Apple Is 'Ungodly Well-Managed,' Billionaire Investor Says

[Lounge vibes 05]

Apple didn’t invent wearables. Airpods did not feel revolutionary to anyone who owned wireless buds, but they were best in class out of the gate. Unlike Apple Watch, which seemed confused about its purpose and was not any better than Android Wear, and fitness bands were around long before Apple Watch. To Apple’s credit, they had the persistence to keep developing it and eventually made it best in class. The M1 chip is not any more revolutionary than other A series chips. Steve Jobs buying PA semi and becoming vertically integrated at a time when everyone thought that was a boneheaded move; now that was revolutionary.

I don’t know I thought the AirPods were pretty revolutionary when I first got them.
Before, every pair of Bluetooth headphones I had had an extremely frustrating set up process involving the Bluetooth menu, where you just had to hope they show up, sometimes a pair number that you had to remember, a cord that connected to the two headphones, etc, etc, not to mention things like power buttons and other things you had to deal with.
AirPods were so simple, Open the case next to your phone, click connect, and done. It’s already connected to your computer, your phone, your Apple TV, your iPad, your watch, literally everything. And no power buttons or anything, when you’re done with them you just drop them right back in the case.
That’s pretty revolutionary to me, doing the same thing with wireless headphones they did with the iPhone, taking old phones that were seriously complicated to use and an endless selection of menus, and turning it into something easy and enjoyable.
AirPods are literally the quintessential Apple product.
As for the Apple Watch, I can agree with you that the first year or so of it existing, Apple was extremely off the mark with Who it was for, what it was for, why it existed. But by the time they introduced series 2 with watchOS 3, it was ready for prime time.
But that just wasn’t a Tim Cook thing, let’s not forget that the Apple TV started off as a flop product that wasn’t sure what it wanted to be.
The first generation Apple TV, introduced at the same time as the first generation iPhone, was, to put it lightly, a mess.
It was basically just a bridge, connecting your computer to your TV. It was a middleman, it was a confusing product that required so many steps to use, tuns of sinking, and even Steve admitted that they were way off the mark with where things were headed.

 

[Madhatter32]

Musk:
Tesla paid its regulatory credits long ago. The company barely has any left.
A car company that’s also a clean energy company - fostered as one founder left and is head of battery recycling - has a profitable business that helps reduce emissions - that’s great for society and the planet. (I had a friend whom we didn’t know suffered from severe depression and killed himself inhaling exhaust fumes from his parents act in a garage. You cannot do that with a Tesla).

Tesla has paid back government loans 5yrs early while GM still has that debt to pay off. Stock split and value has increased investors wealth 1000% since 2016! It’s well managed incredibly advancing beyond anything the industry has ever seen.

The reporting you’re stating isn’t accurate.

Lastly name me one CEO that sold their stock and directly donated $6billion to charities or more in 2021?!

Tim has promised at retirement, talk is cheap action is real. No reason why Tim cannot do it now. That helps society.

Blah blah blah. Musk fanboy? Do so at your own peril.

Anyway, we are talking about how businesses were built. Apple (through creation of shareholder capital and cash flow) vs. Tesla (versus government largesse). It is foolish to argue that TSLA has driven its current market cap through its operating business and cash flow. That would be demonstrably false.

In terms of giving away money to charity, the proper icon to exhalt (if any) is Warren Buffett, who has earmarked 99% of his fortune to charitable causes, not Elon Musk who sold his a sliver of his TSLA holding for tax purposes.

Tesla's dirty little secret: Its net profit doesn't come from selling cars

Tesla posted its first full year of net income in 2020 -- but not because of sales to its customers.

www.cnn.com

Elon Musk faces a $15 billion tax bill, which is likely the real reason he's selling stock

Elon Musk faces a tax bill of over $15 billion in the coming months on stock options, making a sale of Tesla stock this year likely regardless of the Twitter vote.

www.cnbc.com

 

[turbineseaplane]

"Elon Musk" and "charitable" are not terms that belong anywhere near each other.

Just generally speaking, he seems to be on the spectrum a bit - so to speak..

He honestly needs to see a counselor and delete his social media presence.
It's a net negative for his own brand and his company reputations.

"having fun" and tweeting out Hitler memes is .... not a good look
(.. that description is enormously generous)

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

We’ll see in 50 years, G-d willing. But I do think what Tim Cook did with wearables and services will be remembered.

I don’t think Tim Cook will be remembered in the same way that Steve Jobs is for what he has helped the company achieve.
But I do think Apple will be remembered for products introduced under Tim Cook. And I think that he knows this, and I don’t think he has a problem with this. Steve was a spectacle, he delivered all of the presentations, did most of the product introductions, gave most of the Apple related interviews, he was the face of the company, he made sure that if something was being introduced by the company, he was the face of that product.
Tim is basically the opposite. He opens and closes their presentations, but almost all of the product introductions are done by people on that product’s team, members of those teams are usually the ones that do interviews about them after they are introduced, Tim isn’t the focus. Back in the day when Steve will bring people up on stage, people just wanted them to get their speeches over with quick so Steve can get back to talking. Nowadays, it’s pretty much the opposite. Tim steps up on stage and everyone’s like “let’s get funny man Craig up here instead.”
Say whatever you want about the man, but Apple has done things over the past 11 years under Tim Cook that won’t be forgotten.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Blah blah blah. Musk fanboy? Do so at your own peril.

Anyway, we are talking about how businesses were built. Apple (through creation of shareholder capital and cash flow) vs. Tesla (versus government largesse). It is foolish to argue that TSLA has driven its current market cap through its operating business and cash flow. That would be demonstrably false.

In terms of giving away money to charity, the proper icon to exhalt (if any) is Warren Buffett, who has earmarked 99% of his fortune to charitable causes, not Elon Musk who sold his a sliver of his TSLA holding for tax purposes.

Tesla's dirty little secret: Its net profit doesn't come from selling cars

Tesla posted its first full year of net income in 2020 -- but not because of sales to its customers.

www.cnn.com

Elon Musk faces a $15 billion tax bill, which is likely the real reason he's selling stock

Elon Musk faces a tax bill of over $15 billion in the coming months on stock options, making a sale of Tesla stock this year likely regardless of the Twitter vote.

www.cnbc.com

Elon already paid off his tax bill the sales of his personal shares from December to late January completed this. You’re stuck on old news there me Tesla hater.

Earmarked is a statement it’s not action - Warren Buffett. You’re harassing someone for a statement alone, as I mentioned talk is cheap as things and minds change. Opinions change. People change decisions and that’s just normal in life. Unless there is a feeeze on his assets to show he cannot wrestle or go back on his “earmarked” decision it’s not actionable and left to changes.

Yes we’re we’re talking about business manager but you changed that in your post talking about investments in a seasoned company vs one that started just under 20yrs ago.

No previous electric car company ever thought of building an electrical charging grid. Without that electric cars never would’ve take off. NYC in 1912 had a very small 12 mile Elyria grid to support electric cars but we know the success of that lol. In Europe there are over 9 companies creating elcectric charging grids with terrible service to various model/brand electric car owners with proprietary agreements and varying use experiences.

I seriously doubt you’re aware of what Tesla is doing or ignoring how well it’s managed as a profitable business by revenue as you’ve sighted 2020 not 2021 revenues.

 

[DeepIn2U]

"Elon Musk" and "charitable" are not terms that belong anywhere near each other.

Just generally speaking, he seems to be on the spectrum a bit - so to speak..

He honestly needs to see a counselor and delete his social media presence.
It's a net negative for his own brand and his company reputations.

"having fun" and tweeting out Hitler memes is .... not a good look
(.. that description is enormously generous)

Elon is on the spectrum. This is know. And he’s publicly stated this years ago.

What hitler memes are you speaking of and what’s the context?! Context vs just a topic is crucial: case in pint a late great comedian Charlie Chaplin thought it was a good idea to make fun of Hitler using his games character ‘The Tramp’ and to show how terrible the idealist of nazi Germany was. Timing and context was completely lost on the American public! That ultimately led to his unpopularity and his eventual tax audits and banishment from the USA and scrutiny of his marriages to young females which many men did back then and although considered normal he was the major one criticized. Yes I find a 30yr man marrying a 16y old under parental consent still gross yet in 1930’s it was more common in life then. My pint here is context is crucial in your claim about hitler memes.

Whether a man has autism or not doesn’t make him less capable of running a or many businesses. Do you have autism and if not how many billion dollar companies have you started or manage?!

Don’t lesson a persons worth cause you don’t like their mental illness.

Edit: if you’re taking about this convoy and reason for what’s happening here in Canada well it’s spot applied and in context. That’s for another thread.

It’s apply applied, you’ll have to fully understand what’s been going on here to see why it’s apply applied.

 

[Madhatter32]

Elon already paid off his tax bill the sales of his personal shares from December to late January completed this. You’re stuck on old news there me Tesla hater.

Earmarked is a statement it’s not action - Warren Buffett. You’re harassing someone for a statement alone, as I mentioned talk is cheap as things and minds change. Opinions change. People change decisions and that’s just normal in life. Unless there is a feeeze on his assets to show he cannot wrestle or go back on his “earmarked” decision it’s not actionable and left to changes.

Yes we’re we’re talking about business manager but you changed that in your post talking about investments in a seasoned company vs one that started just under 20yrs ago.

No previous electric car company ever thought of building an electrical charging grid. Without that electric cars never would’ve take off. NYC in 1912 had a very small 12 mile Elyria grid to support electric cars but we know the success of that lol. In Europe there are over 9 companies creating elcectric charging grids with terrible service to various model/brand electric car owners with proprietary agreements and varying use experiences.

I seriously doubt you’re aware of what Tesla is doing or ignoring how well it’s managed as a profitable business by revenue as you’ve sighted 2020 not 2021 revenues.

You're not going to convince me and I hope no one else. I am just looking at how he built TSLA into being more valuable than, say, GM, which actually sells millions of more cars ($885 billion vs. $75 billion). That should be fair game.

My original point was that Elon Musk should not be considered in the same vein as Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos -- who were and are truly great builders of businesses. Musk should not be considered in the same vein as Tim Cook either, who is a preeminent CEO and manager. Musk is a con man who has built a company based on a narrative and used it to benefit from government largesse (direct in the of regulatory credits and indirect in the form of low interest rates). The best thing he could do now for TSLA is that same thing the founders of Google and Facebook did -- hire a CEO to run the business.

Also, Warren Buffett has already given away tens of billions more than Musk. It's not even close. So, please, spare me from the charity arguments.

 

[DeepIn2U]

You're not going to convince me and I hope no one else. I am just looking at how he built TSLA into being more valuable than, say, GM, which actually sells millions of more cars ($885 billion vs. $75 billion). That should be fair game.

My original point was that Elon Musk should not be considered in the same vein as Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos -- who were and are truly great builders of businesses. Musk should not be considered in the same vein as Tim Cook either, who is a preeminent CEO and manager. Musk is a con man who has built a company based on a narrative and used it to benefit from government largesse (direct in the of regulatory credits and indirect in the form of low interest rates). The best thing he could do now for TSLA is that same thing the founders of Google and Facebook did -- hire a CEO to run the business.

Also, Warren Buffett has already given away tens of billions more than Musk. It's not even close. So, please, spare me from the charity arguments.

While I fully agree on your pints for Cook and Jobs and Bezos, I disagree about a “con man” just cause of what he needs to start his business.

Musk has and did invest his earnings almost going broke into Tesla to keep it going despite early private investors or credits or a load form the USA government.

The fallacy of your statement or ideas is 1) GM is getting regulatory credits now from currrnt USA government, fact! They have a failed and discontinued electric vehicle = volt. GM has the Hummer EV but how well is that selling? GM has. Very long way to go and a completely ridiculous $7 billion dollars ad in Super Bowl this year - a complete waste and poor maanagement decision when that money can easily go to building or revamping existing manufacturing facilities to move faster to electric.

the entire world is going to full electric car sales by 2035; many places a LOT sooner for ALL new car sales. I’m sure exotic cars will fetch a huge $$ after then.

regulatory credits is an industry standard by various governments that offer it - something GM, Ford etc will be getting and has been purchasing from Tesla.

here is my rebuttal of your “con man” statement of Tesla and Elon directly due to regulatory credits:
source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000095017022000796/tsla-20211231.htm
10K Regulatory filing straight from teslas investor relations website.

Automotive Regulatory Credits

We earn tradable credits in the operation of our business under various regulations related to zero-emission vehicles (“ZEVs”), greenhouse gas, fuel economy and clean fuel. We sell these credits to other regulated entities who can use the credits to comply with emission standards and other regulatory requirements. Sales of these credits are recognized within automotive regulatory credits revenue in our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

in particular from 2021 2020 and 2019

Automolive sales accounted for $44.125 billion US in FY 2021.
Automotive regulatory credits was $1.465 billion US in FY 2021 - a reduction of 7% from 2020, although higher than 2019. The increase from 2019 is from there energy business of power wall, solar (very minimal) and battary storage grid sales, perfectly legal not a con man when the governments have been providing this. It’s clear he’s running a business quite well. Now as for how he started the business I’ll leave that up to you to prove your “con man“ statement.

managing a business well is simply that, regardless of how you or I like the CEO (fact for years I disliked Cook as a CEO now I’m a fan for months now). Maybe you can learn and adapt too, even if not from me convincing you, that not my goal.

 

[darcyf]

It’s naive to think he just came out and said “all is well” for no reason….

Right because he’s not constantly asked by the media to comment on his holdings. It’s all a big conspiracy because he opened his mouth. That must be it, you’ve convinced me, freed me from my shackles.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I don’t think Tim Cook will be remembered in the same way that Steve Jobs is for what he has helped the company achieve.
But I do think Apple will be remembered for products introduced under Tim Cook. And I think that he knows this, and I don’t think he has a problem with this. Steve was a spectacle, he delivered all of the presentations, did most of the product introductions, gave most of the Apple related interviews, he was the face of the company, he made sure that if something was being introduced by the company, he was the face of that product.
Tim is basically the opposite. He opens and closes their presentations, but almost all of the product introductions are done by people on that product’s team, members of those teams are usually the ones that do interviews about them after they are introduced, Tim isn’t the focus. Back in the day when Steve will bring people up on stage, people just wanted them to get their speeches over with quick so Steve can get back to talking. Nowadays, it’s pretty much the opposite. Tim steps up on stage and everyone’s like “let’s get funny man Craig up here instead.”
Say whatever you want about the man, but Apple has done things over the past 11 years under Tim Cook that won’t be forgotten.

Steve did major product announcements and introductions, traditionally Steve did all, after his return to Apple and after the iMac OG, iPod, iPad and iPhone, Steve had others introduce product updates or had Jony I’ve vocally behind the curtain like Wizard of Oz inteoduce products:

Jony Ive:
TiBook,
every iMac before iMac Pro,
MacBook Pro after 2008-2012,
20th Anniversary Mac (prior to Steve’s return and non British accent btw),
Apple Watch,

During Jobs’ initial leave of absence Schiller I think introduced the Mac Pro.

 

[E.Lizardo]

But, I thought all of the experts on the Internet forums said that Apple was doomed?!

LOL so true. I remember the guy on here that said Tim should be fired immediately since Samsung beat them to market with a watch when that super cringe ski resort talker ad came out. I'll take (arguably) best over first any day.

 

[Abazigal]

Tesla feels to me like a blackberry in the making. A good product that is just waiting to be obsoleted by something better. That something being an integrated ecosystem which only the tech giants can offer.

 

[PsykX]

…I’m assuming that comment is satirical because otherwise it’s just asinine. That is exactly how investing works for a lot of people. I mean really, did you just say that? Remember selling your first car to someone else? Did you emphasis the bad or play up the good?

This is as no brainer concept and it’s being defended in the name of petty fandom. Pure and simple.

Oh and I’ll point out, even though I shouldn’t have to, that they DIDN‘T buy it at that valuation. It’s now at that valuation(or whatever it‘s at, I don’t know)hence why you’d protect it and grow it with many tactics including shining up a turd for lack of a better phrase. Not saying it’s a turd mind you…

Wait. I could not disagree more with you. I mean, are you into investing, at all ?

Just cause you brought the subject. The first car that I bought, I bought it because I knew it was one of the most reliable on the market. I had it for 6 years and I was right. This is exactly what I said when I sold it. I repeated the arguments that made me buy it 6 years before. In fact I didn't really want to sell it, but life brought me there.

If a stock sucks, you'll sell it right away. It's just a few clicks away from being sold, unlike selling a car or a building. Don't bother with stocks that suck.

They bought it at a lower valuation, because they trusted AAPL was a good investment, and guess what, they were right.

If your strategy is to buy turds and go tell everyone how shiny and well polished this turd is, hoping it will gain some value, good luck with that strategy.

 

[BF1M]

If your strategy is to buy turds and go tell everyone how shiny and well polished this turd is, hoping it will gain some value, good luck with that strategy.

Are you into investing at all? That is literally how small fish become big fish in part. You of course try to make that turd into the shiny product you are telling people it is but….I mean you are kidding me right? How do you think early companies get funding? Apple wasn’t Apple until it became Apple and they started down that path by raising funds….you think that early investors gave them that money for no reason or because they bought into the potential that was laid out, in part, with colorful overselling on Job’s part.

 

[BF1M]

This whole debate boils down to a simple question. Will a major shareholder put a positive spin on his holdings when asked about it in a public forum that could lead to influence on said stock?

The answer is of course they would. To do otherwise is just plain stupid and to think otherwise is even dumber. But of course because it has the slightest bit to do with Apple the rabid fanboys will attack even the slightest comment that doesn’t fall into blind worship.

Nevermind the fact that anyone paying attention to the quality of their products and software has at least some doubt about how good their management has been lately. Anyone who wants to be honest with themselves that is.

I swear Apple could announce a Eugenics program and we’d have inspirational Jobs quotes within 5 mins from the masses…

Imagine what Apple could be in the next decade if people stop acting like they were the Apple from Job’s last…

 

[PsykX]

Are you into investing at all? That is literally how small fish become big fish in part. You of course try to make that turd into the shiny product you are telling people it is but….I mean you are kidding me right? How do you think early companies get funding? Apple wasn’t Apple until it became Apple and they started down that path by raising funds….you think that early investors gave them that money for no reason or because they bought into the potential that was laid out, in part, with colorful overselling on Job’s part.

Yup, I do some investing. Read quite a lot of books on this actually. Did you?

Early companies that attract investors aren't turd companies. They're just early companies.

No serious investor buys crap.

 

[BF1M]

Yup, I do some investing. Read quite a lot of books on this actually. Did you?

Early companies that attract investors aren't turd companies. They're just early companies.

No serious investor buys crap.

You literally skipped over(see: ignored) the whole point of what I just said.

I have a great startup I’d like you to invest in….

 

[Madhatter32]

Are you into investing at all? That is literally how small fish become big fish in part. You of course try to make that turd into the shiny product you are telling people it is but….I mean you are kidding me right? How do you think early companies get funding? Apple wasn’t Apple until it became Apple and they started down that path by raising funds….you think that early investors gave them that money for no reason or because they bought into the potential that was laid out, in part, with colorful overselling on Job’s part.

With all due respect to your vast investing experience, your argument seems way off the mark especially with respect to Charlie Munger and Apple.

Buffett and Munger are famed investors who claim their preferable holding period for equities is "forever." Apple is a $2.7 trillion company. No one is "pumping" the stock of Apple - it's way too big and that market is too efficient/liquid. And Charlie Munger at 98 years old with a stellar reputation. I assure you, he is not trying to pump up Apple's stock in order to sell it. He could not do so even if he wanted.

That aside, most large investors, like Munger, would NOT buy a stock they think is terrible only to talk it up in order to sell it. This would be a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities. You know who does that kind of thing? People who are prosecuted for pump and dump schemes of penny stocks or market manipulation.

The way it typically works, as you probably know given your experience, is that large investors engage in due diligence and have a concrete reasons for making an investment. Talking about those reasons is not dishonest, not illegal and not necessarily done to pump up the stock in order to sell it. Pumping a stock prior to selling it would be a professional disgrace and likely career ending.

IPOs, of course, are different. Buying from a market maker is always a very perilous endeavor.

 

[PsykX]

You literally skipped over(see: ignored) the whole point of what I just said.

I have a great startup I’d like you to invest in….

We're basically saying the same thing.

Long term investors look for companies that have potential to grow.

 

[Karma*Police]

Glad you asked. My opinion has nothing to do with ideology. Just business. I respect builders of companies that create lasting shareholder capital and have improved society. Musk has done neither relative to Jobs or Bezos. He has built a business based on government largesse (nothing to do with politics here) primarily built on debt and regulatory credits. His company is mostly based on a narrative. Several things to consider is that (1) he does not sell a lot of cars relative to the competition yet Tesla is the leader in market value (all hat no cattle), (2) Tesla has built it's business on debt financing (unlike Apple for comparison) made possible by historically low interest rates for a very long time, (3) Tesla's profitability comes almost exclusively from regulatory credits -- $1.6 billion in 2020 versus net income of $721 million (and would have lost money without it), (4) Musk himself has engaged in various circumstances of stock market pumping to help TSLA stock (for example, his silly announcement regarding bitcoin which was soon retracted). My opinion is that Elon Musk is a con man and that TSLA is a very different kind of company than either Apple or Amazon, which both has created lasting shareholder value and a contribution to society. This is just my opinion though and realize that many short sellers with the same view have been burned very badly over the last few years. The story is not over though.

EDIT: Typo

I’ve rarely seen so much bias go into forming an opinion and with so little regard for actual outcomes and reality.

According to you, building one of the first fintech companies (PayPal), promoting clean energy with solar, completely revolutionizing the auto industry with EVs, and revolutionizing space travel isn’t considered creating lasting shareholder capital and/or improving society??

As for Tesla not creating shareholder value, actual investors (full disclosure: I’m not one of them) would argue that Musk has done a masterful job of that so your opinion here is not only out of touch, but completely moot. As for not selling the most cars but being the leader in market value, uh, wouldn’t that also apply to Apple in smartphones and PCs? And Tesla’s high valuation has more to do with their tech leadership, margins that other auto mgrs can only dream of, and astronomical growth (north of 1,000% YoY if I remember correctly) with few signs of slowing. Oh, and they’ve been profitable without regulatory credits since June AND they’re competing with new EV’s on the markets without the tax credits since they’ve exhausted those.

Besides, what’s wrong with taking advantage of a system that was available to everyone, including all auto manufacturers who were too lazy, visionless, and cowardly to invest in EV themselves? They too could’ve gotten rich from reg credits. Sort of like how Amazon put many stores out of business by utilizing VC and shareholder capital to sell books and other items at a loss for years, or how Apple set up a HQ in Cork to avoid paying taxes in Europe.

Musk risked his entire fortune (proceeds from selling PayPal) to create the most dynamic and innovative car company the world has seen in over half a century. Whether you want to join the rest of us in recognizing that he’s already changed the world forever or not, at least give the man some credit. I mean, seriously, a con man?? I feel like that term should be reserved for rascals who would lie and steal from their best friend and business partner. It’s a good thing we don’t know anyone like that.

 

[BF1M]

We're basically saying the same thing.

Long term investors look for companies that have potential to grow.

Maybe we are “saying same thing” now because you’ve talked yourself into a corner…

Lol internet

 

[Madhatter32]

I’ve rarely seen so much bias go into forming an opinion and with so little regard for actual outcomes and reality.

According to you, building one of the first fintech companies (PayPal), promoting clean energy with solar, completely revolutionizing the auto industry with EVs, and revolutionizing space travel isn’t considered creating lasting shareholder capital and/or improving society??

As for Tesla not creating shareholder value, actual investors (full disclosure: I’m not one of them) would argue that Musk has done a masterful job of that so your opinion here is not only out of touch, but completely moot. As for not selling the most cars but being the leader in market value, uh, wouldn’t that also apply to Apple in smartphones and PCs? And Tesla’s high valuation has more to do with their tech leadership, margins that other auto mgrs can only dream of, and astronomical growth (north of 1,000% YoY if I remember correctly) with few signs of slowing. Oh, and they’ve been profitable without regulatory credits since June AND they’re competing with new EV’s on the markets without the tax credits since they’ve exhausted those.

Besides, what’s wrong with taking advantage of a system that was available to everyone, including all auto manufacturers who were too lazy, visionless, and cowardly to invest in EV themselves? They too could’ve gotten rich from reg credits. Sort of like how Amazon put many stores out of business by utilizing VC and shareholder capital to sell books and other items at a loss for years, or how Apple set up a HQ in Cork to avoid paying taxes in Europe.

Musk risked his entire fortune (proceeds from selling PayPal) to create the most dynamic and innovative car company the world has seen in over half a century. Whether you want to join the rest of us in recognizing that he’s already changed the world forever or not, at least give the man some credit. I mean, seriously, a con man?? I feel like that term should be reserved for rascals who would lie and steal from their best friend and business partner. It’s a good thing we don’t know anyone like that.

We clearly disagree on the subject of Elon Musk and TSLA. The point that Musk risked his fortune to create TSLA means less than zero. That's par for the course for many less famous entrepreneurs. Also, just so you know in case you do want to invest in TSLA, the market capitalization of TSLA and PE ratio for the stock are totally absurd -- far removed from reality and far in excess of any type of reasonable valuation using any traditional metric known to man. Like I said: all hat no cattle. Invest at your own risk. Just my opinion.

As to Musk, my opinion may be out of touch and moot to you but I am not alone. My characterization of him as being a con man may seem harsh to you, but I think the people at the SEC would actually agree with me as he was fined and required to resign as Chairman for his dishonest and manipulative narrative to the public about taking the company private. This is what con men actually do -- and it's far worse than a dispute with a business partner. So, I think it is fair to say that my opinion is not totally unfounded.

 

[PsykX]

Maybe we are “saying same thing” now because you’ve talked yourself into a corner…

Lol internet

??‍♂️ Not really.

I will always stand behind the main idea in our conversation. Which is the fact that the guy bought AAPL a long time ago because he already had hints that it would perform well. He did not buy it thinking it was a **** company, but trying to manipulate its value after. Which is illegal BTW.

 

[BF1M]

??‍♂️ Not really.

I will always stand behind the main idea in our conversation. Which is the fact that the guy bought AAPL a long time ago because he already had hints that it would perform well. He did not buy it thinking it was a **** company, but trying to manipulate its value after. Which is illegal BTW.

Stock manipulation is illegal? Hold on need to make some calls..

 

[Karma*Police]

We clearly disagree on the subject of Elon Musk and TSLA. The point that Musk risked his fortune to create TSLA means less than zero. That's par for the course for many less famous entrepreneurs. Also, just so you know in case you do want to invest in TSLA, the market capitalization of TSLA and PE ratio for the stock are totally absurd -- far removed from reality and far in excess of any type of reasonable valuation using any traditional metric known to man. Like I said: all hat no cattle. Invest at your own risk. Just my opinion.

As to Musk, my opinion may be out of touch and moot to you but I am not alone. My characterization of him as being a con man may seem harsh to you, but I think the people at the SEC would actually agree with me as he was fined and required to resign as Chairman for his dishonest and manipulative narrative to the public about taking the company private. This is what con men actually do -- and it's far worse than a dispute with a business partner. So, I think it is fair to say that my opinion is not totally unfounded.

My point about Elon Musk risking his entire fortune was to address your comment about Elon being a con man. That’s not what con men do. Con men will use/risk other people’s money, like Bernie Madoff.

And making ill-advised, off-the-cuff, comments on twitter is not exactly the same thing as profiting from it… unless you know something nobody else does? And if you’re going to point to a gov’t body as the arbiter of truth, then Steve Jobs is twice the con man that Elon is since the DoJ found him guilty of colluding with book publishers. That’s the very definition of conning people, is it not? Personally, I believe that was a BS case brought on by a few egomaniacs in the gov’t who wanted to make a name for themselves, which in the end hurt consumers by giving AMZN 90% of the market, but it illustrates my point about your extreme bias.

As for investing in TSLA, I wouldn’t invest in TSLA or any other “overvalued” company in this environment, including Apple. Overvalued in quotes because there’s clearly room for debate as to what that means for each company. And for a company that is growing as fast as Tesla and one that is as unique (remember, they’re not just a car company) traditional metrics get thrown out the window. Companies like AMZN have been overvalued (according to many “experts”) since its inception and yet it continues to climb. As Charlie Munger said, he wouldn’t invest in TSLA but he wouldn’t short it either. That’s exactly how I feel about TSLA at the moment. The famous Michael Burry shorted TSLA last year and got burned badly. I believe he ended up covering a few months ago.