Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[CLK350]

I voted 'no' primarily because the 'yes' option could have established arduous and complex documentation processes that would potentially involve gathering comprehensive documentation from each suppliers then compiling and disclosing that to shareholders. From my perspective Tesla already does a quite good job explaining itself.
Were Tesla less good in explaining itself and acting to eliminate conflict products I'd readily vote 'yes'. I spent a little while going over the options on this one myself.

Voted NO - because this is clearly to waste company resources.

[rant begin]
If said stockholders were so keen on preserving the health and safety of exploited workers in Africa, China, Latin America and the US, they'd at least ask AAPL (of whom I'm sure they are also investors) to reduce e-waste (creates more pollution, aka global warming and thus suffering for all non privileged folks like us shareholders et al, not to mention animals all over the globe) and abide or exceed labor laws in China (saving an extra .1% over their high 20% hardware margins. .recall they only started to look into abuses in their suppliers after many complaints).
[end of rant]

 

[Artful Dodger]

FYI, Apple just hit 2T market cap. They were first to hit 1T, back in October 2019.

AAPL: "I'm up 108% since the March bottom"
TSLA: "Hold my bear"

 

[SOULPEDL]

Filling out the proxy voting document and all is straightforward until the last proposal:

7. Stockholder proposal regarding additional reporting on human rights.

"Tesla's products use thousands of purchased parts sourced from hundreds of global suppliers through complex extended supply chains. The company states that “reliably determining the origin [of raw materials] is a difficult task.”1 The use of cobalt in lithium-ion batteries poses human rights risks for Tesla. 60% of cobalt globally is produced in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where child labor is pervasive.2 Cobalt mining is one of the worst forms of child labor. Children work in mines at risk of collapse, use sharp tools, and lack safety equipment. Tesla is among five companies facing a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 14 children and parents from the DRC, which includes allegations of “aiding and abetting in the death and serious injury of children who claim they were working in cobalt mines in their supply chain.”3 While Tesla reports on cobalt sourcing procedures and indicates it is looking for ways to reduce the cobalt in its batteries, the company does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate its cobalt supply chain is free of child labor. Conflict minerals, steel, lithium, rubber, mica, and electronics may also present human rights risks for Tesla.4"

To me, this should be a Yes, but I don't want to put extra burden on the company by voting Yes.

Any thoughts on this point by more experienced investors?

Not that I'm much of an investor, being up front and first to the punch can set the tone. This is the argument I hear occasionally on the street, so they need data to show improving conditions and acknowledgement of the slavery issues everywhere, including their favorite Apple company. And buying more mines helps, or create a new partnership like Tesla did with the existing solar industry and cities. It's unfair, but it's the narrative already spreading. The volume of materials that Tesla could consume as early as this year might raise brows, even though it's the humans in general.

 

[Blue horseshoe]

Sold 19 iron condor range of 1830 and 1930

I think MM will keep it in that range for the week

Cost me 5k for the trade profit at 13k if it ends the week in that range

You've got balls. Although it seems more likely than not that SP500 inclusion will not happen this week, with that looming overhead I'm hesitant to trade an iron condor on Tesla.

I'm more inclined to trade a straddle, but a longer time frame. Something like:
Oct 2 2020 call strike 1900 - premium $205.8
Oct 2 2020 put strike 1900 - premium $200.5

 

[phantasms]

AAPL: "I'm up 108% since the March bottom"
TSLA: "Hold my bear"

Yeah it's funny. Sometimes I'll see things like that and I'm like "*sugar*, I should have bought in" Then I'm like "ohhh, no, no, all money in TSLA was the best idea"

 

[SarahsDad]

Filling out the proxy voting document and all is straightforward until the last proposal:

7. Stockholder proposal regarding additional reporting on human rights.

"Tesla's products use thousands of purchased parts sourced from hundreds of global suppliers through complex extended supply chains. The company states that “reliably determining the origin [of raw materials] is a difficult task.”1 The use of cobalt in lithium-ion batteries poses human rights risks for Tesla. 60% of cobalt globally is produced in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where child labor is pervasive.2 Cobalt mining is one of the worst forms of child labor. Children work in mines at risk of collapse, use sharp tools, and lack safety equipment. Tesla is among five companies facing a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of 14 children and parents from the DRC, which includes allegations of “aiding and abetting in the death and serious injury of children who claim they were working in cobalt mines in their supply chain.”3 While Tesla reports on cobalt sourcing procedures and indicates it is looking for ways to reduce the cobalt in its batteries, the company does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate its cobalt supply chain is free of child labor. Conflict minerals, steel, lithium, rubber, mica, and electronics may also present human rights risks for Tesla.4"

To me, this should be a Yes, but I don't want to put extra burden on the company by voting Yes.

Any thoughts on this point by more experienced investors?

I voted along the board recommendations on all questions except this one. I voted yes because it does not sound like an onerous request to have Tesla prepare a report on how they address human rights issues.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Interesting factoid, just to put how much of a loser MBS into perspective:

If you invested $10,000 with Mark Spiegel in 2011, you would have made less money than if you invested $80 in Tesla and spent the other $9,920 on hookers and cocaine.

Smeagol's fund hade positive net returns of $5,300 on $10K since 2011? I find that hard to believe. Must have been front loaded, since he's done nothing but burn client money for years.

 

[Swampgator]

Panasonic boosts energy density, trims cobalt in new 2170 battery cell for Tesla – TechCrunch

 

[Nocturnal]

Honestly I’m torn on this subject. The money is supposed to be to keep people afloat, keep them from getting behind on bills, put food on the table, clothes for their children.

If you didn’t need the money then morally and ethically I’d argue you shouldn’t have applied or accepted the money. I didn’t want my federal money, but it just showed up in my bank account. I ended up giving it back and several thousand more in taxes owed so I slept okay at night.

On the other hand, I told the story of one of my spouse’s healthcare professionals and how his wife got money for her small business that she didn’t need and instead bought TSLA. Well, they’ve bought a few times more and couldn’t be happier with the price action and forthcoming stock split. Not only that, they apparently told all their friends to buy as well and all those people are happy. My spouse is a damn hero now in their eyes. And I’m pleased that more people get to benefit and in turn Tesla and all of us, but should that money have been taken for this reason while others struggle? I’m torn between my dislike of people — so every man for himself — and this stupid inner morality and ethics thing inside me that I blame my parents for passing on.

It depends on what area really. Avoiding a 10% early withdrawal penalty is very ethical IMO. Every American who made less than 100k received a stimulus check, even those who didn't need them. (need is also very subjective) Say person A was reckless and lost their job with no savings, Person B was a prudent saver and technically doesn't need they money. Is it moral for B to refuse the money?

I hear the same things about unemployment. Where some will say "well, I don't need it". IMO that's immoral because the other guy who was irresponsible "needs" it because of poor choices. And to be clear, I'm not a social Darwinist guy. I support a solid safety net. I just don't like when people place one set of morals on say a bank, and another on people. Your bank would default on their debts without a second thought, so we should feel the same morally when it comes to defaulting to the bank. The airlines didn't have 6 months of expenses stored away, but many are lecturing average citizens that they are bad people because they didn't do that themselves. That doesn't sit right with me.

 

[ZachF]

Smeagol's fund hade positive net returns of $5,300 on $10K since 2011? I find that hard to believe. Must have been front loaded, since he's done nothing but burn client money for years.

"Made less money"

 

[astrotoy]

Love the insight here. Only point I will add here is that: People will upscale to EV and pay more for it because eventually people will realize that the TCO of an EV (charging, maintenance, resale value and higher saftey) is much better than that of a gas car. Maybe the new norm for mass market car will be $30K instead of $25K.

Prolific rise of charging at every parking spot ( apartments, business) will negate the need for high speed chargers except for long distance travel. You are right only Tesla stands to succeed in the EV world which only they have created through sheer will.

If you ask the new generation of new car buyers, are they going to buy an ICE or EV, they will say EV - not just for the economic rationale, but to help save the environment - their future (not that of their parents or grandparents).

Remember the slogan "This is not your father's Oldsmobile." Well, its not their GM or Ford or Chrysler either.

 

[Curt Renz]

Tesla Daily - overnight: Is Tesla Building the World’s Best Supercomputer?

 

[M|S|M MYP]

It depends on what area really. Avoiding a 10% early withdrawal penalty is very ethical IMO. Every American who made less than 100k received a stimulus check, even those who didn't need them. (need is also very subjective) Say person A was reckless and lost their job with no savings, Person B was a prudent saver and technically doesn't need they money. Is it moral for B to refuse the money?

I hear the same things about unemployment. Where some will say "well, I don't need it". IMO that's immoral because the other guy who was irresponsible "needs" it because of poor choices. And to be clear, I'm not a social Darwinist guy. I support a solid safety net. I just don't like when people place one set of morals on say a bank, and another on people. Your bank would default on their debts without a second thought, so we should feel the same morally when it comes to defaulting to the bank. The airlines didn't have 6 months of expenses stored away, but many are lecturing average citizens that they are bad people because they didn't do that themselves. That doesn't sit right with me.

Same thing happened to me during the 2008 meltdown....Had been paying our mortgage prudently and never missed a payment. Called the bank and told them i just want a reduction in my APR. They told me straight up "NO!". Thought to myself...hmmm...."Why would they want to help someone who actually pays on time." Decided that since CA was so backlogged in foreclosures, they wouldn't even get to me until 6-12 months later and we would have the funds to get caught up anyways. I was ok with my credit taking a dump since we were not going to make a big purchase anytime soon. Stopped paying them and they started calling after 4 months. After 8 months, they finally left a message saying "We are willing to work with you...."

 

[Dancing Lemur]

Slightly OT: I just received my delivery date for my MY (perf., midnight silver) on Sept 2 for an order placed on Jul 22, which is 6 weeks.

Just doing what I can to help Q3 deliveries. I don’t even have a place to charge it.

 

[SOULPEDL]

I voted along the board recommendations on all questions except this one. I voted yes because it does not sound like an onerous request to have Tesla prepare a report on how they address human rights issues. View attachment 578257
View attachment 578258

The more I think about this threat, the more i realize it's roots are in social media platforms. These are the ppl who think we should stop making anything, even while supporting the clean energy movement.

@KarenRei posted this on Twitter regarding Neo-Luddites.

(Credit to ZeApelido for that find)

 

[Unpilot]

 

[ZachF]

Tesla Daily - overnight: Is Tesla Building the World’s Best Supercomputer?

It's actually Doge-O, and it's being made to mine Dogecoin

 

[SOULPEDL]

It's a false dichotomy. Returning the money that is rightfully yours to the Federal coffers is not any more moral than spending it or investing it. The returned money doesn't go to poor people - it goes to rich people - the same people who will be responsible for paying this debt off - namely, you and me. It's OUR money.

I don't even take all the tax deductions I'm entitled to because it's not worth it to me to spend the time necessary. This is an easy way to get some back while following all the rules.

Agree. We just rolled our eyes at the stupidity of it all, then shared some of it.

 

[ZeApelido]

Can't build those Powerwalls and Megapacks fast enough:

Solar energy feeling the heat as Bay Area faces blackouts

Can I just vent a little of my frustration with the Bay Area here?

First we have Covid so everyone is more or less stuck out home.

Then for the past days straight it's been reaching about 100 degrees here on the Peninsula (south of SF, north of San Jose). This area is known for having relatively mild weather historically, so much so that most of houses built mid-century have absolutely shitake for insulation and no AC. There's not even space in walls / ceilings to add AC - people either add it onto their roofs (very ugly) or during a full renovation.

But usually most people in this area don't even have it because the hot days were never that hot and too few inbetween. Now it's getting more frequent. And PG&E can't even handle the electrical demand so they are shutting off people's power again.

This is in arguably the most expensive market (outside of Manhattan) in the U.S.

Then Saturday night there was a totally freakish thunderstorm that came in (it wasn't even anywhere on forecast Saturday) and the lightening struck 2000 times in the Santa Cruz mountains, starting a whole bunch of fires.

Now that smoke is covering most of the Bay Area (trapped in by mountains) and the air quality is horrific.

So here we are, it's too effing hot with no central AC. Can't hang out outside. And portable / wall unit ACs will just pump in more of this trash air. Oh and the power might go out again.

The connection to Tesla is of course global warming, poor grid stability, and heck even not good enough options of AC systems / filtration.

Even the Bay Area needs Tesla.

 

[jbcarioca]

Voted NO - because this is clearly to waste company resources.

[rant begin]
If said stockholders were so keen on preserving the health and safety of exploited workers in Africa, China, Latin America and the US, they'd at least ask AAPL (of whom I'm sure they are also investors) to reduce e-waste (creates more pollution, aka global warming and thus suffering for all non privileged folks like us shareholders et al, not to mention animals all over the globe) and abide or exceed labor laws in China (saving an extra .1% over their high 20% hardware margins. .recall they only started to look into abuses in their suppliers after many complaints).
[end of rant]

Excellent point. I am also an AAPL investor and voted twice towards greater accountability for them. frankly I think they are doing well now. It has usually taken some shareholder activism to produce improvements. Tesla seems to have been oriented this way early on, once they became significant enough to make demands of their suppliers. I do not object to shareholder proposals like these even when I vote against them. They do foment a bit of societal responsibility that might not otherwise happen.

Space X , as we know, has been very responsive to astronomer concerns about satellite reflections and they're private. Shareholders do set the tone, even when not public. The Musk universe seems not to need much shareholder activism to keep them alert.