I asked the GPT chat what you can do with $ 55 billion. “It is possible to do almost everything,” answered the machine. I received some examples: build one million schools, buy General Motors, invest in over 500 startups or buy 100,000 luxury apartments in New York. Practically infinite money.
This was precisely the value of Elon Musk’s remuneration package approved by Tesla in 2018 – which was annulled last year by a United States. By classifying the process as ‘flawed and unfair to shareholders’, the judge annulled the billionaire figure and exposed the weaknesses of the company’s governance system. The understanding was that there were no real negotiations about the approval of the package and that information to shareholders was insufficient.
The court decision did not end the controversy. On the contrary, it rekindled the global debate on how – and how much – one must pay to a CEO with the profile and power of Musk. The case has become a reference (and alert) for companies such as Axon, Plantir and even startups that adopted similar models of long -term remuneration.
Continues after advertising
The future of musk payment is open. Tesla designated a special committee to evaluate a new compensation package. The group formed by two counselors studies alternative ways of recognizing the executive’s work. According to American media, any new plan will depend on meeting financial, operational and stock targets, in line with the “pay for performance” trends.
In parallel, the company appealed the decision of Delaware, alleging multiple legal errors in the judgment that annulled the compensation. Nor did it set a date for its next General Assembly of shareholders or even issued the proposals to be analyzed. Was it a sign that the council seeks a solution to remunerate the richest man in the world without betraying the principles of good governance? We don’t have this answer yet.
Lesson for Brazil
Meanwhile, the episode lights a warning to other countries, such as Brazil, where transparency on executive remuneration is still limited. Cases such as Musk’s reinforce the importance of robust governance, capable of balancing innovation, leadership and accountability to investors.
Continues after advertising
For many years, the justification for “personal security” prevailed here to prevent the disclosure of individual remuneration, the central argument of an injunction obtained by IBEF-RJ. Although fragile, he was in force for years until he was overthrown in 2018. It was an important but still insufficient step. The companies’ compensation policy is still the target of little scrutiny.
In article published in Value investsthe president of Amec, Fábio Coelho, pointed out that only a small portion of companies really created value for their shareholders – and yet many maintained generous packages for their executives, with high salaries, short -term bonuses and poorly demanding goals. He points out the existence of fragile governance structures, with unique compensation committees, subordinate to management and without autonomy to question the proposals. In contrast, companies with consistent performance tend to adopt more rigorous goals, well -calibrated incentive mechanisms and more independent advice. For Coelho, the starting point is transparency: no clear, nominal and affordable information, shareholders vote for “blind” – and companies risk compromising their long -term sustainability.
The discussion about Elon Musk’s remuneration – or any other executive – is not merely curious about the salary of others, nor a shallow attempt to judge whether a figure is “immoral” or not. It is about understanding how a company’s money is allocated, what incentives are being created for its leaders and what kind of organizational culture it promotes.
Continues after advertising
These factors directly impact the company’s performance, its strategic decisions and even its products and prices. Even those who are not a shareholder can be affected: an Tesla electric car consumer, for example, may feel in practice the consequences of leadership from short -term goals, risky decisions or misaligned management with long -term interests of the company and society. The way a company remunerates its leaders says more than numbers: it reveals what it values and where it is going.
