LeX2K

If the comp package fails Elon walks and likely 90% of the FSD team. I am completely mystified why anyone would hold Tesla stock and vote against the BODs recommendations only thing I can think is you want Tesla to burn and your money along with it. It is a complete fantasy to think a failed vote would result is some sort of utopia.

I guess I shouldn't care all that much I've made my money was hoping to do another 10x but such is life.

geko29

You saw at least some of the logic upthread. Some folks likely think he's due an extremely lucrative package, but not 1,000x what CEOs of multi-Trillion dollar tech companies are paid. You have to admit, paying out 10% of a company's market cap to one person is quite a lot.

Now before you attack me, I'm on the side of "the board was stupid enough to agree to it" and it shouldn't have been nullified in the first place. But it's not like the objections are illogical on their face.

SW17LS

As a Tesla shareholder, I don’t want to be held hostage. If he wants to walk he can walk, Tesla will survive. Nobody is irreplaceable.

Also as a shareholder he’s out there firing people and ranting about headcount and being hardcore about expenses and yet, he thinks he should be paid $50B? That’s healthy for the company right now? Let him go.

PS- He’s not going to walk.

swajames

Yep, the binary thinking is the weird thing. In what universe does not wanting to pay Elon Musk $56 billion, for what by any reasonable metric is subpar to average performance relative to peers, equate to “you must want Tesla to fail”? No, I want Tesla to stop being ridiculous and to start acting like a properly governed and functioning public company.

it’s a ludicrous waste of money for a company that is simultaneously claiming it has to cut cost. Given that it’s hard to put such big numbers into context look at it this way: $56 billion is enough money to pay every single one of the reported 14,000 employees Tesla is laying off - to save money, remember - a severance payment of four million dollars. It’s enough to pay $444,444 to each one of the 126,000 employees that remain after the layoffs.

The point about the board recommending the package was (and remains) at the heart of the court nullification. The court broadly found that the board isn’t sufficiently independent of Musk, acting in his and their best interest and not the best interests of the company and its shareholders, and that it actually misled shareholders when presenting it for the vote. That’s behind my argument that Denholm, Kimbal Musk and others with personal ties to Musk should be replaced. Denholm for cause/performance, the others for conflict of interest.

swajames

And let's not forget, he is only part time at Tesla. So this is Tesla's board acquiescing to the demand for $56 bn for someone who has obvious and clear competing and conflicting demands on his time and who by definition cannot give Tesla his entire focus.

This highlights why I brought up Tesla Musk and SpaceX Musk in an earlier post, because this is all tied together and it highlights a key point.

At SpaceX, Musk is at his best. He sets a big bold vision, surrounds himself with fantastic talent, and he and the team are absolutely blazing new trails and doing things never seen before. He is, however, effectively reigned in there because he is effectively reliant on government dollars and they stop coming if you show them you're crazy. So he doesn't. The team works well. What it shows above all is that an effectively governed Musk gets amazing results without all the drama.

At Twitter, Musk is uncontrolled. No need to dwell on this, other than to say his focus on this comp package NOW is absolutely driven by a desire to undo his own $44bn folly in acquiring Twitter. Which was nothing to do with him being a "free speech absolutist", because he demonstrably isn't, and everything to do with impetuous stupidity, asinine "420" references in the unsolicited offer, and an absolutely insane offer letter which gave him no choice other than press ahead when Twitter sued to compel purchase.

And let's be clear. Twitter did not need "saving" by Elon Musk any more than Discount Shoe Warehouse needs saving by Elon Musk.

So if we can't have Musk full time, I want SpaceX Musk at Tesla. I don't want to support in any way shape or form Tesla paying off his own waste of $44bn. I want Tesla's board to make ANY pay deal contingent upon almost 100% focus on Tesla.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

as usual, you've completely misread/misinterpreted what i posted. i did NOT say tesla was shutting down the supercharger network (per your strawman grok quote). THAT would be absurd.
i did say elon musk fired 500 workers or the whole supercharger team including leadership, which could of course be wrong too, but it's been reported far and wide, not just by outlets you don't approve of.

your posts are not serious, just always butthurt about tesla and dear leader 'elon'.

i hope the supercharger network does continue to GROW, not just improve existing locations as 'elon' has said.

many bought/buy teslas on the belief that the network will continue to grow, and not just in places where there's already loads of superchargers.

Margate330

I keep forgetting Tesla is public traded and not Elon's company.

Dumb question but is the supercharger network owned by Tesla or is it a separate company?

If it's a separate company who owns it?

AMIRZA786

I'm sure you've heard the term putting all your eggs in one basket. You're telling me Tesla falls apart if Elon goes? What if he up and dies, God forbid? Get's cancer, a stroke or his plane crashes? The company is gone? If that's the case, that would make Elon a terrible planner not to have a day after plan for a successor

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

it's part of tesla, but there's been comments in article wondering whether it would be better if tesla spun of out. i think it makes a lot sense to.

exactly. and despite the 'faithful' apple has done FAR better since steve jobs' passing.

JeffKeryk

I am not so sure Tesla is exactly pulling the plug on their Supercharger network.

“Tesla still plans to grow the Supercharger network, just at a slower pace for new locations and more focus on 100 percent uptime and expansion of existing locations,” CEO Elon Musk wrote on X.

The Supercharger network has always been a big competitive advantage. Regardless, the news is shocking (get it?). Part of the decision is to due to "right sizing", as we say in Silicon Valley.
Even here in CA there are still a lot of charging gaps. I'm sure the rest of the world is in the same boat, only worse.

One would expect, now that the other EV companies are adopting Tesla configuration, that other vendors will help build out the world wide Supercharger network. Tesla won the Supercharger battle without even trying. Up-time and ease of use better than the competition.

The uniqueness is no longer, Tesla can focus on their core competencies and organizational goals. Anyone can copy their Supercharger standard; on to other priorities.

Business 101.

AMIRZA786

Leaving all your vendors in confusion is not business 101, especially for a global company as big as Tesla. Also my nephew just got hired on to the Semi structural team out of Fremont, and Tesla employees are in a panic facing uncertainty. If my company ever treated me that way, I would be out the door looking for another company. Sorry, your explanation just doesn't jive with me

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

i don't think anyone here said they were 'pullng the plug'.

yes, so why LESSEN investment in your strength? if anything, tesla could have issued more stock or a secondary issue (or borrow) to grow the SC network even further. this is akin of knowing where the oil is and pulling back on drilling and development!

not sure anyone else is allowed to build new sc locations? i'm sure there's proprietary stuff in there (vs. allowing sc's to be used by non-teslas.

Margate330

Thank you @bitkahuna .

Next dumb question if I can impose.
Does Tesla own the land on which these charging sites are built or are they land leases?

If they own the land it can be paid back with "cheap dollars" if we see more inflation

However, if leasing the land someone else makes the gains and all Tesla gets is the income from charging and I have no idea if it's profitable or not.

If doing land leases they are getting screwed IMO and should back out.

Forgive my ignorance on this I have no idea how it's all set up so just ideas.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

^^ i suspect tesla has a variety of relationships and arrangements for the land their chargers are on. for example, with many in large retailer parking lots, i doubt tesla owns those chunks of land. but dedicate large charger centers, probably.

maybe some land owners even pay tesla to have sc's on their land figuring it brings traffic and gives a good image - like at shopping malls.

mmarshall

Perhaps this just paraphrases your comment, but some Tesla chargers are set up at Wa-Wa stores, in their parking lots, so that would depend on if Wa-Wa itself actually owns those properties or themselves lease the sites from other landlords/owners. It may vary from individual store to store.