[timzaman]

Ridiculous and biased article. Elon gets ZERO compensation if Tesla doesn't do stellar performance. Any tesla shareholder knows how Tesla is structured (Elon-focused) so just don't buy the stocks if you don't like Elon.

It also fails to completely mention Tesla stock's currently at an all time high.

[xmprt]

The US has some broken incentives where if a small company fails then it hurts the shareholders but if a large company fails, it's "too big to fail" and ends up getting bailed out by the government. That's why it's worrying how Tesla is growing unsustainably. If the risk pays off then shareholders reap the benefits but if it crashes and burns then everyone takes a hit.

[ralph84]

The automakers that got bailed out had large unionized workforces and franchised dealer networks, both of which are very politically active and neither of which Tesla has.

[scrollop]

Well, he should be getting a negative amount considering how his actions have effected the stock price.

He's a liability.

[preisschild]

> Any tesla shareholder knows how Tesla is structured (Elon-focused) so just don't buy the stocks if you don't like Elon.

So Tesla is not a car manufacturer, but a cult of personality?

[neogodless]

Tesla is a car manufacturer, but Tesla stock valuations are not based on that fact.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

This makes me think that executives in the manufacturing sector should be paid in kind AKA in product, if that is the hot stuff that they claim they'd have zero problems selling the product on the secondary market and collect dollars

[Veserv]

Elon Musk currently owns 12% of Tesla. Claiming he gets “ZERO compensation” outside of stellar performance is nonsense. If Tesla actually reached a 8T dollar valuation his net worth would increase to 1T dollars without any additional grants or investor dilution.

He currently directly shares 12% of the growth of Tesla, far more than most executive teams which are viewed to be adequately aligned with far less ownership. Claiming there is no incentive to perform is nonsensical and incoherent.

[f33d5173]

I'm struggling to understand how you interpreted the GP to be in contradiction with you, unless you are just reinforcing what they said?

[Veserv]

The GP was arguing that unless Elon Musk is given a additional 12% of the company, increasing his total ownership to 25%, he has zero incentive to raise the value of Tesla to a 8 trillion dollar valuation as he is not being “compensated” for his work.

I am pointing out that if he raised the value of Tesla to 8 trillion dollars he would earn ~800 billion dollars even without any further grants. Earning more money than anybody else has on the planet is about the absolute furthest thing from being “uncompensated” you could be. Giving him a additional 12% of the company on top of that would mean he is earning 1.8 trillion dollars from his actions instead of just 800 billion dollars.

[orionsbelt]

He may be incentivized, but it is not “compensation” if he already owns it IMO.

[Veserv]

So if I get 12% of the profit from music sales that is not “compensation”? Share ownership is, at its foundation, a profit (and asset) sharing agreement.

You are getting confused by the fact that this class of profit sharing agreement can be easily sold for its expected net present value of all future cash flows and that they frequently retain earnings in tax advantaged forms instead of directly distributing their generated income in highly taxed forms.

[orionsbelt]

1. Elon could quit and do zero work and he would still own the 12%. So what is his compensation for the extra work?

2. If you owned $10M worth of shares of TSLA from your personal investments, and applied to work at TSLA, would it be reasonable to deny you any compensation since you are already incentivized and share in the success?

This is not to comment on what the right pay package is; perhaps the proposed one is far far too rich, but that's a separate question to whether his existing assets are compensation or not.

[Veserv]

1. 12% of the increased profits. If we used your logic then we would conclude that 100% owners of businesses are not being compensated for their work. They are literally being compensated all of the profit and asset growth.

2. Yes, it is fairly common to “compensate” executives primarily in the form of their own stock appreciation [1]. Mark Zuckerberg receives 1$ in salary, options, stock awards, with only a tiny 20 M$ as reimbursements to avoid running afoul of tax law [2]. Larry Ellison [3] got only 8 M$. Michael Dell only got 3 M$ [4]. Andrew Jassy only 1 M$ [5]. Should I keep going?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary

[2] https://www.salary.com/research/executive-compensation/mark-...

[3] https://www.salary.com/research/executive-compensation/lawre...

[4] https://www.salary.com/research/executive-compensation/micha...

[5] https://www.salary.com/research/executive-compensation/andre...

[orionsbelt]

Your links are misleading:

- Jassy: "When Jassy became CEO in 2021, he received a special stock award with a total value of $212 million. This award vests over 10 years..." - Ellison: "Founder, chairman and CTO Larry Ellison was awarded $138.6 million in the year ended 31 May 2022...However the bulk of the headline-grabbing figures, some $129.3 million of the total awards for both the CTO and CEO, will not be realized for a further three years. The performance-based stock options (PSOs) were granted in May 2018 and were supposed to vest in May 2022 "at the earliest" but were expected to take five years."

Zuckerberg may have agreed to forego additional equity comp, but he is a rare exception. Most executives receive new equity grants, subject to vesting, as compensation, even if they already own a lot of stock, as the stock they already own is not compensation for work.