This would be a first. The problem I have with it is that it's just too much. I can live with a relatively small percentage of the money I spend with a company going to an executive that I think is a harmful force, but this would represent a large percentage of the money I'd spend going to one. Too much to be able to ignore.
Is that a per-year pay package? Or does it cover a number of years?
Honest question. As that fairly basic parameter does not seem to be included in the main media articles linked. And I'm not-at-all familiar with corporate practices.
It's a one-time performance based compensation package split into multiple tranches, with options worth 1% of stock being provided as payment for each one, with up to 12 in total.
Whether good or bad, the deal was the deal, and the terms of it were fulfilled. I personally am not so fond of Musk suffering from Twitter brain worms (he's neither the first nor will be the last to acquire it) but that is separate and apart from the pay issue.
Sure, deal is a deal - but from what I understand, the root problem is that the board that agreed on the deal had a bunch of people that were too close to Musk?
Say you're the CEO of some corporation XYZ, and you're best buddies with a majority of the board of directors.
You then suggest that if you can hit a list of goals, you'll get the option to purchase a huge number of stocks, at a deep, deep discount.
You - the CEO - will make a ton of money, while other shareholders will lose money due to dilution.
So this begs the question, who must the board of directors look out for. The CEO, or the other shareholders? And if a majority of the board is buddies with the CEO, introducing bias to the picture, should the deal have been voided?
If you're some investor that bought XYZ stock years ago, and it 10x'ed since then - a little dilution isn't going to hurt your investment much. If you're a shareholder that bought a stock today, and tomorrow it is worth less due to dilution, and the possibility of the CEO dumping stocks, that's another thing.
These are people that do believe in what he says, and he is throwing out big numbers - he just said that Autonomous driving & Optimus can lead to >30 TRILLION $ valuation for Tesla.
18 comments
[ 6.3 ms ] story [ 53.4 ms ] threadNot that it matters any, but this means that the odds of me ever buying Tesla anything has fallen from "very low" to "zero".
Rewarding a Nazi sympathizing sexist pig who's clearly driving (another) pump and dump is a great reason not to give a company my money.
Any questions?
We don't engage in flaming here, so I'll leave it at that.
Honest question. As that fairly basic parameter does not seem to be included in the main media articles linked. And I'm not-at-all familiar with corporate practices.
Audience capture: https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture or perhaps more accurately criticism capture: https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/criticism-capture-is-more-d... is a problem for many people who become media people.
According to the verdict it wasn't a real negotiation.
Like politicians when they raise their payment.
Say you're the CEO of some corporation XYZ, and you're best buddies with a majority of the board of directors.
You then suggest that if you can hit a list of goals, you'll get the option to purchase a huge number of stocks, at a deep, deep discount.
You - the CEO - will make a ton of money, while other shareholders will lose money due to dilution.
So this begs the question, who must the board of directors look out for. The CEO, or the other shareholders? And if a majority of the board is buddies with the CEO, introducing bias to the picture, should the deal have been voided?
If you're some investor that bought XYZ stock years ago, and it 10x'ed since then - a little dilution isn't going to hurt your investment much. If you're a shareholder that bought a stock today, and tomorrow it is worth less due to dilution, and the possibility of the CEO dumping stocks, that's another thing.
These are people that do believe in what he says, and he is throwing out big numbers - he just said that Autonomous driving & Optimus can lead to >30 TRILLION $ valuation for Tesla.
If he didn't have so much power this would be hilarious, but he's a real threat.