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
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s amended S-1 is sparking a major Tesla merger conversation
A single line in SpaceX’s amended S-1 just sent Tesla stock down 5% in one day.
A single line buried in SpaceX’s amended S-1 filing is doing more to move Tesla’s stock price than anything Tesla itself has announced in months. The clause, disclosed as SpaceX prepares for what could be the largest IPO in Wall Street history, states that the company “may issue a significant amount of equity in connection with future transactions.” While this may be seen as boilerplate language in S-1 filings, the historical ties between SpaceX and Tesla, and with Elon Musk reportedly discussing a possible merger with close colleagues, investors are interpreting it as something closer to a signal.
The concern among institutional investors like Gary Black, managing director of The Future Fund, pointed directly to the amended filing on X, saying it “strongly suggests more SPCX equity will be issued,” which could potentially be used to acquire Tesla. He estimated such a deal could be 28% dilutive to Tesla shareholders since SpaceX would likely command a significantly higher valuation multiple. Black added that institutional investors he knows hate the idea of a combination because they prefer pure plays over conglomerates, which he said “nearly always gravitate to the lowest common multiple.”
The Tesla and SpaceX merger everyone is talking about is quietly building
The bull case runs the math differently. Tesla influencer and retail shareholder advocate AleXandra Merz pushed back on what she called a widespread misunderstanding of how merger-of-equals deals actually work. Rather than simply splitting the difference between two market caps, a merger exchange ratio is negotiated based on relative fair market values, meaning the lower valued company typically sees its stock reprice upward toward the deal value.
Under her model, SpaceX enters at a $2.5 trillion valuation and Tesla at $1.6 trillion, producing a combined entity worth $4.1 trillion split evenly between both shareholder groups. That implies Tesla’s side of the deal would be valued at $2.05 trillion, a gain of roughly $450 billion from its current market cap. She cited Dow-DuPont and CBS-Viacom as historical examples of how markets reprice both companies toward the announced exchange ratio after a deal is unveiled.
What does a Merger of Equals mean to Elon’s compensation packages?
Well, it changes everything.
Enjoy https://t.co/uekCldyITw pic.twitter.com/kolq1C9qTu
— AleXandra Merz 🇺🇲 (@TeslaBoomerMama) June 1, 2026
The SpaceX S-1 amendments also revealed just how much financial infrastructure already binds the two companies together. As Teslarati has reported, SpaceX purchased $697 million in Tesla Megapacks, $131 million in Cybertrucks, and the two companies have shared supply chain resources, and semiconductor fabrication plans since well before any merger conversation became public. A retail poll by Tesla influencer Sawyer Merritt is finding that 36% of respondents do not plan to buy SpaceX shares at IPO and 15.3% saying their decision depends on the valuation.
Do you plan on buying @SpaceX stock at its IPO?
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 1, 2026
Whether the merger happens or not, the amended filing is seemingly moving markets and sharpened a debate that is no longer theoretical. SpaceX is weeks away from trading publicly, and Tesla shareholders are now watching every word of every filing for clues about what Musk plans to do next.
Elon Musk has firmly denied recent media reports suggesting that SpaceX has reduced its target valuation for an upcoming initial public offering.
The denial came directly from the SpaceX and Tesla frontman on his social media platform X, where he responded with a single word, “False,” to a post from ZeroHedge that cited Bloomberg sources.
This swift rebuttal underscores Musk’s ongoing effort to manage speculation surrounding one of the most anticipated market debuts in recent history.
False
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2026
According to the disputed reports, SpaceX had lowered its IPO valuation goal to at least $1.8 trillion from previous ambitions exceeding $2 trillion.
The claims emerged amid growing anticipation for the company’s confidential S-1 filing, which positions it for a potential public listing as early as June.
Some had pointed to strong revenue growth, particularly from the Starlink satellite internet service, which contributed heavily to the firm’s 2025 figures of $18.7 billion. Yet challenges persist in other areas, including substantial investments and losses tied to ambitious projects like Starship development and artificial intelligence initiatives, which plan to make life multiplanetary eventually.
Musk’s response highlights a pattern in which he actively counters what he views as inaccurate portrayals of his companies’ trajectories.
SpaceX, already valued privately at extraordinary levels, stands as a cornerstone of Musk’s empire alongside Tesla and xAI. The entrepreneur has long emphasized the transformative potential of reusable rockets and global broadband access, factors that fuel investor enthusiasm despite operational hurdles.
By rejecting the valuation downgrade narrative, Musk signals confidence in SpaceX’s fundamentals and its readiness for public markets on terms favorable to its long-term vision. People have been waiting a very long time to invest in SpaceX, and the valuation, as well as the introductory share price, is not going to need adjusting.
They’ll have plenty of suitors.
This episode reflects broader dynamics in the technology sector, where rumors often swirl around high-profile entities. Musk’s direct engagement with media narratives serves to maintain transparency and control the narrative around his ventures.
As SpaceX prepares for greater scrutiny in public markets, the founder’s denial reinforces optimism about its prospects. Supporters argue that the company’s innovative edge positions it for enduring success, far beyond short-term valuation debates. With the denial now public, attention turns to forthcoming regulatory filings that could provide clearer insights into SpaceX’s strategy and financial health.
The coming weeks promise to reveal more about how SpaceX will transition into a publicly traded powerhouse.
Elon Musk
The Tesla and SpaceX merger everyone is talking about is quietly building
Tesla and SpaceX may be closer to merging than Wall Street or either company is admitting.
Elon Musk has reportedly discussed merging Tesla and SpaceX with people close to him, according to CNBC, which cited sources familiar with the conversation. Tesla employees have long expected such a transaction and the topic is openly discussed internally, according to internal sources. With SpaceX is days away from kicking off its Wall Street roadshow for what could be the largest IPO in market history, this would be the first time the company will have public market currency to execute a stock-for-stock deal with Tesla.
The financial logic for a merger would make sense. A combined SpaceX and Tesla would create a conglomerate spanning rockets, satellites, electric vehicles, AI infrastructure, and energy storage valued at roughly $3.35 trillion to $3.6 trillion based on SpaceX’s IPO target range and Tesla’s current market capitalization. The two companies are already more intertwined than most people realize. SpaceX bought $697 million worth of Tesla Megapack systems for xAI data centers and $131 million worth of Cybertrucks. Tesla invested $2 billion in xAI, which subsequently merged with SpaceX. Past transactions also include Tesla selling solar equipment and parts to SpaceX, and SpaceX helping with Cybertruck materials.
Will Tesla join the fold? Predicting a triple merger with SpaceX and xAI
Musk himself signaled where this was heading in November 2025 when he posted on X, “My companies are, surprisingly in some ways, trending towards convergence.” Tesla and SpaceX announced a joint semiconductor fabrication facility in Austin called Terafab on the Gigafactory Texas campus, covering two advanced chip factories, with one serving Tesla’s AI needs for vehicles and Optimus robots, the other targeting space-based data centers under SpaceX’s infrastructure vision.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives places the probability of a merger at 80% to 90% with a target completion in the first half of 2027. The mechanics of a deal became possible the moment SpaceX filed its S-1. Legal experts said a merger likely would not spark antitrust issues but would raise concerns among shareholders in each company, with questions around which company would be the parent, how a stock swap would take place, and who determines the appropriate price. Musk holds about 20% of Tesla’s equity but controls 85.1% of SpaceX’s voting power through a super-voting share class, meaning he would largely be negotiating the terms with himself.
Not everyone is convinced the timing is imminent. Traders on Kalshi place only 33% odds that a merger will happen before May 2027. The more immediate concern for Tesla shareholders is whether the SpaceX IPO pulls capital and Musk’s attention away from Tesla before any merger consolidates the upside for both.
What is clear is that the structural groundwork is already being laid. The Terafab announcement, the xAI merger, the shared supply chain, the cross-company balance sheet transactions, and now the IPO all point in the same direction. Whether the merger follows in 2027 or later, the two companies are already operating more like divisions of a single entity than independent competitors.
SpaceX’s amended S-1 is sparking a major Tesla merger conversation
Tesla’s European Comeback: Registrations soar in May as recovery gains momentum
