The rollercoaster that is Elon Musk’s compensation package at Tesla continues its wild ride. Initially approved in 2018, this multi-billion dollar payday has faced legal challenges, shareholder votes, and intense scrutiny, leaving its fate uncertain. While Musk’s personal wealth is well-documented, Tesla’s motivation to ensure he’s adequately compensated stems from a desire to retain his leadership and prevent his departure.
The initial approval of the pay package was challenged by shareholders who argued that the board had not properly considered its fiduciary duties. The courts sided with the shareholders, effectively nullifying the agreement. Tesla, however, sought to reinstate the package through a shareholder vote, leveraging a specific corporate law to support their efforts. Despite the vote passing, the original judicial rejection remained a significant hurdle.
A “special committee” consisting of Tesla board chair Robyn Denholm and board member Kathleen Wilson-Thompson has been formed to address the compensation issue. Their task is to determine a fair way to reward Musk for his past performance, but perhaps more importantly, to ensure his continued commitment to Tesla. Musk himself has publicly stated that he could leave Tesla if his ownership stake falls below 25%. This threat, coupled with rumors of the board exploring potential replacements, underscores the gravity of the situation.
According to the Financial Times, major investors have been actively engaging with the board, expressing their views on Musk’s compensation and leadership. The delay in submitting Tesla’s proxy statement suggests that the annual meeting might be postponed, allowing the committee more time to develop new compensation proposals. Any stock options granted would likely be contingent on Tesla achieving specific financial, operational, and share price targets.
The value of Musk’s pay package has fluctuated significantly, reaching over $100 billion at the height of Tesla’s stock price. However, a key challenge lies in Musk’s evolving public image. While once widely admired, his forays into political commentary and perceived shift in values have complicated the situation. Tesla itself has acknowledged that “changing political sentiment” could impact demand for its products.
Subaru’s commitment to an electric future remains, but the path forward is being reconsidered in light of significant financial headwinds. Tariffs are playing a major role in reshaping the automaker’s strategy.
CEO Atsushi Osaki recently announced that Subaru is “re-evaluating […] the timing of investments” as the company grapples with an estimated $2.5 billion impact from tariffs. This announcement coincided with the release of Subaru’s year-end fiscal results.
While Subaru aims to electrify its entire vehicle lineup by the first half of 2030, the immediate focus may shift away from full battery-electric vehicles (BEVs). The company is exploring hybrid powertrain configurations as a more viable near-term solution. Given that Subaru imports approximately half of its U.S. vehicle sales from Japan, managing tariff-related costs is a critical priority.
Osaki’s comments suggest a potential reassessment of production plans for a dedicated BEV plant, with consideration being given to “mixed production with gasoline products.” While the Subaru Solterra (Trailseeker) is available, the company is placing a greater emphasis on hybrid models, such as the 2025 Subaru Forester hybrid. This strategy aligns with the expectation that hybrids will attract new buyers, particularly on the U.S. West Coast, and provide a buffer if EV sales decline due to factors like the potential elimination of the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Subaru’s approach reflects a broader understanding that electrification is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Hybrids offer a transitional step, and the future of EVs in America will significantly influence Subaru’s long-term BEV strategy.
The Xiaomi SU7, once hailed as a rising star in the EV market, is now facing significant challenges in its home market, including quality issues, regulatory scrutiny, and a decline in sales.
The China Automobile Quality Network’s Q1 2025 rankings placed the Xiaomi SU7 at the bottom of its segment, indicating a high volume of consumer complaints and post-sale problems. The SU7 received 239 penalty points, significantly higher than the segment average, suggesting a high risk of defects and a poor complaint-to-sales ratio.
| Ranking Factor | Xiaomi SU7 | Segment Average |
|---|---|---|
| Penalty Points | 239 | 183 |
Xiaomi has faced criticism for issues such as a non-functional carbon fiber hood and a temporary reduction in horsepower via a software update. While the horsepower was eventually restored, these incidents have damaged consumer trust. A fatal accident involving the SU7’s smart driving features has also raised concerns about the safety and marketing of autonomous driving capabilities, leading to increased regulatory oversight.
According to Reuters, new orders for the SU7 experienced a significant drop in April, falling 55% from March. This decline reflects the growing consumer concerns surrounding the vehicle’s quality and safety.
