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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.”
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”
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.)
I was under the impression that the lesson of job was that families are fungible assets
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.
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.
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.)
The way Osteen and the other demons justify their wealth is that God appointed it to them.
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.
I don’t understand why people mention the ketamine. If he truly did a lot of ketamine he’d be far nicer. It gives a dreamy feeling where your opinions on matters are much more down to earth. You don’t overthink and live more in the moment. If anything, Muskyboi should do a lot more ketamine.
That is complete nonsense, ket can make you a enraged, confused dumbass after chronic use, I’ve seen it happen.
Enraged? Lmao. That seems to be the only nonsense that’s been posted here. I’m not even going to entertain that misinformation. Whatever person you saw become a dumbass was already destined to be a dumbass, and the ketamine did not help.
Confused I’ll confirm, although mostly from an outside perspective. Ketamine is considered a dissociative because there’s no loss of awareness. It dissociates awareness from body, creating new perspectives. How one reacts to that is up to the person themselves, it doesn’t alter that. From what I’ve seen it’s either no change or personal growth.
I’m saying this because mentioning ketamine is just anti-drug mentality and has nothing to do with how he is as a person. I don’t like the new Muskyboi, but mentioning something most people here know absolutely nothing about is just bad taste.
Drugs don’t change people. Plenty of murderers smoke weed, and no sane person arguing in good faith would say weed makes you violent.
I know hundreds of ketamine users. I have been in legal drug education and have a lot of personal experience too.
Drugs do not change behavior, but perspective does. Psychedelics and dissociatives alter perspective, and it’s a fact that people alter their behavior depending on their perspective.
Muskyboi has a huge ego, most likely because of some grandeur perspective. But that’s the opposite of the perspective one has on ketamine.
Yes psychedelics change perspective but you can still be a cunt. It’s not a silver bullet unfortunately otherwise we’d have been in utopia after the 1960s.
As Bron so eloquently stated in Game of Thrones: “There’s no cure for being a cunt.”
So do you just not believe all of the various people who have watched or done Ketamine with him?
His own friends say that he microdoses Ketamine daily and macrodoses at parties.
I’m saying mentioning ketamine is useless and its impact on Musk is meaningless. The amounts he’s taking are either too small to be mentioned, or not high enough to drop that stupid nazi perspective.
I think ketamine is an absolutely amazing substance with a lot of positive psychological effects, but mentioning it when talking about Muskyboi and Nazis is useless. It doesn’t change the man. He just likes to do it, who cares?
Have you tried taking ketamine well be the richest person on the planet and thinking you are the smartest?
Oh. I get you know, and I agree. He would be the same racist prick with or without substances.
Set and setting matter a lot, as does intent going into things with the drug. Ketamine can offer perspective and help you become a better person, that doesn’t mean it always does.
When Elon Musk does drugs, do you think he goes into it looking for enlightenment, or looking to party?
This seems like a massive and ultimately incorrect generalization.
Weed doesn’t have to reliably turn the worst murderers in society into community serving pacifists every single time in order to be effective and worthwhile. That’s just perfect being the enemy of good.
Like another reply said, drugs can change perspective which is how people change themselves. It certainly worked for me with both weed and ketamine (both legally sourced with medical providers involved, and only several times total with the ketamine).
The problem is generalizations. I’ve seen people get extremely paranoid on weed. Everyone is different.
Absolutely. Likewise, prescribed medications for mental heath vary by individual and they are essentially trial and error with some educated guessing by your doctor.
It doesn’t change the core being is my point. You can’t take an evil person and make them good with drugs, and you can’t take a good person and make them evil with drugs. They just amplify or shift perspective, but they don’t introduce anything from the outside into the person who uses them.