Tesla's Stock Option Grant to Its CEO
Executive Compensation columnist Joseph E. Bachelder III discusses a number of unique features of the option grant to Tesla's Elon Musk.
April 30, 2018 at 02:45 PM
10 minute read
On Jan. 21, 2018, Tesla, the electric car manufacturer (also in the business of sustainable energy generation and storage), granted its chairman and chief executive officer, Elon Musk, an option, subject to shareholders' approval, to acquire 20,264,042 shares of Tesla (representing 12 percent of the then outstanding shares). Tesla's shares are traded on NASDAQ. As of the grant date of the option, the market cap of Tesla was approximately $59 billion.
The grant-date value of the option, according to the proxy statement for the special meeting noted below, was approximately $2.6 billion, based on a so-called “Monte Carlo” option pricing model, a mathematical model used to provide an estimate for the fair value of an option at the time of grant. The option exercise price is $350.02 per share, the January 19 closing price for a share of Tesla stock. To the author's knowledge, this is the largest stock option ever granted by a public company to an executive. According to the same proxy statement, Mr. Musk “will receive no salary, no cash bonuses and no time-based equity awards that vest solely through the passage of time (that is, simply by continuing to show up for work).”
The grant of the $2.6 billion option was approved by shareholders at a special meeting held March 21, 2018. Approximately 73 percent of votes cast, excluding votes of shares owned, directly or indirectly, by Mr. Musk (owning beneficially approximately 22 percent of Tesla's shares) and his brother Kimbal Musk (owning less than 1 percent), voted in favor of the option grant.
Musk Option Features
The following discussion addresses a number of unique features of the option grant to Mr. Musk.
Performance Targets. The option is comprised of 12 equal “tranches,” each tranche representing 1 percent of Tesla's shares. A tranche vests only upon (a) the achievement by Tesla stock of the market cap level assigned to that tranche and (b) the achievement by Tesla of either one of two operational targets at levels discussed below.
(a) Achievement of Market Cap Targets. Each of the 12 tranches is assigned a market cap target. The market cap targets range from $100 billion to $650 billion, in $50 billion increments. A market cap target is achieved at the close of the trading day on which the average market caps for both the six-month period and the 30-day period ending on that day exceed the applicable target for the tranche. Once reached, the market cap target is considered achieved even if the market cap subsequently drops below that target level. The market cap targets are subject to adjustments to take into account transactions, including acquisitions, divestitures and spin-offs, that are considered material to the achievement of the targets.
(b) Achievement of Operational Targets. There are two sets of operational targets: revenue targets and EBITDA targets. (EBITDA is adjusted by removing any charge for stock-based compensation.)
(i) Revenue: The revenue targets range, in 8 increments, from $20 billion to $175 billion. A revenue target is achieved when revenue equals or exceeds that target for four consecutive quarters.
(ii) Adjusted EBITDA: The EBITDA targets range, also in 8 increments, from $1.5 billion to $14 billion. An EBITDA target is achieved when EBITDA, adjusted as described above, equals or exceeds that target for four consecutive fiscal quarters.
Like the market cap targets, the operational targets are subject to adjustments to take into account transactions, including acquisitions, divestitures and spin-offs, that are considered material to the achievement of the targets.
(c) Matching Achieved Market Cap Targets With Achieved Operational Targets. When a market cap target for an option tranche, as described above, is achieved it can be matched with either an achieved revenue target or an achieved EBITDA target, as described above. When that “match” occurs the tranche (representing 1/12 of the option) vests.
Following are three characteristics of the operational targets that should be noted:
(i) The two types of operational targets are not linked (they are simply two sets of targets) and an achieved target in either category can be “matched” with an achieved market cap target.
(ii) An achieved revenue target or an achieved EBITDA target, until used as a “match” for vesting purposes, continues to be available for matching even if revenues or adjusted EBITDA, as the case may be, subsequently fall below the achieved target level.
(iii) Once an achieved revenue target or an achieved EBITDA target is matched with an achieved market cap resulting in vesting it cannot be used again.
(d) Example. Assume that the market cap target of $100 billion is met and that the operational targets of $20 billion in revenues and $1.5 billion in adjusted EBITDA also have been met. The achieved market cap target can be matched with either of the two achieved operational targets—in this assumption either the achieved revenue target of $20 billion or the achieved EBITDA target of $1.5 billion. As a result, Tranche 1 becomes vested. Note that one of the two achieved operational targets was not needed in order to have a “match” for vesting purposes and will be available for matching with a market cap target achieved in the future. For example, achievement of a market cap target of $150 billion could then be matched with such achieved but unused operational target to result in vesting of a tranche.
Consequences of a Termination of Employment or Cessation as Chief Company Executive. If, for any reason, Mr. Musk's employment terminates or if he ceases to be the Chief Company Executive he will forfeit tranches of the option that are not yet vested. Chief Company Executive is defined in the award agreement as service as either (1) the Chief Executive Officer or (2) the Executive Chairman and Chief Product Officer.
Upon any termination of employment, Mr. Musk will have one year (or, if it occurs sooner, the date on which the original 10-year term of the option expires) to exercise any portion of the option that is vested and unexercised at the time of such termination. Upon cessation as Chief Company Executive, for so long as Mr. Musk remains employed with Tesla he will have until the option expiration date to exercise any portion of the option that is vested and unexercised.
Consequences of a Change in Control. Upon a change in control:
• the operational targets are disregarded and the achievement of the market cap targets is determined by using the greater of (x) the market cap immediately before the change in control and (y) the total value received by Tesla shareholders in connection with the change in control;
• Mr. Musk will forfeit tranches of the option that are not yet vested and do not otherwise vest, as discussed in the bullet point above, upon the change in control; and
• any vested and unexercised portion of the option will be exercisable until the option expiration date, whether or not Mr. Musk continues to be employed with Tesla.
Required Holding Period for Acquired Shares. Shares acquired upon the exercise of the option must be held for five years following their acquisition. Shares used for cashless exercise and shares used to satisfy tax withholding obligations are not considered dispositions for this purpose.
Non-Deductibility of Option
Under Internal Revenue Code §162(m) Tesla is limited to a maximum deduction of $1 million for compensation provided in respect of a taxable year to a “covered employee.” (Mr. Musk is a covered employee.)
Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), stock options were exempted from the Code §162(m) limitation. TCJA removes that exemption, and as a result, for taxable years commencing after Dec. 31, 2017, amounts realized by a covered employee upon exercise of a nonqualified stock option will be included in the compensation of such employee that is subject to the Code §162(m) limitation.
A binding written contract entered on or before Nov. 2, 2017 is grandfathered from the new rule. Since the Musk option was granted on Jan. 21, 2018 it will not be grandfathered and thus will be subject to the Code §162(m) limitation.
Conclusion
The Musk option, like many of Mr. Musk's achievements, is extraordinary. This is so whether measured, on the date of grant, by a traditional option valuation model (e.g., Monte Carlo, $2.6 billion) or by the value of the Tesla shares subject to it ($7.1 billion). If all targets are met (achievement of all 12 market cap targets and 12 of the 16 operational targets) the market cap of Tesla would be at least $650 billion. This is in the range of the market caps of companies with the largest market caps today (e.g., Apple, Alphabet and Amazon). At a market cap of $650 billion, Tesla estimates that the spread of the option would be approximately $55.8 billion (without taking into account adjustments for certain dilutions that might occur in the future).
Is this extraordinary option reasonable compensation for Tesla to be providing Mr. Musk? Would he produce the same results for Tesla without it? Or with something less? As noted above, the option was approved by well over a majority of Tesla shareholders (excluding Mr. Musk and his brother) who voted at the special meeting held to approve it in March. In a recent Delaware case, In re Tesla Motors Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 12711-VCS (Del. Ch. March 28, 2018), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that approval by a majority of Tesla shareholders of an acquisition by Tesla of another corporation, SolarCity Corporation, owned in part by Mr. Musk, did not prevent review by the court of the transaction under the “entire fairness” doctrine. The majority vote was reached without taking into account the vote of Mr. Musk. The Court of Chancery concluded that “it is reasonably conceivable that Musk, as a controlling stockholder, controlled the Tesla Board in connection with the Acquisition.” For this purpose, citing Delaware authority, the court states that a “controlling stockholder” includes one who exercises control over the corporation's business affairs notwithstanding being a minority stockholder. Thus, the court held that the majority shareholder vote did not eliminate the need for court review of the fairness of the transaction.
It should also be noted that Mr. Musk currently is serving in leadership roles at other companies, including as chief executive officer at a 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).
Mr. Musk has prodigious talents. We extend our best wishes to Mr. Musk and Tesla for results at Tesla that will produce full vesting of Mr. Musk's option and extraordinary value for the shareholders of Tesla, including Mr. Musk.
Joseph E. Bachelder III is special counsel to McCarter & English. 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 AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Don't Be Afraid:' AGs Push Against Trump's Immigration Policy
- 2State AG Hammers Homebuilder That Put $2,000-Per-day Non-Disparagement Penalty in Buyer Contracts
- 3Selendy Gay Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Workforce Reclassification EO
- 4Trump's DOJ Withdraws Opposition to Law Banning Trans Care for Minors
- 5Perkins Coie Backs Challenge to Trump's Ban on Transgender Military Service
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.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250