News
The NJ mafia puts contract hit on Tesla
Elon Musk is always one step away from pushing the envelope further. Is calling New Jersey the mafia state enough of a wake up call?
Governor Chris Christie exemplifies modern politics clichés by turning around his previous decision legally working with Tesla Motors to follow suit with Texas and Arizona. Is there a pattern? Far from engaging in politics at Teslarati, we can’t help but wonder why those states known for their free markets ideals turned their back on the rhetoric? Where is competition and free market these days?
Does anybody remember freedom of choice?
Elon’s post rightfully reminds us of the disconnect between politicians and their constituents by saying: “the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, composed of political appointees of the Governor, ended your right to purchase vehicles at a manufacturer store within the state” on his post. Governor Christie promised to put a vote to Tesla selling directly, but once the very big, and very powerful auto dealer lobby voiced their concerns, a backroom deal was cut, thus circumventing the legal process. Essentially, the auto dealer association pressures Chris Christie to force anyone buying a new vehicle through middlemen in New Jersey.
Essentially, Elon Musk accuses the Administration and the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission of: “going beyond their authority to implement the state’s laws at the behest of a special interest group looking to protect its monopoly at the expense of New Jersey consumers.”
Automotive Dealerships is a humongous lobby.
We’ll let you gauge how powerful the National Automotive Dealership Association is. Last year, there were 17,600 dealers of new cars and trucks in the US, yielding over $676 billion of sales, accounting for about 15 percent of all US retail activities. The automotive dealership is a substantial part of the country’s economy and its $86.8 million of dealership monies continuously spends $57 million funneled on state election across the country since 2003.
A few days back, we wrote about how the inevitable has to happen, bringing back our country to its foundation of freedom of choice. Dealerships don’t have the best reputation, and certainly very few people praise their services. Is it any wonder they push for an old, worn out self-serving business model? Tesla’s model is so modern, answers the needs of our current era and reflects a very real demand for freedom of choice. Simply put, dealerships do not offer the added services they once did, and are not able to change that quickly. Sounds familiar? Carmakers feel the same. Tesla Motors creeps under Detroit’s car manufacturers’ skin. They feel the inevitable, that change is a constant and you cannot turn around a big corporation instantly. Does that mean we don’t need car dealerships? Certainly not.
Tesla Motors is about now.
If we put everything into perspective, we find Tesla Motors answers our urgent need for elegant performance cars that run on an efficient energy means, electricity. Carmakers are left in the less enviable position of making petroleum derivative powered cars that pollute, smell bad and make awful noises. What truly isn’t fair is to expect these big carmaker and their dealerships to turn on a dime and start manufacturing batteries and electric motors. They are not tooled for this, and the investments would be gargantuan.
-
The Tesla stores frighten auto dealerships.
Why wouldn’t they be frightened by the Tesla stores, conveniently located inside malls, at the mercy of any onlooker? If you are relegated to the outskirts of the city, next to other car dealerships, knowing how people dread going to look for that new car, carefully maneuvering pushy salesmen, deciphering the unintelligible jargon and financing pitfalls, wouldn’t you fear Tesla? What do you do against a Tesla store that has a list of Model S drivers who will let you ride and sometimes drive their personal car? Know anyone who that with the internal combustion engine (ICE) drivers? Neither do we. But, why would you fight this marvelous system?
In the meantime, it’s hard not to feel sorry for politicians seeing constituents losing faith and car dealership lobbies facing better business models. Would you be frightened, or would you take the opportunity to change and adapt, once and for all?
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
