National Post

Tesla electrifie­s the paycheque

- Victor Li Victor Li is executive vice president, governance advisory at Kingsdale Advisors and a member of the Markets Advisory Council of the Council of Institutio­nal Investors.

With the release of Elon Musk’s Tesla pay package last month, gasps were heard in boardrooms across Canada. Thousands of companies will be holding their annual advisory vote on compensati­on — otherwise known as say-on-pay — and Musk’s pay package changes everything. Many directors are deliberati­ng how to remunerate their top talent while meeting the changing expectatio­ns of shareholde­rs.

T he present value of Musk’s 10- year stock- option grant, vesting in 12 tranches based on aspiration­al performanc­e metrics, totals a whopping US$ 2.6 billion, with the future value that could be realized reaching US$ 55.8 billion. Unlike the non-binding say-on-pay vote in Canada, Tesla shareholde­rs will have the power to bless or deny the pay package, a privilege they did not have when the last one was approved in 2012.

Beyond the dollar amount there are a few unique features that boards should note. First, it demonstrat­es the pay- f or- performanc­e doctrine in the purest way with an “all- or- nothing” design. The vesting conditions of each tranche are com- prised of one market- capitaliza­tion milestone ( at the increment of US$ 50 billion up to US$ 650 billion after first reaching US$ 100 billion from the current US$55 billion) and one operating milestone ( out of eight topline milestones and eight bottom- l i ne milestones: revenue from US$ 20 billion to US$ 175 billion; adjusted EBITDA from US$1.5 billion to US$14 billion).

Second, it is a long- term package that lasts 10 years but has no quarterly or annual targets. The milestone can be reached at any time within the 10 years. Multiple tranches can vest at once. In a world where short-termism has gained popularity, this feature really stands out.

Third, forget about total shareholde­r return and real profitabil­ity. Growing market capitaliza­tion and topline revenue are most important here.

The bottom-line measure, adjusted EBITDA, will exclude the expense of stockbased compensati­on, such as this pay package.

Plus, Tesla could meet all the eight top-line milestones and only four of the eight bottom-line milestones.

For a company like Tesla, if it can grow the number of shares without a stock-price decrease or raise money without making money, Musk will still be able to hit all the milestones. Shareholde­r return or real profitabil­ity could be further down the horizon. But who will complain with such magnificen­t growth?

Fourth, there is no benchmarki­ng. Looking at what your peers are doing has been popular in recent years in particular because of the growing amount of disclosure on executive compensati­on. Positionin­g executive pay at the peer median has also become acceptable.

However, cherry- picking peers and inflating benchmark pay have resulted in increasing critiques over the benchmarki­ng approach.

With no peers for Tesla to look to, this new package is not much different from the one Musk was given in 2012, except that the then-present value of the 2012 package was only US$ 78 million, a rounding error of this new package.

So could an approach like this work at other companies? Keep in mind the package is all Musk will get. No base salary, no annual bonus, no pension, and no perks, but Musk is already a multibilli­onaire and does not need these extras. Lower- ranked executives at Tesla have more convention­al packages. So, the question for boards is whether their CEO should be incentiviz­ed differentl­y if he or she is a visionary founder or if retaining the CEO is a, if not the, most critical component of driving long-term value.

Boards also need to ask if they could sell a package with similar features to their shareholde­rs. Tesla engaged with 15 of its largest institutio­nal shareholde­rs over six months while designing this package. Proxy advisers such as Institutio­nal Shareholde­r Services and Glass Lewis are likely to support the package even though it runs afoul of their quantitati­ve assessment, which is not designed to assess a plan this unusual.

Tesla did take note of concerns raised previously and included a clawback, fiveyear post- exercise holding period — all will be liked by proxy advisers.

With Tesla shareholde­rs likely to endorse the package, the lesson for directors should not be taken from the headline number but a close calibratio­n between pay and performanc­e that says to shareholde­rs, “we’re with you.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada