特斯拉薪酬方案悬而未决，董事会主席发声，马斯克或将离开公司

Core Viewpoint - The ambitious targets set by the company, such as delivering 20 million vehicles and deploying 1 million robots, face significant challenges including supply chain issues, costs, regulations, and market acceptance, which raises concerns about the feasibility of these goals [1][5] Group 1: Shareholding and Voting Rights - The increase of Elon Musk's shareholding from 13% to at least 25% not only redistributes wealth but also reshapes control, enhancing his influence over the company's strategic direction and major decisions [1][6] - The board is tasked with convincing shareholders to accept high return promises in exchange for potential future growth, while Musk leverages his vision and influence to attract supporters [6][7] Group 2: External Opposition and Public Sentiment - There is significant external opposition, with ISS recommending a vote against the proposal and various unions and organizations protesting, indicating that the controversy extends beyond internal governance to public opinion and investor sentiment [3][6] - The outcome of the vote will determine whether the company continues to gamble on Musk's vision or reverts to a more traditional governance structure [6][7] Group 3: Market Perspective and Execution Challenges - The proposal represents an extreme bet on shareholder returns, with supporters viewing it as long-term incentive for Musk, while opponents argue it shifts future uncertainties onto current retail and institutional investors [5][6] - The company's innovative capabilities and brand premium are acknowledged, but over-reliance on a single individual poses systemic risks, especially as the company matures [6][7] Group 4: Key Variables Influencing the Vote - The success of the proposal hinges on several variables, including the attitudes of institutional investors, the influence of advisory firms like ISS, the evolution of public sentiment, and the company's recent performance and regulatory environment [7] - Regardless of the outcome, the situation may lead to leadership instability and stock price volatility in the short term, but could also prompt a return to institutional management practices [7]