Pension Funds Have Had It With Tesla's Board And Musk
When Elon Musk appeared in the White House last week at a ceremony with President Donald Trump marking the end of his controversial role leading the federal job-slashing DOGE initiative, he sported a shiner on his right eye that he claimed came from toddler son X. That literal black eye will heal, but the figurative ones Tesla and Musk's reputation have received from his political activities are likely to linger.
Some of Tesla's biggest shareholders — including unions like the American Federation of Teachers, whose 1.8 million members participate in pension funds with $4 trillion of assets under management, including $8.8 billion of Tesla shares — see one group as largely to blame: the EV company's board.
'People don't like Elon Musk,' AFT President Randi Weingarten told Forbes, adding: 'We've taken the position over the course of the last few months of: 'Do your job, board. Do your job financial industry. Do the job you're supposed to do, which is the governance of Tesla.''
'Make sure he's there or get another CEO'
Weingarten and the teacher's union have been pushing fiduciary officers overseeing major state and city pension funds, as well as investment firms like BlackRock, Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price and TIAA, to review their Tesla holdings and pressure the board to change its ways.
'We don't want Tesla to fail because if Tesla fails that means a lot of retirees are going to lose a lot of money in terms of their portfolios,' Weingarten said. She added: 'If you're going to have Musk there, then make sure he's there. Don't have him do these extracurricular activities. Make sure he's there or get another CEO.'
Nine state treasurers and comptrollers sent a letter to Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm in April raising concerns about risks to their economies if the company falters because of poor board governance. 'No other publicly traded company CEO would've been allowed to neglect his day-to-day duties like Musk has. No exception,' said Illinois Treasurer Michael Frerichs, who signed the letter. 'And if they had undertaken personal activities that hurt the reputation of a company or brand that badly, would they be treated like he has been?'
CalPERS, the largest U.S. pension fund representing public workers in California, didn't immediately comment on whether it would join with AFT and state officials in pressuring Tesla's board to improve its management of Musk. The fund held about 9.4 million Tesla shares as of last year, a stake worth $3.2 billion as of June 3.
Musk for years has divided his time as Tesla chief with leadership roles at SpaceX, X, The Boring Co., Neuralink and xAI, but his Trump administration job proved particularly harmful to the brand, spurring protests at Tesla stores and vandalism of its vehicles and facilities. A poll conducted by Washington-based GBAO last month found that Musk was viewed unfavorably by 55% of the 2,000 Americans it surveyed, while Tesla ranked as the least favored brand among poll participants who have or are considering getting an electric vehicle. Most importantly, 51% of survey respondents said they'd view Tesla more favorably if the world's wealthiest human were replaced as CEO.
'If you look at what's happened to views toward Musk and the brand among people who are the target, it seems irreversible. His numbers are atrocious.'
Musk has now said he's stepped back from his DOGE duties and Tesla stock has rallied in the past few weeks, jumping more than 50% since April 21, as many investors appear hopeful he'll be more engaged in leading the company, particularly as it prepares to launch a pilot robotaxi program in Austin this month. He's even shown signs of breaking with Trump, labeling the the president's so-called Big Beautiful budget bill a 'disgusting abomination' on Tuesday because of how much it increases the federal deficit.
GBAO
GBAO Principal Margie Omero, who oversaw the Musk-Tesla survey, isn't sure the billionaire's latest moves will make a difference.
'He may say he's stepping away but his involvement with Trump, both in helping to elect him and in helping enact Trump's wishes in government, all those things are not going to change. They're not over,' she said. Pollster GBAO focuses mainly on progressive issues and notes that Tesla's core customer base and EV buyers generally tend to identify as Democrats. 'If you look at what's happened to views toward Musk and the brand among people who are the target, it seems irreversible. His numbers are atrocious.'
'Tesla's brand has suffered dramatically alongside Elon Musk's brand–in some ways they're one and the same,' said Maryland Comptroller Brooke Lierman, also a signatory to the April letter to board chair Denholm. Maryland's State Retirement Agency currently has about $175 million invested in Tesla through pooled accounts.
'As somebody who keeps an eye on the returns of our retirement portfolio and our investments, I am always looking to make sure that our retirees and their hard-earned retirement dollars are invested wisely–and with companies governed by boards we can trust and who are engaged in responsible business practices,' Lierman said.
GBAO
Musk's behavior and unrestrained comments on social issues have persisted for years, from his false claim in 2018 that he'd lined up funding to take Tesla private. The same year he called a critic 'pedo guy' and had to go to court to defend his comments in a defamation trial because of it. During a 2020 earnings call meltdown, he decried emergency public health rules at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as 'fascist.' More recently, he gave what looked like a Nazi-style salute at a Trump victory rally, and in February wildly waved a chainsaw around onstage at a conservative political conference. Recent and detailed reports of his use of drugs including ketamine and Adderall haven't helped.
Denholm didn't respond to a request for comment. Weingarten, Frerichs and Lierman said they've had no response from Tesla's board from their letters. Weingarten said AFT is weighing potential legal action against Tesla's board, though hasn't made a final decision on the matter.
Musk 'has done huge damage to the Tesla brand and Tesla's reputation,' she said. 'If boards are not going to do their job, outside pension funds, including advocates of them, are going to try to force these boards to do their jobs.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
What To Know About The IRS's $4 Billion Tax Assessment On Yum! Brands
KFC Taco Bell (Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images) The IRS has assessed $4 billion in taxes, penalties, and interest on Yum! Brands. The issue stems from a tax-deferred reorganization in 2014. Yum! Brands is now suing to prevent the IRS from collecting these funds. M&A is often among the most complicated tax issues large corporations face, which can often lead to uncertainty and scrutiny from the IRS. In this article, I discuss the Yum! Brand corporation, what happened in 2014, and why they are facing such a steep tax penalty now over a decade later. Yum! Brands is the parent company of KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Habit Burger & Grill. As noted by The Washington Post, this corporation spun off from PepsiCo in 1997 to become among the largest set of restaurant chains in the United States and the world. While it currently features those three staples, the corporation has also previously held other chains, such as A&W and Long John Silvers. Yum! Brands has been known to be innovative by having combination restaurants. In these situations, customers can order from a KFC or Taco Bell (or both) at the same location. What makes Yum! Brands particularly impactful is their international appeal. As stated on the Yum! Brands website, the brands total over 61,000 locations and can be seen in 155 countries. According to CNN, KFC has blossomed to become an international staple in countries like Japan, where people often have KFC as their Christmas dinner. Yum! Brands is also no stranger to tax-related news. In early 2025, the company announced a different restructuring. While the company is famously headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky (hence, Kentucky Fried Chicken), Fortune reported that it will be relocating to Plano, TX, due to, among other things, taxes. Kentucky is a state that levies a corporate income tax (5% in 2025). Meanwhile, Texas famously has a 0% tax rate on corporate profits. Individual income tax is also not levied in Texas. Newsweek suggests that Texas has become a bit of a tax haven for new corporate headquarters such as Tesla, Toyota, Charles Schwab, Chevron, and now Yum! Brands. Prior to 2014, Yum! Brands was made up of separate legal entities based on brand and region. For example, there were separate legal entities for KFC Asia and KFC Europe. According to court filings, On November 30, 2013, Yum! Brands publicly announced a corporate reorganization. In this reorganization, the company would no longer be broken out into segments based on geography. Instead, it would focus its organization based on brands (i.e., KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut). It would also have separate divisions for China and India. The goal of this reorganization was to drive growth. To help facilitate the reorganization, the new subsidiaries issued stock in exchange for stock in the previous subsidiary. This stock for stock reorganization often falls under the Internal Revenue Code Section 368(a)(1)(B), which allows for the acquisition of a corporation solely in exchange for all or part of its voting stock. As long as all of the conditions are met, the Yum! Brand legal entities can exchange the stock without recognizing a gain on the appreciated value of the stock. The conditions for this type of reorganization are as follows: Reorganizations under Section 368 are valuable for a company like Yum! Brands because it wishes to restructure the company's organization to enhance future profits. In a normal transaction where Yum! Brands were selling its stock to another company, Yum! Brands would have a gain (or loss) on the appreciated (depreciated) value of the stock. However, Section 368 allows companies to meet certain conditions to defer the gain to a future period. Importantly, companies still have to recognize a gain on the stock's appreciated value, but this gain will not typically happen until the company ultimately disposes of it. In this case, Yum! Brands thought that the conditions under Section 368(a)(1)(B) were met, which would defer the gain, allowing the reorganization to make more sense from a financial perspective. In Yum! Brand's 2024 10-K financial statements, the company notes the following: As reported by Bloomberg Tax, this disagreement comprises over $4 billion dollars in damages: the $2.1 billion in taxes that the IRS believes Yum! Brands should have paid during their reorganization in 2014, $418 million in underpayment penalties and over $1.5 billion in interest on the money that has not yet been paid to the taxing authority. $4 billion is a large assessment for any firm. However, to put it into context, Yum! Brands in 2024 had a pre-tax income of $1.9 billion and paid income taxes of $414 million on that income. Thus, a tax bill of over $4 billion is astronomical for even a company of this size. NRN reports that the disagreement stems from Yum! Brands believe to have met all of the requirements under Section 368 for the reorganization to be tax-deferred, whereas the taxing authority believes that these matters were not all addressed and initiates billions of dollars of income by way of a sale of appreciated value of stock. NRN also reports that Yum! Brands has taken this matter to court and appeals court but was unsuccessful. In turn, Law360 reports that Yum! Brands have taken the IRS to court to sue them over the collections of this $4 billion. While the matter is still uncertain, many in the M&A tax space continue to watch this saga unfold since it represents a significant assessment being levied against some of the U.S.'s most recognizable restaurant brands.
Forbes
30 minutes ago
- Forbes
The AI Paradox: When More AI Means Less Impact
Young business man with his face passing through the screen of a laptop on binary code background AI is in the news every day. On the one hand, this highlights the vertiginous speed at which the field is developing. On the other, it creates a sense saturation and angst that makes business organizations either drop the subject altogether or go at it full throttle without much discernment. Both approaches will lead to major misses in the inevitable AI-fication of business. In this article, I'll explore what happens when a business goes down the AI rabbit hole without a clear business objective and a solid grasp of the available alternatives. If you have attended any AI conference lately, chances are that, by the end, you thought your business was dangerously behind. Many of these events, even if not on purpose, can leave you with the feeling that you need to deploy AI everywhere and automate everything to catch up. If you've succumbed to this temptation, you most likely found out that is not the right move. Two years into the generative AI revolution, a counterintuitive truth is emerging from boardrooms to factory floors. Companies pursuing 100% AI automation are often seeing diminished returns, while those treating AI as one element in a broader, human-centered workflow are capturing both cost savings and competitive advantages. The obvious truth is already revealing itself: AI is just one more technology at our disposal, and just like every other new technology, everyone is trying to gain first-move advantage, which inevitably creates chaos. Those who see through and beyond said chaos are building the foundations of a successful AI-assisted business. The numbers tell a story that contradicts the automation evangelists. Three in four workers say AI tools have decreased their productivity and added to their workload, according to a recent UpWork survey of 2,500 respondents across four countries. Workers report spending more time reviewing AI-generated content and learning tool complexities than the time these tools supposedly save. Even more revealing: while 85% of company leaders are pushing workers to use AI, nearly half of employees using AI admitted they have no idea how to achieve the productivity gains their employers expect. This disconnect isn't just corporate misalignment—it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI creates value. The companies winning the AI game aren't those deploying the most algorithms. They're the ones who understand that intelligent automation shouldn't rely on AI alone. Instead, successful organizations are orchestrating AI within broader process frameworks where human expertise guides strategic decisions while AI handles specific, well-defined tasks. A good AI strategy always revolves around domain experts, not the other way around. Consider how The New York Times approached AI integration. Rather than replacing journalists with AI, the newspaper introduced AI tools for editing copy, summarizing information, and generating promotional content, while maintaining strict guidelines that AI cannot draft full articles or significantly alter journalism. This measured approach preserves editorial integrity while amplifying human capabilities. AI should be integrated strategically and operationally into entire processes, not deployed as isolated solutions to be indiscriminately exploited hoping for magic. Research shows that 60% of business and IT leaders use over 26 systems in their automation efforts, and 42% cite lack of integration as a major digital transformation hurdle. The most effective AI implementations focus on task-specific applications rather than general automation. Task-specific models offer highly specialized solutions for targeted problems, making them more efficient and cost-effective than general-purpose alternatives. Harvard Business School research involving 750 Boston Consulting Group consultants revealed this precision matters enormously. While consultants using AI completed certain tasks 40% faster with higher quality, they were 19 percentage points less likely to produce correct answers on complex tasks requiring nuanced judgment. This 'jagged technological frontier' demands that organizations implement methodical test-and-learn approaches rather than wholesale AI adoption. Harvard Business Review research confirms that AI notoriously fails at capturing intangible human factors essential for real-world decision-making—ethical considerations, moral judgments, and contextual nuances that guide business success. The companies thriving in 2025 aren't choosing between humans and machines. They're building hybrid systems where AI automation is balanced with human interaction to maintain stakeholder trust and capture value that neither could achieve alone. The mantra, 'AI will replace your job,' seems to consistently reveal a timeless truth: everything that should be automated will be automated, not everything than can be automated will. The Path Forward The AI paradox isn't a failure of technology—it's a lesson in implementation strategy. Organizations that resist the allure of complete automation and instead focus on thoughtful integration, task-specific deployment, and human-AI collaboration aren't just avoiding the productivity trap. They're building sustainable competitive advantages that compound over time. The question isn't whether your organization should use AI. It's whether you'll fall into the 'more AI' trap or master the art of 'smarter AI'—where less automation actually delivers more impact.
Washington Post
30 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Points of Light, founded by the Bush family, aims to double American volunteerism by 2035
NEW ORLEANS — The Bush family's nonprofit Points of Light will lead an effort to double the number of people who volunteer with U.S. charitable organizations from 75 million annually to 150 million in 10 years. The ambitious goal, announced in New Orleans at the foundation's annual conference, which concluded Friday, would represent a major change in the way Americans spend their time and interact with nonprofits. It aspires to mobilize people to volunteer with nonprofits in the U.S. at a scale that only federal programs like AmeriCorps have in the past. It also coincides with deep federal funding cuts that threaten the financial stability of many nonprofits and with an effort to gut AmeriCorps programs, which sent 200,000 volunteers all over the country. A judge on Wednesday paused those cuts in some states , which had sued the Trump administration. Jennifer Sirangelo, president and CEO of Points of Light, said that while the campaign has been in development well before the federal cuts, the nonprofit's board members recently met and decided to move forward. 'What our board said was, 'We have to do it now. We have to put the stake in the ground now. It's more important than it was before the disruption of AmeriCorps,'' she said in an interview with The Associated Press. She said the nonprofit aims to raise and spend $100 million over the next three years to support the goal. Points of Light, which is based in Atlanta, was founded by President George H.W. Bush to champion his vision of volunteerism. It has carried on his tradition of giving out a daily award to a volunteer around the country, built a global network of volunteer organizations and cultivated corporate volunteer programs. Speaking Wednesday in New Orleans, Points of Light's board chair Neil Bush told the organization's annual conference that the capacity volunteers add to nonprofits will have a huge impact on communities. 'Our mission is to make volunteering and service easier, more impactful, more sustained,' Bush said. 'Because, let's be honest, the problems in our communities aren't going to fix themselves.' According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps, the rate of participation has plateaued since 2002 , with a noticeable dip during the pandemic . Susan M. Chambré, professor emerita at Baruch College who studied volunteering for decades , said Points of Light's goal of doubling the number of volunteers was admirable but unrealistic, given that volunteer rates have not varied significantly over time. But she said more research is needed into what motivates volunteers, which would give insight into how to recruit people. She also said volunteering has become more transactional over time, directed by staff as opposed to organized by volunteers themselves. In making its case for increasing volunteer participation in a recent report , Points of Light drew on research from nonprofits like Independent Sector, the National Alliance for Volunteer Engagement and the Do Good Institute at the University of Maryland. Sirangelo said they want to better measure the impact volunteers make, not just the hours they put in, for example. They also see a major role for technology to better connect potential volunteers to opportunities, though they acknowledge that many have tried to do that through apps and online platforms . Reaching young people will also be a major part of accomplishing this increase in volunteer participation. Sirangelo said she's observed that many young people who do want to participate are founding their own nonprofits rather than joining an existing one. 'We're not welcoming them to our institutions, so they have to go found something,' she said. 'That dynamic has to change.' As the board was considering this new goal, they reached out for advice to Alex Edgar, who is now the youth engagement manager at Made By Us. They ultimately invited him to join the board as a full voting member and agreed to bring on a second young person as well. 'I think for volunteering and the incredible work that Points of Light is leading to really have a deeper connection with my generation, it needs to be done in a way that isn't just talking to or at young people, but really co-created across generations,' said Edgar, who is 21. Karmit Bulman, who has researched and supported volunteer engagement for many years, said she was very pleased to see Points of Light make this commitment. 'They are probably the most well known volunteerism organization in the country and I really appreciate their leadership,' said Bulman, who is currently the executive director of East Side Learning Center, a nonprofit in St. Paul. Bulman said there are many people willing to help out in their communities but who are not willing to jump through hoops to volunteer with a nonprofit. 'We also need to recognize that it's a pretty darn stressful time in people's lives right now,' she said. 'There's a lot of uncertainty personally and professionally and financially for a lot of people. So we need to be really, really flexible in how we engage volunteers.' ___ Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit .
