Tesla shares slide after judge voids Elon Musk's $56 billion compensation

MeanEYE , 4 months ago

They are sliding because there's 0% growth and increase in sales, while some of the models have dwindling sales, despite Musk promising 50% yoy growth.

dynamojoe , 4 months ago

They've been sliding all month. $249->$188 so far.

dragontamer , 4 months ago

Its actually up right now today. The headline sucks.

Voiding the stock-based compensation means that all other shareholders will automatically get more control of the company. This is actually a good ruling for TSLA shareholders, not that the cult members understand anything about corporate politics, corporate control, or how shares fucking work.

rsuri , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Tesla and Musk’s attorneys, the court decided, “were unable to prove that the stockholder vote was fully informed because the proxy statement inaccurately described key directors as independent and misleadingly omitted details about the process.”

I'm guessing this was the key problem. Courts are very reluctant to set aside corporate decisions like CEO pay packages for soft reasons like general unfairness. But when you start getting into dishonesty and not meeting basic requirements, it's kind of forcing the judge's hand.

Full decision for those interested, it's long. I like this part:

Defendants also argue that Musk needed additional incentives to stay on at Tesla or he would spend more time at SpaceX, where he could fulfill his galactic ambitions to establish interplanetary travel, colonize Mars, and potentially earn more money in the meantime.858 That argument begs another question: if encouraging Musk to prioritize Tesla over his other ventures was so important, why not place guardrails on how much time or energy Musk had to put into Tesla?

TallonMetroid , 4 months ago

Defendants also argue that Musk needed additional incentives to stay on at Tesla or he would spend more time at SpaceX, where he could fulfill his galactic ambitions to establish interplanetary travel, colonize Mars, and potentially earn more money in the meantime.

Not like he even actually does anything at Tesla anyway, between all the people they've got to babysit him and his spending all his time shit posting on Twitter.

gravitas_deficiency , 4 months ago

If a person can be the CEO of multiple companies, but normal humans aren’t generally allowed to hold two of the same job “because it means we’re not giving either job our full focus”, then it stands to reason that the job of CEO doesn’t require anything approaching the full focus of a human, and thus they are being overpaid by multiple orders of magnitude.

But we already knew all that.

Corkyskog , 4 months ago

It's not uncommon for a CEO to sit on other boards or multiple of them. I really never saw how C class positions were as demanding as people revered them to be.

NeoNachtwaechter , 4 months ago

Great explanation, thanks :-))

Deebster , 4 months ago

So Tesla gets that $56 billion back? Kinda funny that that causes their share price to drop.

crazyminner , 4 months ago

Elon is selling to get money to pay bills.
Gotta show you can afford the massive lines of credit.

bonus_crab , 4 months ago

Well, theyd get the shares back, and then presumably be able to sell them ...

Corkyskog , 4 months ago

They aren't real shares, so there is nothing to "turn back" these are stock options.

Think about it like when a Nation State prints money. Do they have to directly steal money to print more money? No, they just turn on the printers and dilute the purchasing power of all the existing money. This is basically the same with Tesla except money = TSLA shares. For every share they print for Elon, it makes all the rest of the shares worth less.

my_hat_stinks , 4 months ago

Your mistake there is thinking the stock market has to make sense. For instance, mass layoffs are a huge red flag that a company is failing and in any sane world would instantly tank the value. The stock market instead likes layoffs because it's not at all interested in what the company actually does, so spending a little less in the short term to produce a lot less long term is a good thing.