3 ms·

> Because tesla as a brand is uniquely tied to musk. Which is because he is in the media a lot. I can understand the impact on your brand as things are, but i

> Because tesla as a brand is uniquely tied to musk. Which is because he is in the media a lot. I can understand the impact on your brand as things are, but it would be interesting to see how well other manufacturers would stand up to scrutiny. > musk wasn't tesla's face and main profiteer of any purchase. The face bit of it makes sense. As for "main profiteer", he is the single largest shareholder, but its about 13% shareholding - 87% of the profits belong to other people.

sidibe 2y ago
Even ignoring his initial shares from funding Tesla, he has been compensated more than Tesla has ever made in profits
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  The majority of the owners of the other shares voted to compensate him more (by market value of shares that cannot be sold for 5 years, not cash, which is a relevant distinction) than Tesla has ever made in profit. And since the compensation is equity, comparing it to profit, which is cash, makes no sense. One can discuss if the market price of the equity is too far removed from current profit, but surely even Elon doesn’t have any influence over what millions of investors around the world choose to pay for Tesla shares. Should majority owners of a business not be able to vote on compensation?
- graemep 2y ago
  Will an increase in sales primarily increase his compensation or profits? I do find it surprising that such ridiculously generous pay was approved by shareholders and think it rather prove what GK Galbraith said: "The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself". On the other hand there are limits, and at this point I wonder whether shareholders will decide he is a liability and not pay him so well in future. If I was a shareholder I would want to sack him.

sidibe 2y ago

Even ignoring his initial shares from funding Tesla, he has been compensated more than Tesla has ever made in profits

lotsofpulp 2y ago
The majority of the owners of the other shares voted to compensate him more (by market value of shares that cannot be sold for 5 years, not cash, which is a relevant distinction) than Tesla has ever made in profit. And since the compensation is equity, comparing it to profit, which is cash, makes no sense. One can discuss if the market price of the equity is too far removed from current profit, but surely even Elon doesn’t have any influence over what millions of investors around the world choose to pay for Tesla shares. Should majority owners of a business not be able to vote on compensation?
graemep 2y ago
Will an increase in sales primarily increase his compensation or profits? I do find it surprising that such ridiculously generous pay was approved by shareholders and think it rather prove what GK Galbraith said: "The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself". On the other hand there are limits, and at this point I wonder whether shareholders will decide he is a liability and not pay him so well in future. If I was a shareholder I would want to sack him.