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
California snubs Tesla in its newly passed EV incentive that favors Rivian and Lucid
California passed a $135 million EV incentive that rewards Rivian and Lucid while sidelining Tesla
California just drew a line in the EV incentive sand to put Tesla on the wrong side of it. The state recently passed a $135 million program offering first-time electric vehicle buyers a direct incentive with no application required, but the rules were written in a way that leaves Tesla at a structural disadvantage compared to Rivian and Lucid.
The program caps eligible vehicles at $50,000 for new EVs and $25,000 for used ones. That pricing threshold rules out a significant portion of Tesla’s lineup, though some lower-priced Model 3 and Model Y configurations would still qualify. California-based automakers are exempt from the price cap entirely, regardless of what their vehicles cost. Rivian, headquartered in Irvine, and Lucid, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, both benefit from that exemption. Rivian’s R2 starts at roughly $45,000 but has versions above the cap. Lucid’s Air and Gravity start at $70,990 and $79,990 respectively, well above any threshold a non-California company would face.
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
Tesla built its reputation and a significant portion of its early market share in California, where EV adoption has consistently led the nation. The company operates its original factory in Fremont, California, and the state was home to Tesla’s headquarters for most of its existence. That changed in 2021 when Tesla moved its corporate headquarters to Austin, Texas. Since then, the relationship between the company and California Governor Gavin Newsom has been openly adversarial, with Musk and Newsom trading public criticism on multiple occasions.
California’s EV incentive landscape has shifted repeatedly in recent years, and Tesla has previously lost eligibility for state-level programs as its vehicles exceeded income-adjusted price thresholds. The federal $7,500 EV tax credit, which Tesla models have qualified for and lost depending on policy cycles, is no longer available after it expired without renewal, making state-level programs more meaningful to buyers than they have been in years.
The practical impact for buyers is more nuanced than the headline suggests. California residents purchasing a Tesla under $50,000 for the first time can still access the incentive. But the exemption written for California-based manufacturers is a structural advantage that rewards where a company plants its headquarters flag rather than where it builds its products, and Tesla moved that flag to Texas.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest logo confirms everything about what it’s become
SpaceX officially absorbed xAI under the SpaceXAI brand, completing the largest private merger in history.
SpaceX made its corporate transformation official in May 2026 when Elon Musk posted on X that xAI would cease to exist as a standalone company. “xAI will be dissolved as a separate company, so it will just be SpaceXAI, the AI products from SpaceX,” he wrote.
A new SpaceXAI logo was announced today, visually embedding the xAI letters inside the SpaceX identity, which can be seen as a deliberate design choice that signals the merger is not a partnership but a full absorption and XAi a core function of the same company. The same way Starlink is not a separate brand but a SpaceX product. The announcement closed the loop on a process that began February 2, 2026, when SpaceX acquired xAI in the largest private merger in history, valued at $1.25 trillion. SpaceX at $1 trillion and xAI at $250 billion.
We are now @SpaceXAI. pic.twitter.com/ema66xDWC9
— SpaceXAI (@SpaceXAI) July 6, 2026
The reason SpaceX bought xAI was stated plainly by Musk at the time of the deal: to build orbital data centers. SpaceX had simultaneously filed with the FCC to launch up to one million satellites designed to function as AI compute nodes in low Earth orbit, escaping what Musk described as the energy constraints limiting AI development on Earth.
xAI provided the AI software stack, with Grok, the X platform, and the Colossus supercomputer infrastructure in Memphis with over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs, while SpaceX provided the rockets, Starlink, and the capital base to fund it. The two companies needed each other. xAI was burning $2.5 billion in losses on $250 million in revenue. SpaceX was generating an estimated $8 billion in profit on $15 billion in revenue and needed an AI narrative to command the valuation it was targeting for its IPO.
What SpaceX has done, regardless of how the orbital AI vision ultimately plays out, is walk into a public market as something no company has been before: a rocket manufacturer, satellite internet provider, AI software company, social media platform, and supercomputer operator under one ticker. Whether that combination is worth $2 trillion depends entirely on which of those businesses you believe in most.
Investor's Corner
Tesla challenges startups to score a gig inside its most advanced European factory
Tesla is challenging startups to bring their best battery tech directly to Gigafactory Berlin.
Tesla has issued an open challenge to startups across Europe, inviting them to bring their best battery technology directly to the floor of Gigafactory Berlin. The program, called the JUNI x Tesla Battery Cell Giga Challenge, opened applications this month with a deadline of July 24, 2026, and is targeting startups with solutions that can make battery cell manufacturing faster, cheaper, safer, and more scalable at an industrial level.
The timing of the challenge is directly tied to Tesla’s most aggressive European battery investment yet. On May 12, 2026, Giga Berlin plant manager André Thierig announced a $250 million investment to scale the factory’s annual 4680 cell production capacity from 8 GWh to 18 GWh, more than doubling the previous target set just months earlier in December 2025. Thierig confirmed the expansion on X, saying the investment “will enable 18 GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1,500 new jobs.” Combined with a previously announced battery investment at the Grunheide site now approaches $1.2 billion.
Today, we announced a $ 250m investment for our Giga Berlin Cell factory. This will enable 18GWh of annual 4680 cell production and create more than 1500 new jobs. Good news during challenging times for the German industry. pic.twitter.com/ou4SWMfWh9
— André Thierig (@AndrThie) May 12, 2026
The challenge is looking specifically for startups with proven solutions across five categories: materials, equipment, operations, automation, and artificial intelligence. Applications are screened directly by Tesla’s cell manufacturing team in Grunheide, and the strongest submissions move through technical discussions, a pitch day in front of Tesla stakeholders, and potentially a paid pilot project with the cell team. Tesla is not looking for ideas at concept stage. The program requires applicants to demonstrate working prototypes, test data, or prior pilots before being considered.
The historical context matters here. Elon Musk first announced plans for what he called the world’s largest battery cell production facility alongside the Giga Berlin car factory back in 2020, targeting up to 250 GWh of annual capacity. Those plans were shelved in 2022 when Tesla shifted its battery investment focus to the United States to take advantage of Inflation Reduction Act incentives. The revival of cell production at Giga Berlin, now backed by over $1 billion in committed capital, represents a return to an ambition that was set aside for three years. As Teslarati has reported, the 4680 format is central to Tesla’s long-term cost reduction strategy across vehicles, energy storage, including the Tesla Semi and Cybercab.
By opening the challenge to outside startups, Tesla is acknowledging that reaching 18 GWh at Grunheide will require technology it does not currently have in-house, and it is willing to pay for the right solutions. For a startup in the battery supply chain, a paid pilot with Tesla’s European cell team is as close to a direct commercial path as the industry offers.
California snubs Tesla in its newly passed EV incentive that favors Rivian and Lucid
SpaceX’s newest logo confirms everything about what it’s become
