Your own words are clear. Musk was "already rich so he didn't need a salary." As for the stock rewards, this judge just took those from him, meaning that -- as of right now -- his ten-year pay package is zero.
Well, you certainly proved my point for me. Bezos became (for a while) the richest man on earth by earning tens of billions of dollars of stock options in his CEO role -- just the sort of pay you're advocating against. Whups!
Furthermore, your math is, unsurprisingly, utterly flawed. Amazon began with a few hundred thousand dollars from Bezos's parents, and most of its early growth came from multiple financing rounds. When a financier exchanges $100M in cash for $100M in equity, the book value of the company grows, but the existing investors don't make a dime.
What is clear is you don't understand the difference between the words "need" vs "deserve." Did you know that "need" and "deserve" are two different words with two completely different definitions?
Need's Oxford definition: "to require (something) because it is essential or very important."
Deserve's Oxford definition: "to do something or have or show qualities worthy of"
I said Musk doesn't need a small stable salary and thus can pick getting his compensation entirely from stock options - I never claimed he doesn't deserve any compensation (salary + stock) whatsoever. I literally said he deserved compensation, so you can stop strawmanning me.
If I am a rich & famous movie star, and a movie studio offers me $0 salary + 20% movie profits OR $100,000 salary + 0% of the movie gross, I would take $0 salary + 20% of the movie gross because I don't NEED the stable salary and can gamble on making more money by taking a percentage of the profits. On the other hand, if I am a broke new actor, I would take the salary because I actually NEED it because I can't take the risk of the movie failing and I get little to no profit as compensation. In both cases, I am still getting some form of compensation because I DESERVE compensation, but the levels of need for a stable salary vs stocks/profits/etc are different which allows different people to pick different compensation structures.
Do you get the difference now?
The judge is telling them to renegotiate his stock compensation, not that he doesn't deserve any stock compensation. He will still get his stock compensation - his ten year pay package is NOT zero. It is merely undetermined. If you are still negotiating with a new job for your salary, your salary is undetermined/TBD - not zero.
Furthermore, your math is, unsurprisingly, utterly flawed. Amazon began with a few hundred thousand dollars from Bezos's parents, and most of its early growth came from multiple financing rounds. When a financier exchanges $100M in cash for $100M in equity, the book value of the company grows, but the existing investors don't make a dime.
What is unsurprisingly flawed is your own lack of reflection in making that comment. What you described is similar to how Tesla went from a small private company to a huge publicly traded company, yet you had no problem claiming above that Tesla grew 14 million percent when it went from a small private company to a big publicly traded company.
I'm following YOUR own logic and playing your game here when I said Amazon grew by over a billion percent when it went from a small private company to a big publicly traded company.
If you don't like to win stupid prizes, then don't play stupid games.
Well, you certainly proved my point for me. Bezos became (for a while) the richest man on earth by earning tens of billions of dollars of stock options in his CEO role -- just the sort of pay you're advocating against. Whups!
Furthermore, your math is, unsurprisingly, utterly flawed. Amazon began with a few hundred thousand dollars from Bezos's parents, and most of its early growth came from multiple financing rounds. When a financier exchanges $100M in cash for $100M in equity, the book value of the company grows, but the existing investors don't make a dime.
Well, you certainly made it clear you STILL don't even understand what this case is about.
This case is NOT about whether billionaires deserve billions of dollars in stock compensation. I already said above that Musk (and Bezos) deserves billions in stocks as compensation.
This case is about Delaware corporate law requiring PUBLICLY TRADED company with public investors to have an independent board who can actually independently negotiate the CEO salary. Musk openly admitted that he controlled the board and his pay negotiations was "himself negotiation with himself."
Bezos didn't stack the entire board of Amazon with yes men who approved everything he told them (including his pay) without any negotiations or resistance.
Do you get it now? The problem was not about Musk getting compensation or the size of his compensation. The problem was always about how he negotiated his compensation by stacking the company with his yes men so there was never any negotiatons at all.