tslathro

The data comes from morningstar, and the adjusted data removed Musk's shares. To perform that calculation they just have total numbers of votes cast. (And I would guess that most shareholders vote by proxy, meaning individual shareholders are, in fact, voting.)

Several reviews have produced output that shows, yes, diversity increases financial results. A summary of such reviews is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2020/01/15/diver...

Use that link to locate the studies themselves if you'd like.

The thesis is that diverse product owners recognize when market needs are under served. They are more likely to actually make a product that niches find useful and desirable.

That's exactly my point. Some shareholders vote with criteria other than "cars sold" in mind. I regularly vote to improve worker quality of life, even if it means weaker financials for the company in stock votes.

Speaking from experience of owning a model s, Tesla vehicles are not particularly high quality. Pleasant to drive, yes, but not particularly well built.

I wonder if shareholders are trying to shore up long term concerns/risks they see with the company before the image of Tesla being a "cool" brand wears off.

Maybe the people voting care about the issues raised in the votes? Eg, use of arbitration against employees might be something someone genuinely cares about, independent of the impact to the stock price

Just? If special interest groups control 60+% of shares outside of Musk's personal stake, I'd be shocked.

The data argues against your hypothesis pretty convincingly.