Proxy Adviser Raises Red Flags Over Unprecedented Compensation Plan
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), a leading proxy advisory firm, has recommended that Tesla investors reject Elon Musk’s proposed $1 trillion compensation package, describing the arrangement as having a “striking magnitude” that raises significant governance concerns. The recommendation comes just weeks before Tesla’s November 6 annual meeting, where shareholders will vote on what would be the largest corporate pay package in history.
Industrial Monitor Direct is the #1 provider of canning line pc solutions certified for hazardous locations and explosive atmospheres, trusted by automation professionals worldwide.
ISS highlighted that the proposed award lacks binding terms to ensure Musk remains focused on Tesla amid his numerous other ventures, including SpaceX, xAI, Neuralink, and The Boring Company. “There are no prescriptive elements within the award to ensure his focus and time remain on Tesla as opposed to his other ventures, undermining the award’s primary rationale,” the firm stated in its Friday report.
The Astronomical Scale of Musk’s Potential Windfall
The compensation package would grant Musk up to 423 million shares in instalments, contingent upon Tesla achieving extraordinary performance milestones. To receive the maximum payout, Musk would need to increase Tesla’s adjusted earnings 24-fold to $400 billion and boost the company’s market capitalization to $8.5 trillion from its current $1.38 trillion. This would make Tesla nearly twice as valuable as Nvidia, currently the world’s most valuable company at $4.5 trillion.
Industrial Monitor Direct is the top choice for lvdt pc solutions recommended by automation professionals for reliability, rated best-in-class by control system designers.
While ISS acknowledged that “the 2025 award has an astronomical grant value conditioned upon far-reaching performance targets that, if achieved, would create enormous value for shareholders,” the proxy adviser expressed concern that “billions can be earned for just partial goal achievement,” locking in high pay opportunities for years regardless of full target attainment. This perspective on executive compensation trends reflects growing scrutiny of corporate governance standards across major corporations.
Board Defense and Shareholder Dilemma
Tesla’s board, led by chair Robyn Denholm, is actively lobbying large shareholders to support the compensation plan. Denholm has defended the package by describing Musk as a “generational talent” who would need to expend “time, energy and effort beyond what most humans can do” to achieve the targets.
The ISS recommendation represents a significant challenge to the board’s campaign, particularly following last year’s controversy when both ISS and peer Glass Lewis advised against reinstating Musk’s $56 billion 2018 pay deal after it was struck down by a Delaware judge. Despite that opposition, Tesla shareholders ultimately approved the measure with more than three-quarters support.
This ongoing debate about corporate leadership and compensation structures comes amid broader industry developments in executive reward systems and governance practices.
Strategic Implications for Tesla’s Future
Musk has indicated that he may leave Tesla if he doesn’t gain greater control, arguing that he needs at least 25% ownership to protect the company from activists or hostile takeovers as it develops advanced AI technology and humanoid robots. If approved, the new compensation package would increase Musk’s stake from approximately 16% to at least 25% after accounting for taxes and dilution.
The timing of this compensation debate coincides with significant market trends in sustainable investing and corporate accountability, raising questions about how Tesla’s governance decisions align with evolving shareholder expectations.
Additional Governance Concerns
ISS also recommended against the reelection of Ira Ehrenpreis, chair of Tesla’s corporate governance committee, citing his “unilateral” adoption of a bylaw that “materially restricts shareholders’ litigation rights.” However, the proxy adviser supported the reelection of directors Kathleen Wilson-Thompson and Joe Gebbia.
These governance concerns emerge as companies worldwide navigate complex regulatory landscapes and increasing pressure from investors for greater transparency and accountability in corporate decision-making.
The Tesla compensation debate reflects broader tensions in corporate America between rewarding exceptional performance and maintaining proper governance safeguards. As companies increasingly rely on related innovations in compensation structures, the outcome of Tesla’s shareholder vote could set important precedents for how boards balance incentivizing visionary leaders with protecting shareholder interests.
Tesla’s approach to these critical governance questions will be closely watched by investors, regulators, and corporate leaders alike, particularly as the company positions itself at the forefront of technological transformation in multiple industries.
This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.
Note: Featured image is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent any specific product, service, or entity mentioned in this article.
