Connect with us

News

Over 1,700 Tesla investors are responding to Elizabeth Warren’s call for Musk investigation

Credit: Andrea Conway/X

Published

on

Over 1,700 Tesla shareholders are responding to Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who recently wrote a letter to Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm asking the EV maker’s Board of Directors to investigate CEO Elon Musk’s alleged conflicts of interest. As per the Tesla shareholders, the US Senator’s efforts are better directed towards matters that directly relate to her home state. 

US Senator Warren’s letter to the Tesla Board of Directors was made public last week. The official outlined several concerns in her letter, such as Musk’s alleged diversion of Tesla’s resources to xAI, his alleged conflicts of interest, and the alleged neglect of corporate governance duties from the Tesla Board of Directors. Warren also argued that Tesla shareholders have “suffered” from a lack of oversight at the EV maker. 

In their response, the TSLA shareholders noted that they are concerned about the US official’s focus on Tesla, especially since the EV maker is not domiciled in Massachusetts. The stockholders, who number over 1,700 as of a recent update, also addressed some of the US Senator’s concerns in her letter. 

Following is the Tesla stockholders’ letter to US Senator Warren. 

Advertisement

Dear Senator Warren,

We, the undersigned Tesla shareholders, are writing in response to your letter dated August 8, 2024, addressed to Dr. Robyn Denholm, Chair of the Board of Tesla. We must express our deep concern and disappointment regarding your unwarranted interference in Tesla’s affairs.

First and foremost, we question the basis of your involvement in this matter. Tesla is not domiciled in your state, and to our knowledge, you are not a shareholder. Your attempt to exert influence over a company in which you have no direct stake is, frankly, perplexing and concerning. 

We cannot help but view your actions as politically motivated, particularly given the timing of your letter during a Presidential election period. This appears to be an attempt to generate political pressure rather than a genuine effort to address shareholder concerns. 

Advertisement

Your letter conspicuously fails to acknowledge Tesla’s significant contributions to the American economy, the global shift to EVs and to a sustainable future. As the most American car maker, Tesla has created tens of thousands of jobs across the country. Moreover, Elon Musk’s other ventures have further bolstered American innovation and employment. Your silence on these crucial points is telling.

Addressing Your Specific Points:

1. Diversion of Al Resources: The allocation of resources across Musk’s companies often leads to synergies that benefit Testa. This is a matter for the Board and shareholders to address, not external politicians.

2. Founding of xAI: The potential for collaboration between XAl and Tesla could drive innovation in ways that ultimately benefit our company and shareholders.

Advertisement

3. Conflicts of Interest: The Board is well aware of its fiduciary duties and is capable of managing potential conflicts without external political pressure.

4. Board’s Oversight: We have confidence in our Board’s ability to provide appropriate oversight. Your assertions of failure are both premature and presumptuous.

5. Shareholder Concerns: While some concerns exist, many shareholders continue to support Mr. Musk’s vision and leadership. We prefer to address these matters internally, without political interference.

6. Your Questions: While your questions are noted, we believe they should be addressed to the Board by legitimate stakeholders, not by politicians seeking to make headlines.

Advertisement

Senator Warren, while we respect your role as a public servant, we strongly believe your energies would be better directed towards matters that fall within your purview as a Senator from Massachusetts.

Testa’s corporate governance is a matter for its Board, its shareholders, and the appropriate regulatory bodies.

We kindly request that you refrain from further interference in Tesla’s affairs. Instead, we suggest focusing on creating an environment that fosters innovation and job creation – areas where Tesla and Elon Musk’s other ventures have demonstrably excelled.

We stand firmly behind Testa’s mission and leadership, and we will continue to work constructively with the Board to ensure the company’s ongoing success and adherence to proper governance standards.

Advertisement

Sincerely,

Tesla Shareholders

This is not the first time that Tesla or Musk has found itself in the crosshairs of the US Senator. Back in December 2021, Warren called for changes in the US tax code so that Elon Musk would stop “freeloading off everyone else.” In December 2022, Warren sent a letter to Tesla’s Board of Directors asking them if Elon Musk has been diverting the EV maker’s resources to Twitter. In July 2023, Warren also sent a letter encouraging the SEC to investigate Tesla and its Board of Directors, citing potential “conflicts of interest, misappropriation of corporate assets, and other negative impacts to Tesla shareholders” related to Elon Musk’s acquisition of social media platform Twitter. 

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Advertisement

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla China January wholesale sales rise 9% year-on-year

Tesla reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 China-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla China

Tesla China reported January wholesale sales of 69,129 Giga Shanghai-made vehicles, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA). The figure includes both domestic sales and exports from Gigafactory Shanghai.

The total represented a 9.32% increase from January last year but a 28.86% decline from December’s 97,171 units.

China EV market trends

The CPCA estimated that China’s passenger new energy vehicle wholesale volume reached about 900,000 units in January, up 1% year-on-year but down 42% from December. Demand has been pressured by the start-of-year slow season, a 5% additional purchase tax cost, and uncertainty around the transition of vehicle trade-in subsidies, as noted in a report from CNEV Post.

Market leader BYD sold 210,051 NEVs in January, down 30.11% year-on-year and 50.04% month-on-month, as per data released on February 1. Tesla China’s year-over-year growth then is quite interesting, as the company’s vehicles seem to be selling very well despite headwinds in the market. 

Advertisement

Tesla China’s strategies

To counter weaker seasonal demand, Tesla China launched a low-interest financing program on January 6, offering up to seven-year terms on select produced vehicles. The move marked the first time an automaker offered financing of that length in the Chinese market.

Several rivals, including Xiaomi, Li Auto, XPeng, and NIO, later introduced similar incentives. Tesla China then further increased promotions on January 26 by reinstating insurance subsidies for the Model 3 sedan. The CPCA is expected to release Tesla’s China retail sales and export breakdown later this month.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions are not dead, they’re still in the works

For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.

Published

on

Credit: Michał Gapiński/YouTube

Tesla’s Apple CarPlay ambitions appeared to be dead in the water after a large amount of speculation late last year that the company would add the user interface seemed to cool down after several weeks of reports.

However, it appears that CarPlay might make its way to Tesla vehicles after all, as a recent report seems to indicate that it is still being worked on by software teams for the company.

The real question is whether it is truly needed or if it is just a want by so many owners that Tesla is listening and deciding to proceed with its development.

Back in NovemberBloomberg reported that Tesla was in the process of testing Apple CarPlay within its vehicles, which was a major development considering the company had resisted adopting UIs outside of its own for many years.

Nearly one-third of car buyers considered the lack of CarPlay as a deal-breaker when buying their cars, a study from McKinsey & Co. outlined. This could be a driving decision in Tesla’s inability to abandon the development of CarPlay in its vehicles, especially as it lost a major advantage that appealed to consumers last year: the $7,500 EV tax credit.

Tesla owners propose interesting theory about Apple CarPlay and EV tax credit

Although we saw little to no movement on it since the November speculation, Tesla is now reportedly in the process of still developing the user interface. Mark Gurman, a Bloomberg writer with a weekly newsletter, stated that CarPlay is “still in the works” at Tesla and that more concrete information will be available “soon” regarding its development.

While Tesla already has a very capable and widely accepted user interface, CarPlay would still be an advantage, considering many people have used it in their vehicles for years. Just like smartphones, many people get comfortable with an operating system or style and are resistant to using a new one. This could be a big reason for Tesla attempting to get it in their own cars.

Tesla gets updated “Apple CarPlay” hack that can work on new models

For what it’s worth, as a Tesla owner, I don’t particularly see the need for CarPlay, as I have found the in-car system that the company has developed to be superior. However, many people are in love with CarPlay simply because, when it’s in a car that is capable, it is really great.

It holds one distinct advantage over Tesla’s UI in my opinion, and that’s the ability to read and respond to text messages, which is something that is available within a Tesla, but is not as user-friendly.

With that being said, I would still give CarPlay a shot in my Tesla. I didn’t particularly enjoy it in my Bronco Sport, but that was because Ford’s software was a bit laggy with it. If it were as smooth as Tesla’s UI, which I think it would be, it could be a really great addition to the vehicle.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla brings closure to Model Y moniker with launch of new trim level

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

With the launch of a new trim level for the Model Y last night, something almost went unnoticed — the loss of a moniker that Tesla just recently added to a couple of its variants of the all-electric crossover.

Tesla launched the Model Y All-Wheel-Drive last night, competitively priced at $41,990, but void of the luxurious features that are available within the Premium trims.

Upon examination of the car, one thing was missing, and it was noticeable: Tesla dropped the use of the “Standard” moniker to identify its entry-level offerings of the Model Y.

The Standard Model Y vehicles were introduced late last year, primarily to lower the entry price after the U.S. EV tax credit changes were made. Tesla stripped some features like the panoramic glass roof, premium audio, ambient lighting, acoustic-lined glass, and some of the storage.

Last night, it simply switched the configurations away from “Standard” and simply as the Model Y Rear-Wheel-Drive and Model Y All-Wheel-Drive.

There are three plausible reasons for this move, and while it is minor, there must be an answer for why Tesla chose to abandon the name, yet keep the “Premium” in its upper-level offerings.

“Standard” carried a negative connotation in marketing

Words like “Standard” can subtly imply “basic,” “bare-bones,” or “cheap” to consumers, especially when directly contrasted with “Premium” on the configurator or website. Dropping it avoids making the entry-level Model Y feel inferior or low-end, even though it’s designed for affordability.

Tesla likely wanted the base trim to sound neutral and spec-focused (e.g., just “RWD” highlights drivetrain rather than feature level), while “Premium” continues to signal desirable upgrades, encouraging upsells to higher-margin variants.

Simplifying the overall naming structure for less confusion

The initial “Standard vs. Premium” split (plus Performance) created a somewhat clunky hierarchy, especially as Tesla added more variants like Standard Long Range in some markets or the new AWD base.

Removing “Standard” streamlines things to a more straightforward progression (RWD → AWD → Premium RWD/AWD → Performance), making the lineup easier to understand at a glance. This aligns with Tesla’s history of iterative naming tweaks to reduce buyer hesitation.

Elevating brand perception and protecting perceived value

Keeping “Premium” reinforces that the bulk of the Model Y lineup (especially the popular Long Range models) remains a premium product with desirable features like better noise insulation, upgraded interiors, and tech.

Eliminating “Standard” prevents any dilution of the Tesla brand’s upscale image—particularly important in a competitive EV market—while the entry-level variants can quietly exist as accessible “RWD/AWD” options without drawing attention to them being decontented versions.

You can check out the differences between the “Standard” and “Premium” Model Y vehicles below:

@teslarati There are some BIG differences between the Tesla Model Y Standard and Tesla Model Y Premium #tesla #teslamodely ♬ Sia – Xeptemper

Continue Reading