Investor's Corner
Tesla will raise nearly $1.4B after higher than expected investor demand
Expanding Capital Raise to Meet Demand
Tesla has upped it’s capital raise from $1.15B to $1.38B after investors indicated higher demand for the offering. The company initially planned to offer 968,993 common shares and increased that to 1,335,878 shares of stock, raising an additional $350M. In addition to an increase in the common stock offering, Tesla also raised $850M from a convertible debt sale with an additional $127.5M available to the underwriters. The company initially intended to offer $750M in debt and raised that by $100M to meet demand. We will know within 30 days whether the underwriters decide to exercise their options to purchase, which would net Tesla an additional ~$180M. If the underwriters exercise their options, then the total proceeds of the sale will net $1.38B. This capital raise is intended to “de-risk” the company’s financial condition as they focus on getting the Model 3 into production this year.
Tesla’s bond offering of $850M consisted of 2.375% Convertible Senior Notes due March 15, 2022. Compared to previous convertible bond offerings, Tesla increased the interest rate on the bonds while lowering the “conversion” premium. The conversion premium allows for the bond holder to exchange their bond for common stock, Tesla has set the price of that conversion at $327.50, which is roughly 25% above current market value. Previous convertible bond offerings had a conversion premium of 42.5% above their respective market values and interest rates of .25% and 1.25%. (This analysis does not look at the debt offering SolarCity had before the Tesla-SolarCity merger last fall.)
“Secret” Investor Call
On March 16, a user on the Tesla Subreddit revealed that Elon Musk and other company officials were holding a conference call with the investors directly involved in the sale of shares and bonds. Tesla did not announce the call on its Investors Relations page nor provide a transcript of the call.
According to reddit member electricmusk who was affiliated with the raise and attended the call, Elon Musk revealed that there would be no “beta” version of the Model 3. Instead, the company is going straight to an “early release candidate.” In the industry, that normally refers to cars built on the actual assembly line that will be used for normal production.
If true, that suggests the Model 3 production line is now complete and ready to start producing cars. Later in the conference call, Musk is heard saying “we will be driving it (the early release candidate) within a week or two.” Musk reportedly said that advanced analytical techniques are allowing the company to skip the usual beta phase. He promised the Model 3 will have higher initial quality than either the Model S or Model X because of those analytical tools.
The quick transition to early release candidate cars has some people on Reddit concerned. john_atx, a first day Model 3 reservation holder, explained it this way.
“No, it does mean something. Start of production is July, and they don’t have any cars to test now in the middle of March. So let’s say they can start driving their cars by April. If an issue comes up, they have weeks to get it resolved. Normally you have a fleet of production intent cars driving in all conditions to get data. Tesla won’t have enough time to find the problems and implement corrective actions before Start of Production.”
Those who were able to listen in on the conference call report one other interesting tidbit. At one point, Elon Musk is heard to say — albeit indistinctly — that Tesla will transition to the 2170 battery cells for the battery packs in its Model S and Model X cars “by the end of the year,” according to reddit user electricmusk. Tesla’s 2170 lithium ion cells are currently being manufactured at Gigafactory 1 and being used in its commercial and home energy storage systems. The cells will also be used in the upcoming mass market Model 3 sedan.
Come join the discussion on Model 3 as Tesla prepares to put the vehicle into mass production.
Investor's Corner
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
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.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
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.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
