Tesla Business and News Thread
Thread Starter
Lexus Champion
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 19,646
Likes: 3,748
From: California
I read some news that most shareholders are voting for it. I believe it would be epically disastrous for Tesla if he leaves. No matter what people think of his antics, he pushes the envelope all the way, which is what makes Tesla...Tesla. Just my opinion
this is interesting:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesl...ejected-2024-6
The vote for Elon Musk's hotly debated $55 billion pay package is next week.
The compensation plan, originally put into place in 2018, was struck down earlier this year by a Delaware judge who said the billionaire had undue influence over the board because of close ties to some of its members.
Tesla is now putting Musk's pay package to a shareholder vote on June 13 in an effort to reinstate it. So what will happen if it isn't approved?
Tesla board chair Robyn Denholm said in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Thursday that there are multiple possibilities. The board has considered options such as creating a new pay plan — but she said that could end up costing shareholders more.
Denholm argued that the compensation tied to the 2018 pay package, which was worth an estimated $2.3 billion in stock-based compensation charges at the time, had already been paid out. Rejecting the plan wouldn't change that.
But if the shareholders overturn the 2018 pay plan, and Tesla were to craft a new plan with the same stock grants, they would cost around $25 billion worth of stock-based compensation today.
When asked if whether Elon Musk could ultimately sue Tesla if shareholders reject ratification, Denholm said it was "possible," but she didn't know how probable it would be.
"Well, the good part about the legal system in the US is anybody can sue anybody," Denholm said. But Denholm said at this point, it wasn't something that Musk had brought up to the board.
The Tesla board chair said while there may be other options, they would lead to increased costs or decreased motivation from Musk.
Denholm said the CEO has worked incredibly hard over the last six years to lead the company to "transformative growth." While shareholders and customers have both benefited, Musk himself hasn't received compensation.
"Ratifying the plan is the best option," Denholm said. "Clearly, if it doesn't pass, then there are other alternatives, but none of them are as good from a shareholder perspective as actually ratifying the plan."
There's also no guarantee that the pay plan will survive even if shareholders do ratify it on June 13. The Delaware court system could rule that it's still invalid.
Denholm said if that were to happen, it would be "detrimental" to shareholders, which is another reason she said they were fighting so hard to get it ratified.
"Well that is possible," she said. "But quite frankly, if you sit back, that is actually quite detrimental from a shareholder policy perspective."
"Shareholder votes have been pretty sacrosanct from a Delaware law perspective, from a corporate America perspective, from a legal system," she said.
Advocates for and against ratifying Musk's pay package have been ramping up their arguments in recent weeks. Several investment firms urged shareholders to vote against it, most recently the CEO of the California Public Employees' Retirement System.
Meanwhile, Tesla's board and prominent shareholders like Ron Baron have been actively campaigning for its approval, arguing that it is fair and necessary to keep the CEO's focus on Tesla.
Musk does not earn a salary and his compensation relies on the company's performance with specific metrics defined in 2018.
The executive pay plan involves a 10-year grant of 12 tranches of stock options that are vested when Tesla hits specific milestones. Once the company hits each target, Musk gets stock equal to 1% of outstanding shares at the time of the grant. Tesla said it hit all 12 goalposts as of 2023.
The compensation plan, originally put into place in 2018, was struck down earlier this year by a Delaware judge who said the billionaire had undue influence over the board because of close ties to some of its members.
Tesla is now putting Musk's pay package to a shareholder vote on June 13 in an effort to reinstate it. So what will happen if it isn't approved?
Tesla board chair Robyn Denholm said in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Thursday that there are multiple possibilities. The board has considered options such as creating a new pay plan — but she said that could end up costing shareholders more.
Denholm argued that the compensation tied to the 2018 pay package, which was worth an estimated $2.3 billion in stock-based compensation charges at the time, had already been paid out. Rejecting the plan wouldn't change that.
But if the shareholders overturn the 2018 pay plan, and Tesla were to craft a new plan with the same stock grants, they would cost around $25 billion worth of stock-based compensation today.
When asked if whether Elon Musk could ultimately sue Tesla if shareholders reject ratification, Denholm said it was "possible," but she didn't know how probable it would be.
"Well, the good part about the legal system in the US is anybody can sue anybody," Denholm said. But Denholm said at this point, it wasn't something that Musk had brought up to the board.
The Tesla board chair said while there may be other options, they would lead to increased costs or decreased motivation from Musk.
Denholm said the CEO has worked incredibly hard over the last six years to lead the company to "transformative growth." While shareholders and customers have both benefited, Musk himself hasn't received compensation.
"Ratifying the plan is the best option," Denholm said. "Clearly, if it doesn't pass, then there are other alternatives, but none of them are as good from a shareholder perspective as actually ratifying the plan."
There's also no guarantee that the pay plan will survive even if shareholders do ratify it on June 13. The Delaware court system could rule that it's still invalid.
Denholm said if that were to happen, it would be "detrimental" to shareholders, which is another reason she said they were fighting so hard to get it ratified.
"Well that is possible," she said. "But quite frankly, if you sit back, that is actually quite detrimental from a shareholder policy perspective."
"Shareholder votes have been pretty sacrosanct from a Delaware law perspective, from a corporate America perspective, from a legal system," she said.
Advocates for and against ratifying Musk's pay package have been ramping up their arguments in recent weeks. Several investment firms urged shareholders to vote against it, most recently the CEO of the California Public Employees' Retirement System.
Meanwhile, Tesla's board and prominent shareholders like Ron Baron have been actively campaigning for its approval, arguing that it is fair and necessary to keep the CEO's focus on Tesla.
Musk does not earn a salary and his compensation relies on the company's performance with specific metrics defined in 2018.
The executive pay plan involves a 10-year grant of 12 tranches of stock options that are vested when Tesla hits specific milestones. Once the company hits each target, Musk gets stock equal to 1% of outstanding shares at the time of the grant. Tesla said it hit all 12 goalposts as of 2023.
Lead Lap
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,951
Likes: 1,575
From: San Diego, CA
I think Denholm is a big part of the problem. She is an absolutely appalling board chair and is absolutely complicit in enabling Musk because it benefits her financially to do so. In other words I think she puts personal financial gain ahead of the best interests of Tesla and Tesla shareholders.
and I would very much like Musk to quit. Tesla will be fine without him. Despite sycophantic claims to the contrary, he’s not an engineer and Tesla has a large number of actual and extremely talented engineers who would continue to innovate whether he’s there or not. And spoiler alert, he’s an absentee CEO at best.
The pay package bothers me immensely. The outcome of the vote does not. It’s already stacked in his favor. All I can do is vote no.
and I would very much like Musk to quit. Tesla will be fine without him. Despite sycophantic claims to the contrary, he’s not an engineer and Tesla has a large number of actual and extremely talented engineers who would continue to innovate whether he’s there or not. And spoiler alert, he’s an absentee CEO at best.
The pay package bothers me immensely. The outcome of the vote does not. It’s already stacked in his favor. All I can do is vote no.
Thread Starter
Lexus Champion
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 19,646
Likes: 3,748
From: California
I work for a medical device company that can be described as "The Tesla of Medical Device companies". We have a delivery system that is life changing, and is so out of the box, most people can't even wrap their heads around it. We are kind of in the same position Tesla was in 2013...we are either going to a $30B company, or bankrupt in the next few years. Kind of like EV's, it took investors and Pharma companies more than 14 years to finally start noticing us. BTW our founders technologies are used today in hospitals as a standard of care for patients that have any type of heart procedure, from stents to open heart surgery. If anyone is interested, I can PM details of the company I work for, I don't want to state it publicly.
Anyway, I had our CEO over for dinner this Friday, I've known him since 1997. He's well known and respected in the medical device world. Of course we talked Musk, and it turns out he has met Musk several times. He told me basically that Musk is a nut, but is one of the most brilliant people he's ever met. I asked him what he thought about Musk getting his $55B package...and he said absolutely, he deserves every penny of it. He went on to say that without Musk, Tesla is "just another car company". His words, not mine. Politically and ideologically, he's completely opposite of Elon, which made the impact of what he said much stronger.
Personally whatever my feelings about Musk are, I think that without him, there would be no electric cars on the road today, and Tesla would have probably been just another failed company. And as much as I hate how the Cyber Truck looks, I am seeing them everywhere now, which means they probably can't produce them fast enough, and that is due to Musk insisting on and pretty much sticking to it's design, for the most part. I think Tesla needs him, and if he leaves it won't be good for Tesla one bit. Again, just my opinion
Anyway, I had our CEO over for dinner this Friday, I've known him since 1997. He's well known and respected in the medical device world. Of course we talked Musk, and it turns out he has met Musk several times. He told me basically that Musk is a nut, but is one of the most brilliant people he's ever met. I asked him what he thought about Musk getting his $55B package...and he said absolutely, he deserves every penny of it. He went on to say that without Musk, Tesla is "just another car company". His words, not mine. Politically and ideologically, he's completely opposite of Elon, which made the impact of what he said much stronger.
Personally whatever my feelings about Musk are, I think that without him, there would be no electric cars on the road today, and Tesla would have probably been just another failed company. And as much as I hate how the Cyber Truck looks, I am seeing them everywhere now, which means they probably can't produce them fast enough, and that is due to Musk insisting on and pretty much sticking to it's design, for the most part. I think Tesla needs him, and if he leaves it won't be good for Tesla one bit. Again, just my opinion
Lead Lap
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,951
Likes: 1,575
From: San Diego, CA
I think a lot of people rewrite history when it comes to Musk who was not an actual founder of Tesla and is only described as one as it was part of an agreed settlement with the actual founders. There was a Tesla before Musk and EVs before Tesla. I don’t dispute his contribution to making Tesla successful. I do dispute only he could have done it.
I also acknowledge there are two Musks. There’s the one people thought was a genuine innovator who was indeed looking to change the world and saw EV adoption as key to that. Then there’s the appalling douche who lies about his own kid dying in his arms, is despised by his other kids, and is generally just a indisputable piece of… well you know what. The second act absolutely clouds the first. It’s a shame.
I also acknowledge there are two Musks. There’s the one people thought was a genuine innovator who was indeed looking to change the world and saw EV adoption as key to that. Then there’s the appalling douche who lies about his own kid dying in his arms, is despised by his other kids, and is generally just a indisputable piece of… well you know what. The second act absolutely clouds the first. It’s a shame.
Lexus Champion
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 11,196
Likes: 1,582
From: FL
If I had to sum everything up in one sentence, here is where I would be too on this
I'm 50/50 on musk.
#defending_elon for now, only because of potential outcomes in the future that may or may not happen so I'm taking it in faith, but not exactly faith in him.
Hope that makes any sense and doesn't sound like the ramblings of a mad man. Haha 😂
I'm 50/50 on musk.
#defending_elon for now, only because of potential outcomes in the future that may or may not happen so I'm taking it in faith, but not exactly faith in him.
Hope that makes any sense and doesn't sound like the ramblings of a mad man. Haha 😂
Thread Starter
Lexus Champion
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 19,646
Likes: 3,748
From: California
I think a lot of people rewrite history when it comes to Musk who was not an actual founder of Tesla and is only described as one as it was part of an agreed settlement with the actual founders. There was a Tesla before Musk and EVs before Tesla. I don’t dispute his contribution to making Tesla successful. I do dispute only he could have done it.
I also acknowledge there are two Musks. There’s the one people thought was a genuine innovator who was indeed looking to change the world and saw EV adoption as key to that. Then there’s the appalling douche who lies about his own kid dying in his arms, is despised by his other kids, and is generally just a indisputable piece of… well you know what. The second act absolutely clouds the first. It’s a shame.
I also acknowledge there are two Musks. There’s the one people thought was a genuine innovator who was indeed looking to change the world and saw EV adoption as key to that. Then there’s the appalling douche who lies about his own kid dying in his arms, is despised by his other kids, and is generally just a indisputable piece of… well you know what. The second act absolutely clouds the first. It’s a shame.
I'll say it again, without Musk, there is no Tesla, I don't care who founded it
ClubLexus Stories
Celebrating Lexus & Toyota from Around the Globe
8 Tips for Improving Your Hybrid or Plug-in Hybrid's Efficiency!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Best Lexus Models No One Remembers
Joe Kucinski
TRD Off-Road Premium: Best 2026 4Runner, Except This One Thing
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Lexus & Toyotas to Drive Before You Die!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Lexus/Toyotas With The LEAST 5-Year Depreciation
Joe Kucinski
Lexus LC500 Convertible Auction: A Preview of Rising Values?
Brett Foote
GX 550 vs TX 550: Best 3-Row Luxury Lexus Family Hauler
Michael S. Palmer
9 Best Lexus Models You Can Buy for Half Price (And 1 You Shouldn't!)
Joe Kucinski
2026 Lexus NX Buyer's Guide: Models, Features, Prices & More!
Brett Foote
Lead Lap
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,951
Likes: 1,575
From: San Diego, CA
I think that overlooks a key point which is that Musk, back then, brought mostly
capital. He wasn’t the only source of capital. Sure, he grew into the role and he definitely helped Tesla become what it is. But the argument that only he could have grown Tesla doesn’t really hold up to any real scrutiny IMO, and in terms of pure shareholder value his performance isn’t all that stellar.
capital. He wasn’t the only source of capital. Sure, he grew into the role and he definitely helped Tesla become what it is. But the argument that only he could have grown Tesla doesn’t really hold up to any real scrutiny IMO, and in terms of pure shareholder value his performance isn’t all that stellar.
Lead Lap
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,951
Likes: 1,575
From: San Diego, CA
I will also add that I’m a little torn because I genuinely appreciate what musk is doing at SpaceX. The big difference there, though, is that he is effectively reigned in because he is basically reliant on NASA etc for funding and they won’t tolerate the more lunatic things he does. So he lets Gwynne Shotwell etc do all the heavy lifting and the results are all the better for it. It shows that a reigned in Musk can still be effective. That’s all I want to see at Tesla
Thread Starter
Lexus Champion
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 19,646
Likes: 3,748
From: California
I think that overlooks a key point which is that Musk, back then, brought mostly
capital. He wasn’t the only source of capital. Sure, he grew into the role and he definitely helped Tesla become what it is. But the argument that only he could have grown Tesla doesn’t really hold up to any real scrutiny IMO, and in terms of pure shareholder value his performance isn’t all that stellar.
capital. He wasn’t the only source of capital. Sure, he grew into the role and he definitely helped Tesla become what it is. But the argument that only he could have grown Tesla doesn’t really hold up to any real scrutiny IMO, and in terms of pure shareholder value his performance isn’t all that stellar.
Thread Starter
Lexus Champion
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 19,646
Likes: 3,748
From: California
I will also add that I’m a little torn because I genuinely appreciate what musk is doing at SpaceX. The big difference there, though, is that he is effectively reigned in because he is basically reliant on NASA etc for funding and they won’t tolerate the more lunatic things he does. So he lets Gwynne Shotwell etc do all the heavy lifting and the results are all the better for it. It shows that a reigned in Musk can still be effective. That’s all I want to see at Tesla
I might've seen the same article. I think it's in the ballpark of 90% of retail investors have voted for it. Retail investors own ~44% of total outstanding shares
Pole Position
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,354
Likes: 555
From: fl
Article below was written 7 months ago. Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/inves...pU8HvgyST5BThe Tesla Model S was the company's first mass-market offering. At the time of its release on June 22, 2012, shares traded for $2.17 when the market opened.
Based on this price, you could have purchased 460.82 shares of Tesla on that date.
Tesla shares had splits in 2020 (5-for-1) and 2022 (3-for-1), impacting the overall share count.
The 2020 stock split would have turned your 460.82 shares into 2,304.1 shares. Then, in 2022, your share count would have grown to 6,912.3.
With all of this in mind — considering a $251.34 share price at the time of publication — an initial $1,000 investment on June 22, 2012, would be worth more than $1.73 million today.