zlacker

> but have exceptional hyping skills seems quite useful when attracting investment.

Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) and a lot of ex-crypto-bros (fraudsters) would agree.

"Exceptional hyping skills" is (today) possibly a more derogatory term than you're expecting.

> And fact is Musk is building a lot of stuff of real substance.

I think the point others are making is this is a more accurate description of Musk ~10 years ago. In the past 5 years its been what, the cybertruck?

>>greggo+(OP)
It's a derogatory comment among certain types of technical employee, I would agree. Not so much amongst those in leadership or softer roles.

I wouldn't put cybertruck in the win column personally

>>dubeye+Q3
I think this is why he gets away with it. A "win" is a product delivered years late for 3x the promised MSRP with 1/10th the expected sales. With wins like these, what would count as a loss?

>>Alexan+09
He gets away with it for one reason only, and because he consistently delivers good returns on capital.

Most of Tesla's revenue derives from Model Y and FSD subs. I agree that Cybertruck was a marketing ploy. Don't think it was ever intended to be materially revenue generating.

>>dubeye+Q3
It's increasingly something the general populace is not a fan of, at least that's been my experience.

so if the cybertruck is not a win, what in the last 5 years is?

>>dubeye+Ee
> He gets away with it for one reason only, and because he consistently delivers good returns on capital.

Didn't Tesla just have a terrible 2025, with European sales plunging due to the stigma of owning a swasticar?

>>greggo+pT
Revenue has flatlined, but investors' confidence comes from Musk's track record for delivering good returns to investors. I think we can agree Musk succeeded in 2020 to 2025 in this regard. Whether you are confident he can do it again over next five years is the key question.

>>dubeye+sk1
I'm personally more persuaded by the argument that Tesla is a meme-stock at this point - like much of crypto, it runs on "vibes", not solid fundamentals.

But even if share price is the metric for success, 33.6% over 5 years is like 6% compounded annually, which is okay I guess? [0]

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/magnificent-seven-stocks-840226...