By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a significant move, Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund announced its opposition to Elon Musk’s pay package at Tesla’s upcoming shareholder meeting. Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund and a major Tesla shareholder, cited concerns over the award’s size, dilution, and lack of key person risk mitigation as the reasons for its vote. Despite acknowledging the value created under Musk’s leadership, NBIM, which holds a 1.14% stake valued at $11.6 billion, voted against the deal. The fund’s managers have also expressed interest in continuing constructive dialogue with Tesla.
Read the original article here
Norway’s mega wealth fund, a financial behemoth with a global reach, is making a bold statement, and the subject is none other than Elon Musk and his staggering proposed pay package at Tesla. This isn’t just a casual observation; it’s a firm stance against a deal that many consider excessive, especially in light of the company’s recent performance and the criticisms leveled at its charismatic, yet often controversial, leader.
The sheer audacity of the proposed package – a whopping $1 trillion – is difficult to fathom. What company, after all, has seriously considered paying its CEO and largest shareholder an amount representing two-thirds of its entire market capitalization? It raises eyebrows and prompts questions about the very definition of fair compensation, particularly when considering the potential impact on other investors and the long-term health of the company.
The core of the argument against the pay package appears to be a concern that Tesla’s stock valuation is inflated, heavily reliant on Musk’s persona rather than the underlying realities of the business. The narrative suggests that Musk, leveraging his dominance, is essentially betting on shareholders either accepting a dilution of their holdings or facing a potentially sharp market correction. The worry is that the company is being propped up artificially, with lofty valuations unsupported by product pipelines, future customer profiles, or proven delivery on promises like full self-driving capabilities and forthcoming products like the Cybertruck. The argument hints that Musk’s actions, including his public pronouncements and social media presence, have even hurt sales.
It’s clear, the fundamental critique revolves around Musk’s ability to deliver on promises. Despite the hype and the fervent following, critics point to a pattern of unrealized goals, which fuels the perception that his compensation is unjustified. They also highlight that his position of power within Tesla makes it difficult to hold him accountable. He controls the board, making it hard to remove him.
The concern is not just about the size of the payment but also the implications for Tesla’s future. It appears to be tied to stock performance, which means if the stock skyrockets, Musk would deserve the money. It is believed that the stock might not be able to get that high. There is a sense of impending financial reckoning, a belief that the bubble is ready to burst, and that the pay package is a means for Musk to cash out before that happens. This belief is not universally shared, and some argue that he has made many people rich.
For many, this isn’t just a financial matter; it’s a matter of principle. The sentiment is that giving such immense power to a single individual, especially one who hasn’t fully delivered on his promises, is a dangerous concentration of wealth and influence. There’s a feeling that he should not be rewarded for failing, but for doing, and that shareholders deserve to see returns that align with real business success. Some critics go as far as to equate his actions with those of a “tyrant.” The sentiment is: “Stop giving that piece of shit money!”
The timing of this decision is critical. It comes at a time when there is a significant drop in the stock sales. This is a crucial moment for Tesla, and for shareholders to evaluate their positions.
The question of whether Tesla would be better off with or without Musk is central to the debate. While some acknowledge his role in building the brand and driving innovation, many believe his actions are currently more detrimental than beneficial. They fear that his public statements, antics, and unfulfilled promises are damaging the brand and ultimately eroding shareholder value.
In this scenario, Norway’s rejection of the pay package isn’t just a vote; it’s a statement. It is a decision that speaks to the power of responsible investing, the importance of corporate governance, and the role of major shareholders in holding leaders accountable.