Leo KoGuan has invested more money into Tesla than anyone in the world, yet he can’t even get his concerns heard by the company’s board. The shareholder is frustrated with some of the CEO’s recent controversies, but with the board MIA, there’s no way to reign him in.
The Indonesian-born Chinese American businessman is better known for founding SHI International Corp, a large private IT company that made him a billionaire. He is also involved in academia and philanthropy.
KoGuan has previously described himself as an “Elon fanboy” (the featured image above is him and Musk) and believes in Tesla’s mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy. He has been willing to put his money on it and by 2022, he had invested more money in Tesla than Musk himself.
Of course, Musk invested early in Tesla, and therefore, he holds a bigger share with a smaller investment.
KoGuan is the third largest individual shareholder in the company, but you could argue that he is the biggest Tesla investor as he invested more than anyone in the company: $3.5 billion.
The investor is active on X. On the platform, he has been mostly supportive of Musk and Tesla, but like many other shareholders, he started to be more critical since Musk sold about $40 billion worth of Tesla shares to buy Twitter.
Interestingly, KoGuan doesn’t really comment on Musk’s most controversial statements, but he is concerned about his sales of Tesla stocks, how he did them, and what it means for his commitment to Tesla.
“Dear Leader”(Supreme Leader), you already have the absolute power over Tesla, BOD is MIA and your shareholders/adopted children have been abused lately.
Dear Leader to BOD and adopted children: You morons!
BOD and adopted children to their dad: Kowtowing to the Dear Leader… https://t.co/JFcmGtGNK5
KoGuan likes to call Tesla shareholders Elon’s “adopted children” and more recently, his “abused adopted children”. “Dear leader” is a reference to Kim Jong-il, the former supreme leader of North Korea.
I asked him yesterday if he has received any feedback from Tesla’s board or investor relations regarding his concerns, and this was his response:
“No response. Nil. Tesla is a family business masquerading as a public company to benefit only one person with his few friends and family. “
KoGuan is particularly concerned about the lack of oversight on how Musk dumped his Tesla shares on the open market. He told Electrek:
Why SEC allowed a CEO of a public company to dump his stocks worth more than $40 billion naked in the market to push the price down while predicting a market crash? He is now negative investing in Tesla or about minus $39 billion. He could have asked Goldman Sachs and Morgan Staley to sell those in block sales to fund managements that could keep those stocks, not dumping them in the market? Tesla’s shareholders are his abused adopted kids whom he could abuse with impunity.
It is fairly common amongst large shareholders and company insiders to set up a plan to sell large amounts of stocks in order to minimize the impact on the market.
The investor is bringing up legitimate questions and even though he is one of the largest shareholders, he can’t be heard by the board.
The board of directors of a public company is tasked with setting strategy, overseeing management, and protecting the interests of shareholders and stakeholders. It is technically overseeing the CEO, Elon Musk, who is, in turn, in charge of the entire management and operation of the company.
For large companies like Tesla, it is preferred that the board be independent of the management, but in the case of Tesla, the board has long been seen as being under Musk’s control. As Tesla grew, shareholders put pressure to hire independent board members, which Tesla eventually did.
But the board is still widely believed to be too close to Musk. Musk’s brother Kimbal, as well as longtime friends Ira Ehrenpreis, James Murdoch, and JB Straubel, are all on the board.
“Tesla is a family business masquerading as a public company.” Those are strong words coming from the biggest investors in the company. And it’s hard to argue against those words.
Do you know of any other major public companies like Tesla that don’t even have a public relations department? Elon is basically the sole mouthpiece for the company.
Tesla has 140,000 employees. It’s worth more than $600 billion. And yet, it appears to be completely under Elon’s thumb, for better or worse. It might have been for the better early on. No one believed in the vision more than Elon. His unwavering belief in himself and the mission helped break through doubts, but now Tesla is a different company. It’s not the underdog fighting for the impossible anymore. It made the impossible happen. EVs are now mainstream. Energy storage is now a critical part of the renewable energy infrastructure.
Now, it is about properly managing the immense scaling of that business, which is badly needed to support the world’s transition to renewable energy. It’s about a wide appeal. It’s not about being decisive. Tesla might need strong governance more than it needs a maverick at this point.
As for the board, it remains silent and uncommunicative to shareholders despite serious conflicts of interest and even possibly a breach of fiduciary duties of its CEO.
Yet, now 6 years later, Elon poaches Tesla employees to work on X and his new AI startup xAI, and openly talks about not building AI products at Tesla if he doesn’t get 25% control over the company, but the board doesn’t do anything.
Even one of the biggest shareholders and supporters of the company, Leo KoGuan, can’t get his concerns heard by the board. What hope do smaller investors like us have? It’s shameful, really.
The fact that Elon has the guts to ask for more control over Tesla when it’s clear that he has complete control over the company right now is absolutely ridiculous.
Of course, he only wants control of the votes and “not more economics”, as he said, and it’s just a coincidence that there’s no way to give him more control over the votes without giving him more shares, which he wasted on an overpriced Twitter.
There wouldn’t be a Tesla without Musk. It would have died on several occasions without him. But Tesla also would have died without its strong base of retail investors. They need to be heard. The board needs to do better.
I still have a little bit of hope though. I think the board could find the courage to confront Musk and, at the very least, have him agree to a framework that keeps Tesla safe from his clear conflicts of interest. If even that can’t be achieved, it might be time for a new full-time CEO at Tesla.
What do you think? Let us know in the comment section below.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
President Donald Trump‘s attack on solar and wind projects threatens to raise energy prices for consumers and undermine a stretched electric grid that’s already straining to meet rapidly growing demand, renewable energy executives warn.
Trump has long said wind power turbines are unattractive and endanger birds, and that solar installations take up too much land. This week, he said his administration will not approve solar and wind projects, the latest salvo in a campaign the president has waged against the renewable energy industry since taking office.
“We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” Trump posted on Truth Social Wednesday. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!”
Trump’s statement this week seemed to confirm industry fears that the Interior Department will block federal permits for solar and wind projects. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum took control of all permit approvals last month in a move that the American Clean Power Association criticized as “obstruction,” calling it “unprecedented political review.”
The Interior Department blocking permits would slow the growth of the entire solar and wind industry, top executives at renewable developers Arevon, Avantus and Engie North America told CNBC.
Even solar and wind projects on private land may need approvals from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if, for example, a waterway or animal species is affected, the executives told CNBC. The three power companies are among the top 10 renewable developers in the U.S., according to energy research firm Enverus.
The Interior Department “will not give preferential treatment to massive, unreliable projects that make no sense for the American people or that risk harming communities or the environment,” a spokesperson told CNBC when asked if new permits would be issued for solar and wind construction.
Choking off renewables will worsen a looming power supply shortage, harm the electric grid and lead to higher electricity prices for consumers, said Kevin Smith, CEO of Arevon, a solar and battery storage developer headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, that’s active in 17 states. Arevon operates five gigawatts of power equivalent to $10 billion of capital investment.
“I don’t think everybody realizes how big the crunch is going to be,” Smith said. “We’re making that crunch more and more difficult with these policy changes.”
Uncertainty hits investment
The red tape at the Interior Department and rising costs from Trump’s copper and steel tariffs have created market instability that makes planning difficult, the renewable executives said.
“We don’t want to sign contracts until we know what the playing field is,” said Cliff Graham, CEO of Avantus, a solar and battery storage developer headquartered in San Diego. Avantus has built three gigawatts of solar and storage across the desert Southwest.
“I can do whatever you want me to do and have a viable business, I just need the rules set and in place,” Graham said.
Engie North America, the U.S. arm of a global energy company based in Paris, is slashing its planned investment in the U.S. by 50% due to tariffs and regulatory uncertainty, said David Carroll, the chief renewables officer who leads the American subsidiary. Engie could cut its plans even more, he said.
Engie’s North American subsidiary, headquartered in Houston, will operate about 11 gigawatts of solar, battery storage and wind power by year end.
Multinationals like Engie have long viewed the U.S. as one of the most stable business environments in the world, Carroll said. But that assessment is changing in Engie’s boardroom and across the industry, he said.
“The stability of the U.S. business market is no longer really the gold standard,” Carroll said.
Rising costs
Arevon is seeing costs for solar and battery storage projects increase by as much as 30% due to the metal tariffs, said Smith, the CEO. Many renewable developers are renegotiating power prices with utilities to cover the sudden spike in costs because projects no longer pencil out financially, he said.
Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act ends two key tax credits for solar and wind projects in late 2027, making conditions even more challenging. The investment tax credit supported new renewable construction and the production credit boosted clean electricity generation.
Those tax credits were just passed on to consumers, Smith said. Their termination and the rising costs from tariffs will mean higher utility bills for families and businesses, he said.
The price that Avantus charges for solar power has roughly doubled to $60 per megawatt-hour as interest rates and tariffs have increased over the years, said CEO Graham. Prices will surge again to around $100 per megawatt-hour when the tax credits are gone, he said.
“The small manufacturers, small companies and mom and pops will see their electric bills go up, and it’ll start pushing the small entrepreneurs out of the industry or out of the marketplace,” Graham said.
Renewable projects that start construction by next July, a year after the One Big Beautiful Act became law, will still qualify for the tax credits. Arevon, Avantus and Engie are moving forward with projects currently under construction, but the outlook is less certain for projects later in the decade.
The U.S. will see a big downturn in new renewable power generation starting in the second half of 2026 through 2028 as new projects no longer qualify for tax credits, said Smith, the head of Arevon.
“The small- and medium-sized players that can’t take the financial risk, some of them will disappear,” Smith said. “You’re going to see less projects built in the sector.”
Artificial intelligence power crunch
Fewer renewable power plants could increase the risk of brownouts or blackouts, Smith said. Electricity demand is surging from the data centers that technology companies are building to train artificial intelligence systems. PJM Interconnection, the largest electrical grid in the U.S. that coordinates wholesale electricity in 13 states and the District of Columbia, has warned of tight power supplies because too little new generation is coming online.
Renewables are the power source that can most quickly meet demand, Smith at Arevon said. More than 90% of the power waiting to connect to the grid is solar, battery storage or wind, according to data from Enverus.
“The power requirement is largely going to be coming from the new energy sector or not at all,” so without it, “the grid becomes substantially hampered,” Smith said.
Trump is prioritizing oil, gas and nuclear power as “the most effective and reliable tools to power our country,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said.
“President Trump serves the American people who voted to implement his America First energy agenda – not solar and wind executives who are sad that Biden’s Green New Scam subsidies are ending,” Kelly said.
But new natural gas plants won’t come online for another five years due to supply issues, new nuclear power is a decade away and no new coal plants are on the drawing board.
Utilities may have to turn away data centers at some point because there isn’t enough surplus power to run them, and no one wants to risk blackouts at hospitals, schools and homes, Arevon’s Smith said. This would pressure the U.S. in its race against China to master AI, a Trump administration priority.
“The panic in the data center, AI world is probably not going to set in for another 12 months or so, when they start realizing that they can’t get the power they need in some of these areas where they’re planning to build data centers,” Smith said.
“Then we’ll see what happens,” said the University of Chicago MBA, who’s worked in the energy industry for 35 years. “There may be a reversal in policy to try and build whatever we can and get power onto the grid.”
Over the weekend, Tesla began offering many Cybertruck trade-in estimated values above the original purchase price, apparently due to a glitch in its system.
Tesla offers online trade-in estimates for individuals considering purchasing a vehicle from them.
Over the last few days, Cybertruck owners who submitted their vehicles through the system were surprised to see Tesla offering extremely high valuations on the vehicle, often above what they originally paid for the electric truck.
Here are a few examples:
Advertisement – scroll for more content
$79,200 for a 2025 Cybertruck AWD with 18,000 miles. Since this is a 2025 model year, it was eligible for the tax credit and Tesla is offering the same price as new without incentive.
Here Tesla offered $118,800 for a 2024 Cybertruck ‘Cyberbeast’ tri-motor with 21,000 miles.
In this example, Tesla offers $11,000 more than the owner originally paid for a 2024 Cybertruck.
So, trade in the Foundation Series Cybertruck AWD for $11k more than I paid for it originally, re-buy an AWD with FSD for $79,490 after the tax credit.
I’d lose free supercharging for life, Cyberwheels, and white interior.
The trade-in estimates made no sense. Tesla has been known to offer more attractive estimates online and then come lower with the official final offer, but this is on a whole different level.
Some speculated that Tesla’s trade-in estimate system was malfunctioning, while others thought Tesla was indirectly recalling early Cybertrucks.
It appears to be the former.
Some Tesla Cybertruck owners who tried to go through a new order with their Cybertruck as a trade-in were told by Tesla advisors that the system was “glitching” and they would not be honoring those prices.
Tesla told buyers that it would be refunding its usually “non-refundable” order fee.
Electrek’s Take
That’s a weird glitch. I assume that it was trying to change how the trade-in value would be estimated and the new math didn’t work for the Cybertruck for whatever reason.
It’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
The Cybertruck’s value is already quite weird due to the fact that Tesla still has new vehicles made in 2024, which are not eligible for the tax credit incentive, while the new ones made in 2025 are eligible.
There’s also the Foundation Series, which bundles many features for a $20,000 higher price.
All these things affect the value and can make it hard to compare with new Cybertrucks offered with 0% interest.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Like a 90s “gifted” kid that was supposed to be a lot of things, the electric Jeep Wagoneer S never really found its place — but when dealers started discounting the Jeep brands forward-looking flagship by nearly $25,000 back in June, I wrote that it might be time to give the go-fast Wagoneer S a second look.
Whether we’re talking about Mercedes-Benz, Cerberus, Fiat, or even Enzo Ferrari, outsiders have labeled Jeep as a potentially premium brand that could, “if managed properly,” command luxury-level prices all over the globe. That hasn’t happened, and Stellantis is just the latest in a long line of companies to sink massive capital into the brand only to realize that people will not, in fact, spend Mercedes money on a Jeep.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
That said, the Jeep Wagoneer S is not a bad car (and neither is its totally different, hideously massive, ICE-powered Wagoneer sibling, frankly). Built on the same Stellantis STLA Large vehicle platform that underpins the sporty Charger Daytona EVs, the confusingly-named Wagoneer S packs dual electric motors putting out almost 600 hp. That’s good enough to scoot the ‘ute 0 to 60 mph in a stomach-turning 3.5 seconds and enough, on paper, to convince Stellantis executives that they had developed a real, market-ready alternative to the Tesla Model Y.
With the wrong name and a sky-high starting price of $66,995 (not including the $1,795 destination fee), however, that demand didn’t materialize, leaving the Wagoneer S languishing on dealer lots across the country.
That could be about to change, however, thanks to big discounts on Wagoneer S being reported at CDJR dealers in several states:
Jeff Belzer’s in Minnesota has a 2025 Wagoneer S Limited with a $67,790 MSRP for $39,758 ($28,032 off)
Troncalli CDJR in Georgia has a 2025 Wagoneer S Limited with a $67,590 MSRP for $42,697 ($24,893 off)
Whitewater CDJR in Minnesota has a 2025 Wagoneer S Limited with a $67,790 MSRP for $43,846 ($23,944 off)
Antioch CDJR in Illinois has a 2025 Wagoneer S Limited with a $67,790 MSRP for $44,540 ($23,250 off)
“Stellantis bet big on electric versions of iconic American brands like Jeep and Dodge, but consumers aren’t buying the premise,” writes CDG’s Marcus Amick. “(Stellantis’ dealer body) is now stuck with expensive EVs that need huge discounts to move, eating into already thin margins while competitors focus on [more] profitable gas-powered vehicles.”
All of which is to say: if you’ve found yourself drawn to the Jeep Wagoneer S, but couldn’t quite stomach the $70,000+ window stickers, you might want to check in with your local Jeep dealer and see how you feel about it at a JCPenneys-like 30% off!
Jeep Wagoneer S gallery
Original content from Electrek; images via Stellantis.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. The best part? No one will call you until after you’ve elected to move forward. Get started, hassle-free, by clicking here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.