Elon Musk likes to assault circles of energy. It’s as if he is on a mission.
Nothing appears to inspire him greater than slapping a revered establishment or icon. He appears to be dedicated to difficult all types of representations of energy.
During the previous few weeks, the Techno King, as he is identified at Tesla (TSLA) – Get Free Report, has lashed out at Anthony Fauci, the immunologist who was the face of America’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
This regardless of the dangers that such an assault might backfire on Musk, and extra particularly on a few of his firms, like Tesla. The electric-vehicle chief’s buyer base is made up largely of progressives, who in flip are sometimes ardent defenders of Fauci.
But none of that has stopped Musk, who has mentioned he needs Dr. Fauci prosecuted.
Via his Twitter microblogging platform, he even promised covid information that will denounce what he considers the totalitarianism of the well being authorities as they responded to the pandemic. These covid information have been additionally supposed to reveal Dr. Fauci.
Musk then attacked the World Economic Forum, the final conference of which has simply concluded in Davos, Switzerland. The billionaire accused the discussion board of appearing like an unpopular world authorities. He has thus taken up the discourse of the anti-elite and anti-globalists of all political stripes.
“WEF is increasingly becoming an unelected world government that the people never asked for and don’t want,” the tech tycoon blasted out on Jan. 18.
ISS, Glass Lewis Have ‘Far Too Much Power’: Musk
His cost in opposition to Davos has amped up criticism of the gathering of worldwide financial and political elites and civil-society figures.
If Musk, the second richest man on this planet, strongly criticizes a circle made up of individuals simply as wealthy as he’s, discussion board critics say, his remarks serve to show that Davos just isn’t fulfilling the mission it set for itself.
“The World Economic Forum meeting in Davos has become largely irrelevant, little more than an exercise in self-congratulation for the world’s elites to convince themselves that they’re making a difference,” blasted Patriotic Millionaires, an affiliation of wealthy people preventing for “equal political representation, a livable minimum wage and a fair tax system.”
If the billionaire doesn’t anticipate his targets to instantly fall from their pedestals below his blows, he hopes to have a minimum of completely weaken them.
But whereas his assaults on Davos are nonetheless scorching, the worldwide CEO is focusing on two different entities that additionally symbolize energy.
These are the 2 largest proxy-advisory corporations: Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass-Lewis. For Musk, ISS and Glass Lewis are the true masters of the inventory market. In his eyes, their energy is disproportionate.
The two corporations present recommendation to shareholders on government compensation and the voting for board members. Their recommendation is each thought of and ignored.
“Far too much power is concentrated in the hands of ‘shareholder services’ companies like ISS and Glass Lewis, because so much of the market is passive/index funds, which outsource shareholder voting decisions to them,” Musk criticized on Jan. 24.
As a end result, “ISS and Glass Lewis effectively control the stock market.”
As typically with Musk, the primary assault goals to set the stage and take the ambient temperature. In coming days or even weeks he may be anticipated to multiply his assaults in opposition to the 2 corporations, which encourage the implementation of ESG (environmental, social and company governance) norms. Musk has made ESG his No. 1 enemy.
ISS and Glass and Lewis didn’t reply to separate requests for remark.
‘What Does ISS Think About That?’
Musk’s cost in opposition to them, alternatively, was welcomed by Twitter customers.
“These ‘governance solution’ companies are very disconcerting,” commented a Twitter consumer. “The words ‘recommends vote against/for’ is a thinly disguised threat that they are in control and you better go along with them. I would never delegate my vote to them. 97% market share voting advice = complete control.”
“Ouch!” quipped one other consumer.
“It is so important to vote as an individual investor rather than leave it up to these ‘shareholder services’ companies that manipulate the stock market,” mentioned one Twitter consumer.
There is dangerous blood between Musk and the 2 corporations. ISS and Glass Lewis had, for instance, advisable that shareholders vote in opposition to the beneficiant compensation package deal Tesla granted to its charismatic CEO in 2018.
A trial on Musk’s pay was held final November. A Tesla holder had filed a criticism to protest his compensation, estimated at greater than $50 billion however conditioned on the corporate’s monetary and stock-market efficiency. The trial led to mid-November. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery has not but issued a ruling from the bench.
According to Jim Woodrum, medical professor of government training on the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, muted criticism of ISS and Glass Lewis may be heard within the boardrooms.
“If you ask experienced directors about their biggest complaint about the changes in the boardroom over the last 20 years, I think many would grumble and then say something about Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis,” Woodrum said.
“To some, these entities have taken the fun out of being a director, as creativity has been replaced by an increased focus on compliance.”
Woodrum then defined how the 2 consulting corporations function and the way they achieve energy.
“Both firms have created models of what they think good governance looks like. And both use various algorithms to determine whether a given company is deserving of a ‘yes’ vote on Say on Pay, and whether individual board members should be supported,” he continued.
“Many institutions follow their recommendations, while others subscribe to the services yet also employ their own staff to determine how they should vote their shares.
“The most attention-grabbing factor about these corporations is that their enterprise mannequin requires them to vary their pointers frequently. After all, if that they had an easy algorithm and all firms adopted them, there would then be no want for ISS or Glass Lewis to exist.”
But boardrooms have become dependent on ISS and Glass Lewis, Woodrum warned.
The most popular boardroom conversation is, he says, “‘What does ISS take into consideration that?’
“This has also led to a homogenization of boardroom practices, as more and more companies come into compliance with the latest edict from ISS and/or Glass Lewis,” the professor mentioned.
The professor believes that there’s a approach for the boards of administrators and the 2 consulting corporations to coexist.
www.thestreet.com
