Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is preparing to report its earnings for the third quarter of 2025 this afternoon. Investors are looking for answers regarding the Robotaxi launch, energy division, potential future vehicle releases, Optimus, and demand stimulation without the tax credit.

Using the investor platform Say, Tesla allows investors to ask questions for the earnings call.

Tesla Q3 2025 earnings: What analysts expect

These are the top five questions that have been asked and voted for by investors of the company, and what we think about them:

• What are the latest Robotaxi metrics (fleet size, cumulative miles, rides completed, intervention rates), and when will safety drivers be removed? What are the obstacles still preventing unsupervised FSD from being deployed to customer vehicles?
  • What we think: Tesla should release some metrics about Robotaxi operation, but it has been cryptic about fleet size and other statistics in the past. Additionally, CEO Elon Musk said Safety Drivers should be removed ‘by the end of the year,’ and we imagine this will be reiterated during the call. Regarding Unsupervised FSD, Tesla has stated that safety is its priority moving forward with the FSD rollout and Robotaxi as well.

• What is demand/backlog for Megapack, Powerwall, Solar, or energy storage systems? With the current AI boom, is Tesla planning to supply power to other hyperscalers?
  • What we think: This is perhaps the only question of the five that Tesla will be totally forthcoming with, as it usually does not reveal vehicle plans or data on these earnings calls. However, it will be interesting to see if the company has any plans to supplement the increasing AI plans with its energy products. Energy falls under the radar with a lot of its achievements, so it really could be a major focus of this call if this question gets answered.

• What are the plans for new car models? Will Tesla build compact car models leveraging the unboxed Cybercab platform? Will Tesla build a traditional SUV and pickup truck on the Cybertruck platform?
  • What we think: Tesla does not unveil or release plans about projects on earnings calls, so we doubt there will be much color here from executives. Considering Tesla has put so much weight on autonomy in the U.S., we’re not necessarily convinced it will plan to do much more than Cybercab, and SUV and pickup trucks will likely be built on a different platform as well, if they’re offered at all. Musk isn’t sure about bringing the Model Y L to the U.S. market due to the “advent of self-driving.”

• What are the present challenges in bringing Optimus to market, considering app control software, engineering hardware, training general mobility models, training task-specific models, training voice models, implementing manufacturing, and establishing supply chains?
  • What we think: This will likely be where Tesla teases the capabilities of Optimus Gen 3, and comes up with some sort of rough date where it could show off the new design. Tesla has been using Optimus in its factories and other internal operations, so it’s likely we’ll hear some stories about that as well. Tesla is looking to refine the Optimus design so it is useful and capable in residential applications, and its hands are likely the biggest bottleneck as they are arguably the most crucial part of the product.

• Can you talk about demand stimulation avenues beyond affordability? Given the state of global politics, can Tesla’s brand elevate above the divisiveness and return global perception back to our inspirational roots of ludicrous performance, environmental good, and superior safety?
  • What we think: Tesla is going to flex its new Standard offerings now, and the company has been transparent that Musk’s political involvement will wind down in a timely manner, according to the proxy it released when it revealed his pay package. 

A new shareholder campaign is calling for Tesla investors to vote against Elon Musk’s proposed 2025 CEO Performance Award, arguing it would deepen governance risks and weaken corporate accountability.

Ahead of Tesla’s Q3 2025 earnings report, a coalition of unions and watchdogs launched the “Take Back Tesla” initiative, urging investors to reject Musk’s pay proposal at next month’s annual meeting. The plan would grant the CEO additional shares worth nearly $1 trillion over ten years, expanding his ownership stake in the company to about 25%.

Unions and watchdogs argue that Elon Musk’s proposed plan rewards distraction

The Take Back Tesla campaign is backed by groups such as the American Federation of Teachers, Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, Ekō, People’s Action, and Stop the Money Pipeline. 

As could be seen on the campaign’s website, the groups are arguing that Musk’s focus on political ventures and external businesses has distracted him from leading Tesla. The group’s website called Musk’s new CEO Performance Award “outrageous” as it involves an amount of wealth that is unreachable even by today’s top executives.

“In order to unlock the full amount of shares proposed in this compensation plan, Tesla’s value would need to increase dramatically to $8.5 trillion. As Tesla’s proxy statement points out, that would make Tesla roughly 2x as valuable as the most valuable company in the world (Nvidia) today. Arguably, growing Tesla’s value to double the value of Nvidia would justify paying Musk something like double the compensation of Nvidia’s CEO. 

“But the annual value of Musk’s trillion dollar pay package isn’t just 2 times what Nvidia’s CEO made last year (just under $50 million); it’s more than 2,000 times what Nvidia’s CEO made last year. At his current compensation of $49.9 million, it would take Nvidia’s CEO over 2,000 years to earn the amount that Elon Musk could earn, on average, per year for the next ten years,” the group argued.

Board defends package as necessary, though some pushback is present

Tesla’s board insists the compensation plan is essential to retain Musk and sustain the company’s innovation in AI, robotics, and self-driving technology. The automaker noted that previous skepticism from proxy firms such as ISS and Glass Lewis preceded a 20x rise in Tesla’s market capitalization since 2018, a feat that seemed unrealistic when it was proposed.

As noted in a CNBC report, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who oversees a $300 billion pension fund, stated that while Tesla has been a great investment, he “vociferously opposes” Elon Musk’s proposed 2025 CEO Performance Award. 

“Most of the time we’ve held Tesla stock, it has been a solid investment, it’s grown over time, and that’s why we haven’t chosen to dump it, he said, adding that he views Tesla’s Board as “insufficiently independent” since they have allowed Musk to be “absentee CEO.” Landers also argued that Tesla as a whole has failed to hit its targets when it comes to its Robotaxi program and its Full Self-Driving technology.

For context, Elon Musk has maintained that his 2025 CEO Performance Award is not designed for him to gather even more wealth. Instead, he stressed that it is required so that he could take a controlling stake in the company.

Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm has issued a strongly worded letter urging investors to reject the latest recommendations from proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis, saying their “one-size-fits-all” approach fails to recognize Tesla’s unique business model and track record. 

The letter comes ahead of Tesla’s 2025 Annual Meeting, where shareholders will vote on several key proposals including Elon Musk’s 2025 CEO Performance Award and director reelections.

Tesla slams proxy advisors’ models

Denholm criticized both firms for consistently opposing Tesla’s growth-oriented plans, noting that the company’s market capitalization has increased twentyfold since shareholders approved Musk’s 2018 performance package, which both advisors had opposed at the time. 

“Our shareholders have ignored their recommendations, and it’s a good thing they did,” she wrote. “Otherwise, you may have missed out on our market capitalization soaring 20x while the proxy advisors time and time again recommended “against” Tesla proposals designed to promote the sort of extraordinary growth we have enjoyed.”

The letter argued that Glass Lewis and ISS use robotic policies that don’t account for Tesla’s innovation-driven structure. Tesla’s leadership maintained that the 2025 CEO Performance Award will only reward Musk if he achieves extraordinary market capitalization and operational goals. The plan, Denholm stated, aligns Musk’s incentives with long-term shareholder interests.

Tesla defends board leadership

Denholm also defended directors Ira Ehrenpreis and Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, calling them pivotal to Tesla’s governance and innovation strategy. She said both have driven Tesla’s growth and helped design compensation systems vital to competing in the AI and robotics talent race.

She warned that following ISS and Glass Lewis could turn Tesla into “just another car company,” and urged shareholders to “vote yes to robots, and reject robotic voting.” The letter also highlighted that neither ISS nor Glass Lewis owns Tesla stock, emphasizing that only shareholders “who have made an actual financial investment” should decide the company’s direction.

“If you prefer that Tesla turn into just another car company mired in the ways of the past, then you should follow ISS and Glass Lewis. If you believe that Tesla, under the visionary leadership of Elon and the oversight of a Board that includes business leaders with integrity like Ira, Kathleen and Joe, then you should vote with Tesla,” Denholm wrote.