Connect with us

Business

Elon Musk has started work toward his $1 trillion Tesla pay package. But 2 loopholes foreshadow how it could be a bust for shareholders

Published

on



The $1 trillion pay package for CEO Elon Musk that Teslashareholders approved on Nov. 6—the world’s first—was labeled by the board as an exemplar of pay for performance. And at first glance, the program appears to fit that description in a big way: The hurdles it establishes for Musk to receive any compensation at all, let alone achieve the maximum 13-digit payout, appear the ultimate in stretch goals. Skeptical observers might wonder: “How could anyone be motivated by targets this seemingly unachievable?”

On the other hand, Tesla loyalists and the three-quarters of Wall Street analysts issuing either a “buy” or “hold” on the EV maker praise the arrangement’s similarity to one from 2018 that spurred Musk to work wonders—at least in boosting the share price. Now, they’re positing: “Elon’s already done it once. Now he’ll be super-motivated to stay in the job and conjure a second miracle. And if that happens, stockholders will pocket another king’s ransom.” Musk concurs.

A close examination of the new plan, however, reveals that it harbors a “betwixt and between” problem. The lower-hanging fruit are too easy to harvest, and the harder goals that would mark substantial and genuine progress in profitability too difficult to attain. Probable outcome: Musk gets nothing resembling the $1 trillion, but still pockets one of the biggest payoffs in corporate America—as shareholders suffer along the way.

The reason the epic scheme risks backfiring: It contains two loopholes that enable Musk to fare handsomely by doing something he’s great at, hyping the stock via making big promises, then delivering just enough on the basic business end to clinch a rich reward.

How Musk’s new pay package is structured

The package consists of 12 tiered grants of restricted stock. Unlocking each “performance milestone” requires reaching both a valuation and an operational goal. It’s the safety deposit model: You need two keys to open the box. The market cap triggers start at $2 trillion and ascend by increments of $500 billion to the summit of $8.5 trillion, a number that’s 70% bigger than the $5 trillion that Nvidia recently notched to reign as the world’s most valuable company. The second group of keys are the “operational milestones.” Four cover sales for key products: separate, cumulative targets for deliveries of vehicles and “bots,” chiefly humanoid robots, as well as for robotaxis in commercial operation and subscriptions for full self-driving software. The other eight are Ebitda tiers that start at $50 billion, and max at $400 billion.

Put simply, anytime Musk hits a new valuation goal, and also captures any one of the dozen operational targets in any order, he receives 35.312 million shares in Tesla restricted stock, adding roughly 1% to his current stake of almost 16%.

The stunner that grabbed headlines, of course, is the $1 trillion in stock—424 million shares—Musk would receive for taking the market cap to $8.5 trillion, and also clinching all 12 of the operational objectives. Musk’s got 10 years to make the numbers that trigger the grants. The “earned share” tranches have two vesting periods: early 2033 for those achieved in the first five years, and late 2035, or at the end of the decade-long program, for the ones reached in years 6 through 10. On the Q3 earnings call, Musk repeatedly insisted that he needs to reach an ownership percentage in “the mid-20s” to ensure “enough voting controls to give a strong influence.” He effectively praised the board for handing him the opportunity to get there, and apparently thinks he stands a great chance at sweeping the board. That coup would get Musk where he wants to go by raising his stake to about 28%.

The higher goals in Musk’s pay package look like a stretch too far

In reality, Musk faces low odds of garnering any of the higher targets. Let’s start with the operational side. Hitting almost all but one of them would require moonshots. For example, the robotaxi target requires achieving an active fleet of 1 million. Today, Tesla offers only an extremely limited pilot plan in Austin, and Waymo, the industry’s largest player, has only 2,000 of the vehicles on the road. And the easiest Ebitda level stands at a towering $50 billion. Ringing the bell would likely require multiplying its current Ebitda run rate around fivefold. Yet Tesla’s now going in the wrong direction by booking puny and declining profits. Reversing that downward trend to reach even the minimum profitability mandated in the operational milestones can only happen if its unproven products prove wildly successful in highly competitive, and capital-intensive sectors.

Now to the valuation milestones. Tesla’s stock already appears vastly overpriced. Its current multiple, based on “core” earnings from its auto and battery businesses of just $3.6 billion in the past four quarters, excluding such items as sales of regulatory credits, towers at 375. Hitting the second highest valuation mark of $2.5 trillion alone would require an 85% jump in its stock price. Huge progress that’s not happening is already baked into the valuation, making the chances of huge, sustained gains from here remote, though a Musk-orchestrated, ephemeral surge can always happen.

Musk’s best shot: Ringing the bell on the two easiest goals

Though Musk probably can’t scale the mountain, he may be able to mount the foothills.

He stands a decent chance of scoring both the lowest valuation number of $2 trillion, and the least challenging operational tier—selling a cumulative total of 20 million vehicles, starting from the time of the grant. On the first item, the surge in Tesla stock since the board unveiled the program in early September has already pushed the price from $334 to $408, lifting its valuation from $1.12 trillion to $1.35 trillion—and the package gives Musk credit for that increase. So if Musk can boost the shares another 48% to $2 trillion, he’ll check the initial box for market cap. The rules require that the shares average $2 trillion or above for six months, and separately for the last 30 days, to hit the target.

It could easily happen. Musk has proved a master at sending the shares skyward by promising great things in robotaxis, full self-driving (FSD), and robots, even though he hasn’t yet significantly commercialized any of them. More promises could breed more excitement that could breed another speculative frenzy in Tesla shares centered on great expectations.

The operational part that’s reachable, especially over a longer period, is the goal of selling 20 million vehicles. This provision invites close scrutiny. According to the plan’s requirements contained in an SEC filing dated Sept. 5, this target doesn’t start from zero at the time the package takes effect. It’s a cumulative total over the entire history of Tesla. Here’s the wording: “20 Million Tesla Vehicles Delivered: Expanding Tesla’s vehicle fleet from 8 million EVs, which it has currently, to 20 million will further grow its adjusted Ebitda, allowing Tesla to reinvest in its other up-and-coming product lines.” Hence, since Tesla has already sold 8 million cars, it only has to deliver 12 million for Musk to capture that operational hurdle.  

It’s an incredibly weak requirement, and one of the two wrinkles that aids Musk and skewers shareholders. In the past four quarters, Tesla has delivered 1.9 million cars, and Musk is pledging to expand the lineup to encompass a new affordable EV, and sell self-driving cars to customers. If it averages 2 million cars a year, Tesla would achieve the 12 million figure by the end of year six. Hence, Musk would clinch an operational target by achieving only a minimal annual increase in Tesla’s vehicle sales.

Here’s the second softball pitched by the board. If Musk manages to get the market cap to $2 trillion or above, and keep it there for six months, he’s turned that key definitively. No going back. No matter what happens to the share price after that, he’s got that bogey in his pocket. As Tesla’s SEC filing detailing the plan states, “Once a Market Capitalization Milestone or any particular Operational Milestone is achieved, it is forever deemed achieved for purposes of the eligibility of the Tranches to become Earned Shares.” 

So let’s say Musk is able to notch the $2 trillion target in six years. Then the shares bounce around, going above and below that level, so that by the end of the 10-year grant period in late 2035—by which time he’s added the 20 million vehicles prize—its cap is $1.95 trillion, or $585 a share. In other words, Musk could talk up the shares, then see them pretty much go sideways for years, and they could even head below the price that unlocked the award.

Fortunately for shareholders, the stock grants come with a feature similar to equity options that somewhat reduces Musk’s payday, especially in a case like the one above where the plan flops. Musk only gets the gain over the stock price at the time of the grant—in other words, just the appreciation. He’d receive the first tranche of shares at a “net” of $251 per share, that’s the $585 at the end of the 10-year vesting period minus the effective “strike” price of $334 (the price when the program was conceived in September). Hence, he’d pocket $8.86 billion in one stroke (the equivalent of 35.3 million shares x $251).

That would be all of his compensation for 10 years of running Tesla. To be sure, he’d wait a long time for the money, and it isn’t anywhere near the trillion he apparently believes is feasible. But it’s still big, averaging almost $90 million a year. By comparison, in their respective fiscal years, Sundar Pichai earned $10.7 million, Mark Zuckerberg $27.2 million, Jensen Huang $34 million, Jamie Dimon $39 million, Andy Jassy $40 million, Tim Cook $75 million, and Satya Nadella $79 million.

What about the shareholders? Taking the shares from $334 to $585 in 10 years represents paltry gains of just 5.9% annually. That’s a lousy deal for Tesla’s shareholders. They’re suffering at the same time Musk is en route to getting a windfall of nearly $900 million.

Say Tesla’s shares do even worse and end the 10-year grant period at a market cap of $1.8 trillion, $200 billion below the goal of $2 trillion that Musk achieved at one point but couldn’t increase or even hold on to. Shareholders would get returns barely beating inflation, and Musk would still get a payout of $727 million.

To complicate matters, it’s likely that failing to collect on any of the other, extremely challenging tranches will prove a downer for Musk. In our scenario, he’d only increase his stake in Tesla by 1% when his goal is a rise of over 10 points. Musk would have a strong incentive to stay the full 10 years for the haul waiting at the end. But an unhappy Musk might mean a less-than-fully-motivated Musk. This package could hammer shareholders while they witness the decline of the idol it’s designed to empower.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

SpaceX to offer insider shares at record-setting valuation

Published

on



SpaceX is preparing to sell insider shares in a transaction that would value Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite maker at a valuation higher than OpenAI’s record-setting $500 billion, people familiar with the matter said.

One of the people briefed on the deal said that the share price under discussion is higher than $400 apiece, which would value SpaceX at between $750 billion and $800 billion, though the details could change. 

The company’s latest tender offer was discussed by its board of directors on Thursday at SpaceX’s Starbase hub in Texas. If confirmed, it would make SpaceX once again the world’s most valuable closely held company, vaulting past the previous record of $500 billion that ChatGPT owner OpenAI set in October. Play Video

Preliminary scenarios included per-share prices that would have pushed SpaceX’s value at roughly $560 billion or higher, the people said. The details of the deal could change before it closes, a third person said. 

A representative for SpaceX didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The latest figure would be a substantial increase from the $212 a share set in July, when the company raised money and sold shares at a valuation of $400 billion.

The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter, earlier reported that a deal would value SpaceX at $800 billion.

News of SpaceX’s valuation sent shares of EchoStar Corp., a satellite TV and wireless company, up as much as 18%. Last month, Echostar had agreed to sell spectrum licenses to SpaceX for $2.6 billion, adding to an earlier agreement to sell about $17 billion in wireless spectrum to Musk’s company.

Subscribe Now: The Business of Space newsletter covers NASA, key industry events and trends.

The world’s most prolific rocket launcher, SpaceX dominates the space industry with its Falcon 9 rocket that launches satellites and people to orbit.

SpaceX is also the industry leader in providing internet services from low-Earth orbit through Starlink, a system of more than 9,000 satellites that is far ahead of competitors including Amazon.com Inc.’s Amazon Leo.

SpaceX executives have repeatedly floated the idea of spinning off SpaceX’s Starlink business into a separate, publicly traded company — a concept President Gwynne Shotwell first suggested in 2020. 

However, Musk cast doubt on the prospect publicly over the years and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen said in 2024 that a Starlink IPO would be something that would take place more likely “in the years to come.”

The Information, citing people familiar with the discussions, separately reported on Friday that SpaceX has told investors and financial institution representatives that it is aiming for an initial public offering for the entire company in the second half of next year.

A so-called tender or secondary offering, through which employees and some early shareholders can sell shares, provides investors in closely held companies such as SpaceX a way to generate liquidity.

SpaceX is working to develop its new Starship vehicle, advertised as the most powerful rocket ever developed to loft huge numbers of Starlink satellites as well as carry cargo and people to moon and, eventually, Mars.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.