Tesla Board Chair Robindenholm Sells $188 Million in Stock as Profits Decline

In March, following a significant decline in Tesla’s stock price, Elon Musk informed employees that he was “committed to inventory.”

Robin Denholm, the chair of Tesla’s board, appears to have disregarded this advice. According to an analysis by Securities Filing’s New York Times, she has profited $180 million from selling Tesla shares she obtained through her board role within the last six months.

With this, her total earnings from Tesla stock sales exceed $530 million since she became chair in late 2018.

These stock transactions have raised questions regarding Denholm’s confidence in Tesla’s future. Her recent sales, executed under a pre-established trading plan created last summer, coincided with Musk’s demanding involvement in the Trump administration. Consequently, Tesla’s car sales have experienced a decline as Musk’s political endeavors alienated some customers. The company’s profits for the first quarter of 2025 plummeted to their lowest level in four years.

Denholm has the right to purchase stocks through stock options granted by Tesla from 2014 to 2020, which have dramatically increased in value. For instance, last week, she acquired over 112,000 shares at $24.73 each and sold them the same day for upwards of $270.

“To discard her inventory does not send a message that this is a board chair invested in the company’s future,” stated New York City Director Bradlander, overseeing the city’s five public pension funds, which held more than 3 million Tesla shares valued at around $817 million as of March.

A spokesperson for Denholm asserted that Tesla compensates its executives in a manner “fully aligned with shareholder interests.”

“The appreciation of Tesla’s director’s choices reflects the company’s superiority over its industry peers, yielding distinctive returns for shareholders who own the company,” he added.

Stock options, which have historically constituted the bulk of Tesla’s compensation, are valuable only if the company’s stock price appreciates. Those exercising options to acquire shares may choose to sell or retain their new shares.

Denholm has sold over 1.4 million Tesla shares while retaining 85,000 shares and approximately 49,000 stock options. Comparative Methods, a consulting firm, has scrutinized the compensation strategy. Her most recent stock transactions occurred under a plan initiated in July shortly after Musk endorsed Donald J. Trump for president.

Regulatory frameworks allow executives and insiders to engage in such transactions without disclosing numerous plan specifics, including their motivations or the terms for stock disposal. They also possess considerable latitude to rescind plans.

Denholm, an experienced technology executive from Australia, typically maintains a low profile and avoids public commentary on Tesla or Musk. She joined the Tesla Commission in 2014 and became chair after Musk stepped down in 2018 as part of an SEC settlement.

Criticism from investors, activists, and Delaware judges has arisen regarding her and other board members for not serving as a check on Musk’s influence, with assertions that the Tesla director has failed to keep him focused on the company.

“Musk operates as if there were no board oversight,” wrote Delaware Chancery Court Prime Minister Catalyne St. J. McCormick last year, noting the case was valued at approximately $56 billion when ruling in favor of shareholders contesting Musk’s 2018 compensation package. Judge McCormick characterized Denholm’s oversight of Musk as “Rakkadichal.”

Tesla’s appeal against the decision led to the annulment of Musk’s pay package, with Denholm actively disputing Judge McCormick’s allegations.

“Everyone who knows me understands I’m not lacking in assertiveness. I know what that word means now,” Denholm told the Financial Times last year. “It’s probably the farthest from the truth. I’m genuinely passionate and highly engaged with my duties.”

In the trial concerning Musk’s compensation, Denholm characterized her earnings from the Tesla board as “life-changing.” Compensation at Tesla was also scrutinized in another lawsuit in which Denholm and fellow board members reached a settlement in 2023.

Musk, who has been a part-time CEO of Tesla for years, has assumed even more responsibilities over time, regularly engaging with Washington and orchestrating President Trump’s strategies to reduce governmental spending and oppose federal employees.

Recently, Musk stated he would reduce his Washington presence by one or two days each week. Nevertheless, his focus will remain divided as he manages several other enterprises, including SpaceX and X, the social media platform he owns.

The first transaction based on Denholm’s recent trading plan occurred in November, shortly after the presidential election, as Tesla’s stock began to rise. In December, the stock reached a new high, and she continued to sell until early May, even as prices declined amid consumer backlash against Musk’s political activities.

Following recent losses, the stock has decreased by approximately 34% from its peak.

Musk acknowledged Tesla’s challenges during a March meeting with employees. “If you read the news, it feels like you understand.”

He reiterated his advice to employees not to sell their shares, asserting that Tesla will evolve into the world’s most valuable company through the realization of self-driving taxis and advanced robotic technologies. “The future is exceptionally promising,” he stated.

Denholm’s sales have significantly outpaced those of other Tesla board members.

In 2023, she and other current and former board members agreed to a settlement for shareholder lawsuits concerning their compensation, collectively agreeing to return $735 million. They denied any wrongdoing. Additionally, on May 1, a stock option valued at over $130 million was canceled to fulfill Denholm’s obligations, according to securities filings.

Following the lawsuit in June 2021, the board resolved to relinquish the new stock grants.

During the same period, Denholm also made more from selling company shares than other corporate committee leaders. The Times assessed stock sales made by chairs of the most valuable companies in the U.S., distinct from the executives of those companies, like Denholm.

The next non-executive chair who benefited significantly from selling shares in his oversight capacity is Stephen Hemsley of UnitedHealth Group. Since November 2018, Hemsley has profited over $100 million from UnitedHealth shares, all accrued during his tenure as CEO of the healthcare firm.

UnitedHealth reviewed the findings but refrained from commenting. On Tuesday, the company announced its decision to appoint Hemsley as its new Chief Executive while also retaining the chair position.

Sales carried out by executives and directors often predict subpar performance from the companies they lead, according to various academic studies.

Leaders like Denholm possess access to confidential information and a profound understanding of how broader economic factors can impact corporate performance. Nejat Seyhun, a finance professor at the University of Michigan, observes that this can render their transactions particularly lucrative.

Insiders “establish plans when they hold such information,” remarked Professor Seyhun. “If circumstances shift, they can easily rescind those plans.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

Tesla’s Chair Claims Board Did Not Attempt to Replace Elon Musk

The chairman of Tesla’s board has refuted claims regarding his search for a successor to CEO Elon Musk, who has been preoccupied with President Trump while the company’s sales and profits have notably declined.

Robin Denholm, who has chaired the board for over six years, stated on X that the Wall Street Journal report was “completely unfounded.”

“Elon Musk is Tesla’s CEO, and the board is highly confident in our ability to pursue our exciting growth initiatives,” Denholm announced on a Tesla account linked to Musk’s social media platform, X.

The Wall Street Journal reported late Wednesday that approximately a month ago, the Tesla board reached out to an executive search firm for assistance in finding a potential alternative to Musk, citing “individuals with relevant expertise.”

Following a 71% drop in quarterly profit reported last week, Musk has committed to dedicating more time to Tesla and less to Washington. He mentioned he spends one or two days weekly on administrative tasks.

Musk’s absence from Tesla, as he focuses on efforts to reduce government spending under Trump, has stirred frustration among investors. His association with right-wing movements in Europe has sparked protests at Tesla dealerships and contributed to decreasing sales, as electric vehicle buyers generally lean more liberal or centrist.

Recent reports indicated that Tesla’s revenue fell 9% in the first quarter of this year, amounting to $19.3 billion.

Automakers are losing market share in the US, China, and Europe, as competitors like BYD, General Motors, Volkswagen, and others roll out numerous electric models. Analysts have criticized Tesla for not broadening its offerings beyond the two main vehicles.

The Model Y SUVs and Model 3 sedans account for a substantial portion of Tesla’s sales. Musk indicated that Tesla’s latest vehicle, the CyberTruck, is not yet available for sale.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Democrats remove Trump-appointed FTC chair

President Trump is being sued by two former Democratic Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners for firing them, alleging it was an illegal executive overreach. Trump dismissed commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya on March 18, disrupting the bipartisan setup of the agency. In a U.S. District Court lawsuit, Slaughter’s and Bedoya’s lawyers claimed that their removal violated federal law. They referenced a 1935 Supreme Court precedent stating the president cannot fire members of an independent regulatory commission solely due to policy disagreements.

The White House did not respond immediately to requests for comment, previously asserting that Trump has the authority to manage administrative personnel. This lawsuit is part of a larger legal battle over Trump’s expansion of his powers, with over 50 court decisions temporarily halting his administration’s actions. The fight also extends to regulators who are meant to be independent of direct White House control.

Slaughter and Bedoya’s lawsuit named two Republican FTC commissioners and the agency’s executive director as defendants. They cited the 1914 law protecting commissioners from arbitrary removal, reinforced by Supreme Court rulings. Trump’s attempts to exert control over regulatory agencies have faced backlash from legal challenges.

Trump signed an executive order affecting several agencies, requiring proposed regulations to be submitted to the White House for review. This move tightens the White House’s grip on agency operations. Despite legal battles, Trump continues to assert his authority over regulatory bodies.

The FTC, involved in high-profile cases against tech giants like Meta and Amazon, faces ongoing disputes regarding corporate practices and antitrust issues. With a focus on online platforms, the FTC is navigating complex legal challenges under Ferguson’s leadership.

In a letter, the White House argued that the Supreme Court’s protections for FTC commissioners do not apply to current leaders. The lawsuit highlights the ongoing struggle between Trump’s administration and independent regulatory bodies.

The lawsuit alleges that Slaughter and Bedoya were abruptly removed from their positions at the FTC without justification. Their legal battle exemplifies the broader conflict over the administration’s attempts to exert control over regulatory agencies.

The lawsuit filed by Slaughter and Bedoya sheds light on the power struggles within the FTC and the broader implications of presidential authority over independent regulatory bodies.

The FTC’s battles with tech giants and corporate entities underscore the agency’s critical role in regulating antitrust practices and protecting consumers. Under heightened scrutiny, the agency’s actions reflect the evolving landscape of online platforms and corporate accountability.

Source: www.nytimes.com