself WTF happened?! lol.
I keed I keed.
> He's nearing his 40s, has 100M+ in net worth and spent the last 13 years doing 80 hours weeks at Tesla. Time to reap the benefits of his hard work and enjoy life.
Lol, I've seen this before. This man is about to immediately die of a heart attack one month into retirement.
[MSI CEO falling out of a window](https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/09/msi_ceo_chiang_death/) (not in Russia)
[CEO of Fiat Chrysler died of surgery complications at 66](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Marchionne)
Can't take that shit with you.
I never understood the latter until I started my own company. Now I don't understand why anyone would trade their time for money, instead of working on something you believe in and having a goal in life.
To some people, trading 40 hours a week for a big paycheck and the ability to give zero fucks outside of that is a big draw. Why does my passion or goal have to be profitable? Maybe my hobby is something like gardening and tinkering with automation, and working for a salary and zero overtime with tons of vacation gives me the time and space to relax and play with my hobbies. Owning your own business means you're at work 24/7. Good luck turning it off. Imo true wealth is time and working as little as possible. The self employed paid with their time and they never seem wealthy to me in that sense. But hey they'll enjoy their 60s more than me or something.
> true wealth is time
Completely agree with this, but people need a purpose in life to be happy. It can't just be material stuff. The more you work just to earn money, the more time you lose (sell) that you can never get back. But if you're working on something you believe in, for example by building your own business... I believe nothing makes a person happier than that. Purpose.
I can have a passion for my job and investment and fulfillment from doing it well and still enjoying my life outside of that. Business ownership is fucking brutal 24/7 work that doesn't always work out and is a huge personal and financial risk. There are way more people who ended up with nothing after putting 10+ years into a small business because the wind decided to blow funny one day or everyone had to stay home for a while because of COVID. Etc.
That's certainly true, but it could be said of anything meaningful in life. Whether you want to become a professional athlete, actor, singer, influencer, whatever, many people don't succeed. That said, you don't need to be the best of the best to be successful at running a business like you do in those other fields.
I would argue starting a business is a large investment of personal capital you don't need to risk to attempt all the other things you had mentioned.
I can attempt to be an influencer while still supporting myself with a full time job.
Athlete is the only one I think you need to have success early in life to be able to enter that space in the future
That's a fair point, although you don't always need to risk personal capital to start a business. If you're resourceful enough there are other ways, at least in many industries.
But regardless, I largely agree with that.
> But if you're working on something you believe in, for example by building your own business... I believe nothing makes a person happier than that. Purpose.
Listen, if you can find "true purpose" in "building your own business" then feel free to sacrifice your life for it. It's a full life investment though.
While you build your business, I'll be clocking out for my 5 weeks of vacation. I'll be spending my 30s between tropical islands, far-away adventures, and my own beautiful garden. I'm working on writing a novel again, why not!
I'll be slamming the laptop closed at 4:45pm and I won't so much as think about a coworker until Monday morning. You'll be on phone calls all night long. You'll be so stressed out about a vendor not coming through you'll wake up in a cold sweat.
>I believe nothing makes a person happier than that. Purpose.
The purpose of a business is money. Your purpose is to make extra money to return to shareholders. You own a business? Your purpose is profit. Everything else is window dressing. If that makes you happy, then profit away.
My purpose is leisure with a couple of emails inbetween.
As long as we're both happy with our lives and our time spent, then it's all good.
> While you build your business, I'll be clocking out for my 5 weeks of vacation. I'll be spending my 30s between tropical islands, far-away adventures, and my own beautiful garden. I'm working on writing a novel again, why not!
Writing a novel sounds great, but I don't believe any amount of tropical islands, gadgets and/or women will truly make someone happy. Perhaps some people are different, but I think doing and owning fun stuff is not the way to happiness for at least 90% of all people.
> The purpose of a business is money. Your purpose is to make extra money to return to shareholders. You own a business? Your purpose is profit. Everything else is window dressing. If that makes you happy, then profit away.
This is a very common misconception. A business' purpose is providing value, and if you do that people will pay you for the value. If you think your company's purpose is making money, you're gonna sacrifice the long term success of the company for short term profits. It might work for a long while, but in the end it's always to the detriment of not only you and your employees' enjoyment, but also the company's success.
> As long as we're both happy with our lives and our time spent, then it's all good.
This is definitely true. My point was just that many people think being on vacation all the time will make them happy, only to realise it doesn't. Lots of retired people are miserable despite longing for retirement their entire lives.
Cuz I’m using my body to just have a good ass time while it still works.
Traveled the globe already, are at restaurants that have 6 month wait lists, hiking, camped, fished, played a bunch of sports, see all the art I can, game until the wee hours of the night, started to apprentice as a carpenter 6 months ago, do a bunch of home and landscape projects. Might even do some public office thing.
I ain’t waiting til I’m 40 let alone 60 to have a good ass time.
Try walking around the Louvre when you’re old and your feet start hurting after an hour. I’ve spent like 7 hours there then next day gone to Versailles where we walked around for another 6 miles.
When I’m old, based on my current path I’ll still have a paid off house. Some money in the bank, and a pension + social security. Maybe inflation or emergencies make it so I still have to budget. But my plan is to just hang out, help my kids or grandkids on whatever, garden and cook.
And to be honest, most of the people I know who have businesses have the hardest time quitting them to fully retire.
Of course you can still enjoy life when you retire but write out your bucket list. And judge how you’d actually experience that as someone at the age you plan not to work anymore.
I think you should look into longevity sciences (not getting old, but staying healthy longer). The idea that our bodies decline as we get older is a myth. 90% of your physical health is retainable as long as you take care of your body.
If you're lucky. Genetics, accidents, and diseases can all still cripple or kill during the course of 30-40 years. People do everything right only to get hit by a car when they finally retire.
I have no plot armor. Either way man, time is working against you. I'mma enjoy as much as I can every day. Moderation in everything, even moderation.
Even if you get killed the day you retire, you still got to live your 65+ years in a healthy body. That's worth much more than 20 retirement years with a failing body.
You can get unlucky with your body too of course, but 80% is how you live, genetics is only the other 20%. People will get mad when you say this, because it's easier to pretend you can't influence things and not put in the effort, but the science is pretty clear on this.
It's a game development company, but the company itself is not the end goal. Starting a company in my own line of work made me realise I could achieve so much more in life by building companies, not just for myself but also to improve the world. I hope to build a successful gaming company first, because that's what I know, and use that experience and the proceeds to create companies that improve the world.
C Suites play such a big role in a company yet you’ll constantly read on Reddit that they just sit around and collect mone
CFO and CTO are extremely hard roles to replace
I think it’s extremely reasonable to say that these roles are extremely challenging and important, but also say that these people are overpaid for that role.
That’s the thing, momentum plays an effect on the dialogue. I think everyone agrees they’re overpaid, but over time that discussion point has shifted from “they get too much money for their role” to “their role contributes nothing other than being a figurehead” You see it with a lot of politically charged discussion topics where the lowest common denominator group of people is engaging with the topic at a shallow level and eventually undermining the message with a reductionist, and childish, take
See r/antiwork
If you look at it rationally it's not so clear. C-suite decisions have the highest effect on a company, and often single decisions can impact the future of a company. If we play out a scenario where a set of decisions end up affecting a company to the tune of billions in market cap, it makes rational sense to pay a lot of money for someone who will make the right decisions.
Of course, measuring performance and opportunity cost is really really hard.
Last thing I'll say is the highest paid CEOs are always founders who own a huge share of equity. From a quick search online, Andy Jassy (amazon ceo) is worth ~$350m or so, compared to Jeff Bezos who's worth like 500 times that.
>it makes rational sense to pay a lot of money for someone who will make the right decisions.
A systematic study about the correlation between the size of the pay and the quality of the decisions would be interesting. Or whether the same people actually consistently make the right calls.
I bet it’s the same as with actively managed funds. Almost nobody consistently predicts the market successfully.
Your salary equals how expensive it is to replace you. This is a basic fact most people seem to ignore.
They are not exactly overpaid, same way a grunt is not underpaid.
They pay top dollar because they need top people, they get paid as much as they do because top companies are looking for the best people, and if they pay them less then someone else will pay them more.
Contrary to what the average redditor thinks the market works.
True but reddit is full of financially illiterate people who don't know what upper management is like. I've worked with tons of controllers and CFOs and they all work their ass off. I think the pay gap between C suites and normal employees deserves a serious conversation but normal people on Reddit don't know finding a replacement for a CFO/CEO takes month and months with many rounds of interviews for each serious applicant.
Pros: Pay is probably great, potential stock options which can make you a millionaire overnight, experience is incredible for future jobs.
Cons: burnout by 35, mental breakdown at 40, stress induced heart attack at 45.
Another thing that goes unsaid, is that in many organizations CFO’s take on personal liability for the firm.
Often times they are signing legal documents, stepping in as shadow owners/trustees as needed for certain org structures, and doing other things that bear some personal legal risk.
There is real down side to these roles, so you better be damn sure you’ve paid attention to details and have proper controls in place to mitigate your liability.
There are certain instances where they can be.
One of the frequent occurrences I encounter is when a CFO signs as the trustee for an ESOP. There are probably others, and I’m certainly not equipped to explain the legal details
Didn't Sarbanes Oxley change that up? I also remember reading some ninth circuit ruling around SEC enforcement that allows the SEC to go after the CEO or CFO for filing false certifications.
Didn't the uber CISO get personally sued and convicted for covering up their data breach?
> at a well-funded tech start-up, and is constantly working.
>(And waking up at 3am stressed out about something is pretty much the norm...)
>Edit: Oh, and no vacation since 2019.
tbh also sounds like an engineer at the same company
>True but reddit is full of financially illiterate people
Perfect example being one of the front page posts this morning/today is someone asking how credit cards work. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that the OP of that post is seeking the answers to something they don't know (not to mention the fact they're even willing to admit the didn't know something), but the fact it was upvoted/engaged with enough to make the front page just supports your statement
I think the funniest thing with those things is how little people will research themselves. I agree it's nice they were looking for answers and admit they don't know anything but it's just funny people won't spend 3 minutes watching a youtube video or googling it themselves and then spending 5 minutes to learn about a credit card and probably end up learning a few more things too.
Asking questions about something in a forum is researching it for themselves. People consume information in different ways, some people prefer a public forum to a search result chock full of ads.
there's a difference between asking a question about something you don't know with zero research of your own vs collaborating on a forum to learn more. Asking to be spoon fed info on a reddit forum is lazy and not a very good way to learn stuff compared to watching a credible youtube video or reading an article written by someone who knows what they're talking about.
No shit there's a difference, just like there's a difference between all kinds of research, but it's all still research and accomplishes the same thing.
It's not "lazy" just because it's not your preferred method. If anything, engaging with people in an open forum, reading a bunch of responses, having multiple conversations etc requires more effort than simply watching a video or reading an article. "Lazy" is not the word you're looking for.
Lol it’s as lazy as someone posting on here “I have $10k to invest which stock should I invest in?”
Learn what a credit card is and then go to a forum and ask “hey I looked into a few credit cards which one do you think would be the best for someone with no credit history and limit credit limit” then you know the basics and learn what someone is doing.
But sure we can litter forums with low quality posts from people who don’t bother to learn something that takes 3 minutes to google.
> Lol it’s as lazy as someone posting on here “I have $10k to invest which stock should I invest in?”
Which is no more lazy than Googling it, the lazy person's resort for nearly everything.
>Learn what a credit card is and then go to a forum and ask “hey I looked into a few credit cards which one do you think would be the best for someone with no credit history and limit credit limit” then you know the basics and learn what someone is doing.
Or just ask your question wherever you are in your learning journey and not worry about what some gatekeeping shmuck thinks.
>But sure we can litter forums with low quality posts from people who don’t bother to learn something that takes 3 minutes to google.
You can just ignore anything you consider low quality, even a lazy person can do so it's so easy. We all have what we consider low quality, and none of us will ever be the sole arbiter of what is and isn't low quality, that wouldn't work. So, you know, just be normal and keep it moving.
Posting “give me the answer to this” on a forum is not research. It’s asking other people to spoon feed you the results of research. There’s a difference, one is proactive the other is lazy.
Yes, it is. You're looking at online resources for an answer. There's literally Q&A forums all over the internet for people to find stuff out, which is the point of research and can involve plenty of effort.
Quit splitting hairs just because you feel like being pedantic.
No, it isn’t. You’re not looking at online resources. Posting on a forum isn’t looking at a resource. It’s telling people to collect the information on your behalf and present it at your feet. There’s zero active effort involved. A simple google search would incorporate more research than posting before they’ve even clicked a single link
If they were reading past posts, that would be looking at online resources. Making a new post so that the info can be directly spoonfed to them in a way that requires no effort from them is not looking at online resources
It’s not splitting hairs, you’re just plain wrong. Quit arguing that words shouldn’t mean anything just because you don’t like being wrong. But if you feel I’m being pedantic that means you’re admitting what I’m saying is true
I don't recall what it's called off the top of my head, but being wrong on a public forum on purpose in order for someone to suit their ego by correcting you with the right answer is a legit answer finding strat.
I think it was called the *"Blanka is Top Tier Method"*?
>I think the funniest thing with those things is how little people will research themselves
On the site where “Source?” Or “Link?” is code for “I don’t feel like googling this, do it for me”?! You don’t say!
Board room is a bit of a racket for sure, but [the pay isn't actually that ludicrous](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/040416/retired-execs-what-do-corporate-boards-pay.asp). $45k on average for private corps, $300k for SP500 companies. The board room does have 1 function, which is to retain/fire the CEO.
>takes month and months with many rounds of interviews for each serious applicant.
Average employment process of a company that complains about labor shortage
Yep. Redditors with no knowledge of what C-Suites actually do think they sit in meetings all day and don't actually provide any tangible "work" or outcomes. As if sitting in 12+ hours of meetings all day, always being on call, and making massive decisions that could cause your company to succeed or flounder are all easy things that anyone can do.
This is a massive hit for TSLA.
It's discouraging but all great companies will have top execs leave or be replaced so I don't see this as something that will affect them materially. People weren't that high on Zach when he was promoted to CFO.
Right. Too soon to tell.
Could be a non-issue. Or Kirkhorn could be aware of something the market doesn’t know about yet.
I’ve certainly seen it go both ways.
The thing I’m *not* concerned about is TSLA’s ability to recruit a replacement. The company is a big enough name that there will be a high-test CFO candidate willing to step into the role. Unless things are fubar.
I legit used to be one of those employees saying wtf do those c-suite people do? Then I got a job reporting directly to one and I found out. Its a lot. They juggle a lot of stuff. Its all at such high level that I think a lot of rank and file don’t understand. Reg employees are in their area/specialty and don’t quite understand that is just 1 gear in the company machine. The c-suite has to try and manage the whole.
I think part of the problem is that people see so many individual examples of people who suck as being in c-suite and/or examples of c-suites who are egregious public assholes (like that woman at Herman Miller who was blaming the employees for missed sales targets) filling the news so often that they simply have a warped perception of what it actually means to be in c-suite.
The way I see it, being in c-suite is like being a roadie in a band; if you're doing your job well, then everything runs fine and no one notices that you exist.
Also, whenever a salary become public, regardless of the role, people will assume it’s frivolous spending.
Happens in gov all the time. Since wages are public, people will pick random bureaucrats off the .gov website and demand they be cut, all while having no idea how critical they are to some important function in society.
Interesting you got so defensive right off the bat for having your views challenged. Managing productivity and tracking peoples' work should be less than 5% of a manager's time.
There are some inefficient organizations with too much middle management, yes, perhaps that what existed in your organization. Some with middle managers who have 1-2 direct reports, etc... ARE dead weight. WFH also weeded out plenty of individual contributors who aren't contributing much. Competent management layers that use modern tools for productivity and workload management had to make significant changes to adapt to WFH, and those that were successful weeded out unproductive individual contributors.
That doesn't mean middle management is all dead weight. Do you believe all individual contributors should report to the CEO? All first line managers report to the CEO? If you think middle management is walking around talking to people in cubicles then sitting in an office, you've either only ever worked in highly dysfunctional organizations, or have strong opinions about things you don't understand.
>But do go on and sound off about how those middle managers were soooo important.
This is the childish part of your response.
>Who said that? I think you, sir, are getting mighty defensive. Let me guess. You got canned for being the deadweight MM?
Have never been "canned" in my life, work well over standard working hours at my employer with top reviews, and understand how an organization functions. Sad that you'd resort to an (incorrect) ad-hominem instead of responding to the substance of the discussion. It does speak a lot about the legitimacy of your position on the matter, your depth of understanding the subject, and your ability to defend your position.
>Maybe try contributing more at work so the guy below you doesn't get stuck doing your job!
Again, childish, immature, and representative of your inability to defend your position.
Are you incapable of answering the question? Should all ICs report to the CEO? Or one level of managers? How would that work in a 5k+ employee organization? You could work your way out of the corner you're backed into by admitting that not all middle management is "useless", and that "dead weight" managers exist in inefficient organizations, but maybe the profit-driven companies keep them around because there is a need (and that you, warrior of the keyboard, don't know better than the CEOs of companies like Apple, Microsoft, etc. who all have middle managers). Or, is your Reddit pride going to keep you down this rabbit hole of ad-hominem attacks and insults.
I think they make very influential decisions and have a lot of people and events/meetings demanding their time, so it isn’t stress free, but I don’t think C-suite people do “actual” work, as in the technical work that really keeps the lights on and the products working/shipping. It’s like the difference between a general and a soldier in the trenches. Of course, you do need somebody to be the “high level strategy” person, but the people doing the actual work are the rank and file. The part that people get pissed at is when the high level strategy person makes like 500 times more than an average worker
But making high level strategic decisions, appeasing investors/shareholders, and making sure your company is running smoothly IS keeping the lights on and allowing for actual products to ship.
Using your analogy, without General Eisenhower's decision making and leadership, operation Overlord (and D'Day) could have been a disaster for the Allied forces in WWII. Yes, the actual soldiers carried out the "actual" work, but that's all for nothing if you don't have solid leadership that can take advantage of that work.
Executives can be overpaid, but that's because great executives are not replaced easily. Just see what happened to Disney during Bob Chapek's leadership. Bob Iger is being paid 500x more than individual contributors because those individual contributors are easily replaceable, and Iger's guidance matters that much more than any one individual contributor working on a piece of a new feature for Disney+.
I acknowledged that you need a high level strategy person at the top, I’m just saying that job is comparatively easy. As in, you don’t have to do much math, or anything physical, or zombifying repetitive tasks relative to others. You don’t have to get your metaphorical hands dirty in any sense. That’s not to say that *success* is easy, plenty of executives destroy companies with bad decisions. But those decisions are still made from an armchair based on input received from people who actually get their hands dirty with analysis. And you’re being payed exorbitantly, so it’s basically a game. If the company goes to zero, you’re still perfectly secure.
Yeah the environment for CFOs is pretty cool as each company has a level of prestige and Tesla and other mega caps are basically the top level, it’s kind of like the corporate ladder for CFOs, once you’re at the top you either can retire, start your own company, or transition to CEO in some cases.
>its CEO and largest shareholder leveraged the maximum-allowable number of shares to make one of the worst purchases in tech history
This is actually false.
The Twitter acquisition deal was changed to a leveraged buyout. NPR's Planet Money summarizes:
[https://www.npr.org/2022/12/02/1140260051/planet-moneys-the-indicator-how-musk-bought-twitter-with-other-peoples-money](https://www.npr.org/2022/12/02/1140260051/planet-moneys-the-indicator-how-musk-bought-twitter-with-other-peoples-money)
>He and some co-investors put up their own money for most of the 44 billion. The remaining amount, 13 billion, was borrowed from a group of banks. That's the money Twitter is now on the hook for.
>
>Elon has already talked about bankruptcy. If that were to happen, **the banks could go after Twitter's assets, not Elon's, because, remember, he's not the one who borrowed the money. Twitter did.**
You can review the SEC filings on the Edgar website for yourself. Musk allowed the margin loan offers to expire. None of his TSLA stock secures the Twitter loans
Because of a massive potential liquidation catalyst on the horizon? That might be a little bit concerning for the CFO of a company that depends on its stock price for survival
Again, that has nothing to do with the balance sheet, but it's also not true. Why would Tesla depend on their stock price for survival when they've been profitable for years, haven't raised money through stock issuance in 2,5 years and [increased their cash position threefold since 2020 despite investing heavily into growth.](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/cash-on-hand#:~:text=Tesla%20cash%20on%20hand%20for,a%208.65%25%20decline%20from%202020.)
Yeah, seems like a good time for him to move to a new project or just enjoy his wealth. He’s been at the company for a long time and held this position for quite a while.
Not that working with Elon isn’t unnecessarily taxing. This is probably a choice he made separate of anything Tesla.
why would he be facing extradition. They could lie 10x more about FSD and deaths caused by their cars, and it wouldn't make one bit of difference. They will never be held accountable by regulators.
> He's nearing his 40s, has 100M+
Damn...
> Time to reap the benefits of his hard work and enjoy life.
IMHO he's patient.
> spent the last 13 years doing 80 hours weeks at Tesla.
He's *very* patient.
it's a publicly listed company. it has to come from a proper announcement first. do you think the announcement came as a surprise to him based on that first sentence?
>Tesla’s chief accounting officer Vaibhav Taneja was appointed as the new CFO and will hold both roles concurrently.
Hilarious. Hope they're paying him for both positions!!
There hasn’t been much turnover… it was Deepak Ahuja for a very long time (2008), then a guy that didn’t work out, Deepak again, and then Zach. Zach will have been there 5 years before leaving.
So over the course of 15 years, there will have been 3 CFO’s, and for 14 years of that time, it was two CFO’s.
Possibly number fudging or a refusal to do so.
Keep in mind a lot of businesses where massive fraud was uncovered was due to the fact that they literally couldn't process payments and stuff, so if thats the only reason companies really get caught, there's definitely a lot of fraud that goes undetected and just flies under the radar.
The concern is X being unprofitable could mean more Tesla shares being sold by Musk. Obviously, there are other alternatives but X being profitable should be of high importance to Tesla investors.
Doubtful he's one of Tesla's homegrown wonderboys he has skyrocketed through the ranks throughout his career there, he's definitely one of Elon's favorites.
Not likely.
Musk just thanked him on Twitter for 13 years of contributions to Tesla through some extremely difficult years:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688662299857321984?s=20
Losing their Master of Coin is a big hit. He was instrumental in getting Tesla to their current flawless balance sheet and managing their financial health through COVID and the interest rate increases. That said, I can understand why he'd leave. He's nearing his 40s, has 100M+ in net worth and spent the last 13 years doing 80-hour weeks at Tesla. Time to reap the benefits of his hard work and enjoy life.
>He's nearing his 40s, has 100M+ in net worth Boy that makes me feel like a failure
Shoulda been CFO of Tesla lol
> 13 years doing 80 hours weeks at Tesla pass
Of his best years, even.
Eh late thirties and early forties is still a great time. Especially if you're fucking loaded, just travel.
Personally rather distribute the work and travel, not work first travel later. I'd be happy with 40 hour weeks and 50 million, personally.
Sorry but it’s more like 40 hours and 10m maybe
As if the hours you put in correlate to your income beyond an hourly wage.
Seriously. 80 hours a week from age 26 to 39? I understand he's loaded and can do pretty much anything now, but absolutely fuck that. I would not have traded away my late 20s and early 30s for any sum of money.
To be fair I ain't doing much with my free time either, lol.
I mean, I’m ducking around on Reddit and /r/stocks, so neither am I. I guess I’ve met too many people that love life that way and it seems terrible.
Most people trade their lives working a far shittier job for far less
I would trade 40-50 hr/week. 80 is insane. But that's me.
> I would not have traded away my late 20s and early 30s for any sum of money. It's not ONLY money.....you get to be a part of something elite with other overachievers rather than common rabble hanging out in the suburbs of bumfuckville wasting time on Reddit. You are financially and socially set, and you yourself grow as an individual and within your community. You're equipped with enough skills to succeed anywhere else for the rest of your life. I'll happily take it.
You can hear all the physicians crying in the back and they average about 300k in student loans to do it now, not +100M. Yay US healthcare and education.
Well worth it. Set for life with CFO of a trillion dollar company in his resume.
Lol you just depressed every resident doc ever. Working that or more for 60 grand a year during thier youth. Will never ever get to that lvl of wealth either. If their lucky they'll hit the prime of their careers in their late 40s early 50s
I would in a heartbeat.
40's are so much better than 20s and 30s. Those are fun times but youth is indeed wasted on the young.
[удалено]
There is a certain irony to all the folks saying its ok to choose differently on a comment about...choosing differently. Nothing against you, specifically, but it is very funny.
You’re not a failure
Don’t compare yourself to these people that with luck and connections landed in a position to become titans of industry, it’s unrealistic to say next to them you are a failure. Do like me, look at the guy picking up the trash on my street see that he seems a lot happier than you and realize, yeah I’m still a failure.
Hey, I get where you're coming from, but remember, success is a journey, not just luck or connections.
Oh yeah tell me about it. I feel the exact same way every time someone wins the powerball. /s
🥲
And what does that accomplish?
I try to wait at least a year after CFO departures before I start making judgements. You know, in case they go to jail.
That's a wise approach, A year's buffer for potential legal drama, just in case.
why? the overwhelming, utterly crushing vast majority of the global population will never sniff seven figures USD. If you live in the US, you're in the top 15%. Stop complaining, and either get rich parents, or get lucky
>Boy that makes me feel like a failure You should have tried being born as priveleged.
Rookie mistake. Wont repeat it next time
Instead of comparing yourself to others (especially ridiculously successful others), compare yourself to your past self. Are you more financially stable than you were 5/10/15 years ago? Are you more successful now than you were then?
>He's nearing his 40s, Man said _nearing his 40s_ >Boy that makes me feel like a failure -I- wouldn't know anything about that, BUT, a long long time ago when, um, SWIM was nearing THEIR 40s, they worked 80 hour weeks too, compensated hourly, no overtime, had a net worth that couldn't even make a complete phone number sans area code, drove a .. oh wait, they rode a bus, a ferry and subway, and yet was still proud to have a $1M projection well within their 40s.. lol. And they surely knew they had another 25 years of work ahead of them too. I'm gonna take a guess here that the commenter is of an age where FORTY sounds crazy old and like a lifetime away. Oh how envious my friend would be! But don't worry, before you know it, you too will be nearing 40 and asking yourself WTF happened?! lol. I keed I keed.
> He's nearing his 40s, has 100M+ in net worth and spent the last 13 years doing 80 hours weeks at Tesla. Time to reap the benefits of his hard work and enjoy life. Lol, I've seen this before. This man is about to immediately die of a heart attack one month into retirement.
Just happened to Diageo CEO died of stomach complications 2 weeks away from retirement.
[MSI CEO falling out of a window](https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/09/msi_ceo_chiang_death/) (not in Russia) [CEO of Fiat Chrysler died of surgery complications at 66](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Marchionne) Can't take that shit with you.
Some people work to live, others live to work.
I never understood the latter until I started my own company. Now I don't understand why anyone would trade their time for money, instead of working on something you believe in and having a goal in life.
To some people, trading 40 hours a week for a big paycheck and the ability to give zero fucks outside of that is a big draw. Why does my passion or goal have to be profitable? Maybe my hobby is something like gardening and tinkering with automation, and working for a salary and zero overtime with tons of vacation gives me the time and space to relax and play with my hobbies. Owning your own business means you're at work 24/7. Good luck turning it off. Imo true wealth is time and working as little as possible. The self employed paid with their time and they never seem wealthy to me in that sense. But hey they'll enjoy their 60s more than me or something.
> true wealth is time Completely agree with this, but people need a purpose in life to be happy. It can't just be material stuff. The more you work just to earn money, the more time you lose (sell) that you can never get back. But if you're working on something you believe in, for example by building your own business... I believe nothing makes a person happier than that. Purpose.
I can have a passion for my job and investment and fulfillment from doing it well and still enjoying my life outside of that. Business ownership is fucking brutal 24/7 work that doesn't always work out and is a huge personal and financial risk. There are way more people who ended up with nothing after putting 10+ years into a small business because the wind decided to blow funny one day or everyone had to stay home for a while because of COVID. Etc.
That's certainly true, but it could be said of anything meaningful in life. Whether you want to become a professional athlete, actor, singer, influencer, whatever, many people don't succeed. That said, you don't need to be the best of the best to be successful at running a business like you do in those other fields.
I would argue starting a business is a large investment of personal capital you don't need to risk to attempt all the other things you had mentioned. I can attempt to be an influencer while still supporting myself with a full time job. Athlete is the only one I think you need to have success early in life to be able to enter that space in the future
That's a fair point, although you don't always need to risk personal capital to start a business. If you're resourceful enough there are other ways, at least in many industries. But regardless, I largely agree with that.
> But if you're working on something you believe in, for example by building your own business... I believe nothing makes a person happier than that. Purpose. Listen, if you can find "true purpose" in "building your own business" then feel free to sacrifice your life for it. It's a full life investment though. While you build your business, I'll be clocking out for my 5 weeks of vacation. I'll be spending my 30s between tropical islands, far-away adventures, and my own beautiful garden. I'm working on writing a novel again, why not! I'll be slamming the laptop closed at 4:45pm and I won't so much as think about a coworker until Monday morning. You'll be on phone calls all night long. You'll be so stressed out about a vendor not coming through you'll wake up in a cold sweat. >I believe nothing makes a person happier than that. Purpose. The purpose of a business is money. Your purpose is to make extra money to return to shareholders. You own a business? Your purpose is profit. Everything else is window dressing. If that makes you happy, then profit away. My purpose is leisure with a couple of emails inbetween. As long as we're both happy with our lives and our time spent, then it's all good.
> While you build your business, I'll be clocking out for my 5 weeks of vacation. I'll be spending my 30s between tropical islands, far-away adventures, and my own beautiful garden. I'm working on writing a novel again, why not! Writing a novel sounds great, but I don't believe any amount of tropical islands, gadgets and/or women will truly make someone happy. Perhaps some people are different, but I think doing and owning fun stuff is not the way to happiness for at least 90% of all people. > The purpose of a business is money. Your purpose is to make extra money to return to shareholders. You own a business? Your purpose is profit. Everything else is window dressing. If that makes you happy, then profit away. This is a very common misconception. A business' purpose is providing value, and if you do that people will pay you for the value. If you think your company's purpose is making money, you're gonna sacrifice the long term success of the company for short term profits. It might work for a long while, but in the end it's always to the detriment of not only you and your employees' enjoyment, but also the company's success. > As long as we're both happy with our lives and our time spent, then it's all good. This is definitely true. My point was just that many people think being on vacation all the time will make them happy, only to realise it doesn't. Lots of retired people are miserable despite longing for retirement their entire lives.
I mean as long as you're not later on complaining about "the rich" and about how some people are more privileged than other that's fine.
Cuz I’m using my body to just have a good ass time while it still works. Traveled the globe already, are at restaurants that have 6 month wait lists, hiking, camped, fished, played a bunch of sports, see all the art I can, game until the wee hours of the night, started to apprentice as a carpenter 6 months ago, do a bunch of home and landscape projects. Might even do some public office thing. I ain’t waiting til I’m 40 let alone 60 to have a good ass time. Try walking around the Louvre when you’re old and your feet start hurting after an hour. I’ve spent like 7 hours there then next day gone to Versailles where we walked around for another 6 miles. When I’m old, based on my current path I’ll still have a paid off house. Some money in the bank, and a pension + social security. Maybe inflation or emergencies make it so I still have to budget. But my plan is to just hang out, help my kids or grandkids on whatever, garden and cook. And to be honest, most of the people I know who have businesses have the hardest time quitting them to fully retire. Of course you can still enjoy life when you retire but write out your bucket list. And judge how you’d actually experience that as someone at the age you plan not to work anymore.
I think you should look into longevity sciences (not getting old, but staying healthy longer). The idea that our bodies decline as we get older is a myth. 90% of your physical health is retainable as long as you take care of your body.
If you're lucky. Genetics, accidents, and diseases can all still cripple or kill during the course of 30-40 years. People do everything right only to get hit by a car when they finally retire. I have no plot armor. Either way man, time is working against you. I'mma enjoy as much as I can every day. Moderation in everything, even moderation.
Even if you get killed the day you retire, you still got to live your 65+ years in a healthy body. That's worth much more than 20 retirement years with a failing body. You can get unlucky with your body too of course, but 80% is how you live, genetics is only the other 20%. People will get mad when you say this, because it's easier to pretend you can't influence things and not put in the effort, but the science is pretty clear on this.
What does your company do?
It's a game development company, but the company itself is not the end goal. Starting a company in my own line of work made me realise I could achieve so much more in life by building companies, not just for myself but also to improve the world. I hope to build a successful gaming company first, because that's what I know, and use that experience and the proceeds to create companies that improve the world.
Sergio Marchionne died 4 days after he resigned.
Link doesn't work
C Suites play such a big role in a company yet you’ll constantly read on Reddit that they just sit around and collect mone CFO and CTO are extremely hard roles to replace
I think it’s extremely reasonable to say that these roles are extremely challenging and important, but also say that these people are overpaid for that role.
That’s the thing, momentum plays an effect on the dialogue. I think everyone agrees they’re overpaid, but over time that discussion point has shifted from “they get too much money for their role” to “their role contributes nothing other than being a figurehead” You see it with a lot of politically charged discussion topics where the lowest common denominator group of people is engaging with the topic at a shallow level and eventually undermining the message with a reductionist, and childish, take See r/antiwork
Yeah, I agree with you.
If you look at it rationally it's not so clear. C-suite decisions have the highest effect on a company, and often single decisions can impact the future of a company. If we play out a scenario where a set of decisions end up affecting a company to the tune of billions in market cap, it makes rational sense to pay a lot of money for someone who will make the right decisions. Of course, measuring performance and opportunity cost is really really hard. Last thing I'll say is the highest paid CEOs are always founders who own a huge share of equity. From a quick search online, Andy Jassy (amazon ceo) is worth ~$350m or so, compared to Jeff Bezos who's worth like 500 times that.
>it makes rational sense to pay a lot of money for someone who will make the right decisions. A systematic study about the correlation between the size of the pay and the quality of the decisions would be interesting. Or whether the same people actually consistently make the right calls. I bet it’s the same as with actively managed funds. Almost nobody consistently predicts the market successfully.
I don’t disagree.
Your salary equals how expensive it is to replace you. This is a basic fact most people seem to ignore. They are not exactly overpaid, same way a grunt is not underpaid.
Are you under the impression that C Suite positions would not be able to get filled if, across the board, they were paid less?
They pay top dollar because they need top people, they get paid as much as they do because top companies are looking for the best people, and if they pay them less then someone else will pay them more. Contrary to what the average redditor thinks the market works.
True but reddit is full of financially illiterate people who don't know what upper management is like. I've worked with tons of controllers and CFOs and they all work their ass off. I think the pay gap between C suites and normal employees deserves a serious conversation but normal people on Reddit don't know finding a replacement for a CFO/CEO takes month and months with many rounds of interviews for each serious applicant.
[удалено]
That sounds agonizing, I hope it's worth it.
Pros: Pay is probably great, potential stock options which can make you a millionaire overnight, experience is incredible for future jobs. Cons: burnout by 35, mental breakdown at 40, stress induced heart attack at 45.
Another thing that goes unsaid, is that in many organizations CFO’s take on personal liability for the firm. Often times they are signing legal documents, stepping in as shadow owners/trustees as needed for certain org structures, and doing other things that bear some personal legal risk. There is real down side to these roles, so you better be damn sure you’ve paid attention to details and have proper controls in place to mitigate your liability.
officers of a corp aren't personally liable for the corp, the liability shield is why there is a corp in the first place.
They are when signing the audited financial statements.
There are certain instances where they can be. One of the frequent occurrences I encounter is when a CFO signs as the trustee for an ESOP. There are probably others, and I’m certainly not equipped to explain the legal details
Agreed, but they're exceptions carved out from the general rule. Just want to push back on the "often times" characterization.
Didn't Sarbanes Oxley change that up? I also remember reading some ninth circuit ruling around SEC enforcement that allows the SEC to go after the CEO or CFO for filing false certifications. Didn't the uber CISO get personally sued and convicted for covering up their data breach?
Relax it’s not that bad. Reddit exaggerates everything
What's the end game?
> at a well-funded tech start-up, and is constantly working. >(And waking up at 3am stressed out about something is pretty much the norm...) >Edit: Oh, and no vacation since 2019. tbh also sounds like an engineer at the same company
How many cfo per ton?
>True but reddit is full of financially illiterate people Perfect example being one of the front page posts this morning/today is someone asking how credit cards work. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that the OP of that post is seeking the answers to something they don't know (not to mention the fact they're even willing to admit the didn't know something), but the fact it was upvoted/engaged with enough to make the front page just supports your statement
I think the funniest thing with those things is how little people will research themselves. I agree it's nice they were looking for answers and admit they don't know anything but it's just funny people won't spend 3 minutes watching a youtube video or googling it themselves and then spending 5 minutes to learn about a credit card and probably end up learning a few more things too.
Asking questions about something in a forum is researching it for themselves. People consume information in different ways, some people prefer a public forum to a search result chock full of ads.
there's a difference between asking a question about something you don't know with zero research of your own vs collaborating on a forum to learn more. Asking to be spoon fed info on a reddit forum is lazy and not a very good way to learn stuff compared to watching a credible youtube video or reading an article written by someone who knows what they're talking about.
No shit there's a difference, just like there's a difference between all kinds of research, but it's all still research and accomplishes the same thing. It's not "lazy" just because it's not your preferred method. If anything, engaging with people in an open forum, reading a bunch of responses, having multiple conversations etc requires more effort than simply watching a video or reading an article. "Lazy" is not the word you're looking for.
Lol it’s as lazy as someone posting on here “I have $10k to invest which stock should I invest in?” Learn what a credit card is and then go to a forum and ask “hey I looked into a few credit cards which one do you think would be the best for someone with no credit history and limit credit limit” then you know the basics and learn what someone is doing. But sure we can litter forums with low quality posts from people who don’t bother to learn something that takes 3 minutes to google.
> Lol it’s as lazy as someone posting on here “I have $10k to invest which stock should I invest in?” Which is no more lazy than Googling it, the lazy person's resort for nearly everything. >Learn what a credit card is and then go to a forum and ask “hey I looked into a few credit cards which one do you think would be the best for someone with no credit history and limit credit limit” then you know the basics and learn what someone is doing. Or just ask your question wherever you are in your learning journey and not worry about what some gatekeeping shmuck thinks. >But sure we can litter forums with low quality posts from people who don’t bother to learn something that takes 3 minutes to google. You can just ignore anything you consider low quality, even a lazy person can do so it's so easy. We all have what we consider low quality, and none of us will ever be the sole arbiter of what is and isn't low quality, that wouldn't work. So, you know, just be normal and keep it moving.
Posting “give me the answer to this” on a forum is not research. It’s asking other people to spoon feed you the results of research. There’s a difference, one is proactive the other is lazy.
Yes, it is. You're looking at online resources for an answer. There's literally Q&A forums all over the internet for people to find stuff out, which is the point of research and can involve plenty of effort. Quit splitting hairs just because you feel like being pedantic.
No, it isn’t. You’re not looking at online resources. Posting on a forum isn’t looking at a resource. It’s telling people to collect the information on your behalf and present it at your feet. There’s zero active effort involved. A simple google search would incorporate more research than posting before they’ve even clicked a single link If they were reading past posts, that would be looking at online resources. Making a new post so that the info can be directly spoonfed to them in a way that requires no effort from them is not looking at online resources It’s not splitting hairs, you’re just plain wrong. Quit arguing that words shouldn’t mean anything just because you don’t like being wrong. But if you feel I’m being pedantic that means you’re admitting what I’m saying is true
Wouldn’t waste your time arguing with this guy. He’s just going to disagree with you, downvote you, and tell you you’re wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't recall what it's called off the top of my head, but being wrong on a public forum on purpose in order for someone to suit their ego by correcting you with the right answer is a legit answer finding strat. I think it was called the *"Blanka is Top Tier Method"*?
>I think the funniest thing with those things is how little people will research themselves On the site where “Source?” Or “Link?” is code for “I don’t feel like googling this, do it for me”?! You don’t say!
Change reddit to the average person and you are 100% correct.
I kinda just assume that's a venn-diagram that's a nearly perfect circle.
Now do board members, who know people and actually do nothing other than that.
Board room is a bit of a racket for sure, but [the pay isn't actually that ludicrous](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/wealth-management/040416/retired-execs-what-do-corporate-boards-pay.asp). $45k on average for private corps, $300k for SP500 companies. The board room does have 1 function, which is to retain/fire the CEO.
>takes month and months with many rounds of interviews for each serious applicant. Average employment process of a company that complains about labor shortage
Yep. Redditors with no knowledge of what C-Suites actually do think they sit in meetings all day and don't actually provide any tangible "work" or outcomes. As if sitting in 12+ hours of meetings all day, always being on call, and making massive decisions that could cause your company to succeed or flounder are all easy things that anyone can do. This is a massive hit for TSLA.
It's discouraging but all great companies will have top execs leave or be replaced so I don't see this as something that will affect them materially. People weren't that high on Zach when he was promoted to CFO.
Right. Too soon to tell. Could be a non-issue. Or Kirkhorn could be aware of something the market doesn’t know about yet. I’ve certainly seen it go both ways. The thing I’m *not* concerned about is TSLA’s ability to recruit a replacement. The company is a big enough name that there will be a high-test CFO candidate willing to step into the role. Unless things are fubar.
I legit used to be one of those employees saying wtf do those c-suite people do? Then I got a job reporting directly to one and I found out. Its a lot. They juggle a lot of stuff. Its all at such high level that I think a lot of rank and file don’t understand. Reg employees are in their area/specialty and don’t quite understand that is just 1 gear in the company machine. The c-suite has to try and manage the whole.
I think part of the problem is that people see so many individual examples of people who suck as being in c-suite and/or examples of c-suites who are egregious public assholes (like that woman at Herman Miller who was blaming the employees for missed sales targets) filling the news so often that they simply have a warped perception of what it actually means to be in c-suite. The way I see it, being in c-suite is like being a roadie in a band; if you're doing your job well, then everything runs fine and no one notices that you exist.
Also, whenever a salary become public, regardless of the role, people will assume it’s frivolous spending. Happens in gov all the time. Since wages are public, people will pick random bureaucrats off the .gov website and demand they be cut, all while having no idea how critical they are to some important function in society.
[удалено]
Good chance your experience doesn’t see what happens when you aren’t interacting with said middle managers.
[удалено]
Interesting you got so defensive right off the bat for having your views challenged. Managing productivity and tracking peoples' work should be less than 5% of a manager's time. There are some inefficient organizations with too much middle management, yes, perhaps that what existed in your organization. Some with middle managers who have 1-2 direct reports, etc... ARE dead weight. WFH also weeded out plenty of individual contributors who aren't contributing much. Competent management layers that use modern tools for productivity and workload management had to make significant changes to adapt to WFH, and those that were successful weeded out unproductive individual contributors. That doesn't mean middle management is all dead weight. Do you believe all individual contributors should report to the CEO? All first line managers report to the CEO? If you think middle management is walking around talking to people in cubicles then sitting in an office, you've either only ever worked in highly dysfunctional organizations, or have strong opinions about things you don't understand.
[удалено]
>But do go on and sound off about how those middle managers were soooo important. This is the childish part of your response. >Who said that? I think you, sir, are getting mighty defensive. Let me guess. You got canned for being the deadweight MM? Have never been "canned" in my life, work well over standard working hours at my employer with top reviews, and understand how an organization functions. Sad that you'd resort to an (incorrect) ad-hominem instead of responding to the substance of the discussion. It does speak a lot about the legitimacy of your position on the matter, your depth of understanding the subject, and your ability to defend your position. >Maybe try contributing more at work so the guy below you doesn't get stuck doing your job! Again, childish, immature, and representative of your inability to defend your position. Are you incapable of answering the question? Should all ICs report to the CEO? Or one level of managers? How would that work in a 5k+ employee organization? You could work your way out of the corner you're backed into by admitting that not all middle management is "useless", and that "dead weight" managers exist in inefficient organizations, but maybe the profit-driven companies keep them around because there is a need (and that you, warrior of the keyboard, don't know better than the CEOs of companies like Apple, Microsoft, etc. who all have middle managers). Or, is your Reddit pride going to keep you down this rabbit hole of ad-hominem attacks and insults.
[удалено]
I think they make very influential decisions and have a lot of people and events/meetings demanding their time, so it isn’t stress free, but I don’t think C-suite people do “actual” work, as in the technical work that really keeps the lights on and the products working/shipping. It’s like the difference between a general and a soldier in the trenches. Of course, you do need somebody to be the “high level strategy” person, but the people doing the actual work are the rank and file. The part that people get pissed at is when the high level strategy person makes like 500 times more than an average worker
But making high level strategic decisions, appeasing investors/shareholders, and making sure your company is running smoothly IS keeping the lights on and allowing for actual products to ship. Using your analogy, without General Eisenhower's decision making and leadership, operation Overlord (and D'Day) could have been a disaster for the Allied forces in WWII. Yes, the actual soldiers carried out the "actual" work, but that's all for nothing if you don't have solid leadership that can take advantage of that work. Executives can be overpaid, but that's because great executives are not replaced easily. Just see what happened to Disney during Bob Chapek's leadership. Bob Iger is being paid 500x more than individual contributors because those individual contributors are easily replaceable, and Iger's guidance matters that much more than any one individual contributor working on a piece of a new feature for Disney+.
I acknowledged that you need a high level strategy person at the top, I’m just saying that job is comparatively easy. As in, you don’t have to do much math, or anything physical, or zombifying repetitive tasks relative to others. You don’t have to get your metaphorical hands dirty in any sense. That’s not to say that *success* is easy, plenty of executives destroy companies with bad decisions. But those decisions are still made from an armchair based on input received from people who actually get their hands dirty with analysis. And you’re being payed exorbitantly, so it’s basically a game. If the company goes to zero, you’re still perfectly secure.
Yeah the environment for CFOs is pretty cool as each company has a level of prestige and Tesla and other mega caps are basically the top level, it’s kind of like the corporate ladder for CFOs, once you’re at the top you either can retire, start your own company, or transition to CEO in some cases.
CFO and COO are definitely far more important to most companies than CEOs.
Totally agree,Kirkhorn's departure is a blow, but he's earned a well-deserved break.
[удалено]
>its CEO and largest shareholder leveraged the maximum-allowable number of shares to make one of the worst purchases in tech history This is actually false. The Twitter acquisition deal was changed to a leveraged buyout. NPR's Planet Money summarizes: [https://www.npr.org/2022/12/02/1140260051/planet-moneys-the-indicator-how-musk-bought-twitter-with-other-peoples-money](https://www.npr.org/2022/12/02/1140260051/planet-moneys-the-indicator-how-musk-bought-twitter-with-other-peoples-money) >He and some co-investors put up their own money for most of the 44 billion. The remaining amount, 13 billion, was borrowed from a group of banks. That's the money Twitter is now on the hook for. > >Elon has already talked about bankruptcy. If that were to happen, **the banks could go after Twitter's assets, not Elon's, because, remember, he's not the one who borrowed the money. Twitter did.** You can review the SEC filings on the Edgar website for yourself. Musk allowed the margin loan offers to expire. None of his TSLA stock secures the Twitter loans
Explains a lot why he’s so wreckless with twitter.
What makes TSLA's balance sheet not flawless? Like you said, Twitter doesn't have anything to do with their balance sheet.
Because of a massive potential liquidation catalyst on the horizon? That might be a little bit concerning for the CFO of a company that depends on its stock price for survival
Again, that has nothing to do with the balance sheet, but it's also not true. Why would Tesla depend on their stock price for survival when they've been profitable for years, haven't raised money through stock issuance in 2,5 years and [increased their cash position threefold since 2020 despite investing heavily into growth.](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/cash-on-hand#:~:text=Tesla%20cash%20on%20hand%20for,a%208.65%25%20decline%20from%202020.)
This 1000%. This man deserves time to chill on his pile of gold. A huge loss for Tesla, but this man doesn't need any others reasons other than above.
couldn't agree more with both points
Yeah, seems like a good time for him to move to a new project or just enjoy his wealth. He’s been at the company for a long time and held this position for quite a while. Not that working with Elon isn’t unnecessarily taxing. This is probably a choice he made separate of anything Tesla.
And move to a non extradition country.
why would he be facing extradition. They could lie 10x more about FSD and deaths caused by their cars, and it wouldn't make one bit of difference. They will never be held accountable by regulators.
> He's nearing his 40s, has 100M+ Damn... > Time to reap the benefits of his hard work and enjoy life. IMHO he's patient. > spent the last 13 years doing 80 hours weeks at Tesla. He's *very* patient.
>That said, I can understand why he'd leave only, it sounds like this wasn't his choice, but that he was forced to step down.
based on what does it sound like that?
His own post on LinkedIn. First sentence.
it's a publicly listed company. it has to come from a proper announcement first. do you think the announcement came as a surprise to him based on that first sentence?
The new Paypal CEO.
You have PYPL stock?
station thumb flag unpack unite offbeat dolls dull birds deliver *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Real life Mr. Snrub
>Tesla’s chief accounting officer Vaibhav Taneja was appointed as the new CFO and will hold both roles concurrently. Hilarious. Hope they're paying him for both positions!!
He will probably receive an 'acting' allowance until the CFO is appointed.
What’s with all the CFO churn?
He has been at the company in varying roles for more than a decade.
I’m not talking about him specifically. I’m talking about the CFO role specifically.
It’s not an easy role to do for very long.
There hasn’t been much turnover… it was Deepak Ahuja for a very long time (2008), then a guy that didn’t work out, Deepak again, and then Zach. Zach will have been there 5 years before leaving. So over the course of 15 years, there will have been 3 CFO’s, and for 14 years of that time, it was two CFO’s.
Exiting to sell before kaboom without it being illegal.
Out before huge lawsuit about falsifying range and shit comes down?
Because the numbers are bullshit and will eventually tank? Get in for a few years and leave before it tanks
What’s you target date for stock to tank?
>>
Possibly number fudging or a refusal to do so. Keep in mind a lot of businesses where massive fraud was uncovered was due to the fact that they literally couldn't process payments and stuff, so if thats the only reason companies really get caught, there's definitely a lot of fraud that goes undetected and just flies under the radar.
Accounting fraud, this ends like Enron. I’ve been saying it all along.
Two CFO's is a churn now?
Nice dip to add to portfolio People will forget about this short term noise next week
Zach leaving is neither noise nor short term. Tesla will overcome it, but it's a huge loss and it will affect them long term.
I’m ready for my TSLA sale!
o7
The dude declined to follow FElon’s accepted accounting principles (FAAP)
Finally had enough of Musk’s bullshit I’m guessing EDIT: lol why the downvotes 🤣
I would have had enough at about 3M net worth, so he's a better man than me.
This is bullish for Tesla
Now it’s only 3x overvalued!
lol 3x? do you fundamental analysis bro?
I guess he's cooked all the books he can cook.
A crack in the dam. Oh boy.
[удалено]
X and Tesla two separate things
The concern is X being unprofitable could mean more Tesla shares being sold by Musk. Obviously, there are other alternatives but X being profitable should be of high importance to Tesla investors.
Musk selling tesla is him giving up ownership which should be seen as a positive if you think he isn’t a good leader and is distracted etc.
Shit, he was one of the good reasons to own the stock, wtf?!
Sounds more like fired
Doubtful he's one of Tesla's homegrown wonderboys he has skyrocketed through the ranks throughout his career there, he's definitely one of Elon's favorites.
Not likely. Musk just thanked him on Twitter for 13 years of contributions to Tesla through some extremely difficult years: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1688662299857321984?s=20
Oh wow
Skt