Investor's Corner
Dissecting Jim Chanos’ short seller arguments about Tesla
All innovative companies attract negative press coverage, but the tide of anti-Tesla scare stories and misinformation has reached such preposterous proportions that it has become a story in itself (remember, colleagues, we’re supposed to report the news, not make it). It’s widely believed that much of the mud, especially the articles that focus on financial and stock-market topics, originates with short sellers, who have collectively bet some $12 billion against the California carmaker.
Perhaps the best-known and most articulate of the short sellers is Jim Chanos, a hedge fund operator who distinguished himself by calling attention to Enron’s shenanigans back in 2000. Chanos has made no secret of his disdain for Tesla, or his interest in profiting from its demise. Chanos figures prominently in Matt Taibbi’s 2014 book, The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap. A recent series of posts on the Tesla Motors Club forum argues that Chanos and other shorts are following a tried-and-true playbook that they’ve used to attack other companies in the past.
Enter Galileo Russell, a young independent stock analyst, who became something of a hero among Teslaphiles when Elon Musk granted him a lot of quality time on a now-famous conference call. In a new video, Russell answers Chanos’s bearish arguments about Tesla point by point.
Above: Galileo Russell takes on infamous Tesla short Jim Chanos (Youtube: HyperChange TV)
Chanos is no mindless naysayer or anonymous comment-section troll. “He has a reputation for being one of Wall Street’s best and sharpest short sellers and for good reason,” says Galileo. “His hedge fund Kynikos Associates [the name comes from the Greek for “cynic”] has a track record that has crushed the market.” Furthermore, Chanos has been “very vocal and public and transparent about his short of Tesla for years – he’s done a ton of interviews on CNBC and Bloomberg explaining his short rationale, so this gives me a ton of material to really understand what his thinking is.”
Galileo has “a ton of respect” for Chanos, but thinks “he is wrong on this trade.” In this video, which is worth watching all the way through, the exuberant young pundit answers the diehard bear’s long list of anti-Tesla arguments one by one.
Chanos and others have made much of Tesla’s supposedly high rate of executive departures (“rats leaving a sinking ship”). However, according to Galileo, “He has cherry-picked the names of 39 Tesla executives who’ve left over the past two years.” Tesla has 37,000 employees. The average tenure of departing execs has been about 4.6 years – not far off the 5.3-year average term of execs at the largest US companies. Mr. Russell also reminds us of a certain group of leaders who haven’t jumped ship, and don’t seem likely to: CEO Elon Musk (15 years with the company); CTO JB Straubel (14 years); CFO Deepak Ahuja (10 years) and Senior Design Director Franz von Holzhausen (8 years).
Is Tesla “structurally unprofitable,” as Chanos claims? Maybe, but so was a certain other growing tech company called Amazon. Is Tesla indulging in creative accounting by not including its R&D expenses in gross margins? Nope – unlike legacy OEMs, most of Tesla’s R&D goes for future products. Tesla’s accounting isn’t deceptive, says Galileo – it’s just more like that of a tech company than a traditional automaker.
Galileo goes on to address several more of Chanos’s anti-Tesla points: coming competition from the legacy automakers (almost no one in the EV industry takes this threat seriously – Big Auto has made it abundantly clear that its main agenda is to hold back the tide of electrification, not join it); delays in rolling out Autopilot, the Semi and the Roadster; and even a far-fetched notion that Elon Musk is planning to step down as CEO.
In every case, Mr. Russell marshals detailed facts and figures to support his rebuttals. Even if you’re a Tesla skeptic, you’ll be forced to admit that this is a virtuoso performance by an extremely well-informed and insightful analyst.
===
Note: Article originally published on evannex.com by Charles Morris; Source: HyperChange TV
Investor's Corner
NASA taps SpaceX to launch the telescope that could unlock new worlds
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope heads to orbit this August aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with massive scientific ambitions.
SpaceX is set to play a central role in one of NASA’s most anticipated science missions in years. The company’s Falcon Heavy rocket, currently the most powerful operational launch vehicle in the world, will carry the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope into orbit on August 30 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Roman is now in final preparations inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility, where on June 26 technicians used a crane to lift the observatory into a specialized stand for fueling and pre-launch testing.
Roman is named after Nancy Grace Roman, NASA’s first chief of astronomy, whose career helped shape how the agency approaches space science.
NASA chose SpaceX Falcon Heavy because of Roman’s needs to reach a specific orbit far from Earth, well beyond where a standard Falcon 9 can deliver it. The Falcon Heavy, which first flew in 2018, has since become NASA’s go-to option for missions that need serious muscle without the cost and complexity of older launch systems.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Roman will carry a field of view at least 100 times wider than the Hubble Space Telescope, meaning it can photograph enormous swaths of the universe in a single shot rather than the narrow slices Hubble captures. That difference in scale is significant. While Hubble reshaped our understanding of the cosmos over 30 years, Roman is built to work faster and wider, surveying hundreds of millions of galaxies at once.
One of Roman’s most compelling capabilities is its potential to discover and photograph planets orbiting stars outside our solar system, and with enough precision to directly image planets that would otherwise be lost. That means scientists could study the atmosphere and surface characteristics of distant worlds rather than simply confirming they exist. Combined with Roman’s sweeping field of view, the telescope could detect thousands of exoplanets, and some of those planets may be in habitable zones where liquid water could exist. No telescope currently in operation has this level of power and capability. That capability alone could change what we know about other worlds, and perhaps finally answer the question: are we the only intelligent lifeforms in existence?
What Roman actually finds once it reaches orbit is an open question, and that is exactly what makes this launch worth watching.
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.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
