Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays from 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with full episodes posted to Spotify immediately after airing.
Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” TBPN has interviewed Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella. Diet TBPN delivers the best moments from each episode in under 30 minutes.
Is that the Nvidia compute deal alarm? Huge deal on the cover of the Financial Times today. Wall Street big names join Nvidia to build $500,000,000,000 AI financing package, a landmark lending plan. Jensen really lined up the murderer's row of financiers for his new AI financing package. He brought
Speaker 2:Legendary setup over on CNBC too. Legendary. One of greatest roundtables of all time.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Incredible. Only Larry Fink was remote. They got David Solomon, CEO of Goldman Sachs, in studio. John Gray from Blackstone, Jim Zelter from Apollo, Bruce Flatt from Brookfield, and, of course, Jensen breaking it all down for everyone.
Speaker 1:I'm sure the Hollywood starlets were pounded on the glass outside looking for some new arm candy. Don't you think?
Speaker 2:A 100%.
Speaker 1:100%. Because it's very rare to see that many individuals. Capital allocators. Specifically, capital allocators put it on put it all on the line every day in the market.
Speaker 2:Some would call them bad boys.
Speaker 1:Some might. Some might. Some have. So I'm sure they were lined up, but it's a great segment. I wanted to play this one clip of them discussing just the profitability, why they see this as an investable asset.
Speaker 1:There were a couple quotes. The the sheer size of the AI infrastructure build out is unprecedented, the president of Apollo said. More than $8,000,000,000,000 of capital is expected to be invested, a staggering sum. We see an enormous opportunity for private capital to finance a portion of of this along with public public capital. So Wall Street's not taking their foot off the gas.
Speaker 1:Anyway, let's play this clip from CNBC.
Speaker 2:More of your margin of safety advantage.
Speaker 3:So are these concerns about whether we can meet this demand over overdone at this point? Do do you think, Jensen, that from where you see things, the demand level and how we're building up around it, that it's going to be okay? It'll all work out.
Speaker 4:We're gonna be constrained for some time and pretty much across the board from chips to memories to packaging to systems, photonics, connectors Another one. Land, power, construction workers Another one. The whole thing. The the entire supply chain up and down behind behind me upstream all the way downstream. And this is happening at a time when AI has become useful Mhmm.
Speaker 4:Because it's starting to do productive work and it's happening all over all over the world and AI tokens are profitable, incredibly profitable. When you have something profitable, everybody wants to make more of it. Yes. Great demand, great profitability, the conditions are exactly right for the work that we're doing right now.
Speaker 3:Jensen, why these companies? And did you go to any partners who said no?
Speaker 4:No one said no, but this is the sixth premier
Speaker 1:Does that mean
Speaker 4:didn't go the institutional financiers for infrastructure. This is the best of the best.
Speaker 3:What John said that right now, you'll be less likely to have public capital that comes into this because a lot of these are companies that aren't making money yet. Is he right on that or are there going to be big banks and others that kind of
Speaker 4:step up? I believe within months, you're gonna realize that these companies are extremely profitable. These are the fastest growing technology companies in history.
Speaker 3:Your customers, you mean?
Speaker 4:That's right. These are fastest growing technology companies in history, and the tokens they're generating are incredibly profitable. You know, if if the wafers that we buy from TSMC are incredibly profitable, there's incredible demand for it, I'm gonna wanna buy a lot more.
Speaker 3:But Wait. Who are we talking about? Your customers? Which customers will have access to these? AI labs.
Speaker 3:AI labs. AI labs are
Speaker 4:the ones.
Speaker 3:That's the that you think are profitable, but this will this AI labs.
Speaker 4:AI startups, you know, as you know, this last six months, the world put in about $500,000,000,000 in AI startups. $500,000,000,000 is the largest
Speaker 1:month of investment.
Speaker 4:Investing investing period probably in recent history. And these companies need compute, and so we now have the vehicle to do so.
Speaker 1:That's great stuff. Dollars 100,000,000,000 the
Speaker 3:first deal.
Speaker 1:Huge number. But it feels a lot smaller when he lays out the actual compute calculation. 50,000,000,000 per gigawatt.
Speaker 2:You're 50 to 60.
Speaker 1:50 to 60. So you're looking at 10,000,000,000 or 10 gigawatts of power compute, which is, you know, the labs are at like three combined across a few of them. And we've been on this three x scaling. So this is really just, like, next year's compute. Basically, think Meta individually has a 10 gigawatt plan or something like that.
Speaker 1:So
Speaker 2:He's having to talk about profitability and the profitability of incremental tokens. And I think one of the reasons that a lot of people are just very uncomfortable with this is that the two leading companies in the space are private. Yeah. And their various numbers leak out from time to time, but you definitely don't get a complete picture. And it's very unusual to have the two companies driving the public markets are actually private.
Speaker 1:Yes. Well, there is the SpaceX factor here too, which recently announced that they're going all in on Nvidia. But again, they are turning into a Neo Cloud in many ways and licensing out Compute. So there's this world where you might see wall
Speaker 2:space But I but I but I'm looking at SpaceX more on this on the supply side. Right? Not No. No.
Speaker 1:Exactly. So so so it's like a six layer cake, and you're seeing the the finance guys there, then Nvidia making the chips, marshaling all this capital. A lot of it's gonna go to a Colossus five data center and then be rented by a lab. Like, that will be one of the potential outcomes.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:But then they're they're just in the supply chain. Because I don't think I don't think the, like, the semi analysis forecast was for, like, Grok token demand specifically. It was just overall inference and compute demand because they're capable of building Yeah. Data centers very quickly. Anyway, Jensen also took to Axe to post a a long essay.
Speaker 1:12,000 likes. He's like fully on Axe now. He's I haven't I haven't seen him
Speaker 2:It's almost like he was
Speaker 1:Flying.
Speaker 2:Lurking. Think he studying?
Speaker 1:The whole time? Well, I don't know if he was studying enough because people are getting mad at him about for you for using the the forbidden phrase. He says, Nvidia Compute is not just a chip. It is a complete AI factory platform, including accelerated computing, networking, system software, AI frameworks, and global develop and a global developer ecosystem. That doesn't sound that AI to me.
Speaker 1:I don't know. Somebody will run this through Paygram, and we'll we'll get to the bottom of it. Jensen is completing the circle, says Prakash. Bankers don't like GPUs as collateral because the depreciation is unpredictable. It's unpredictable because a new GPU can obsolete an old one, but Jensen knows his own road map.
Speaker 1:So he's offering depreciation insurance to the banks. The depreciation insurance up to 25% helps the banks get marginal deals over time. Speculation here from Prakash, Nvidia will also advise the banks on reference designs for data centers that will make them fungible. So you will know this is a one gigawatt data center, but it's in this particular class, this particular configuration. It's Blackwell data center.
Speaker 1:It's powered this way. And so if you can put it in this bucket, you can underwrite it a particular way because it's it becomes more fungible. Yeah. Having them be fungible means the debt can be repackaged into asset backed securities, collateralized loan obligations, and collateralized debt obligations. ABS, CLOs, and CDOs from 2008, I'm sure there will be a lot of a lot of folks upset about all of the comparisons to the mortgage the mortgage backed security build out in 2008.
Speaker 1:This allows tranching to get investment grade ratings on the debt so it can be sold and resold to pension funds and insurance firms. It also allows the banks to trade idiosyncratic project specific credit risk for sector wide credit risk. So Jensen is trying to get his customers the same cost of financing as real estate rather than venture equity. This is going to move the data center game out of the VCs and into the big leagues. And so I'm sure people will be speculating all sorts of different things on what happens.
Speaker 1:Next, there are some other stories. Paramount is threatening to leave California by October 1 if the state refuses to negotiate a settlement in the legal fight over its Warner Brothers Discovery merger. We've been covering the story back and forth for a while. But according to Variety, Paramount CEO David Allison wants a quick resolution to the antitrust lawsuit brought by 12 state attorneys general seeking to block the deal. He has now told senior executives that Paramount is prepared to begin the process of moving its operations out of California if attorney general Rob Bonta doesn't enter settlement talks.
Speaker 1:Ellison reportedly told his leadership team last week that the Paramount's guidance board has already approved the relocation plans. If negotiations with Bonta haven't begun by August 1, the company would start preparing its exit with Paramount's Los Angeles headquarters potentially moving out of the state as early as as October. The threat dramatically raises the stakes in Paramount's fight with Bonta, who has emerged as a leading opponent of the Warner Brothers Discovery acquisition. Bonta hasn't publicly detailed what Paramount would need to offer to resolve the case, but he has said that any acceptable remedies would likely need to be structural, such as asset divestitures rather than behavioral commitments, like maintaining certain levels of production. So it's not gonna be enough for Ellis and say, hey, we're still gonna do 12 movies a year, 24 movies a year.
Speaker 1:It needs to be something specific about the like, the actual structure of the company. Paramount is also racing against an expensive clock. Beginning October 1, The company will owe Warner Brothers Discovery shareholders a $7,000,000 $7,000,000 per day ticking fee until the transaction closes. The state's antitrust trial isn't scheduled to begin, until 05/02/2027, so almost nine months from now, meaning Paramount could rack up roughly $1,200,000,000 in payments by the time the case is expected to conclude. Ellison is effectively putting pressure on California from the other direction.
Speaker 1:If the state won't help find a path to closing the merger, Paramount is prepared to take start taking jobs elsewhere.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So so he's he's trying to force the issue. This gets extremely painful for the Ellisons if this Yeah. Antitrust thing just drags on. You could imagine it dragging on for a couple years.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:That puts a pause on all of their integration plans.
Speaker 4:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:It just makes everything a lot harder. Mhmm. I don't think he has this this seems like his one option. Right? It's kind of the nuclear option.
Speaker 2:It it's gonna piss off a lot of the industry Yeah. Here in LA.
Speaker 1:It is the most symbolic
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Move. Because according to Variety, the company's LA headquarters would be the first operation to leave. And Ellison already has a five year plan to move most studio jobs out of California. No destination has been selected, but Georgia, Texas, and Tennessee reportedly under consideration. So it's like if you're moving the LA headquarters, the iconic Paramount headquarters, you've everyone's seen the water tower, that is a huge shot across the bow as opposed to something that might actually be more economically impactful, like just, Oh, for this production, we were going to make it in LA, we're going to do it Atlanta.
Speaker 1:That might actually move more dollars around, but maintaining that headquarters is so symbolic. Right? So Ellison and much of Paramount senior leadership currently work from the historic Paramount Pictures studio lot in Hollywood, but maybe it will be moving to Georgia, Texas or Tennessee. I wonder where they will go. Anyway, speaking of publicly traded companies, Elon Musk may have found a shortcut to unlocking a trillion dollar payday.
Speaker 1:He needed a win.
Speaker 2:You asked for it. He's delivering.
Speaker 1:Yeah. The idea is having SpaceX buy Tesla. This has been rumored for a long time. Lots of speculation on when these two companies will merge, if they will merge. But The Wall Street Journal on the front page outlines a very odd scenario where Elon could wind up making an incremental $1,000,000,000,000.
Speaker 1:It's really complicated, and it's not it's not as simple as just, oh, he'll just buy the companies and then he just gets another trillion dollars. It's more it's more complicated, but there is a potential outcome, but there's some mitigating factors. But it's worth it's worth understanding the mechanics of the deal or the mechanics of potential deal as it might play out over the next few years. Because this is something that couldn't happen right now, but in the future, is possible. So The Wall Street Journal reports that there's an obscure provision in Musk's 2025 Tesla pay agreement that's already been approved by the shareholders.
Speaker 1:And it was that crazy one we talked about where it was like a million robo taxis by this time and like the optimist needs to be shipping. And it was a lot of really bold claims. But if he hits all those and and the stock goes to like 10,000,000,000,000, then he gets a huge unlock of new stock. And it was all like, Okay, well, like, it's a lot of money, but that's a lot of progress for this company because there's a lot of projects at Tesla that just are sort of slow and steady, not really advancing that quickly. And so he was sort of throwing down the gauntlet, saying, Okay, give me another couple of years, and I'm going to deliver in a really big way.
Speaker 1:And if I do, want to be compensated for that. And the shareholders approved. But the obscure provision there's an obscure provision in the already approved Tesla pay agreement that could eliminate half of those performance requirements attached to the stock award if Tesla is acquired. So change of control affects those those pay packages. What are you laughing about?
Speaker 2:Mark in the chat says, talk about Zuckerberg again. I like Feisty Geordie. Feisty Geordie is based AF. Yeah. Guess I woke up on the wrong side of the bed yesterday.
Speaker 2:I had some strong opinions.
Speaker 1:We'll see. Somebody had somebody had to say it. Hey, hey, he fired back. He called out he Alex Heath. He said something big is coming.
Speaker 1:He was vague posting directly to Alex Heath.
Speaker 2:And again, I just felt like that was so memetic with all the people that are actually at the frontier. And it's just the whole thing. And I'm like, yeah, I'll I'll I'll believe it when I see it.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Yeah. It's it's kind of
Speaker 2:What was the actual see see, Mark, now you got me stuck.
Speaker 1:Now you snapped him.
Speaker 2:Now I snapped. Over the weekend, Zuck called me via his meta glasses while fishing to discuss the 6,000 word Pro AI manifesto he published this morning. Yeah. So he's he's trying to balance
Speaker 1:I love that aesthetic. That's that's fantastic.
Speaker 2:Good old American Fishing. American What am I He told me the immediate reason he decided to publish his philosophy now is that he believes Meta is very close to having substantially stronger models.
Speaker 1:Probably true.
Speaker 2:And he wants people to understand his values before those models arrive. Mhmm. We know your values. We know your values which are Connecting the world. Copy.
Speaker 1:It's fine. Instagram's fine.
Speaker 2:I mean, the whatever whatever the stated values versus the the lived values. The lived values are if there is a hot product Help grow.
Speaker 1:What about that value? Come on. Instagram has birthed so many companies. We know so many people that their companies would not exist if not for meta platforms.
Speaker 5:How about great hours of enjoyable content?
Speaker 1:Yes. Yes.
Speaker 5:Everyday Americans to watch every day.
Speaker 1:Would would we be even remotely familiar with Professor Sendy and the creation of Lambo without Mark Zuckerberg?
Speaker 5:You would have never seen that he turned it down.
Speaker 1:You you you would have never seen it that he turned it down. Or the dabbata. Yeah. You wouldn't you wouldn't have you would not be aware of
Speaker 2:All these iconic moments.
Speaker 1:You also wouldn't know that once you go to Ibiza, you must go back to Ibiza. And you would not know that there's a 21 year old bodybuilder who looks like he's 35 who's on his way. See? Admit it. I
Speaker 2:I don't have a problem with Mark. Yeah. And I don't have a problem with Meta Yeah. Products. I do get enjoyment out of them.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I
Speaker 1:And the business. The
Speaker 2:companies that are dependent on meta platforms.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:I've invested in many companies that that exist in their current form entirely because of meta platforms.
Speaker 1:There you go.
Speaker 2:But I I know what Mark's values are.
Speaker 1:What are those? Mark cares about Delighting customers. Profitable advertising. These are good values.
Speaker 2:I don't I wish he cared more about advertising.
Speaker 1:That's true.
Speaker 2:Yeah. That would cared more about advertising.
Speaker 1:That would be good.
Speaker 2:But but, you know, you just look at the historical behavior. It's like buy or copy or chase the hot thing.
Speaker 1:Yeah. But that's just And that's just a game. Like, you know, you're talking about a $10,000,000,000 startup that's, you know, coming after you with some new form factor. I don't know. You copy it.
Speaker 5:I I think you're discounting how good MSL is. Everyone is saying that MSL is, like, clearly in third place.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 5:Right? That means that they're ahead of x AI and
Speaker 1:the It's crazy. If if they if they if they actually get the next version of Sparkout before Gemini four and it's better, and then Gemini four launches and stays in fourth place, like, that is a crazy, crazy reversal.
Speaker 2:They're executing well. Yeah. Coming from incredibly far behind.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:They are approaching the frontier.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:I just think that if he wants to be the pick me lab
Speaker 1:You don't like the comps?
Speaker 2:I don't yeah. I just think it's You think the comps don't see product. Right? I just don't think it's very authentic.
Speaker 1:Okay. I I I think it's the opposite. I think I I think it is authentic. I think it is he he is thinking about this stuff. He might not be the it it is it is just a little bit of a tough voice because there's so much attention from the social reckoning and the social network and stuff.
Speaker 1:And then, like, in terms of the overall AI industry, attaching him it's like attaching Demis to the AI industry was definitely better for the voices of the AI industry because Demis would stay on message and just talk purely about science. He won the Nobel Prize. And so if if I was like, okay, I'm I'm dealing with an AI skeptic who is paranoid about water use and surveillance, like, who can I put them in the room with? I'm like, yeah, go sit down with Demis. Sir Demis, he's gonna put on a good show and like and like Yeah.
Speaker 1:Walk you through this and give you a really optimistic optimistic vision. And he's not gonna have the baggage of Yeah. Anything else, any lawsuits or anything else. Right? And so yeah.
Speaker 1:It's a little bit of a it's a little bit of a tough tough go. Anyway, back
Speaker 2:to Elon just I just think like again.
Speaker 1:Let's get back to less controversial tech leaders. Let's talk about Elon Musk and how he's gonna make his next trillion. Because this is what's in the Wall Street Journal today.
Speaker 2:I wish So I'll I'll just I'll just chat. I'll just end it here. Please. I wish that Zuck came out with like a five point plan to get his own trillion dollar pay package Oh. Which was just like sell like trillions of dollars
Speaker 1:Of ads.
Speaker 2:Worth of
Speaker 1:ads. Oh.
Speaker 2:And I would I would just be praising that all day.
Speaker 1:That would be sick.
Speaker 2:I would be praising that all day versus being like, oh, we're doing open source and now we're not doing open source and now we're open we're open sourcing again because I'll I'll get some brownie points. Yeah. But also, we're gonna
Speaker 1:It doesn't feel like
Speaker 2:Still have closed models.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I mean, you go to the Dario thing and it's like the guy's been hard on China. He's been anti open source since day one.
Speaker 2:Extremely consistent.
Speaker 1:You love him. You hate him. But like, there's consistency there and that is just reliable. And and and in many ways admirable. I I understand what you're saying.
Speaker 1:Anyway, back to Elon Musk. He's been extremely consistent. He's getting that trillion dollar tax law one way or another, and there
Speaker 2:are multiple being a trillionaire before. Yeah. He wants to run it back.
Speaker 1:He's gotta run it up. He's gotta double it. They say your first trillion is the hardest, and this is how he gets his second trillion. So this is how he's going to do it. So in Musk's 2025 Tesla pay agreement, if he hit certain milestones, he can eliminate a lot of those performance performance requirements that were previously attached to a stock award if the company's acquired.
Speaker 1:And so change of control at this scale, normally, you would think that's impossible. You cannot take Tesla private. He tried. It it was not it was too big of a company. And then also
Speaker 2:funding was secured.
Speaker 1:And funding was secured. But, but there was a trillion dollar once you're a trillion dollar company, like, you can't just get acquired except they're we're in this very unique case where SpaceX is also a trillion dollar company. So Tesla shareholders approved the compensation plan in November, last November. Under its normal terms, Musk can earn as many as 423,000,000 Tesla shares across 12 tranches, but each tranche requires Tesla to hit both a market cap and an operational milestone. So the goals are deliberately enormous.
Speaker 1:Tesla would eventually need to reach an $8,500,000,000,000 market cap while accomplishing targets including delivering 20,000,000 vehicles. Remember, I think the number of vehicle deliveries is actually like declining this year. It it was a very, very bold plan. They need 10,000,000 active FSD subscriptions. That actually seems easy.
Speaker 1:FSD is really good. They need to deliver 1,000,000 Optimus robots. That seems crazy because Optimus is still so early as a project.
Speaker 2:You should try to interview someone with a Tesla that doesn't get the FSD.
Speaker 1:Turn it down?
Speaker 2:They turn it down. That's understand why.
Speaker 1:I understand it if you just bought an older older Tesla, you like the ease of charging and you haven't upgraded to the newer hardware package. Because it's it it like like the the FSD is available on the older hardware three technology, but I think it's best on the hardware four, which is like 2024 onward. Not everyone can upgrade. If it's a financial decision, I understand it. But the last one was they need to get a million robo taxis into commercial operation.
Speaker 1:That also seems pretty doable. I saw a robo taxi driving around LA recently in gold. And like just from using FSD, it seems like it's ready. Like there's probably some legal stuff. But in general, I think they could roll out the the robotaxis, like, very quickly.
Speaker 1:They can make a million cars pretty quickly and they have the technology. So it's just about putting those on
Speaker 2:the road. Yeah. I haven't spent a ton of time in Teslas. But the times recently where human drivers had to take over was Worse. Getting into a driveway.
Speaker 2:Oh, And so, effectively, private property. Yep. Which can just pull over Over the side. The side of the street and Yeah. Like you're walking the last 100 feet by.
Speaker 1:Yep. Totally. And so, yeah. I mean I mean, that that one doesn't seem that that difficult. Although, obviously, it is a lot.
Speaker 1:I mean, I think that's like a 100 times as many Waymo's. I think there's like 10,000 Waymo's out there. So it would be it would be a big a big move. But Yeah. Over a couple years, is that possible to
Speaker 2:Yeah. So vehicle deliveries were falling in 2024 and 2025, but seem to be rebounding.
Speaker 1:But they're not they're not far off from like a million vehicles. Right?
Speaker 2:838 in each one.
Speaker 1:838,000. Yeah. And and so and so over a year or two, they could probably manufacture a million robo taxis. And I think the technology is pretty much there. When you actually look online and you see the reviews of people talking about Tesla Ubers, they're like, I wish there was a Tesla product or an Uber product where I could demand that if it's a Tesla, they have to stay in full self driving mode because many Uber riders regard the full self driving experience as smoother and less likely to cause indigestion and sickness in the back seat versus watching a driver who has a Tesla who isn't that experienced and doesn't understand how to use the regenerative braking properly.
Speaker 1:And so it's much more jerky when a human's driving it because FSD is actually superhuman relative to a newbie Uber driver with a Tesla. So I think the technology is, like, very, very close. They gotta manufacture it. Obviously, legal stuff, but they'll get there. But there's a major exception buried in the agreement.
Speaker 1:If Tesla undergoes a change of control, essentially, if Tesla is acquired, the operational requirements disappear. You no longer have to hit a million robotaxis or a million optimuses to unlock those new tranches of stock for Elon. If there's a chain of control, it's purely based on the market cap. And so instead, Tesla will determine how many of Musk's 12 tranches have been earned solely by looking at the company's value at the time of the transaction. So the milestones don't matter anymore.
Speaker 1:Only the market cap matters. And so that could become extremely important if the widely speculated buyer turns out to be another Musk controlled company, SpaceX. So if SpaceX comes in and gives a really high price for Tesla, Musk can unlock more of those tranches and get more in Tesla, which then rolls into the combined entity, of course. So under this agreement, Tesla's value in an acquisition would be calculated using whichever is higher, its market capitalization immediately before the deal or the value implied by the price being paid to Tesla shareholders. If that figure reached $8,500,000,000,000 all 12 tranches tranches could qualify, putting Musk in line for the full 423,000,000 share award without Tesla ever having to accomplish many of the pay packages operational milestones.
Speaker 1:So there's an obvious catch, which is how are you going to acquire Tesla for 8,500,000,000,000, when when, SpaceX is not a $10,000,000,000,000 company or $50,000,000,000,000 company. It's a hard pitch to do a merger at that scale. But this is more of like a what might happen in a number of years.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah. And there's also the trade off between he has more ownership of SpaceX Yep. Which would mean that he would benefit from acquiring Tesla at a lower valuation. Yep. But then depending on these milestones, you know, he's Yeah.
Speaker 2:He's there's probably his bankers probably have some very elaborate spreadsheets. Yep. You know, six different monitors Yep. Looking at all the different
Speaker 1:So basically, there's sort of a u shape to the incentive. If Tesla's a really low price, Elon probably benefits from acquiring it. And if Tesla's a really high price, he he benefits from he actually increases overall ownership from buying it. But there's sort of like a messy middle where it gets a little bit rougher. So 8,500,000,000,000 would be more than six times Tesla's recent market cap.
Speaker 1:And Tesla shareholders would still have to approve a SpaceX acquisition. The journal estimates that Musk's maximum award is currently worth about $824,000,000,000 despite the package's familiar $1,000,000,000,000 label. Still, the provision creates an unusual path around some of the hardest arguments hardest requirements in Musk's compensation package. Instead of spending the next decade hitting a dozen separate operating goals, a sufficiently expensive acquisition of Tesla could effectively declare those goals accomplished.
Speaker 2:New bumper stick new Tesla bumper sticker idea.
Speaker 1:Mhmm.
Speaker 2:I bought this to help Elon achieve his $1,000,000,000,000 pay package.
Speaker 1:Yes. Full send on the pro Elon Tesla. Get a lot of thumbs up.
Speaker 5:Get a
Speaker 2:lot of thumbs traffic. A lot of positive honks.
Speaker 1:For sure. For sure. There could be another major benefit for Musk. A combination with SpaceX could increase his effective control over Tesla, something Musk has repeatedly sought while consolidating even more of his business empire under a single roof. Well, it's a fascinating story.
Speaker 1:Any other stories you wanna cover? Bending spoons, apparently on a tear, 265 x pry price to earnings ratio, buying bore old boring SaaS with slow growth. People are excited about that, I guess. Bending spoons added 11,000,000,000 in market cap after announcing the Airtable acquisition. Can't make it up.
Speaker 1:Is that true? Wow. $3,334,000,000,000 dollar company. Way up since IPO. Wow.
Speaker 1:Really, really, really impressive. Up 50% since they IPO ed. They're on a tear. Who will be the next Ben Spoon? That is the question everyone's asking.
Speaker 1:Do not get it.
Speaker 2:Don't get your spoon, Ben.
Speaker 1:Don't get your spoon, Ben. Do we need to do a
Speaker 2:pen? Unless that's the best possible outcome.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Maybe.
Speaker 2:We'll leave this show with a post from June Chu Mhmm. Who was the COO at Zillow until very recently. Mhmm. He posted on LinkedIn, I have stepped down from my role as COO of Zillow. That's all I have to say about that.
Speaker 1:Mic drop moment. There we go.
Speaker 2:And, yeah, I'm curious. I'm sure we'll find out in due time what he really wants to say about that.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It feels like teeing up a tell all.
Speaker 2:Feels like he maybe can't say anything.
Speaker 3:For
Speaker 1:Anyway, sure. There's a bunch of other good stories. Last
Speaker 2:but not least, Leonardo DiCaprio urged Chilean authorities to protect a critically endangered frog from a proposed power transmission project. This feels like something that's solvable. I think we can protect the frogs and do the power transmission project.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Do you agree, John? I know nothing about this situation, but I have I have a little faith.
Speaker 1:Spiny chest frog. There's a thousand of them that remain in the wild.
Speaker 2:I think Leo should let them move in.
Speaker 1:Oh, bring him to America. Put him in a zoo or something. I think they wanna live there. I think I think you gotta do a lot of work. It's gotta be rough being the in the in the Chilean government and just being like,
Speaker 2:who's Leo just just comes over the top.
Speaker 1:60 he sent 60,000,000 Instagram followers our way and they're on us? It's gotta be brutal.
Speaker 2:It's summer.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It's summer.
Speaker 2:Go touch some grass for us.
Speaker 1:And we'll see you tomorrow Pacific. Goodbye. Love you.