Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 22, 2019

A Delaware judge ruled that Tesla's board of directors must stand trial to defend chief executive Elon Musk's multibillion dollar pay package.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Saving the planet deserves big bucks, right?

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-22 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I saw this ....

I wonder how the "CEO's make too much" crowd will response, if at all.

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-22 07:29 PM | Reply

"I wonder how the "CEO's make too much" crowd will response, if at all.

#2 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS "

I imagine like this and with their fingers in their ears:

"But, but, but every household electrical socket I drive past is a fueling station. LALALALALALALALA"

#3 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-22 07:46 PM | Reply

If not for the huge subsidies his company gets, I wonder how much he would be compensated?

#4 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-22 07:48 PM | Reply

I wonder how the "CEO's make too much" crowd will response, if at all.

I'd predict the same way as the "CEOs deserve what they get" crowd responds.

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-09-22 08:17 PM | Reply

If not for the huge subsidies his company gets, I wonder how much he would be compensated?

#4 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

The company, which has yet to post an annual profit according to earnings reports, did not meet any of its performance milestones last year, so Musk received no compensation.

"Elon actually earned $0 in total compensation from Tesla in 2018, and any reporting otherwise is incorrect and misleading," the company said in a July statement. But if Musk manages to double Tesla's market cap to $100 billion within ten years, he'll receive the first portion of his reward.

Since he is currently making less than, I would assume, ALL of the employees, it is pretty hard for me to argue he is "making too much".

But don't let that stop your little conservative----------- hating on Liberals and assigning them positions.

#6 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-23 09:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

And whether or not his compensation would, hypothetically, be "too much" if he was able to meet his benchmarks, that is a good question. It depends on how well the other employees were compensated. I will save my judgement until it is no longer a hypothetical and we can see whether the employees were also "incentivized" with high bonuses and/or stock options if the company meets its milestones.

Where liberals generally take issue is when a company is laying off its workers and gives its CEO millions of dollars in bonuses. Or when a company does well and the only real bonuses go to the executives. These aren't usually the companies where a CEO makes $0 if the company does not do well.

#7 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-23 09:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would assume

#6 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-09-23 09:36 AM | FLAG:

Not following the insider stock options and sales then?

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-23 10:32 AM | Reply

Not following the insider stock options and sales then?

#8 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

No. Are you saying that he does have other employees who make $0?

Sorry... I just assumed that all regular employees took a salary. Can you post a list of names and positions of employees of Tesla who don't take a salary (compensation is solely bonus or stock options)? Thanks!

#9 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-23 11:36 AM | Reply

The only kind of socialism we need is one where the government can place societal performance goals on people who make over a certain amount. For example, someone getting $2b should not only be asked to increase market cap but should be asked to perform for society, such as creating goals like "Decrease homelessness by .5% in each city you have corporate hq's in". That's just a quick example I just came up, obviously that's very hard to track and measure. But I love this type of socialism much more than "You've worked hard to make lots of money so now we are mandating you give it to people who don't want to work."

#10 | Posted by humtake at 2019-09-23 11:57 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

No.

#9 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-09-23 11:36 AM | REPLY

Good enough. Try it one day. They're a public company. You can see all the trades the board makes.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-23 12:03 PM | Reply

You can see all the trades the board makes.

#11 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

What does that have to do with this thread?

And I also don't see what benefit that would provide me. I have better things to be doing with my time than looking at what some other individual thinks is a profitable trade.

#12 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-23 12:37 PM | Reply

Saving the planet deserves big bucks, right?

#1 | Posted by nullifidian

Are you saying it doesn't moron?

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-23 01:21 PM | Reply

Saving the planet deserves big bucks, right?

#1 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-09-22 06:40 PM | FLAG:

Trashing the planet does tho? You're an idiot.

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-09-23 01:29 PM | Reply

#12 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-09-23 12:37 PM | FLAG:

You're in a thread about Tesla financials, but have no interest in Tesla financials. Got it.

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-23 02:54 PM | Reply

10-K disclosure. Ouch. $15.7bn purchase obligation to Panasonic going until 2023. They have to throw an extra $2 billion at it. So much for expanding service and parts, or even keeping up with equipment depreciating. Deutsche Bank, a chief financier of Tesla debt had a closed door meeting and came out of it BUY BUY BUY! lol

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-23 02:57 PM | Reply

10-K disclosure. Ouch. $15.7bn purchase obligation to Panasonic going until 2023. They have to throw an extra $2 billion at it. So much for expanding service and parts, or even keeping up with equipment depreciating. Deutsche Bank, a chief financier of Tesla debt had a closed door meeting and came out of it BUY BUY BUY! lol

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg '

Innovative american company employing 40k americans is threatening your party's puppetmasters! Booo! Destroy!

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-23 03:32 PM | Reply

You're in a thread about Tesla financials, but have no interest in Tesla financials. Got it.

#15 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

I comment on a lot of threads. Doesn't mean I am an expert at every subject that I comment on.

And you still haven't told me how the Board's personal stock trades are germane to this thread. You are acting all pretentious and superior in your posts talking about the information you know, but all that information doesn't seem to have given you any insight since you have been unable to directly relate any of that information to this thread.

#18 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-23 03:54 PM | Reply

If TSLA did its traditional "fiduciary duty" and operated according to the short sightedness of shareholders, it'd be looking at a second bankruptcy soon like GM.

#19 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-09-23 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The suit is for deceiving shareholders.

www.cnbc.com

"Large shareholders are suing Tesla over their acquisition of SolarCity in late 2016. Unsealed court docs revealed new details about their claims on Monday. Before the $2.6 billion deal closed, SolarCity allegedly hid critical details about its relationship with SpaceX, from auditors Ernst & Young. A financial advisor to SolarCity, Lazard, could find no other bidders for the company -- just Tesla -- ahead of the deal, the shareholders claim."

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-24 07:51 AM | Reply

There's a word for deceiving shareholders... what is it again? Oh yeah, fraud.

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-24 07:51 AM | Reply

Despite being the headline, Musk's compensation is a mere subplot to the meat of the lawsuit. The public knows from leaked board transcripts the purchase of solar city, while sold to investors as a strategic purchase and pitching Solar Roof (using a plastic board as a "prototype"), was actually a strategic bailout and dissolution of the company. Hence the ongoing NY audits after throwing almost a billion tax dollars into it and getting results on par with Foxconn.

#22 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-24 07:59 AM | Reply

It's easy to sue. And you can sue for anything. Much harder to win, especially if your suit is baseless. A large company being sued does not surprise me. Companies get sued all the time. I would have thought with your supposed interest in financials you would already know this.

Also, for fraud you have to show intent. And it is an actual crime. You only post a lawsuit. Is there also a criminal complaint?

#23 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-24 08:02 AM | Reply

Fud, fud, fud.

#24 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-24 08:41 AM | Reply

Plonked. Posting, don't follow the financials. Gtfo lol.

#25 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-24 08:42 AM | Reply

"In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud or recover monetary compensation), a criminal law (i.e., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities), or it may cause no loss of money, property or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong."

Now begone with your cultist fud.

#26 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-24 08:43 AM | Reply

I wonder how the "CEO's make too much" crowd will response, if at all.

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-09-22 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

CEO's make too much. Period.

SolarCity allegedly hid critical details about its relationship with SpaceX, from auditors Ernst & Young.

If proven, that is fraud and everyone involved need real jail time.

#27 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-09-24 08:51 AM | Reply

"And whether or not his compensation would, hypothetically, be "too much" if he was able to meet his benchmarks, that is a good question. It depends on how well the other employees were compensated."

Why?

If the janitor is paid $15 an hour while the company is not turning a profit, why should he or she expect to make $30 if the company achieves it's goals?

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-24 12:20 PM | Reply

"Where liberals generally take issue is when a company is laying off its workers and gives its CEO millions of dollars in bonuses."

After 9/11, American Airlines gave it's sitting CEO pretty solid bonuses, despite the fact that the company was losing lots of money. It doesn't really make a lot of sense, unless you realize that, from the company's perspective, it was value added to hire someone who might be able to limit the losses, rather than retain a Chief who didn't seem up to the current task.

Make sense?

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-24 12:22 PM | Reply

"Or when a company does well and the only real bonuses go to the executives."

Bonuses generally go to people who contribute directly to achieving performance benchmarks. The janitor will likely never have that sort of impact.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-24 12:24 PM | Reply

"CEO's make too much. Period."

Even Musk?

He paid more than he received.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-24 12:27 PM | Reply

Bonuses generally go to people who contribute directly to achieving performance benchmarks. The janitor will likely never have that sort of impact.

#30 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

That is correct. And I never claimed that the janitor should be paid as much as the CEO or have the same incentive structure. But, you actually state the main problem without knowing it. CEOs should be incentivized based upon creating value in the company. But, CEOs are generally incentivized based upon "achieving performance benchmarks" which is not necessarily the same thing. Ideally they would be in line, but usually the board is responsible for structuring what "performance benchmarks" are important and to what degree they are incentivized.

And at a lot of companies the boards and CEOs have ---------- sort of relationships where the CEO of company sits on the board of another and vice versa. Or family members sit on the board, or friends. So there is incentive to inflate the benefits. And that is aside from the "lake woebegone" effect that companies fall into because they don't want to be seen as having a "cheap" CEO.

The real question is how much value do CEOs really create. And how much MORE value does a "high end" CEO really add over just giving the job to Joe Schmoe from accounting. Every company wants to think they are special little innovative snowflakes so they need an Elon Musk or Steve Jobs to drive them to world domination. But, the fact of the matter is that most CEOs are pretty average, and their pay should reflect that.

#32 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-24 03:54 PM | Reply

Plonked. Posting, don't follow the financials. Gtfo lol.

#25 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Finally made the Plonk list... must be doing something right.

:)

#33 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-24 03:55 PM | Reply

The CEO of any company that gets $4.9 billion in subsidies and earns billions in benefits should be under scrutiny.

#34 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-24 05:03 PM | Reply

"And how much MORE value does a "high end" CEO really add over just giving the job to Joe Schmoe from accounting."

It's kinda like asking how much better is LeBron James than some Joe Schmoe playing ball on the street. There have been many cases where althletes who were considered to be the next best thing turned out to be far less. It happens. But team execs still have a responsibility to grab the players they think are going to provide the biggest benefit for the team.

Or consider this. Airline pilots. You can hire a guy who went through civilian flight training and pay him far less than a military pilot who went through a rigorous training program and accumulated thousands of flying hours. FAR less. But the former military guy has already distinguished himself as a capable pilot. That's not to say that the guy right out of civilian flight school is going to suck-he may turn out to be a great catch-but you're not going to be able to make that determination based on experience. And history has shown us that the pilots with less skills make more mistakes, and those mistakes often wind up killing people.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-25 11:19 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort