Comment by phoehne | Hacker News Reader

Comment by phoehne | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There's a saying that the stock market is a voting machine in the short term and a weighing machine in the long term. I think tech is especially vulnerable to big booms. Most of the stuff in the physical world doesn't pay off as well or with the same margins and multiples. So we get a kind of "get rich quick" mentality that attracts money and grifters.

That being said, I would be surprised if anyone knew the name of the CEO of Walmart which makes about 4.5x the revenue of Amazon. (They are different businesses with different models - so it's an apples to cement blocks comparison). I do think there are totally dodgy CEOs out there that do nothing for a company's stock price except soak up money that should go to shareholders. But they're more managerial nothings that keep the ship afloat.

But to look at a-holes like Bezos, Musk, etc. and think that P&G, Walmart, Target, Boeing, Ford, General Motors, Union Pacific, or any of the S&P500 CEOs are falling over themselves to shitpost is ludicrous.

At the end of the day the CEO is supposed to do three things, publicly. The first is cheerlead for the company - meaning to put the best spin on the news to protect the interests of shareholders. Second is to be the top sales person and go gaga over the company's products. Finally, to make sure that everyone believes the company is run by sane, sober, and focused people who want to make sustainable and real gains in profitability.

It's arguable that Musk is doing the first two things you mentioned with his social media antics, just in an incredibly gonzo way. And perhaps he's achieving the third as well, by cultivating a cult of personality. A CEO doesn't have to make everyone believe that, just enough people.

He'd not be able to do it in say 1985.

It's the unprecendented amount of time that Americans devote to following pop-culture and Musk wants to become pop-culture squared.

China is approaching this thing differently, they make it very clear if you want to become a pop-culture icon you should sing or act. It's not allowing businessmen to become influencers or politicians, nor to put their nose into public health or education.

According to them the roles should be clearly separated, so his style and twitter purchase won't work there (or would work there for different reasons such as China using it as a trojan horse in the AMerican society)

Sure, until it fails and then it fails spectacularly. I think Musk may be the exception to the general rule. And some founder type CEOs don't go off the rails until they know they're on the way out and don't have to pretend any more. (Not that I think Musk is on his way out any where. I love Musk. All hail Musk.)

But I say those words with a sense that I might be eating them, if something horrible comes out and we all say "gee - should have seen those red flags".

For how I conceive business Musk is a borderline scammer.

But I wholeheartadly agree with the above message.

As you said new elements could come in to make you re-evaluate your admiration

By the same token new elements could come in for me to re-evaluate my stance and if we are indeed at the dawn of an era where CEOs become even more politcians, showmen, pop-culture icons then I'd have no problem tipping my hat to Musk as a pioneer of such new powerful trend.

Similarly I'd also tip my hat if "creative accounting" becomes the norm and also embracing the concept of manifestation and "self-fulfilling prophecy" concerning the stock price which has to be pumped at all costs to make sure that there is always enough air flowing on the wings to keep the company in air.

A CEO is supposed to do 1 thing -> generate more profit $ in the future.

How he/she does it is up to them. It's not up to you or I to judge if they are doing the right things. Just check if they are accomplishing their goal.

I disagree, too many instances of CEOs propping up short term results at the expense of future company health, or even existence. We totally get to judge how they accomplish that goal. Otherwise we wind up with Enron, WorldCom, Washington Mutual, Theranos, AIG, etc. Part of that assessment can come from their public persona and how they present themselves and their company. The problem is that most of the business press and sell-side analysts are willing to gloss over evidence of poor character as good qualities. He's not "willing to commit fraud to post a good quarter," he's "is aggressive and unconventional."

Sure - but the goal remains the same. More profit $ in the future. CEOs need to build confidence that they can do that sustainably and for a long period of time. And people will judge the methods to build this confidence. But the goal remains the same. Elon has both been very successful and very unconventional in his ability to do this. And that's great - we should always strive to give a lot of freedom in this and allow the best to win. It's a nice mirror of nature - try w/e crazy idea you want, and if it works, it works!

Profit without product leads straight to jail. Or if you can pivot fast towards a political carrer or a religious cult leader.

The goal should be marketshare. That's the true measure of future profitability because it means that you have a huge moat.

Tesla is a 20 year old company and in this timeframe it managed to gather 1.3% share of all the cars sold in 2021.

There is a reason why Porsches and Ferraris are just as common as Teslas on the road. Porsche and Ferraris might be slightly more expensive but they have been doing it for longer so it balances itself out

Tesla was founded in 2002. That's 20 years ago. During the same timeframe Microsoft managed 95% share of Computer OS, Google 90% share of search, Standard Oil 85% of oil production.

Hell, even Escobar managed to get 80% of the global cocaine market.

There's laws you need to follow of course.

But again, market share is another interesting signal (just like a CEOs behavior) that one might use to assess if they think the company will have a long term ability to generate more $. But the goal is always to generate more $s in the future.

Apple's shrinking market share of the smartphone market doesn't matter, because they are achieving their goal of profit generation. Blockbuster died maintaining a great market share of the video store rental market that disappeared. Netflix lost all DVD rental market share and pivoted the whole company to a streaming service. All of them the goal remains generate profits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com