Will Elon Musk grow up in time?

On Thursday the SEC sued Elon Musk for tweeting on August 7 that he had financing to take Tesla private at $420/share. It says the number not based on specific conversations with his financiers, but a guess — based on a 20% premium — that was rounded up to a number that is meaningful in stoner culture in hopes of impressing his new 30-year-old girlfriend.

That the claim had serious repercussions is hard to dispute: the shares had dropped to $320 when he abandoned the idea of going private, and closed at $265 Friday, 24 hours after the SEC suit. Musk walked away from a settlement, and now (seems to) assume that his $420 claim is consistent with is vague oral agreement with Saudi financiers — or that juries don’t like to convict celebrities. (Alas, Johnny Cochran is not available for this trial).

By sheer force of will, Musk created three companies in new (or newly disrupted) industries. Unfortunately, none of them have been profitable — Tesla (now parent of SolarCity) continues to lose money, and (the still private) SpaceX still appears to be losing money.

Many have noted that Musk is his own worst enemy (perhaps like our Tweeter-in-Chief). With executives jumping ship at Tesla (WSJ says 50+ at the VP level in past 2 years), he’s driving away the talent he needs to pull the company out of its CFIT. At age 47, it’s long past time for him to grow up.

I’ve never owned or shorted Tesla shares; at the same time, I’ve always been skeptical of Tesla because of its egomaniacal founder who reminded me more of Howard Hughes than Steve Jobs. In response to the SEC, Musk said

Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way.

This is from the man who in 2008 divorced the mother of his five children to marry a 20-something British actress. (She divorced him four years later). Again, he is more like Howard Hughes (with his fondness for starlets) than Steve Jobs, who at his death was attend by his wife of 20 years, the mother of three of his four children.

Some say you can compartmentalize integrity. Some might argue that Donald Trump never reneged on a real estate deal — or Bill Clinton on a political deal. However, no one could claim with a straight face that integrity was either man’s most important value.

The WSJ’s “Heard on the Street” on Friday summarized the veracity-challenged CEO:

There is a fine line between hyperbole and falsehood and Mr. Musk’s ambitious guidance for vehicle production skirted very close to it. To cite just one example, Mr. Musk told investors in May 2016 that he expected Tesla to produce between 100,000 and 200,000 Model 3 sedans in the second half of 2017; Tesla wound up making about 4,000 of the cars that year.

WSJ columnist Holman Jenkins noted

Even with the SEC suing to remove its visionary chief, Tesla is still worth $45 billion in the market. That’s about $204,000 per car it expects to sell in 2018, compared to $4,900 per car for GM and $20,000 per car for BMW, both of which produce cars at a profit.

In other words, Tesla is still valued as if tomorrow’s expected profits won’t be coming from the car business but from some Musk magic yet to be revealed. Blame Mr. Musk’s Wall Street cheerleaders for fostering this illusion, not the SEC if its action this week finally deflates the Musk bubble. 

There is another possible explanation: Musk is not immature or crazy, but desperate. Sometimes, leaders facing long odds realize that everything has to work just right or they will fail. Last night (Friday), my men’s group last night discussed a book on Ernest Shackleton’s third expedition to Antarctica in 1914-1916, when 28 men survived over a year trapped on the polar ice without communication with the outside world.

These sorts of against-the-odds successes usually require both flawless execution and a few lucky breaks. Although they never employed Tom Brady, my former favorite football team had a succession of quarterbacks (Hadl, Fouts, Brees, Rivers) who mount the frantic come-from-behind passing offense; occasionally it even worked.

Musk got a bad break in 2016: the Democrats losing the White House was bad for Tesla and Solar City, even if it might be good for SpaceX. His projected ship dates seem to assume everything will go well, and such assumptions are frequently proven wrong.

 If Musk gets banished, the prospects are grim for his empire, his wealth and his investors. SpaceX has a capable successor in place — president Gwynne Shotwell — but Tesla does not. Unless Musk starts acting like a grown up — and demonstrate a credible succession plan — it will be hard for Tesla to raise money, attract capable talent and management, and keep the stock price up.

So which is the greater longshot: Musk grows up, or he saves Tesla without a personality transplant? Compared to either one, I think LA’s inferior football team has better odds of winning the Super Bowl this season.

Nothing beats a platform monopoly

Since the birth of broadband, net neutrality’s cheerleaders have feared that service providers might begin to act as the internet’s “gatekeepers,” …The real distortions come from massive “platform monopolies” like Google, Facebook and Amazon, whose proprietary algorithms decide what users see online.

The supposed purpose of “net neutrality” is to stop any internet company from getting a leg up over others. But that’s exactly what happens when Google’s search results prioritize its own services—and profits—over competitors’. …If Google’s favoring its own products while pushing potential competitors down its rankings doesn’t create “fast” and “slow” lanes, what on earth does?

Similarly, avowed net-neutrality supporter Amazon was granted a patent in May for “Physical Store Online Shopping Control,” a system to block shoppers in brick-and-mortar stores from using Wi-Fi to view competitors’ prices. Isn’t “no blocking” the heart of net neutrality? Facebook, meanwhile, has virtually abandoned chronology in its News Feed in favor of picking and choosing what users see—and what they don’t—based on what the company has learned about them.

The costs of such abuses from the platform monopolies are obvious and many. Newspapers have nearly been “prioritized” out of existence by Google’s shameless appropriation of their work: Why click through and read a whole article when Google News will pluck out the most important bits and show them to you free—alongside its own ads, of course. … Last year, the FCC chairman tried and failed to force TV companies to make their feeds available on set-top devices made by—wait for it—Google, Apple and Amazon.

The internet giants behind the Day of Action can now track users’ physical location 24 hours a day, learning where they live and work, by logging where their phones are at different times of day or the Wi-Fi networks they pass. If two phones sit side by side overnight, advertisers knows what that means—and appropriately “targeted” pitches are sure to follow.

From Ev Ehrlich, “‘Neutrality’ for Thee, but Not for Google, Facebook and Amazon,” Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2017.

The meaning of Memorial Day

The story of Lt. James Cathey, U.S.M.C. (1980-2005) is told in a photo essay that has been circulating today on Twitter in honor of Memorial Day. Attached to the 2nd Marine Division, he died on August 21, 2005 as the result of an IED explosion in Iraq. The photo essay is part of one that won a Pulitzer Prize for Todd Heisler, then at the Rocky Mountain News and now at the New York Times. 

A haunting image is that of Lt. Cathey’s pregnant widow Katherine, sleeping on an improvised bed next to his casket upon its return to the U.S.. The photo includes one of the local Marines standing vigil, as part of three day guard mounted in honor of their fallen colleague.

Memorial Day was created to honor the war dead of the Civil War. Seeing this photo reminded my of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (as read by Henry Fonda in a recording Copland’s “Lincoln Portrait”):

That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. That this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. 

We need more great founders

Cross posted from the Engineering Entrepreneurship blog.

Successors to successful founders rarely do as well, according to two Bain consultants who’ve studied the topic.

The headline in Monday’s WSJ made it clear:

The Company Founder’s Special Sauce
No one leads a firm as effectively as the person who started it.
By CHRIS ZOOK and JAMES ALLEN
Dec. 18, 2016 5:03 p.m. ET

‘The Founder,” a new film starring Michael Keaton, tells the story of McDonald’s Corporation founder Ray Kroc as he turns a few small restaurants into a ubiquitous international chain. It’s a tale of founder-driven corporate growth—something that has become too rare today. This breed of entrepreneurial spirit makes for a good story, but it’s also crucial for the economy.

Research we published in July finds that of all newly registered businesses in the U.S., only about one in 500 will reach a size of at least $100 million in revenue. A mere one in 17,000 will attain $500 million in revenue and sustain a decade of profitable growth. Despite their rarity, these successful firms are a bedrock of the U.S. economy.

A study out earlier this year from Bain & Company, where we work, shows that over the past 15 years founder-led companies delivered shareholder returns that are three times higher than those of other S&P 500 companies.

Such performance can sometimes continue long after a founder leaves. We analyzed examples of sustained success at 7,500 companies in 43 countries, visiting many in person, to determine what made them stand out. Great founders imbue their companies with three measurable traits that make up what we dubbed “the founder’s mentality.”

Those three traits: insurgency (i.e. disruptive innovation), obsessive focus on customers, and permeating the vision of the founder throughout the entire organization.

I have not had a chance to read their research, but it rings true. I did my dissertation on Apple, once led by Steve Jobs — perhaps the most unique founder of the 20th century; in America, only Henry Ford, Tom Watson Sr., Hewlett & Packard and maybe Howard Hughes come close.

Jobs was driven to make “insanely great” products, to the point of being a tyrant (slightly more human after he had kids). Since his death five years ago, they’ve had mediocre leadership and nothing they have done has come close (something us shareholders must lament).

One caveat: while I lionize great founders — and aspire to be a good founder once again — there is an important confound. Firms have their best people, best ideas, greatest disruption and greatest impact during their initial growth phases; a second round of growth and disruption (as in the Jobs II era, 1997-2011) is virtually unheard of. Big companies don’t grow as much as small ones, nor is the CEO (of any stripe) able to have the same impact. (And unlike Jobs, most tech founders have their greatest impact in this initial period, not running the stable successful mature company).

Still, nothing I’ve seen this year does as good a job summarizing the great debt society owes to those who roll the dice, take great chances and endure years of high-stress intensity to create a new company. The decline in US startups is troubling not only for economic growth, but for the lost opportunities for employees, customers and complementors as well.

Hire great workers, even if you can't keep them

Silicon Valley — like the Big Four accounting firms and big law firms — has a well-deserved reputation for hiring bright young people and working them hard until they move on. While the impermanence of SV employment (6-12 months is not uncommon) may be unique, the idea of hiring good people is not.

In his new book Superbosses: How Exceptional Leaders Master the Flow of Talent, Dartmouth leadership professor Sydney Finkelstein argues that a key trait of the best bosses is that “you’re better off having the best people for a short time than average people forever.”

That philosophy fits well with my own experience as a manager during my 15 years as an “executive” (of 5-15 employees) at my startup company. At my entrepreneurship blog, I summarize the comparison of his comments (from his recent WSJ article) with my own experience.

I have great respect for Finkelstein. In an earlier book, he provided the clearest explanation of why once-great Motorola destroyed itself because (as I saw in my cell phone research) of its inability to come to grips with the disruptive shift from analog to digital mobile phones and base stations.

However, there is one line in the article that would give a chuckle to any veteran Silicon Valley watcher — where he lists Larry Ellison as one of “the world’s greatest bosses”). Yes Ellison is a self-made billionaire worth $40+ billion and one of the world’s 10 richest people. And surprisingly, Oracle has had a great run of growth for the last decade, even if the stock price is below where it was in the summer of 2000.

This is the same Ellison whose ego is (or was) so large that his biographer titled the book The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: God Doesn’t Think He's Larry Ellison. So while Ellison was successful and had some smart people working for him, I don’t know that I would hold him up as a role model (even in Silicon Valley) of how to best lead people.