Joe Tigay Reflections on My CNBC Interview: Tesla, Musk, and the Questions I Wish I’d Answered Better
By Joe Tigay
Being interviewed by Andrew Sorkin on CNBC was an absolute thrill—one of those career moments you replay in your head afterward, wondering if you could have done it better. Spoiler alert: I could have.
I was on to discuss Tesla following the shareholder vote on Elon Musk’s compensation package, and I’ll admit it—I came in cheerleading. I was bullish, enthusiastic, and ready to make the case for Tesla. I delivered what I thought was an outstanding soundbite: “We now have clarity on Tesla’s direction and leadership commitment.” Clean, confident, and it captured my conviction. But Andrew Sorkin wasn’t interested in just soundbites. He wanted deeper answers, the kind of nuanced thinking that goes beyond “Elon is great, Tesla is great.”
And here’s the thing: I’m a huge fan of Andrew for exactly that reason. His book on the 1929 Crash offers themes that remain crucial for investors today, especially when evaluating executive compensation and market euphoria. He pushed back hard, asking tough, probing questions that forced me to defend my thesis with substance, not slogans.
I gave good answers. But watching it back, I know I could have given better answers—the kind that would have satisfied both Andrew’s skepticism and my own conviction. And if that wasn’t humbling enough, getting called a “boomer” in a Twitter response certainly was. Nothing like social media to keep you grounded.
So here’s what I wish I’d said, with the benefit of hindsight and without the pressure of live television.
The Core Thesis: Simple but Non-Negotiable
Let me be clear about my investment thesis: Tesla with Elon = Own. Tesla without Elon = Not Interested.
I’m not here to defend Elon Musk as a person or the Tesla Board as fiduciaries. My job is to identify opportunities for my clients, and right now, Tesla represents one of the most compelling risk-reward profiles in the market—but only with Musk at the helm.
What I Should Have Said About Musk’s Value
During the interview, I was enthusiastic about Musk—maybe too enthusiastic without enough substance behind it. I acknowledged his quirks: his narcissism, his tendency to overpromise, the fact that he’s not the engineer he sometimes thinks he is. But when Andrew pushed for deeper reasoning, I could have been sharper.
Here’s what I should have emphasized: Musk is a superior salesman and futurist, and that’s the perfect skill set for this exact moment in time.
We’re at an inflection point where manufacturing meets AI capabilities. Tesla has accumulated millions of miles of real-world driving data, which can now feed into physical AI applications like the Optimus robot. This isn’t just about making better cars—it’s about building the infrastructure for the next generation of robotics and automation. That vision requires someone who can sell the future before it arrives, and Musk does that better than anyone.
The Coach Analogy: Why You Can’t Swap Musk and Bezos
Andrew pushed back on my cheerleading by essentially asking, “Why not run Tesla more like Jeff Bezos runs Amazon? Why does it have to be Musk’s way?” It’s a fair question that deserved a more thoughtful answer than I gave in the moment.
Here’s the better answer: Bezos and Musk are two phenomenally successful CEOs who would both fail if they swapped places.
Think of it like baseball. You wouldn’t ask a phenomenal home-run pull hitter to change their swing just to hit for average. You let the player play their game. Musk is amazing because he is Musk. Bezos is amazing because he is Bezos. Their approaches are fundamentally different, and that’s okay. Tesla needs Musk’s brand of audacious vision; Amazon needs Bezos’s operational discipline. Neither approach is universally superior—they’re suited to different contexts.
The xAI Question: Fiduciary Duty and Trust
One of the toughest moments in the interview came when Andrew asked whether I wanted the Board to scrutinize Tesla’s potential purchase of xAI, Musk’s AI startup. My response—”That’s above my paygrade”—came across as evasive, like I was dodging the question to keep cheerleading for Tesla. Andrew wanted a real answer about governance and accountability, and I gave him a punt.
What I should have said was this:
As a portfolio manager, I voted to allow the Board to do their job, trusting their knowledge and expertise. I don’t have the inside information the Board has, and it’s not my role to second-guess every transaction from the outside. That said, I do have a clear accountability framework: if the Board ultimately overpays or makes poor decisions, my response is straightforward—either fire the Board or fire them in the marketplace by selling the shares.
But here’s the other part I wish I’d emphasized: I’m hoping the Board can structure this deal in a way that gets my clients exposure to xAI, especially given the astronomical valuations we’re seeing for companies like OpenAI. If Tesla can acquire or partner with xAI on favorable terms, that could unlock tremendous value for shareholders. But if they botch it? Then we reassess.
The Bigger Picture
At the end of the day, investing isn’t about cheerleading. It’s not about defending every decision a CEO or Board makes. It’s about identifying asymmetric opportunities and managing risk intelligently. I came into that interview bullish on Tesla, and Andrew Sorkin did exactly what he should have done—he challenged me to explain why with more depth and rigor.
I gave good answers. I stood by my thesis. But I could have given better answers—answers that acknowledged the real risks, the governance concerns, and the legitimate skepticism around Musk’s leadership style, while still making the case for why Tesla represents one of the most compelling investment opportunities in the market today.
Tesla with Musk is a bet on a unique combination of vision, execution, and timing. His flaws are real, but so is his ability to see around corners and mobilize capital and talent toward that vision. The question isn’t whether Musk is perfect—he’s not. The question is whether he’s the right person for this moment. I believe he is.
I’m grateful for the opportunity to be on CNBC and honored to go toe-to-toe with Andrew Sorkin, one of the sharpest financial journalists out there. This was my second time talking with Andrew, and he made me better by pushing for deeper answers. I hope to have many more conversations with him in the future, and I’m sure I’ll be better each time—more prepared not just with enthusiasm, but with the nuance that a sophisticated investor like Andrew deserves.
Joe Tigay is a portfolio manager at Equity Armor Investments. Learn more about Joe here.
