Notice of 2015 Shareholder Meeting - June 9

[brianman]

Even the hot tub?!

Hm, you make a good point....

 

[Benz]

Looking forward to the live broadcast.

 

[StapleGun]

I wish I could go this year, but I now live about 2500 miles away. Last year, forum member Lorih organized a lunch afterwards at Cucina Venti which is just across the street from the Computer History Museum. The food was great and they were able to accommodate our party of about 18.

 

[benemac]

Thanks for the info. Hopefully we can get a group together. It sounds like the perfect spot.

I wish I could go this year, but I now live about 2500 miles away. Last year, forum member Lorih organized a lunch afterwards at Cucina Venti which is just across the street from the Computer History Museum. The food was great and they were able to accommodate our party of about 18.

 

[InTheShadows]

What is everyone's thoughts regarding proposals 3 and 4? Both are asking for TM to use non animal products in the cars.

The board is recommending against on both proposals (which are really the same proposal).

I think the proposals are a good idea and I somewhat agree with the Peters and somewhat with the board.

I would like to see TM explore the possibility of adopting this proposal by tabling it for a year so they can research how difficult it would be to switch to artificial leather and if the supply chain could keep up. If they have already done the research then they should present the conclusions of it.

One of the Boards reason for rejecting it is that it doesn't fit with the original mission statement. I feel that their request is a slight deviation from the original mission statement as is stationary storage. I do think that it would have a benefit to shareholders by increasing the brands image to all things sustainable.

 

[ecarfan]

Stationary storage definitely contributes to the goal of "sustainable transport" because it encourages the use of solar and wind which are obviously sustainable but since they are not available continuously,meaning a way to store energy derived from them and use that energy 25/7 facilitates their adoption.

Whether the use of synthetic leather does or does not further that goal is arguable.

 

[Robert.Boston]

There are problems with both natural and artificial leather. Natural leather is an animal product, and so using it helps fund an industry with a less-than-stellar reputation for animal treatment and substantial carbon emissions. All the artificial leathers I'm aware of use petroleum products, which as a less-than-stellar reputation for environmental habitat destruction and substantial carbon emissions. I don't have enough information to decide which is worse.

Tesla does offer a very nice non-leather seating option, allowing customers to decide for themselves. I think that's the right call, so I voted against 3 and 4.

 

[Lump]

Kimbal Musk will be joining the Board of Directors.

In general, the board makes decisions on shareholders' behalf. Most importantly, the board of directors should be a fair representation of both management and shareholders' interests; too many insiders serving as directors will mean that the board will tend to make decisions more beneficial to management. On the other hand, possessing too many independent directors may mean management will be left out of the decision-making process and may cause good managers to leave in frustration.

Board Of Directors (B Of D) Definition | Investopedia

 

[benemac]

I'm not a vegetarian, but I have become more and more concerned about the method animals are put down. I think that it's a valid proposal. We went with synthetic in our car primarily because of cost, but it turned out to be very comfortable. TM should take the advice of the Peters who bring up BMW as an example. The proposals state that they have a product that feels like leather. If the product is just as good and can be made for less, why not have this replace the leather options? I think the purchaser would be fine with it as long as it offers comfort. I will be voting yes to these proposals.

What is everyone's thoughts regarding proposals 3 and 4? Both are asking for TM to use non animal products in the cars.

The board is recommending against on both proposals (which are really the same proposal).

I think the proposals are a good idea and I somewhat agree with the Peters and somewhat with the board.

I would like to see TM explore the possibility of adopting this proposal by tabling it for a year so they can research how difficult it would be to switch to artificial leather and if the supply chain could keep up. If they have already done the research then they should present the conclusions of it.

One of the Boards reason for rejecting it is that it doesn't fit with the original mission statement. I feel that their request is a slight deviation from the original mission statement as is stationary storage. I do think that it would have a benefit to shareholders by increasing the brands image to all things sustainable.

 

[Crowded Mind]

I certainly think it is a great long term goal, but at this point it may be counter-productive to add what could potentially become another production constraint, as the board argues. TM must prioritize its goals to grow sustainable transport as fast as possible, and this may not fit that prioritization at the current stage.

If synthetic is readily available at comparable quantity and cost, I would vote for. However, I don't have that information, so I will defer to trusting the board and vote against.

 

[dsm363]

I voted against 3 and 4 as well. It's a great goal but they need to sell cars at this point and the market still demands leather. That may change and they do offer a non leather option as was mentioned above.

 

[benemac]

It really doesn't matter how we vote. Not enough votes that would overturn the board's decision, but my vote could send a msg to consider it in the future. I'm not sure how the production line could suffer if they transitioned to a different seat material, but it's the standing contracts that they have with suppliers that need to be honored at this point.

 

[uselesslogin]

Tesla does offer a very nice non-leather seating option, allowing customers to decide for themselves. I think that's the right call, so I voted against 3 and 4.

Yes but you can't get a leather free car with a power liftgate. You have to have a leather armrests and dashboard if you want that. At the very least I think that should be changed. Although I still vote against.

 

[InTheShadows]

It really doesn't matter how we vote. Not enough votes that would overturn the board's decision, but my vote could send a msg to consider it in the future. I'm not sure how the production line could suffer if they transitioned to a different seat material, but it's the standing contracts that they have with suppliers that need to be honored at this point.

This is my reason for thinking it should be tabled, and considered as an option for model 3.

I however did not know about all the petroleum products that went into fake leather.

My feeling about the votes is the same as well. If we all voted for it then it would do nothing about changing the vote for now, however it could send a message that it should be explored further.

 

[Ugliest1]

I'm (currently) planning on attending. Anyone want to meet nearby for lunch?

We already have a trip planned for Reno the following week so we'll see if we can work out coming down a few days earlier. Assuming we can do that my wife and I would certainly attend the lunch as well.

 

[AlMc]

This is my reason for thinking it should be tabled, and considered as an option for model 3.

I however did not know about all the petroleum products that went into fake leather.

My feeling about the votes is the same as well. If we all voted for it then it would do nothing about changing the vote for now, however it could send a message that it should be explored further.

Tabeling is OK with me but I voted against it. I do think that TM should offer the choice to use non animal and potentially still non renewal (as Robert pointed out) materials in the car moving forward. However, to accelerate the adoption of EVs (the mission statement) I think it would boot strap them at this point to require that TM products now be made from non animal sources.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

There are problems with both natural and artificial leather. Natural leather is an animal product, and so using it helps fund an industry with a less-than-stellar reputation for animal treatment and substantial carbon emissions. All the artificial leathers I'm aware of use petroleum products, which as a less-than-stellar reputation for environmental habitat destruction and substantial carbon emissions. I don't have enough information to decide which is worse.

Tesla does offer a very nice non-leather seating option, allowing customers to decide for themselves. I think that's the right call, so I voted against 3 and 4.

I agree with this assessment. There are problems with leather (animal ethics, methane greenhouse gasses) and synthetics (petrol plastics).

I tend to favor synthetics if they are recyclable.

A third alternative is bio-plastics. Honda has used bio-fabric made from plant material in limited production cars like the FCX Clarity. As far as I know this material is not yet used in mass manufacturing, but for Tesla it's worth investigating IMO.

 

[JRP3]

I had two separate proxies, the first I voted against, but after thinking about it a bit more I voted for on the second. Obviously the end result is a null vote, but I think Tesla can and should lead the way in animal free products the same way they are leading in other areas. I think there is enough demand for their products that the lack of a real leather option would not hurt them.

 

[Lump]

If planning to attend my advice is to get the Annual Meeting Proxy Card from your broker, mine gets mailed to me in the annual report packet automatically every year so its really convenient, you can call your broker & tell them your plans & they can mail or even email to you.

Last year they had PC's to walk you over to inorder to log into your brokerage to prove ownership but some brokerages deny log ins from unrecognized computers, privacy is another concern. I am not sure if you can use your smartphone to show ownership.

Proxy Card will look like this with your info on it...

 

[ggies07]

I see both sides, but I voted for 3 and 4. Whether or not something happens now, they need to know people want different types of materials with different packages and this is far enough in advance that the company should be able to do this for the Model 3.