News
Tesla, SpaceX, Elon Musk ventures cleared by SEC for private fundraising after tweet controversy
Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company (TBC), and Neuralink have all been granted waivers allowing them to continue raising capital by privately selling restricted securities (typically private equity or debt), heading off potential barriers that would increase the difficulty of raising capital through the sale of securities.
Cued by the commission’s settled suit over CEO Elon Musk’s improper and misleading dissemination of information material to Tesla shareholders, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has granted investment disqualification waivers – specifically “waivers of disqualification under Rule 506 of Regulation D” – to each of the four major companies owned by Elon Musk.
-
- Building giant factories like Gigafactory 2 demands major capital investments that often require private equity sales. (Tesla)
-
- Rockets are perhaps even more capital intensive. (SpaceX)
Losing the ability to raise funds in this manner would make it much harder for companies like Tesla and SpaceX to raise the money frequently needed for expansions and major R&D projects, described in the waiver requests as “extremely capital intensive.” However, the bulk of the arguments provided by each company’s legal representatives can be largely ignored. Arguing to the contrary – i.e. failing to make a strong case that the given company may need private equity investment – could close critical doors that each company may not need right this moment but would like to preserve as an option.
Still, each waiver request offers a slight glimpse into the inner-workings of SpaceX, TBC, and Neuralink, typically hidden from the public eye as privately held entities.
Tesla
Tesla, being a publicly-traded company, offered few secrets in its waiver request. However, it did publicize the best overview yet of what exactly the SEC’s demand for the regulation of Elon Musk’s Tesla-material communications might translate to inside the company. According to Tesla’s legal representatives, the company is arranging the creation of “new, permanent committee…of independent directors only [that] will provide an additional check on the procedures and processes for overseeing Mr. Musk’s Tesla-related public statements.” Tesla will also reportedly task “another experienced securities lawyer…to undertake an enhanced review of communications made through Twitter and other social media by the [sic] Tesla’s senior officers.”
The hope is that this new arrangement will prevent a recurrence of the misconduct that led to the SEC’s suit and the subsequent settlement. More likely, however, is that the threat of the modification or withdrawal of these four waivers will prevent Musk from stepping outside the bounds of the SEC’s binding settlement agreement, as doing so could truly harm the potential of all four companies.
SpaceX
In SpaceX’s waiver request, the company’s legal representatives confirmed that it has raised “more than $2 billion in [eleven separate] securities offerings” that fell under the purview of activities SpaceX would be disqualified from pursuing without a waiver from the SEC. The total value of investments on the public record currently hovers around $2.27 billion, including a partially-finished Series I round that has likely raised that to value to ~$2.5 billion since it surfaced in April 2018.
“The design and manufacture of launch vehicles and spacecraft is extremely capital intensive. SpaceX needs sufficient [and may need to raise additional] capital to fund its ongoing operations and future expansions, for example: development of its BFR launch vehicle and Crew Dragon spacecraft, continuing research and development projects, and making investments in tooling and manufacturing”
The Boring Company & Neuralink
As for TBC and Neuralink, the waivers didn’t offer anything unexpected, although they did provide great, brief overviews of what exactly the two companies are currently working towards. Although it was announced in late 2017 that Musk would sell stock to fund initial operations at TBC and Neuralink, both companies’ legal representatives confirmed the exact amount of funding raised by “Musk and various other third-party investors”: $112.5 million and $100.2 million, respectively.
Both expressly confirmed no intentions to pursue initial public offerings (IPOs) anytime soon, although Neuralink’s waiver indicated that it may invest in or acquire other companies pursuing brain-computer interfaces.
-
-
- Musk believes that TBC will finish its first test-tunnel in roughly six weeks, in early December. (TBC)
-
- The Boring Company’s next-gen tunnel-boring machine seen in its early stages, October 5th. [Credit: Tom Cross/Teslarati]
-
- While we have no clue what Neuralink’s stealthed work has produced, it’s perhaps the most long-term venture Musk has started. The path to market for medical devices is very long and even more expensive.
The Boring Company
“The Boring Company (TBC) is a fast-growing infrastructure and transportation company focused on developing cost effective, and fast tunneling technology, along with electric mass transportation systems to alleviate the massive problem of traffic and congestion within cities. The research, development, design, manufacture, testing, and construction of tunnels and mass transit systems is a capital intensive business. TBC needs sufficient capital to fund its ongoing operations and future expansions, for example: continued development and improvement of Tunnel Boring Machines (“TBMs”) and electric skates, the construction of mass transit tunnels including publicly announced projects in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C..”
Neuralink
“Neuralink is a fast-growing bio-technology and medical device company focused on developing high bandwidth, long term, brain computer interfaces (“BCI”). The research, development, design, manufacture, testing, and certification of medical devices and BCI’s is purely capital intensive business requiting deep investment for years prior to any initial revenue. Neuralink needs sufficient capital to fund its ongoing operations and eventually bringing products to marked, for example: continued development of BCI’s, continued testing of implantable devices, financing of multi-year FDA trials and certifications, and the construction of FDA-approved manufacturing facilities. Neuralink will need to raise capital for these operations and expansions, and given the development stage of the company, it is most likely that such financing will be through private securities offerings in reliance on Rule 506 of Regulation D.”
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
