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

Mark Zuckerberg renamed Facebook for the metaverse. 4 years and $70B in losses later, he’s moving on

Published

on



In 2021, Mark Zuckerberg recast Facebook as Meta and declared the metaverse — a digital realm where people would work, socialize, and spend much of their lives — the company’s next great frontier. He framed it as the “successor to the mobile internet” and said Meta would be “metaverse-first.”

The hype wasn’t all him. Grayscale, the investment firm specializing in crypto, called the Metaverse a “trillion-dollar revenue opportunity.” Barbados even opened up an embassy in Decentraland, one of the worlds in the metaverse. 

Five years later, that bet has become one of the most expensive misadventures in tech. Meta’s Reality Labs division has racked up more than $70 billion in losses since 2021, according to Bloomberg, burning through cash on blocky virtual environments, glitchy avatars, expensive headsets, and a user base of approximately 38 people as of 2022.

For many people, the problem is that the value proposition is unclear; the metaverse simply doesn’t yet deliver a must-have reason to ditch their phone or laptop. Despite years of investment, VR remains burdened by serious structural limitations, and for most users there’s simply not enough compelling content beyond niche gaming.

A 30% budget cut 

Zuckerberg is now preparing to slash Reality Labs’ budget by as much as 30%, Bloomberg said. The cuts—which could translate to $4 billion to $6 billion in reduced spend—would hit everything from the Horizon Worlds virtual platform to the Quest hardware unit. Layoffs could come as early as January, though final decisions haven’t been made, according to Bloomberg. 

The move follows a strategy meeting last month at Zuckerberg’s Hawaii compound, where he reviewed Meta’s 2026 budget and asked executives to find 10% cuts across the board, the report said. Reality Labs was told to go deeper. Competition in the broader VR market simply never took off the way Meta expected, one person said. The result: a division long viewed as a money sink is finally being reined in.

Wall Street cheered. Meta’s stock jumped more than 4% Thursday on the news, adding roughly $69 billion in market value.

“Smart move, just late,” Craig Huber of Huber Research told Reuters. Investors have been complaining for years that the metaverse effort was an expensive distraction, one that drained resources without producing meaningful revenue.

Metaverse out, AI in

Meta didn’t immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment, but it insists it isn’t killing the metaverse outright. A spokesperson told the South China Morning Post that the company is “shifting some investment from Metaverse toward AI glasses and wearables,” point­ing to momentum behind its Ray-Ban smart glasses, which Zuckerberg says have tripled in sales over the past year.

But there’s no avoiding the reality: AI is the new obsession, and the new money pit.

Meta expects to spend around $72 billion on AI this year, nearly matching everything it has lost on the metaverse since 2021. That includes massive outlays for data centers, model development, and new hardware. Investors are much more excited about AI burn than metaverse burn, but even they want clarity on how much Meta will ultimately be spending — and for how long.

Across tech, companies are evaluating anything that isn’t directly tied to AI. Apple is revamping its leadership structure, partially around AI concerns. Microsoft is rethinking the “economics of AI.” Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are pouring billions into cloud infrastructure to keep up with demand. Signs point to money-losing initiatives without a clear AI angle being on the chopping block, with Meta as a dramatic example.

On the company’s most recent earnings call, executives didn’t use the word “metaverse” once.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. turns to AI to make America healthy again

Published

on



HHS billed the plan as a “first step” focused largely on making its work more efficient and coordinating AI adoption across divisions. But the 20-page document also teased some grander plans to promote AI innovation, including in the analysis of patient health data and in drug development.

“For too long, our Department has been bogged down by bureaucracy and busy-work,” Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O’Neill wrote in an introduction to the strategy. “It is time to tear down these barriers to progress and unite in our use of technology to Make America Healthy Again.”

The new strategy signals how leaders across the Trump administration have embraced AI innovation, encouraging employees across the federal workforce to use chatbots and AI assistants for their daily tasks. As generative AI technology made significant leaps under President Joe Biden’s administration, he issued an executive order to establish guardrails for their use. But when President Donald Trump came into office, he repealed that order and his administration has sought to remove barriers to the use of AI across the federal government.

Experts said the administration’s willingness to modernize government operations presents both opportunities and risks. Some said that AI innovation within HHS demanded rigorous standards because it was dealing with sensitive data and questioned whether those would be met under the leadership of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Some in Kennedy’s own “Make America Health Again” movement have also voiced concerns about tech companies having access to people’s personal information.

Strategy encourages AI use across the department

HHS’s new plan calls for embracing a “try-first” culture to help staff become more productive and capable through the use of AI. Earlier this year, HHS made the popular AI model ChatGPT available to every employee in the department.

The document identifies five key pillars for its AI strategy moving forward, including creating a governance structure that manages risk, designing a suite of AI resources for use across the department, empowering employees to use AI tools, funding programs to set standards for the use of AI in research and development and incorporating AI in public health and patient care.

It says HHS divisions are already working on promoting the use of AI “to deliver personalized, context-aware health guidance to patients by securely accessing and interpreting their medical records in real time.” Some in Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement have expressed concerns about the use of AI tools to analyze health data and say they aren’t comfortable with the U.S. health department working with big tech companies to access people’s personal information.

HHS previously faced criticism for pushing legal boundaries in its sharing of sensitive data when it handed over Medicaid recipients’ personal health data to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

Experts question how the department will ensure sensitive medical data is protected

Oren Etzioni, an artificial intelligence expert who founded a nonprofit to fight political deepfakes, said HHS’s enthusiasm for using AI in health care was worth celebrating but warned that speed shouldn’t come at the expense of safety.

“The HHS strategy lays out ambitious goals — centralized data infrastructure, rapid deployment of AI tools, and an AI-enabled workforce — but ambition brings risk when dealing with the most sensitive data Americans have: their health information,” he said.

Etzioni said the strategy’s call for “gold standard science,” risk assessments and transparency in AI development appear to be positive signs. But he said he doubted whether HHS could meet those standards under the leadership of Kennedy, who he said has often flouted rigor and scientific principles.

Darrell West, senior fellow in the Brooking Institution’s Center for Technology Innovation, noted the document promises to strengthen risk management but doesn’t include detailed information about how that will be done.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions about how sensitive medical information will be handled and the way data will be shared,” he said. “There are clear safeguards in place for individual records, but not as many protections for aggregated information being analyzed by AI tools. I would like to understand how officials plan to balance the use of medical information to improve operations with privacy protections that safeguard people’s personal information.”

Still, West, said, if done carefully, “this could become a transformative example of a modernized agency that performs at a much higher level than before.”

The strategy says HHS had 271 active or planned AI implementations in the 2024 financial year, a number it projects will increase by 70% in 2025.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Construction workers are earning up to 30% more in the data center boom

Published

on



Big Tech’s AI arms race is fueling a massive investment surge in data centers with construction worker labor valued at a premium. 

Despite some concerns of an AI bubble, data center hyperscalers like Google, Amazon, and Meta continue to invest heavily into AI infrastructure. In effect, construction workers’ salaries are being inflated to satisfy a seemingly insatiable AI demand, experts tell Fortune.

In 2026 alone, upwards of $100 billion could be invested by tech companies into the data center buildout in the U.S., Raul Martynek, the CEO of DataBank, a company that contracts with tech giants to construct data centers, told Fortune.

In November, Bank of Americaestimated global hyperscale spending is rising 67% in 2025 and another 31% in 2026, totaling a massive $611 billion investment for the AI buildout in just two years.

Given the high demand, construction workers are experiencing a pay bump for data center projects.

Construction projects generally operate on tight margins, with clients being very cost-conscious, Fraser Patterson, CEO of Skillit, an AI-powered hiring platform for construction workers, told Fortune.

But some of the top 50 contractors by size in the country have seen their revenue double in a 12-month period based on data center construction, which is allowing them to pay their workers more, according to Patterson.

“Because of the huge demand and the nature of this construction work, which is fueling the arms race of AI… the budgets are not as tight,” he said. “I would say they’re a little more frothy.”

On Skillit, the average salary for construction projects that aren’t building data centers is $62,000, or $29.80 an hour, Patterson said. The workers that use the platform comprise 40 different trades and have a wide range of experience from heavy equipment operators to electricians, with eight years as the average years of experience.

But when it comes to data centers, the same workers make an average salary of $81,800 or $39.33 per hour, Patterson said, increasing salaries by just under 32% on average.

Some construction workers are even hitting the six-figure mark after their salaries rose for data center projects, according to The Wall Street Journal. And the data center boom doesn’t show any signs it’s slowing down anytime soon.

Tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft operate 522 data centers and are developing 411 more, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing data from Synergy Research Group. 

Patterson said construction workers are being paid more to work on building data centers in part due to condensed project timelines, which require complex coordination or machinery and skilled labor.

Projects that would usually take a couple of years to finish are being completed—in some instances—as quickly as six months, he said.

It is unclear how long the data center boom might last, but Patterson said it has in part convinced a growing number of Gen Z workers and recent college grads to choose construction trades as their career path.

“AI is creating a lot of job anxiety around knowledge workers,” Patterson said. “Construction work is, by definition, very hard to automate.”

“I think you’re starting to see a change in the labor market,” he added.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.