Tesla Board Battles Proxy Advisors Over Musk’s Historic Compensation Package

The Proxy Advisory Standoff

Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), one of the most influential proxy advisory firms, has recommended Tesla shareholders reject Elon Musk’s unprecedented $1 trillion compensation package for the second consecutive year. This recommendation sets the stage for a contentious showdown at Tesla’s November 6 annual shareholders meeting, where investors will decide whether to approve what could become the largest executive pay package in corporate history.

The advisory firm cited “unmitigated concerns” with both the magnitude and design of the compensation plan, specifically questioning whether the package would actually achieve its stated goal of keeping Musk focused on Tesla. “Although one of the main reasons for this award is to retain Musk and keep his time and attention on Tesla instead of his other business ventures, there are no explicit requirements to ensure that this will be the case,” ISS wrote in its voting guidance.

Musk’s Multi-Company Empire Creates Governance Concerns

At the heart of the debate is Musk’s management of five overlapping companies: Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, Neuralink, and the Boring Company. ISS and other governance experts express concern that the compensation package doesn’t include specific mechanisms to ensure Musk dedicates sufficient attention to Tesla amid his numerous other ventures. This comes as proxy advisors continue to scrutinize executive compensation across the technology sector.

Tesla’s board has pushed back strongly against ISS’s recommendation, stating that the advisory firm “once again completely misses fundamental points of investing and governance.” The automaker added, “It’s easy for ISS to tell others how to vote when they have nothing on the line,” highlighting the tension between proxy advisors and corporate boards.

Ambitious Performance Targets and Equity Demands

The proposed compensation package, first introduced by Tesla’s board in September, ties Musk’s payout to exceptionally ambitious performance milestones. To unlock the full compensation and additional voting control, Musk would need to grow Tesla’s market value to at least $8.5 trillion while simultaneously expanding the company’s automotive, robotics, and robotaxi businesses.

If approved, the additional shares would increase Musk’s stake in Tesla to at least 25%, addressing his repeated demands for greater equity in the company. Musk has explicitly threatened to “build products outside of Tesla” if he cannot increase his ownership stake, creating additional pressure on shareholders to approve the package. This dynamic reflects broader market trends where founder-CEOs seek greater control over their companies.

Legal Battles and Corporate Governance Implications

The current compensation proposal follows a Delaware court’s decision to strike down Musk’s 2018 pay package earlier this year. The judge ruled that Musk had exercised “undue influence” over the process and that Tesla’s board had conflicts of interest. Musk subsequently cited the pay dispute as a key reason for moving Tesla’s corporate registration from Delaware to Texas.

Despite the legal challenges, Tesla continues to advocate for Musk’s compensation, with Board Chair Robyn Denholm insisting in a September interview that “no one but Musk can run the company.” The company has resumed its legal fight, appealing the ruling before the Delaware Supreme Court on October 15. These governance challenges come amid related innovations in corporate governance across technology companies.

Shareholder Voting History and Current Dynamics

Historical precedent suggests that ISS’s recommendation may not necessarily determine the outcome. When both ISS and fellow proxy firm Glass Lewis recommended against Musk’s 2018 compensation package, approximately three-quarters of shareholders still voted in favor of the plan. The current package, which fluctuates in value with Tesla’s stock price and is currently worth more than $100 billion, received advisory approval from investors last year.

ISS holds significant sway over institutional investors, particularly those managing passive funds, making their recommendations potentially impactful. The firm has also urged shareholders to reject a separate proposal for Tesla to invest in Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, calling it “a highly unusual proposal both in terms of the request itself and the way it came to be on the ballot.” This reflects how recent technology ventures are creating new governance challenges for established companies.

Interim Awards and Strategic Implications

In August, Tesla’s board granted Musk an interim award valued at approximately $30 billion, designed to partially replace the compensation package invalidated by the Delaware court. This award would be forfeited if the original pay package is reinstated, creating additional complexity for shareholders evaluating the proposals.

The compensation debate occurs against the backdrop of significant industry developments in artificial intelligence and autonomous technology, areas where Musk has positioned Tesla as a future leader. As Tesla promotes its video on X (formerly Twitter) to rally shareholder support, the November vote will not only determine Musk’s compensation but could significantly influence Tesla’s strategic direction and governance structure for years to come.

With Musk’s attention divided across multiple groundbreaking companies and technologies, shareholders face a critical decision: reward exceptional performance despite governance concerns, or insist on more traditional corporate oversight structures that might better protect their interests.

This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.

Note: Featured image is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent any specific product, service, or entity mentioned in this article.