Unfortunately many are unaware of the vote. I've called more than 15 people I know that have shares and they did not vote but are now. All of them have never voted.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Sorry, have to push back on this. We wouldn't be in this mess if the Board did his homework and structured the pay package in 2018 in a correct way. This is all the fault of the Board. To put it on shareholders who got NO now is disingenuous.
"Externalities" would be ignored in a true Free Market. Manufactured externalities like leveling the playing field to deal with vehicle emissions, are the exact opposite of a free market.
why was pay-package incorrect? It was just not normal - just a high risk, high reward challenge.
A shareholder with 9 votes says he was not properly informed and we end up in this fiasco ...
Right now if Elon did not meet the goals, and he did not get a cent, maybe BoD would look cunning/smart and Elon would look so dumb.
Did you read the verdict?
in Tesla long enough to not have to read 2000 page doc (esp when I think it's a hit job) , but yes i think I have read the jist and summaries and think I understand what this is about.
cronies for BoD being the main point?
Why did shareholders vote for these BoD's in 1st place, don't the have option to vote them out, just like 2 of them are on the vote now?
cheers!!
Last edited:
My 2 cents
The 90% statement is meaningless without knowing the percent voted and I really wish Elon were a more reliable speaker.
I respect @AudubonB's reasoning for his votes, but would like to raise a point that I don't see mentioned often enough.
This time around I didn't base my decision on the principle of his compensation or even the principle of a "deal is a deal".
I voted as a matter of risk management.
If the vote passes, we still don't know if Elon will actually get paid under the original deal. That will be up the appellate courts in Delaware. Tesla thinks this will help, but it admits in the proxy statement that the vote doesn't really solve anything.
If the vote doesn't pass, we also don't know if Elon will get paid under the original deal. Tesla and the directors will not abandon their appeal and it will still be up the appellate courts. I found Tesla's proxy statement reasoning from pp 85-89 to very persuasive of the uncertainty that could ensue if the ratification fails.
Generally speaking, I think option 2 has a lot more hair on it (and therefore more unnecessary investment risk) so I voted to ratify the prior shareholder vote.
(I voted no on Texas redomestication because it only presents more uncertainty given its even less-predictable court system and less-developed corporate law).
The 90% statement is meaningless without knowing the percent voted and I really wish Elon were a more reliable speaker.
I respect @AudubonB's reasoning for his votes, but would like to raise a point that I don't see mentioned often enough.
This time around I didn't base my decision on the principle of his compensation or even the principle of a "deal is a deal".
I voted as a matter of risk management.
If the vote passes, we still don't know if Elon will actually get paid under the original deal. That will be up the appellate courts in Delaware. Tesla thinks this will help, but it admits in the proxy statement that the vote doesn't really solve anything.
If the vote doesn't pass, we also don't know if Elon will get paid under the original deal. Tesla and the directors will not abandon their appeal and it will still be up the appellate courts. I found Tesla's proxy statement reasoning from pp 85-89 to very persuasive of the uncertainty that could ensue if the ratification fails.
Generally speaking, I think option 2 has a lot more hair on it (and therefore more unnecessary investment risk) so I voted to ratify the prior shareholder vote.
(I voted no on Texas redomestication because it only presents more uncertainty given its even less-predictable court system and less-developed corporate law).
Motor Mouth
Member
Free ability to release harmful pollutants into a public resource - the environment - is not a "true Free Market."
You hit someone else’s car, you pay the cost of repairs. You damage the environment, you should pay for that.
One way to look at EV subsidies is to cover or balance out the costs combustion engines impose on all of us.
Some sort of simplified Ayn Rand rigid, ultra-disciplinarian view of free market economics doesn’t cover the more complex realities of the real world reality of costs, impacts, taxes, subsidies to petrochemical industries etc.
Investopedia:
What Is a Free Market?
The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. One of the central principles of a free market is the concept of voluntary exchange, which is defined as any transaction in which two parties freely trade goods or services.
I may be misunderstaning this comment, so forgive me if I am. But if you are alluding to the Delaware court's reasoning for nullifying Elon's compensation package, i.e. that shareholders weren't aware of the cozy relationship Elon had with the board, it is difficult for me to really believe that the majority of investors weren't well aware of that coziness. I sure was, and I am one of the most unsophisticated investors on this forum. Generally a court relies on evidence and testimony to come to their conclusions. In this case, was there tesitmony from investors that they were unaware of the reality of the situation? I genuinely don't know the answer to that question.
yes one "investor" with 9 shares was apparently not aware
philw1776
Member
Yo Peeps! I votes YES on all board recommendations. Would have voted NO on Kimbal & the other guy but my ignorance of the consequences stopped me. Were there some alternate candidates mentioned that would have been installed? I think not. Please educate me.
About 30% voted no.
From what I've read/seen and no matter how people feels about what compensation should be or how unlikely, a lot of the no votes originally and now is because it was excessive to begin with, no matter how unlikely it was back then. This is why the folks who voted no are voting no now. As I've mentioned before, no other CEO gets this type of comp plan nor do they have boards with this much lack of independence. That was the main gist of the case. You had a board who pushed through whatever the CEO wanted and no one to reign it in and there wasn't more clear/obvious disclosures.
You can list off every single company probably or comparable like NVDA, META, AAPL, just go through every one, those CEOS are all paid in the millions or never had anything similar to this.
As Musk has a massive stake already (probably 20%) back in 2018, the thought process is you don't need someone who is already massively wealthy or has a massive stake in a company to put himself above the other shareholder interests (vs. his own personal interest) ahead of everyone else. Even though there is that accounting thing, I assume there will be dilution since that just seems like common sense.
As for the folks who say you should just sell and leave, people are invested for different reasons and sorta why every country/debate is sorta messed up now. You don't like it, leave the state/country, black/white, 0/1, etc...Some investors may still like the upside/investment prospects, even if they don't agree with the compensation plan at all so they stay invested.
Even here, you don't like something, a negative poster, you should just sell and leave.
I agree with you about real life complexities, they make a true free market impossible. However, the examples you post should be in the categories of laws and regulations with penalties for breaking them. Subsidies are basically forcing tax payers to pay for things they might not support and that's not cool. And real life complexities or not, they are not Free Market.
It is true that quakers, for example, and others who espouse nonviolence are against spending on weapons and think it is completely immoral, generally a stronger emotion than anti-EV sentiment, yet are taxed and forced to pay for implements used to kill.
And don’t squeak about it nearly as hard as billionaires do “regulation."
The compromises inherent in being a part of society are what makes free markets an ideal rather than a practicality. We all have to compromise and right now there is one overwhelming existential threat -- climate change -- and some sort of watered-down version of free markets is not going to fix it. Just slow down fixes. “Free markets!” is, however, a convenient cry for big oil and its handmaidens to use in their influence campaigns. Which is why you hear it a lot when it really is 3 steps to the side of IRL.
Motor Mouth
Member
Centre for Research on Energy and Clear Air
- Quantifying the Economic Costs of Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels - Feb. 2022
"The economic costs of air pollution from fossil fuels are estimated at US$2.9 trillion in
2018, or 3.3% of global GDP, far exceeding the likely costs of rapid reductions in fossil fuel
use."
The environment belongs to all citizens of the Earth. Pretending that anyone can use air and water for their own economic benefit without cost is disingenuous at this stage of post-industrial society. It is particularly so to ignore these types of economic "rents" in the service of an overly-simplistic definition of "free market" that ignores this reality. It is tantamount to contending that pollution doesn't exist or has zero health or climate effects.
Paracelsus
Active Member
This ongoing discussion is ridiculous, as is your recollection of history, your continued insistence that Elon is a MAGA maniac for his frustrations with Fauci’s policies that Fauci himself has now admitted under oath were baseless, and your insistence that this discussion ends just after you get the last word. Both sides - Left and Right - took the advice of Fauci. And it was Trump’s policy implementation based on that recommendation that led to the shutdowns of 3.3 million businesses. And it was during that time - while Trump was president - that the Fremont plant was under attack by lawmakers for violating 6’ Social Distancing policies by staying open. Many of those businesses that closed their doors under Trump and stayed shut under Biden were never re-opened. Tesla could have easily been one of those casualties that originated while Trump was in office, but Elon leaned-in and kept Fremont open and it survived. Hindsight with the benefit of that recent testimony under oath suggests he did the right thing.
Elon under immense pressure bled on the sharp end of that spear for the greater good of Tesla. And Fremont and the company are still humming along nicely as a result of his efforts - which included him working at Fremont during that time - which is another reason I voted Yes with all my shares. (And no, I’m not wearing a MAGA hat either).
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
