News
Tesla’s Elon Musk shuts the door on Gigafactory Texas talk, but for how long?
George Strait once said that all of his exes live in Texas, and maybe Elon Musk doesn’t want his new electric vehicle facility to be infiltrated by the country music legend’s past lovers.
Just kidding.
While we all patiently wait for Tesla’s CEO to announce the location of its next vehicle production plant, I was pretty sure that Texas had been confirmed as the spot. After seeing some reports, I dug a little deeper and found that the State of Texas had some records, including purchase price agreements, on a plot of land just outside of Austin.
However, when I reported the news, Elon responded and told us at Teslarati that the company had the option to buy the land, but they had not secured a purchase agreement and exercised its right to purchase the property.
I have to admit, I was pretty shocked. I have been following the situation closely for months, and it is pretty evident that Texas certainly has the most advantages. Not to mention, Elon definitely seems to be leaning toward it. He’s been talking about Texas since January, and we’ve already talked about the distinct advantages the state holds over any other location.
However, Musk wasn’t done there. He then added that Tesla was looking at several locations. I’m assuming Tulsa, Oklahoma, is also in the mix considering that has been a location that is very open to taking its oil roots and trading them in for a new electrified infrastructure that will create a string of sustainable transportation production lines in the state.
However, it is really evident that Tesla might be having some second thoughts on the Lone Star State…or are they?
-
First, let’s consider the details of the land plot in question in Texas. It’s 2,100 acres, its $5.2 million bucks, and its really perfect for what Tesla has wanted. We know that the new factory is set to be the biggest one yet because both Zachary Kirkhorn and Elon said they are going to start calling the factories “Tera” instead of “Giga.”
To put the size of the land into perspective, Fremont sits on 370 acres, Giga Shanghai on 210 acres, and Giga Berlin on 740 acres. This means the prospective Texas land plot is nearly three times as big as Giga Berlin, which is the factory that will produce Tesla cars for all of Europe, and it is all going to be used to create the Cybertruck and the Model Y.
We know the demand for the Cybertruck is enormous. The pre-order number is not officially public knowledge. Still, there is some indication that Tesla is getting near three-quarters of a million reservations for the truck and its tough, robust exterior.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
We know that Tesla wants to build the plant in the middle of the country. That could mean anything, from North Dakota to Texas literally, and it could go slightly West to Colorado, and slightly East to Missouri. That’s what is confusing.
-
Now that there are apparently “several locations” in the mix, the real question is: Why is the Texas deal taking so long? Is Tesla looking to negotiate an even lower price? I decided to dig a little more.
According to Texas A&M University’s “Texas Rural Land Prices” page, where the college has the price of land from Q4 1971 up until Q1 2020, the most recent cost of an acre of property in the state is $2,986. The prospective plot of land where Tesla could build its next factory is 2,100 acres. So the value of the property, according to these statistics, is $6,270,600. According to the application that Tesla and the State of Texas have, the land price that was agreed upon is $5,298,275, giving the company a nearly $1 million discount. It is about a 16% discount according to my handy, dandy calculator.
Texas has also announced its intentions to give the automaker a sweet incentive package to the tune of $68 million, according to reports. That’s a lot of scratch, and it could certainly help with the purchase price, the labor costs of constructing the building, and more.
It is just tough to say why the deal is taking a while. The Cybertruck’s Dual and Tri-Motor variants are going to be produced at the tail-end of 2021, and with Tesla’s track record with the Model Y in the US and the Model 3 in China, they’ll be built well before then. That would give Tesla, if the company started construction in July, 18 months to complete the Cybertruck portion of the factory. Fremont could handle Model Y production until the new factory’s Phase 2 is completed.
I am personally excited to see where the factory ends up, and I really, genuinely think that Texas is where the factory will end up.
Where do you think the factory will be when its all said and done? And why do you think Tesla is kind of dragging its feet through the purchase process?
-
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
