Investor's Corner
Debunking the story that Elon Musk “kept cash” from the recent stock offering
On Monday May 23, 2016, Tesla Motors e-mailed to TSLA registered investors a link to Elon Musk’s Form 4 SEC Filing, a.k.a. the Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership, detailing the transactions that are part of the recent stock offering that relate to Elon Musk.
Source: Tesla Motors
The Form is available also at Tesla Motors Investors website.
I will go through the major details shown in the form to understand how the transactions were executed. For the inquiring minds, the various SEC codes listed in FORM 4 can be found here.
First an assumption: prior to the offering and the changes in beneficial ownership of the listed securities, Elon Musk held 29,579,342 shares of stock in TSLA.
The first and second transactions (Table I, column 1, line 1 and 2) report the exercise of stock options (options that were awarded to Elon in previous years as part of a Non-Qualified Stock Options plan) to acquire 5,503,972 shares of Tesla’s common stock (2,147,986 + 3,355,986 shares). The options were originally awarded at $6.63, and Elon paid $36,491,334 or about $36 million to exercise them. After this purchase, Elon owned at total of 35,083,314 shares (Table I, column 5, line 2).
While the original offering was supposed to be priced at about $204 per share, the eventual offering price was raised to $215 per share. At the $215 stock value at the time of the offering, the value of the acquired shares was a whopping $1.18 billion!
Before actually paying for the option exercise transactions, Elon did two things.
First it disposed of 1.2 million shares as a “bona file gift to charity” (Table I, line 3 and Explanation of Responses (3)). This gift reduced Elon’s shares down to 33,883,314 shares (Table I, column 5, line 3).
Second, Elon disclosed that he intended to sell 2,782,670 of the purchased shares in the “registered offering solely in order to pay income tax related to these stock option exercises” (see Explanation of Responses (2) in FORM 4). The sale reduced Elon’s shares further down to 31,100,644 shares. At $215 / share, Elon Musk’s Tesla shares are worth a bit over $13 billion.
Interestingly, if these were Incentive Stock Options (ISO), the ones usually awarded to Executives, vs. Non-qualified Stock Options (NSO), usually awarded to regular employees, these options would have received special federal tax treatment, and there would be no taxable event reported at exercise, except for any exercised shares that were sold immediately after the exercise. But as one can see in Table II, Elon received “non-qualified stock options” like any other employee, that do not qualify for special tax treatment.
The gain or “bargain element” in a stock option exercise is calculated by subtracting the exercise price ($6.63) from the market price ($215) of the company stock on the date the option is exercised. So the gain per share is $208.70. The total bargain element (gain) in the options exercise transactions is $1,148,679,000 or about $1.14 billion, which is the “taxable gain.”
For the 2,782,670 shares that Elon sold in the registered offering, Elon collected $598,274,050 or about $580 million after accounting for the price paid for the shares. Since these shares were sold immediately after exercise, the gain will be reported as a short-term capital gain and will be subject to tax at ordinary income tax rates. Assuming 39.6% ordinary federal income tax rate, and a 12.30% top individual rate for California, Elon would have to pay $596 million in tax, or 51.9% of the “taxable gain.”
Notice that the $580 and $596 million numbers above are close enough for the company to state in the FORM 8-K filing that “Mr. Musk will owe a significant amount of taxes from exercising these stock options and will fund this task obligation by selling only the amount of shares needed to do so.”
But we are not done. The rest of the stock exercised by Elon Musk, 2,731,302 shares, can be treated as long-term capital gain (with better tax treatment, likely at the 20% long-term capital gain rate, rather than at the 39.6% personal income tax rate) if the stock is held for 12 months after exercise. Assuming that Elon is smart (I think he is), he will wait, to get a combined Federal + California 32.3% tax rate, resulting in an additional $184 million in taxes (2,731,302 times $208.70 times 32.3%).
Finally, we need to consider the gift of 1.2 million shares of Tesla’s common stock given to charity (Table I, column 1, line 3). By donating shares, Elon avoids paying the capital gains tax, which would have to be paid if the shares were first sold and then the cash proceeds donated to charity.
Moreover, Elon can get a tax deduction for the current fair market value of the gifted shares. In general, the amount of the deduction is limited to 20%-30% of the adjusted gross income, but one can carry forward amounts above that for up to five years. Without knowing Elon’s adjusted gross income, it is difficult to guess what the deduction would amount to. The fair market value of the donated shares is $250 million. That would be the best case scenario for a charitable deduction, which is extremely unlikely, while 20% of the taxable gain is more likely ($218 million).
Summarizing the transactions:
- Cost of exercising options: $36 million
- Taxes on short-term capital gain for shares sold at offering: $596 million
- Taxes on long-term capital gains for shares held 12-months: $184 million
Total outlay: $ 816 million
- Registered offering sale: $580 million
- Gifted shares tax deduction (max): $250 million, (likely): $218 million
So after all is said and done, Elon will still owe Uncle Sam between $18 and $236 million. I have seen reports from “TSLA bears” (or TSLA haters, same thing) indicating that Elon would actually “keep cash” on this sale.
Obviously he does not, and I would expect that he would eventually have to sell a portion of the remaining $1.5 million (to be exact 1,521,302 shares) from the offering that Elon is not selling or donating to charity, to cover the additional tax, unless he’s got cash in the bank to pay for it.
This offering dilutes the total outstanding shares of TSLA with an additional 1.4 million from Tesla Motors and the 5.5 million from Elon Musk (for a total on 6.9 million new shares diluting the TSLA public pool of shares), while Elon adds about 1.5 million to his total, ending with about 31 million shares (to be exact 31,100,644). So Elon adds some shares but loses a bit in Tesla ownership percentage, from 26.2% to 22.7%.
Technical Analysis
Looking at this week TSLA action, we are now after my predicted breakout, looking at bullish pay-day-cycles (6 consecutive green Heikin Ashi bars), the MACD gone positive, and the MACD moving averages “crossed to the bulls”.
Source: Wall Street I/O
We are coming close to an important point: the stock price is advancing toward the 200-day moving average (around $221.90), which will act as “resistance”. If the stock fails to cross the 200-day moving average, it would usually move down and fast afterwards (“bounce” off the average); this morning it traded as high as $220.75 and “bounced”. If otherwise it eventually crosses the 200-day moving average, we will have an additional bullish indicator and the stock will be header for new tops.
I entered my option trades last week (Sept. 215 calls), before the breakout and have added and cashed in already once to take profits. I have also progressively moved up my conditional stop from 205, to 210 and 215, to protect my profits, and will likely move it even higher as the stock approaches the 221 level and tests the resistance. If the stock crosses the 200-day moving average, I will add again to my TSLA calls holdings, as I will have 4 bullish indicators flying high. Obviously not a good time for short sellers in $TSLA.
Elon Musk
X changed how everyone gets paid, and this lawsuit shows why
X sued a Bitcoin account network over fake payouts as its creator pay model shifts
Elon Musk’s X has taken a Bitcoin-focused engagement ring to court, and the case doubles as a receipt for how differently the platform pays creators today. The company filed suit in the High Court of England and Wales against Vivek Kumar Sen and Zamyang Sherpa, alleging the pair ran six accounts, including @Vivek4real_, @Bitcoin_Teddy and @TrendingBitcoin, as one coordinated operation to fake the kind of engagement that used to translate directly into money.
According to the filing, first reported by Gizmodo, the accounts posted near identical “BREAKING” crypto headlines seconds apart, in one case 11 seconds, then had three more handles like, reply to and repost the material to manufacture what X called “a false appearance of genuine, human communication and interaction.” X says the scheme pulled in at least £207,384, about $278,000, and pegs its own investigation and remediation costs at another £75,000. The accounts were suspended August 18. X general counsel James Burnham announced the case on X last weekend, writing that the company “will act forcefully to protect our platform and the earnings of genuine creators.” Musk’s own reaction, posted shortly after, was three words: “Don’t mess with 𝕏.”
Don’t mess with 𝕏 https://t.co/HSmd5hL6aQ
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 21, 2026
The timing lines up with a a recent update to how X pays its creators. The program these accounts allegedly gamed, Creator Revenue Sharing, launched in mid 2023 and paid out based on how much a post got engaged with. Originality was never part of the formula, which is exactly how the platform ended up flooded with recycled clips, copy pasted “BREAKING” posts and replies engineered purely to farm reactions from paying subscribers.
X tried patching the model more than once, including an April cut to aggregator payouts and a March regional weighting change that Musk personally paused hours after it was announced. X retired Creator Revenue Sharing for good on September 7 and opened its replacement, Original Content Rewards, the next day.
Today, we’re launching Original Content Rewards.
The reality is that Revenue Sharing had reached a point where its incentives were misaligned. Creators should be focused on bringing net new content to the platform instead of maximizing payouts. We could have kept adding more… pic.twitter.com/VJIxqlPrjm
— Allegra Jacchia (@allegrajacchia) August 7, 2026
The new math is stricter. Payouts now come only from qualified impressions, meaning unique Home Timeline views from Premium subscribers where at least half the post is visible, and replies no longer count toward eligibility at all. Copied posts, reuploaded media and reposts without meaningful changes are explicitly excluded. Allegra Jacchia, senior product manager for Creators at SpaceXAI, which now runs X’s product and AI work following xAI’s acquisition of the platform, put it bluntly, saying the goal is to reward creators who bring original ideas and perspective, “not those who have become best at gaming the system.”
Read that way, the lawsuit isn’t really about six crypto accounts. It’s X putting a dollar figure on what the old incentive structure cost, then suing to collect it right as the new one goes live. For live updates on how the case and the new rewards program shake out, follow @Teslarati on X.
Elon Musk
Why automakers keep turning down Elon Musk’s Tesla Full Self-Driving offer
Elon Musk confirms no automaker has ever accepted Tesla’s offer to license Full Self-Driving software.
Elon Musk gave a brief answer on X Monday that confirmed that Tesla’s standing offer to license Full Self-Driving to other automakers still has zero takers. Sawyer Merritt wrote that “Tesla has for years openly invited other automakers to license FSD. None of them have accepted,” responding to a prediction from Boom Supersonic founder Blake Scholl that Tesla would eventually open FSD the way it opened its Supercharger network to rival brands. Musk’s reply to Merritt was one word: “Exactly.”
It is not the first time Musk has made this point. He said something similar in November, when he called legacy automakers reluctance to adopt FSD “crazy,” and Tesla has floated the offer publicly since at least 2021. Scholl’s prediction touches on something real. Once NACS became the de facto charging standard, adoption from Ford, GM, Rivian and others followed within about a year. FSD licensing was supposed to work the same way once Tesla built enough of a lead that switching made sense for everyone.
Tesla has for years openly invited other automakers to license FSD. None of them have accepted. https://t.co/kgz4idpoUM
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 22, 2026
The case for licensing now is stronger than it was two years ago. Waymo and Zoox are logging hundreds of thousands of unsupervised autonomous miles, along with Tesla’s own Robotaxi fleet. Every automaker still selling driver assist systems that lag FSD has given the robotaxi conversation to Tesla, Waymo and Zoox by default. Licensing FSD would let a GM or a Ford compete on the same field without spending a decade and billions of dollars building a stack from scratch, the same argument Tesla made when it opened the Supercharger network to bring more EVs onto its chargers.
But FSD is not a connector standard. As one reply to Musk’s post pointed out, licensing FSD is not a software license the way NACS was a plug spec. It requires adopting Tesla’s eight camera layout and its onboard compute architecture, meaning a licensee’s cars would effectively become Tesla hardware wearing someone else’s badge. That is the visible obstacle. The less visible one is data. A licensed FSD stack would report back the same telemetry Tesla collects from its own fleet, giving Tesla a continuous read on how a competitor’s cars are actually driven, where they struggle, and how often drivers intervene. For an automaker trying to build its own autonomy program, or simply trying to keep its build quality and safety record private, handing Tesla that visibility could be a bigger cost than the hardware bill. It is the reason the Supercharger comparison only goes so far. Opening a charging plug cost Tesla very little. Opening FSD would cost a rival something it cannot get back.
Elon Musk
Tesla eyes supply partners for Optimus mass production
Tesla certified three Chinese suppliers for Optimus mass production, signaling its robot timeline is accelerating.
Tesla’s robotics team traveled to Ningbo, in China’s Zhejiang province, on September 16 and spent the following day auditing component suppliers for Optimus, according to a Bloomberg report cited by RobotAIGeek. The visit moved three manufacturers from provisional status to certified mass production partners: Tuopu Group, which handles actuators and chassis components, Ningbo Joyson Electronic, a sensor supplier, and Zhejiang Sanhua Intelligent Controls, which builds thermal management systems. All three already supply parts to Tesla’s electric vehicles, and the audit reportedly came with fresh orders that supply chain reports put at an initial batch of roughly 5,000 units.
Tuopu, Joyson, and Sanhua built their manufacturing base serving the automotive industry, where tolerances and volume requirements are already close to what a mass produced humanoid robot demands. Sanhua in particular has history here. Teslarati reported last October that the company had received a roughly $685 million order for linear actuators tied to Optimus, a volume industry watchers estimated could cover around 180,000 robots once production ramped.
Supply chain reports tied to this week’s audit put Tesla’s near term production goal at about 1,000 Optimus units a week by late September, rising to 2,000 to 2,500 units a week by the end of the year. That pace would put real weight behind the timeline Tesla has been building toward since May, when it wound down Model S and Model X production at Fremont to convert that floor space into a dedicated Optimus line targeting one million units annually. JPMorgan analysts who toured the factory in August confirmed the conversion took roughly four months, a pace Musk has called unprecedented for a facility that size.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Fremont is only the first phase. A second, larger Optimus plant is rising at Gigafactory Texas, where drone footage shared by Joe Tegtmeyer last week showed the structural steel nearing completion on the north end of the building. Tesla has said that facility is meant to eventually support production of up to 10 million units a year, though volume output there is not expected before 2027.
Commercial sales of Optimus are still targeted for the second half of 2027, but production is expected to start well before then. JPMorgan analyst Rajat Gupta has said Tesla’s “Optimus Academy” program, which uses early units to collect real world training data inside Tesla’s own facilities, is expected to be running later this year. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Ian Ma described the Ningbo audits as “a positive commercialization signal for China’s humanoid supply chain,” noting that sentiment could improve further if the visit leads to confirmed supplier nominations and larger orders. The Solactive China Humanoid Robotics Index rose about 1.4% on the news, though it remains down roughly 30% for the year.
Tesla integrates Grok Bot into its vehicles for the ultimate personal assistant
X changed how everyone gets paid, and this lawsuit shows why
