Shareholders voted for it.
Don't understand how the will of Tesla Shareholders is a corporate governance failure... couldn't read the rest of the article behind paywall, but the premise seems so borked that I'm not going to bother.
Article reminds me of a Delaware judge who also ruled that shareholders were not properly informed about the implications of their vote ‐ then after a very high profile court case and ruling ‐ shareholders voted a 2nd time to retroactively approve the same pay package. Who was right, this activist judge or shareholders?
It's funny how judges and The Economist's writers tell shareholders how they aren't really able to make an informed decision by voting their shares.
You ought to vote in a way that activists agree with!
Elon is too rich, how dare you vote for something that will make him and shareholders a lot of money!
"We know better than shareholders what pay structure is appropriate!"
This is my view too. The shareholders voted for it.
Granted, Musk (or maybe it was a couple board members) did make some strong statements that felt like threats (that if the vote didn’t go through, Musk was going to leave).
> Shareholders voted for it. Don't understand how the will of Tesla Shareholders is a corporate governance failure... couldn't read the rest of the article behind paywall, but the premise seems so borked that I'm not going to bother.
Sounds like a failure on to think critically.
The board consists of long time friends of Musk's, people who are heavily invested in his other companies (and so have and want to continue maintain their positive relationship with him), and his brother.
It's not that the board can't vote, it's that the board isn't remotely independent. And according to the WSJ A number of members of the board have hung around many late nights doing drugs with him.
And to be clear it's that that their doing drugs, it's that if you're close enough with someone to be regularly doing hard drugs with them you clearly aren't independent.
Article reminds me of a Delaware judge who also ruled that shareholders were not properly informed about the implications of their vote ‐ then after a very high profile court case and ruling ‐ shareholders voted a 2nd time to retroactively approve the same pay package. Who was right, this activist judge or shareholders?
It's funny how judges and The Economist's writers tell shareholders how they aren't really able to make an informed decision by voting their shares.
You ought to vote in a way that activists agree with!
Elon is too rich, how dare you vote for something that will make him and shareholders a lot of money!
"We know better than shareholders what pay structure is appropriate!"