Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. He's a money stuff guy. Yeah, it'll be great.
Hello, and welcome to the Money Stuff Podcast. Here weekly podcast where we talk about stuff related to money and Elon Musk. I'm Matt Levian and I are at the Moneystuff column for Bloomberg Opens and.
I'm Katie Greifeld. I'm a reporter for Bloomberg News and an anchor for Bloomberg Television.
What are you talking about today, Katie?
Okay, we're obviously talking about Elon Musk and the results of the shareholder vote, the two prong issues there.
We're going to talk about.
An extremely messy deal.
We're talking about the Paramount.
Skydance deal, and then we're going to talk about mouse jigglers and Wells Fargo and getting fired.
Sounds great. He is a money stuff guy.
It's Friday morning in America.
Elon Musk has gotten his money. He has, I mean sort of. He had the vote for his money. Did he get his money? Complicated question?
Yeah, TBD on that point.
So the shareholder vote happened for for Tesla, and I think it was I think this is the most boring outcome actually, So they.
Had to vote on two things right. One is should Helen Musk get his money? And the other was should they reincorporate to Texas? Right. If they voted against them getting his money, that would have been like some real fireworks, like amazing if you have quit in a huff last night, who knows. But they voted in favor of him getting
his money, so he's going to stay. And then I sort of thought they would vote against moving to Texas because my impression was that institutional shareholders like the predictability and protections of Delaware law, and that Elon Musk being kind of a whimsical dude, they thought it would be nice to have a court that would rain him in. But no more shareholders voted to move to Texas than voted for his pay.
Yeah, and I mean and seventy two percent voted for his pay, So the support for the movie to Texas was broad.
Yeah. So this is all driven by the fact that earlier this year a Delaware court struck down that twenty eighteen pay package that he got. Right, So in twenty eighteen, Tesla gave him a bunch of options that if he hit some very ambitious milestones, he'd get you know, fifty six billion dollars. He hit all the milestones, he got
all the options. A shareholder sued, saying that like the process of paying him was too conflicted, And earlier this year, a Delaware court said, we agree, we're taking back the options. And so Tesla is voting to give him back the options and to get out of Delaware because they don't
like that. And I remember when I wrote about the court decision earlier this year, I was like, this seems kind of wrong, right, Like I'm not like a you know, devoted Elon Musk fan here, but like the shareholders voted to give him the money. The court decided that the vote wasn't fully informed, but it was pretty informed, like they knew how much money they were giving him, and like what the targets were, and he hit the targets and they were happy. So it struck me as kind
of a weird decision. It might have been in the law, but it was protective of shareholders in a way that like the shareholders clearly didn't want, right, Like, the shareholders got the benefit of their bargain, which was Elon Musk took the company to six hundred and fifty billion dollars, and this court decision seemed to kind of interfere in
the relationship between the company and its shareholders. And I think that's what the vote last night says, right, like, not only did the shareholders vote to bring back the pay bagage, but they also said, yeah, we think that, like this Delaware decision was wrong and we now reject Delaware law, which I think is kind of an interesting outcome, right, Like, Yeah,
Tessa is a weird company. It's got a weird CEO and a weird relationship with him, and it's got a lot of retail shareholders who are maybe more inclined to vote for like a populace to move to Texas than like the average institutional shareholders. But a lot of institutional shareholders voted to move to Texas, and like iss the proxy advisor said, yeah, you should vote to move to Texas.
So I'm interested to see going forward, will other companies copy this, because like I would have thought that a lot of companies would say, I would like to have a little bit less shareholder protection and a little bit more freehand for the board and the CEO. But if I actually try to do that, my shareholders will say no. No, we want the protections. We see you trying to get away from a sort of strict corporate law, and we're going to vote against that. But now the shareolders votedn't
for it at Tesla. I don't know are other companies going to follow along.
I mean, it'll be interesting to see what this means for Texas. Obviously, the business courts in Delaware are extremely well established. Comparatively, Texas is not exactly there, so I
don't know. Maybe we'll get some precedents sent there. But I mean, you made the point in your sort of walk up column that if you think about the reasons why the twenty eighteen pay package was voided by that Delaware judge, there was this idea that the conflicts of interest in the board and other details weren't properly disclosed and well known. And I feel like with this vote, obviously everything's out in the open.
So I think that I read yesterday is that, like, so the judge found that in twenty eighteen the board was sort of in the pocket of Elon Musk, and the proxy didn't fully disclose all of that, right, and so this this year, this vote, the proxy just discloses the judge's entire opinion, like it's attached to the back. So if you're interested to know what conflicts you know, were involved in the twenty eighteen decision to pay Elon Musk, you can go read the opinion and get like all
of the like the worst case for the conflicts. But I mean the point yesterday that there are new conflicts, right, there's all this stuff about Elon doing AI at other companies, if at his other companies, if he doesn't get his money at Tesla. Earlier this year, Elan Musk asking for another pay package. This is back when he still had
these options before the judge took them away. He asked for another big pay package to get his stock ownership up at Tesla, and he said, if I don't get another big pay package, I won't be able to build AI at Tesla. There's that reporting about how there were like some in Vidio chips that were ear marked for Tesla that he called up in video and said no, that sent them to X and said is you know Twitter.
So there's all this stuff about his conflicts of interest, his threats, his like you know, demands for new compensation. All this stuff is not really addressed in the in the current Tesla proxy and like, I don't know. If I were a disgruntled shareholder, I'd be writing another lot suit being like, well there's more stuff you didn't disclose.
But that said, like you know, as I said, like, I think that the meaning of last night's vote is that Delaware's interference here is wrong and not what shareholders want and not what is good for shareholders.
So I do wonder what was on the mind of the large retail shareholder base. Not to speak of them all as a monolist, but I mean, in many ways, this was just seen as a referendum on Musk and his leadership of the company.
And the point has been made.
It's very well known that the retail shareholders of Tesla love Elon Musk. They're there because they love Elon Musk.
Tesla has a much more retail shareholder based than a lot of companies, but like almost half institutional, and those people voted pretty strongly in favor of moving to Texas and also in favor of the pay more for Texas than for the pey. It's an impressive outcome for him. A month ago, like he was clearly focused on his AI stuff at other companies, and five months ago he
was asking for more money from Tesla. I wonder if this traumatic experience has brought them closer together so that now he will spend more time on Tesla and not demand more money, or if it's like after winning the vote this week, he will go back to messing around with Xai and ignoring Tesla. I don't know. I don't know.
I kind of lean towards the ladder, but what do I know?
But I will say.
Too, he's a short attention spatter. I think he's going to go do something else next week.
Yeah, that's a very strong bare case like that doesn't even though we're past the vote, seventy two percent voted for the pay package, it doesn't fix the problem of Musk is distracted. It seems like he has more fun things going on than Tesla struggles right now, and you've seen all of these big.
Tesla bulls come out.
I'm thinking about Dan Ives at Webbush saying this removes a huge overhang for the stock, Tesla market cap to a trillion dollars. I don't necessarily know if that's the case.
I don't think Elon being distracted is necessarily a bare case. I think the counter argument is space Ax, where he doesn't seem to have a ton of day to day involvement. There's a professional team running it and it's very successful. But also it's got the Elon Musk halo, which helps it like raise money and sort of be high profile.
You could tell a similar story about a Tesla where like some team of managers run it as a competent car company without doing weird stuff, and Elon Musk remains the CEO and biggest shareholder and sort of figurehead, such that it has a high stock market valuation and can raise money from retail investors and it's just like always in the news. That's not the worst outcome for Tesla. I don't think. I don't know that having him in the day to day design process for the cars is
super additive. Like I don't know, everyone seems to think the cyber truck is really ugly and that's clearly his baby, So maybe like a distracted but happy Elon is the kind of best outcome for Tesla.
Maybe I'm just thinking about again, like the fundamentals of the EV industry right now, it feels like every single automaker has I'm exaggerating, but has skilled back EV production. There's this big leading into high where it seems like the American driver is also going. Tesla's never going to make a hybrid. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.
But it's not. With Elon paying more attention to it is not going to make it make a hybrid.
True, true, I don't know. I mean SpaceX is a good example, a good counterweight, because it seems like cracking the private space industry would be harder than cracking the EV industry. So and SpaceX did that, so maybe maybe things will.
Be fine at Tesla.
I guess the point that I'm making is that I've interviewed all of these automaker chief executives.
I'm talking to the Kia.
COO in like two hours. Like the EV market is in a storm right now.
Yeah, Like the governance is sort of like unrelated to that much. Elon Musk is not going to fix the EV market. And I don't know. I mean, like you can tell the story that like the EV market is in America is partly politicized, and like that slows down adoption and Elon Musk could help you know deeput it hiss has EV adoption or politicize it the other way.
But I don't know, I don't really see that, Like I just I think that at this point, Tesla the company faces the same headwinds as every other you know, EV manufacturer, except that it is only an EV manufacturer, And Tesla the stock has just the sort of vague halo effect of like it's the one public way to invest in Elon Musk, and so it trades at a premium because if you like Elon Musk's whole stick, and you don't care much about EV's, but you're just like,
how do I buy like the Elon Musk thing? The only way to do it as a public investor is to buy Tesla stock, And so it trades on that. And you know what particular parts of the Elon Musk empire are conducted in Tesla as opposed to at his private companies, Like doesn't necessarily matter that much for the for the price of the stock.
I'm more thinking of, like not him making good decisions for Tesla, but him stopping good decisions that could be made at Tesla. Like you think about him, what firing the Supercharger team and then rehiring a bunch of them that wasn't great, Like wavering on plans for a much cheaper ev model that wasn't great. That did shake a lot of even the biggest Tesla bowls conviction in the stock.
And then I don't know, the Robotaxi dreams seemed to be and the cyber truck too seemed to be like an expensive waste of money.
We could have done this on yesterday, is the.
Thing, like, yeah, we probably should have.
We thought that there would be like late breaking news, but in fact there was early breaking news, and then it turned out to be true. By the way, I would have been so excited, like the outcome, I was really rooting for it. Once he tweeted yesterday Thursday. Once he tweeted on Thursday that that he had won the vote, obviously the outcome I was reading for is that he had lost the vote. I was gonna get sued, but didn't come to pass. The tweet was true.
That would have fit delicious.
And now we're back from the ad break we heard from our future selves. I think I said last week that we're really learning that time is a concept, and we're doing that again because now it's you and I talking on a Thursday afternoon.
We have traveled back in time to Thursday afternoon. It was nice Thursday after Again, here we.
Are and we traveled back in time.
Yeah, why live in a Friday when you can live in a perpetual Thursday.
So it's the this podcast.
Absolutely let's talk about sky Dance and Paramount and the deal that will never.
Be question Mark.
It's pretty wild.
Yeah, we have talked about it once on this I forget what we said, but now we're sort of talking about we're talking about it's obituary because no, not yet, at least, this deal's obituary because National Amusement read Sherry Redstone stopped the deal.
It's not going to happen with sky Dance at least.
Yeah. I love it. I love it. It's such a complicated deal because of a very simple thing, which is that so jarriets that Amusements. National Amusements owns some movie theaters and also a block of Paramount stock. Paramount is like an eight billion dollar public company has a lot of interesting, you know, TV and movie assets, and people want to buy it, and Shari Redstone, who inherited it from her father, seems to want to sell it. Although
no one's really sure. And the thing about National Amusements is that it owns around five percent of Paramount's stock, but it owns most of the voting stock. Most of the Paramount stock doesn't vote, so Shary Redstone, although she has like a fairly small economic interest in Paramount, has voting control of her Paramount. So that means anyone who wants to buy Paramount has to get her approval because she controls the vote even though she doesn't have that
much stock. But it also means that like anyone who wants to deal with her, you know, has to pay her off at a premium. And then the rest of the Paramount shareholders, if they don't get the same deal, are going to complain. And that's the problem with doing a deal here. And it sort of looked like some I wanted to find a way to overcome that problem, and nobody did, and the di'll just fell apart.
It fell apart really quickly too, And it is an incredible end because, first of all, this is something that Cherry Redstone originally was campaigning for for months, and Ellison and sky Dance did switch it around a lot and tried to make this work and revise their offer a bunch of times, and then just this week it fell apart, and there's been a lot of different reporting as to why. A lot of people familiar with the matter have commented
on this to different outlets. The Wall Street Journal I found this explanation satisfying that basically they reported that she feared potential shareholder litigation over a deal that her critics said would disadvantage ordinary investors in Paramount. And this seems key legal fees that might eat into her family's fortune. That would make sense when you.
Say she was advocating for this deal and then it fell apart really rapidly. I think that what happened is that originally Skydance to a shi Redstone and said, we want to do a deal with you where we give you money for National Amusements, and then we simultaneously negotiate a deal with Paramount so that like when we acquire National Amusements, we end up in control of Paramount and we can sort of do the merger that we want
with Paramount. And Shah Redstone is, oh, yeah, it sounds good, and they offered to pay her a lot of money for her National Amusements take. But then over time, as they negotiated with the board. The Board of Paramount wanted more stuff for the regular public shareholders. Like they said, if you just give Shay Redstone all this money and don't give anything to the regular shaholders, one, that's going
to look bad. It's going to be bad for our fiduciary duties as a board to protect the public shareolders. But then also like, we'll get sued. You'll get sued. Everyone gets sued. So what we need to do is strike a better deal for the public shareholders, and sky
Dances like, sure, yeah, we can do that. We can take some of the money we're gonna give to the Shay Redstone and give it to the public shareholders instead, and then everyone will be happier, except that then Shah Redstone wasn't happier because they're taking money from her and giving it to the shareolders. So I think part of why the deal fell apart is because it's almost impossible to like just accomplish this, to like do a deal that is good for Shih Edstone and also doesn't get
you sued by shareholders. And I think she eventually concluded that she was going to get sued by shaholders and it wasn't worth it. But also they did try to accomplish it, but that meant taking money away from her part of the deal, and that made her less inclined to do it. Right, if she was getting all the money, she could pay the legal fees. But if she's getting less of the money, then like ah, she's thills us to pay the legal fees. She doesn't want to do the deal.
It almost feels like a Golden Shar's situation, which doesn't really exist in America, but it exists more formally in the UK and increasingly in China.
And it just.
Seems impossible to have good governance in this type of situation.
This company has always sort of had famously bad governance. I mean, like, the situation is just bad governance, right, I mean, someone who inherited the company and has like a fairly small minority economic interest in it, but who has complete voting control and can can sort of block
any deal she doesn't like is an unusual situation. And because it is a big public media company, it has like a fairly independent board of directors, or it has had fairly dependent board of directors sometimes who have gotten in fights with shire Redstone and have tried to like take away her voting control. And even now, you know, like I think the impression is that some members of the board were the ones sort of saying to Shay, like, this deal is not going to work. You're gonna get sued.
It's not sufficiently you know, detective of minority shoulders. The other thing is like shire Redstone is worried about getting sued. One thing that could potentially help is like asking the other shareholders to vote to approve the deal. So most apparent Stock doesn't have any voting rights, and so it's just like, what if the board agrees to share, I
can just share Redstone can just ratify. But she was thinking about conditioning the merger on the majority of the non voting shareholders, you know, holding a vote and having them vote to approve it, because then if they if they approve, that she'd be less likely to get sued. But my understanding is that Skidance didn't like that idea because they're like, you know, we're giving you this money,
want to actually have a deal. We don't want to have to worry about the non voting shareholders turning it down.
Well, they have to do something.
This is a company in a struggling industry with enormous amounts of debt. But Matt, I have good news. The good news is that in a moment like this, when your searching eyes are looking for the CEO, the good news is that there's not one CEO. There's three CEOs in this situation.
I think when we last talked about this situation said something like having three CEOs is really a sign that you're going to do a deal really soon, because you can't just run the company with three cos. But now here they are. I've got three CEOs.
And I know I love it.
There are some rivers that are going to replace those three CEOs with a fourth, different CEO, but he knows.
Yeah, there's sort of this monolith just called the Office of the CEO, which is incredible and definitely at the time it was like, Okay, this is just a band aid, weird situation, holding pattern until a deal is done, and maybe it'll go back to being a more typical structure. But for right now, they have three CEOs and apparently it has a plan for going forward. The Office of
the CEO. CNBC obtained a memo that they released on Wednesday, saying that they're going to remain open to exploring strategic alternatives that create value for shareholders. They also said that they're going to continue to focus on executing the strategic plan that they unveiled in the last couple weeks, so we'll see.
I love them, they're fighting for their jobs.
They're really fighting, but again, they need to do something. In one of the reports, there's just been so much on this, but apparently a special committee of directors recommended that Paramount could not continue as a standalone business. So
something needs to get done here. And then Moody's was out this week warning and this was prior to the collapse that unless there's some sort of strategic transaction that comes along with cost cutting opportunities, basically they're going to get downgraded as well.
Yeah, it's not a good situation. The impression I get is that this deal is pretty dead. There was another suitor, right Sony and Apollo. We're looking at the company, and the deal seems to have faded away because in part, I think because they were never really in with Sherry Redstone and she, you know, has the controlling vote. So it's a little unclear what happens next.
And also in deal talk there's Edgar.
Edgar who's like talking about buying National Amusements.
I think, yeah.
The impression that I get is that as this deal collapses, the next plan, besides like finding out who the CEO is, the next plan is for Shari Redstone to think about
selling National Amusements is just like a single thing. So she would just sell National Amusements and then whoever buys it it would be their problem to deal with like the weird governance structure at Paramount and to try to find a way to impose their will on Paramount, and like you know, appointed your CEO to take control of Paramount and deal with the minority shareholders and everything else.
That just wouldn't be her problem. She would just sell National Amusements and then the new person would step into her shoes and figure it all out. One reader email to suggest a really good trade, which is that she should sell National Amusements to AMC, which one's a movie theater chain and two keeps raising money from Memestock investments, and then AMC could sell the Paramounts shares to sky Dance and everyone could be better off. I don't know if that's a viable altern that's.
A pretty good idea.
It's pretty good. We've had an anti trust with with AMC. I don't know.
There was one selsid note that suggested this was from Luke Capital, that Warner Brothers Discovery should buy it. This hasn't been proposed, they haven't shown any interest. But then they also said that that's probably not going to happen under the current administration. And also you need to see Paramount shares go down much more more than they already have for it to even be palatable. I just want
to read this from Walls Fargo. I mean, first of all, Bloomberg Intelligence was out with a note saying that Paramount is probably in a weaker position than it was six months ago before this dragged out M and a process.
That's always true. It's always bad to do an M and a process that hope people walk away. Although here it's not like it fell apart in due diligence. It's like it fell apart in weird governance.
Yeah, weird governance. But Will's Fargo. Then said the analyst Stephen K. Hill, Miss Redstone has created a legacy of equity value destruction and this should overhang Paramount's valuation. Given her unpredictability, this will add to the long shadow over
Paramount as yet another misstep. The last six months have seen governance weekend, the CEO fired in favor of management by committee, likely internal disruption to rank and file morale, massive golden parachutes, and probably a lot of deal related expensive So Stephen Cahill from Wells Fargo not holding back.
A lot of companies in recent years have gone public with supervoting stock, and there's always this rationale of like, there's this brilliant visionary founder who runs the company for a sort of like long term social purpose and has not just beholden to the whims of the short term equity markets, and we want to preserve that, and so the founder shares need to have supervoting rights, and that's really better governance and better like value creation for the
long term for public shaolders then letting every share have
one vote. And like this is the sort of degenerate final case of that, right, Like this is a person who's not this visionary, but who just inherited the shares from the from like the visionary put the company together, and she doesn't own forty percent of the company shows five percent of the economics, and her incentives are just very different from those of other shareholders, and she seems to be making choices that are not great for other shareolders.
And it's just hard for anyone to kind of come in and fix it because she controls all the votes.
Do you want to talk about some later?
Fare well Spargo, man, This was.
An incredible scoot by a Bloomberg News's handle of it.
It's so good. It's so good.
Wells Fargo fires over a dozen for quote simulation of keyboard activity.
Matt, I assume they were working from home. Well, it's untirely clear, like she reported this space on like a FINRA filing that Wells Fargo did. What it sounds like is that they were working from home. And so these
are like people in wealth management and investment management. They were working from home, and Wells Fargo was monitoring them and making sure that they weren't just like going to the pool all day by installing some sort of tracking software in their computer that made sure that they were like typing at least once every five minutes, or moving their mouse or whatever. And these people acquired devices apparently
called mouse jigglers. I picture like the you know, like the bird with water in it that like bobs up and down and.
Pecks the keys like the Homer Simpson.
Yeah, the Homer Simpson bird, exactly right. And so like someone is hitting a key every four minutes so that the system keeps them lied on while they go off and run errands or whatever. And Wills Fargo somehow found out and fired them all saying we don't, you know, accept any unethical behavior.
Yeah, I mean, it's just amazing.
Reading directly from the filing, apparently the staffers, all of whom are in the firm's wealth and Investment management unit, were quote discharged after review of allegations involving simulation of keyboard activity creating impression of active work. My first reaction was, if we're talking about wealth managers, I feel like they
should be alcolfing anyway. And then also, the term mouse jiggler really sounds like an insult, but it is a real device and you can buy it for twenty dollars from Amazon.
Yeah, I agree with you that. Like, so one, if they're wealth managers, they should be out on the golf course, not at the keyboard. But two, like just in general, making sure that you're typing all the time is like the worst way to measure productivity and contributions of like a financial professional. Right. It's like that can't be what the job is about. Right. The job can't be like how many keys do you hit in a minute? Right?
There has to be some other form of value add there, and Wellsvarrio is measuring like the sort of like lowest thing that could measure, which is just are you hitting
the keys? I mean, what I find most amazing about this whole situation is that like Wells Fargo has been here before in like much more egregious ways, which is that they had like a famous scandal in twenty sixteen where they set up millions of fake accounts because like they had all the like branch employees were basically held to a standard of like that to open like eight different products today, Right, So if you came in to open a check on account, they'd be like, hey, do
you want to add online checking? Do you want to add a credit card? Do you want to add a mortgage? Do you want to add a saving Because you know, if they wanted to open eight different products every day, and so a lot of people realizing how hard that was. Instead, we're just doing it like illicitly. By they'd open a checking out for someone and just slipped them a credit card without them knowing about it, And I love that.
It's like eight years later, Wells Fargo still seems to have this culture of like one using these very crude metrics to manage its employees' performance, and two having the employees like game them in egregious ways.
Yeah, it's pretty painful.
I mean you think about specifically the wealth management unit, and this has been a focus for the bank, trying to beef up their wealth management is it feels like a lot of the big banks are and this probably doesn't hurt them, but it is just embarrassing and it feels like they haven't quite recovered from that twenty sixteen episode.
People talk about like bank culture, and it really like all of these stories paying such a bad picture of Wells Fargo's culture. There's another story a few years ago where Wells fire fired a bunch of investment bankers for expensing seamless too early. Yeah, you know, like you could order dinner if you stay past eight or whatever, and people were ordering dinner at like six point fifteen and then like altering the receipts so that it looked like they stayed later.
It's like, that's pretty bad.
All of this stuff. It's like the most petty micro management of their people and the most like cynical gaming of that micro management.
Yeah, I feel in some ways like a naive, innocent person because I hear that and I'm like, oh my god, you can get fired for that, And I think about my own life. I get a card to the office because I get in at six am, but sometimes I get in at six oh six am and not six am, and I wonder if I'm going to get fired for expensing my uber But altering your receipts is a different level that I wouldn't do.
Right, Like, the thing is, you're not going to get fired because like, well I shouldn't say that, Like.
No, say it. Put it in the record.
Both you and our employer take more intelligent, long term view of what's going on, and like everyone understands that you're acting in good faith and that the program exists to encourage you to do the good work that you do. Right, And then there's the other thing where it's like nickel and diming people and like everyone is kind of doing the minimum and like trying to check the boxes. Yeah, that leads to bad outcomes.
Well, speaking of things that made me nervous, I was searching on Amazon for some of these mouse jigglers on my work desk stot and let me let me say for the company right now. It was for research for this podcast specifically, but I found one cost twenty two dollars and ninety nine cents. That price is actually down twenty three percent, but more than a thousand of them have been bought in the last month, at least according
to Amazon bills, itself is undetectable. And again, being an innocent person, I thought that not a lot of people did this, But just looking at how frequently people are buying mouse jigglers on Amazon, apparently it's still hot. People are still doing this.
I am very interested in the cat and mouse game, no pun intended, uh oo, how people are catching these uncatchable mass jigglers right, Like someone is like building the algorithms that like detect suspiciously regular mass jigling and like report it to HR.
Or do you know, well to that point, can I read you some of the reviews? I thought these were really illuminating. Oh yeah, this is a five star review from June one so recently. They said that it was a great little device. But if you're being monitored by your employer, it only moves back and forth. So if they can see your screen and you want to use this to be able to walk away, I would be careful. They would clearly be able to see you're not there.
And then here's a four star review from March. This person wrote, at least with my mouse, it moves the cursor all the way across the screen. So if you're being monitored by management, this would not look at all natural. These are all Wells Fargo employees, by the way, just kidding, that's a.
Joke, right. I sort of assumed that there was some sort of like algorithmic tracking of like there's some like a computer system make sure that you're typing every at least, you know, every once in a while. But like the idea that the managers just have like a screen up with like six of their employees' screens and they just watch it all day to make sure that workers are working is like even more dystopian than what I thought.
Like that's really grim, Like what why ken't the manager do some work instead of just monitoring their employees screens.
Maybe that's someone's whole job, you know, in this bright new world that we live in. You're the vice president of screen monitoring at.
Wellston right, and then like you get like a big win when you fired twelve people for installing mat streets. You're like, look, I've added so much value as the screen monitoring vice president because I've caught the people who were just master vision instead of really moving their mass.
I wonder if that works from home? Do you need to be in the office to do that.
We're going to command center of like eight screens. And that was the Money Stuff Podcast.
I'm Matt Levian and I'm Katie Greifeld.
You can find my work by subscribing to the Money Stuff newsletter on Bloomberg dot com.
And you can find me on Bloomberg TV every day between ten to eleven am Eastern.
We'd love to hear from you. You can send an email to Money Pod at Bloomberg dot net ask us a question, or we might answer it on the air.
You can also subscribe to our show wherever you're listening right now and leave us a review. It helps more people find the show.
The Money Stuff Podcast is produced by Anna Maserakis and Moses and On.
Our theme music was composed by Blake Maples.
Brendan Francis Nenham is our executive.
Producer, and Stage Bowman is Bloomberg's.
Head of podcasts.
Thanks for listening to The Money Stuff Podcast. We'll be back next week with more stuff.
The Pal