Summary
– Proxy firm advises shareholders to reject Elon Musk’s $56 billion pay package
– Glass Lewis cites reasons such as the package size and Musk’s workload on other projects
– Reuters initially reported the story of the upcoming shareholder vote
– Delaware Judge ruled against Musk earlier this year, leading to the need for re-approval of the pay package
– Largest retail shareholder, KoGuan Leo, pushing for rejection of the pay package
Article
The upcoming shareholder vote on Elon Musk’s $56 billion payday is the main focus for investors at Tesla. Proxy firms like Glass Lewis are advising shareholders on how to vote, with one firm using strange arguments such as the excessive size of the pay package and Musk’s busy schedule with other projects as reasons to reject the package. Moving the company to Texas is also presented as a potential risk by the firm.
Musk was originally set to receive the $56 billion payout based on achieving specific company goals set during the 2018 shareholder meeting. However, a recent ruling by Delaware Judge Kathaleen McCormick led to the pay package being voided, and Tesla is now seeking to have it re-approved. The outcome of the shareholder vote carries significant implications for Tesla, as the company could potentially lose Musk as CEO and face challenges in maintaining its position in the industry without him.
Some shareholders support Musk’s pay package without question, while others are calling for a change in direction for the electric automaker, which has long been seen as a leader in the industry. The company’s largest retail shareholder, KoGuan Leo, is advocating for the rejection of the pay package, labeling some Tesla shareholders as “brainless suckers.” Despite being the biggest retail stakeholder with a 0.8 percent ownership in the company, KoGuan opposes Musk’s massive payday.
Glass Lewis’s arguments against Musk’s pay package, particularly in terms of its size and Musk’s workload, are seen as unusual by some. While the size of the payday is undeniably large, the perception of whether it is excessive or not is subjective. Some believe that Musk’s contributions to Tesla are worth every penny, and his ability to balance multiple projects simultaneously, such as SpaceX and Neuralink, should also be taken into consideration. The firm also advised against Kimbal Musk’s re-election to the Board but supported James Murdoch remaining a member.
As the shareholder vote approaches, the debate over Elon Musk’s $56 billion payday continues to intensify. Shareholders are divided on whether to approve or reject the pay package, with proxy firms like Glass Lewis providing unique arguments for each side. The outcome of the vote could have significant consequences for Tesla, as it potentially faces the loss of Musk as CEO and the need for a new direction without him at the helm. The controversy surrounding Musk’s pay package and the differing opinions among shareholders highlight the complexities of corporate governance and executive compensation in today’s business landscape.
Read the full article here
