Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#31

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kilroy123 wrote: post #20
ericb wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not half-assing it, but he has Mars goals which are likely to distract him at some point. He is serious about his Mars efforts. At a certain point it makes sense for him to leave to focus on that, unless staying at Tesla also helps him hit his Mars goal by 10xing the resources he can dedicate to the effort.

He said he wants all this money just so he can fund colonizing Mars. So I'm guessing he'd take that money and just privately fund SpaceX, like Jeff Bozos is doing with blue origin.

> I'm guessing he'd take that money and just privately fund SpaceX

If his goal is to colonize Mars and you want him to sell cars, a good way to do that is to say "sell cars for 10 years and we'll give you enough capital to do in the following 10 what you couldn't do in 20 from today."

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#32

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #5

There should be some sort of law that prevents this. Musk's companies have taken over 5 billion in government subsidies, why are my tax dollars going towards the creation of billionaires?

GM makes more off the subsidies than Tesla. Does that bother you too?

Yes!

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#33

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

zaroth wrote: post #15
John_KZ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subsidies do have a reason to exist, but I agree that they're misdirected. They could directly fund R&D of battery/EV/aerospace technology instead of subsidizing luxury vehicles that only serve as a novelty for the rich.

The subsidies are directly funding R&D of battery/EV/aerospace technology. But this way, the rich people buying the cars are also funding it, as well as the investors buying equity. The tax incentives are working precisely as they were designed, and for every dollar in subsidy there’s probably $9 more in outside investment coming onboard.

The subsidies are directly funding Musk's wallet as much or more than they are funding battery research.

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#34

Post by ericHosick »

John_KZ wrote: post #11
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #5

There should be some sort of law that prevents this. Musk's companies have taken over 5 billion in government subsidies, why are my tax dollars going towards the creation of billionaires?

The subsidies do have a reason to exist, but I agree that they're misdirected. They could directly fund R&D of battery/EV/aerospace technology instead of subsidizing luxury vehicles that only serve as a novelty for the rich.

I think a lot of people miss that R&D is expensive and it is often takes those who can 'throw away money' to help fund it. This is on top of any subsidies that may exist for that R&D.

Look at cars, cell phones, computers and airplanes ("[1930's] Most people still rode trains or buses for intercity travel because flying was so expensive. A coast-to-coast round trip cost around $260, about half of the price of a new automobile. Only business executives and the wealthy could afford to fly.)"

I would love to travel to Space one time and I hope some day I can take a flight into space. Right now, space flight will literally be a "luxury vehicle that only serve as a novelty for the rich." There is no way I'll ever be able to afford it unless it is first affordable by the rich.

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#35

Post by FireBeyond »

ericb wrote: post #19
freddie_mercury wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk already owns tons of Tesla story and should be motivated by that. There's absolutely no evidence that additional equity would motivate him more. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Like much CEO pay, Musk's pay package is more about status than about motivating him. Or is someone really going to try to make the case that he's kinda half-assing it right now?

He's not half-assing it, but he has Mars goals which are likely to distract him at some point. He is serious about his Mars efforts. At a certain point it makes sense for him to leave to focus on that, unless staying at Tesla also helps him hit his Mars goal by 10xing the resources he can dedicate to the effort.

Right, not so much half-assing as diluted, distracted in too many different ways.

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#36

Post by dsacco »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #16
feniv wrote: post #9

The article doesn't go into much details of the stock award. Musk is proposing not taking a salary for the next 10 years and receiving a 1% stock award each time he meets some insanely aggressive milestones: https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Tesla-C... http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1054948 I'm not a TSLA shareholder, but tying CEO performance to company performance rather than an…

Musk already owns tons of Tesla story and should be motivated by that. There's absolutely no evidence that additional equity would motivate him more. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Like much CEO pay, Musk's pay package is more about status than about motivating him. Or is someone really going to try to make the case that he's kinda half-assing it right now?

> There's absolutely no evidence that additional equity would motivate him more.

Yes there is. Presumably, if Musk proposed a compensation package, it’s because he wants that compensation, and if the compensation is tied to uncertain milestones, he’ll be motivated to get the thing he wants by trying to achieve those milestones. It’s not as though someone proposed this to Musk and he said, “yeah sure, whatever.”

> Like much CEO pay, Musk's pay package is more about status than about motivating him.

Status can be very motivating. Obviously no one is in it for the “marginal utility of wealth” at the level of wealth Musk has, but the ability to pay for basic needs strikes me as a pretty one-dimensional way to view the way money can be motivating.

Extremely wealthy people still clearly pursue more wealth, so it’s pretty straightforwardly motivating in some sense.

> Or is someone really going to try to make the case that he's kinda half-assing it right now?

It’s not really a matter of “half-assing”, it’s a matter of further aligning someone’s goals with the organization they’re leading. Your implication here seems to be that someone can’t do a better job than they’re doing unless they’re slacking.

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#37

Post by cagenut »

lend000 wrote: post #18
freddie_mercury wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk already owns tons of Tesla story and should be motivated by that. There's absolutely no evidence that additional equity would motivate him more. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Like much CEO pay, Musk's pay package is more about status than about motivating him. Or is someone really going to try to make the case that he's kinda half-assing it right now?

> On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. For the average person, but who are you to decide? He clearly already spends his money productively by largely self-funding ambitious projects, and I suspect that he would be pursuing even more if he had infinite resources.

I'm a shareholder and I just voted against for basically this reason. I don't think the difference between owning 20 billion in equity and owning 25 billion in equity (or whatever) will mater to musk at all. he's fine. and he's going to try to finish what he started either way.

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#38

Post by tehlike »

cagenut wrote: post #37
lend000 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. For the average person, but who are you to decide? He clearly already spends his money productively by largely self-funding ambitious projects, and I suspect that he would be pursuing even more if he had infinite resources.

I'm a shareholder and I just voted against for basically this reason. I don't think the difference between owning 20 billion in equity and owning 25 billion in equity (or whatever) will mater to musk at all. he's fine. and he's going to try to finish what he started either way.

HE can fund his future ambitions with the additional equity.

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#39

Post by cptaj »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #16
feniv wrote: post #9

The article doesn't go into much details of the stock award. Musk is proposing not taking a salary for the next 10 years and receiving a 1% stock award each time he meets some insanely aggressive milestones: https://cdn.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Tesla-C... http://ir.tesla.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=1054948 I'm not a TSLA shareholder, but tying CEO performance to company performance rather than an…

Musk already owns tons of Tesla story and should be motivated by that. There's absolutely no evidence that additional equity would motivate him more. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. Like much CEO pay, Musk's pay package is more about status than about motivating him. Or is someone really going to try to make the case that he's kinda half-assing it right now?

For personal use, sure. But remember he wants to fund Mars missions.

Re: Tesla's $2.6B Musk Award Too Costly, Glass Lewis Says

#40

Post by wirelessest »

cagenut wrote: post #37
lend000 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. For the average person, but who are you to decide? He clearly already spends his money productively by largely self-funding ambitious projects, and I suspect that he would be pursuing even more if he had infinite resources.

I'm a shareholder and I just voted against for basically this reason. I don't think the difference between owning 20 billion in equity and owning 25 billion in equity (or whatever) will mater to musk at all. he's fine. and he's going to try to finish what he started either way.

But the cost to his ego for not meeting a milestone which receives even more publicity because of the big price tag is a big motivator (or at least one could argue)

So even if the utility of the funds isn't consequential, a package like this might be one if the few ways to further incentivize a CEO like Musk.

Post reply on HN