News
Tesla shareholder that has made 11x on its investment votes against Musk pay package
It’s official: The California Public Employees’ Retirement System will vote against Tesla CEO’s $56 billion pay package on Thursday at the company’s annual shareholder meeting, despite making 11x on its investment.
CalPERS says it owned nearly 9.2 million shares of Tesla stock as of June 7, and will not support Musk’s pay package ratification for several reasons:
- The value is approximately $46 billion, accounting for the cost to exercise the options, which is larger than the last four years of Tesla’s aggregate net income of $33.8 billion (2020-2023).
- The award would be highly dilutive to existing shareowners and reduce their ownership proportion.
- While the award does have a five-year holding period, it is concentrated in a single individual.
- Compared with other high-performing companies over the same period, the Tesla option award is nearly 140 times the annual pay opportunity for other high-performing CEOs.
- The payout rewards short-term growth and not sustained profitability. Tesla’s value has fallen by more than half from its peak in 2021.
Its Global Equities Investment Director, Drew Hambly, also said:
“We do not think a payout based on short-term market exuberance is warranted without sustained performance. Additionally, this deal concentrates power in a single shareholder and was negotiated by board members whose independence from Tesla’s CEO is questionable. For these reasons, CalPERS could not support the deal in 2018 and remains opposed today.”
RELATED:
Florida Pension Board votes for Elon Musk’s 2018 CEO Performance Award
CalPERS has seen an 11x growth on its investment since 2018, but believes Musk’s pay package would be “excessive compared to executives at peer companies” and would impact shareholders. It also said the pay package isn’t tied to Tesla’s long-term profitability, as it has already been earned and does not incentivize Musk to perform better in the future.
Marcie Frost, CEO of CalPERS, also said:
“This exorbitant compensation package is at odds with CalPERS’ longstanding views on executive pay. The compensation is excessive when compared to executives at peer companies, highly dilutive to shareholders, and isn’t tied to the long-term profitability of Tesla…While we agree that Mr. Musk is entitled to be well compensated for his work, we also believe that a pay package should be commensurate to a company’s performance with reasonable salary caps. These features are absent in the deal as structured.”
Musk said recently that he was disappointed in CalPERS decision to vote against ratifying his pay package.
“CalPERS broke the deal. Shame on them, they have no honor.”
CalPERS is also doing something else, which is related to the decision in the pay package case. It said it filed an objection against the lawyers who represented the shareholder that first challenged Musk’s pay package, as their requested $5.6 billion in fees taken in the form of Tesla stock is “exorbitant and would dilute shareholders’ interest in Tesla.”
The Shareholder Meeting is scheduled for tomorrow.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
Brazil Supreme Court orders Elon Musk and X investigation closed
The decision was issued by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes following a recommendation from Brazil’s Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet.
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court has ordered the closure of an investigation involving Elon Musk and social media platform X. The inquiry had been pending for about two years and examined whether the platform was used to coordinate attacks against members of the judiciary.
The decision was issued by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes following a recommendation from Brazil’s Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet.
According to a report from Agencia Brasil, the investigation conducted by the Federal Police did not find evidence that X deliberately attempted to attack the judiciary or circumvent court orders.
Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet concluded that the irregularities identified during the probe did not indicate fraudulent intent.
Justice Moraes accepted the prosecutor’s recommendation and ruled that the investigation should be closed. Under the ruling, the case will remain closed unless new evidence emerges.
The inquiry stemmed from concerns that content on X may have enabled online attacks against Supreme Court justices or violated rulings requiring the suspension of certain accounts under investigation.
Justice Moraes had previously taken several enforcement actions related to the platform during the broader dispute involving social media regulation in Brazil.
These included ordering a nationwide block of the platform, freezing Starlink accounts, and imposing fines on X totaling about $5.2 million. Authorities also froze financial assets linked to X and SpaceX through Starlink to collect unpaid penalties and seized roughly $3.3 million from the companies’ accounts.
Moraes also imposed daily fines of up to R$5 million, about $920,000, for alleged evasion of the X ban and established penalties of R$50,000 per day for VPN users who attempted to bypass the restriction.
Brazil remains an important market for X, with roughly 17 million users, making it one of the platform’s larger user bases globally.
The country is also a major market for Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet service, which has surpassed one million subscribers in Brazil.
Elon Musk
FCC chair criticizes Amazon over opposition to SpaceX satellite plan
Carr made the remarks in a post on social media platform X.
U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr criticized Amazon after the company opposed SpaceX’s proposal to launch a large satellite constellation that could function as an orbital data center network.
Carr made the remarks in a post on social media platform X.
Amazon recently urged the FCC to reject SpaceX’s application to deploy a constellation of up to 1 million low Earth orbit satellites that could serve as artificial intelligence data centers in space.
The company described the proposal as a “lofty ambition rather than a real plan,” arguing that SpaceX had not provided sufficient details about how the system would operate.
Carr responded by pointing to Amazon’s own satellite deployment progress.
“Amazon should focus on the fact that it will fall roughly 1,000 satellites short of meeting its upcoming deployment milestone, rather than spending their time and resources filing petitions against companies that are putting thousands of satellites in orbit,” Carr wrote on X.
Amazon has declined to comment on the statement.
Amazon has been working to deploy its Project Kuiper satellite network, which is intended to compete with SpaceX’s Starlink service. The company has invested more than $10 billion in the program and has launched more than 200 satellites since April of last year.
Amazon has also asked the FCC for a 24-month extension, until July 2028, to meet a requirement to deploy roughly 1,600 satellites by July 2026, as noted in a CNBC report.
SpaceX’s Starlink network currently has nearly 10,000 satellites in orbit and serves roughly 10 million customers. The FCC has also authorized SpaceX to deploy 7,500 additional satellites as the company continues expanding its global satellite internet network.
Energy
Tesla Energy gains UK license to sell electricity to homes and businesses
The license was granted to Tesla Energy Ventures Ltd. by UK energy regulator Ofgem after a seven-month review process.
Tesla Energy has received a license to supply electricity in the United Kingdom, opening the door for the company to serve homes and businesses in the country.
The license was granted to Tesla Energy Ventures Ltd. by UK energy regulator Ofgem after a seven-month review process.
According to Ofgem, the license took effect at 6 p.m. local time on Wednesday and applies to Great Britain.
The approval allows Tesla’s energy business to sell electricity directly to customers in the region, as noted in a Bloomberg News report.
Tesla has already expanded similar services in the United States. In Texas, the company offers electricity plans that allow Tesla owners to charge their vehicles at a lower cost while also feeding excess electricity back into the grid.
Tesla already has a sizable presence in the UK market. According to price comparison website U-switch, there are more than 250,000 Tesla electric vehicles in the country and thousands of Tesla home energy storage systems.
Ofgem also noted that Tesla Motors Ltd., a separate entity incorporated in England and Wales, received an electricity generation license in June 2020.
The new UK license arrives as Tesla continues expanding its global energy business.
Last year, Tesla Energy retained the top position in the global battery energy storage system (BESS) integrator market for the second consecutive year. According to Wood Mackenzie’s latest rankings, Tesla held about 15% of global market share in 2024.
The company also maintained a dominant position in North America, where it captured roughly 39% market share in the region.
At the same time, competition in the energy storage sector is increasing. Chinese companies such as Sungrow have been expanding their presence globally, particularly in Europe.
Brazil Supreme Court orders Elon Musk and X investigation closed
FCC chair criticizes Amazon over opposition to SpaceX satellite plan
