News
Elon Musk says Tesla’s valuation is high, but has a good reason for why it’s justified
If you ask anyone in the past two years who has invested money into the stock market, it is likely that the word “Tesla” will come up at one point or another. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which derailed American manufacturing, especially at automotive plants through the United States. Despite a derail in production at Tesla’s Fremont Factory in 2020, the automaker was able to stay relatively stable through a year filled with uncertainty. It ultimately led to a 700% increase in the stock price, along with an infamous Tweet sent by Tesla’s CEO on May 1st: “Tesla stock price is too high imo.”
On the day of Musk’s Tweet, Tesla shares (NASDAQ: TSLA) closed at a pre-split price of $701.30, or $140.26 on adjusted terms. Since then, Tesla stock has multiplied in value by nearly 6.5x, trading at $900.52, down nearly 27% from its 52-week high of $1,243.49, which was recorded in early November.
However, since Musk’s May 1, 2020 Tweet, a lot has changed. Tesla has two new production facilities that are nearly ready for production, it has detailed the public on a revolutionary new battery cell, and it has increased yearly production rates by expanding manufacturing footprints at its two currently-operational plants. While the stock is levels higher than what it was when Musk said the stock was too high, the CEO may have come to terms with why Tesla shares trade at extensively high prices: trust.
“I’ve tried to just tamp down expectations, saying I think the stock’s maybe too high,” Musk said in an interview with TIME, who recently named him Person of the Year for 2021. “Current valuation is pretty high,” Musk continued, “which suggests that the market has faith in future execution of the company because it’s certainly not based on historical profitability, that’s for sure.”
While Tesla is a company that has revolutionized the automotive market on a global scale, Musk has definitely come to terms with the fact that the company’s valuation is not necessarily based on presently-available information. However, innovation is something that the company has basically guaranteed through its products. If not for Tesla, it is likely that the companies like Ford, GM, and Volkswagen would probably not have such a tremendous focus on EVs currently. In fact, many of these automakers would probably be pumping out more ICE vehicles than ever. But Tesla’s market influence through flashy, fast, and futuristic electric cars has forced the long-standing dominators of the global car market to reconsider their strategies.
Tesla’s current valuation is no longer $1 trillion. It currently sits at just over $905 billion, according to CompaniesMarketCap.com, which tracks the valuations of companies in various sectors. However, Tesla is well over three times as valuable as second-place Toyota, which delivered 9,528,438 vehicles last year. Tesla delivered 499,550. Tesla also has an energy business, which oftentimes goes unnoticed and unaccounted for by analysts. Even still, is this enough to justify the company’s astronomical stock price?
Tesla stock price is too high imo
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 1, 2020
Musk believes the faith from investors must be the reason, and who can blame them. Tesla has not been on time to some of its deadlines, but in a world of uncertainty, many companies have not performed well since the pandemic began. Take previously mentioned Toyota, for example. Despite selling over 9.5 million cars last year, it was an over 11% decrease from 2019. Tesla is continuing to build upon an already solid foundation for its cars and its company, and investor faith, which is evident if you know any Tesla stockholder, is at an all-time high.
Disclosure: Joey Klender is a TSLA Shareholder.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
