Tesla Shareholders Urged to Reject Elon Musk's $51 Billion Pay Package Amid Concerns Over Excessive Size and Side Projects

Austin, Texas United States of America
Elon Musk's $51 billion Tesla pay package is under scrutiny in a shareholder vote due to its excessive size and Musk's involvement in side projects like SpaceX and X.
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis have urged Tesla shareholders to reject the compensation package.
The controversy began in 2018, but was thrown out by a Delaware Chancery Court judge earlier this year due to shareholder challenges over its legality.
Tesla Shareholders Urged to Reject Elon Musk's $51 Billion Pay Package Amid Concerns Over Excessive Size and Side Projects

In a highly anticipated shareholder vote, Elon Musk's $51 billion pay package from Tesla is under scrutiny once again. Two influential advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, have urged Tesla shareholders to reject the compensation package due to its excessive size and concerns about Musk's numerous side projects.

The controversy surrounding Musk's pay began in 2018 when the package was first approved. However, it was thrown out by a Delaware Chancery Court judge earlier this year due to shareholder challenges over its legality.

ISS, which advises institutional investors on voting matters, called the pay package 'excessive' and noted that shareholder concerns have not been sufficiently mitigated since its approval. The firm also criticized Musk for his involvement in other businesses such as SpaceX and X, formerly known as Twitter.

Glass Lewis echoed similar concerns in a 71-page report, warning about the size of the compensation plan and Musk's 'slate of extraordinarily time-consuming projects' that are unrelated to Tesla. Musk responded by telling shareholders that the firms commit 'key considerations, use faulty logic, and rely on speculation and hypotheticals.'

The Tesla board is putting the same 2018 package up for a revote at the annual shareholder meeting on June 13. The move to Texas, where Musk also operates SpaceX, was proposed shortly after the Delaware Chancery Court judge sided with Tesla shareholders who challenged the legality of the pay package.

The debate over Musk's pay comes as Tesla continues to ramp up its artificial intelligence efforts and maintain control over the company. Musk has been vocal about his need for enough shares in Tesla to ensure this, leading him to lobby on social media platform X for shareholder support.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

81%

Doubts
  • Are Musk's side projects significantly impacting Tesla?
  • Is the pay package truly excessive?

Sources

84%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Elon Musk Lobbies on X for His $46.5 Billion Tesla Pay Package

The Name Of The NZ Prefix. I PWA NZI.P.Was Dropped. Kate Conger, Friday, 31 May 2024 14:10
  • Unique Points
    • Elon Musk needs enough shares in the company to maintain control over it, especially as it ramps up its artificial intelligence efforts.
  • Accuracy
    • Elon Musk is lobbying shareholders to vote for a $46.5 billion pay package on June 13.
    • Elon Musk has posted on X, the social media platform he owns, at least a dozen times in support of the proposed pay package.
    • Tesla’s CEO offered a personal tour of Tesla’s factory in Austin, Texas to select shareholders this week.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (90%)
    The authors do not commit any explicit formal or informal fallacies in the article. However, they do make use of inflammatory rhetoric when quoting Elon Musk's statements towards shareholders who oppose his pay package. This includes calling them 'oathbreakers'. While this is a form of emotional appeal, it does not directly affect the validity or truthfulness of the information presented in the article and is therefore not considered a fallacy.
    • “Shareholders have the right to vote their shares!”
    • “Thanks to all Tesla vote supporters!”
    • “Shareholders who voted against him were oathbreakers.”
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

98%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Advisory firms urge Tesla shareholders to reject Elon Musk’s ‘excessive’ pay package

CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Allison Morrow Friday, 31 May 2024 17:46
  • Unique Points
    • Two influential advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, have urged Tesla shareholders to vote against Elon Musk’s $51 billion pay package.
    • ISS called the pay package ‘excessive’ and noted that shareholder concerns have not been sufficiently mitigated since its approval in 2018.
    • The Tesla board proposed moving Tesla’s headquarters from Delaware to Texas, where Musk also operates SpaceX, shortly after a Delaware Chancery Court judge sided with the shareholders who challenged the 2018 pay package.
  • Accuracy
    • ,
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

81%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Should Elon Musk be paid $56 billion? Tesla shareholders get to vote

NBC News Digital Friday, 31 May 2024 20:48
  • Unique Points
    • Elon Musk is facing a vote on whether to receive a $56 billion pay package from Tesla shareholders, months after a Delaware state judge struck down the award as improper.
    • Tesla has bought advertisements and launched a website in an attempt to sway investors to vote for the package, while opponents have released a joint letter urging shareholders to vote against it as excessive.
  • Accuracy
    • Elon Musk is lobbying shareholders to vote for a $46.5 billion pay package on June 13.
    • The original pay package was tied to Tesla’s performance, including its market value. It was approved by shareholders in 2018 but deemed improper under Delaware state law.
    • Two influential advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, have urged Tesla shareholders to vote against Elon Musk’s $51 billion pay package.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article contains some informal fallacies in the form of exaggerations and emotional language. The author states that the vote is “the highest-stakes popularity contest in history” and describes Musk as an “extremely polarizing public figure.” These are hyperbolic statements meant to draw attention and evoke strong emotions. Additionally, the author presents both sides of the pay vote without providing any analysis or evidence to support one side over the other, which may lead readers to be swayed by emotional appeals rather than reasoned arguments.
    • the highest-stakes popularity contest in history
    • extremely polarizing public figure
    • partly a popularity contest, but the shareholders will also do a hard-nosed rational calculus
  • Bias (80%)
    The article does not demonstrate any clear bias towards one side in the debate over Elon Musk's pay package. However, there are some instances where the author uses language that could be perceived as slightly favorable to those in favor of the pay package. For example, when describing Tesla's efforts to sway investors to vote for the package, the author uses phrases like 'buying advertisements' and 'launching a website.' While these actions are not inherently biased, they could be seen as implying that there is something unusual or even underhanded about them. Additionally, when describing opponents of the pay package, the author uses phrases like 'jockeying' and 'brazen attempt to get around the ruling.' These words could be perceived as having a negative connotation. However, overall, the article provides a balanced view of the situation and does not demonstrate any clear bias towards one side.
    • ][The author] describes Tesla's efforts to sway investors to vote for the pay package as 'buying advertisements' and 'launching a website.'[[/]
    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
      None Found At Time Of Publication
    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
      None Found At Time Of Publication