Proxy Advisor Raises Red Flags Over Unprecedented Pay Package
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), one of the most influential proxy advisory firms, has recommended Tesla investors reject Elon Musk’s proposed $1 trillion compensation package ahead of the company’s November 6 annual meeting. The firm cited the “striking magnitude” of the award and significant governance concerns in its Friday report, marking the latest chapter in the ongoing debate about executive compensation and corporate governance at the electric vehicle maker.
ISS emphasized that while the performance targets are ambitious, the package’s design lacks binding terms to ensure Musk’s continued focus on Tesla. “There are no prescriptive elements within the award to ensure his focus and time remain on Tesla as opposed to his other ventures,” the firm noted, directly challenging the board’s primary justification for the massive award.
The Mechanics of Musk’s Potential Windfall
Under the proposed compensation structure, Musk would receive no salary or cash bonuses but would instead earn shares in installments tied to specific performance milestones. These include increasing Tesla’s market value from its current $1.38 trillion to $8.5 trillion – nearly double Nvidia’s current valuation – while simultaneously achieving a 24-fold increase in adjusted earnings to $400 billion.
The sheer scale of these targets makes full payout extremely challenging. However, ISS raised concerns that “billions can be earned for just partial goal achievement,” creating what the firm describes as “high pay opportunities for years to come” regardless of whether all objectives are met. This comes amid broader market trends showing increased scrutiny of executive compensation across technology sectors.
Governance Concerns Take Center Stage
Beyond the compensation package itself, ISS targeted Tesla’s governance practices, recommending that shareholders vote against the reelection of corporate governance committee chair Ira Ehrenpreis. The advisor cited his “unilateral” adoption of a bylaw that “materially restricts shareholders’ litigation rights,” reflecting growing concerns about shareholder rights in corporate governance structures.
The proxy firm did, however, support the reelection of directors Kathleen Wilson-Thompson and Joe Gebbia, suggesting a nuanced approach to the board evaluation. This mixed recommendation highlights the complex balancing act facing investors as they weigh the company’s performance against governance standards.
Historical Context and Shareholder Dynamics
This isn’t the first time ISS has opposed Musk’s compensation. Last year, both ISS and Glass Lewis advised against reinstating Musk’s $56 billion 2018 pay package after a Delaware court invalidated it. Despite these recommendations, Tesla shareholders overwhelmingly supported the company’s position, with more than three-quarters voting in favor.
The current recommendation comes as Tesla faces increasing competition and technological challenges. The company’s focus on developing powerful AI technology and humanoid robots represents just one aspect of the related innovations transforming the industrial computing landscape.
Broader Implications for Executive Compensation
The ISS recommendation arrives during a period of significant industry developments that are reshaping corporate governance standards worldwide. Tesla’s board, led by chair Robyn Denholm, has been actively lobbying large shareholders to support the package, arguing that Musk’s “generational talent” justifies the unprecedented compensation.
Denholm told the Financial Times that achieving the performance targets would require Musk to expend “time, energy and effort beyond what most humans can do.” However, ISS’s concerns about Musk’s divided attention among his multiple companies – including SpaceX, xAI, Neuralink and The Boring Company – suggest the board hasn’t adequately addressed governance questions.
Strategic Implications and Future Scenarios
Musk has explicitly stated that he may leave Tesla if he doesn’t gain greater control, arguing that he needs at least 25% ownership to protect the company from activists or hostile takeover as it develops advanced AI and robotics technology. If approved, the compensation package would increase his stake from approximately 16% to at least 25% after accounting for taxes and dilution.
The outcome of the November vote will have significant implications not only for Tesla but for global market dynamics and executive compensation standards across the technology sector. As investors weigh ISS’s recommendations against the board’s arguments, they must consider both the potential for enormous shareholder value creation and the precedent-setting nature of the compensation package.
The decision comes amid broader market trends showing increased volatility and investor sensitivity to governance issues. Tesla’s ability to navigate these challenges while maintaining its innovation trajectory will be closely watched by industry observers and shareholders alike.
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.
