No. of Recommendations: 0
" But given the Delaware Chancery Court taking away Musk's $3 billion pay package 6 years after it was approved by ~80% of stockholders because he only had to increase TSLA Market Cap by $550 billion to earn it,"" To Da Moon Ralph, funny you would bring that up. I was very surprised the SEC allowed TSLA to structure Musks pay package in that way, based on stock performance. In the late 80s I tried to structure compensation, based on stock performance and the SEC wouldn't allow it. The SEC was concerned that pay structure would incentivize insiders to be overly promotional, to be kind. To be honest, I agreed with the SECs opinion, and we didn't do it. However, once the SEC allowed the TSLA package to be approved and once tsla shareholders approved it, he should have been allowed to keep it. It was fully disclosed, I remember being very surprised , but if you didn't like the agreement, don't buy TSLA simple. Musk was right to move the company's state on incorporation. Second, the SEC looks for consistency and clear patterns. IF Buffett has a history of aggressively buying and selling Coke, Amex, Apple, large positions etc, then his pattern of transactions in CVX shouldn't set off any alarms. BTW, does Alice handle the family finances?
