Tesla’s $1 Trillion Compensation Battle: Why Major Proxy Firms Are Sounding the Alarm on Musk’s Pay Package

Growing Opposition to Musk’s Unprecedented Compensation Plan

As Tesla’s November 6 annual meeting approaches, Elon Musk faces mounting resistance to his proposed $1 trillion compensation package. Glass Lewis & Co. has become the second major proxy-advisory firm to recommend shareholders reject the deal, joining Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) in raising serious concerns about the package’s potential impact on investor value and corporate governance., according to recent innovations

The Staggering Numbers Behind the Compensation Package

Glass Lewis’s comprehensive 90-page analysis reveals the extraordinary scale of Musk’s proposed compensation. The firm values the deal at approximately $141.6 billion—significantly higher than Tesla’s own $87.8 billion estimate. The package would grant Musk up to 423 million shares, representing about 12% of Tesla’s adjusted share count if he meets all performance milestones.

The compensation structure includes 12 performance tranches tied to both market capitalization targets and operational milestones. Perhaps most concerning to shareholders is Glass Lewis’s estimation that full exercise of the package could dilute existing shareholders’ ownership by approximately 11.3%., as previous analysis

Governance Concerns Take Center Stage

Glass Lewis’s report highlights significant governance issues, particularly regarding board independence. The firm notes that Musk’s compensation is being reviewed by a board that has faced longstanding questions about its closeness to the CEO. Several directors maintain personal or professional relationships with Musk that date back years, raising concerns about objective oversight.

These governance issues proved central to a Delaware court ruling earlier this year that struck down Musk’s 2018 pay package. The court found that board relationships compromised the approval process, and Glass Lewis suggests these same concerns remain relevant to the current proposal., according to recent research

Performance Milestones Under Scrutiny

The proxy firm raised questions about whether the performance hurdles truly match the massive compensation being proposed. Glass Lewis suggested that the early milestones “do not appear as herculean as the size of the proposed tranches would suggest”, implying Musk could unlock substantial value without delivering the exceptional performance the package ostensibly demands., according to technology insights

Perhaps most alarmingly for shareholders, the analysis indicates Musk could receive “billions in compensation and a materially increased ownership stake” even if he achieves just one of the 12 performance tranches.

Tesla’s Fiery Response to Criticism

Tesla has responded aggressively to the proxy firms’ recommendations. In a recent social media post, the company blasted both ISS and Glass Lewis as “misguided” and accused them of using “one-size-fits-all checklists” that undermine shareholders’ interests.

The company pointed to its historical performance following the 2018 compensation package, noting that shareholders who ignored similar proxy firm recommendations would have benefited from Tesla’s market capitalization increasing 20-fold from March 2018 to August 2025.

Broader Implications for Shareholder Value

The debate over Musk’s compensation package raises fundamental questions about executive pay, shareholder dilution, and corporate governance in high-growth companies. Key concerns identified in the Glass Lewis report include:

• Excessive dilution of existing shareholders’ stakes
• Questionable performance hurdles that may not justify the massive compensation
• Board independence issues in the approval process
• Focus concerns given Musk’s multiple other ventures including SpaceX, xAI, X, and Neuralink

Industry Experts Weigh In

Despite the proxy firms’ opposition, some prominent Tesla supporters remain optimistic about the package’s approval. Cathie Wood, founder of ARK Invest and longtime Tesla bull, predicted the plan would pass “decisively” despite opposition from proxy firms and index funds.

Wood criticized index-based investing as “a form of socialism” and accused proxy advisors of attempting to sway shareholders without conducting fundamental research. This divergence of opinion highlights the broader philosophical divide in how different market participants view executive compensation and corporate governance.

The Road to November 6

As Tesla’s annual meeting approaches, shareholders face a critical decision that could significantly impact their investment returns and the company’s future governance structure. The opposition from two major proxy advisory firms represents a substantial hurdle for the compensation package’s approval, though Tesla’s track record of delivering shareholder value under Musk’s leadership may ultimately sway the vote.

The outcome will not only determine Musk’s compensation but could set important precedents for executive pay packages in the technology sector and beyond. With billions of dollars and significant corporate governance principles at stake, the November 6 vote represents one of the most closely watched shareholder decisions of the year.

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.