Tesla vote results: shareholders said ‘yes’ again to his ~$55B in pay, claims Musk
With Tesla’s shareholder meeting still hours away, Tesla CEO Elon Musk shared charts suggesting that shareholders have approved two controversial ballot measures.
With Tesla’s shareholder meeting coming tomorrow, Tesla has been spending the last several weeks campaigning hard to get shareholders to vote. There are multiple shareholder proposals on the ballot, along with votes to reapprove two of Tesla’s board members who have been much criticized for their close ties to Elon Musk – Kimbal Musk, Elon’s brother; and James Murdoch, a friend of Elon and son of Rupert Murdoch, one of the world’s most prominent climate deniers.
The other shareholder proposals are interesting, but everyone’s attention has been on two in particular: whether to reapprove Musk’s previously-voided $55 billion pay package and whether to redomicile the company to Texas from Delaware.
Why this all started
These proposals date back quite some ways, with Tesla shareholders approving a massive compensation package for the CEO in 2018.
However, that package was later voided in the Delaware Court of Chancery, as it was found to be improperly given. The court found that Tesla’s board was not independent enough (the two board members mentioned above were given as examples of non-independent board members), and that Tesla did not properly inform shareholders of the details of the deal.
In the wake of the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision about his illegal pay package, Musk immediately threatened to move the headquarters to Texas.
Soon after that, the Tesla board (with many of the same members as 2018, though also with some new ones) decided to bring this question of Musk’s pay back to current shareholders (with some of the same shareholders as 2018, but many new ones), along with the question over whether to move the company’s state of incorporation to Texas, rather than Delaware.
Why Delaware, anyway?
Delaware is an extremely popular state for companies to incorporate in – with a majority of US businesses, both large and small, choosing it to incorporate – as it is quite business-friendly with numerous benefits for businesses that incorporate there.
We spoke with Samantha Crispin, a Mergers & Acquisitions lawyer with Baker Botts, this week in advance of the vote, who told us that one of the main draws of Delaware is its many years of established caselaw which means businesses have more predictable outcomes in the case of lawsuits.
However, Crispin said, lately, some other states, primarily Texas and Nevada, have been trying to position themselves as options for businesses to incorporate in, though neither has nearly the history and established processes as Delaware does. Texas wants to establish a set of business-friendly courts, but those courts have not yet been established, which means there is no history of caselaw to draw on.
The campaigning process
For the last several weeks, Tesla has been pushing the vote – even spending ad money to influence shareholders to vote in favor of the pay and redomiciling proposals.
Part of the reason for this is because while the pay package only requires 50% of votes cast to pass, the redomiciling proposal requires 50% of total shares outstanding. So if turnout is low, then there’s no way the latter can pass, even if the former still can.
And the discussion was quite heated – Tesla shared statements from many prominent investors in support of the proposals, though we also saw major pension funds and proxy advisory firms recommending that shareholders vote against.
The deadline to vote remotely was just before midnight, June 12, Central time. It is still possible to vote shares in person tomorrow, physically at the shareholder meeting in Texas, but most of the counting will have been done by then.
Musk leaks results of upcoming vote
So tonight, a couple hours before the deadline, Musk shared what he claimed are the tentative results of the vote on twitter:
Musk states that “both” resolutions are passing, but leaves out multiple other resolutions that are on the ballot – ones about director term length, simple majority voting, anti-harassment and discrimination reporting, collective bargaining, electromagnetic radiation, sustainability metrics, and mineral sourcing.
And while the charts aren’t all that precise, a few interesting trends are notable here.
First, there are significantly fewer votes in favor of the compensation package than the move to Texas. Currently about 2 billion shares voted for the Texas move, which is enough to pass the ~1.6 billion threshold for the vote to succeed (out of ~3.2 billion shares outstanding), but only about 1.35 billion voted for Musk’s pay package.
So Musk himself may be less popular than the knee-jerk Texas move he proposed. Part of that difference is accounted for by Musk’s 411 million shares, which aren’t allowed to vote on his own pay package, but that still leaves a gulf of several hundred million shares. We don’t know the total number of shares that weren’t allowed to vote on this measure, so we can’t really draw a conclusion there.
Second, there is a sharp turn upward on June 12, which suggests that many shares waited until the very last day to vote – and that those last-day voters were much more likely to be in favor of each proposal, as there is no similar last-day upturn of “no” votes.
WSJ reported that many of these last votes are accounted for by Vanguard and Blackrock, both of whom waited until the last minute to cast their votes.
Third, the total number of shares voted is somewhere on the order of ~2.2 billion, which is still only a ~70% turnout, which is high but not hugely higher than turnout has been in the past (63% is the previous high-water mark). This suggests that all the campaigning for turnout had some, but still relatively little effect at turning out more votes.
But if we assume that campaigning resulted in about a ~10% turnout boost, that’s some 300 million votes, and could have made the difference on either vote (which both seem like they passed by about that margin).
It’s also quite rare for any company to see shareholders vote against a board recommendation. Despite that these measures both passed, they each saw significant resistance, much higher than generally expected from corporate proceedings.
Some of this might change tomorrow with votes cast at the shareholder meeting itself – if many voters waited until the last moment remotely, there might be more who wait until the last moment tomorrow. And it is still possible for shareholders to change their votes up until the shareholder meeting happens, so things could (but are unlikely to) change.
But if these charts are to be believed, each of these proposals has already gathered enough votes to be a “guaranteed win” (the line for the pay package is lower due to the exclusion of Musk’s shares – and seemingly the exclusion of other shares, given the line is ~600 million shares lower than the line for the Texas move).
What’s next?
You’d think that was the end of the article, but it’s not. Despite this vote finally being (almost) behind us, there are bound to be many legal challenges ahead.
The vote on the pay package can be thought more in an advisory capacity than anything. Tesla says it will appeal the original decision in Delaware, regardless of whether the Texas move passes. It will surely use today’s vote as evidence in that case, stating that shareholders, even when fully informed, are still in favor of the package.
But these proposals may be challenged in the same way as the original proposal was. There are still several members of the Tesla board who are close to Musk, and therefore aren’t particularly “independent” directors, which is thought of as important in corporate ethics. And Tesla did campaign heavily in favor of specific options to the point of spending ad money for it, which seems… sketchy.
And the very tweet we’re talking about in this article might come up in legal cases as well. Musk’s leaking of the vote – which he did both today just before the remote deadline, and a few days ago – is kind of a no-no. Disney did the same for a shareholder vote recently, and the ethics of that were questioned.
The problem is, leaks can influence a vote – and given the number of votes required to make both proposals successful only came in after Musk leaked results, that only gives more credence to the idea that these votes might have been influenced.
And then there’s the matter of the lawyers who won the compensation-voiding case in the first place. After saving the company’s shareholders $55 billion, those lawyers have asked for a $6 billion fee – a relatively low percentage as far as lawyers’ fees go, but many balk at the idea of paying a small group of lawyers so much money (after all, no single person’s effort is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, much less $55 billion… right?).
To say nothing of other possible lawsuits or SEC investigations that might be filed over the actions or statements made in the run-up to this vote.
The fact is, this situation is something we really haven’t seen before. Legal observers aren’t sure where this will go from here, and many in the world of corporate law are interested to see how it turns out.
The one thing everyone knows, though, is that this will drag on for quite some time. So grab your popcorn and buckle up, folks.
Electrek’s Take
Personally, these are both proposals that do not strike me as particularly good governance.
Spending $55 billion on a CEO who has been distracted for years and whose main actions since returning his focus to Tesla have been to fire everyone including important leadership and successful teams, push back an all-important affordable car project and holding Tesla’s AI projects hostage while shifting both resources and staff from Tesla to his private AI company, even as he claims that AI is the future of Tesla.
It doesn’t seem like money well spent, given that that same amount of money could be spent paying six-figure salaries to every last one of the ~14,000 fired employees… for 40 whole years.
I’d certainly prefer the collective effort of all those smart folks to 1/7th of the attention of a guy who has seemed more interested in advocating for the policies of a climate denying political party (that recently got expelled from the anti-immigrant EU party for being too racist even for them) than he has in running his largest company.
As for the other proposal, moving to Texas is a question worth considering, but it’s just too premature given the long history of caselaw in Delaware. This is not the case with Texas, which is only just establishing the business courts that it’s trying to lure corporations to redomicile with. Texas says it will be very business-friendly, but we just don’t have any evidence other than statements to that effect.
So these are conversations worth having, but they weren’t had – this decision was made as a knee-jerk reaction by a spurned egomaniac, not after cold calculation of the benefits for the corporation.
But, here’s the rub. Those who have lost confidence in Musk’s ability to lead the company are disproportionately likely to have sold their shares already, especially while watching them slide in value more than 50% from TSLA’s highs (as Musk himself has repeatedly sold huge chunks of shares), and by almost 30% in this year alone.
This means that those who still hold shares would be disproportionately likely to vote in favor of the package.
Despite to this self-selecting effect, Musk may take this vote as a vote of confidence in his leadership – when the true vote of confidence in his leadership is reflected in the stock slide in recent times, with more people selling than holding.
I think it’s quite clear that Musk’s recent actions, just a small selection of which were mentioned earlier in this Take, are not beneficial for Tesla’s health in either the long or short term. He’s too distracted with his other companies, with stroking his ego through his misguided twitter acquisition, and with acting as a warrior in any number of culture wars that are at best irrelevant, if not actively harmful, to his largest company’s success. And when the Eye of Sauro… I mean, Musk aims back in the direction of Tesla, he makes wild decisions that do not seem well-considered.
This is not what I would call the behavior of a quality CEO, and while some of us aren’t financially invested in the decisions made by Tesla, all of us in the world are invested in what happens in the EV industry, of which Tesla is an outsized player. It is necessary for the world that we electrify transport rapidly to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and Tesla has been the primary driver of moving the world towards sustainable transport for several years now.
But for some time now, that mission does not seem to be Musk’s primary focus, and that’s bad for EVs broadly, and bad for Tesla specifically.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
![Hyundai's small new EV has a wild aero hatch design and ducktail spoiler [Image]](https://i0.wp.com/electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/12/Hyundai-small-EV-design.jpeg?resize=1200,628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
The IONIQ 3 is set to arrive as a smaller sibling to the IONIQ 5, but it will look a little different from other Hyundai EVs.
The Hyundai IONIQ 3 will debut a new EV design
Hyundai previewed the new electric hatchback, dubbed the Concept Three, at the Munich Motor Show in September.
The “Three” is Hyundai’s first compact electric vehicle concept under the IONIQ series, set to bring a radical new design to the family.
According to Hyundai, the Concept Three “represents the next step in the company’s electrification journey.” Production is expected to begin in early 2026 at Hyundai’s manufacturing plant in Turkey, with deliveries starting shortly thereafter.
The new design, “Art of Steel,” is inspired by Hyundai’s advanced steel technology. Hyundai calls the Aero Hatch profile “a new typology that reimagines the compact EV silhouette.”
Hyundai kept a few of its signature design elements from other IONIQ EV models, like the Parametric Pixel lights at the front and rear.
With its official debut approaching, a few IONIQ 3 prototypes have been spotted driving in public in South Korea. Despite heavy camouflage, you could tell the production version was shaping up to be nearly identical to the Concept Three.
A new image from KindelAuto offers a closer look at the IONIQ 3, spotted in Europe with barely any camouflage.
You can clearly see the vehicle’s profile stays close to the concept, with a sleek, hot-hatch design and a ducktail spoiler.
The compact EV is 4,287 mm long, 1,940 mm wide, and 1,428 mm tall, with a wheelbase of 2,722 mm, or about the size of the Kia EV3 or Volkswagen ID.3.
Hyundai has yet to reveal battery specs or prices, but it’s expected to offer 58.3 kWh and 81.4 kWh battery packs, like the Kia EV3, providing a WLTP range of around 365 miles. Given the Kona Electric starts at £35,000 ($47,000), the IONIQ 3 will likely be priced closer to £25,000 ($33,700).
For those in the US, sadly, the IONIQ 3 is not expected to make the trip overseas, given America’s growing love for bigger trucks and SUVs.
The IONIQ 5 does, however, remain one of the most affordable EVs in the US, starting at under $35,000 with leases as low as $189 per month.
If you’re considering an EV, Hyundai’s lineup is absolutely worth checking out — offering over 300 miles of range, fast charging, modern tech, at a price that’s actually reasonable. Check out the links below to see what’s available by you.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk went on a podcast this week to express regret over the time he spent trying to destroy the American government, claiming that he wouldn’t do it again.
In the first half of this year, Musk took a position advising convicted felon Donald Trump (who cannot legally hold office in the US) on what essential government jobs to trim.
He named the group he led the “Department of Government Efficiency,” despite that it was never an actual government department, nor did it do a whole lot to increase efficiency as we will see below.
Musk claimed before taking the position that he could save the government $2 trillion – which was always going to be literally impossible, given the amount of discretionary spending in the US budget, as anyone with a passing interest in American government could have told you at the time.
Unsurprisingly, Musk was unable to succeed in the impossible cuts he had proposed. After less than half a year (incidentally, not far off from the 130-day cap for unofficial advisory positions), Musk left the position amid a fiery breakup with Mr. Trump. The breakup led to a big drop in Tesla stock, which had been inflated due to expectations of corruption.
All in all, Musk claims that he cut around $200 billion from the government’s budget, but actual analyses show that those numbers were fake and in fact that his actions likely increased the budget deficit, rather than decreasing it. This is due to the disruption in necessary government services, higher costs for employee severance, and lost revenue for the government as ultra-wealthy tax cheats will be able to get off without paying their fair share.
And, in the interim, republicans passed a law that gives away $4 trillion to those same wealthy elites, adding $3.3 trillion to the deficit. That number is 16 times larger than even the inflated $200 billion “savings” number Musk claims.
How Musk’s actions harmed Tesla, not just the US
But Musk’s actions cosplaying as a government official had other effects than his failure to effectively cut waste: they turned public opinion against his companies, mainly Tesla.
Over the last couple years, Musk has increasingly tried to involve himself in politics, both in the US and abroad. His politics have largely focused on pushing white supremacist nonsense including support for German neo-Nazis and agreeing with a defense of Hitler, and funding and supporting groups that oppose renewable energy and vehicle electrification. He’s even rhetorically got into climate change denial himself.
These actions have directly harmed Tesla through loss of expected revenue, and have also reduced the brand’s profile in the public eye. Tesla is now the only EV brand with negative perception, and it’s due to Musk himself. His actions have driven protests against the company, embarrassed owners and pushed many customers away – including business customers.
As a result, Tesla’s sales have been falling both in the US and around the globe in a rising EV market. All told, one study found that he cost Tesla over 1 million sales in the US alone with his braindead political takes. Even his own company had to chide him.
It wasn’t hard to see this coming
These results were eminently foreseeable – anyone can tell you that business leaders typically should remain neutral on politics as a rule, and generally only speak on issues that directly involve their company or industry.
Wading into wedge issues and identity politics as a business leader can only serve to turn off customers, and since negative motivations are generally stronger than positive ones, you will net lose sales even if you appeal to some portion of the population with your advocacy.
And if you do advocate for something, it should probably be for something that will help your companies, rather than hurt them.
But Elon Musk is different. Unlike most business leaders, he has millions of useful idiots at his beck and call on twitter at any time (and it is indeed where he spends all of his time), ready and willing to tell him that all of his ideas are genius, no matter how braindead they are, or how recycled they are from his rage-filled feed which seems to be his only source of information these days. Why should conventional wisdom apply to someone who is constantly told conventional wisdom doesn’t apply to him?
And so, he ignored – or rather, probably didn’t even see, given the echo chamber he has formed around himself – the conventional wisdom telling him what a bad idea all of this was. And now, years later, he’s finally showing the slightest moment of lucidity that perhaps all of the above was not a great use of time.
Musk finally recognizes what we’ve been telling him all along
This week, Musk went on a podcast (hosted by Katie Miller, wife of American white supremacist Stephen Miller) and claimed that his advisory board was “a little bit successful. We were somewhat successful,” which is a rather middling assessment given his big initial claims of being able to save the government trillions of dollars.
But further, he went on to say that he wouldn’t do it all over again, and that “instead of doing DOGE, I would have, basically, built … worked on my companies.”
He said that if he had done that instead, “they wouldn’t have been burning the cars.” This is a reference to Tesla protests, which have largely not included burning anything, but which have been widespread globally.
We, of course, agree that that would have been a better course of action. Which is why we said it at the time. Perhaps it’s time to get off twitter and read some real thoughts for once, Mr. Musk. We’re not sure if the damage you’ve done is repairable (though it was certainly preventable), but as they say, “garbage in, garbage out” – the more nonsense you read, the more nonsense you’ll continue to get up to.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
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. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
BMW is the latest major automaker to officially gain access to the Tesla Supercharger network in North America. Starting today, BMW EV drivers in the US can access over 25,000 Tesla Superchargers, adding a massive boost to the charging options for owners of the i4, iX, and other electric models from the German automaker.
It follows a wave of other automakers gaining access over the last year as the industry transitions to NACS (North American Charging Standard), Tesla’s proprietary connector that has now become the standard.
BMW confirmed today that the update is effective immediately. Owners can find Tesla Superchargers directly in their vehicle’s navigation system and the My BMW app.
However, like most other automakers making this transition, there is hardware involved. Current BMW EVs, which are equipped with CCS ports, will require a CCS-to-NACS adapter to use the vast majority of Tesla’s V3 and V4 Superchargers.
According to BMW, official adapters will go on sale as accessories starting in Q2 2026. That is a bit of a wait, but in the meantime, some third-party adapters are already on the market.
For those lucky enough to live near one of Tesla’s few “Magic Dock” locations (Superchargers with a built-in CCS adapter), any BMW EV can charge immediately without needing to buy extra hardware.
BMW also clarified its timeline for native NACS ports, which will eliminate the need for an adapter entirely. The transition begins with the 2026 BMW i5 M60, followed by other models throughout the year, including the highly anticipated Neue Klasse iX3, which is expected to be a competitor of the higher-end trims of Tesla’s popular Model Y.
Interestingly, there is a software hurdle for some specific 2026 models. BMW noted that the 2026 iX and i5 eDrive40 will not be able to use Tesla Superchargers until they receive a remote software upgrade, also scheduled for Q2 2026.
One of the biggest pain points for non-Tesla EVs using the Supercharger network has been the user experience. Tesla has set a high bar with its “plug and play” ecosystem.
BMW seems to have done a good job integrating this. The automaker says that its Plug & Charge is supported at Tesla stations. You won’t need the Tesla app to start a session. Instead, billing is handled through the customer’s Shell Recharge account, which is integrated into the My BMW app.
Pricing will follow Tesla’s standard rate structure for non-Tesla vehicles, which is generally higher than what Tesla owners pay unless you pay a monthly membership fee.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024