Connect with us

Investor's Corner

The Anatomy of a Tesla ($TSLA) Trader Analyst

Published

on

Hi, my name is …

Marco Papa. I am a techie by trade and very much a product of the first dot com boom (and bust) of the 90’s. I originally came to this country from Italy to pursue a PhD in computer science at USC, back in 1981.  I worked for 6 different dot-coms in the span of 10 years, starting as software developer, then system architect all the way to several CTO positions. All these companies, except one, no longer exist: they either were sold, or went bankrupt.  But in the process I learned a lot about company valuations, private placements, and raising tens of millions of dollars from VCs, banks and brokerage houses. And yes, like many other Internet executives of the time, I owned a Ferrari 355 spider convertible. I’ll come back later to the Ferrari.

After 10 years of high-stress jobs, I decided to move to slower-paced “environments”:  for the past 14 years I have held a daytime job working for state government and a nighttime job teaching Web Technologies at USC.

“Buy what you know”

But it is during the dot-com era that I started tinkering with Mutual Funds and stocks. For the initial 15 years I was an “investor”.  I would purchase mutual funds and stocks and hold them for a minimum of a year. Then in 2005 something changed: I consolidated all my retirement funds from the various companies I had worked for into a single SEP-IRA at E-Trade and strangely enough, after answering a simple questionnaire, E-Trade gave me access to Level 2 Options trading. I did not know much about options then, so I subscribed to a service called the Options Oracle from The Market Guys (http://www.themarketguys.com), which recommends entry and exit points for options trades for a fee. I learned a lot, but I felt frustrated that I was trading options of companies I knew nothing about. So I decided to follow an investment method that I had learned when I used to hold shares in Fidelity Magellan Fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellan_Fund), a fund with $20B of stock investments, and the best performing one between 1977 and 1990, averaging over a 29% annual return. Peter Lynch, Magellan fund manager at that time, created the investment method commonly referred to as “Buy What You Know”: invest in businesses that you understand “personally”, especially if you buy and own their products. Since that time, I have tried to follow the “Buy What You Know” method in all my investments and trades.

Interestingly it is at that time that I started making my “switch” from Windows to the Mac. My first Apple purchase was an iPod; I subsequently trashed a ThinkPad and bought a MacBook, and finally trashed an HP desktop and bought a Mac Pro. Today I own probably close to 25 Apple devices, once I count all the iPhones, iPads, Apple Extremes, Apple TVs, and Apple Watches my wife and I use daily. In 2006 I started “investing” in Apple stock. After the stock market crash of 2007, I started “trading” Apple options. Between 2006 and 2014 I made more money trading AAPL than any other stock.  During that time, I added a few more stocks to my trading pattern: Netflix (NFLX), Amazon (AMZN), Google (GOOG), Facebook (FB), Starbucks (SBUX) and more recently Tesla Motors (TSLA). These are all companies that qualify for the “Buy What You Know” mantra: I either buy their products regularly or use them in my daily life.

$TSLA to P90D

I started reading about Elon Musk since he founded PayPal. I read about his promotion of sustainable energy as a way to save our planet. In 2012 I installed solar panels in my house in Redondo Beach, CA. In 2013 I replaced my energy-hog 2007-vintage Mac Pro with a low-energy Mac Pro (a.k.a. the “can”). In 2014 I switched all light bulbs in my house (over 300 of them) from incandescent to low-energy LEDs. And in 2015 I bought a red Tesla Model S P90D (a.k.a. Red Five X-wing). By now my carbon footprint is in pretty good shape.

I started trading TSLA options in early 2014. By summer of 2015 I had enough profits from option trades in TSLA, AAPL and SCO to pay in cash 2/3 of the price of my P90D.

Advertisement
-

After trading TSLA for over two years I have a few opinions on how to invest or trade it. A stock for me is a good “investment” if it can be held for about 5 years, and provide annual stock gains of 5-10% per year. If you had purchased TSLA stock at the IPO in 2010 at about $19, you would be sitting pretty at a 10-bagger at $250, 6 years later. But if you had purchased it in March 2014 at $265 you’d be about even, two years later.  Twice in the past couple of years TSLA stock raised to $275, while slamming back to $140-180 in just 6 months, both times. Tesla in my opinion is not yet a good long term investment.

Part of the reasons is that good long term investments are based on “fundamental” analysis of stocks. Fundamental analysis is based on analyzing the characteristics of a company in order to estimate its “value:” high earnings, income, high profit margins, and small debt are what investors are looking for. According to a recent thestreet.com article, “Tesla Motors has a ‘sell’ rating and a letter grade of D+ at TheStreet Ratings because of the company’s deteriorating net income, generally high debt management risk, disappointing return on equity, poor profit margins and feeble earnings per share growth.”

So if I would not recommend TSLA stock as an investment, why would I even consider TSLA for my trades? Because TSLA is a wonderful stock to trade, not on the basis of “fundamental” analysis, but on the basis of “technical” analysis. In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. The “value” of the company does not matter. Even just 10 years ago, trading on the basis of technical analysis was only for the pros: brokerage houses, money managers and hedge fund managers. Today individuals have access to tools, indicators, and “conditional” trades that make trading, and especially options trading, much easier and safer.

I consider myself a “swing” trader: I normally enter an option trade when at least 3 indicators are firing on all cylinders; I put conditional stops to lower my losses when the market goes against my trade, and get out of trades when indicators are turning negative.

Coming up

It turns out that TSLA is a fairly good “swing” stock, where the above methodology has worked well in the past. In the next few weeks, while covering the news about the company that can affect its stock price, I will introduce some of the tools, indicators and techniques that any trader can use to profit on TSLA. You’ll hear names like moving averages, pay-day cycles, MACD indicator, Heikin-Ashi charts, support and resistance lines. You will see that none of these are rocket science.

I will write a column, a couple of times a week, providing TSLA stock analysis, information on investing and trading TSLA stock and options, and covering TSLA earnings and all rumors and news that can affect the stock.

Advertisement
-

Now back to the Ferrari. The F355 Spider that I purchased in 1996 was priced at $137,000, had a top speed of 183mph, 375hp, 268lb-ft torque, and performed 0-60mph in 4.5s and the quarter mile in 12.9s.

The Tesla Model S P90D (Insane) I purchased in 2015 has a very similar price, $142,000, but with a top speed of 155mph, 691hp, 713lb-ft torque, and performs 0-60mph in 3.1s and the quarter mile in 11.7s. The Tesla sedan beats the Ferrari in all but the top speed rating.

But while you needed a Formula 1 driver to obtain those numbers in the Ferrari, mainly to change the gears at the exact right time, effectively anyone can get the Tesla numbers just by flooring the accelerator.  The only thing I miss from the Ferrari is the “roar” of the engine; for everything else the Tesla is so much more fun.

Disclosure: I currently have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but I may plan to initiate positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Teslarati). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

 

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

OpenAI cites distrust of SpaceX in decision to drop Cursor partnership

OpenAI will cut SpaceX-owned Cursor’s model access in November, citing Musk’s history of broken contracts.

Published

on

By

OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, announced late Friday that it is ending its partnership with Cursor, cutting off the coding tool’s access to its models on November 12. The move comes two weeks after SpaceX completed its $60 billion acquisition of Cursor’s parent company, Anysphere, folding the popular AI coding assistant into Elon Musk’s growing SpaceXAI division.

In a post on its website, OpenAI said the decision came down to trust, not technology. “We cannot be confident that SpaceX will use our technology within our terms of service, based on our experience with Elon Musk’s companies violating contracts,” the company wrote. OpenAI pointed to two specific incidents: X, now part of SpaceX, allegedly breaking the terms of an existing OpenAI contract after Musk bought Twitter.

That lawsuit is the backdrop for all of this. Musk cofounded OpenAI in 2015, left the board in 2018, and sued Sam Altman and Greg Brockman in 2024, arguing they abandoned the company’s nonprofit mission for profit. A federal jury sided with OpenAI in May, finding Musk waited too long to sue rather than ruling on the merits of his claims. Musk said at the time he would appeal to the Ninth Circuit, calling the outcome a “calendar technicality” rather than a real judgment.

Elon Musk breaks silence on OpenAI trial decision

SpaceX’s interest in Cursor predates that verdict by weeks. The company first struck a deal with Cursor in April, securing an option to acquire it for $60 billion or pay $10 billion for joint development work instead. As Teslarati reported at the time, the logic was straightforward: Cursor was paying retail prices to Anthropic and OpenAI, two of its most direct competitors, every time a developer used its product, while SpaceX had idle capacity on its Colossus supercomputer, roughly the equivalent of a million Nvidia H100 GPUs, that Cursor could use to train its own models instead. SpaceX exercised the option in June, days after its own IPO, and the deal closed in mid-August.

Once it closed, Musk moved fast. On an all-hands call with more than 1,000 Cursor employees, he reportedly told staff that SpaceXAI’s Grok was playing catchup in the AI race, unlike Tesla and SpaceX in their own markets, and singled out Anthropic as the company to catch. Cursor CEO Michael Truell now reports directly to Musk inside SpaceXAI.

Advertisement
-

Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic

Losing OpenAI’s models leaves Cursor leaning harder on Anthropic’s Claude, which has its own compute agreement with SpaceX, and on Cursor’s in-house Composer model, the one SpaceX’s compute was supposed to accelerate in the first place. OpenAI framed the November deadline as maximum notice under its contract, and said it wants to “go above and beyond” to help developers through the transition. Whether Anthropic makes the same call is now the open question in AI coding.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla Robotaxi gets a massive upgrade in Nevada

Nevada regulators just approved a massive expansion of Tesla’s robotaxi fleet across the entire county.

Published

on

By

Concept art of a Tesla Cybercab in Las Vegas Strip as rendered via Grok

Tesla’s robotaxi footprint in Nevada just grew by roughly 500 times in a single regulatory vote.

The Nevada Transportation Authority approved Tesla’s full Autonomous Vehicle Network Company permit on Thursday, clearing the way for the company to deploy up to 5,000 driverless vehicles across Clark County over the next 12 months. The decision came during a four hour general session meeting that Tesla investor Sawyer Merritt watched live and reported on X, noting the vote replaces the interim order that had limited Tesla to just 10 robotaxis on a narrow stretch of the Las Vegas Strip.

That earlier cap, covered here after it surfaced on August 13, came with restrictions that looked stricter than what Tesla runs in Austin: a 45 mph speed ceiling, no airport pickups, and a geofence confined to the Strip corridor. The new approval extends Tesla’s operating authority to all of Clark County, with room to request an even wider geofence across the state.

Advertisement
-

Tesla representatives at the meeting said they have no intention of putting 5,000 cars on the road right away. Commercial rides are expected to start within 30 days, pending vehicle inspections, insurance filings, and fare approval, the standard steps every robotaxi operator in Nevada has had to clear.

Tesla’s own Robotaxi account replied to the news with a short line, The golden future is upon us.

The timing lines up with Tesla’s broader robotaxi push this month. The company is preparing to open Cybercab rides to the public in Austin as soon as this month, and it opened a sweepstakes for riders to win a seat at the launch event. Tesla filed its original application for a 5,000 vehicle Nevada fleet back in June, a request regulators trimmed to 10 vehicles when they issued the interim order in July. Thursday’s vote effectively grants the number Tesla asked for from the start.

Zoox, the Amazon owned robotaxi operator, has run in Nevada since 2025 and was capped at 100 vehicles before Thursday’s decision. Tesla’s new ceiling puts it well ahead of that comparison on paper, though the company has said its actual fleet size will depend on how quickly FSD v15 rolls out, the software update executives have called the gateway to scaling unsupervised robotaxi operations nationwide.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX’s next trillion dollar bet has nothing to do with rockets, Musk tells staff

Elon Musk told SpaceX staff AI revenue will soon dwarf rockets and Starlink combined entirely.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk told SpaceX employees this week that artificial intelligence, not rockets, will soon carry the company’s revenue. In a roughly 29 minute internal address posted on SpaceX’s X account on Tuesday, Musk said AI revenue will pass every other line of business at SpaceX “probably in September” and pull further ahead by the fourth quarter.

The numbers he gave are specific. SpaceX currently runs 1.4 gigawatts of AI compute capacity. Musk wants that at 10 gigawatts by the end of 2027, a jump he tied directly to revenue: “if we bring 10GW of AI online by the end of next year, it will be $300 billion to $500 billion a year in revenue.” He called those “big numbers,” which undersells a projection larger than what most countries produce in a year.

Musk went further on where AI fits into SpaceX’s future. “Probably in four or five years, AI will be 99% of the value of SpaceX,” he told staff, adding that digital intelligence would eventually run “a trillion times” ahead of biological intelligence as computing scales. He tied that growth to the company’s founding mission, telling employees “we must win on AI, because the future is overwhelmingly AI and robots,” with the payoff meant to help fund Starship and a Mars program that increasingly runs through Terafab, the joint Tesla, SpaceX and xAI chip plant.

Advertisement
-

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

None of this is entirely new territory. SpaceX told investors much the same story during its first earnings call as a public company on August 4, where Musk moved the company’s $1 trillion revenue target up a year to 2030 and said Starlink could someday carry a majority of the world’s internet. What the all hands video adds is a hard deadline and a specific power figure Musk had not given publicly before, along with a franker pitch to his own workforce that AI, not launch cadence, is now the thing SpaceX is betting its future on.

The AI revenue itself is not coming from SpaceX training its own models. It is largely Starlink acting as the network layer for xAI’s workloads, plus SpaceX renting out compute capacity directly, the same approach behind the roughly $16 billion the company spent on AI infrastructure in a single quarter.

Musk closed the video with a pitch aimed at recruiting and retention rather than investors, telling employees that anyone who helps SpaceX win the AI race will eventually get the chance to go to the moon or Mars themselves. Whether SpaceX can turn 1.4 gigawatts into 10 in seventeen months is the more immediate question, and one that will show up in quarterly numbers well before anyone leaves Earth.

Continue Reading