Tesla shareholders approve $1 trillion pay package for Elon Musk
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nov. 6, 2025, 5:01 PM ESTBy David Ingram
Tesla announced Thursday that shareholders had voted to approve the biggest pay package in corporate history for CEO Elon Musk, in a deal worth up to $1 trillion over 10 years if the company meets a list of benchmarks such as selling 1 million humanoid robots.
Over 75% of shareholders voted in favor of the pay package, said Brandon Ehrhart, the company's general counsel, as Tesla shareholders gathered in person and virtually for their annual meeting.
After the announcement, Musk celebrated the vote on a stage at the shareholder meeting, dancing and laughing alongside a pair of robots.
"I super appreciate it. Thank you, everyone," he said. "What we're about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter on the future of Tesla but a whole new book."
Musk is already the world's wealthiest person, with a net worth of about $473 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The compensation agreement could help to make him the world's first member of the "Four Comma Club" with $1 trillion or more in riches.
Musk's wealth has risen this year despite serious damage to Tesla's brand among politically left-leaning consumers caused by his embrace of right-wing politics around the world and his work in the Department of Government Efficiency in the Trump administration. In the first half of the year, Tesla suffered from falling revenue as anti-Musk protesters picketed Tesla showrooms to denounce his role in slashing foreign aid and other government spending.
Now, Musk is trying to turn around the company's fortunes by focusing on developing robots that could one day work as household servants and by deploying robotaxis that could potentially drive without people in control. Neither is a reality yet: Tesla isn't taking orders for droids, and its robotaxi prototypes still have employees in the vehicles for safety.
In recent weeks, Musk's fan base — which ranges from small retail shareholders to some prominent Silicon Valley investors — has been vocal on his social media app X in favor of the pay package, arguing that he gets nothing unless he makes the company more valuable.
On a website urging "yes" votes, Tesla's investor relations department said the pay package was "designed to keep Elon's time, energy and considerable talents focused on Tesla for years to come and create jaw-dropping value for our shareholders."
Musk would need to remain Tesla CEO for 7½ years in order to vest in any shares from the new pay package, according to the agreement's terms, although he may continue in his other CEO roles at rocket company SpaceX and artificial intelligence startup xAI.
The proposal resulted in some opposition, including from Norway's sovereign wealth fund, which noted that Musk's new shares would dilute existing shares.
"While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk's visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk- consistent with our views on executive compensation," the fund's manager, Norges Bank Investment Management, said in a statement.
The pay package was expected to be approved, with odds of passage at 93% on the betting website Polymarket on Wednesday.
Musk has said that the pay package is more about him maintaining control over Tesla and its products than about riches.
"If I go ahead and build this enormous robot army, can I just be ousted at some point in the future? That's my biggest concern," he said last month in a webcast with Wall Street analysts.
"I don't feel comfortable building that robot army if I don't have at least a strong influence," he said.
Musk is Tesla's largest shareholder, and because the pay package involves the granting of further shares, he could consolidate influence. The package would give him shares worth up to 12% of the company if Tesla's market capitalization rises to at least $8.5 trillion and it meets 12 operational milestones.
The milestones Tesla would have to meet are: 20 million Tesla vehicles delivered; 10 million active subscriptions for the add-on driver-assistance service known as Full Self-Driving; 1 million bots delivered; 1 million robotaxis in commercial operation; and eight separate milestones for profitability.
Tesla reported 1.79 million vehicle deliveries in 2024, a drop from 1.81 million deliveries in 2023.
For Musk to get the full 12% of the company, the agreement also requires him to "develop a framework" for the eventual succession of a new Tesla CEO, but it does not set out any timeline for Musk, 54, leaving the CEO role.
The new shares for Musk would be on top of his current shares, which give him an 18% voting stake in Tesla. Those shares, though, include his reward from a 2018 pay package that is still in dispute in a lawsuit pending before the Delaware Supreme Court after some shareholders objected.
Tesla said that Musk and his brother, fellow board member Kimbal Musk, recused themselves from the board vote to put the pay package in front of shareholders.
Ehrhart, the Tesla general counsel, said a separate shareholder proposal to encourage Tesla to invest in Musk's xAI was inconclusive. He said there were more votes in favor than against but also a "significant number of abstentions."
"The board will examine the next steps in light of this level of shareholder support," he said.
David Ingram
David Ingram is a tech reporter for NBC News.
Tags
Who is online
114 visitors
Musk might just become the first Trillionaire.
I'm glad to hear it.
the afrikaner had better spend that money quickly ...
Why do you applaud outrageous accumulation of wealth?
I applaud Musk making progress and being fairly compensated, but he is already ridiculously rich and holds far too much power in result.
Do you not recognize that wealth continues to be concentrated in a smaller minority in this nation? Do you not recognize the historical problems with having a profound divide between the upper and middle/lower classes?
Some people don't care about that even tho someday they may end up impoverished because of the uber rich who suck up all the resources
Why do we applaud outrageous strength? Or speed? Or skill at singing?
People applaud excellence.
The bottom 50% of American households saw their wealth increase from $880 billion in 2015 to $4.06 trillion in 2025. (Federal Reserve data) That's a 16.5% annualized growth rate.
During that same period the top 0.1% saw their wealth increase from $10.54 trillion to $22.07 trillion. That's a 7.67% annualized growth rate.
How many times in history have the 10 wealthiest people in a society all been self-made?
People applaud accomplishments . It is a bit odd to applaud the accumulation of such power in the hands on an individual. Applaud Musk's accomplishments rather than his greed .
Did you not understand what I meant by this?:
To be crystal clear, we need entrepreneurs and visionaries like Musk. And people like Musk should reap ample rewards for the advancements that they bring forth. But too many people take this idea too far and impose no limits. They believe that successful entrepreneurs should be able to always leverage their wealth, no matter how great the acceleration, with no limit on the power such wealth provides. This results in people like Musk having far too much control over our socio-economic/political system — the system which enabled them to make great accomplishments and gain great wealth.
I love the ability for motivated, inspired, driven people to achieve great success and wealth. A complete fan. But not when the level of wealth and power is so great that it enables an individual to have undue control of the system in which he thrives.
Our constitution fundamentally attempts to mitigate the concentration of power in government. A very good thing. I wish it would work as well as the framer's intended. Seems reasonable that limiting power within our system should apply to both the public and the private sectors. Same basic (and wise) idea.
Why do we think he's greedy? Flushing $45billion to buy freedom of speech for other people hardly seems the kind of thing we envision Ebenezer Scrooge doing.
Inequality is an academic "problem" that really only matters to the small group of liberals who are unhappy about most things. Poverty, on the other hand, is a very real problem that causes people to take whatever action is necessary.
Most people don't care at all how much money you have. They care intently how much they have. If they can put food on their table and gas in their cars they generally don't worry about some random other person's prosperity.
Of course. Setting aside the implication that Musk's compensation package somehow isn't "fair", which is entirely problematic on simply on the grounds of who gets to make that decision, the point I'm making is that our current economy is unlike the French Revolution or other similar situations,.
The wealthiest people in our society are not some idle little lordlings who were born into that wealth. They are all "self made" entrepreneurs who got very rich doing things that anyone else could ostensibly have done.
How do you see Musk having undo control and over what?
Why would I think that the richest man in the world actively seeking even higher levels of wealth is greedy? Kind of what the word 'greed' means.
So ... concentration of wealth (what I was writing about) does not exist because you do not care about it? A very Trump-like response to reality.
Okay, an odd point to make in this discussion. The point I am making is:
Already explained. See the quote above.
Zero.
He spent that money to buy himself power and access. He doesn’t care about your freedom of speech or anyone else’s. The fact that these billionaires manage to convince gullible people that they care about their problems is depressing.
I'm wondering-- has it ever not been like that?
I believe it has always been that way. And the historical lessons are rather clear. The greater the divide, the worse the situation.
History shows what happened to wealthy elitists when the overwhelming majority of citizens are suffering. The whole idea that the nobels (rich) have an obligation to care for the poor is self preservation.
Greed is actually defined as "intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food." I don't see him as selfish and I don't think the money is what motivates him.
I didn't say it didn't exist. At least attempt to read carefully before you start insulting people.
Your quote doesn't answer the question, which is why I asked it in the first place.
Until now.
You are actually suggesting that a guy with $45 billion to spend on "power and access" sees the most efficient use of those funds as wildly overpaying for a social media outlet rather than simply making huge campaign contributions? Have you thought this through? It sounds pretty ridiculous.
He cared about his own. He got pissy because he kept getting censored on Twitter so he bought it. Everybody else's free speech was just a bonus.
See what you wish to see. The richest man in the world negotiating even grander compensation is not greed to you.
If money is not a key factor to Musk and he is really more focused on altruistic advancement of technology then what is the point of him personally acquiring more wealth from Tesla?
Concentration of wealth is real, not just some 'academic topic'.
Yes it does.
No, not even now. This "self made" stuff is a delusion. No one is self made.
Do a little research into his life. Like Trump, he was born into wealth, and then used that base to expand on already existing wealth. He was an average student who led a life of privilege. He is - and always has been - an investor, not an inventor.
Are you really trying to make the argument that Elon Musk does not spend his money in ridiculous ways or make other absurd decisions? Have you thought that through? Just start with his children.
Exactly. You said he spent the money to buy freedom of speech for other people. That is just not the case.
And the thing of it is, it's not even a free speech issue. Free speech is generally about government limiting speech. Twitter/X is a private company. They don't owe anyone free speech. He didn't buy himself free speech. He already had that. He bought himself extra speech, and he also now controls what others can say on that platform.
Wasn't his father wealthy and gave him money to go into business? Musk isn't even an American
Not necessarily, no. Look at how the package is structured.
It's not as much more wealth from Tesla as it is more of Tesla. He wants more ownership of his work.
Again, never said it didn't exist. I said it isn't necessarily a problem.
Are you a Randian?
Oh FFS. Ok by the commonly accepted definition of "self made" (they didn't inherit their wealth) all of the ten richest Americans qualify.
You should follow that excellent advice and learn how much of his money came from his parents.
So has Warren Buffett. Who is also self made, BTW.
You're making my point for me, which is that there was never anything stopping you or me or most other people from doing what Musk or Buffett or Ellison or Bezos have done.
That is a very different kind of wealth inequality from aristocratic birthright situation.
Not at all.
You said he spent $45b to buy power and influence. Very obviously, if you have a $45b power and influence budget, you don't spend it buying Twitter.
He bought Twitter because they wouldn't let him say what he wanted.
Of course it was. You don't think he wanted people who agreed with him to be able to tweet?
Legally no. Practically, yes it was.
According to his biography, their dad gave $28k to Elon and his brother when they started Zip2Cash, or whatever that first company was.
Elon says it never happened.
Regardless, it's not like $28k is very much money. Most families have that. It's not like he had some massive advantage because of his parents.
He's an American citizen, BTW.
Probably not. How do you define the term?
And why are we looking for a label?
Guys who make $50,000 a year are really good at defending billion and trillionaires.
He wasn't born here
His performance-based compensation is substantially higher, and so is the risk. Not unusual to have higher risk tied to higher reward. The point remains that Musk negotiated a compensation plan that has a dramatically higher upside. So why does the richest man in the world need a path to dramatically increase his personal wealth if not based on greed (per the meaning of that word)?:
"Greed is the excessive desire for more wealth, power, or possessions than one needs or deserves."
A distinction without a difference. Stock = wealth + power.
Concentration of wealth is a real problem, not just some 'academic topic'.
I dont think your criteria is the correct one. No one becomes a billionaire without the co-operation and even acquiescence of countless other people . It is not a simple matter of whether or not one inherited it.
Nonsense.
Stock = ownership of your own work.
If it were a real problem people other than college educated liberals would be shouting about it.
It's not my criteria.
It's a saying. It's a figure of speech.
It's a euphemism used to differentiate people like Bezos, Brin, Musk and Buffet from people like Alice Walton, John Mars, Abigail Johnson or Leonard Lauder.
It differentiates people who made their own fortunes from those who inherited them.
It does not imply those people did everything themselves or never had any help.
It's like "raining cats and dogs". Don't take it literally.
Thanks for making my point for me...
You had a point? Well done. What was it?
Yeah stock = ownership AND (per my undeniable point) stock = wealth + power
Funny how "college educated liberals" enters the conversation. Emotional crap. Nobody is shouting. One need not be a "college-educated liberal" to recognize the problem of wealth concentration.
The difference being the motivation. The desire to own the results of your own labor, have greater control over how it's achieved, and greater ability to determine your own future isn't greed. It's the foundation from which every business owner begins.
Funny how plumbers and electricians aren't organizing symposiums to discuss the evils of wealth concentration.
The richest man in the world wants even more control (power) and more wealth: "Greed is the excessive desire for more wealth, power, or possessions than one needs or deserves."
Casting all those who understand history and economics at this level as "college-educated liberals" is just emotive/partisan bullshit.
Over his own life and work. Every bit of his compensation package comes as more ownership of the project. That's hardly greed.
The emotive/partisan bullshit here is disgruntled liberals trying to hide their wealth envy behind a phantom "problem" of their own invention.
“commonly accepted” can be - and often is - bullshit. An endless list of efforts and/or concessions by other people contribute to the wealth of any individual. No one is self made. Such claims are made by delusional narcissists and those who worship/envy them.
The richest man in the world wants even more control (power) and more wealth: "Greed is the excessive desire for more wealth, power, or possessions than one needs or deserves."
Fiction.
There are limits on those things. There are for everyone - at least there is supposed to be. Guys like Musk think they can keep getting money and power and then just do whatever they want. That’s not how it works for most people, and that’s not how it’s supposed to work for anyone.
It never rains cats and dogs.
Nobody is over the moon.
You don't bite a bullet.
It doesn't cost and arm and a leg.
You can't steal thunder.
Do you see how this works?
28% in this case. That's how much of the company he will own if he hits all of the targets.
Riiiight. Through this notorious evil plan where they start companies that sell stuff people want.
The bastards.
Talk about a false equivalency! Everything you listed is a metaphor. What I said, I meant literally.
There’s more to controlling wealth and power than just how much of a company you own.
The point is that you are taking a metaphor literally.
You may as well be arguing that you cannot wrap your head around this because the human skull is an inflexible part of the skeleton ill suited for the geometric transformations necessary to enclose and external item, and that intellectual concepts lack physical form, making it impossible to measure the scale of the topological requirements necessary.
Now you're catching on.
So contrary to the previous highly suspicious assertions from various people, owning more of Tesla is unlikely to make Elon Musk more powerful than he already is. News flash... Elon already knows this.
To be honest, it seems positively idiotic that people are worried about Elon getting stock options instead of Elon putting a million robots in our homes.
Because you have been arguing it literally.
More money and more power are not meaningless. He will always seek more, and do it at the expense of the rest of us.
Why?
He deserves it for using DOGE to shut down USAID and kill hundreds of thousands of poor people around the world. What maga doesn't love that?
Why? For what possible reason does this make you glad?
I want to answer that so badly but it will lead me to a vacay
A trillion is a thousand billion. Tesla shares tank.
He's going to run Tesla into the ground
Didn’t you say Twitter would fold in a year after he took over?
prove it
Musk is trying to turn around the company's fortunes by focusing on developing robots that could one day work as household servants
Forget household servants, how about field workers, this needs to be done. Working 24/7 only taking recharging breaks, no food, no water, no heat exhaustion, and most importantly no porta-johns.
I don't see him running anything into the ground, he's been taking everything he makes and reinvesting it into our future. He won't be sitting on that trillion, he will put it to work.
I'm all for the field workers.
He should start a charity that does some actual good. But according to the article he doesn't get a dime of that until he starts showing profits from his ideas
Every part down to the last screw of those robots better be manufactured in the US with American sourced materials or those job stealers will be deported.
Now that's a very good incentive to "Get 'er done".
Yabetcha!! And they better make sure there is a certified scientific organization to oversee the work done, and in-house and outside quality control operations to make sure 'all' restrictions and requirements are met before the release of anything produced by them.
JM
Our future? You’re deluded if you think he cares about your future or mine.
If his human like robots turn out to be failures like his cybertrucks, it can be very scary. Why?
Because when the trucks fail they may simply stop working. However, if the robots fail it is not known if they will just stop working, or continue working in an unsafe, or even destructive way that can result in a seriously dangerous way.
Musk may see himself as the answer to all world problems, but, most of what he has done so far leaves me with a good bit of doubt. I just see him as another greedy, narcissistic AH who sees himself far more intelligent and important than anyone else on earth.
JMOO
Theoretically, yeah.
I'm just remembering the whole "surprise acceleration" situation plagued Audis when I was younger.
As much software as is necessary for a Cybertruck, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that it starts behaving independently at random and inconvenient times.
I suppose any machine can get out of control. The more powerful the machine the more damage it can do.
I agree with that. And after all, robots are merely programmed machinery to imitate human beings. In some cases their intelligence may be much superior to some humans, depending on the level of intelligence of the perons(s programming them, and their own intentions.
INHO, before we as a civilization here on earth, and that includes all human life, we need to become farrr more intelligent that anyone, anywhere is now, regardless of what they think of themselves, to take on the dangerous task of programming human-like robots.
And, to me, Elon Musk has a longg way to go before he would fit into that category.
Again, JMOO
Pretty low bar, TBF.
I'm reminded of the story where someone asked a Yellowstone National Park ranger why it was so hard to create a bear proof trash can.
He said "there is considerable overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest humans."
Very true. No matter how smart someone thinks they are, there is always a smarter brain somewhere to remind them just how little they really know. And it may not always be a human being.
To me, one of the dumbest things a human can do is ignore the animals.
Tesla announced Thursday that shareholders had voted to approve the biggest pay package in corporate history for CEO Elon Musk, in a deal worth up to $1 trillion over 10 years
Wow. I need to start pumping ketamine into my system until my kidneys fail if I want to ever financially compete with this degenerate. Genius move guys.
He needs a tax cut.
Tesla shareholders are taking a huge loss today.
Meh. Most of the tech giants are down today.
AMD is off 2.6% right now, and GOOGL is down over 2%.
That's the way the stock market works-- some days stocks go up, other days they go down.
Exactly.
And the shareholders might not be the only ones to suffer the results of their decision.
Only if they sell (at a lower price than they paid for it).
Stockholders don't lose (or make) money on a trade when it has a big move up or down, unless they sell it at that time.
Actually there's a term for that on Wall Street-- if your stock plummets but you don't sell it, its called "A paper loss" . (If your stock plummets one day and you don't sell it then, and keeps going up the next day that's a "paper loss" rather than you actually losing any money).
In fact in some cases a dip in price for a day is seen as a good thing-- you can "buy the dip",
In my opinion, if Musk really wanted to make a name for himself for eternal history, there are so many important and better ways to use it than to play super scientist that he is no where near qualified for.
I have a feeling that Musk will make a name for himself, but, not the one he so desperately wants.
People have different motives in life. I don't know enough about Musk to know what he really wants. (Some people really do care what others think about them. Others don't . . . and everything in between)
Google AI:
Incentive package based on performance that the board seems he is worth it. He is supposed to turn it down because of some whiners? Thar is rhetorical, the answer is no.