Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
A few questions.

1. If this is not resolved quickly will there be a restatement of earnings or an adjustment to Q1 earnings to resolve?
2. Could a package even be structured today given the change in stock price that does not cause a complete adjustment to past earnings? I am assuming any option value awarded now would be much higher value today than prior.

My guess is this is going to be a complete mess for the accounting/finance guys.
Yes - from a Q1 financial statement perspective, this is a mess.
The auditors don't provide an Audit Opinion on quarters (only on the 10K) so they won't weigh in on this but I believe Tesla will not make any adjustments to Q1 and then provide a lengthy footnote stating the financials may be impacted in the future for this issue.

Regarding your 2nd question, I can see a scenario where a new comp plan to handle the post 2018 period could be more expensive than the original $2.3B charge.
 
Same judge, about the same time, similar outcome/ impact net negative so far.



Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick has been involved in another case related to Elon Musk. She presided over the lawsuit filed by Twitter shareholders against Elon Musk and the social media platform's board members. The case involved Musk's attempt to back out of his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter.

In July 2022, Chancellor McCormick granted Twitter's request for an expedited trial, which took place in October 2022. She ruled that Musk must complete the acquisition of Twitter by the original agreed-upon deadline. This decision was a significant victory for Twitter and its shareholders, as it ensured that the deal would proceed as planned.
 
Elon gave up on mars and is fighting new battles instead. But none of what Elon does with his money is our purview anyway.
Sort of. Societal rules about fairness says that somebody in control of a public company (and the paper from the judge makes lots of examples of this in the footnotes) can't just take a huge amount of the value of the company and give it to themselves. Even inadvertently. Even if the board wasn't consciously thinking about it that way.

The plaintiffs weren't happy about the pay package: It was, nominally, diluting the value of their shares. So, if the board didn't do their job for the shareholders, and the person in control of the company didn't do his/her job for the shareholders, then, in the State of Delaware, where the company is chartered, runs a court to enforce fairness.

And the law and the judge says that, in this kind of case, fair compensation is that that enhances the value of the company to the shareholders. Period.

He decided that the process wasn't fair.. and the rescission of Elon's pay was the remedy.

The company isn't wholly owned by Elon and the board: we've got shares in it, too.

Mind you, I think that a safety hatch at Mars is a right good idea. But that's not how the law is written.
 
The after hours drop seems on line with other comparable stocks (Netflix is down exactly the same %). This decision in itself is not negative for the value of the company, other than some uncertainty on what happens next regarding Elon's comp package. In fact it removes the problem of him having to sell shares to cover the tax bill that was discussed here.

I think they will just offer a new one with his 25% control baked in somehow. I think the decision should be accepted and move on making sure the next one doesn't have the same flaws.
 
Thank you for your summary.

I fail to see how this package didn't represent the shareholder's interests. My wife's and my gains from my $TSLA holdings that I had at the time I voted *FOR* his compensation package far exceed all the monies the two of us have earned in 40 years (each) of working and both of us have had very good salaries for 30+ years. Also they far exceed the gains from any other company's stocks we've owned over the years. Seems to me he's fulfilling his feduciary duties just fine, Your Honor.

Why on Earth (pun fully intended) does it matter what he wants to spend his money on? Would it have been okay with the judge if it were hookers 'n blow on a private yacht, because that's more in line with the stereotypical CEO of a company registered in Delaware (at least according to my learnings from Reddit). Furthermore, I've never heard of a compensation package that was MORE ALIGNED with growing value for the company and shareholders than this one. Not one penny of salary. 100% aligned with growing the company. Can anyone point out one more aligned with company growth than Elon's to me because I'm genuinely curious.

Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller? Bueller? Bueller...
Well, the judge noted that even Elon thought that the 2018 compensation plan's targets were batshit crazy: Creating $50B every 10 months, for years!, which is like creating a GM-valued company every 10 months, which is insane.

But Musk did do that. But, having said that, the process by which Musk and the board "negotiated" his compensation was deeply flawed. Had it not been deeply flawed, had people taken actual blinking notes at board meetings, the judge would have likely ruled the other way. Bummer.
 
I am truly, truly conflicted about how I as a shareholder ought consider this outcome. There are multiple benefits and costs to either way the judge might have decided; there are multiple answers to "What is right?" and "What is fair?".

Those of you who have shown yourselves to be categorically pleased or displeased with the decision: I wish I could say I admire you for your ease of decision-making, but I cannot, as I find it too complex a problem easily to dismiss the alternative so readily.

Perhaps later in the week I can say more.
 
Elon draws no salary. These options were his only compensation for his performance from 2018 - 2023.
If we vote no, we are basically telling the CEO he works for free.
We approve it because it is the right thing to do.
Actually, the judge addressed the "works for free" issue, directly. By stating that Musk already owned 20%+ of the company, so if the company grew by multiples, his stock holding's value would also increase by multiples.

I read that, twice. And realized that, by saying that, the judge was not quite saying that if Elon got any compensation, then shareholders could sue again and win.

But that's not quite right. Had a comparative analysis on CEO compensation been run and documented, the judge stated he would have ruled the other way.

It's like this: Lousy procedures by the board and Musk resulted in a totally flawed executive compensation process. The judge looked at it all, said the law supported pretty much one remedy: Removing Musk's compensation, seeing as doing that wasn't going to leave the man penniless or anything.

Had the process been run better, documented, and even including stuff that noted, "We got to pay this guy bazillions to keep him where he is!", the judge would have ruled the other way. But the board did none of that. Period.

And you have to think about that a bit, with regards to Musk. Musk, when he gets crossed, gets seriously vindictive. And the board members know that.
 
This could all actually be good for Tesla, TSLA shareholders, AND Elon:

1. Shareholders reapprove some sort of similar compensation for what’s already been done. (Or Delaware Supreme Court overrules decision). No worse for wear.

2. As part of the same agreement, they also approve a new plan for the next stage in the company’s growth, involving FSD/Optimus and granting Elon the control he asks for *provided* serious milestones are met. (Having 25% control doesn’t matter if Tesla doesn’t have powerful AI. If Tesla has powerful AI, the company’s value will skyrocket).

We know what happens when goals are set out in front of Elon, and Elon’s pissed. He works like hell until they’re accomplished.

Consequence:

1. Optimus comes to fruition.
2. FSD comes to fruition.
3. Milestones met, Elon gets paid.
4. TSLA skyrockets to $4T+ or perhaps much more.
5. Shareholders also therefore get paid.

Everyone’s happy.
 
I am truly, truly conflicted about how I as a shareholder ought consider this outcome. There are multiple benefits and costs to either way the judge might have decided; there are multiple answers to "What is right?" and "What is fair?".

Those of you who have shown yourselves to be categorically pleased or displeased with the decision: I wish I could say I admire you for your ease of decision-making, but I cannot, as I find it too complex a problem easily to dismiss the alternative so readily.

Perhaps later in the week I can say more.
Hi Audie, I agree with you on all your points. Well said.
 
Sure, I understand it is the right thing to do for us long time shareholders but:

- try to convince the guy who put his savings in TSLA at $380 a couple of years ago that it is the right thing to do…
- try telling that to a fund manager from for instance Fidelity, who might get sued by buyers of his funds if he approves it, that it is the right thing to do…

It is great that we propose a new vote but it would not be a foregone conclusion that it would pass.
No, it’s the right thing to do for ALL. It’s ethically and morally the right thing to do.
 
Sure, I understand it is the right thing to do for us long time shareholders but:

- try to convince the guy who put his savings in TSLA at $380 a couple of years ago that it is the right thing to do…
- try telling that to a fund manager from for instance Fidelity, who might get sued by buyers of his funds if he approves it, that it is the right thing to do…

It is great that we propose a new vote but it would not be a foregone conclusion that it would pass.
Typically compensation strategy is as follow:
Base Pay - to compensate you for your efforts of your day to day job (put food on the table).
Bonus - to reward you for performance that exceeded expectations for that fiscal year.
Stock Options - to retain you and to have you focus on long term results (emphasis on retention).

If we don't approve the option plan, there is a risk we see Elon move focus away from Tesla, perhaps move AI to a private start-up and perhaps even leave Tesla. I know I know - he has already lost focus on Tesla blah blah blah.

As a shareholder, if one does not approve the plan . . . it could be the most foolish thing one does.
 
How does Elon go and move AI to a private start-up?

Robotaxis are the main avenue here right and what’s supposed to generate crazy numbers if/when that’s solved, and it’s Tesla that has all the data collected from millions of Tesla vehicles on the road. Granted I don’t think Tesla is the only company with such data, but trying to replicate that in another new company would require again building up to having millions of vehicles on the road collecting those data.

Do those data go with Elon? Or Is it Optimus and something else to be worried about here? I’m not sure where a realistic threat emerges, it’s Tesla‘s fleet that is supposed to be the data advantage.
 
Sure, I understand it is the right thing to do for us long time shareholders but:

- try to convince the guy who put his savings in TSLA at $380 a couple of years ago that it is the right thing to do…
- try telling that to a fund manager from for instance Fidelity, who might get sued by buyers of his funds if he approves it, that it is the right thing to do…

It is great that we propose a new vote but it would not be a foregone conclusion that it would pass.

You have to remember that the compensation plan was approved by the shareholders in 2018. The guy who bought at $380 doesn't get a say, because he wasn't a shareholder back then. Same with the fund managers. So keep that distinction in mind.

The only opinion that matters is from the shareholders in 2018, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM (including the guy who filed the lawsuit) benefited from the terms of the compensation package. If they sold before the rise in 2020, that's a problem of their own making.
 
Everyone is talking about the lemons on hand aplenty.

How about we consider how to make the lemonade?



Let's say neither Elon, nor the Tesla board decide to pursue an appeal. What is affected?

California and the IRS miss a fairly substantial payday.



What if the board devises Elon's future compensation in a way that makes no mention of compensating him for this past period of time at all?

California may not be collecting any tax on Elon's compensation going forward. (depending upon the time period California can lay claim to tax a former citizen of the state)

-

Elon owes no taxes, nor will he need to sell shares to pay them, for that period of compensation that has been voided by the court.

The entire problem we have been wringing our hands over, of how Elon would handle the collection of those (now-lost) shares, and all the perils and pitfalls we have discussed in the past few weeks, suddenly become moot.

There will be no shares sold to cover taxes that aren't owed, nor will Tesla have to come up with their side of taxes on Elon's compensation for the period voided.

-


I think most of us want Elon to have bankroll for whatever it takes to save Earth and to colonize Mars. Right?

Perhaps the Board could devise a method of giving voting rights to Elon for shares that are gifted to a non-profit legal entity, formed for funding purposes such as:
  • accelerating the transition to sustainable energy
  • preserving humanity on Earth, in space, and on other planets and satellites
  • developing AI in an ethical manner

If such a plan could be carefully crafted, perhaps Elon and Tesla may avoid significant tax liability for Share-option compensation packages going forward, and shareholders wouldn't be quaking in their boots over concerns of how Elon will cover the cost of receiving his compensation. I'd call that a win.

-


Elon could also be given an exorbitant salary. Say, a couple of billion per anum to start off with, then merit raises as appropriate.

He could pay or avoid taxes like everyone else, and he could buy TSLA shares on the open market at his leisure, rather than have to sell shares to get some portion of his payday in his hands. It seems likely he might develop a knack for Dollar Cost Averaging with a vengeance. Literally.

-

I'm just getting started here. There may be more angles to consider that could work within existing rule sets in order to achieve the goals and get the assets into a safe place. All while giving Elon the voting control he prefers, and the ability to increase his share count as well.
 
Last edited: