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

Hollywood writers say Warner takeover ‘must be blocked’

Published

on



Hollywood writers, producers, directors and theater owners voiced skepticism over Netflix Inc.’s proposed $82.7 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.’s studio and streaming businesses, saying it threatens to undermine their interests.

The Writers Guild of America, which announced in October it would oppose any sale of Warner Bros., reiterated that view on Friday, saying the purchase by Netflix “must be blocked.”

“The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent,” the guild said in an emailed statement. “The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”

The worries raised by the movie and TV industry’s biggest trade groups come against the backdrop of falling movie and TV production, slack ticket sales and steep job cuts in Hollywood. Another legacy studio, Paramount, was sold earlier this year.

Warner Bros. accounts for about a fourth of North American ticket sales — roughly $2 billion — and is being acquired by a company that has long shunned theatrical releases for its feature films. As part of the deal, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has promised Warner Bros. will continue to release moves in theaters.

“The proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix poses an unprecedented threat to the global exhibition business,” Michael O’Leary, chief executive officer of the theatrical trade group Cinema United, said in en emailed statement Friday. “The negative impact of this acquisition will impact theaters from the biggest circuits to one-screen independents.”

The buyout of Warner Bros. by Netflix “would be a disaster,” James Cameron, the director of some of Hollywood’s highest-grossing films in history including Titanic and Avatar, said in late November on The Town, an industry-focused podcast. “Sorry Ted, but jeez. Sarandos has gone on record saying theatrical films are dead.”

On a conference call with investors Friday, Sarandos said that his company’s resistance to releasing films in cinemas was mostly tied to “the long exclusive windows, which we don’t really think are that consumer friendly.”

The company said Friday it would “maintain Warner Bros.’ current operations and build on its strengths, including theatrical releases for films.”

On the call, Sarandos reiterated that view, saying that, “right now, you should count on everything that is planned on going to the theater through Warner Bros. will continue to go to the theaters through Warner Bros.” 

Competition from online outfits like YouTube and Netflix has forced a reckoning in Hollywood, opening the door for takeovers like the Warner Bros. deal announced Friday. Media giants including Comcast Corp., parent of NBCUniversal, are unloading cable-TV networks like MS Now and USA, and steering resources into streaming. 

In an emailed note to Warner Bros. employees on Friday, Chief Executive Officer David Zaslav said the board’s decision to sell the company “reflects the realities of an industry undergoing generational change in how stories are financed, produced, distributed, and discovered.”

The Producers Guild of America said Friday its members are “rightfully concerned about Netflix’s intended acquisition of one of our industry’s most storied and meaningful studios,” while a spokesperson for the Directors Guild of America raised concerns about future pay at Warner Bros.

“We will be meeting with Netflix to outline our concerns and better understand their vision for the future of the company,” the Directors Guild said.

In September, the DGA appointed director Christopher Nolan as its president. Nolan has previously criticized Netflix’s model of releasing films exclusively online, or simultaneously in a small number of cinemas, and has said he won’t make movies for the company.

The Screen Actors Guild said Friday that the transaction “raises many serious questions about its impact on the future of the entertainment industry, and especially the human creative talent whose livelihoods and careers depend on it.”

Oscar winner Jane Fonda spoke out on Thursday before the deal was announced. 

“Consolidation at this scale would be catastrophic for an industry built on free expression, for the creative workers who power it, and for consumers who depend on a free, independent media ecosystem to understand the world,” the star of the Netflix series Grace and Frankie wrote on the Ankler industry news website.

Netflix and Warner Bros. obviously don’t see it that way. In his statement to employees, Zaslav said “the proposed combination of Warner Bros. and Netflix reflects complementary strengths, more choice and value for consumers, a stronger entertainment industry, increased opportunity for creative talent, and long-term value creation for shareholders.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

4 times in 7 seconds: Trump calls Somali immigrants ‘garbage’

Published

on



He said it four times in seven seconds: Somali immigrants in the United States are “garbage.”

It was no mistake. In fact, President Donald Trump’s rhetorical attacks on immigrants have been building since he said Mexico was sending “rapists” across the border during his presidential campaign announcement a decade ago. He’s also echoed rhetoric once used by Adolf Hitler and called the 54 nations of Africa “s—-hole countries.” But with one flourish closing a two-hour Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Trump amped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric even further and ditched any claim that his administration was only seeking to remove people in the U.S. illegally.

“We don’t want ‘em in our country,” Trump said five times of the nation’s 260,000 people of Somali descent. “Let ’em go back to where they came from and fix it.” The assembled Cabinet members cheered and applauded. Vice President JD Vance could be seen pumping a fist. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, sitting to the president’s immediate left, told Trump on-camera, “Well said.”

The two-minute finale offered a riveting display in a nation that prides itself as being founded and enriched by immigrants, alongside an ugly history of enslaving millions of them and limiting who can come in. Trump’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and deportations have reignited an age-old debate — and widened the nation’s divisions — over who can be an American, with Trump telling tens of thousands of American citizens, among others, that he doesn’t want them by virtue of their family origin.

“What he has done is brought this type of language more into the everyday conversation, more into the main,” said Carl Bon Tempo, a State University of New York at Albany history professor. “He’s, in a way, legitimated this type of language that, for many Americans for a long time, was seen as outside the bounds.”

A question that cuts to the core of American identity

Some Americans have long felt that people from certain parts of the world can never really blend in. That outsider-averse sentiment has manifested during difficult periods, such as anti-Chinese fear-mongering in the late 19th century and the imprisonment of some 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

Trump, reelected with more than 77 million votes last year, has launched a whole-of-government drive to limit immigration. His order to end birthright citizenship — declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens despite the 14th Amendment — is being considered by the Supreme Court. He has largely frozen the country’s asylum system and drastically reduced the number of refugees it is allowed to admit. And his administration this week halted immigration applications for migrants from 19 travel-ban nations.

Immigration remains a signature issue for Trump, and he has slightly higher marks on it than on his overall job approval. According to a November AP-NORC poll, roughly 4 in 10 adults — 42% — approved of how the president is handling the issue, down from about half who approved in March. And Trump has pushed his agenda with near-daily crackdowns. On Wednesday, federal agents launched an immigration sweep in New Orleans,

There are some clues that Trump uses stronger anti-immigration rhetoric than many members of his own party. A study of 200,000 speeches in Congress and 5,000 presidential communications related to immigration between 1880 and 2020 found that the “most influential” words on the subject were terms like “enforce,” “terrorism” and “policy” from 1973 through Trump’s first presidential term.

The authors wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that Trump is “the first president in modern American history to express sentiment toward immigration that is more negative than the average member of his own party.” And that was before he called thousands of Somalis in the U.S. “garbage.”

The U.S. president, embattled over other developments during the Cabinet meeting and discussions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. envoys, opted for harsh talk in his jam-packed closing.

Somali Americans, he said, “come from hell” and “contribute nothing.” They do “nothing but bitch” and “their country stinks.” Then Trump turned to a familiar target. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., an outspoken and frequent Trump critic, “is garbage,” he said. “Her friends are garbage.”

His remarks on Somalia drew shock and condemnation from Minneapolis to Mogadishu.

“My view of the U.S. and living there has changed dramatically. I never thought a president, especially in his second term, would speak so harshly,” Ibrahim Hassan Hajji, a resident of Somalia’s capital city, told The Associated Press. “Because of this, I have no plans to travel to the U.S.”

Omar called Trump’s “obsession” with her and Somali-Americans “creepy and unhealthy.”

“We are not, and I am not, someone to be intimidated,” she said, “and we are not gonna be scapegoated.”

Trump’s influence on these issues is potent

But from the highest pulpit in the world’s biggest economy, Trump has had an undeniable influence on how people regard immigrants.

“Trump specializes in pushing the boundaries of what others have done before,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a civil rights law professor at Ohio State University. “He is far from the first politician to embrace race-baiting xenophobia. But as president of the United States, he has more impact than most.” Domestically, Trump has “remarkable loyalty” among Republicans, he added. “Internationally, he embodies an aspiration for like-minded politicians and intellectuals.”

In Britain, attitudes toward migrants have hardened in the decade since Brexit, a vote driven in part by hostility toward immigrants from Eastern Europe. Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-right Reform U.K. party, has called unauthorized migration an “invasion” and warned of looming civil disorder.

France’s Marine Le Pen and her father built their political empire on anti-immigrant language decades before Trump entered politics. But the National Rally party has softened its rhetoric to win broader support. Le Pen often casts the issue as an administrative or policy matter.

In fact, what Trump said about people from Somalia would likely be illegal in France if uttered by anyone other than a head of state, because public insults based on a group’s national origin, ethnicity, race or religion are illegal under the country’s hate speech laws. But French law grants heads of state immunity.

One lawyer expressed concerns that Trump’s words will encourage other heads of state to use similar hate speech targeting people as groups.

“Comments saying that a population stinks — coming from a foreign head of state, a top world military and economic power — that’s never happened before,” said Paris lawyer Arié Alimi, who has worked on hate speech cases. “So here we are really crossing a very, very, very important threshold in terms of expressing racist … comments.”

But the “America first” president said he isn’t worried about others think of his increasingly polarizing rhetoric on immigration.

“I hear somebody say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct,’” Trump said, winding up his summation Tuesday. “I don’t care. I don’t want them.”

___

Contributing to this report are Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Linley Sanders in Washington, John Leicester in Paris, Jill Lawless in London, Evelyne Musambi in Nairobi, Kenya, and Omar Faruk in Mogadishu.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nearly three-quarters of Trump voters think the cost of living is bad or the worst ever

Published

on



President Donald Trump and his administration insist that costs are coming down, but voters are skeptical, including those who put him back in the White House.

Despite Republicans getting hammered on affordability in off-year elections last month, Trump continues to downplay the issue, contrasting with his message while campaigning last year.

“The word affordability is a con job by the Democrats,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. “The word affordability is a Democrat scam.”

But a new Politico poll found that 37% of Americans who voted for him in 2024 believe the cost of living is the worst they can ever remember, and 34% say it’s bad but can think of other times when it was worse.

The White House has said Trump inherited an inflationary economy from President Joe Biden and point to certain essentials that have come down since Trump began his second term, such as gasoline prices.

The poll shows that 57% of Trump voters say Biden still bears full or almost full responsibility for today’s economy. But 25% blame Trump completely or almost completely.

That’s as the annual rate of consumer inflation has steadily picked up since Trump launched his global trade war in April, and grocery prices have gained 1.4% between January and September.

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance pleaded for “patience” on the economy last month as Americans want to see prices decline, not just grow at a slower pace.

Even a marginal erosion in Trump’s electoral coalition could tip the scales in next year’s midterm elections, when the president will not be on the ballot to draw supporters.

A soft spot could be Republicans who don’t identify as “MAGA.” Among those particular voters, 29% said Trump has had a chance to change things in the economy but hasn’t taken it versus 11% of MAGA voters who said that.

Across all voters, 45% named groceries as the most challenging things to afford, followed by housing (38%) and health care (34%), according to the Politico poll.

The poll comes as wealthier households are having trouble affording basics, while discount retailers like Walmart and even Dollar Tree are seeing more higher-income customers.

And in a viral Substack post last month, Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager for Simplify Asset Management, argued that the real poverty line should be around $140,000.

“If the crisis threshold—the floor below which families cannot function—is honestly updated to current spending patterns, it lands at $140,000,” he wrote. “What does that tell you about the $31,200 line we still use? It tells you we are measuring starvation.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.