Elon Musk’s replacement was denied by the Tesla board

In late 2023, The Wall Street Journal dropped a bombshell report claiming Tesla’s board had quietly initiated a search for Elon Musk’s successor as CEO. According to anonymous sources familiar with the matter:

The board allegedly began the process approximately one month before the report
Multiple executive search firms were contacted, with one firm reportedly selected to lead the process
Directors supposedly urged Musk to publicly commit more time to Tesla

The timing is critical. This alleged search coincided with:

Tesla’s first year-over-year delivery decline since 2020 (8.5% drop in Q1 2024)
A 13% decline in annual revenue – the first since 2017
Musk’s increasingly polarizing political engagements

Tesla’s Furious Rebuttal and the Credibility Battle

Within hours of publication, Tesla launched an aggressive counterattack:

1. Official Statement from Chair Robyn Denholm:

Called the report “absolutely false”
Claimed the board remains “highly confident” in Musk’s leadership
Alleged the WSJ was informed of this before publication

2. Musk’s Personal Response:

Accused WSJ of “EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS”
Claimed the paper ignored Tesla’s “unequivocal denial”

Journalistic Standoff:
The WSJ maintains it:

Reached out to Musk for comment (received no response)
Never received any pre-publication statement from Tesla

This credibility battle raises serious questions about:

The independence of Tesla’s board
The reliability of anonymous sourcing
Musk’s increasingly adversarial relationship with mainstream media

Deep Dive: Tesla’s Board Composition and Governance Concerns

Tesla’s eight-member board has long faced criticism for its close ties to Musk:

Notable Members:

Kimbal Musk (Elon’s brother)
James Murdoch (son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch)
Ira Ehrenpreis (venture capitalist, Tesla director since 2007)
Robyn Denholm (Chair since 2018)

Governance Red Flags:

Lack of Independence: 5 of 8 directors have served over 10 years
Compensation Controversy: Approved Musk’s $56B pay package (later voided by court)
Recent Insider Selling: Denholm sold $50M+ in shares over 90 days

Expert Perspective:
“Tesla’s board fails nearly every test of good corporate governance,” says Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. “The level of entrenchment and lack of independent oversight is unprecedented for a company of this size.”

The Five Critical Challenges Facing Tesla’s Leadership

1. The “Key Person” Risk

Musk isn’t just CEO – he’s Tesla’s:

Chief product architect
Primary technology visionary
Main public spokesperson

Succession Planning Reality:

Apple began grooming Tim Cook years before Steve Jobs’ passing
Microsoft had Satya Nadella in leadership pipeline before Ballmer’s exit
Tesla has no publicly identified successor

2. Musk’s Divided Attention

The billionaire currently oversees:

SpaceX (CEO)
Neuralink (Founder)
The Boring Company (Founder)
xAI (Founder)
X/Twitter (Owner)

Time Allocation Impact:

2023 analysis shows Musk spent <40% time at Tesla
Critical product launches (Cybertruck, Roadster) repeatedly delayed

3. Brand Erosion and Political Polarization

Musk’s recent activities:

Endorsed conservative political candidates
Acquired Twitter and reinstated banned accounts
Made controversial statements on gender, COVID, and other hot-button issues

Consumer Impact:

2023 survey showed 18% drop in brand favorability among Democrats
7% increase among Republicans (showing increasing politicization)

4. Operational Challenges

Production Issues:

Cybertruck production at 25% of targets
Model 3 Highland refresh delayed in North America

Financial Pressures:

Operating margins fell from 19% (2021) to 8% (2023)
$18B debt load with rising interest expenses

5. Technological Crossroads

Autonomy Delays:

Full Self-Driving (FSD) still at Level 2 after 10+ years
Major competitors (Waymo, Cruise) deploying robotaxis

Battery Innovation:

4680 cells not meeting energy density targets
Chinese competitors achieving faster charging speeds

Potential Succession Scenarios and Implications

Internal Candidates Analysis

1. Drew Baglino (Former SVP Powertrain & Energy)

Strengths: Deep technical expertise, 18-year Tesla veteran
Weaknesses: Limited public-facing experience, resigned April 2024

2. Tom Zhu (SVP Automotive)

Strengths: Turned around China operations, production expert
Weaknesses: Limited autonomy/AI experience

3. Lars Moravy (VP Vehicle Engineering)

Strengths: Product development leader, respected internally
Weaknesses: Unknown strategic vision

External Possibilities

Wildcard Option:
Could Tesla recruit an auto industry veteran like:

Jim Farley (Ford CEO)
Herbert Diess (Former VW CEO)

Tech Industry Options:

Jennifer Tejada (Former PagerDuty CEO)
Gwynne Shotwell (SpaceX COO)

Investor Perspectives: What the Street Is Saying

Bull Case:

“Musk is irreplaceable as a tech visionary” – Dan Ives, Wedbush
“Succession planning doesn’t equal imminent change” – Adam Jonas, Morgan Stanley

Bear Case:

“The board has failed shareholders by not planning sooner” – GLJ Research
“Tesla needs an operational CEO to complement Musk’s vision” – Bernstein

Institutional Investor Sentiment:

Vanguard and BlackRock both supported shareholder proposals for better succession planning
32% of votes favored independent chair proposal in 2023 (up from 26% in 2022)

Historical Precedents: Lessons From Tech Leadership Transitions

Successful Transitions:

Microsoft (Ballmer → Nadella)
- Key: Clear succession pipeline
- Result: $500B+ value creation
Apple (Jobs → Cook)
- Key: Multi-year transition period
- Result: Maintained innovation while scaling

Failed Transitions:

Uber (Kalanick → Khosrowshahi)
- Issue: Crisis-driven change
- Result: Years of instability
WeWork (Neumann → SoftBank takeover)
- Issue: No planning
- Result: Near-collapse

The Path Forward: Strategic Recommendations

For Tesla’s Board

Formalize Succession Plan
- Identify 2-3 internal candidates
- Establish mentorship program
Enhance Governance
- Add independent directors
- Separate Chair/CEO roles
Manage Transparent Communication
- Public roadmap for leadership development
- Clear timelines for any transitions

For Investors

Monitor These Key Metrics:
- Musk’s time allocation (via jet tracking, public appearances)
- Board refreshment (any new independent appointments)
- Succession-related disclosures in next proxy statement
Engagement Priorities:
- Push for formal succession committee
- Advocate for board independence

Conclusion: Why This Matters Beyond Tesla

The Tesla leadership saga represents a case study in:

Founder-led company challenges
Board governance in disruptive tech
Investor rights in high-growth firms

As Ark Invest’s Cathie Wood recently noted: “The market isn’t pricing in the key person risk at Tesla. When that changes, it could be dramatic.”

The coming months will prove crucial. Will Tesla:

Double down on Musk’s leadership?
Begin a gradual transition?
Face a crisis-driven change?

One thing is certain: How Tesla navigates this challenge will shape not just its future, but the broader conversation about leadership in transformative companies.

Tesla gives up on selling cars

Google’s AI enabled me to create subpar Nintendo knockoffs

Chevrolet’s Silverado ZR2 looks great, but smart money buys a different trim

OpenAI disputes culpability in the teen suicide action, citing’misuse’ of ChatGPT

Cars

RESALE VALUE OF THE MAZDA CX-5: HOW QUICK HAS THE SUV DEPRECIATED?

by George Mensah 2025-11-15

The Mazda CX-5 has been one of Mazda’s most influential models since its debut in 2012. Now entering its third generation with the 2026 model year, this compact SUV remains at the heart of the brand’s global success. Over 4.5 million units have been sold worldwide, of which 1.6 million were purchased in the United States, thus easily making it one of Mazda’s most successful nameplates.

But for many shoppers, especially in the used market, one major question remains: How well does the Mazda CX-5 hold its value over time?

Depreciation Breakdown: How Much Value Does a Mazda CX-5 Lose?

The resale value largely depends on the level of depreciation-the natural decline in a vehicle’s worth as time and mileage pile up. While CarEdge data indicates that the CX-5 holds its value relatively well for its class, it still depreciates more quickly than many of its top competitors.

Two-Year-Old Mazda CX-5

Average Depreciation: $12,963

Value Retained: 66.57%

Estimated Resale Value: $25,815

Mileage Assumption: 27,000 miles total (13,500 per year)

Five-Year-Old Mazda CX-5

Average Depreciation: $16,217

Value Retained: 58.18%

Estimated Resale Value: $22,561

Mileage Assumption: 67,500 miles total

These numbers suggest that while the CX-5 retains decent value, it nevertheless surrenders a significant portion of its value within the first five-year period, which is typically where most vehicles lose their value the fastest.

What Influences Depreciation Beyond Age and Mileage?

While time and mileage are the primary drivers of depreciation, several other factors play a major role in how much a used CX-5 is worth:

History of maintenance

The better choice will always be a well-maintained CX-5.

Consistent oil changes

Scheduled services according to Mazda’s recommendations

Proper care for brakes, tires, and fluids

Complete service records can help your vehicle sell more quickly and bring a better sale price.

Type of Driving

A car that does a lot of highway driving is often easier on the vehicle than constant stop-and-go city driving. A CX-5 that has spent its entire life doing long road trips might show less wear than one used to commute daily.

History of Accidents

Clean CarFax or AutoCheck reports greatly increase resale value.

Trim Level and Features

Higher trims, such as the Grand Touring or Signature, especially those with premium packages, will generally retain value better than their base-model brethren.

How the CX-5 Stacks Up Against Its Rivals

The compact SUV segment is highly competitive, with vehicles like the Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, and Subaru Forester always ranking near the very top in resale value. Here’s how the CX-5 compares:

After 2 Years

Toyota RAV4: 83.52% retained

Honda CR-V: 78.77%

Subaru Forester: 77.20%

Mazda CX-5: 66.57%

After 5 Years

Toyota RAV4: 69.42% retained

Honda CR-V: 67.01%

Subaru Forester: 65.98%

Mazda CX-5: 58.18%

These figures indicate that the CX-5 depreciates more quickly than its most popular rivals. For buyers, this is actually a good thing – used CX-5 models usually sell for less than similarly-equipped RAV4s or CR-Vs.

For sellers, though, the lower resale value means they may not recover as much of their investment when it’s time to move on.

The Bottom Line: Who Benefits Most?

Buyers: Buyers benefit by paying lower used prices because of higher depreciation.

Sellers: See resale returns lower than that of CR-V and RAV4 owners.

Simply stated, high depreciation works in the buyer’s favor, while strong resale value benefits the seller. Knowing which side you’re on helps you make the smartest financial decision.

Looking Ahead: The 2026 Mazda CX-5

Mazda is getting ready to introduce the highly anticipated third-generation CX-5 for the 2026 model year. Early reports indicate that

Refined design inspired by the CX-60 and CX-70

Updated safety and entertainment technology

More efficient powertrains

Improved handling and comfort These upgrades might be worth considering for shoppers who are torn between buying used or waiting for the latest model.

Cars

Despite not being enjoyable, the 2026 Toyota Corrola Cross hybrid is funny

by George Mensah 2025-10-29

Generative AI has moved from specialist interest to part of daily life — transforming all from entertainment to the workplace. From AI-generated art, deepfakes, and intelligent chatbots capable of talking like humans, AI is now part of modern life. Yet with technology racing ahead, so do fears it will spin out of control.

Now, a new generation of scientists, business leaders, and celebrities are calling for a slowdown on the next frontier: AI superintelligence — a form of artificial intelligence that potentially could surpass human intellectual ability in almost every dimension.

The Pushback: A Global Call to Slow Down AI Development

A collection of public personalities — such as Virgin Group creator Richard Branson, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and musician will.i.am — signed a new open letter called the “Statement on Superintelligence.”

The warning asks developers and businesses racing towards state-of-the-art AI systems, including OpenAI and Elon Musk’s xAI, to delay the magnitude of massive AI projects until there is a “broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably” and a “strong public buy-in” to support it.

Notably among them are two of the leading AI researchers, who are also cofounders of modern machine learning. The movement is thus quite heavily weighted.

“We must ensure that AI is serving humanity, and not vice versa,” the letter demands, threatening dire consequences in the event of runaway progress.

What Is AI Superintelligence — and Why Does It Worry Experts?

In order to understand the alarm, defining what AI superintelligence really is, is essential. Superintelligent AI, according to IBM, is a system which not only matches but far exceeds human intelligence — capable of reasoning, learning, and solving problems for itself in every respect, free of human control.

Contrary to current AI systems such as ChatGPT or Gemini, whose boundaries and data sets are defined, superintelligent AI would be continuously learning and evolving, rewriting its own code to increase efficiency and capability. Such recursive enhancement could make it almost impossible to contain.

“A true superintelligence would no longer need human oversight,” said Stuart Russell, an AI researcher at UC Berkeley. “At that point, its goals might diverge from ours — and we’d have no way to stop it.”

The Risks: From Job Losses to Existential Threats

The possible dangers of AI superintelligence go much beyond job automation or misinformation. The threat is mentioned by experts as the possibility of AI systems executing on their own in pursuit of ends that are in conflict with human values or safety.

Some of the highest threats:

Massive Job Displacement – AI already revolutionizes industries, but an entirely automated self-enhancing system could eliminate entire professions, ranging from programmers to creative professionals.

Loss of Human Control – The moment an AI begins to be smarter than the people who create it, it might be beyond control.

Weaponization and Surveillance – AI might be utilized by governments or corporations for total surveillance or robot war.

Existential Risk – In the worst-case scenario, a rogue AI with goals of its own would view humankind as an obstacle — one which scientists describe as a “digital doomsday.”.

Even if these ideas sound like science fiction, specialists argue that rejection of them would be naively dangerous. History has shown that humanity always underestimated the capabilities of its own inventions — from nuclear energy to biotechnology.

Increasing Public Alarm and Demand for Regulation

Public sentiment is shifting rapidly. A 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that 67% of Americans now support greater government regulation of AI, up from 42% two years earlier. The European Union has already legislatively signed the AI Act into law, establishing the globe’s first extensive regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, while U.S. lawmakers are determining how to follow.

Tech giants, however, are still racing ahead. OpenAI, xAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic are investing billions in “next-generation” AI models that could approach or surpass human-level reasoning.

“We’re in an AI arms race, and everyone wants to be first — but that could also mean being first to make a catastrophic mistake,” warned Richard Branson in a recent statement.

Is It Already Too Late to Stop?

Until now, actual AI superintelligence is still theoretical, although most experts foresee that it might arise in the next two decades if trends continue. The question is not whether or when it will happen, but whether human civilization will be prepared — morally, technically, and legally — when it does.

“The clock is ticking,” declared Yoshua Bengio. “We still have time to make this technology safe. But not much.”

The Bottom Line: Humanity at a Crossroads

The debate over AI superintelligence is no longer confined to labs or tech circles — it has become a global conversation about the future of humanity itself. As generative AI becomes ubiquitous, the next phase could redefine civilization in ways we’re only beginning to imagine.

Whether the Statement on Superintelligence does indeed result in change is yet to be known. But this much is definite: the world has finally realized that the latest technology human beings have ever come up with has the potential to be the most deadly — unless we can learn how to control it before it controls us.

Load More Posts