Tesla investors are ditching Charles Schwab as their brokerage after the firm said earlier this week that it would vote against CEO Elon Musk’s new compensation package.

Several high-profile Tesla influencers are speaking out against Charles Schwab, saying its decision to vote against the plan that would retain Musk as CEO and give him potentially more voting power if he can achieve the tranches set by the company’s Board of Directors.

The Tesla community recognized that Schwab is one firm that tends to vote against Musk’s compensation plans, as they also voted against the CEO’s 2018 pay package, which was passed by shareholders but then denied by a Delaware Chancery Court.

Schwab’s move was recognized by investors within the Tesla community and now they are speaking out about it:

Hey @CharlesSchwab – I need to speak with someone from Schwab Private Wealth Services this week. Please reach out via email, the mobile app message center, phone, or X DM.

Here’s why this is urgent: At least 6 of your ETF funds (around 7 million $TSLA shares) voted against… https://t.co/uSgPWnfTFc

— Jason DeBolt ⚡️ (@jasondebolt) November 3, 2025

If @CharlesSchwab doesn’t vote for Elon Musk’s 2025 CEO Performance Award plan, I’ll move all my assets to another brokerage. My followers, many of whom also hold assets with Schwab and collectively own at least hundreds of millions in $TSLA, may do the same.

I can’t in good… https://t.co/6iUU6PdzYx

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) November 3, 2025

ready to help with the @CharlesSchwab exodus

— Gali (@Gfilche) November 3, 2025

At least six of Charles Schwab’s ETFs have voted against Tesla’s Board recommendation to support the compensation plan for Musk. The six ETFs represent around 7 million Tesla $TSLA shares.

Jason DeBolt, an all-in Tesla shareholder, summarized the firm’s decision really well:

“As a custodian of ETF shares, your fiduciary duty is to vote in shareholders’ best interests. For a board that has delivered extraordinary returns, voting against their recommendations doesn’t align with retail investors, Tesla employees, or the leadership we invested to support. If Schwab’s proxy voting policies don’t reflect shareholder interests, my followers and I will move our collective tens of millions in $TSLA shares (or possibly hundreds of millions) to a broker that does, via account transfer as soon as this week.”

Tesla shareholders will vote on Musk’s pay package on Thursday at the Annual Shareholders Meeting in Austin, Texas.

It seems more likely than not that it will pass, but investors have made it clear they want a decisive victory, as it could clear the path for any issues with shareholder lawsuits in the future, as it did with Musk’s past pay package.

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) has released its final investigative report into the New Year’s Day Cybertruck explosion outside the Trump International Hotel. But instead of bringing clarity, the findings have only raised more questions. 

The 78-page document detailed a planned attack by former Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger, who died by suicide before the blast that injured six people.

The perpetrator’s manifesto

According to a Fox News report, Livelsberger rented the all-electric pickup through Turo while on leave from his Special Forces unit. He filled the rented Cybertruck with fireworks, gas cans, and camping fuel before driving it to the hotel shortly after 8:40 a.m. on January 1. Surveillance footage showed him pouring accelerant into the truck bed moments before detonation, confirming premeditation.

Livelsberger left a manifesto on his phone, which was later deemed classified by the Department of War. This case was then handed over to federal authorities. Still, the LVMPD and federal investigators noted in their report that the incident was a “vehicle-borne improvised explosive device” (VBIED) attack “with the potential to cause mass casualties and extensive structural damage.” Officials, however, stopped short of labeling it terrorism.

In digital notes, Livelsberger wrote that his act was not terror-related but intended as “a wake-up call,” criticizing what he called America’s “feckless leadership.” He wrote, “Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives.”

The incident ironically showcased the Cybertruck’s durability

Tesla CEO Elon Musk was among the first to respond publicly after the blast, confirming through X that the company’s senior team was investigating the incident. He later stated that vehicle telemetry showed no malfunction and that the explosion was caused by “very large fireworks and/or a bomb” placed in the Cybertruck’s bed.

Ironically, footage of the incident in the Cybertruck’s bed showed that the vehicle’s durable construction actually helped contain the explosion by directing the blast upwards. The bed remained largely intact after the explosion as well. Even more surprisingly, the Cybertruck’s battery did not catch fire despite the blast.

Months later, the same Cybertruck appeared on the online auction platform IAA, marked as “not ready for sale.” The listing has stirred debate among Tesla fans about why the historic vehicle wasn’t reclaimed by the company. The vehicle, after all, could serve as a symbol of the Cybertruck’s resilience, even in extreme circumstances.

Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund has voted against Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award, which will be ultimately decided at Tesla’s upcoming annual shareholder meeting. 

The fund is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and it holds a 1.14% stake in Tesla valued at about $11.6 billion.

NBIM’s opposition

NBIM confirmed it had already cast its vote against Musk’s pay package, citing concerns over its total size, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk, as noted in a CNBC report. The fund acknowledged Musk’s leadership of the EV maker, and it stated that it will continue to seek dialogue with Tesla about its concerns. 

“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk- consistent with our views on executive compensation. We will continue to seek constructive dialogue with Tesla on this and other topics,” NBIM noted.

The upcoming Tesla annual shareholder meeting will decide whether Musk should receive his proposed 2025 performance award, which would grant him large stock options over the next decade if Tesla hits several ambitious milestones, such as a market cap of $8.5 trillion. The 2025 performance award will also increase Musk’s stake in Tesla to 25%.

Elon Musk and NBIM

Elon Musk’s proposed 2025 CEO performance award has proven polarizing, with large investors split on whether the executive should be given a pay package that, if fully completed, would make him a trillionaire. 

Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis have recommended that shareholders vote against the deal, and initiatives such as the “Take Back Tesla” campaign have rallied investors to oppose the proposed performance award. On the other hand, other large investors such as ARK Invest and the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA) have urged shareholders to approve the compensation plan. 

Interestingly enough, this is not the first time that Musk and NBIM have found themselves on opposing sides. Last year, NBIM voted against reinstating Musk’s 2018 performance award, which had already been fully accomplished but was rescinded by a Delaware judge.

Later reports shared text messages between Musk and NBIM Chief Executive Nicolai Tangen, who was inviting the CEO to a dinner in Oslo. Musk declined the invitation, writing, “When I ask you for a favor, which I very rarely do, and you decline, then you should not ask me for one until you’ve done something to make amends. Friends are as friends do.”