Shareholders, would you vote to reinstate Elon's pay package

[jerhenderson]

Just saw these stats and they blew me away.
The salary of all 140,000 Tesla employees combined is $10 billion.
Musk is asking for $50 billion for himself. That is $10,000 for every Tesla ever sold.
Tesla is the 2nd worst performing stock in the S&P 500.

How can a board with a fiduciary duty to its stock holders approve this proposal? The fact that its an incomprehensibly large number is the only reason anyone would vote yes. I'm a shareholder, but only the institutional investors will have a vote that matters.

It's stock, not cash.

 

[Pops]

It's stock, not cash.

The point remains the same. The amount is unconscionable, and not reflective of the value added by his efforts. Clearly he should be compensated, but not this amount, not even remotely close.

 

[Wattsm309]

How about we start with actually get early shareholders their trucks first

 

[vinsk]

Im all for Elon getting his fair share. But to say he hasn't been paid in years is not correct. Im sure that EVERYTHING in his life is provided by Tesla. His pay should reflect the current stock value. This stock value will always have ties to Twitter. If Twitter tanks. So will your shares. Giving him a large amount of highly discounted shares to sell for Twitter makes my me nervous. Especially when Elon tells advertisers to F themselves.

Everything??? You should read Elon’s history for where he made his fortune in the beginning and how he invested everything and I mean everything in Tesla and SpaceX. There’s no Tesla without Elon Musk.

 

[Crissa]

Everything??? You should read Elon’s history for where he made his fortune in the beginning and how he invested everything and I mean everything in Tesla and SpaceX. There’s no Tesla without Elon Musk.

Just like Elon would vote to lay off employees or cut their pay when the company doesn't need them...

...So to should the company cut back on his pay when he's not contributing like he used to.

The bottom line speaks for itself.

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

Pro bono means they're not being paid during the case. It doesn't mean they might not get paid costs later.

And no, that would be even more suspicious, because who was paying them to do the work?


So you admit he only needs a minority of the vote.

https://electrek.co/2024/04/19/tesl...-voting-against-elon-musk-55-billion-package/

-Crissa

No, the vote can only pass with greater than 50% approval. That's called a majority.

The unfair part is that the pay period has already elapsed, Elon has already done the work. Many of the newer shareholders who will be voting on it didn't benefit from Elon's hard work (and even if they did benefit, they could say, "Well, the hard work is already done, he already had the incentive, now can pay him zero with no risk of under-performance".

It's a fake vote. I hope it passes anyway just to show that woke activist judge how misguided her ruling was.

 

[Crissa]

No, the vote can only pass with greater than 50% approval. That's called a majority.

That's not a majority of shareholders, that's a majority of shares.

Hence, he needs a minority of shareholders to vote with him. Only about 30%, or a minority of other outstanding shares, needs to vote for his pay package for it to be approved.

If it were a proper vote, his shares wouldn't count towards votes of his pay package. And I'm not aware of him taking that position. (He could, if he wanted to. No one has to vote.)

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

Just like Elon would vote to lay off employees or cut their pay when the company doesn't need them...

...So to should the company cut back on his pay when he's not contributing like he used to.

Tesla regularly lets go people who are not contributing. There are too many people these days in the workforce that are just biding time, and we all pay for it. When I was in the workforce, it didn't matter what my job was, I gave it my best. I hauled ass! This is what raises a country's standard of living, slacking off costs us all. I also enjoyed getting a lot done in as little time as reasonably possible. It made the day fly by.

If I didn't respect my employer, I quit immediately and found another job. I feel sorry for employers today, with employees thinking it's their right to be texting, surfing the web, chatting, whatever, when no one is looking. And then they complain about their low pay. Because they can't live on what they're worth. There is no free lunch, someone has to provide it.

 

[Crissa]

Tesla regularly lets go people who are not contributing. There are too many people these days in the workforce that are just biding time, and we all pay for it. When I was in the workforce, it didn't matter what my job was, I gave it my best. I hauled ass! This is what raises a country's standard of living, slacking off costs us all. I also enjoyed getting a lot done in as little time as reasonably possible. It made the day fly by.

If I didn't respect my employer, I quit immediately and found another job. I feel sorry for employers today, with employees thinking it's their right to be texting, surfing the web, chatting, whatever, when no one is looking. And then they complain about their low pay. Because they can't live on what they're worth. There is no free lunch, someone has to provide it.

So you agree, Elon should lay himself off.

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

That's not a majority of shareholders, that's a majority of shares.

That's because it's one vote per share. I'm glad someone with one share doesn't get as much vote as someone with 10,000 shares!

Hence, he needs a minority of shareholders to vote with him. Only about 30%, or a minority of other outstanding shares, needs to vote for his pay package for it to be approved.

Elon's pay package could be re-affirmed with either a minority or a majority of shareholders voting with him, it depends on whether the largest shareholders vote with or against him.

If it were a proper vote, his shares wouldn't count towards votes of his pay package. And I'm not aware of him taking that position. (He could, if he wanted to. No one has to vote.)

I don't know if Elon needs to recuse himself on this vote or not, and I don't care, due to the travesty of the Judge's ruling. If there is anything good and noble in this world, Elon's pay, which was promised with full knowledge, should be re-instated. You don't change the rules of the game after the final score is tallied. That alone is enough reason for Elon to vote his shares, if he can.

Part of that is my own selfish desires to see mankind go to Mars (and hopefully colonize it) in my lifetime. If humanity is to discover the secrets of reality, if we are to live long enough to travel amongst the stars, we have to start with smaller footsteps now. I think we can populate the universe if we unlock the secrets of time, space, and matter itself. I would hate to think consciousness will die out as the sun grows into a red giant in 800 million years, leaving earth uninhabitable. The gift of consciousness has the potential opportunity to expand with the universe itself, and perhaps discover other pockets of consciousness amongst the vast emptiness of the expanding universe.

 

[Crissa]

That's because it's one vote per share. I'm glad someone with one share doesn't get as much vote as someone with 10,000 shares!

Okay, but don't go calling it 'a majority' - because it's not a majority of the rest of the shares.

-Crissa

 

[jerhenderson]

The point remains the same. The amount is unconscionable, and not reflective of the value added by his efforts. Clearly he should be compensated, but not this amount, not even remotely close.

For metrics he achieved; not for metrics now.

 

[fhteagle]

Case in point of why Musk is not the right CEO for this phase of Tesla: laying off the entire Supercharger team is an absolutely boneheaded move. Sure, pause hiring. Cut some chaff. Don't axe a department that has been a key core competency and brand differentiator.

https://electrek.co/2024/04/29/tesla-conducting-more-layoffs-including-entire-supercharger-team/

 

[HaulingAss]

Case in point of why Musk is not the right CEO for this phase of Tesla: laying off the entire Supercharger team is an absolutely boneheaded move. Sure, pause hiring. Cut some chaff. Don't axe a department that has been a key core competency and brand differentiator.

https://electrek.co/2024/04/29/tesla-conducting-more-layoffs-including-entire-supercharger-team/

I'm confused.

Who has more insight into the state of the Supercharging team, you or Elon?

 

[HaulingAss]

Okay, but don't go calling it 'a majority' - because it's not a majority of the rest of the shares.

-Crissa

This is getting tiring, you continue to make false claims without having enough information to know what you are talking about. You have an unnatural hatred for Elon Musk and this is causing you to jump to incorrect conclusions.

The compensation package reguires a majority vote for approval and that's with both Elon Musk and Kimbal Musk recusing themselves from voting on this issue, a huge disadvantage since they own significant shares.

In other words, the point you are trying to push, that a majority of shares not owned by Elon is not required for approval is 100% false. This is right from Tesla's Annual Report:

Required Vote We ask our stockholders to approve the Ratification.

The proposal to approve the Ratification requires the following votes of Tesla’s Stockholders:

(1) the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the total votes of shares of Tesla common stock cast in person or by proxy at the 2024 Annual Meeting on the proposal, pursuant to the rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (the “NASDAQ Standard”), and

(2) the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting power of the shares present in person or represented by proxy at the 2024 Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on the proposal, pursuant to Tesla’s amended and restated bylaws (the “Bylaws Standard”), and

(3) The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the total votes of shares of Tesla common stock not owned, directly or indirectly, by Mr. Musk or Kimbal Musk, cast in person or by proxy at the 2024 Annual Meeting on the proposal, pursuant to the resolutions of the Board approving the Ratification (the “Ratification Disinterested Standard”)

You need to knock it off and stop being so adamant about things you know nothing about!

If you still doubt you have been spouting BS, pay special attention to #3 and the word "and" between each requirement.

Any shareholder not voting in favor of this resolution would have to be someone who doesn't believe in following through on clear promises, simply because a court of law said they could change their mind, without recourse. It's disgusting.