It's a nice irony to compare this company with any other, and put words like fair in the same sentence. Thanks for making me laugh.
A minority appealing to a judge in an attempt to override the majority and break the rules is all I see.
Understatement of the century, Puiu. 1200% growth to a $1T valuation in just over three years -- the fastest such growth by far in all human history, you describe as saying "the company grew". LOL, ok.
I understand quite well. The shareholders of Tesla voted in these board members, who wisely made Musk this offer, an offer that is in no way extraordinary or unusual. The only "unusual" thing here is Tesla's growth. The CEOs of companies like Ford, GM, and Tesla are regularly paid multi-million dollar salaries for losing their company's billions of dollars. Musk was paid no more than he deserved.
The number is big only because Tesla is big. And Tesla is big only because of Musk. I realize you live in a nation with a long proud history of socialism, where people would rather all starve together than see themselves prosper among billionaires, but the facts are clear. Musk made every shareholder of Tesla rich. A 400% return on investment every year for 3 years? No one gets that from a multi-billion dollar corporation.
What universe are you in? When Musk received this pay package, Tesla's shares exploded in value. When a judge took it back, Tesla's shared dropped. This is the reality.
LOL yes, and in 2018 -- a year where Novo Nordisk LOST money, the CEO received a 30% pay hike from DKK 10.7 million to 13.9 million. Even the board members voted themselves a pay raise. They literally paid themselves and the CEO millions of dollars to lose money for the company's owners.
"Musk took an enormous gamble: He accepted a salary of zero dollars" - you do realise that he owns 22% of the shares, right? He literally gambled nothing.
"The number is big only because Tesla is big" - makes zero sense. Paying him 20% of the revenue (full, revenue, not net profits) from 2019 to 2023 is just stupid.
No, it is a public stock, and the board is beholden to the shareholders by law. If the board breaks that trust to the benefit of the CEO this is against the law. The shareholders sued, and won.
Listen closely, Puiu. I'm going to give you a choice. You've invested in a company and you can choose a CEO for $14M to lose you money. Or you can hire a CEO for $56B to make you wealthy beyond belief. Which do you choose?
No, the vast majority of shareholders didn't support the lawsuit. This suit was brought by a thrash metal drummer named Richard Tornetta, who owns less than 0.0001% of Tesla.
"CEO for $14M to lose you money" - or you know you invest 1 million in somebody who does the same thing. it's a moot point to wonder about whatifs
It's not a moot point. It's a real issue that affects not only Tesla, but every shareholder in the USA, of any firm.
Be real. One thrash metal drummer supported the lawsuit: Richard Tornetta, who owned an insignificant number of shares. As for the $56B returned to the company -- well, Tesla lost half that immediately, as other shareholders got wind of the ruling.
the link I gave you shows that it wasn't just that guy. enough shareholders banded together against Musk.
Lol, by this absurd logic, Richard Tornetta -- the thrash metal drummer who brought this suit -- should have also worked for Tesla for free for the last ten years. After all, he owns shares! I won't even mention that conflating "Musk the shareholder" with "Musk the CEO" violates the most basic principle of corporate law: separation of ownership.
By that logic people should just shut up when they see shady things happening just because "money talks". It makes zero sense.
So as I clearly stated in my original post… Novo Nordisk profits grew by more than Tesla’s total profits for this year. As in Tesla profits are 3bn, and Novo profits GREW by 4bn… Clearly the 14mn dollar CEO is working just fine…
So you're saying that 51% of the shareholders got together and took this action?
Please remember that shares don’t work like a representative democracy, for OBVIOUS reasons. The board is beholden to ALL shareholders, big and small. If a minority shareholder group believes their interests are being mismanaged they can sue. The obvious case for why this is necessary is in the case of someone holding an absolute majority of the stock, and then simply awarding themselves everything the company has as ‘compensation’ essentially stealing the remainder of the company they didn’t own.
You are making up the situation.
What you are describing is not a democracy, it is dictatorship of the majority… systems have safeguards, and the safeguards are mediated through an independent judiciary… if you don’t like that idea, you don’t like democracy… you’d prefer an authoritarian system run by you and your in group.
Juggling words to go against the people? Why don't you order a judge to also choose who will be the president, governors, etc... after all, in your head, this is democracy, a noisy half dozen subjugating the majority.
