News
Tesla’s Elon Musk and SEC explains their settlement in joint letter to US judge
Elon Musk and the Securities and Exchange Commission have submitted a joint letter explaining their settlement for a lawsuit resulting from the Tesla CEO’s “funding secured” tweet last August. The letter, which was dated October 11, 2018, comes a week after U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan asked Musk and the SEC to justify their settlement before she approves the deal.
The CEO found himself in hot water late last month after the SEC filed a suit over tweets posted in August, when Musk announced that he was considering taking Tesla private at $420 per share, and that he had “funding secured.” Tesla stock plunged as news of the agency’s lawsuit emerged, dropping more than 13% amidst reports that Musk allegedly rejected a settlement prepared by the SEC. Elon Musk would agree to a settlement with the SEC in the weekend that followed.
Under the terms of the settlement, Musk would be required to step down as Chairman of Tesla’s Board of Directors. The company would also appoint two new independent directors to its board. Elon Musk and Tesla Inc. would have to pay a fine of $20 million each as well, which would, in turn, be distributed to harmed investors under a court-approved process. In a statement last Thursday, Judge Nathan asked Musk and the SEC for a joint letter explaining their settlement, noting that the court needs to make a “minimal determination of whether the agreement is appropriate” before things are finalized.
The SEC noted in the joint letter that it considered multiple factors when it was determining the appropriate penalties for Musk and Tesla, from the gravity of Musk’s alleged violations to the CEO’s lack of monetary gain resulting from his “funding secured” tweet.
“In this case, the SEC considered multiple factors in determining appropriate civil penalties. These included the seriousness of the alleged violations, the market impact caused by the alleged conduct, and Defendants’ financial means, but also countervailing factors such as Defendants’ willingness to settle these actions promptly, Defendants’ apparent lack of pecuniary gain, and the limited temporal scope of the conduct.”
The agency further noted that sanctions against Elon Musk and Tesla are designed to benefit investors by putting additional governance measures in the electric car and energy company. Musk’s representatives, for their part, simply noted in the joint letter that the CEO believes a prompt resolution through the settlement is in the best interests of Tesla’s investors.
“Tesla and Mr. Musk believe that a prompt resolution of these actions through settlement is in the best interests of investors and should be approved.”
The submission of Elon Musk and the SEC’s joint letter comes amidst news that one of Tesla’s largest investors has increased its stake in the company. On Wednesday, it was revealed that T. Rowe Price Group Inc., which owned 11.93 million TSLA shares at the end of Q2 2018, increased its stake in the company in Q3. By the end of September, the firm held 17.4 million TSLA shares, making it the company’s second-largest shareholder, second only to Elon Musk. Another institutional investor, Bailey Gifford, which owns 13.2 million TSLA shares, currently stands as Tesla’s third-largest shareholder.
With Tesla’s Q3 earnings report coming in less than four weeks, T. Rowe Price’s increased stake in the electric car maker could prove to be a strategic investment for the financial firm. Tesla, after all, finished the third quarter on a strong note, delivering and producing a record number of vehicles. Less than two days before the end of the quarter, Musk even sent out a message to Tesla’s employees, urging them to work hard as the company is “very close” to profitability. Since October began, Tesla has also been showing signs that its Model 3 production ramp continues to grow stronger. Teases of an eventual international rollout for the electric car, such as an exhibit in the Paris Motor Show, further suggest that Tesla is steadily gaining its foothold in its efforts to roll out its first mass-market vehicle.
Elon Musk and the SEC’s joint letter could be read in full below.
SEC v Elon Musk – Joint Sub… by on Scribd
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
