Investor's Corner
How Elon Musk walked away from Tesla’s privatization despite $30 billion offer
Last Wednesday, Elon Musk received an offer for the company’s possible privatization. The proposal was presented to Musk by advisers from Goldman Sachs and Silver Lake, and included a roster of prolific investors willing to contribute as much as $30 billion to Tesla. A day later, Musk met with the company’s Board of Directors at the Fremont factory and announced that he is withdrawing his proposal to take the company private.
The story of Tesla’s attempted privatization started off with a tweet. On August 7, Elon Musk announced on Twitter that he was considering taking Tesla private at $420 per share. Musk also added that funding had been secured for the deal. Later tweets during the day further suggested that the deal was quite certain and that Tesla’s privatization only needed a shareholder vote. Musk eventually published a blog post explaining his tweet a few days later, stating that his reference to funding being secured came from talks with Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund. The weeks following Musk’s initial announcement were volatile. SEC investigations were reportedly started, lawsuits were filed, and the company’s shares took a deep dive, at one point dipping below $290 per share.
Musk had been thinking of taking Tesla private for a while now. Being a public company, Tesla is subjected to the wild swings of the stock market, relentless attacks from short-sellers, and quarterly pressures from Wall Street. Musk’s other company, SpaceX, is private, and it pretty much runs like a far better-oiled version of Tesla. In an email to the Wall Street Journal this past weekend, Elon Musk explained that Tesla’s privatization was only feasible now, as the company is poised to rise considerably in the coming months.
“In my opinion, the value of Tesla will rise considerably in the coming months and years, possibly putting any take-private beyond the reach of any investors. It was now or perhaps never,” Musk wrote.
Elon Musk hired several high-profile advisers for Tesla’s possible privatization, including bankers from Goldman Sachs, as well as attorneys from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Musk also hired Egon Durban of Silver Lake Partners, who had brokered and helped bankroll the buyout of computer maker Dell when it went private. Musk also kept close counsel with Tesla executives such as Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel, Attorney Todd Maron (who was once his divorce lawyer), finance chief Deepak Ahuja, and his brother Kimbal, who also holds a seat at Tesla’s board.
On August 18, Elon Musk presented ideas about how Tesla’s privatization could be done. According to the Wall Street Journal, the members of the Board were in support of Musk’s go-private initiative, though some had reservations about the CEO’s actions on Twitter. Musk reportedly admitted to his rashness and pledged to exercise more self-control on the social media platform. Musk then went over to the Fremont factory, where he worked until past midnight, tweeting past 2 a.m. that he had just gotten home. He was able to rest the following day.
Tesla’s advisers went into overdrive on August 20 and 21, coming up with a list of possible investors that would provide funding for the company to go private. By August 22, advisers from Goldman Sachs and Silver Lake had a list of interested investors who were willing to fund Tesla’s privatization at $420 per share. Among them were Silver Lake itself, as well as German auto giant Volkswagen AG. The investors have reportedly agreed to contribute as much as $30 billion for the deal. Elon Musk had reservations.

Musk was reportedly suspicious of rival car companies taking a stake in Tesla, particularly since they could piggyback on what the CEO called the “Tesla Halo.” Musk was also bothered by the notion that some of Tesla’s most ardent supporters would likely be pushed out of the privatization deal. For one, Fidelity Investments, which has supported Tesla over the years, would not be able to roll its entire stake in the company due to regulatory constraints.
Retail investors — individual shareholders who believe in Tesla’s mission and are putting in their hard-earned money into the company — might be in jeopardy as well. Then there was the photo. Earlier this month, Musk received a photo emailed to him by an elderly couple dressed in Tesla t-shirts with a handwritten sign congratulating the company for producing 7,000 electric cars in seven days. The message in the photo was short, simply saying “Thanks, Elon! Two happy stockholders!” Musk reportedly forwarded the email to a friend, writing that the picture “Made my day.”
After giving him the $30 billion offer, the privatization deal team advised Musk that the funding would likely come with several strings attached, as some major investors might want to have specific terms for themselves. Some would also demand to have a lot of say in the company.
The day after, a board meeting was held in a conference room at the Fremont factory — one that still had a used sleeping bag from Musk’s overnight working sessions at the facility. The company’s financial advisers stated that they were confident that Tesla’s privatization could be done. Then, it was Musk’s turn to speak.
“Based on the latest information I have, I’m withdrawing the proposal,” Musk said.
Elon Musk’s blog post explaining his decision to keep the company public was published on Tesla’s official website a day later.
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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.