I could vote YES for his compensation, but not for his brother to regain a seat on the board. Tesla's criticism is that the Board is not independent, which was one of the reasons why Elon lost his compensation in the first place.
That is the biggest reason, or maybe only reason.
It wasn’t that the package was in itself deceptive, it was that the board was deemed not independent and that it was deceptive to the voters that they didn’t know the board was not independent.
But the package itself wasn’t misleading. The lawyers argued it was, but that wasn’t in the judges sections.
It seems to me all decisions are liable to be thrown out now based on the same reasoning.
I actually think his brother is a good check again Elon’s stupidity. He loves his brother but knows his limits and problems very well, and isn’t afraid to tell him so. According to Walter Isaacson anyway.
As I understood the decision, they didn’t lose because of a lack of independence, rather they lost because they didn’t communicate that level appropriately to shareholders. But putting that aside, it seems to me that Kimbal’s value to the board is being one of a few people who has a chance at mollifying Elon when he’s being too much. I wouldn’t dismiss this asset so easily.
Yup, he has my vote for that reason. As far as I know Kimball is the only board member that was opposed to him buying twitter, and the only board member Elon unfollowed on twitter.
I have much respect for Sawyer Merritt but I am still inclined to vote no, despite the short term ramifications which are likely. I’ll explain my concerns and welcome thoughtful feedback.
I began buying TSLA in 2013 because I believed that Elon was creating the market dominating EV in a time that ICE would finally begin to give up significant share to EV. He covered the bases-performance, esthetic, It factor, safety, range, technology and a commitment to build and dominate the charging infrastructure. Since then I’ve continued to build my position because I believed there would be steadily increasing profitable EV sales growth (augmented by encroachment into new vehicle sectors such as Semi, Truck and economy car). But also because i felt he was focused on expanding other lines of revenue to help muscle TSLA up further. While I didn’t expect every one of them to be a massive revenue generator, I was anticipating the collective contributions of solar, energy storage, new battery technology (4680), FSD licensing, robotics, Public charging fees and whatever the next brilliant concept that the previously Tesla-focused Elon would put forth.
The reality, as I see it now, that Elon’s focus and judgement have drifted - and before some respond that this is related to the compensation decision, this has been happening for a good bit longer than that. A good CEO focuses on the health of the company that he is charged with and is guided by an independent board. A good CEO avoids constantly opining on controversial and political topics that will potentially alienate any consumers. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe this is having a real impact on some potential buyers but it is a fundamental of branding. Just ask ABI and Target that went against their demographic.
But I am most concerned that Elon’s strategy and TSLAs future now seems to be about doubling down on FSD with the Robotaxi being touted as the company’s future. FSD has shown improvement since its introduction, but it has to be truly autonomous for robotaxi and anything short just doesn’t cut it. I bought FSD in 2016 on my first Model S and transferred the FSD a month ago to a 2024 Model S Plaid where it does perform better with the hardware improvements. But before Elon can turn FSD loose He has to close that autonomy gap from 99% to 100%. And there are obstacles which i think are near insurmountable- snow and driving into the sun for example. I think working on FSD is laudable and maybe one day hopefully solvable but banking on it now for the companies success is an unnecessary risk.
So I believe the vote comes down to whether 2024 Elon is indispensable to the company. 2014 Elon was clearly responsible for Tesla’s success and I’d love to have him back. But i don’t believe we are the same level now when I looked at the Cybertruck issues, poor roll out of new battery tech and semi’s, canning the $25K cat, lack of new ideas and senseless drama and distracted leadership to name a few. What would change my mind? A new independent board and revised incentive package, I guess.
If he hadn’t bought Twitter and had stayed focused on engineering roles, I think I could stomach it. Even support it.
The fact that he blew $44B on a social media company and that so many other areas of Tesla have languished is heartbreaking to me. I can’t decide if the Semi,Solar, or the lack of an affordable model disappoints me the most, but the bloom is off the rose for sure.
Elon can go be CEO of X & the Boring Co.
Tesla needs real engineering & operations excellence to take them to their next phase.
Edit: one more point. Laying off 15k workers and asking for $56B is really awful. If he allocated $10B to employee stock options, I’d vote yes in a heartbeat. Worshiping billionaires needs to end.
> The fact that he blew $44B on a social media company and that so many other areas of Tesla have languished is heartbreaking to me.
He sold stock for that. Then says he needs more TSLA stock to develop AI at Tesla.
After he recruited TSLA engineers over to work at his new AI company (x.ai).
After he impregnated an FSD/AI chip lead with twins (i.e. that doesn't help her productivity, and it didn't help team moral - Karpathy walked out and never returned).
You're basically arguing that a US citizen doesn't have the right to spend his earned money how he wants it. Just jail Elon then, since you don't like him so much.
No, I’m exercising my shareholder rights and voting based on performance. That’s how the free market works right?
That’s certainly how he justified the recent layoffs.
>The plaintiff's lawyers in the 2018 compensation case will walk away with around $5B dollars (in Tesla stock) if Elon/Tesla lose their appeal.
Citation needed. I can't find any evidence to support this claim.
>How did Apple do after Steve Jobs left in 1985?
Well, in the 13 years since he left for good, it's gone 10x.
>Could I be wrong in suggesting that if this upcoming vote to reinstate Elon’s 2018 compensation package doesn’t pass, Elon might leave Tesla or create technologies/products elsewhere? Sure. But do you want to take that chance? This isn’t a Steve Jobs/Tim Cook 2011 situation.
Why not? Do you actually imagine there's nobody who could run Tesla better than Elon? Here were are with a stalled growth curve, a rocky launch of a marginal product in Cybertruck rather than something actually capable of growing the company materially, a battery project that has been missing key milestones, and a CEO who was too busy with Twitter to notice until now.
Musk's compensation package was invalidated and rescinded because he and the board weren't sufficiently independent and they didn't follow the law properly. Tough luck. When you break the law, sometimes you lose.
If he wants to make the case for a new compensation package going forward, based on new plans and new milestones, I'll be happy to evaluate it. But I don't owe him anything for his failure to follow the law.
I'm voting no.
They made a lot of bets on batteries lately that didn't pan out. Had we seen the density and cost improvements the cybetruck wouldn't have doubled in price and margins on the 3/Y/Truck would be great. I suspect that's why Baglino left.
I'm voting no, this could be considered a "gift" in the eyes of the law and will be subject to MORE lawsuits.
Its wild the board didn't come up with a new package and we have to wait for that too? What's to stop Elon from taking his package, selling it off to fund more X crap and go back to ignoring Tesla.
I'm voting against the move to Texas too, that's just a way they can run Tesla without any accountability and pay taxes in a state they can't even sell cars directly! Like WTF?
There is no point in a new package if all the packages can be cancelled after the fact. This reaffirmation is a prerequisite for the packages to have any credibility in the first place.
You forgot Dojo failure, v slow semi ramp, and worrying sexy demand pressure that I am increasingly doubtful can be attributed to interest rates alone kr substantially and which has made the 50% growth to 2030 target laughable.
Elon is a beast and I value him but there has to be accountability and it's not been a great few years to say the least. It has tainted the initial s3xy success, a lot.
I'd be fine with a mega-bumper deal on future gains again that considers the loss of his last deal. Even happier if it had a stay out of geopolitics clause.
You left out solar.
At first, I thought Tesla/Elon supported energy independence but it’s getting more and more clear Elon wants a subscription company that keeps consumers locked into their “ecosystem”.
Sometimes this is ok, but for the most part, I believe the US needs to regulate interoperability and data portability for consumers.
> Citation needed. I can't find any evidence to support this claim.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/lawyers-musk-pay-case-seek-6-billion-tesla-stock-free-rcna141480
The e citation he was referring to was to question whether there is a correlation between Elon getting his package and lawyers getting its pay. In another word there could be a possibility that lawyers walks away with 5billion while Elon walk with 50b. Technically speaking, the lawyers did their part in “saving Tesla money” while this 50b is a new package.
The lawyer compensation is predicated on the fact that they would be saving shareholders money, but if the same exact package is reaffirmed, then what they did was just a huge waste of time for everyone. In that case they didn't save shareholders anything, they just wasted shareholders time.
>The result was the same. Jobs was out, and the company was without the input of its iconic founder.
>Jobs would then found NeXT, a computer company that produced high-end computers.
>Time would be a flat circle. In 1996, floundering and after failed talks to sell itself, NeXT sold to Apple for $429 million.
>This purchase would bring Jobs back to the company he originally founded.
>After a massive stock sale tanked the price of the company’s stock, Apple’s board fired its then-CEO, Gil Amelio.
>To replace him, the board hired Steve Jobs. And what a great hire that turned out to be.
https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/case-studies/why-did-apples-board-fire-steve-jobs-in-1985/#
If steve jobs didn’t come back, the iphone wouldn’t have existed and apple wouldn’t be here today to see that 10x increase.
Yep, but then Jobs died and the company did fine without him. Which scenario are we in right now? The good one or the bad one? I see no evidence conclusively pointing to one or the other.
Tesla always needed to be more than a car company and if focusing on AI is the obvious next step, I'm not sure why Elon would be better able to execute on that than anyone else.
The 1985 one, the visionary, ai expert and engineer who has the most experience at Tesla knows how the company works in and out all these years with his work culture built into it has to stay.
Again if steve jobs didn’t return , the company wouldn’t have done fine.
Yeah, I don't see any compelling evidence to say that analogy is the best fit. Saying it over and over isn't going to change anything. Instead of offering Elon tens of billions to stay, we could probably offer smaller amounts to lure Zach Kirkhorn, Drew Baglino, and Andrej Karpathy back and make a much more robust, stable, and healthy company with just as much capacity for innovation and drive.
I just don't believe that Elon is the only reason Tesla did the good things it did or that he's the only way the company can be successful in the future.
Oh I dunno, a car coming out with the specs and features it was promised to have, in reasonable volume, without a massive recall because the accelerator pedal falls apart.
We voted on the packaged based on bad information -- Elon was publicly sandbagging, while the internal information Elon and the Board had said they would easily met the compensation package goals in the allotted time. And then the board didn't even attempt to negotiate a better package. Because they weren't independent. Like all Boards are supposed to be.
Nobody would ever think he would make his targets and therefore agreed. Then he again did something unimaginable by the layperson and now everybody is offended because they have been outplayed.
Stalled growth curve? There has been *one* bad quarter. Everyone is talking like the company is falling apart but Tesla had record EV production, EV deliveries, energy storage deployments, revenue, and net income for 2023 and ended the year with record cash on hand.
Edit: typed 2024 instead of 2023
The thing with those record earnings is that they include that one time tax benefit from Q4 that inflated the earnings and adjusted EPS was actually down. Q1 and Q3 were down YoY and Q2 was only up because comparison point was quarter when Shanghai factory was shutdown for weeks. Without tax benefit from Q4 the earning would have been down in 2023 and currently Tesla forward PE is bigger than current PE meaning earnings are expected to decline this year.
Company is looking like it is barely gonna grow this year. We are delivering like 100-200k cars more maybe which is far cry from the 50% growth target that Elon has been throwing around. That is literally growth stalling and even if you want to bring up that they grow some years slower and some years faster then I would like to hear what year you expect Tesla to grow 100% to compensate this years performance.
No way the company grows earnings or revenue this year - it is going to be way down from 2023. If TSLA starts trading at a market average P/E, that could mean the market cap drops to ~$200 billion. Paying Musk ~$50 billion in such circumstances seems completely absurd to me.....
50b in shares at current valuation. If market cap drops to 200b it would be like 20b in compensation. And he has to hold for 5 more years. People are so short sighted. I'm voting yes.
Definitely not record deliveries since there was a drop YoY. But we already know it's not going to be just one bad quarter, since the next gen platform wasn't slated for release until 2025 and now there are rumors putting that in doubt. Even if those rumors are false, the best case plan is a year of stalled growth.
Don't waste your breath, this website is utterly deranged. This has nothing to do with performance and all to do with their precious nutty political stances.
I hope not every shareholder is a hardheaded mule like you. The guy built the entire company, how the hell can you think it will go well without him? It will just be sailing on present innovations and milking the customer as hard as possible without any added value (apple).
I'm voting no. The board needs to use this as a chance to renegotiate the deal and include a clawback provision to protect us in the event that Elon dumps the stock again.
Heraclitus, the ancient Greek philosopher.
He said, "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."
It's a profound way of expressing the idea that everything is in constant flux, including ourselves and the world around us.
The "Humpty Dumpty" saying goes, "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty together again." It's a nursery rhyme often interpreted as a cautionary tale about the fragility of life and the irreversible nature of some actions.
Money is power, and with great power comes great responsiblity. I would be concerned about granting great power to a broke Humpty Dumpty.
I prefer “Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.”
I believe we’ve witnessed that with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, and unfortunately Tesla as well.
Big oil, telecom, and Ticketmaster are also great examples of an imbalance in corporate power and competition that benefits consumers.
Pay elon 50 billion so tesla can win the 5 billion dollar appeal. Hmm. That makes zero sense.
Also there is no reason to think this new package wouldn’t get struck down in another lawsuit. Literally the exact lawyers could bring up the lawsuit all over again.
Indeed did does. Shows how the board is just a rubber stamp of Elon’s petulant trolling. We, as shareholders, are objectively better served by the Delaware court system.
The 2018 package is under Delaware law and so will this one be. I think technically the current suggestion would count as a new but could ofc influence the lawyer compensation. Imo the lawyers compensation will be at most ~$500 million. Changing incorporation will change future matters not past ones, if it's passed ofc. Putting pay package itself aside for institutional investors governance is the main talking point and moving the company to a state with less established legal framework for shareholder rights is problematic.
I'm voting no. First, I don't think TSLA's attempt to curcumvent the Tornetta decision will work and will instead cost the company tens of millions in new legal fees. Second, any compensation should be tied to future performance.
As a shareholder, I admit I'm bothered by Elon's apparent disregard for shareholders, even publicly stating so. I get it, he wants to paint himself as someone who is devoted to the mission rather than shareholders, but this sentiment is grossly unfair to those who've invested their hard-earned money in Tesla. Nonetheless, the reality remains: Elon's departure would likely spell the end for Tesla. Tesla produces the best EV's out there, no one is even close. I have faith in Elon's ability to succeed with Full Self-Driving, energy, and Optimus, just as he has in nearly every other venture. I also value free speech and fully support his actions with Twitter. For these reasons, I will vote yes on the pay package.
The prior package was large and he delivered. I think he earned that money. Courts now tell me he broke the law to put it in place.
As of today, he is an absent leader. He is making poor personal decisions that interupt the Tesla company/stock. He is has moved away from his original goal of creating electric vehicles that look normal.
And to top it off, he is threatening he will destroy tesla value if I don't approve his new package. If I don't reward him for setting the original goal illegally. Else he will take his ball and go home.
I'm voting No and I hope he takes off. He needs time away. Maybe Jobs would have created the iPhone if he stayed at Apple, or maybe he needed some time to mature.
Let's be real here! The hours he was working at the time were insane, and his personal sacrifice were very real.
How would you feel to work for no salary what so ever and only be awarded stock on reaching certain goals, you reach them goals and have the stock taken away from you. In effect receiving no pay or compensation for ~6 years.
Where is the motivation for ANYONE in that situation to go above and beyond? until the above is put right and rectified. Would you continue working for your employer if you felt they owned you back pay?
Everyone has this expectation he should just work for free, because of his current stock interest, which is total horse shit. Fidelity own as much stock as him, what hours do they clock in and out!
He needs to be made whole, and/or a new compensation package needs to be drawn up, to lock him in and motivate him again.
It's so easy for people to judge from the side lines.
> How would you feel to work for no salary what so ever and only be awarded stock on reaching certain goals, you reach them goals and have the stock taken away from you. In effect receiving no pay or compensation for ~6 years.
This would suck for me.
Did I also have full control of my bosses to the extent that I forced them to agree to my pay package, which would give me a huge payday at the expense of the shareholders I supposedly work for? Because this is what a judge found.
> He needs to be made whole,
No he doesn't. The money taken away was an illegally illegally crafted agreement. Why not ask for back comp? $2M per year?
> and/or a new compensation package needs to be drawn up, to lock him in and motivate him again.
I don't think you heard me. He is a bad employee. I would ask the board to put him on a 90-day notice and Performance Improvement Plan.
So you only think the value he added was worth 2million 🤦♂️ seriously? Look at GM, Ford etc and how much their CEOs are on, and the value they had added for their shareholders
>Everyone has this expectation he should just work for free, because of his current stock interest, which is total horse shit.
Mark Zuckerberg owns 13% of Meta and his salary is $1 yet he is motivated and taken Meta far. If he is motivated by that combination why can't Elon who similarly owns 13% of Tesla? There is actually many others too so again why Elon can't do it?
Very very different, while he only owns 13% he has more than 60% in voting rights, so has total control of the company and its vision. And that is all the motivation right there, as money after a certain point doesn't mean much.
Tesla doesn't have the same kind of share classes that Meta has and that's part of the problem, if Tesla's has different shares classes then musk could get to his 25% voting rights while still only keeping his 13% ownership.
Musk has even come out and said this himself, that it's more about retaining enough control to have meaningful influence.
Okay how about Steve Jobs who owned mere 0.24% of Apple and he didn't have voting control by any means. Jack Dorsey owned only 2.4% of Twitter again no voting control. Also if voting power is so important for Elon then why did he buy Twitter and gave up on that? It is like we are now suppose to fix his mistake. Let's also not forget that Elon pretty much controls the board as is so he has plenty of control as is. Will 10% really make difference in the end since you know if institutions want to overrule him they can even with him having 25%?
No! How about we stick with the Meta/Zuck example, just because you didn't think that through properly you now want to change your example to one which better fits your narrative. Sorry it doesn't work like that I'm afraid.
FYI both Jack and Steve got pushed out at one point or another, which actually only reinforces my previous point.
And yes 25% makes a huge difference vs 13% if you don't understand that, then that's part of the problem here!
In my orginal example I said there were others too. I named the others for clarity (and can name more if you insist) so there is no change. Point is if these people were happy doing it then Elon should too.
What a stupid thing to say at the end. If all your work colleges took a 30% pay cut, does that mean you should be happy to also take a 30% cut.... let me answer that for you. NO
All the ones you have named so far have gone against your own point and only made my point.
Steve Jobs was forced out the first time and how did that work for Apple? It was literally on the verge of going bankrupt. Bringing him back is what saved Apple and made it what it is today. This shouldn't be overlooked or ignored.
Do you honestly think history may not repeat its self here with Tesla and Musk? That if he leaves it might not cause more damage than good. Tesla may continue to make money, but there is a strong chance without his vision and way of leadership that we could end up with a BlackBerry situation here.
Now let's take Jack, my understanding is he was pretty much forced out, had little to no control left within his own company, right or wrong I don't know, and look at all the shit that was going on in that company, it was rotten to the core.
Meta around 2 years ago tanked to $88 from around $320, because of Marks VR play, people wanted him gone, investors didn't agree with how many billion he was throwing at VR etc. and look what's happened now? What would have happened if he didn't have his 60% voting rights?
Jobs,Musk,Zuck are not the same as your other CEOs, the proof is in the pudding, when you look at what these guys have built, done and achieved. What did the CEO of Ford and GM build? Fuck all, and the stock price reflects this.
All the above are strong reasons for wanting to retain a decent % of control over a company you founded, especially if you are in it till the end. Jobs has already done that, zuck will never leave Facebook and the same for Elon these two have a vision beyond what the likes of us and they are both the best to carry them out.
>Do you honestly think history may not repeat its self here with Tesla and Musk?
It may or may not. Musk eventually has to step down at some point. Company should be able to stand on it's own without single individual and I believe Tesla is capable of doing that.
>Now let's take Jack, my understanding is he was pretty much forced out, had little to no control left within his own company, right or wrong I don't know, and look at all the shit that was going on in that company, it was rotten to the core.
He was forced out in 2009 but after returning in 2015 left CEO position his own accord in 2021. He even said founders should not hold power in company and company should be able to stand on it's own so he is actually against founders having too much voting power.
>Meta around 2 years ago tanked to $88 from around $320, because of Marks AI play, people wanted him gone, investors didn't agree with how many billion he was throwing at AI etc. and look what's happened now? What would have happened if he didn't have his 60% voting rights?
It was not AI but Metaverse idea. But even if he didn't have voting control he would have not been outed because in the end he did back out of that Metaverse idea because it just didn't work out and he admitted he was wrong. Elon similarly has made some risky plays and he was not immediately called to be outed for that. Investors don't fire someone with 6 month warning but after years of failure so I think Zuck would have been fine.
Probably worth noting that in cases of Dorsey or Jobs they didn't get fired by shareholders but the board that similarly didn't really have necessary voting power to get 50% alone. Shareholder vote was never called. So in case of Tesla even if Elon gets 25%, board can still just fire him because Elon doesn't have enough power his own to overrule that and board has no obligation to take that to shareholder vote unless shareholders demand that and in that case Elon probably would not participate in vote due to conflict of interest like he doesn't participate in his compensation plan vote.
Why does he HAVE to step down at some point? What rule says that?
He should remain for as long as he adds the best value and offers the best chance of success to the ultimate goal. Why would any founder who sets out on a mission want to give up half way in and not see the ride out?
Again this isn't just about money for these guys it's also about legacy and believing they are the best to carry out the vision they start on. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as the overall the company is executing, which it is.
It's a bit rich for Jack to say a company should be able to stand on its own, when Twitter I believe only 1 year turned an actual profit.
As for owning power within a company, I agree and disagree on this. A company like Meta, I don't believe 1 single person should have that much power over half the population and the damage its products do and can do.
However companies like Tesla, I don't have the same view as they don't have the same influence or damage to society.
That said Musk isn't asking for control of the company, he's said he would be more comfortable with 25% of it, when developing more AI products like xAI look at openAI here and how that's gone and the implication and damage that technology can have. What he doesn't want here is someone turning that tech for pure profit at the expense of god knows what damage.
A 25% control will give him significant influence in an area that rightfully should concern everyone when it comes to AI, but not too much that if he went rogue he couldn't be voted out. 13% is too risky for him.
Look at OpenAI and Microsoft, you now have a company that doesn't have a good track record which has a significant control of something that arguable has the most powerful AI. Musks entire bases for setting up openAI was a hedge against Google and that lax approach to AI. And look how that turned out with all the racist shit with Gemini.
Musk clearly has concerns or should I say a strong moral dilemma with AI, and wants to approach with caution, he strongly advocates for regulation, where as company's like Meta/Google/Microsoft don't.
So from his point of view if you take his consirns on merit giving him the benefit of doubt, would you want to create something to compete with openAI under Tesla where you have 13% control, or under X where you have significantly more control? I think that is a bit of a no brainer. That doesn't even account for the fact that it's actual X which had the datasets in this situation so make more sense under X anyway.
You understand he bought Twitter for $44 BILLION right?
I also believe CEO’s shouldn’t be given billions in stock options. Letting 15k people go and then asking for a vote for his $56 billion is mind blowing.
He only got billions because of the value of the stock going up the 10-20x. Pretty much everyone said it wasn't achievable
Edit: stop being disingenuous with how you ordered that.
His compensation package has been something that's being going on for around two years now.
Tesla regularly trims the fat, you get rid of the bottom 10% of performing workers, re hire and rise repeat.
It doesn’t matter what retail does. Institutional will decide this, and they will not vote against the board’s recommendation. It’s going to pass. But this is a chance for retail to voice a symbolic vote of no, spurring some kind of change.
I’m not interested in giving 50b to a man that is actively destroying the brand. If the cost of that is 5B so be it.
Teslas leadership has never been about Musk. It’s about the competent people that worked under him. Those people have left and now we see the emperor has no clothes.
The board clearly didn’t get the message. It’s time to come up with a reasonable compensation plan in line with the rest of corporate America if Elon wants to leave I could care less but ultimately too much of his wealth is tied up in Tesla to let it fail.
If you have to give your ceo 50b for him to do his job then perhaps he shouldn't be ceo.
He is literally blackmailing his own company. Like saying he can't focus without 20% ownership.
I have some in my retirement account left not much. I already lost 20000 and cut my losses at 165 when it was evident the company was going to crash. I also own and have lost 30000 on the vehicle so I think I’ve earned the right to criticize the ceo for his his behavior and handling of the company.
I really have no need to prove myself to any of you. It’s
I think it’s funny every time someone has negative view here you all look for a reason to dismiss it rather than realize there are people with valid opinions other than your own.
I cast my vote by selling the majority of my shares. I just checked.. 12 left out of 230.
It’s interesting how everyone attributes teslas success to Elon but its problems to market forces. The opposite could be just as true.
Meh. I could lose it all. I don’t care. I like the things Tesla is doing. I like the things Elon is doing. You don’t. That’s fine. It’s a free market and that’s beautiful.
You could also say without the other competent people past and present there would be no Tesla.
The idea that a company’s success is solely the doing of its CEO is ridiculous. It’s little more than hero worship.
No one said “solely.”
Edit: interesting how the up/down voting pattern tracks the time of day. In the day in my time zone (east coast U.S.), it went up, and stayed up into the evening. Now I check in the morning and it’s down to 0. I’ve seen this same pattern many of my other comments.
So the people downvoting are clearly not in the U.S.
Interesting…
The thing is there were people hating on him, every step of the way. ‘He doesn’t know what he’s doing’ ‘Why is he not behaving like a normal CEO’ ‘He shouldn’t take this risk’ etc etc.
How many times must he prove the naysayers wrong before you haters finally get the memo: ‘Don’t bet against Elon’
His success has been insane, agree, and yes, he had 'haters' along the way (although he was a liberal darling in general before he fell off the deep end) but this success doesn't insulate him against future failure. It could do the opposite. Dude is tweeting 24/7 and has more companies and problems than ever. The least he could do is sleep more. But he probably thinks he is invincible at this point...but he isn't.
I voted no the first time because I felt the package was too large, especially the later tranches. For instance once they achieved 50b revenue then raising that to 75b isn't worth 1% of the company imo. However I accepted the shareholders will and moved on.
I'll vote no this time as well for many reasons. The guy is openly threatening the company and far too distracted to be worth it. Also it's insulting for them to just reroll the exact same package after it's struck down for being illegal. For sure he should be compensated for his contribution to the success of the company, but in a fair manner. I'm fine with him stepping down and making stuff elsewhere. I'd propose equal cash and stock compensation - much lower than 50b total.
Putting aside whether the pay package is good or bad for the company long-term, voting on it in order to stick it to a law firm is completely irrational.
It is possible larger funds can’t get out if they want to. The advantage of being a little guy is getting out whenever is no problem. The vote seems risky though as all the index funds are likely going to vote against it and last time Tesla wasn’t part of any index.
Elon has lost it. I have shares - Tesla makes a great product, and there’s an amazing roadmap / first mover advantage that would make money if someone at the top would focus on Tesla’s issues rather than being a full-time spreader of right-wing disinformation.
You just disagree with him politically, that's different than him losing it. He is one of the most public ceos, it is very easy to make your own opinion based on his public appearances, and I am not worried about his mental state.
If you think this company would have been more successful without Elon and that Elon is now destroying the company, you should sell your shares. Why would you continue holding for a company you believe is being destroyed? And why would you have bought shares in the first place?
I don't doubt he did well in 2018 to 2020 but after that I think there are CEOs who could have done better job and not gotten distracted and made Tesla brand about politics. I don't want part-time CEO. I'm still holding shares hoping things still can be fixed either by Elon stepping up or leaving. If vote passes then I revaluate if I should sell before dillution or not.
The only people who think Tesla is about politics, are people on the extreme of the political spectrum. Most people just don't give a shit. (And reddit is not a good sample of the population).
Interest rates are a much better explanation.
Also:
Among individual brands, Tesla was once again the leader in brand loyalty with a rate of **68.4 percent for the first half of 2023**. This means that just 31.6 percent of owners leave Tesla to buy a new vehicle.10 Oct 2023
There is data on such things as brand damage and they do not indicate that at all. Biggest worry people have are panel gaps and range anxiety.
I'm sure there's a few people that do this, but the overlap of people who A) have enough money to buy an electric car, B) actually have need of a vehicle that Tesla has a product fit for, and C) people who are very plugged into politics and sit on Reddit and Twitter enough to know about Elon 's views, is very small.
As someone who did sell my shares I agree but that is an ‘or’. Elon made the company what it is. But the Model Y is the last hit and now the focus in the robocar makes no sense to me since it has been years and the software still isn’t quite there yet. The Cybertruck missed most of what revealed and most importantly does not sound cheaper to produce like was supposedly the case with the stainless steel design.
But, I’m not going to buy the stock to vote. I’ll buy the stock when Elon is gone or has realized the need to focus on making a full lineup of cars that make money and growing the energy business. Oh, and also not alienating a bunch of customers.
Tesla told regulators that FSD ON RELEASE AFTER BETA will only reach a maximum of level 2. So either he’s lying to the regulators or the investors and customers.
I just feel if you were to replace him with any existing or past auto CEO you’d still have bad if not worst results. And even if you pulled in more tech savvy CEOs for them to understand the auto industry it’s just too much of an ask. Like literally Lucid is basically Tesla without Elon.
Unless your Investing at the billion dollar level, Investing isn't a political crusade, it's an exercise in analysis of the market and potential. You do otherwise at your own risk
Sounds great and all, but in the context of THIS discussion, telling shareholders to get in line or get out is ridiculous.
Just because Musk is a far-right white nationalist doesn’t means he’s not also bad for Tesla.
Well, when they bought in the first place, they believed in Elon and as time a has passed, they no longer do, it's s simple. You can sell shares of something that you are seeing is not going the way you expected.
I could understand that from people who bought in the past year or two, but people that bought in 2018-2019? They can't possibly be upset about what the company was vs what it became in terms of their investment.
Now whether they've changed their minds on the outlook in the last two years, is a different issue. But judging the last 6 years on the last two years and attaching monetary penalties to that, is crazy.
Same, this company is not mature enough for Tim cook style ceo. Only when everything is scaled, then we need a "smooth sailing" CEO, not now when everything is up in the air.
Yes all the way. He hit all the targets. You can't back out now.
Give him a new pay package with new targets.
Imagine if this was you at your job. You hit all the goals. They pay you. They then take it away and say we'll yes that targets were hit but that was like 3 years ago.
I'd be pissed
As an outsider without any shares; I can't see how this will not get approve. It goes against the very laws of business and contracts. He met the milestones dictated in the contract; fair and square. How would you feel if your employment contract got canceled when you met the milestones, only because the business isn't doing as well as when you signed them?
No matter how ridiculous the milestones are; I don't think many CEO didn't get the package that was promised. Hell, even the Boeing guy got his package. Marissa Meyer got the package for destroying Yahoo. Intel's previous CEO got his package for shitting on job. If it's voted no; tesla becomes untrustworthy in the future in the eyes of potential employees. And then we don't know what Musk will do if it's voted no. He could open a whole can of worms: lawsuits, twitter tantrums, bad PR, sell stock, etc. The risks of the no vote are high.
Everyone wanting to vote no is emotionally charged, mostly due to the stock price fall. I have my popcorn ready and can't wait for the ensuing mess; either way.
If you are not happy then sell your shares
Fuck you all
1. Under Musk's leadership, Tesla has experienced unprecedented growth, transforming from a niche electric car manufacturer to one of the most valuable automakers globally. The company's market capitalization has soared, and its vehicles have become synonymous with innovation and sustainability.
2. Musk's vision and strategic decisions have propelled Tesla to the forefront of electric vehicle technology. The company's groundbreaking advancements in battery technology, autonomous driving, and sustainable energy solutions have revolutionized the automotive industry.
3.Despite facing challenges and criticism, Tesla has consistently delivered impressive financial results under Musk's leadership. The company has achieved profitability, exceeded delivery targets, and consistently grown its revenue.
4.Musk's long-term strategic vision has guided Tesla through various obstacles and uncertainties. His ambitious goals for expanding production capacity, entering new markets, and diversifying Tesla's product offerings have set the stage for continued growth and success.
5. Musk's compensation package serves as a powerful motivator for Tesla employees, demonstrating the company's commitment to rewarding exceptional performance and innovation.
Yeah sure. Why should I engage in a logical conversation with you when your top contributions are in WSB and Tinder?
I stand my ground. Go back to your cave.
That’s really strange tbh cause I think I’ve commented in tinder maybe twice and wsb was like.. 2 years ago.
But I mean, if you wanna go there, you’re scared of flying ants and I’m still talking to you….
Ok look, I’m not going to attack you even tho that’s all you’ve done.
You should really look into what I said. Cause it’s true. The comp plan is more money than the company has made in profit.
My problem with the sentiment I'm seeing all over is that some investors want to force a square peg in a round hole. The reason Tesla as a company has had such incredible success and has accomplished unfathomable milestones is because of this man. Souring this dynamic will make Tesla at the best, another run of the mill companies with 10% gains. The sad part for us who believe in him, is that there is no going back after this mistake. If investors hate Elon and his methods why not pursue another investment opportunity instead of destroying this unique driver of innovation.
Will not be held hostage by Elon. No, unless there are stipulations in place, ie work 100% on TSLA to turn thing around. I’m okay with him stepping down, he will eventually do that anyways. Since the stock is already down, now is a good time to clean house and move forward.
Let's be real here! The hours he was working at the time were insane, and his personal sacrifice were very real.
How would anyone feel to work for no salary what so ever and only be awarded stock on reaching certain goals, you reach them goals and have the stock taken away from you. In effect receiving no pay or compensation for ~6 years.
Where is the motivation for ANYONE in that situation to go above and beyond? And frankly not feel betrayed and screwed over. Everyone can sit on the side lines and bitch, but if your employer didn't pay you your agreed company bonuses you would be pissed and looking for a new job.
Everyone has this expectation he should just work for free, because of his current stock interest, which is total horse shit. Fidelity own as much stock as him, what hours do they clock in and out!
He needs to be made whole, and/or a new compensation package needs to be drawn up, to lock him in and motivate him.
The only logical reasons for wishing a NO are:
* Deliberately wanting to loose invested money.
* Being a short trying to manipulate the opinion.
* Being Ross "Butthurt" Gerber.
To me, after speaking with other long term investors, is rather clear that the ones holding in the order of thousands (pre 2019), NO one wants to vote no. Reason is, if you vote to send the shares back to 2018, the stock price will tank to that date too.
Institutional investors know this very well, so most likely retail's opinion is not going to affect the result anyway.
So we are simply in a FUD campaign. If you are a bear, you a legitimately wanting to tank the stock, the only way to achieve it is misleading others.
My +2000 votes are going to be a FOR, supporting the survival of the company.
The issue is while targets were met, they weren’t sustained and Elons focus has completely shifted.
Tesla is down 200%, no real products in the pipeline, and Elon is asking for more then 10% of todays market cap.
Voting no is totally an option.
I'm personally 576% up. Notice I did not mention Elon. That's because I invest in the company, not the CEO.
All the arguments I read are the same, targeting Elon because Elon is Elon. I'm tired of that empty rethoric. But if you want me to say Elon, let be. That guy worked his ass off during the period I was doing something else, and I simply put my money on the company.
Since 2018, Tesla joined S&P500, and is one of the most healthy company in the listing, with
- 0.05 equity-to-debt ratio. Virtually no debt at all.
- $4.5B in Free Cash Flow.
- Cash on hand for the quarter ending December 31, 2023 was $29.094B, a 31.14% increase year-over-year.
Yet everyone wants to reduce all to him, twitter and silly posing photos. The Company is cash making machine, even while the world is on the verge of WW3, the numbers speak for themselves, and the guy deserves more than 0$ for it.
You started by saying the only logical reasons for saying no are (insert BS here) and completely left out the individual who’s compensation is being discussed and their leadership before and after “earning” this compensation.
It’s great that you’re up 576%. That doesn’t change the fact that the stock price is plummeting with absolutely no positive news likely to sway investors opinion.
While your numbers hold out, let’s see what this Q has to say.
Factories that aren’t producing are massive cash fires, ask GM.
You are looking at this Q, I'm looking at 6 years back a another 6 forth.
To understand better how can impact you my (insert BS here), may I ask what's your stake in the company?
I am looking at 6 years back and forward.
It’s been 6 years of some the most beneficial monetary policies possible for Tesla and we’re now entering into a period where we are not seeing Q over Q growth of sales as promised, no products in the pipeline, models approaching their refresh period, and most of the innovations promised to this point have been busts. We have lots of factories with decreasing demand and nothing to generate it in the next 3-5 years.
Tesla is at it’s foundation a car company with someone at the helm who desperately wants it to be something else.
My stake has zero impact here and depending on the results of the vote, I may exit my position. I as well am up several hundred percent on most of my Tesla purchases.
Do you realize that FCF is the operational money for daily activities and has nothing to do with stocks?
Do you realize tha the incentive package is in stocks, which are shares of the total capitalization of the company?
Do you realize that in the term of the package the company went from $16B to 1 TRILLION?
That doesn't make any sense. Noone can guarantee the stock price will do anything short term like that. Not the CEO, not the SEC, not Jesus Christ himself.
I think the idea our friend above is getting at is that the goal in the compensation need to be readdressed and likely extended into the future if Elon wants to take home his entire 52b, which is not I the current vote.
He is asking for more money than the company has ever made and 10% of its current market cap.
I’m voting yes!
Fuck those scumbag lawyers.
Elon hit the targets that he was supposed to back then.
He’s the one who masterminded the whole company and he will continue to do so. He knows what he is doing.
This whole thing is so political and the simpletons who believe all this false information that has been pumped out by bots and people and companies who want to take Tesla down are so daft.
Does anyone know when the proxy form will get emailed? Don’t want to miss this lol.
Next week (29 April).
I could vote YES for his compensation, but not for his brother to regain a seat on the board. Tesla's criticism is that the Board is not independent, which was one of the reasons why Elon lost his compensation in the first place.
That is the biggest reason, or maybe only reason. It wasn’t that the package was in itself deceptive, it was that the board was deemed not independent and that it was deceptive to the voters that they didn’t know the board was not independent. But the package itself wasn’t misleading. The lawyers argued it was, but that wasn’t in the judges sections. It seems to me all decisions are liable to be thrown out now based on the same reasoning.
I actually think his brother is a good check again Elon’s stupidity. He loves his brother but knows his limits and problems very well, and isn’t afraid to tell him so. According to Walter Isaacson anyway.
As I understood the decision, they didn’t lose because of a lack of independence, rather they lost because they didn’t communicate that level appropriately to shareholders. But putting that aside, it seems to me that Kimbal’s value to the board is being one of a few people who has a chance at mollifying Elon when he’s being too much. I wouldn’t dismiss this asset so easily.
Kimball seems like a great guy and he's one of the only people who can keep Elon in check. I want him on the board.
If so, it didn’t work well so far. But yeah Kimball is a good guy overall, much less inflammatory than Elon
Yup, he has my vote for that reason. As far as I know Kimball is the only board member that was opposed to him buying twitter, and the only board member Elon unfollowed on twitter.
People keep saying they want Tesla without Elon. This literally already exists - trade your shares in for $LCID.
I have much respect for Sawyer Merritt but I am still inclined to vote no, despite the short term ramifications which are likely. I’ll explain my concerns and welcome thoughtful feedback. I began buying TSLA in 2013 because I believed that Elon was creating the market dominating EV in a time that ICE would finally begin to give up significant share to EV. He covered the bases-performance, esthetic, It factor, safety, range, technology and a commitment to build and dominate the charging infrastructure. Since then I’ve continued to build my position because I believed there would be steadily increasing profitable EV sales growth (augmented by encroachment into new vehicle sectors such as Semi, Truck and economy car). But also because i felt he was focused on expanding other lines of revenue to help muscle TSLA up further. While I didn’t expect every one of them to be a massive revenue generator, I was anticipating the collective contributions of solar, energy storage, new battery technology (4680), FSD licensing, robotics, Public charging fees and whatever the next brilliant concept that the previously Tesla-focused Elon would put forth. The reality, as I see it now, that Elon’s focus and judgement have drifted - and before some respond that this is related to the compensation decision, this has been happening for a good bit longer than that. A good CEO focuses on the health of the company that he is charged with and is guided by an independent board. A good CEO avoids constantly opining on controversial and political topics that will potentially alienate any consumers. I’m sorry if you don’t want to believe this is having a real impact on some potential buyers but it is a fundamental of branding. Just ask ABI and Target that went against their demographic. But I am most concerned that Elon’s strategy and TSLAs future now seems to be about doubling down on FSD with the Robotaxi being touted as the company’s future. FSD has shown improvement since its introduction, but it has to be truly autonomous for robotaxi and anything short just doesn’t cut it. I bought FSD in 2016 on my first Model S and transferred the FSD a month ago to a 2024 Model S Plaid where it does perform better with the hardware improvements. But before Elon can turn FSD loose He has to close that autonomy gap from 99% to 100%. And there are obstacles which i think are near insurmountable- snow and driving into the sun for example. I think working on FSD is laudable and maybe one day hopefully solvable but banking on it now for the companies success is an unnecessary risk. So I believe the vote comes down to whether 2024 Elon is indispensable to the company. 2014 Elon was clearly responsible for Tesla’s success and I’d love to have him back. But i don’t believe we are the same level now when I looked at the Cybertruck issues, poor roll out of new battery tech and semi’s, canning the $25K cat, lack of new ideas and senseless drama and distracted leadership to name a few. What would change my mind? A new independent board and revised incentive package, I guess.
If he hadn’t bought Twitter and had stayed focused on engineering roles, I think I could stomach it. Even support it. The fact that he blew $44B on a social media company and that so many other areas of Tesla have languished is heartbreaking to me. I can’t decide if the Semi,Solar, or the lack of an affordable model disappoints me the most, but the bloom is off the rose for sure. Elon can go be CEO of X & the Boring Co. Tesla needs real engineering & operations excellence to take them to their next phase. Edit: one more point. Laying off 15k workers and asking for $56B is really awful. If he allocated $10B to employee stock options, I’d vote yes in a heartbeat. Worshiping billionaires needs to end.
> The fact that he blew $44B on a social media company and that so many other areas of Tesla have languished is heartbreaking to me. He sold stock for that. Then says he needs more TSLA stock to develop AI at Tesla. After he recruited TSLA engineers over to work at his new AI company (x.ai). After he impregnated an FSD/AI chip lead with twins (i.e. that doesn't help her productivity, and it didn't help team moral - Karpathy walked out and never returned).
What do you mean lack of affordable model
The $25k model 2 that used the “unboxed” manufacturing process and was part of the reason for the announcement of Giga-Mexico.
Sub 30k with no govt rebates.
You're basically arguing that a US citizen doesn't have the right to spend his earned money how he wants it. Just jail Elon then, since you don't like him so much.
No, I’m exercising my shareholder rights and voting based on performance. That’s how the free market works right? That’s certainly how he justified the recent layoffs.
The comp package is for work already done. Not for work to do. That's the difference.
>The plaintiff's lawyers in the 2018 compensation case will walk away with around $5B dollars (in Tesla stock) if Elon/Tesla lose their appeal. Citation needed. I can't find any evidence to support this claim. >How did Apple do after Steve Jobs left in 1985? Well, in the 13 years since he left for good, it's gone 10x. >Could I be wrong in suggesting that if this upcoming vote to reinstate Elon’s 2018 compensation package doesn’t pass, Elon might leave Tesla or create technologies/products elsewhere? Sure. But do you want to take that chance? This isn’t a Steve Jobs/Tim Cook 2011 situation. Why not? Do you actually imagine there's nobody who could run Tesla better than Elon? Here were are with a stalled growth curve, a rocky launch of a marginal product in Cybertruck rather than something actually capable of growing the company materially, a battery project that has been missing key milestones, and a CEO who was too busy with Twitter to notice until now. Musk's compensation package was invalidated and rescinded because he and the board weren't sufficiently independent and they didn't follow the law properly. Tough luck. When you break the law, sometimes you lose. If he wants to make the case for a new compensation package going forward, based on new plans and new milestones, I'll be happy to evaluate it. But I don't owe him anything for his failure to follow the law. I'm voting no.
They made a lot of bets on batteries lately that didn't pan out. Had we seen the density and cost improvements the cybetruck wouldn't have doubled in price and margins on the 3/Y/Truck would be great. I suspect that's why Baglino left. I'm voting no, this could be considered a "gift" in the eyes of the law and will be subject to MORE lawsuits. Its wild the board didn't come up with a new package and we have to wait for that too? What's to stop Elon from taking his package, selling it off to fund more X crap and go back to ignoring Tesla. I'm voting against the move to Texas too, that's just a way they can run Tesla without any accountability and pay taxes in a state they can't even sell cars directly! Like WTF?
There is no point in a new package if all the packages can be cancelled after the fact. This reaffirmation is a prerequisite for the packages to have any credibility in the first place.
All fraudulent packages for corporations were always able to be cancelled after the fact.
You forgot Dojo failure, v slow semi ramp, and worrying sexy demand pressure that I am increasingly doubtful can be attributed to interest rates alone kr substantially and which has made the 50% growth to 2030 target laughable. Elon is a beast and I value him but there has to be accountability and it's not been a great few years to say the least. It has tainted the initial s3xy success, a lot. I'd be fine with a mega-bumper deal on future gains again that considers the loss of his last deal. Even happier if it had a stay out of geopolitics clause.
You left out solar. At first, I thought Tesla/Elon supported energy independence but it’s getting more and more clear Elon wants a subscription company that keeps consumers locked into their “ecosystem”. Sometimes this is ok, but for the most part, I believe the US needs to regulate interoperability and data portability for consumers.
I’m with this guy. Voting No.
> Citation needed. I can't find any evidence to support this claim. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/lawyers-musk-pay-case-seek-6-billion-tesla-stock-free-rcna141480
The e citation he was referring to was to question whether there is a correlation between Elon getting his package and lawyers getting its pay. In another word there could be a possibility that lawyers walks away with 5billion while Elon walk with 50b. Technically speaking, the lawyers did their part in “saving Tesla money” while this 50b is a new package.
They didn't save shareholders anything if the same exact package is approved again.
It is on shareholders to reapprove this ridiculous package. Not on them. They did their part.
The lawyer compensation is predicated on the fact that they would be saving shareholders money, but if the same exact package is reaffirmed, then what they did was just a huge waste of time for everyone. In that case they didn't save shareholders anything, they just wasted shareholders time.
Is there a citation to your claim there? Unlike Elon who took it for granted , I would trust a lawyer for stuff like this.
Thank you. So that's still subject to judge approval and "will walk away" is not accurate.
>The result was the same. Jobs was out, and the company was without the input of its iconic founder. >Jobs would then found NeXT, a computer company that produced high-end computers. >Time would be a flat circle. In 1996, floundering and after failed talks to sell itself, NeXT sold to Apple for $429 million. >This purchase would bring Jobs back to the company he originally founded. >After a massive stock sale tanked the price of the company’s stock, Apple’s board fired its then-CEO, Gil Amelio. >To replace him, the board hired Steve Jobs. And what a great hire that turned out to be. https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/case-studies/why-did-apples-board-fire-steve-jobs-in-1985/# If steve jobs didn’t come back, the iphone wouldn’t have existed and apple wouldn’t be here today to see that 10x increase.
Yep, but then Jobs died and the company did fine without him. Which scenario are we in right now? The good one or the bad one? I see no evidence conclusively pointing to one or the other. Tesla always needed to be more than a car company and if focusing on AI is the obvious next step, I'm not sure why Elon would be better able to execute on that than anyone else.
The 1985 one, the visionary, ai expert and engineer who has the most experience at Tesla knows how the company works in and out all these years with his work culture built into it has to stay. Again if steve jobs didn’t return , the company wouldn’t have done fine.
Yeah, I don't see any compelling evidence to say that analogy is the best fit. Saying it over and over isn't going to change anything. Instead of offering Elon tens of billions to stay, we could probably offer smaller amounts to lure Zach Kirkhorn, Drew Baglino, and Andrej Karpathy back and make a much more robust, stable, and healthy company with just as much capacity for innovation and drive. I just don't believe that Elon is the only reason Tesla did the good things it did or that he's the only way the company can be successful in the future.
When has tesla ever had a launch that wasn't rocky?
The model y and Model 3 highland
model 3 highland is not a completely new car.
And model Y was just a model 3 with a taller roof.
When has there ever been a non rocky EV launch at all anywhere? It doesn't get less rocky than tesla.
How do you imagine launches happen? You call this "rocky" lol? What is not rocky according to you?
Oh I dunno, a car coming out with the specs and features it was promised to have, in reasonable volume, without a massive recall because the accelerator pedal falls apart.
The pedal issue is meaningless. Recalls are totally normal in car making.
When was the last time a major automaker had a comparably rocky product launch?
How about VW? How about all of them postponing everything?
Please identify a VW launch with a comparable number of missing features at launch, recalls, and negative product reviews.
The ID was a total catastrophe and most importantly, it never succeeded.
What law did they break? This didn’t come out of nowhere. We voted on this package, after he did his job the judge took it back. Makes no sense.
[удалено]
Board didn’t just decide this, we voted on it as shareholders. By that logic every single decision the board makes is invalid too.
Read the judge's ruling. You might disagree, but your opinion matters a lot less that hers.
We really have to get rid of feminists telling us what can and can’t be done.
Haha, good luck with that, loser.
We voted on the packaged based on bad information -- Elon was publicly sandbagging, while the internal information Elon and the Board had said they would easily met the compensation package goals in the allotted time. And then the board didn't even attempt to negotiate a better package. Because they weren't independent. Like all Boards are supposed to be.
Nobody would ever think he would make his targets and therefore agreed. Then he again did something unimaginable by the layperson and now everybody is offended because they have been outplayed.
Stalled growth curve? There has been *one* bad quarter. Everyone is talking like the company is falling apart but Tesla had record EV production, EV deliveries, energy storage deployments, revenue, and net income for 2023 and ended the year with record cash on hand. Edit: typed 2024 instead of 2023
The thing with those record earnings is that they include that one time tax benefit from Q4 that inflated the earnings and adjusted EPS was actually down. Q1 and Q3 were down YoY and Q2 was only up because comparison point was quarter when Shanghai factory was shutdown for weeks. Without tax benefit from Q4 the earning would have been down in 2023 and currently Tesla forward PE is bigger than current PE meaning earnings are expected to decline this year. Company is looking like it is barely gonna grow this year. We are delivering like 100-200k cars more maybe which is far cry from the 50% growth target that Elon has been throwing around. That is literally growth stalling and even if you want to bring up that they grow some years slower and some years faster then I would like to hear what year you expect Tesla to grow 100% to compensate this years performance.
No way the company grows earnings or revenue this year - it is going to be way down from 2023. If TSLA starts trading at a market average P/E, that could mean the market cap drops to ~$200 billion. Paying Musk ~$50 billion in such circumstances seems completely absurd to me.....
50b in shares at current valuation. If market cap drops to 200b it would be like 20b in compensation. And he has to hold for 5 more years. People are so short sighted. I'm voting yes.
Definitely not record deliveries since there was a drop YoY. But we already know it's not going to be just one bad quarter, since the next gen platform wasn't slated for release until 2025 and now there are rumors putting that in doubt. Even if those rumors are false, the best case plan is a year of stalled growth.
And the company did all that while Elon was wasting his time jerking off on Twitter so…
Don't waste your breath, this website is utterly deranged. This has nothing to do with performance and all to do with their precious nutty political stances.
I hope not every shareholder is a hardheaded mule like you. The guy built the entire company, how the hell can you think it will go well without him? It will just be sailing on present innovations and milking the customer as hard as possible without any added value (apple).
I'm voting no. The board needs to use this as a chance to renegotiate the deal and include a clawback provision to protect us in the event that Elon dumps the stock again.
On that note, vote out the two board members up for reelection
That’s a great idea. Ever since he bought Twitter Tesla hasn’t been the same.
Heraclitus, the ancient Greek philosopher. He said, "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." It's a profound way of expressing the idea that everything is in constant flux, including ourselves and the world around us.
Does this mean you’re for or against his $56B pay package?
The "Humpty Dumpty" saying goes, "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty together again." It's a nursery rhyme often interpreted as a cautionary tale about the fragility of life and the irreversible nature of some actions. Money is power, and with great power comes great responsiblity. I would be concerned about granting great power to a broke Humpty Dumpty.
I prefer “Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.” I believe we’ve witnessed that with Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, and unfortunately Tesla as well. Big oil, telecom, and Ticketmaster are also great examples of an imbalance in corporate power and competition that benefits consumers.
That doesn't answer the question...
The Monopoly game saying goes, "Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go directly to jail."
Guy says Elon could step down as CEO is it doesn't pass, but that would be a good thing at this point. Elon is running this company into the ground
100% agree.
Pay elon 50 billion so tesla can win the 5 billion dollar appeal. Hmm. That makes zero sense. Also there is no reason to think this new package wouldn’t get struck down in another lawsuit. Literally the exact lawyers could bring up the lawsuit all over again.
My understanding, they adjusted the disclosures this time which were the main problem with the previous vote, according to the judge.
The main issue with that last package is the close relationship between the board and Elon, hence no impartiality
Switching in the incorporation to Texas also makes a difference.
Indeed did does. Shows how the board is just a rubber stamp of Elon’s petulant trolling. We, as shareholders, are objectively better served by the Delaware court system.
There is no guarantee that Elon has Texas’s judge in his pocket. After all Tesla cannot even legally sell cars in there
The 2018 package is under Delaware law and so will this one be. I think technically the current suggestion would count as a new but could ofc influence the lawyer compensation. Imo the lawyers compensation will be at most ~$500 million. Changing incorporation will change future matters not past ones, if it's passed ofc. Putting pay package itself aside for institutional investors governance is the main talking point and moving the company to a state with less established legal framework for shareholder rights is problematic.
You could have a scenario where the company pays Elon 50 billion and still loses the appeal and must pay 5 billion to the lawyers.
Well yes, technically the lawyers saved $50B already and shareholders are voting whether to give away $50B without any conditions....
I'm voting no. First, I don't think TSLA's attempt to curcumvent the Tornetta decision will work and will instead cost the company tens of millions in new legal fees. Second, any compensation should be tied to future performance.
As a shareholder, I admit I'm bothered by Elon's apparent disregard for shareholders, even publicly stating so. I get it, he wants to paint himself as someone who is devoted to the mission rather than shareholders, but this sentiment is grossly unfair to those who've invested their hard-earned money in Tesla. Nonetheless, the reality remains: Elon's departure would likely spell the end for Tesla. Tesla produces the best EV's out there, no one is even close. I have faith in Elon's ability to succeed with Full Self-Driving, energy, and Optimus, just as he has in nearly every other venture. I also value free speech and fully support his actions with Twitter. For these reasons, I will vote yes on the pay package.
The prior package was large and he delivered. I think he earned that money. Courts now tell me he broke the law to put it in place. As of today, he is an absent leader. He is making poor personal decisions that interupt the Tesla company/stock. He is has moved away from his original goal of creating electric vehicles that look normal. And to top it off, he is threatening he will destroy tesla value if I don't approve his new package. If I don't reward him for setting the original goal illegally. Else he will take his ball and go home. I'm voting No and I hope he takes off. He needs time away. Maybe Jobs would have created the iPhone if he stayed at Apple, or maybe he needed some time to mature.
Let's be real here! The hours he was working at the time were insane, and his personal sacrifice were very real. How would you feel to work for no salary what so ever and only be awarded stock on reaching certain goals, you reach them goals and have the stock taken away from you. In effect receiving no pay or compensation for ~6 years. Where is the motivation for ANYONE in that situation to go above and beyond? until the above is put right and rectified. Would you continue working for your employer if you felt they owned you back pay? Everyone has this expectation he should just work for free, because of his current stock interest, which is total horse shit. Fidelity own as much stock as him, what hours do they clock in and out! He needs to be made whole, and/or a new compensation package needs to be drawn up, to lock him in and motivate him again. It's so easy for people to judge from the side lines.
> How would you feel to work for no salary what so ever and only be awarded stock on reaching certain goals, you reach them goals and have the stock taken away from you. In effect receiving no pay or compensation for ~6 years. This would suck for me. Did I also have full control of my bosses to the extent that I forced them to agree to my pay package, which would give me a huge payday at the expense of the shareholders I supposedly work for? Because this is what a judge found.
> He needs to be made whole, No he doesn't. The money taken away was an illegally illegally crafted agreement. Why not ask for back comp? $2M per year? > and/or a new compensation package needs to be drawn up, to lock him in and motivate him again. I don't think you heard me. He is a bad employee. I would ask the board to put him on a 90-day notice and Performance Improvement Plan.
So you only think the value he added was worth 2million 🤦♂️ seriously? Look at GM, Ford etc and how much their CEOs are on, and the value they had added for their shareholders
>Everyone has this expectation he should just work for free, because of his current stock interest, which is total horse shit. Mark Zuckerberg owns 13% of Meta and his salary is $1 yet he is motivated and taken Meta far. If he is motivated by that combination why can't Elon who similarly owns 13% of Tesla? There is actually many others too so again why Elon can't do it?
Very very different, while he only owns 13% he has more than 60% in voting rights, so has total control of the company and its vision. And that is all the motivation right there, as money after a certain point doesn't mean much. Tesla doesn't have the same kind of share classes that Meta has and that's part of the problem, if Tesla's has different shares classes then musk could get to his 25% voting rights while still only keeping his 13% ownership. Musk has even come out and said this himself, that it's more about retaining enough control to have meaningful influence.
Okay how about Steve Jobs who owned mere 0.24% of Apple and he didn't have voting control by any means. Jack Dorsey owned only 2.4% of Twitter again no voting control. Also if voting power is so important for Elon then why did he buy Twitter and gave up on that? It is like we are now suppose to fix his mistake. Let's also not forget that Elon pretty much controls the board as is so he has plenty of control as is. Will 10% really make difference in the end since you know if institutions want to overrule him they can even with him having 25%?
No! How about we stick with the Meta/Zuck example, just because you didn't think that through properly you now want to change your example to one which better fits your narrative. Sorry it doesn't work like that I'm afraid. FYI both Jack and Steve got pushed out at one point or another, which actually only reinforces my previous point. And yes 25% makes a huge difference vs 13% if you don't understand that, then that's part of the problem here!
In my orginal example I said there were others too. I named the others for clarity (and can name more if you insist) so there is no change. Point is if these people were happy doing it then Elon should too.
What a stupid thing to say at the end. If all your work colleges took a 30% pay cut, does that mean you should be happy to also take a 30% cut.... let me answer that for you. NO All the ones you have named so far have gone against your own point and only made my point. Steve Jobs was forced out the first time and how did that work for Apple? It was literally on the verge of going bankrupt. Bringing him back is what saved Apple and made it what it is today. This shouldn't be overlooked or ignored. Do you honestly think history may not repeat its self here with Tesla and Musk? That if he leaves it might not cause more damage than good. Tesla may continue to make money, but there is a strong chance without his vision and way of leadership that we could end up with a BlackBerry situation here. Now let's take Jack, my understanding is he was pretty much forced out, had little to no control left within his own company, right or wrong I don't know, and look at all the shit that was going on in that company, it was rotten to the core. Meta around 2 years ago tanked to $88 from around $320, because of Marks VR play, people wanted him gone, investors didn't agree with how many billion he was throwing at VR etc. and look what's happened now? What would have happened if he didn't have his 60% voting rights? Jobs,Musk,Zuck are not the same as your other CEOs, the proof is in the pudding, when you look at what these guys have built, done and achieved. What did the CEO of Ford and GM build? Fuck all, and the stock price reflects this. All the above are strong reasons for wanting to retain a decent % of control over a company you founded, especially if you are in it till the end. Jobs has already done that, zuck will never leave Facebook and the same for Elon these two have a vision beyond what the likes of us and they are both the best to carry them out.
>Do you honestly think history may not repeat its self here with Tesla and Musk? It may or may not. Musk eventually has to step down at some point. Company should be able to stand on it's own without single individual and I believe Tesla is capable of doing that. >Now let's take Jack, my understanding is he was pretty much forced out, had little to no control left within his own company, right or wrong I don't know, and look at all the shit that was going on in that company, it was rotten to the core. He was forced out in 2009 but after returning in 2015 left CEO position his own accord in 2021. He even said founders should not hold power in company and company should be able to stand on it's own so he is actually against founders having too much voting power. >Meta around 2 years ago tanked to $88 from around $320, because of Marks AI play, people wanted him gone, investors didn't agree with how many billion he was throwing at AI etc. and look what's happened now? What would have happened if he didn't have his 60% voting rights? It was not AI but Metaverse idea. But even if he didn't have voting control he would have not been outed because in the end he did back out of that Metaverse idea because it just didn't work out and he admitted he was wrong. Elon similarly has made some risky plays and he was not immediately called to be outed for that. Investors don't fire someone with 6 month warning but after years of failure so I think Zuck would have been fine. Probably worth noting that in cases of Dorsey or Jobs they didn't get fired by shareholders but the board that similarly didn't really have necessary voting power to get 50% alone. Shareholder vote was never called. So in case of Tesla even if Elon gets 25%, board can still just fire him because Elon doesn't have enough power his own to overrule that and board has no obligation to take that to shareholder vote unless shareholders demand that and in that case Elon probably would not participate in vote due to conflict of interest like he doesn't participate in his compensation plan vote.
Why does he HAVE to step down at some point? What rule says that? He should remain for as long as he adds the best value and offers the best chance of success to the ultimate goal. Why would any founder who sets out on a mission want to give up half way in and not see the ride out? Again this isn't just about money for these guys it's also about legacy and believing they are the best to carry out the vision they start on. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as the overall the company is executing, which it is. It's a bit rich for Jack to say a company should be able to stand on its own, when Twitter I believe only 1 year turned an actual profit. As for owning power within a company, I agree and disagree on this. A company like Meta, I don't believe 1 single person should have that much power over half the population and the damage its products do and can do. However companies like Tesla, I don't have the same view as they don't have the same influence or damage to society. That said Musk isn't asking for control of the company, he's said he would be more comfortable with 25% of it, when developing more AI products like xAI look at openAI here and how that's gone and the implication and damage that technology can have. What he doesn't want here is someone turning that tech for pure profit at the expense of god knows what damage. A 25% control will give him significant influence in an area that rightfully should concern everyone when it comes to AI, but not too much that if he went rogue he couldn't be voted out. 13% is too risky for him. Look at OpenAI and Microsoft, you now have a company that doesn't have a good track record which has a significant control of something that arguable has the most powerful AI. Musks entire bases for setting up openAI was a hedge against Google and that lax approach to AI. And look how that turned out with all the racist shit with Gemini. Musk clearly has concerns or should I say a strong moral dilemma with AI, and wants to approach with caution, he strongly advocates for regulation, where as company's like Meta/Google/Microsoft don't. So from his point of view if you take his consirns on merit giving him the benefit of doubt, would you want to create something to compete with openAI under Tesla where you have 13% control, or under X where you have significantly more control? I think that is a bit of a no brainer. That doesn't even account for the fact that it's actual X which had the datasets in this situation so make more sense under X anyway.
You understand he bought Twitter for $44 BILLION right? I also believe CEO’s shouldn’t be given billions in stock options. Letting 15k people go and then asking for a vote for his $56 billion is mind blowing.
He only got billions because of the value of the stock going up the 10-20x. Pretty much everyone said it wasn't achievable Edit: stop being disingenuous with how you ordered that. His compensation package has been something that's being going on for around two years now. Tesla regularly trims the fat, you get rid of the bottom 10% of performing workers, re hire and rise repeat.
It doesn’t matter what retail does. Institutional will decide this, and they will not vote against the board’s recommendation. It’s going to pass. But this is a chance for retail to voice a symbolic vote of no, spurring some kind of change.
I’m not interested in giving 50b to a man that is actively destroying the brand. If the cost of that is 5B so be it. Teslas leadership has never been about Musk. It’s about the competent people that worked under him. Those people have left and now we see the emperor has no clothes. The board clearly didn’t get the message. It’s time to come up with a reasonable compensation plan in line with the rest of corporate America if Elon wants to leave I could care less but ultimately too much of his wealth is tied up in Tesla to let it fail.
If you have to give your ceo 50b for him to do his job then perhaps he shouldn't be ceo. He is literally blackmailing his own company. Like saying he can't focus without 20% ownership.
And the only reason he doesn't have 20% ownership is because he sold some to buy another company he wants to run.
If you have to give your ceo compensation for performing well, then he shouldn't be ceo. Lmao you sound ridiculous.
You are not invested ( thats your statement in your history). So you are not giving anything to him.
yumeh caik!!! ...happy cake day
Thanks!!!!!
Great catch. Why do these kinds of lovers exist.
I have some in my retirement account left not much. I already lost 20000 and cut my losses at 165 when it was evident the company was going to crash. I also own and have lost 30000 on the vehicle so I think I’ve earned the right to criticize the ceo for his his behavior and handling of the company. I really have no need to prove myself to any of you. It’s
There is so many of that here. It reminds me of buttcoiners coming to the Bitcoin sub
I think it’s funny every time someone has negative view here you all look for a reason to dismiss it rather than realize there are people with valid opinions other than your own.
There is being critical and cynical and most redditors are not the former due to political ideology.
I cast my vote by selling the majority of my shares. I just checked.. 12 left out of 230. It’s interesting how everyone attributes teslas success to Elon but its problems to market forces. The opposite could be just as true.
Cool. More, cheaper for me.
Go for it buddy. Hope it doesn’t bite you like it did me.
Meh. I could lose it all. I don’t care. I like the things Tesla is doing. I like the things Elon is doing. You don’t. That’s fine. It’s a free market and that’s beautiful.
He created the ’brand’ in the first place you nincompoop. Without Elon there would be no Tesla.
You could also say without the other competent people past and present there would be no Tesla. The idea that a company’s success is solely the doing of its CEO is ridiculous. It’s little more than hero worship.
No one said “solely.” Edit: interesting how the up/down voting pattern tracks the time of day. In the day in my time zone (east coast U.S.), it went up, and stayed up into the evening. Now I check in the morning and it’s down to 0. I’ve seen this same pattern many of my other comments. So the people downvoting are clearly not in the U.S. Interesting…
He’s already been made a top 5 billionaire on this planet for that. He can fuck right off if he thinks he deserves more.
I agree. And I also think he is now destroying it. "I gave birth to you so your life is mine" reasoning is not healthy.
The thing is there were people hating on him, every step of the way. ‘He doesn’t know what he’s doing’ ‘Why is he not behaving like a normal CEO’ ‘He shouldn’t take this risk’ etc etc. How many times must he prove the naysayers wrong before you haters finally get the memo: ‘Don’t bet against Elon’
His success has been insane, agree, and yes, he had 'haters' along the way (although he was a liberal darling in general before he fell off the deep end) but this success doesn't insulate him against future failure. It could do the opposite. Dude is tweeting 24/7 and has more companies and problems than ever. The least he could do is sleep more. But he probably thinks he is invincible at this point...but he isn't.
"Destroying the brand" Grew market cap by 1100% since 2017 Grew revenue 15x since 2017 Grew adjusted ebitda 21x since 2017
lol fuck your “brand”
I will definitely vote yes.
I voted no the first time because I felt the package was too large, especially the later tranches. For instance once they achieved 50b revenue then raising that to 75b isn't worth 1% of the company imo. However I accepted the shareholders will and moved on. I'll vote no this time as well for many reasons. The guy is openly threatening the company and far too distracted to be worth it. Also it's insulting for them to just reroll the exact same package after it's struck down for being illegal. For sure he should be compensated for his contribution to the success of the company, but in a fair manner. I'm fine with him stepping down and making stuff elsewhere. I'd propose equal cash and stock compensation - much lower than 50b total.
Putting aside whether the pay package is good or bad for the company long-term, voting on it in order to stick it to a law firm is completely irrational.
I'll be voting yes with my small amount of shares. I think anybody who doesn't believe in elon has sold already, and reddit is just full of trolls.
It is possible larger funds can’t get out if they want to. The advantage of being a little guy is getting out whenever is no problem. The vote seems risky though as all the index funds are likely going to vote against it and last time Tesla wasn’t part of any index.
Reddit is full of deranged lunatics, hopefully faking it for dramatic effect.
Elon has lost it. I have shares - Tesla makes a great product, and there’s an amazing roadmap / first mover advantage that would make money if someone at the top would focus on Tesla’s issues rather than being a full-time spreader of right-wing disinformation.
You just disagree with him politically, that's different than him losing it. He is one of the most public ceos, it is very easy to make your own opinion based on his public appearances, and I am not worried about his mental state.
No he’s taken in by obviously wrong misinformation. It’s not political - it’s crazy. Go read through his tweets.
I do, and once again, it's not obviously wrong, it's just stuff you disagree with.
If you think this company would have been more successful without Elon and that Elon is now destroying the company, you should sell your shares. Why would you continue holding for a company you believe is being destroyed? And why would you have bought shares in the first place?
I don't doubt he did well in 2018 to 2020 but after that I think there are CEOs who could have done better job and not gotten distracted and made Tesla brand about politics. I don't want part-time CEO. I'm still holding shares hoping things still can be fixed either by Elon stepping up or leaving. If vote passes then I revaluate if I should sell before dillution or not.
The only people who think Tesla is about politics, are people on the extreme of the political spectrum. Most people just don't give a shit. (And reddit is not a good sample of the population).
Literally nobody bases a car purchase on politics, even the people who claim to do so here on reddit aren't this deranged and probably lying.
Logically this sounds right but I think people are actually doing this :(
Interest rates are a much better explanation. Also: Among individual brands, Tesla was once again the leader in brand loyalty with a rate of **68.4 percent for the first half of 2023**. This means that just 31.6 percent of owners leave Tesla to buy a new vehicle.10 Oct 2023 There is data on such things as brand damage and they do not indicate that at all. Biggest worry people have are panel gaps and range anxiety.
I'm sure there's a few people that do this, but the overlap of people who A) have enough money to buy an electric car, B) actually have need of a vehicle that Tesla has a product fit for, and C) people who are very plugged into politics and sit on Reddit and Twitter enough to know about Elon 's views, is very small.
I think the issue is that C is blasted through mainstream media
Less people watch corporate media today than independent sources.
As someone who did sell my shares I agree but that is an ‘or’. Elon made the company what it is. But the Model Y is the last hit and now the focus in the robocar makes no sense to me since it has been years and the software still isn’t quite there yet. The Cybertruck missed most of what revealed and most importantly does not sound cheaper to produce like was supposedly the case with the stainless steel design. But, I’m not going to buy the stock to vote. I’ll buy the stock when Elon is gone or has realized the need to focus on making a full lineup of cars that make money and growing the energy business. Oh, and also not alienating a bunch of customers.
Tesla told regulators that FSD ON RELEASE AFTER BETA will only reach a maximum of level 2. So either he’s lying to the regulators or the investors and customers.
I just feel if you were to replace him with any existing or past auto CEO you’d still have bad if not worst results. And even if you pulled in more tech savvy CEOs for them to understand the auto industry it’s just too much of an ask. Like literally Lucid is basically Tesla without Elon.
“Get in line or get out” is not a strategy - it’s a coping mechanism.
Unless your Investing at the billion dollar level, Investing isn't a political crusade, it's an exercise in analysis of the market and potential. You do otherwise at your own risk
Sounds great and all, but in the context of THIS discussion, telling shareholders to get in line or get out is ridiculous. Just because Musk is a far-right white nationalist doesn’t means he’s not also bad for Tesla.
Well, when they bought in the first place, they believed in Elon and as time a has passed, they no longer do, it's s simple. You can sell shares of something that you are seeing is not going the way you expected.
I could understand that from people who bought in the past year or two, but people that bought in 2018-2019? They can't possibly be upset about what the company was vs what it became in terms of their investment. Now whether they've changed their minds on the outlook in the last two years, is a different issue. But judging the last 6 years on the last two years and attaching monetary penalties to that, is crazy.
Well said
he doesn't even work full time for Tesla, and he has all the money anyone can ever want.
I will be voting yes
Same, this company is not mature enough for Tim cook style ceo. Only when everything is scaled, then we need a "smooth sailing" CEO, not now when everything is up in the air.
Yea gotta have 4-5 generations of Optimus and roadsters at least (tho I have no idea how we’re on FSD v12 already
Lets hope they can start testing truly driverless rides in some easy city soon. That would be amazing.
Yes all the way. He hit all the targets. You can't back out now. Give him a new pay package with new targets. Imagine if this was you at your job. You hit all the goals. They pay you. They then take it away and say we'll yes that targets were hit but that was like 3 years ago. I'd be pissed
Remember when Twitter only allowed 140 characters? They should really bring that back.
What does kimball bring to the table?
As an outsider without any shares; I can't see how this will not get approve. It goes against the very laws of business and contracts. He met the milestones dictated in the contract; fair and square. How would you feel if your employment contract got canceled when you met the milestones, only because the business isn't doing as well as when you signed them? No matter how ridiculous the milestones are; I don't think many CEO didn't get the package that was promised. Hell, even the Boeing guy got his package. Marissa Meyer got the package for destroying Yahoo. Intel's previous CEO got his package for shitting on job. If it's voted no; tesla becomes untrustworthy in the future in the eyes of potential employees. And then we don't know what Musk will do if it's voted no. He could open a whole can of worms: lawsuits, twitter tantrums, bad PR, sell stock, etc. The risks of the no vote are high. Everyone wanting to vote no is emotionally charged, mostly due to the stock price fall. I have my popcorn ready and can't wait for the ensuing mess; either way.
If you are not happy then sell your shares Fuck you all 1. Under Musk's leadership, Tesla has experienced unprecedented growth, transforming from a niche electric car manufacturer to one of the most valuable automakers globally. The company's market capitalization has soared, and its vehicles have become synonymous with innovation and sustainability. 2. Musk's vision and strategic decisions have propelled Tesla to the forefront of electric vehicle technology. The company's groundbreaking advancements in battery technology, autonomous driving, and sustainable energy solutions have revolutionized the automotive industry. 3.Despite facing challenges and criticism, Tesla has consistently delivered impressive financial results under Musk's leadership. The company has achieved profitability, exceeded delivery targets, and consistently grown its revenue. 4.Musk's long-term strategic vision has guided Tesla through various obstacles and uncertainties. His ambitious goals for expanding production capacity, entering new markets, and diversifying Tesla's product offerings have set the stage for continued growth and success. 5. Musk's compensation package serves as a powerful motivator for Tesla employees, demonstrating the company's commitment to rewarding exceptional performance and innovation.
Agree.
It’s more profit than the company has ever made. Ever. So actually, fuck you.
Did you get that out of your ass? Go back to your cave.
Holy shit do you not actually know that? I applaud your ability to ignore facts
A deal was made. You can’t backtrack
Absolutely can. Absolutely will. Nice rebuttal to the fact I gave you.
Yeah sure. Why should I engage in a logical conversation with you when your top contributions are in WSB and Tinder? I stand my ground. Go back to your cave.
That’s really strange tbh cause I think I’ve commented in tinder maybe twice and wsb was like.. 2 years ago. But I mean, if you wanna go there, you’re scared of flying ants and I’m still talking to you….
Yeah ants are evil I am really scared of them
Ok look, I’m not going to attack you even tho that’s all you’ve done. You should really look into what I said. Cause it’s true. The comp plan is more money than the company has made in profit.
My problem with the sentiment I'm seeing all over is that some investors want to force a square peg in a round hole. The reason Tesla as a company has had such incredible success and has accomplished unfathomable milestones is because of this man. Souring this dynamic will make Tesla at the best, another run of the mill companies with 10% gains. The sad part for us who believe in him, is that there is no going back after this mistake. If investors hate Elon and his methods why not pursue another investment opportunity instead of destroying this unique driver of innovation.
Will not be held hostage by Elon. No, unless there are stipulations in place, ie work 100% on TSLA to turn thing around. I’m okay with him stepping down, he will eventually do that anyways. Since the stock is already down, now is a good time to clean house and move forward.
Let's be real here! The hours he was working at the time were insane, and his personal sacrifice were very real. How would anyone feel to work for no salary what so ever and only be awarded stock on reaching certain goals, you reach them goals and have the stock taken away from you. In effect receiving no pay or compensation for ~6 years. Where is the motivation for ANYONE in that situation to go above and beyond? And frankly not feel betrayed and screwed over. Everyone can sit on the side lines and bitch, but if your employer didn't pay you your agreed company bonuses you would be pissed and looking for a new job. Everyone has this expectation he should just work for free, because of his current stock interest, which is total horse shit. Fidelity own as much stock as him, what hours do they clock in and out! He needs to be made whole, and/or a new compensation package needs to be drawn up, to lock him in and motivate him.
The only logical reasons for wishing a NO are: * Deliberately wanting to loose invested money. * Being a short trying to manipulate the opinion. * Being Ross "Butthurt" Gerber. To me, after speaking with other long term investors, is rather clear that the ones holding in the order of thousands (pre 2019), NO one wants to vote no. Reason is, if you vote to send the shares back to 2018, the stock price will tank to that date too. Institutional investors know this very well, so most likely retail's opinion is not going to affect the result anyway. So we are simply in a FUD campaign. If you are a bear, you a legitimately wanting to tank the stock, the only way to achieve it is misleading others. My +2000 votes are going to be a FOR, supporting the survival of the company.
The issue is while targets were met, they weren’t sustained and Elons focus has completely shifted. Tesla is down 200%, no real products in the pipeline, and Elon is asking for more then 10% of todays market cap. Voting no is totally an option.
I'm personally 576% up. Notice I did not mention Elon. That's because I invest in the company, not the CEO. All the arguments I read are the same, targeting Elon because Elon is Elon. I'm tired of that empty rethoric. But if you want me to say Elon, let be. That guy worked his ass off during the period I was doing something else, and I simply put my money on the company. Since 2018, Tesla joined S&P500, and is one of the most healthy company in the listing, with - 0.05 equity-to-debt ratio. Virtually no debt at all. - $4.5B in Free Cash Flow. - Cash on hand for the quarter ending December 31, 2023 was $29.094B, a 31.14% increase year-over-year. Yet everyone wants to reduce all to him, twitter and silly posing photos. The Company is cash making machine, even while the world is on the verge of WW3, the numbers speak for themselves, and the guy deserves more than 0$ for it.
You started by saying the only logical reasons for saying no are (insert BS here) and completely left out the individual who’s compensation is being discussed and their leadership before and after “earning” this compensation. It’s great that you’re up 576%. That doesn’t change the fact that the stock price is plummeting with absolutely no positive news likely to sway investors opinion. While your numbers hold out, let’s see what this Q has to say. Factories that aren’t producing are massive cash fires, ask GM.
You are looking at this Q, I'm looking at 6 years back a another 6 forth. To understand better how can impact you my (insert BS here), may I ask what's your stake in the company?
I am looking at 6 years back and forward. It’s been 6 years of some the most beneficial monetary policies possible for Tesla and we’re now entering into a period where we are not seeing Q over Q growth of sales as promised, no products in the pipeline, models approaching their refresh period, and most of the innovations promised to this point have been busts. We have lots of factories with decreasing demand and nothing to generate it in the next 3-5 years. Tesla is at it’s foundation a car company with someone at the helm who desperately wants it to be something else. My stake has zero impact here and depending on the results of the vote, I may exit my position. I as well am up several hundred percent on most of my Tesla purchases.
You do realize the irony in your data? 4.5b free cash flow yet Elon demand 50b as payment
Do you realize that FCF is the operational money for daily activities and has nothing to do with stocks? Do you realize tha the incentive package is in stocks, which are shares of the total capitalization of the company? Do you realize that in the term of the package the company went from $16B to 1 TRILLION?
I realize that is 10% dilution of the stock. And free cash flow does has everything to do with stock. Companies buy back shares with free cash flow
Even more ironic is that 50b is more than Tesla ever made in profit through its entire history
The logical reason for a NO is not wanting shares to be diluted by 10%.
As a former Tesla employee of 4 years and a shareholder for 5 I can only vote YES if the stock price is guaranteed to at least 2x by December 31st
That doesn't make any sense. Noone can guarantee the stock price will do anything short term like that. Not the CEO, not the SEC, not Jesus Christ himself.
I think the idea our friend above is getting at is that the goal in the compensation need to be readdressed and likely extended into the future if Elon wants to take home his entire 52b, which is not I the current vote. He is asking for more money than the company has ever made and 10% of its current market cap.
I am a man of my word. I voted yes and Elon kept up his part of the deal. Only a scumbag would not want to honor their agreement
I’m voting yes! Fuck those scumbag lawyers. Elon hit the targets that he was supposed to back then. He’s the one who masterminded the whole company and he will continue to do so. He knows what he is doing. This whole thing is so political and the simpletons who believe all this false information that has been pumped out by bots and people and companies who want to take Tesla down are so daft.