To the Editor:|
Barron’s rightly points out that a rapid increase in adoption of electric vehicles in the next few years will strain our capacity to provide critical materials and to manufacture the volume of batteries to meet the demand “Tesla Is Winning the EV Race. Better Batteries Will Help Ford and GM Close the Gap,” Cover Story, Oct. 29). But aren’t utilities moving rapidly to replace fossil fuels with solar and wind? This, of course, will require a massive implementation of battery storage—an order of magnitude more than what is projected for EVs. Something in these scenarios must give. I suggest that the growth rate of EVs and renewables will fall well short of optimistic projections. My advice—hold on to your beaten-down fossil-fuel investments for a nice, steady return in the coming years.
Edward Bohn, Seahurst, Wash.
To the Editor:
When discussing EV batteries, it’s shortsighted to just talk about mining and raw materials while ignoring battery recycling (Li-Cycle, for example), i.e., what happens to batteries after a few years of use on the road. Old batteries will be the source of many new batteries as their mined components are taken to their original state and reused. With EVs set to dominate the vehicle scene soon, recycled batteries aren’t an afterthought. They’re even more important than mining for new stuff endlessly. After all, mining for new materials is anything but green.
Villu Arak, On Barrons.com
To the Editor:
Nothing standing in the way of Ford or GM? How about serious cultural and talent deficits that got them into this mess in the first place? Batteries are not enough. You need top-flight software and telematics talent, which doesn’t come cheap and doesn’t fit with Ford’s “hire from within” mantra and GM’s bureaucracy.
Chris Allen, On Barrons.com
Crypto Tulip Bulbs
To the Editor:
My analysis of crypto is that its creation is more akin to a transfer of wealth than a Ponzi scheme (“Inside DeFi, the Wild West of Cryptocurrency,” Oct. 29). Let’s assume there are five players. Player No. 1 creates a crypto out of thin air and values it at $1. He sells it to No. 2 for $2, increasing his wealth by $2. Each player sells it up the chain for a $1 profit until No. 5 pays $5 for it. So, No. 1 has increased his wealth by $2, and Nos. 2, 3, and 4 have increased their wealth by $1 each. Now, assume that No. 5 cannot find a buyer, and thus the chain ends with his crypto being worth zero. There has been a transfer of wealth up the chain to everyone but No. 5. This transfer of wealth up the chain has all been at the expense of No. 5. Perhaps a tulip bulb in crypto format?
Steve Martin, Northbrook, Ill.
A Different Wealth Tax
To the Editor:
In “Democrats Want to Raise Taxes. Here’s What’s Likely to Change” (Oct. 27), many possible changes were mentioned. I recently hit upon an idea that I think many readers could get behind. After reading yet another initial-public-offering prospectus where I can have the honor of buying shares but the existing shareholders get to keep supervoting shares and control 99% of the vote, I thought of a wealth tax that is applied only to supervoting shares, a class of stock that allows its owners multiple votes per share, rather than just one vote. I think that many Barron’s readers and politicians from both parties could support a yearly 70% tax on any share of stock that grants its owner the right to more than one vote.
Stuart Boreen, Bethlehem, Pa.
Kill Supervoting Shares
To the Editor:
Tech analyst Paul Gallant’s thoughts on the current regulatory risks in Washington, D.C., should incorporate environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, investing when coming to a solution to mitigate the risk of concentration of power within the tech sector (“When It Comes to Regulation, Here’s What Tech Investors Should Worry About,” Interview, Oct. 28). The “G” portion of ESG gets little attention from portfolio managers when buying stocks. Companies such as Facebook, Tesla, and Alphabet are controlled by the founders through supervoting stock. This fact narrows the number of people who can have a material impact on how these companies approach issues such as privacy, Section 230, and competition. That is concentration.
I would propose that supervoting stock is eliminated once a certain threshold is reached, such as market-cap level. For example, the rule could dissolve supervoting stock into “one-share, one-vote” shares once the stock enters the 50 largest, publicly traded U.S. stocks. Or an absolute market cap level could trigger the same conversion.
I don’t think I am alone in believing that supervoting shares are a problem to investors. The S&P 500 index does prevent stocks with supervoting stock from entering its benchmark. If this rule were implemented, boards could take more control moving companies toward shareholder-friendly changes.
Alan Creech, Yorkville, Ill.
The Case for Utilities
To the Editor:
Regarding “Four Utility Stocks That Can Juice Up Your Portfolio” (Income Investing, Oct. 22): Although utility dividends aren’t government insured, I can give you actual numbers that compare 46 years (1964-2010) of “investing” approximately $500 a month in Social Security, versus 30 years (1980-2010) of investing $400 a month in one utility (Dominion Resources). Social Security: $30,000 a year; Dominion: $33,600.
With fewer years, along with a smaller monthly amount invested, and yet the utility investment beat the “guaranteed” government return. Maybe we should look at a different way of saving for our retirements. Another factor that is rarely mentioned is that once I’m gone, so is my “guaranteed” government monthly check.
Walter Wenk, Sarasota, Fla.
Send letters to: [email protected]. To be considered for publication, correspondence must bear the writer’s name, address, and phone number. Letters are subject to editing.
