'Make Elon Musk work 40-plus hours and....': Tesla's 12 biggest shareholders send letter to Tesla board with list of 'Dos and Don'ts'
Tesla's major shareholders controlling 7.9 million shares have sent an urgent letter to board chair Robyn Denholm, demanding immediate action to address what they call a "crisis" at the electric vehicle maker. The coalition, including pension funds, the American Federation of Teachers, and state treasurers from New York, Oregon, and Illinois, issued four specific demands to refocus CEO Elon Musk's attention on
Tesla
amid declining sales and plummeting brand reputation.
The shareholders blame Tesla's troubles on Musk's divided attention between the company and outside ventures, particularly his recently concluded role at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Trump administration.
Mandate minimum 40-hour work week commitment for Elon Musk
The investors want Tesla's board to require Musk to work at least 40 hours per week at the company as a condition of any new compensation package. This demand comes as Tesla's stock has fallen 12% this year while the Nasdaq declined only 1%. The shareholders noted that Tesla's European sales plunged nearly 50% in April compared to the previous year, and global EV sales declined in the first quarter.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
เริ่มแล้ว! ตลาด USDJPY อยู่ในช่วงขาขึ้นกว่าเดิม
IC Markets
สมัคร
Undo
Establish clear CEO succession planning
The letter demands a formal succession plan identifying emergency replacements for Musk should he become unavailable or lose interest in Tesla. "We believe the company's current disclosure regarding the CEO succession plan does not assure investors that the Board is adequately prepared," the shareholders wrote, emphasizing the need for qualified leadership continuity.
Limit directors' external business commitments
Shareholders called for stringent policies restricting Tesla board members' involvement in other companies. They propose limiting executive directors to one additional board position and one executive role at another company, arguing this would ensure adequate time dedication to Tesla's oversight and management.
Appoint truly independent board members
The coalition demanded at least one "truly independent" director with no personal ties to existing board members. They criticized the recent appointment of former Chipotle CFO Jack Hartung, noting his son-in-law works at Tesla and his previous association with Kimbal Musk, Elon's brother who serves on Tesla's board.
The shareholders attributed Tesla's reputation crisis partly to Musk's political activities, including nearly $300 million in pro-Trump donations and endorsement of Germany's far-right AfD party. Tesla has dropped from 8th to 95th place in the Axios Harris Poll of America's most admired brands.
Musk announced earlier this week that his DOGE tenure had ended and pledged to focus more intensively on his businesses, including Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI. However, investors remain skeptical, with Illinois State Treasurer Michael Frerichs questioning whether Musk has learned from his mistakes or will continue prioritizing other ventures over Tesla's urgent needs.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
28 minutes ago
- Economic Times
India should join Brazil in its efforts to create a new kind of multilateralism to offset Trump tariffs
Deal with the block After the two world wars, international order was built on the premise that states, even as they competed for advantage, could be restrained by rules and reciprocal obligations. Political scientists Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye called this 'complex interdependence', the idea that trade, finance, technology and institutions could bind countries so tightly that cooperation would be more profitable than coercion. While this was not a flawless premise, its core assumption reflected the new international economic order. The web of mutual dependence, anchored by multilateral institutions, acted as a brake on naked power, keeping the system from sliding entirely into a raw contest of force. This assumption is now under strain. Donald Trump's return to the White House and his weaponisation of tariffs have brought a brazen rejection of the earlier logic that underpinned the last half-century. Trump's latest tariff move against Brazil - a 50% levy that came into effect last week - was not about correcting deficits or defending industries as he trotted out them to be. It was a tantrum aimed at compelling Brazil to drop prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro for his role in the January 2023 assault on Brasilia. The message: sovereignty is negotiable if your economy depends on us. Brazil's response was a demonstration of how interdependence can be leveraged to defend, not erode, autonomy. Lula da Silva refused to seek a private settlement, calling such an approach a 'humiliation'. Instead, he took the case to WTO. Domestically, the Bolsonaro prosecution moved ahead without pause. Internationally, Lula began rallying BRICS to treat the episode as a test case for the credibility of a rules-based system. On Thursday, he announced that Brazil would host a virtual BRICS summit to discuss response to Trump tariffs. This confidence isn't improvised. Over the past two decades, Brazil has diversified its trade profile. China now takes 28% of its exports, compared with 12% for the US. Trump tariffs excluded key sectors like aircraft, energy and orange juice, limiting their impact to just over a third of export value. Economists estimate GDP hit at roughly 0.15 percentage points, with 2025 growth forecasts still above 2.3%. Over the last two decades, India's exports to fellow BRICS countries have increased, and it has signed major FTAs, signalling a widening of its commercial base. Yet, India's trade with its South Asian neighbours is between 1.7% and 3.8%. This missing regional integration is not only a lost economic opportunity but also a lost layer of strategic insulation. This is where the rhetoric of 'reformed multilateralism' must be matched by coordinated action. The challenge now is for others, especially India, to recognise that defence of sovereignty, preservation of multilateralism and reform of global governance are a single project that will succeed or fail together India's G20 presidency, Indonesia's Asean leadership, Brazil's stewardship of BRICS and 'Voice of the Global South' summit have all carried the banner of a fairer, more representative order. A rules-based system can survive only if states push back collectively when its norms are under India, and for other major actors in the 'global south', the lesson is not to imitate Brazil's tactics but to internalise the structural logic behind them. Sovereignty cannot be defended by rhetoric alone. It must be underpinned by robust institutions at home and by coalitions abroad. Brazil's resort to WTO may seem quaint in an era when great powers increasingly sideline multilateral bodies. But if the 'global south' does not use these institutions, reform them and defend them, then who will?What Lula has made clear is that defending rules-based order is not the same as defending status quo. The order we inherited was built with asymmetries, but it remains the only framework capable of constraining raw power if all parties insist on using it. As a country that bridges multiple alignments that are democratic but independent, it can help lead an emerging coalition that treats multilateralism not as a talking point but as an enabling like Brazil, also faces pressures on its ecological resources that will test its commitment to sovereignty in new ways. In a global economy where farm patents, seed control and biotech regulation can dictate the fate of rural livelihoods, defending biodiversity is no less strategic than defending maritime borders. A rules-based order must treat genetic resources, environmental stewardship and traditional knowledge as global commons managed by those who live with them, not as commodities to be seized under legal regimes written elsewhere. The crises in climate, trade and food security are intertwined. If emerging economies do not set their collective norms, they will find themselves perpetually reacting to norms imposed from abroad. What history will remember is not whether Brazil wins its specific tariff dispute, but whether this moment catalyses a broader shift in how emerging economies see themselves in the architecture of global power. Lula's defiance shows that it is possible to resist coercion without turning inward, that it is possible to resist without rejecting the idea of international challenge now is for others - especially for India - to recognise that defence of sovereignty, preservation of multilateralism and reform of global governance are not separate agendas any more. They are a single project, and they will succeed or fail together. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Tariffs, tantrums, and tech: How Trump's trade drama is keeping Indian IT on tenterhooks Good, bad, ugly: How will higher ethanol in petrol play out for you? As big fat Indian wedding slims to budget, Manyavar loses lustre As 50% US tariff looms, 6 key steps that can safeguard Indian economy Stock Radar: JSPL forms Ascending Triangle pattern on weekly charts, could hit fresh 52-week high soon Nifty and business are different species: 5 small-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential of up to 30% F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to play index's negative stance amid volatility Wealth creation: Look beyond the obvious in some things; 10 fertilizer sector companies worth watching
Economic Times
28 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump begs for a Nobel? President rings up Norway's finance minister in secret call - here's what they discussed
Donald Trump (Getty Images) Donald Trump Nobel Peace Prize: With the aim of diplomacy or self-promotion, US president Donald Trump personally called Norway's Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg last month in a sudden and unexpected phone call that touched on trade tariffs, economic cooperation and his desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize, as per a this wasn't the first time Trump brought up the Nobel Prize with Stoltenberg, who previously served as the NATO secretary-general and now plays a key role in Norway's economic and political circles, as per a Politico report. Stoltenberg confirmed that he and the US president had spoken, saying, 'It is true that President Trump called me a few days before his conversation with Prime Minister Støre. Several of the president's staff members also participated in the conversation, including Treasury Secretary Bessent and Trade Representative Greer,' as quoted in the Stoltenberg kept tight-lipped about specifics, he said the conversation focused on tariffs and economic cooperation, saying, 'We discussed tariffs, economic cooperation, and it served as preparation for his call with Prime Minister Støre. I will not go into further detail about the content of the conversation," as quoted by Politico. ALSO READ: This electric car just drove into the history books with a range that will blow your mind, and it's an SUV The idea of Trump lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize directly with Norwegian officials has left many in Oslo and beyond taken aback, as it is no secret that the prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament, according to the report. The Norwegian Nobel Committee selects laureates from hundreds of nominees each year, and then its five members, appointed by Norway's parliament in line with the instructions of 19th-century Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, announce the winners every October in Oslo, as reported by READ: Opendoor CEO Carrie Wheeler quits suddenly, stock jumps 9% as Shrisha Radhakrishna steps in as new presidentThe US president even complained during a February meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office that, 'They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize,' adding, 'It's too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me,' as quoted in the the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt argued that it's 'well past time' that Trump wins the award during a press briefing on July 31, as reported by Politico. ALSO READ: Mystery Bitcoin investor turns $50 into millions with mind-blowing 59,999,900% return - here's his story Meanwhile, many countries, including Israel, Pakistan and Cambodia, have already nominated Trump for brokering peace agreements or ceasefires since he started his second term as the US president in January, according to the has also claimed credit for bringing down tensions between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan after skirmishes earlier this year and last week had hosted the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Washington to address ending decades of hostilities, as reported by Politico. In case Trump wins, he would become the fifth United States president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, following Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and his long-time rival Barack Obama, according to the Politico report. ALSO READ: Is it AI or Trump's policies? US sees brutal 140% layoff spike in July, worst surge since early COVID chaos Has Trump been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?Yes, countries like Israel, Pakistan, and Cambodia have submitted nominations based on his diplomatic efforts, as per the Politico report. What peace efforts has Trump been involved in recently? He's hosted talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan and claimed to have helped reduce tensions between India and Pakistan, as per the Politico report.
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump says he will set tariffs on steel and semiconductor chips in coming weeks
US President Donald Trump said on Friday he would announce tariffs on imports of steel and semiconductor chips in coming weeks. 'I'll be setting tariffs next week and the week after on steel and on, I would say, chips,' Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. He said the rates would be lower at the start to allow companies to build up domestic manufacturing in the U.S., rising sharply later, following a pattern he has also outlined for tariffs on pharmaceuticals. He gave no exact rates. 'I'm going to have a rate that is going to be lower at the beginning – that gives them a chance to come in and build – and very high after a certain period of time,' he said. Trump said he felt confident that companies would opt to manufacture in the United States, rather than face high tariffs. Trump has upended global trade by imposing sharply higher duties on nearly all countries' exports to the United States, along with tariffs on specific sectors, such as automotive. Trump in February raised tariffs on steel and aluminum to a flat 25%, but he announced in May that he would double the rate to 50% to boost domestic manufacturers. It was not immediately clear if another tariff increase on the metals was in the offing. Trump said last week he would impose a tariff of 100% on imports of semiconductors, but companies that committed to building up manufacturing in the United States would be exempt. His remarks were made in tandem with an announcement that Apple would be investing an additional $100 billion in its home market.
