dealtn
Define "better".
le
In this context the remark was about Board conflict. You really think a single Board member individually insuring other Board members has less potential conflict than an independent insurer doing the same?
I wonder what your claim would have been if that was the model adopted by "legacy auto", self-insuring through their finance arm, if Tesla had an independent insurer. Given your previous comments about "internal" sales of cars I think we know the answer.
The issue with insurance is will the insurer pay if there is a claim.
Having Musk under-write board members liability gives a direct link between the board and the wealthy CEO, saving a lot of insurance premium for the company and setting up a mechanism where if Musk did not pay, board members would be potentially plunged into bankruptcy, disqualifying them from staying on the board and/or leading to large sales of Tesla equity by board members, both things the would hurt the company.
The issue with legacy auto selling cars internally is that VW in this case used the internal sales to show how well the ID platform was selling by not disclosing the many internal sales.
Comparing the open business cash saving arrangement of Musk to the covert arrangement of VW that was designed to mis-lead punters tells all observers all they need to know.
dealtn
Do you ever demonstrate independent thought yourself or are you too entwined in confirmation bias to ever see beyond your support for certain companies?
I look at how company behaviour affects share holder funds and business reputations. All of Musk covering board members liability actions reflect well on Tesla corporate government, whereas the VW internal sales adds another indelible stain to the diesel-gate tattered reputation of VW and the stain of poor quality of the VW engineering as shown by Munro tear downs.
Regards,
