James Murdoch In Line To Replace Musk As Tesla Chairman, Says Report [Update] (reuters.com) 141
21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch is the lead candidate to replace Elon Musk as Tesla chairman, the Financial Times reported today. The company has until November 13 to appoint an independent chairman of the board, part of settlements reached last month between Tesla, Musk and U.S. regulators in the wake of Musk tweeting in August that he had secured funding to take the company private. Reuters reports: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which said the statement was fraudulent, allowed the billionaire to retain his role as CEO while stripping him of his chairmanship and imposing a penalty of $20 million on each party. Murdoch, who is a nonexecutive director of Tesla, has signaled he wants the job, the report said. The son of Fox mogul Rupert Murdoch, he joined Tesla's board in July 2017 after years of work with media companies. He has no experience in manufacturing and has never led a company that makes cars or electric vehicles.
Murdoch currently serves on the boards of 21st Century Fox and News Corp. He stepped down from the board of Sky Plc on Tuesday following the completion of Comcast Corp's takeover of the broadcaster. Glass Lewis research director Courteney Keatinge said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that while Murdoch's departure from Sky could alleviate some concerns, the Tesla chairmanship would still require a big time commitment as the company faces pressures on many fronts. Update: In a tweet late Wednesday, Musk said Financial Times' report was inaccurate.
Murdoch currently serves on the boards of 21st Century Fox and News Corp. He stepped down from the board of Sky Plc on Tuesday following the completion of Comcast Corp's takeover of the broadcaster. Glass Lewis research director Courteney Keatinge said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that while Murdoch's departure from Sky could alleviate some concerns, the Tesla chairmanship would still require a big time commitment as the company faces pressures on many fronts. Update: In a tweet late Wednesday, Musk said Financial Times' report was inaccurate.
Murdoch (Score:4, Funny)
Murdoc is replacing MacGyver? He gonna install Blofeld as CEO next?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he is a good choice as what they need right now is someone who would be profit driven and somewhat technically inclined to make some calls about which spending is going to actually bring in profit.
Or perhaps they regard it as a media company or something like that. might just as well.
Climate Change Denier Running an EV Company (Score:5, Funny)
...Grabs popcorn...
Re:Climate Change Denier Running an EV Company (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We never said climate change wasn't happening. We always said it was Obama's fault. Because he didn't use the Paris accords to shut down China.
That was easy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or he sells off everything of value to boost profits the first quarter and then leaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be the right move. Given papa's power, in short time you'd be hearing the party line change to how they never denied climate change and EVs are great. Anything else is just lies, all lies, from the fake news media led by CNN and NYT.
We're at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: (Score:2)
Geothermal and wind are not even the best renewable option for Canada, which is the only developed country that still has lots of hydro potential.
Canada also has massive amounts of uranium.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada also has massive amounts of uranium.
I guess that explains the whole hockey thing...
Depends on electricity mix (Score:2)
EV use has nothing to do with climate change in either direction.
The amount of extra CO2 we humans release into the environment is considered to have a significant impact on the climate, according to current scientific consensus.
Usage(1) of EVs compared to ICE cars release less CO2 in the atmosphere.
It ranges between "a bit less" up to "almost none released", depending on you local electricity energy source mix, except in a few countries (like India, China and Australia - if my memory of that study is right - where things are more or less equal)
Even in those place, if yo
Re: (Score:1)
This seems like another 4chan fakeout.
In all honesty, the Murdoch's profit-driven-lack-of-morals style business dealings is both a blessing and a curse, because it allowed some very risky (for the time) things to get onto TV (eg The Simpsons, Married with Children) , but also allowed entertainment to be disguised as news (eg Fox News), and without any kind of rules to govern how news is to be factually true and free of editorializing, it's why Fox is such a shitshow, and people who don't have the time to fa
Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
RIP Tesla. (Score:1)
It was nice while it lasted, I guess.
Now the profit leeches got them, just like they destroy everything else.
Who cares if humanity advances? Who cares about happiness? Gotta make a quick buck. Not earn. Make It is all that matters. No reason, other than circular logic and "growth".
You know... that thing that is the opposite of stability, and hence the opposite of survival, and predominantly the domain of deadly explosions and deadly pathogens. (The not very successful ones, that kill themselves in the proc
Re:RIP Tesla. (Score:5, Informative)
Musk has tweeted that the article is incorrect [twitter.com]. Good. James Murdoch tries to paint himself as the "renegade son" who rejects his father's philosophy, while actually sharing a large chunk of it, and engaging in just as scummy tactics (see the BBC phone hacking scandal.... the resulting investigation of which basically declared James as unfit to manage a corporate board).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, I find looking at a stream of bytes quite a pointless exercise. The opinion on the test validity of the test designers and administrators is quite enough for me.
Re: RIP Tesla. (Score:4, Informative)
Tesla never claimed that the NHTSA gave them higher than five stars. They claimed that the NHTSA data shows that it has the lowest probability of injury of any car ever tested. Which is a fact whether you like it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla never claimed that the NHTSA gave them higher than five stars. T
LOL. Never? As in never-never? As in really-really-never?
What is this story about then?
https://www.greencarreports.co... [greencarreports.com]
Why do you paid musk shills never stop lying?
They claimed that the NHTSA data shows
Which is also a lie - the NHTSA clarification says its data doesn't show what Tesla says it shows. Hence, when someone says which is a fact, they're also wrong. Or, as in your case, lying.
Re: (Score:1)
It is an easy job, even if it doesn't pay all that well.
Re: (Score:3)
Check the date of the article they posted. That has nothing to do with the Model 3.
Re: (Score:3)
As pointed out: it's not a false claim, it's literally the NHTSA's data. Regardless of whether the NHTSA gives out higher than five stars or not.
I'm sorry that this bothers you so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla never claimed that the NHTSA gave them higher than five stars.
Please, the link is upthread. Tesla did lie about NHTSA "5.4" ratings. NHTSA corrected them. Instead of learning their lesson, and sticking to the truth, however unexciting, Musk cannot keep himself from lying.
Now that this "5+" fake news doesn't work anymore, he's trying another lie, selling a test for more than it actually measures. NHTSA corrected them again. It is the same behavior - no lessons learned. Lying is the default mode of Tesl
Re: (Score:2)
it's literally the NHTSA's data.
No, it literally isn't, and NHTSA is making a point of underlining it fatly. It is bothersome, because people will believe the lies of Musk and his paid shills like yourself, and cause harm, get injured or die.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it literally is. [jalopnik.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the data for yourself, for crying out loud. [regulations.gov]
The first four pages are the likelyhood of injury in each of the four categories. These are combined into an overall safety score on the 5th page (Comb VSS+Overall Ratings). VSS is the probability of injury. Look at it, and get out of denial.
Anything with a lower VSS than 0,67 is declared as "five stars". But that doesn't change the fact that the probability of injury itself is VSS, and at the Model 3's value of 0,38 is the lowest ever tested by the NHTSA
Re: (Score:2)
No, the data literally cannot be interpreted in the misleading and self-serving way that Tesla is passing around and that you, paid shills, repeat.
The meaning of the test, as explained in the NHTSA debunking (https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/national-highway-traffic-safety-administration-issues-statement-about-new-car) is that Tesla and Musk are lying again, like that one other time that never-never-never happened, when Tesla claimed a non-existent "5.4" rating, and got told again.
What we see here is ju
Re: (Score:3)
Rupert Murdoch and Saudis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:3)
Well, there goes Tesla (Score:5, Interesting)
A similar thing happened to Aptera Motors [wikipedia.org]. A great little company with lots of potential (queue the electricity jokes), but they never reached their potential - all due to the idiots on the board.
So sad. If Murdoch does take the reins, I predict Elon will resign as CEO, and simply keep his spot on the board.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, there goes Tesla (Score:4, Funny)
yes, the current state of affairs is re-volting, I am not amped about this. The potential for failure is high.
Re: (Score:2)
This is shocking news indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, the current state of affairs is re-volting, I am not amped about this. The potential for failure is high.
Oh please. The board is not really that in charge. Their power is mostly imaginary. A lot of the energy they put into running a company is wasted, especially in the face of excited and energetic CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, well done :)
Re: (Score:1)
> they never reached their potential - all due to the idiots on the board.
In this case it was Elon Musk who was the idiot, because he opened his mouth & violated the law. (He then demonstrated further idiocy by rejecting the U.S. offer to drop the case in exchange for a small fine.)
Re: (Score:2)
> all due to the idiots on the board.
Specifically, those idiots spending time and resources developing a vehicle with niche appeal and limited utility. It might've been hyper efficient but it had the worst qualities of a car combined with the worst qualities of a motorcycle but the benefits of neither.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite a feat considering they closed up shop in 2011.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Musk won't resign as CEO. He wants to be fired, so that he can be an "outsider" when Tesla crashes and burns in a few months, because that way he can lie to his cultists "I could have saved it". Musk's been trying to get fired for almost two months now. The problem is, the board is made of his cronies, who want to take the blame for his "management" about as much as he wants.
From "Who Killed the Electric Car Part 2" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Would the subtitle be 'ICE Boogaloo'?
Re: (Score:2)
Another 4:20 tweet. Dude is just asking for the SEC to toss him in prison at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know Musk's tweet is incorrect?
Why do they think that (Score:4, Interesting)
Then, by my understanding, a whole shitpile of people basically begged him not to go through with it because it would be catatsrophically stupid.
In the aftermath of that social onslaught, Musk apparently had some sense knocked into him and so he announced he would not be making Tesla private This doesn't mean he necessarily ever lied, but had definitely spoken far too hastily, because it was not something that had apparently thought through.
But again.... how is any of this fraud?
Stupid as shit, sure.... and it's only fair there should be consequences for that, but fraud?
Fraud requires an intent, or at least a probable intent, to deceive, and I just didn't see that coming from him on this point. He had no incentive to deceive anyone about taking Tesla private... he had his reasons, and presumably they weren't good enough in the big picture to justify actually doing that. That just means he made a mistake, it doesn't mean he lied about it.
Again though, mistakes can reasonably have consequences, but hanging the term "fraud" on it is, I think, a pretty gross mischaracterization of what actually occurred.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no one like Musk, but probably the best parallel is Steve Jobs - for better and worse.
Re:Why do they think that (Score:5, Informative)
He said he was "considering" taking the company private, "funding secured", "all that is needed is shareholder approval".
Shareholders told him they didn't approve so he dropped the plan before it even got to a vote.
The only uncertainty was the "funding secured" part. Depends on your definition of "secured". Supposedly the Saudis have been hounding him to buy the company for a few years. People assume the funding was from the Saudis and they have the money.
Re: Why do they think that (Score:2)
The claim of secured funding was never substantiated.
Re: (Score:3)
The claim of secured funding was never substantiated.
It was never found unsubstantiated in court, either, because there was never a case. There was only a settlement, which did not require Musk or Tesla to admit guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a case, which was settled, with Musk and Tesla accepting a considerable fine and concessions to SEC demands.
$40m is a non-trivial amount of legal fees, and the fact that this settlement was accepted is a very good indication of the estimate the lawyers gave to Tesla management about the likelihood of success of challenging SEC in court.
Incidentally "substantiating" the claim has the same likelihood.
And it is apparently indistinguishable from a zero.
Re:Why do they think that (Score:5, Informative)
Even if the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund did tell Musk they wanted to buy, do you think they offered 420? Because otherwise it's like if Bill Gates keeps asking to buy my house. I cannot say "I have a solid deal to sell my house for a billion dollars." Him wanting to buy it and having that much money does not mean he wants to buy it at that price
It's not a linguistic argument. When you claim funding is secured, and you are talking about a financial transaction, you are making a very specific claim. If it had been secured, Musk would have sat with the SEC in a room, showed them the documentation, and been done. He wouldn't have taken a plea for no reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving aside an appraisal vs. a stock price as a reflection of market value, "feeling sure" and getting a bank to extend me credit becauseit's under contract at that premium are different things.
A message to the shareholders... which is legally prescribed by the SEC rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the "coercion" here? Musk could have fought the charges in court. A legal war chest of $40m is quite enormous. He chose not to on advice from his lawyers. Do you know what reasons a lawyer may have to give such an advice?
Not speaking to the coercion claim specifically, but fighting a case in court means making things part of the public record. In many cases, settling out of court is the best option. Even if you were guaranteed to win the case in court.
Re: (Score:2)
.As far as I can understand he said one day that he had secured funding to make the company private... there's no indication he was trying to lie about it.
He claimed he had a specific deal, at a specific price, at a specific point in the negotiation process where it only required shareholder approval. I thought the SEC investigated and found no indication of any such pending deal.
I agree with 110010001000 that he made it up completely to try and hurt the short sellers. Had he succeeded, it might have actually been worth the risk of being removed as chairman. It might have actually caused such deals to materialize. Maybe he just gambled poorly. Maybe he
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have some evidence to the effect that this was his probable incentive?
Because from everything I've read, this was just an example of a man who spoke too hastily about something that everybody freaked out about. There is precisely zero evidence that he ever actually intended to defraud anyone. The fact that people may have lost money over it might certainly be his fault, but that doesn't mean he ever intende
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither of those actually prove that when he announced that he wanted to make Tesla a private company, that he did not actually ever intend to do so. If it was not legally possible for him to do, then why would it have caused a panic in the first place?
Now, to address the particulars....
The first thread you mentioned was isolated, and was approximately 4 months earlier... I would suggest that it is more circumstantial than anything else. It might be more prudent to examine what was happening at Tesl
Re: (Score:2)
The defense he would have to truthfully use in court is that he was being a stupid shit when he said those things.
But being stupid and willfully committing fraud are two entirely different things.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't have a deal lined up, but what is the reason for thinking that he might not have *believed* that he could have a deal lined up?
As I said before... it's stupid, but being stupid is not the same thing as trying to commit fraud. It's not an excuse to avoid consequences, but it certainly should be an excuse to avoid being accused of doubting a person's integrity or intentions, and the legal definition of fraud [law.com] most definitely includes having an *intent*.
Re: (Score:1)
You do not understand U.S. law, regardless of the length of your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I never said he shouldn't be punished, and I think him stepping down as chairperson is the LEAST that should happen...
I just think hanging the term "fraud" on acts that can easily be explained by stupidity is not right... because at the very least, it lowers the bar for fraud to that of simply making a mistake that happens to cost other people money. It's fair to hold him responsible for what he said and did, but it's not fair to say he intended to cause financial harm to anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Fraud is clearly characterized. The complaint spells it all out:
https://www.sec.gov/litigation... [sec.gov]
There was no term sheet. No 8-Ks were filed. The Saudis and VW denied they were in any specific talks. The tweet was solely intended to force shorts to cover.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not he committed 'fraud' by normal English usage is irrelevant: there are a series of highly specific laws CEOs must follow, and it takes a lot of domain specific knowledge for even a lawyer to figure out if he actually broke the law. Unless you have that domain specific knowledge, it's not worth arguing about whether he broke the law or not.
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL, but I do know that the legal definition of "fraud" does entail actually having an *intent* to deceive.
Now obviously proving intent in a court of law can be problematic, but you can sometimes prove that there is probable intent.
So, what evidence exists that might show probable intent to cause harm that couldn't also be far more easily explained as the actions of someone who was simply overstressed, and starting to make bad decisions?
Time off from being chairperson will probably be good for the
Re: (Score:2)
Considerations list... (Score:2)
Maybe with those two independent seats you've got to put people in, you consider someone with experience running a manufacturing or logistics operation, which seem to be the two things Tesla really needs, and right now.
Maybe that person will have a friend that can act as a Chief Operating Officer, who also has manufacturing and / or logistics experience. Bonus points if they have experience in the automotive industry with actually making and delivering cars at volume.
Just a thought.
no longer interesting (Score:1)
NBN (Score:2)
Great they'll ruin Tesla the way they ruined Australia's NBN
Murdoch as CEO? (Score:2)
Very Not Good (Score:2)
At best, he's a typical corp hopper.. exchanges long term interests for quick profits. At worse, this is somebody who's going to do the bidding of Tesla's competitors and ruin the company.
The real question is -- how much damage can he do to Tesla Motors before Musk can return, in 3 years.. This seems similar to Steve Jobs being kicked out of Apple for a long time... then Apple revived when he returned, just before otherwise inevitable bankruptcy. The difference is that Musk still has a major role in the
Anyone Else? (Score:2)
Murdoch? (Score:3)