The shareholders that will be voting to reauthorize are not the same shareholders that voted to authorize it originally.

I'm not a direct shareholder, but if the Deleware court gives me an option not to pay $55 Billion that I thought was committed, I'd strongly consider.

What are the implications of not approving? On the plus side, the company keeps the compensation. On the minus side, Musk will be upset; and there's a trust issue for future compensation. On the neutral side, those receiving future compensation will endeavour to follow an approval process that is likely to stand up in court.

I think the incentives are the same if the shareholders are the same or not. You covered the implications as I understand it.

Is it really a minus if Musk is upset? If he’s upset enough to leave, that seems like a potentially beneficial outcome.

There’s got to be some measurable number of people who are turned off from buying a Tesla because of his association, especially now that alternatives are available.

Tesla’s current valuation is pretty much thanks to him. His personality meme stocked the company to a valuation that made no sense.

If I’m a shareholder, I don’t want an overly inflated stock price. I want a high stock price due to solid fundamentals. Tesla was temporarily extremely overvalued, but has since lost 60% of its market cap. It’s likely still overvalued compared with peers. It’s a car company, not a b2b SaaS company.

Put another way, which company is more likely to exist in 10 years: Microsoft or Tesla?

Not sure why you are down-voted. If you are an investor, you want a fair price when you buy. Think of going to a store, when there is a sale and prices are below value of a product, it's smart to buy. Same goes with stocks.

If you are an investor, you want an unfairly low price when you buy, and an unfairly high price when you hold or sell.

Exactly

> Tesla’s current valuation is pretty much thanks to him.

And nobody has a larger interest in Tesla's valuation them Musk himself, the largest shareholder.

He can't walk and any threats to that effect are theatrics. Shareholders would be idiots to re-approve the $55bn.

This assumes he cant sell and leave. It would be costly to him, but not impossible. Both sides have leverage in a situation of mutual assured destruction. I dont think it is accurate to only consider the leverage in one direction.

It might be the case that shareholders wouldn't like him when he's angry?