Elon Musk’s proposed $1 trillion compensation package for himself is at the heart of a growing governance battle, with a coalition of shareholders and state officials urging investors to reject it at Tesla’s November meeting.
Among the dissenters are SOC Investment Group and state treasurers from Nevada, New Mexico, and Connecticut. Their letter not only opposes the pay plan but also calls for voting against board members Ehrenpreis, Gebbia, and Wilson-Thompson.
They assert that Tesla’s board has repeatedly placed Musk’s control above delivering on performance goals. They cite instances of underperformance, lack of oversight, and delayed execution of previously endorsed strategic plans.
Tesla pushes back, insisting the plan is fully performance-based. Any payout is contingent on achieving ambitious targets; if they are missed, Musk earns nothing. The company frames this as aligning his interests with shareholders’ long-term value creation.
The proposal comes at a precarious time: Tesla recently announced record vehicle deliveries, yet critics warn that in a post-EV tax credit environment, growth could slow. The pay plan’s milestones—requiring dramatic scaling in production, valuation, and control—face skepticism in more volatile markets.
Adding political weight is NYC Comptroller Brad Lander, who has persistently criticized Tesla’s governance. Though New York pension funds aren’t among Tesla’s largest investors, Lander’s track record lends symbolic pressure to the campaign.
With the shareholder vote looming, Tesla is now at a crossroads. The outcome could force significant changes in board structure, executive accountability, and governance norms going forward.
