this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
515 points (98.5% liked)

World News

39609 readers
3080 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Dutch pension fund Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP sold its $585 million Tesla stake over concerns about Elon Musk's "controversial and exceptionally high" pay package and unspecified labor conditions.

ABP previously voted against Musk's performance-based compensation, which has faced shareholder lawsuits and judicial scrutiny.

A Delaware judge recently invalidated the pay package, citing insufficient shareholder approval.

While Tesla's Model Y remains popular in the Netherlands, European sales fell 15% in 2024.

ABP stated the divestment was not politically motivated despite Musk's ties to the Trump administration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FuglyDuck 203 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Because it's massively over-valued, the board is a bunch of Musky Bro-hoes (also sometimes family...) signing off whatever the fuck Musk says; while it's being led by a Ketamine-addled Nazis with the emotional development of a child.

Why anyone still holds Tesla, is beyond me.

[–] themeatbridge 70 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Some people truly believe in Musk and the brand. Those people are dipshits, but if you excluded dipshits from your market predictions, you would always be wrong.

But pension funds have a responsibility to go long, and while Tesla may rise or fall on Musk's digital bowel movements, volatility is the problem.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 4 days ago

Musk's digital bowel movements

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Even taking them into account, long term likely would never pay off. It's valued way over what they'd be worth if they took over the entire vehicle industry, and that's not going to happen. Sure, for gambling maybe it's worth it to speculate on, but for a long-term investment it's horrible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

See I don't get I the value is based on some future that they think Tesla can get to. So what happens if it got there the stock would stay this price?

[–] themeatbridge 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Stocks, and really anything, is worth exactly the intersection of what someone is willing to pay and what the person who has it is willing to accept. You can make valuations based on profits and growth and liabilities, but those are estimates to help professionals determine what they are willing to pay or accept. If some dolt is willing to pay more, then that's what it is worth for that transaction.

If the stock goes up in value, some people will sell. There's a natural balance to the curve, as the faster a stock rises, the more people will sell and this will bring the price back to earth. This is why the diamond hands strategy of Game Stop investors was so confounding. People weren't buying for profit, they were buying to fuck over short selling hyenas. But that's a whole nother can of worms.

The point is, if people believe it will go up, they will buy. More buyers means the price goes up, so that can have a compounding effect, and they feel good about their decision. When people think it's gone high enough, they sell, which makes the price go down, and they feel good about their decision.

The stock market is as much paychology as it is economics. Precicting what humans will do and then doing it first is the real magic of investing. And with Muskeegee Airhead, there's no way to predict what he will do. That's why risk averse investors are moving away.

[–] captainlezbian 2 points 2 days ago

Diamond hands makes more sense when you think of it as something people were encouraging holders of the stock to do rather than something they were intending to do themselvee

[–] Tattorack 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There are people like my younger brother who believe that Musk is a pure genius, likes Bezos a lot, and is entirely sold on the idea that billionaire philanthropy is somehow a good and positive thing for regular people.

[–] FuglyDuck 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

christians in particular like to imagine that god blesses those who are "good" with wealth, and that therefore wealthy people must be "good" because otherwise they wouldn't be wealthy.

This then gets absorbed into more secular thought with "well they're successful so they must be skilled".

Truth is, his daughter-grooming daddy owned an emerald mine in Apartheid South Africa and got his seed-money from that. So he's neither "good" nor particularly "skilled."

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

That's funny, because prosperity gospel is just there to indiscriminately wrench away money from the most desperately impoverished people imaginable. To think, it's doing double work by lionizing oligarchs. It's the purest form of evil, if you ask me.

[–] FuglyDuck 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

it's not even prosperity gospel- that isn't about being good. Just that god will make you rich if you make Joel Osteen and his ilk rich.

Funny how that doesn't work. (and yes... it's fucking evil.)

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie 1 points 3 days ago

The way Osteen and the other demons justify their wealth is that God appointed it to them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

christians in particular like to imagine that god blesses those who are "good" with wealth, and that therefore wealthy people must be "good" because otherwise they wouldn't be wealthy.

It's just Calvinism (if you are rich, that means god loves you), and Calvinism is baked into most protestant denominations.

Really Calvin and his beloved "Protestant work ethic" are behind the rise of capitalism. Look it up. Max Weber wrote about it in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism"

[–] FuglyDuck 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

no it's not. Calvin might have been a huge proponent of it in his particular brand of douchery, but the concept goes as far back as- for example- Job. This is why Job is so confused about why god wrecked his life... he was a good and faithful person. The story of Job tweaked it so that wealth "wasn't always"... (even if god did give him everything back again for being a good sock puppet.)

The real moral of Job, though, is that god is a raging fucking narcissist. ("you wouldn't understand. you're incapable of understanding. only I can understand.")

the core tenet of Calvinism is rather that salvation is inevitable- it derives from god's choice, rather than any willful act by humans. The other side of that, is of course, that humanity is irrevocably fucked without that "salvation", and that only by submission can good things come to you. (again, this is raging narcissism.)

[–] captainlezbian 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was under the impression that the lesson of job was that families are fungible assets

[–] FuglyDuck 1 points 2 days ago

That…wasn’t a lesson that needed to be taught. Back then you could buy a family for 50 goats. 20 if she had hit puberty.

The “point” of Job was to tackle the problem of evil. There-presumably- a rash of Bronze Age peeps asking “if god is good and unfaithful, why does bad shit happen to me” that needed addressing.

It does it through a sock-puppet story every bit as cringeworthy as the God’s Not Dead series. (Can you believe they made 5 movies?!), of which the final explanation, when Job demands one, is “who the fuck are you to question me?! You wouldn’t fucking understand, because I’m so fucking great”

Basically, god massively gaslights the shit out of job and, in typical sock puppet fashion licks the jackboot of the guy who killed off his family, his livelyhood and wellbeing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

sold on the idea that billionaire philanthropy is somehow a good and positive thing for regular people.

He's not wrong, but he's judging occasional donations to particular issues as neither ineffective, incomplete, nor completely toxic to direction of research, because he judges them in a vacuum and/or against a fake goal-post of 'no research funding' instead of 'broad research funding based on income tax that rich fucks would have paid in a world before Reagan dropped the bottom out '.

The mating habits of cannabis-injected left-handed greater eastern blue potter's snails will get no money from rich fucks, DESPITE its follow-on application to cancer cure research based on the secretion rate inprovement and or testing options derived from massive population explosions with a kill switch.