Crisis? What crisis? Musk awarded eye-watering share package
In 2024, a Delaware court voided Musk's 2018 compensation package, valued at over $US50 billion, citing that the Tesla board's approval process was flawed and unfair to shareholders.
Musk kicked off an appeal in March against the order, claiming a lower court judge made multiple legal errors in rescinding the record compensation.
Earlier this year, the EV maker said the board had formed a special committee to consider some compensation matters involving Musk, without disclosing any details.
Tesla is at a turning point as Musk, its largest shareholder with a 13 per cent stake, shifts focus from a promised affordable EV platform to robotaxis and humanoid robots, positioning the company more as an AI and robotics firm than an automaker. Elon Musk is Tesla's largest shareholder with a 13 per cent stake. Credit: AAP
'While we recognise Elon's business ventures, interests and other potential demands on his time and attention are extensive and wide-ranging ... we are confident that this award will incentivise Elon to remain at Tesla,' the special committee said in the filing.
The award is designed to gradually boost Musk's voting power, something he and shareholders have consistently said was key to keeping him focused on Tesla's mission, it added.
Musk must pay Tesla $US23.34 per share of restricted stock that vests, which is equal to the exercise price per share of the 2018 CEO Award, it said in the filing.
Tesla's stock has lost about a quarter of its value so far this year as the company grapples with a decline in sales wrought by its aging vehicle line-up, tough competition and Musk's political stances that have alienated some potential buyers.
The challenges have been worsened by US government cuts in support for EVs, with Musk saying at a post-earnings call last month that the waning subsidies could lead to a 'few rough quarters' for the company before a wave of revenue from self-driving software and services begins late next year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Telcos still failing to support struggling customers
Telecommunication companies have been put on notice for consistently failing to support customers facing financial hardship. Although new financial hardship standards came into effect in 2024, customers are still reporting that simple requests for help are being rejected. A Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman report published on Thursday, based on a review of more than 900 customer complaints, found some telcos were causing or adding to the financial stress of their customers. Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert said the report confirmed that more needed to be done by companies to meet their obligations and support people struggling financially. "We are seeing that telcos aren't consistently supporting consumers and that has a real impact on people's lives and their ability to stay afloat," she told AAP. The report found some telcos even refused to help customers who proactively sought support, including a woman who fell into hardship after experiencing family violence and health complications. She had purchased a device at a store and was talked into additional products but wasn't informed about any of the extra costs. The woman was unable to pay for the extra services and was not offered any help from her telco. The telco ended up selling her debt to a debt collection agency and listed a default on her credit file, which totalled $7000. The cost was waived after she contacted the communications watchdog. "We want people to feel confident that when they reach out to their telco for the help they are entitled to, they'll get the support they need that is right for their circumstances," Ms Gebert said. About three-in-five Australians have experienced some form of financial difficulty, with 41 per cent experiencing high or chronic financial difficulty. Telcos contacted by the communications watchdog indicated increased numbers of customers seeking financial support over the past year, due to ongoing cost-of-living pressures. The report also found that customers prioritising their phone and internet bills over essentials like food or rent, fearing disconnection. Many consumers also reported finding it difficult to initiate a conversation with their telco about financial hardship, with some feeling their telco was unsympathetic. "Phone and internet are so critical to our ability to function in day-to-day society," Ms Gebert said. "It's (how) you access government services, banking services … If you are disconnected, the wide ranging impacts on your ability to function are huge and it can compound." The report's findings come after the introduction of new industry rules aimed at improving financial hardship support in March 2024. The new rules require telcos to provide a minimum of six different options for assistance to customers, and to only disconnect consumers as a measure of last resort. Telecommunication companies have been put on notice for consistently failing to support customers facing financial hardship. Although new financial hardship standards came into effect in 2024, customers are still reporting that simple requests for help are being rejected. A Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman report published on Thursday, based on a review of more than 900 customer complaints, found some telcos were causing or adding to the financial stress of their customers. Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert said the report confirmed that more needed to be done by companies to meet their obligations and support people struggling financially. "We are seeing that telcos aren't consistently supporting consumers and that has a real impact on people's lives and their ability to stay afloat," she told AAP. The report found some telcos even refused to help customers who proactively sought support, including a woman who fell into hardship after experiencing family violence and health complications. She had purchased a device at a store and was talked into additional products but wasn't informed about any of the extra costs. The woman was unable to pay for the extra services and was not offered any help from her telco. The telco ended up selling her debt to a debt collection agency and listed a default on her credit file, which totalled $7000. The cost was waived after she contacted the communications watchdog. "We want people to feel confident that when they reach out to their telco for the help they are entitled to, they'll get the support they need that is right for their circumstances," Ms Gebert said. About three-in-five Australians have experienced some form of financial difficulty, with 41 per cent experiencing high or chronic financial difficulty. Telcos contacted by the communications watchdog indicated increased numbers of customers seeking financial support over the past year, due to ongoing cost-of-living pressures. The report also found that customers prioritising their phone and internet bills over essentials like food or rent, fearing disconnection. Many consumers also reported finding it difficult to initiate a conversation with their telco about financial hardship, with some feeling their telco was unsympathetic. "Phone and internet are so critical to our ability to function in day-to-day society," Ms Gebert said. "It's (how) you access government services, banking services … If you are disconnected, the wide ranging impacts on your ability to function are huge and it can compound." The report's findings come after the introduction of new industry rules aimed at improving financial hardship support in March 2024. The new rules require telcos to provide a minimum of six different options for assistance to customers, and to only disconnect consumers as a measure of last resort. Telecommunication companies have been put on notice for consistently failing to support customers facing financial hardship. Although new financial hardship standards came into effect in 2024, customers are still reporting that simple requests for help are being rejected. A Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman report published on Thursday, based on a review of more than 900 customer complaints, found some telcos were causing or adding to the financial stress of their customers. Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert said the report confirmed that more needed to be done by companies to meet their obligations and support people struggling financially. "We are seeing that telcos aren't consistently supporting consumers and that has a real impact on people's lives and their ability to stay afloat," she told AAP. The report found some telcos even refused to help customers who proactively sought support, including a woman who fell into hardship after experiencing family violence and health complications. She had purchased a device at a store and was talked into additional products but wasn't informed about any of the extra costs. The woman was unable to pay for the extra services and was not offered any help from her telco. The telco ended up selling her debt to a debt collection agency and listed a default on her credit file, which totalled $7000. The cost was waived after she contacted the communications watchdog. "We want people to feel confident that when they reach out to their telco for the help they are entitled to, they'll get the support they need that is right for their circumstances," Ms Gebert said. About three-in-five Australians have experienced some form of financial difficulty, with 41 per cent experiencing high or chronic financial difficulty. Telcos contacted by the communications watchdog indicated increased numbers of customers seeking financial support over the past year, due to ongoing cost-of-living pressures. The report also found that customers prioritising their phone and internet bills over essentials like food or rent, fearing disconnection. Many consumers also reported finding it difficult to initiate a conversation with their telco about financial hardship, with some feeling their telco was unsympathetic. "Phone and internet are so critical to our ability to function in day-to-day society," Ms Gebert said. "It's (how) you access government services, banking services … If you are disconnected, the wide ranging impacts on your ability to function are huge and it can compound." The report's findings come after the introduction of new industry rules aimed at improving financial hardship support in March 2024. The new rules require telcos to provide a minimum of six different options for assistance to customers, and to only disconnect consumers as a measure of last resort. Telecommunication companies have been put on notice for consistently failing to support customers facing financial hardship. Although new financial hardship standards came into effect in 2024, customers are still reporting that simple requests for help are being rejected. A Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman report published on Thursday, based on a review of more than 900 customer complaints, found some telcos were causing or adding to the financial stress of their customers. Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert said the report confirmed that more needed to be done by companies to meet their obligations and support people struggling financially. "We are seeing that telcos aren't consistently supporting consumers and that has a real impact on people's lives and their ability to stay afloat," she told AAP. The report found some telcos even refused to help customers who proactively sought support, including a woman who fell into hardship after experiencing family violence and health complications. She had purchased a device at a store and was talked into additional products but wasn't informed about any of the extra costs. The woman was unable to pay for the extra services and was not offered any help from her telco. The telco ended up selling her debt to a debt collection agency and listed a default on her credit file, which totalled $7000. The cost was waived after she contacted the communications watchdog. "We want people to feel confident that when they reach out to their telco for the help they are entitled to, they'll get the support they need that is right for their circumstances," Ms Gebert said. About three-in-five Australians have experienced some form of financial difficulty, with 41 per cent experiencing high or chronic financial difficulty. Telcos contacted by the communications watchdog indicated increased numbers of customers seeking financial support over the past year, due to ongoing cost-of-living pressures. The report also found that customers prioritising their phone and internet bills over essentials like food or rent, fearing disconnection. Many consumers also reported finding it difficult to initiate a conversation with their telco about financial hardship, with some feeling their telco was unsympathetic. "Phone and internet are so critical to our ability to function in day-to-day society," Ms Gebert said. "It's (how) you access government services, banking services … If you are disconnected, the wide ranging impacts on your ability to function are huge and it can compound." The report's findings come after the introduction of new industry rules aimed at improving financial hardship support in March 2024. The new rules require telcos to provide a minimum of six different options for assistance to customers, and to only disconnect consumers as a measure of last resort.
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Telcos still failing to support struggling customers
Telecommunication companies have been put on notice for consistently failing to support customers facing financial hardship. Although new financial hardship standards came into effect in 2024, customers are still reporting that simple requests for help are being rejected. A Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman report published on Thursday, based on a review of more than 900 customer complaints, found some telcos were causing or adding to the financial stress of their customers. Ombudsman Cynthia Gebert said the report confirmed that more needed to be done by companies to meet their obligations and support people struggling financially. "We are seeing that telcos aren't consistently supporting consumers and that has a real impact on people's lives and their ability to stay afloat," she told AAP. The report found some telcos even refused to help customers who proactively sought support, including a woman who fell into hardship after experiencing family violence and health complications. She had purchased a device at a store and was talked into additional products but wasn't informed about any of the extra costs. The woman was unable to pay for the extra services and was not offered any help from her telco. The telco ended up selling her debt to a debt collection agency and listed a default on her credit file, which totalled $7000. The cost was waived after she contacted the communications watchdog. "We want people to feel confident that when they reach out to their telco for the help they are entitled to, they'll get the support they need that is right for their circumstances," Ms Gebert said. About three-in-five Australians have experienced some form of financial difficulty, with 41 per cent experiencing high or chronic financial difficulty. Telcos contacted by the communications watchdog indicated increased numbers of customers seeking financial support over the past year, due to ongoing cost-of-living pressures. The report also found that customers prioritising their phone and internet bills over essentials like food or rent, fearing disconnection. Many consumers also reported finding it difficult to initiate a conversation with their telco about financial hardship, with some feeling their telco was unsympathetic. "Phone and internet are so critical to our ability to function in day-to-day society," Ms Gebert said. "It's (how) you access government services, banking services … If you are disconnected, the wide ranging impacts on your ability to function are huge and it can compound." The report's findings come after the introduction of new industry rules aimed at improving financial hardship support in March 2024. The new rules require telcos to provide a minimum of six different options for assistance to customers, and to only disconnect consumers as a measure of last resort.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Electric cars pull up short in road test of range claim
Some of Australia's best-selling electric vehicles fail to meet their advertised range and consume significantly more power than manufacturers promise, on-road tests reveal. One popular SUV performed particularly poorly, stopping short of its advertised range by more than 100km. The Australian Automobile Association released the results on Thursday after testing five electric vehicles as part of its $14 million Real-World Testing Program. The findings come one week after the program revealed 25 out of 30 petrol and hybrid vehicles tested had consumed more fuel than their lab results showed and more than three in every four vehicles examined had failed to meet expectations. The motoring body road-tested five electric vehicles in its first trial of the technology, using a 93km circuit around Geelong in Victoria in damp and dry conditions, and measuring the vehicles' energy consumption. BYD's Atto 3 SUV produced the worst result of the models tested, falling short of its promised range by 111km or 23 per cent, and using 21 per cent more power than advertised. Tesla's entry-level electric car, the Model 3, also failed to meet its promised range by 14 per cent, or 72km, and used six per cent more electricity than lab results showed. The Tesla Model Y and Kia EV6 SUVs also failed to meet their range by eight per cent, or just over 40km, while the Smart #3 electric car came the closest to its lab test results, falling within five per cent or 23km of the advertised range. The results could help families and fleet managers make choices about their next vehicle purchases, association managing director Michael Bradley said, as research showed range anxiety remained a significant concern for buyers. "As more EVs enter our market, our testing will help consumers understand which new market entrants measure up on battery range," he said. An electric car's range could be affected by a number of factors, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones said. These include high or low temperatures, headwinds, steep terrain, and the use of air conditioning and heating features. Car makers should seek to "under-promise and over-deliver" when it comes to vehicle range, he said, to allow buyers to make informed choices about the models that will suit their needs. "It is frustrating that manufacturers are inflating the values when they really ought to be a bit more conservative," Mr Jones said. "I would have thought a 10 per cent difference was reasonable but 20 per cent is pretty bad." Electric vehicle range is typically tested in Australia using the older New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) laboratory test, but this will be replaced by the more accurate Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) from December. The Australian Automobile Association's vehicle-testing program, funded by the federal government, has examined 114 fuel-powered vehicles since it began in 2023 and found 88 models, or 77 per cent, failed to meet their advertised energy consumption. Some of Australia's best-selling electric vehicles fail to meet their advertised range and consume significantly more power than manufacturers promise, on-road tests reveal. One popular SUV performed particularly poorly, stopping short of its advertised range by more than 100km. The Australian Automobile Association released the results on Thursday after testing five electric vehicles as part of its $14 million Real-World Testing Program. The findings come one week after the program revealed 25 out of 30 petrol and hybrid vehicles tested had consumed more fuel than their lab results showed and more than three in every four vehicles examined had failed to meet expectations. The motoring body road-tested five electric vehicles in its first trial of the technology, using a 93km circuit around Geelong in Victoria in damp and dry conditions, and measuring the vehicles' energy consumption. BYD's Atto 3 SUV produced the worst result of the models tested, falling short of its promised range by 111km or 23 per cent, and using 21 per cent more power than advertised. Tesla's entry-level electric car, the Model 3, also failed to meet its promised range by 14 per cent, or 72km, and used six per cent more electricity than lab results showed. The Tesla Model Y and Kia EV6 SUVs also failed to meet their range by eight per cent, or just over 40km, while the Smart #3 electric car came the closest to its lab test results, falling within five per cent or 23km of the advertised range. The results could help families and fleet managers make choices about their next vehicle purchases, association managing director Michael Bradley said, as research showed range anxiety remained a significant concern for buyers. "As more EVs enter our market, our testing will help consumers understand which new market entrants measure up on battery range," he said. An electric car's range could be affected by a number of factors, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones said. These include high or low temperatures, headwinds, steep terrain, and the use of air conditioning and heating features. Car makers should seek to "under-promise and over-deliver" when it comes to vehicle range, he said, to allow buyers to make informed choices about the models that will suit their needs. "It is frustrating that manufacturers are inflating the values when they really ought to be a bit more conservative," Mr Jones said. "I would have thought a 10 per cent difference was reasonable but 20 per cent is pretty bad." Electric vehicle range is typically tested in Australia using the older New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) laboratory test, but this will be replaced by the more accurate Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) from December. The Australian Automobile Association's vehicle-testing program, funded by the federal government, has examined 114 fuel-powered vehicles since it began in 2023 and found 88 models, or 77 per cent, failed to meet their advertised energy consumption. Some of Australia's best-selling electric vehicles fail to meet their advertised range and consume significantly more power than manufacturers promise, on-road tests reveal. One popular SUV performed particularly poorly, stopping short of its advertised range by more than 100km. The Australian Automobile Association released the results on Thursday after testing five electric vehicles as part of its $14 million Real-World Testing Program. The findings come one week after the program revealed 25 out of 30 petrol and hybrid vehicles tested had consumed more fuel than their lab results showed and more than three in every four vehicles examined had failed to meet expectations. The motoring body road-tested five electric vehicles in its first trial of the technology, using a 93km circuit around Geelong in Victoria in damp and dry conditions, and measuring the vehicles' energy consumption. BYD's Atto 3 SUV produced the worst result of the models tested, falling short of its promised range by 111km or 23 per cent, and using 21 per cent more power than advertised. Tesla's entry-level electric car, the Model 3, also failed to meet its promised range by 14 per cent, or 72km, and used six per cent more electricity than lab results showed. The Tesla Model Y and Kia EV6 SUVs also failed to meet their range by eight per cent, or just over 40km, while the Smart #3 electric car came the closest to its lab test results, falling within five per cent or 23km of the advertised range. The results could help families and fleet managers make choices about their next vehicle purchases, association managing director Michael Bradley said, as research showed range anxiety remained a significant concern for buyers. "As more EVs enter our market, our testing will help consumers understand which new market entrants measure up on battery range," he said. An electric car's range could be affected by a number of factors, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones said. These include high or low temperatures, headwinds, steep terrain, and the use of air conditioning and heating features. Car makers should seek to "under-promise and over-deliver" when it comes to vehicle range, he said, to allow buyers to make informed choices about the models that will suit their needs. "It is frustrating that manufacturers are inflating the values when they really ought to be a bit more conservative," Mr Jones said. "I would have thought a 10 per cent difference was reasonable but 20 per cent is pretty bad." Electric vehicle range is typically tested in Australia using the older New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) laboratory test, but this will be replaced by the more accurate Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) from December. The Australian Automobile Association's vehicle-testing program, funded by the federal government, has examined 114 fuel-powered vehicles since it began in 2023 and found 88 models, or 77 per cent, failed to meet their advertised energy consumption. Some of Australia's best-selling electric vehicles fail to meet their advertised range and consume significantly more power than manufacturers promise, on-road tests reveal. One popular SUV performed particularly poorly, stopping short of its advertised range by more than 100km. The Australian Automobile Association released the results on Thursday after testing five electric vehicles as part of its $14 million Real-World Testing Program. The findings come one week after the program revealed 25 out of 30 petrol and hybrid vehicles tested had consumed more fuel than their lab results showed and more than three in every four vehicles examined had failed to meet expectations. The motoring body road-tested five electric vehicles in its first trial of the technology, using a 93km circuit around Geelong in Victoria in damp and dry conditions, and measuring the vehicles' energy consumption. BYD's Atto 3 SUV produced the worst result of the models tested, falling short of its promised range by 111km or 23 per cent, and using 21 per cent more power than advertised. Tesla's entry-level electric car, the Model 3, also failed to meet its promised range by 14 per cent, or 72km, and used six per cent more electricity than lab results showed. The Tesla Model Y and Kia EV6 SUVs also failed to meet their range by eight per cent, or just over 40km, while the Smart #3 electric car came the closest to its lab test results, falling within five per cent or 23km of the advertised range. The results could help families and fleet managers make choices about their next vehicle purchases, association managing director Michael Bradley said, as research showed range anxiety remained a significant concern for buyers. "As more EVs enter our market, our testing will help consumers understand which new market entrants measure up on battery range," he said. An electric car's range could be affected by a number of factors, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones said. These include high or low temperatures, headwinds, steep terrain, and the use of air conditioning and heating features. Car makers should seek to "under-promise and over-deliver" when it comes to vehicle range, he said, to allow buyers to make informed choices about the models that will suit their needs. "It is frustrating that manufacturers are inflating the values when they really ought to be a bit more conservative," Mr Jones said. "I would have thought a 10 per cent difference was reasonable but 20 per cent is pretty bad." Electric vehicle range is typically tested in Australia using the older New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) laboratory test, but this will be replaced by the more accurate Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) from December. The Australian Automobile Association's vehicle-testing program, funded by the federal government, has examined 114 fuel-powered vehicles since it began in 2023 and found 88 models, or 77 per cent, failed to meet their advertised energy consumption.
