Tesla's Stock Option Grant to Elon Musk: Part 2
In this month's article on Executive Compensation, Joseph E. Bachelder III further explores Elon Musk's pay as CEO of Tesla.
June 21, 2018 at 02:45 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
![](https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2017/10/bachelder_joseph166-Article-201401031349.jpg)
Musk's Stock Ownership and Pay Compared to Other Founder CEOs
- Comparator Companies
- Stock Ownership Compared
- Pay Compared
a) Musk Option Compared to Equity Awards to Other Founder CEOs
The value of the Musk Option, $2.6 billion, was estimated by Tesla, as noted in the May 1 column, using a so-called Monte Carlo option-pricing model (an alternative to Black Scholes).
The median of the total values of equity awards over the last five fiscal years provided by the 10 comparator companies to their Founder CEOs was approximately $32.6 million (based on grant-date values as reported in proxy statements). The value of the Musk Option is approximately 80 times the median just noted. Significantly, four of the 10 comparator companies did not make equity grants to their Founder CEOs during their last five fiscal years (Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook and Garmin).
Special Note regarding Tesla's Prior Option Grants to Musk: In August 2012, Tesla awarded Musk a stock option to acquire 5 percent of Tesla shares then outstanding. Like the current Musk Option, the 2012 option grant has significant market cap and operating performance hurdles. Prior to that, in December 2009, Tesla awarded Musk a stock option to acquire 8 percent of Tesla shares then outstanding. Fifty percent of the option was subject to performance-vesting, 37.5 percent of the option was subject to time-vesting (over a three-year period), and 12.5 percent of it was fully vested upon grant.
b) Salary and Annual Bonuses: Musk Compared to other Founder CEOs
During the five-year period ending Dec. 31, 2017, Musk received no salary or annual bonus. (Tesla's proxy statements indicate that Musk was provided an annual salary in the range of $33,000 to $50,000 during that five-year period—apparently to comply with minimum wage requirements under California law. They also indicate that Musk did not accept the salary.) The median of the total amounts of salary and annual bonuses paid over the last five fiscal years by the 10 companies to their Founder CEOs was approximately $1.6 million (based on amounts as reported in proxy statements). Four of the 10 comparator companies paid a salary of only $1 to their respective Founder CEOs, and two of those four paid no annual bonus to the Founder CEO.
In summary, the median salary and annual bonus of $1.6 million paid by the comparator companies during the last five fiscal years to their Founder CEOs contrasts with no salary or annual bonus paid to Musk at Tesla. On the other hand, the value of the Musk Option “overwhelms” the value of stock options and other equity grants made by the comparator companies to their Founder CEOs.
Issues Under Delaware Law
- Corporate Waste
- Musk already owns approximately 20 percent of the shares of Tesla. How much more motivation and incentive to remain as the leader of Tesla does the new stock option provide?
- The value of the Musk Option “overwhelms” the median of the values of the equity grants to Founder CEOs of companies in the comparator group. As noted above, during their last five fiscal years, four of the 10 comparator companies did not make any equity award to the Founder CEOs.
- The terms of the Musk Option do not restrict Musk as to activities outside of Tesla. (Apparently Musk is subject to “Tesla's standard confidentiality agreement” and a “Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement,” both referenced in Musk's 2008 employment offer letter from Tesla.) Musk's current activities outside of Tesla include serving as chief executive officer at a major rocket company, SpaceX, and at two recent start-ups, The Boring Company (a tunnel-construction company) and Neuralink (a company in the business of artificial intelligence).
- Independence of Directors
Complaint Filed in Delaware Chancery Court Regarding Musk Option
Tornetta v. Musk et al, supra. In re Tesla Motors, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, supra. Joseph E. Bachelder III is special counsel to McCarter & English, LLP. Howard Berkower, a partner with the firm, and Andy Tsang, a senior financial analyst with the firm, assisted in the preparation of this column.This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![The Changing Landscape of NY Courts' Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Corporations The Changing Landscape of NY Courts' Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Corporations](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2024/10/Global-business-767x633.jpg)
The Changing Landscape of NY Courts' Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Corporations
14 minute read![Distressed M&A: Surprises All Around Following a Creditor's Enforcement of a Pledge to Effect Change of Control Distressed M&A: Surprises All Around Following a Creditor's Enforcement of a Pledge to Effect Change of Control](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2021/08/Corinne-Ball-767x633.jpg)
Distressed M&A: Surprises All Around Following a Creditor's Enforcement of a Pledge to Effect Change of Control
![The Perils of the Nonexistent Arbitral Institution The Perils of the Nonexistent Arbitral Institution](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2024/01/Newman-Zaslowsky-767-2.jpg)
![Motion to Reconsider, Attorney Fees Reduced, Religious Discrimination Motion to Reconsider, Attorney Fees Reduced, Religious Discrimination](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2023/10/Butt-Kissane-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1With AI, What Changes Can Midsize Firms Expect?
- 2Saul Ewing Loses Two Partners to Fox Rothschild, Marking Four Fla. Partner Exits in Last 13 Months
- 3Eagles or Chiefs? At These Law Firms, Super Bowl Sunday Gets Complicated
- 4Former NY City Hall Official Tied to Adams Corruption Probe to Plead Guilty
- 5Wilmer, White & Case, Crowell Among the Latest to Add DC Lateral Partners
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.