Musk, the World's First Trillionaire - Is He Worth It?

[temperance]

It is very likely that he'll be the first person to be worth 2 trillion given his track record.

The earlier discussions about Tesla cars being able to accelerate fast baffles me. I hear that its "dangerous". A lot of things are dangerous including my hobby in EE. Someone could say its just too dangerous and I could hurt someone.  I ride motorcycles and they are dangerous. So is surfing, skiing, and snowboarding, and so on.

I need to go hide my sharp pointy stuff.

Yes it is dangerous because people use this power as a weapon. I live in a dense area of Europe. I don't have a dash cam otherwise I could show you how electric car cowboys deal with traffic.

In the past years, here in Belgium alone, about 6 accidents have made it into the news where the acceleration rate of an electric car was the cause of the accident. When the people involved are being interviewed the explanation is always the same: A lady who drove her car over 4 children in a park: "The car shot away on its own." A man who parked his car on the train rails: "I couldn't react." A lady who drove her car into a hospital: "I don't know how it happened. All of a sudden..."  Very safe indeed.

But for some people, anything less than 250 hp is not a car and fails the m'as-tu-vu test.


Make sure you hide the sharp pointy stuff.

[Cyclotron]

It is very likely that he'll be the first person to be worth 2 trillion given his track record.

The earlier discussions about Tesla cars being able to accelerate fast baffles me. I hear that its "dangerous". A lot of things are dangerous including my hobby in EE. Someone could say its just too dangerous and I could hurt someone.  I ride motorcycles and they are dangerous. So is surfing, skiing, and snowboarding, and so on.

I need to go hide my sharp pointy stuff.

Yes it is dangerous because people use this power as a weapon. I live in a dense area of Europe. I don't have a dash cam otherwise I could show you how electric car cowboys deal with traffic.

In the past years, here in Belgium alone, about 6 accidents have made it into the news where the acceleration rate of an electric car was the cause of the accident. When the people involved are being interviewed the explanation is always the same: A lady who drove her car over 4 children in a park: "The car shot away on its own." A man who parked his car on the train rails: "I couldn't react." A lady who drove her car into a hospital: "I don't know how it happened. All of a sudden..."  Very safe indeed.

But for some people, anything less than 250 hp is not a car and fails the m'as-tu-vu test.


Make sure you hide the sharp pointy stuff.

My point is that there's a lot of dangerous stuff.  What's the acceleration allowed?
0-60 in 2 seconds?  3, 4, 5, .... 60?

Do I get to keep working on/playing with dangerous electrical stuff?

[krish2487]

I seriously hope that spacex stock crash and burns, to a sane and reasonable value, and i hope it happens sooner rather than later.

So do I. The amount of influence and power alone in the hands of anyone man, is enough to corrupt the man himself.. 
Having said that, so many organizations have been eager to jump onto the spaceX bandwagon, I fear that any correction will affect almost everyone.
The most susceptible would be the pension funds..

[Psi]

I seriously hope that spacex stock crash and burns, to a sane and reasonable value, and i hope it happens sooner rather than later.

So do I. The amount of influence and power alone in the hands of anyone man, is enough to corrupt the man himself.. 
Having said that, so many organizations have been eager to jump onto the spaceX bandwagon, I fear that any correction will affect almost everyone.
The most susceptible would be the pension funds..

It will almost definitely crash at some point. That's very normal for an IPO.
Then it will begin the normal slow recovery and track value normally after that.
In this case it's even more likely due to the AI bubble and space stuff being very high risk.

The AI bubble will pop at some point either by itself or triggered by some other event.
But I do also except a boom in all space stuff, and probably a space bubble at some point. But that's probably 5-15 years away.
Impossible to say how everything will interact.

(not investment advice)

[krish2487]

It will almost definitely crash at some point. That's very normal for an IPO.
Then it will begin the normal slow recovery and track value normally after that.
In this case it's even more likely due to the AI bubble and space stuff being very high risk.

The AI bubble will pop at some point either by itself or triggered by some other event.
But I do also except a boom in all space stuff, and probably a space bubble at some point. But that's probably 5-15 years away.
Impossible to say how everything will interact.

(not investment advice)

I expect the same... Funny story though.. on a sidenote.. I was following ARM's IPO and expected the same.. However, since its IPO , the stock has only continued rising..
They just seem to have the best timing ever.. I dont expect ARM's stock to fall much in case of a correction.. unlike that of SpaceX.

[NE666]

I was following ARM's IPO and expected the same.. However, since its IPO , the stock has only continued rising..
They just seem to have the best timing ever.. I dont expect ARM's stock to fall much in case of a correction.. unlike that of SpaceX.

This is a manifestation of what I believe was being alluded to, at least partly, in the original question. When a company's stock value is firmly based on actual deliverables, with historical market performance and penetration, as opposed to mainly future intangibles. The difference between there already being tens of ARM licensed processors in every household, with only more yet to come, vs a cult of personality with "cool space stuff".

[NE666]

accidents have made it into the news where the acceleration rate of an electric car was the cause of the accident. When the people involved are being interviewed the explanation is always the same: A lady who drove her car over 4 children in a park: "The car shot away on its own." A man who parked his car on the train rails: "I couldn't react." A lady who drove her car into a hospital: "I don't know how it happened. All of a sudden..."  Very safe indeed.

I don't disagree really but for the sake of balance, this has ever been the case.  Since cars were fitted with automatic gearboxes as opposed to a clutch.

Older or distracted drivers launching their vehicles across parking lots, through shop fronts etc. is thankfully rare in absolute terms but definitely not a new thing, and definitely not down to the emergence of EVs.

[temperance]

My point is that there's a lot of dangerous stuff.  What's the acceleration allowed?
0-60 in 2 seconds?  3, 4, 5, .... 60?

Do I get to keep working on/playing with dangerous electrical stuff?

You don't seem to get my point here. But that's fine. I play with dangerous stuff every day. Most people would have been dead many times doing my job.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/287315/electric-cars-involved-in-more-accidents-than-regular-vehicles-study-shows

In this article, based on data from an insurance company:

Drivers who switch from a classic car to an electric model often have too little awareness of how an electric car reacts. Before they realise it, they speed away and bang into something. Axa's figures also show that most accidents happen when accelerating, not when braking. In addition, the larger electric cars are extremely fast. Owners often don’t dare to press the accelerator pedal. All this together leads to 50 percent more accidents than with regular cars.

Adjusting the driving style is therefore advised: take into account the much more agile acceleration of the cars, handle the accelerator with more care and keep your distance.

The misjudgement of those unexpected accelerations is therefore the main cause of accidents with electric cars, say the experts at Axa. But when they collide with similar models with fuel engines, electric cars usually come out the least damaged. Electric cars are generally a lot heavier than classic cars because they carry a lot of batteries. And it is the lightest car that suffers the most damage in a collision.

Electric motor response faster

The main cause of traffic accidents with electric vehicles is the inappropriate driving behaviour of the drivers. Michael Pfäffli, head of accidents and prevention at Axa, explains: "We have seen in our statistics that drivers of electric vehicles cause 50 percent more collisions than cars with internal combustion engines. Drivers of powerful electric cars in particular cause twice as many accidents as with standard cars."

You still believe its all fine and the insurance companies statistics are wrong? I see it every day here where I live around the busiest highway of Europe.

Again, you have people who use this power as a weapon when overtaking (on the wrong side if possible), when merging,...

[tom66]

I think the biggest issue with EVs is that they have this instant response in a way that only previously was available perhaps in very high end performance cars with an MSRP of £50,000+.  My ID.3 can outpace most other cars of its class.

Of course I believe I use it appropriately, as there is a time and a place for good acceleration.  For instance there are short sliproads near me where you really want to be up to the speed limit (70 mph) before you merge with traffic.  That is possible in both EVs we have but would only be available in a larger engine ICE car otherwise, which comes with other downsides like higher fuel cost and maintenance costs.

[jonovid]

I think the biggest issue with EVs is that they have this instant response in a way that only previously was available perhaps in very high end performance cars with an MSRP of £50,000+.  My ID.3 can outpace most other cars of its class.

Of course I believe I use it appropriately, as there is a time and a place for good acceleration.  For instance there are short sliproads near me where you really want to be up to the speed limit (70 mph) before you merge with traffic.  That is possible in both EVs we have but would only be available in a larger engine ICE car otherwise, which comes with other downsides like higher fuel cost and maintenance costs.

drive car insurance down with a slow throttle?
 EV car insurance increases with throttle response settings
set how much throttle response boost you like and your insurance increases automatically. do not say they can not do this with in-car spyware.

[tom66]

We already have insurers who will give a discount if you can measure your speed/acceleration/braking,  I personally do not want them to have that data so will pay more for a policy that is untracked.  These policies are most attractive for younger drivers where the discount can be significant, for 30+ the discount is minimal, like 5% at most, unless you have prior convictions/claims.

[Psi]

The difference between there already being tens of ARM licensed processors in every household, with only more yet to come, vs a cult of personality with "cool space stuff".

I wouldn't dismiss "cool space stuff". It's easy to think of it as being a fad, or just cool for the sake of cool, and not something to take seriously. Like AI was, until it wasn't.

Assuming Starship is successful at being fully reusable, and assuming SpaceX continues to build the Starship production line factories they're building now. (Which seems very likely given progress so far and the money SpaceX now has).  Then the ability to launch a metric shit ton of stuff into space for cheap from a huge number of reusable rockets will create a booming new space industry.

People often interpret new things as being a showoff or a fad, or something to not take seriously, because that's usually the case.
But if you pay close attention you can usually spot the ones that are different and will lead to a booming new industry. "cool space shit" is definitely one of those IMHO. We are in the AI boom/bubble right now the space one and the robotics one are next.

[mtwieg]

The "should my EV have >500hp" discussion in a nutshell:



Probably applies to most tesla-related discussion.

[temperance]

mtwieg, that is not my point. But, ok, I forgive you. It's warm today.

See my earlier post for a news paper article talking about the implications of giving the average person a fast car.

[NE666]

I wouldn't dismiss "cool space stuff".

I won't dismiss anything, short of perpetual motion or free energy machines.

My point is rather that the 'what' which is to be delivered by SpaceX over the next 5 years, and the value of it to shareholders, is not so clearly defined in many areas of its interests as they are for a company such as ARM. Especially so the more ambitious those plans which has become even more apparent as original plans and focus have changed (e.g. Mars was the big prize, but now that's diluted with AI_in_space and moon bases) and timescales slip further and further from the initial ones given.

This is not so say that this is unique to SpaceX. It's pretty much the anthem for all national and commercial spaceflight programs to date. But it is a different kettle of fish to most other NASDAQ listed tech companies which are delivering consumer products (or components thereof).

[Psi]

I wouldn't dismiss "cool space stuff".

My point is rather that the 'what' which is to be delivered by SpaceX over the next 5 years, and the value of it to shareholders, is not so clearly defined in many areas of its interests as they are for a company such as ARM.
...
This is not so say that this is unique to SpaceX. It's pretty much the anthem for all national and commercial spaceflight programs to date. But it is a different kettle of fish to most other NASDAQ listed tech companies which are delivering consumer products (or components thereof).

Absolutely, SpaceX is taking on a huge amount of work and their valuation is assuming it will all go how they expect.
They're definitely going to have further delays and setback. SpaceX is extremely high risk verses a company like AMD.

[Cyclotron]

mtwieg, that is not my point. But, ok, I forgive you. It's warm today.

See my earlier post for a news paper article talking about the implications of giving the average person a fast car.

Temperance, I believe I understand your point. EVs can offer 100% of their available torque instantly. I'm sure EV manufacturers already select a delivery curve they consider safe, but it may still be far more than the average person is used to.

As some have said, if the EV product is more likely to be harmful, I suspect insurance will regulate the problem as a feedback mechanism. People do dumb stuff with things they don't understand. Take pleasure boating. People die in large numbers every year in boating accidents because they have no training and often are partying.

Anyway, I don't see this as a problem strictly related to Musk's worth or even Tesla solely.  More of a broader topic that covers a lot of things. I see alerts all the time for people who run through the front of buildings, over people, and road rage is a huge problem. I understand these things are problems.  It's why every retail outlet has bollards out front.  Well they do here in the US.

[mtwieg]

mtwieg, that is not my point.

It wasn't directed at you, I don't disagree with anything you posted AFAIK 

Anyway, I don't see this as a problem strictly related to Musk's worth or even Tesla solely.

Yeah it's weird how discussions regarding Musk derail into bickering about recessed handles or touch screen displays, rather than all the gross things he says and does, most of which have no basis in engineering or his companies.

[free_electron]

If Musk oscillates above and below an amount it changes nothing.

This thread wasn't started when he hit $1BN, it was started when he hit $1TN, it's very much a quantified question.
Woddy said "no one is worth that amount of money".
Ok, so what is the maximum that someone should be worth?

Why does there need to be a limit ? Or a fixed number ?
if a person starts a company, holds 80% of the shares of that company and that company becomes wildly successful, his share value will track the valuation of the publicly available shares. if that becomes a multi-trillion dollar valued share then the shareholder will become a multi trillionaire.
It's the stock market that decides the valuation of a company. And whoever holds the most shares becomes the richest shareholder of that company.

Musk holds 80% of spacex. It's that simple. The market decides.

[krish2487]

Why does there need to be a limit ? Or a fixed number ?
if a person starts a company, holds 80% of the shares of that company and that company becomes wildly successful, his share value will track the valuation of the publicly available shares. if that becomes a multi-trillion dollar valued share then the shareholder will become a multi trillionaire.
It's the stock market that decides the valuation of a company. And whoever holds the most shares becomes the richest shareholder of that company.

Musk holds 80% of spacex. It's that simple. The market decides.

SImply because as the valuation of a company grows, so does this individuals influence and power.
It forms a skewed power dynamic with one individual being able to dictate terms that are not in the best interests of others, acceptable to others, necessary, legal or even morally right.
Especially when other institutions have a share in the multi trillion dollar pie. Say for example pension funds or other investment vehicles. What happens when the individual's decision misfires and wipes a chunk of the multi-trillion valuation? others who have invested in the company will be left holding the bag. The real estate crisis in the 2008 and most recently the cryptocurrency fiasco or even Bernie Maddox spring to mind. A select few having a skewed power dynamic with other investors.
The company stops being a organization and becomes a vanity project for the individual, and those that have invested in the company have no say in deciding the course of the said company.

[free_electron]

Especially when other institutions have a share in the multi trillion dollar pie. Say for example pension funds or other investment vehicles.

Now there is the true problem !
Everyone is free to invest in whatever he wants. The problem is people investing in products they don't understand and that are unprotected.
That pension fund may look interesting but you have no control over what that fund invests in. You hope they know what they are doing. If they decide to invest in xyz and xyz goes under they will go under as well and you lose your money. That whole industry needs to be regulated so that your base money (the hard cash you put in) is guaranteed to be available for withdrawal. You may not make any profit, but you won't run the risk you will lose your initial investment.

if i decide to invest in SpaceX directly and i lose my money : my fault. i assumed the risk. if i give money to someone to manage a portfolio (for a cut of the profits) at least the money i have put in must be protected. And in many cases it is not ! Not only do they not guarantee a return, they often can't guarantee your invested capital is safe. Don't buy such products ! They wash their hands. They are essentially gambling with your money. They win, no matter what.

[woody]

That pension fund may look interesting but you have no control over what that fund invests in. You hope they know what they are doing.

That might be the US situation. Over here (and I suspect more often in Europe) pension funds are regulated. And they do consult their participants where to invest. A number of these funds did place SPCX on their exclusion list. And IMO rightly so, as these funds are in it for the long haul instead of the quick win.

[PlainName]

Musk holds 80% of spacex. It's that simple. The market decides.

Don't think it's that simple. Didn't SpaceX give him a $56bn bonus? He didn't need it - $5bn would have been more than enough and see him last out his days (and his kids, all of them, last out theirs, etc), so I think he is in it for the numbers game - the money per se means nothing to him other than it is a very big number and outdoes everyone else.

Couldn't SpaceX have found an actual better use for all that money? Even just giving $1m (just 0.0002%) to some charitable cause would have cost them less than the ink needed to write it off but would have paid off massively in brownie points. And, perhaps by the way, have actually helped some that weren't already filthy rich.

[brucehoult]

Absolutely, SpaceX is taking on a huge amount of work and their valuation is assuming it will all go how they expect.
They're definitely going to have further delays and setback.

Naturally. Musk and SpaceX know that very well, it's not news to them, and it doesn't bother them the way it seems to bother some people here. Of COURSE things that no one has ever done before and no one knows how to do (with sensible people saying it's even impossible) inevitably end up "late" compared to some arbitrary a-priori prediction, no matter whether you're talking about FSD or a fully-reusable multiple times a day mega-rocket.

That's not fraud or lying, it's just reality.

SpaceX is extremely high risk verses a company like AMD.

I can't agree with that. AMD and Intel have virtually zero moat relative to each other in x86. If either one stumbles in a particular generation, the other has the possibility to take most of the market.

Around 2005-2006 when AMD had 64 bit x86 and Intel didn't, AMD briefly hit greater than 50% market share in desktop computers. If Intel had stuck to its Itanium guns and not had Core 2 then AMD could have had the lion's share within a couple more years.

They are currently relatively even (Intel only 2:1 ahead) with AMD having 35% unit share in desktops, 25% in laptops, 33.2% in servers. In servers AMD currently have 46% by revenue!

But it would not take much of a stumble by AMD for them to fall to 10% or 15% of the market. It's happened before.

The only realistic chance of SpaceX losing their market share in the next decade is if they can't fly at all for some reason.  Maybe Blue Origin will give Falcon 9 a fright after their current setback, but I think Starship will be operational before New Glenn comes close to matching Falcon 9 cadence.

There is nearly zero chance of Boeing, ESA, or the Russians or Chinese making the necessary decisions and rapid execution.

[MT]

Musk is exceptional, becoming the richest man in history owning as much as 3% of the US GDP in net worth. He started as a Commodore 64 "script kiddy" but has advanced to design and build advanced electronics, electric vehicles, space rockets, and global banking systems. He works harder and smarter than pretty much anyone else on the planet, and is a visionary. But some may think he is the most greedy person on the planet, having donated less than 1% of his wealth to charity in stark contrast to Gates.

Most of us here can't design space rockets, might know little about finance, but we can design and build electronics. We might earn about a millionth of his wealth in our lifetime if we are lucky. Put simply, none of us are nowhere near as smart and astute as Musk, whether we like it or not.

Has he EARNT his wealth by his technical and business skills? In fact, is anyone possibly worth $1 trillion?

No and no, and your thinking is quite wrong and apologetic and glorifying Musk the fraudster.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QTIFV271dlA?feature=share.