Connect with us

Business

Elon Musk delivered on Tesla’s ‘mission impossible’ goals before—but the targets for his $1 trillion pay package are even more delusional

Published

on



On Sept. 5, the Tesla board unveiled an all-new, long-term compensation package for Elon Musk that advertised far and away the biggest numbers in the annals of CEO pay. Put simply, if the EV maker’s CEO hits all the targets, he’d pocket a total payout of $1 trillion over anywhere from mid-2030 to 2035. The template rightly won kudos in the business press and among Wall Street analysts as fabulously friendly to shareholders, who’d garner sumptuous rewards on the order of their winnings in Tesla’s bygone great days.

Investors fondly recall that it was indeed the last pay deal from 2018 where Musk famously delivered on seemingly “mission impossible” goals that sent the stock on a moonshot and handed him tens of billions of dollars in Tesla stock. They’re clearly hoping for something resembling a repeat. The news lifted Tesla’s shares at the start of trading on Sept. 5 by around 5%.

An apt nickname for the fresh plan: Fantasyland. For the most part, the targets are so gigantic that given Tesla’s currently poor results and declining prospects, the chances that Musk will achieve even the lowest bogeys look highly unlikely, and the probability he’ll capture the elevated ones virtually zilch. What’s still inflating Tesla’s stock price are Musk’s extravagant claims for hugely profitable products, from FSD (Full Self-Driving) software to robotaxis to humanoid robots, that are constantly getting delayed, and none of which are yet reaching customers. What will matter going forward are the net earnings and cash flows that Tesla’s bedrock auto franchise generate, and the comp construct’s stretch numbers are so mind-bogglingly elastic that it wouldn’t be surprising if they’re more demoralizing than inspiring for Elon Musk.

Musk’s pay is best described as ‘shooting for the moon’

Tesla presented the program in its annual proxy statement filed on Sept. 5. A “special committee” headed by chairman Robyn Denholm, former CFO of Juniper Networks, and Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, a top HR exec, designed it, and its description in the documents reads like a subtext for “Hey, Elon, you’re demanding all this voting power, you’re making promises like Superman, now prove you can fly!” It’s important to grasp the context of where Musk’s past and current pay schemes stand now. In 2024, a Delaware court invalidated the towering 2018 version that was so successful for both Musk and shareholders. The company and the CEO are now appealing that decision. In early August, Tesla presented a contingency plan that will only take hold if the Tesla side loses the appeal.

That backup arrangement aims to restore much of what Musk would lose if the Delaware ruling stands, by granting him shares now worth around $31 billion if he remains as either CEO or chief of product development for the next two years; he can’t sell the grants until mid-2030.

This all-new long-term award comes on top of that $30 billion–plus “makeup” arrangement. In the proxy, it’s characterized in effusive terms, of a type seldom seen in these usually dry documents. Denholm and Wilson-Thompson characterize the objective as creating “the most valuable company in history” and laud the standards as “even more aspirational” than the 2018 plan, a claim that’s astounding since that cliff-scaler would seem impossible to top. “In 2018, Elon had to grow Tesla by billions; in 2025, he has to grow Tesla by trillions,” write Denholm and Wilson-Thompson. In a CNBC interview, Denholm acknowledged that some might view the challenges as too great to be taken seriously, and stated that the initiative amounts to “shooting for the moon.”

The new plan is structured much like its famed 2018 predecessor

In the proxy, the board stresses that Musk is seeking a far greater ownership stake and that the best way to motivate the maverick is providing him a path to achieving that aim. The directors’ view: “We believe Elon is the only person capable of leading Tesla at this critical inflection point.” They cite the “public statements that voting influence is critically important to him if he is tasked with developing AI products for Tesla,” adding that the carrot of a big jump in ownership should rally Musk into “achieving extraordinary performance milestones while remaining at Tesla.”

The basic design mirrors the architecture of its forerunner from 2018. Unlocking the grants resembles the process for opening a safety-deposit box: It requires two keys. The plan sets 12 goals for market cap, starting at $2 trillion, and rising after that by $50 billion increments to an incredible $8.5 trillion, double what the world’s most valuable enterprise, Nvidia, sells for today. But the construct also requires a second key that consists of notching 12 operating metrics, six for rising steps of Ebitda, and six others for such achievements as putting 1 million robotaxis in circulation and selling 10 million FSD subscriptions.

Matching a market share target with any one operational metric would award Musk an additional 1% of Tesla’s shares. Scaling the $8.5 trillion market cap summit and clinching all dozen product objectives would bring that $1 trillion windfall. Right now, Musk owns around 13% of Tesla’s shares, and he’s said publicly he craves getting to 25%. Ringing the 24 combined market cap plus operational bells, worth 1% each, would lift Musk to his cherished 25% prize. The grants come in the form of restricted shares; the shares gained by hitting the twin targets would all vest at once after seven and a half years, and Musk would only pocket them if he stays on as either CEO or head of product development over that span. He could get a longer vesting runway if he stays on for 10 years.

The targets are so towering they risk being more depressing than motivating

The plan faces a fundamental problem: Tesla as an ongoing enterprise is faring so poorly that getting from where it stands now to the kind of numbers needed to win Musk what he most wants—loads more ownership—looks like a leap too far. This reporter has written several stories assessing the size of what I call the Musk Magic Premium. That’s the part of the valuation based not on Tesla’s current earnings, but Musk’s promises for world-transforming innovations stuck in the pipeline. What makes the ambitions as presented in the proxy so unachievable: They demand huge stock gains piled on top of a valuation that’s already flying free of the fundamentals.

Under the new pay package, look at what Musk must achieve just to grab the first tranche of 1%. And that 1% would be worth plenty, around $20 billion. One key should be relatively easy to turn: achieving a cumulative 2 million in EV sales. But what about notching the lowest market-cap target of $2 trillion by early 2033?

It goes back to the earnings needed to get there. Once again, let’s give Tesla a P/E of 30 seven and a half years from now. Do the math, and you get to mandated earnings of $67 billion. That means multiplying today’s core profits of $3.7 billion by 18, or roughly 50% a year. And $3.7 billion probably overstates Tesla’s sustainable earnings, since they’re dropping quarter by quarter. The cash flow outlook is bad as well. After subtracting the reg credits, Tesla generated zero free cash flow in the past two quarters.

The Tesla board is dreaming if it believes this pay deal will uncork another wonder like its predecessor of 2018. The board is practically taunting Musk by saying, “You want that huge new chunk of the company? Go prove you do. Boost the share price enough to deserve it.” Elon Musk did it once. But as the saying goes, even for Elon Musk, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Procurement execs often don’t understand the value of good design, experts say

Published

on



Behind every intricately designed hotel or restaurant is a symbiotic collaboration between designer and maker.

But in reality, firms want to build more with less—and even though visions are created by designers, they don’t always get to see them to fruition. Instead, intermediaries may be placed in charge of procurements and overseeing the financial costs of executing designs.

“The process is not often as linear as we [designers] would like it to be, and at times we even get slightly cut out, and something comes out on the other side that wasn’t really what we were expecting,” said Tina Norden, a partner and principal at design firm Conran and Partners, at the Fortune Brainstorm Design forum in Macau on Dec. 2.

“To have a better quality product, communication is very much needed,” added Daisuke Hironaka, the CEO of Stellar Works, a furniture company based in Shanghai. 

Yet those tasked with procurement are often “money people” who may not value good design—instead forsaking it to cut costs. More education on the business value of quality design is needed, Norden argued.

When one builds something, she said, there are both capital investment and a lifecycle cost. “If you’re spending a bit more money on good quality furniture, flooring, whatever it might be, arguably, it should last a lot longer, and so it’s much better value.”

Investing in well-designed products is also better for the environment, Norden added, as they don’t have to be replaced as quickly.

Attempts to cut costs may also backfire in the long run, said Hironaka, as business owners may have to foot higher maintenance bills if products are of poor design and make.

AI in interior and furniture design

Though designers have largely been slow adopters of AI, some luminaries like Daisuke are attempting to integrate it into their team’s workflow.

AI can help accelerate the process of designing bespoke furniture, Daisuke explained, especially for large-scale projects like hotels. 

A team may take a month to 45 days to create drawings for 200 pieces of custom-made furniture, the designer said, but AI can speed up this process. “We designed a lot in the past, and if AI can use these archives, study [them] and help to do the engineering, that makes it more helpful for designers.” 

Yet designers can rest easy as AI won’t ever be able to replace the human touch they bring, Norden said. 

“There is something about the human touch, and about understanding how we like to use our spaces, how we enjoy space, how we perceive spaces, that will always be there—but AI should be something that can assist us [in] getting to that point quicker.”

She added that creatives can instead view AI as a tool for tasks that are time-consuming but “don’t need ultimate creativity,” like researching and three-dimensionalizing designs.

“As designers, we like to procrastinate and think about things for a very long time to get them just right, [but] we can get some help in doing things faster.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Binance has been proudly nomadic for years. A new announcement suggests it’s chosen an HQ

Published

on



For years, Binance has dodged questions about where it plans to establish a corporate headquarters. On Monday, the world’s largest crypto exchange made an announcement that indicates it has chosen a location: Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

In its announcement, Binance reported that it has secured three global financial licenses within Abu Dhabi Global Market, a special economic zone inside the Emirati city. The licenses regulate three different prongs of the exchange’s business: its exchange, clearinghouse, and broker dealer services. The three regulated entities are named Nest Exchange Limited, Nest Clearing and Custody Limited, and Nest Trading Limited, respectively.

Richard Teng, the co-CEO of Binance, declined to say whether Abu Dhabi is now Binance’s global headquarters. “But for all intents and purposes, if you look at the regulatory sphere, I think the global regulators are more concerned of where we are regulated on a global basis,” he said, adding that Abu Dhabi Global Market is where his crypto exchange’s “global platform” will be governed.

A company spokesperson declined to add more to Teng’s comments, but did not deny Fortune’s assertion that Binance appears to have chosen Abu Dhabai as its headquarters.

Corporate governance

The Abu Dhabi announcement suggests that Binance, which has for years taken pride in branding itself as a company with no fixed location, is bowing to the practical considerations that go with being a major financial firm—and the corporate governance obligations that entails.

When Changpeng Zhao, the cofounder and former CEO of Binance, launched the company in 2017, he initially established the exchange in Hong Kong. But, weeks after he registered Binance in the city, China banned cryptocurrency trading, and Zhao moved his nascent trading platform. Binance has since been itinerant. “Wherever I sit is going to be the Binance office,” Zhao said in 2020.

The location of a company’s headquarters impacts its tax obligations and what regulations it needs to follow. In 2023, after Binance reached a landmark $4.3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Zhao stepped down as CEO and pleaded guilty to failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering program.

Teng took over and promised to implement the corporate structures—like a board of directors—that are the norm for companies of Binance’s size. Teng, who now shares the CEO role with the newly appointed Yi He, oversaw the appointment of Binance’s first board in April 2024. And he’s repeatedly telegraphed that his crypto exchange is focused on regulatory compliance.

Binance already has a strong footprint in the Emirates. It has a crypto license in Dubai, received a $2 billion investment from an Emirati venture fund in March, and, that same month, said it employed 1,000 employees in the country. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Leaders in Congress outperform rank-and-file lawmakers on stock trades by up to 47% a year

Published

on



Stocks held by members of Congress have been beating the S&P 500 lately, but there’s a subset of lawmakers who crush their peers: leadership.

According to a recent working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, congressional leaders outperform back benchers by up to 47% a year.

Shang-Jin Wei from Columbia University and Columbia Business School along with Yifan Zhou from Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University looked at lawmakers who ascended to leadership posts, such as Speaker of the House as well as House and Senate floor leaders, whips, and conference/caucus chairs.

Between 1995 and 2021, there were 20 such leaders who made stock trades before and after rising to their posts. Wei and Zhou observed that lawmakers underperformed benchmarks before becoming leaders, then everything suddenly changed.

“Importantly, whilst we observe a huge improvement in leaders’ trading performance as they ascend to leadership roles, the matched ‘regular’ members’ stock trading performance does not improve much,” they wrote.

Leadership’s stock market edge stems in part from their ability to set the regulatory or legislation agenda, such as deciding if and when a particular bill will be put to a vote. Setting the agenda also gives leaders advanced knowledge of when certain actions will take place.

In fact, Wei and Zhou found that leaders demonstrate much better returns on stock trades that are made when their party controls their chamber.

In addition, being a leader also increases access to non-public information. The researchers said that while companies are reluctant to share such insider knowledge, they may prioritize revealing it to leaders over rank-and-file lawmakers.

Leaders earn higher returns on companies that contribute to their campaigns or are headquartered in their states, which Wei and Zhou said could be attributable to “privileged access to firm-specific information.”

The upper echelon also influences how other members of Congress vote, and the paper found that a leader’s party is much more likely to vote for bills that help firms whose stocks the leader held, or vote against bills that harmed them. And stocks owned by leadership tend to see increases in federal contract awards, especially sole-source contracts, over the following one to two years.

“These results suggest that congressional leaders may not only trade on privileged knowledge, but also shape policy outcomes to enrich themselves,” Wei and Zhou wrote.

Stock trades by congressional leaders are even predictive, forecasting higher occurrences of positive or negative corporate news over the following year, they added. In particular, stock sales predict the number of hearings and regulatory actions over the coming year, though purchases don’t.

Investors have long suspected that Washington has a special advantage on Wall Street. That’s given rise to more ETFs with political themes, including funds that track portfolios belonging to Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

And Paul Pelosi, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, even has a cult following among some investors who mimic his stock moves.

Congress has tried to crack down on members’ stock holdings. The STOCK Act of 2012 requires more timely disclosures, but some lawmakers want to ban trading completely.

A bipartisan group of House members is pushing legislation that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, dependent children, and trustees from trading individual stocks, commodities, or futures.

And this past week, a discharge petition was put forth that would force a vote in the House if it gets enough signatures.

“If leadership wants to put forward a bill that would actually do that and end the corruption, we’re all for it,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., on social media on Tuesday. “But we’re tired of the partisan games. This is the most bipartisan bipartisan thing in U.S. history, and it’s time that the House of Representatives listens to the American people.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.