Subject: Re: 13F : More Chevron
Sorry, simply incorrect. EVERY milestone required a combination of production, earnings, AND STOCK PRICE to be met. It was not possible for Musk to meet and collect on a milestone without the longs having earned, collectively, something like 10X as much as Musk earned for meeting that milestone.

I should be smart enough to leave this alone, but since I'm not I'll respond anyway...

Your statement is a red herring. The question isn't if the longs made money or not. The question (one of them) is what is a fair amount to pay to keep Musk engaged in running the company? The board never asked that question. There appears to have been almost no negotiation over the deal at all, except for minor technical details. It is a fair question to ask why Musk's comp needed to be literally orders of magnitude more than the CEOs of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, etc. One of the rationales for the size of the package was that Musk needed lots of money for his Mars project. Which may be true, but has nothing to do with Musk running Tesla.

You've said a few times that Musk's motivation was unchallengeable because back in 2018 Musk was sleeping on the factory floor. But that's before the compensation package was approved and before Musk bought Twitter. Besides working on Twitter himself, Musk transferred 50 Tesla engineers to work on his projects at Twitter. There is no version of this where Tesla engineers working at Twitter adds value for Tesla shareholders.

You've also mentioned that no one seriously believed the targets would be met. But there is one important group of people who did: The board. The board concluded internally that there was a 70% chance that all targets would be met, and several of them were on schedule to be met in the short term. But the board stated in the proxy the targets would be difficult and challenging. There is a term for people who say one thing in public and different thing in private, and it isn't very flattering. You've also mentioned that lots of boards have conflicts, which is absolutely true. We know this because they are required to disclose them, which the Tesla board did not do. The board withholding important information from the shareholders was a key component in the chancellor's conclusion that the proxy was deficient.

Again, I have no dog in this fight, but it is clear the Tesla board gave you and the other shareholders a good solid rodgering.

Anyway, we're off into dead horse territory at this point, so I'll let you have the last word.