Tesla’s unique business model allows them to sell vehicles directly to consumers through both retail locations and Tesla’s online design studio. Direct-to-consumer sales of its vehicles have led to some turbulence with existing car dealerships in many states, including Utah, Louisiana, Connecticut, Texas and Michigan. New Jersey allowed Tesla to open direct sales in the state in 2015, but with conditions. New Jersey’s legislation limited the number of direct-to-consumer dealerships per manufacturer to four stores and required at least one service center in the state. Tesla CEO Elon Musk once compared local car dealers to a mafia protection racket, stating in a Tesla blog post, “The rationale given for the regulation change that requires auto companies to sell through dealers is that it ensures ‘consumer protection’…Unless they are referring to the mafia version of ‘protection’, this is obviously untrue.”
Tesla recently launched a lawsuit to overturn a sales ban put into effect in Michigan in 2014 that prevents the Elon Musk-led electric carmaker from selling directly to consumers within the state. The greatest opposition against Tesla’s plea for direct sales in Michigan comes from both auto dealers and manufacturers, who argue that Tesla disrupts the traditional franchise dealership model.
Courtesy of Teslanomics.co
Ironically, Michigan and Texas which bans Tesla’s direct sales model have public pensions that are significant investors in the Silicon Valley company. However, that isn’t the only financial interest states have in Tesla. All states in the US rely heavily on sales tax to generate revenue. States without stores are forcing owners to purchase and service their vehicles out-of-state, missing out on sales tax in the process, a major revenue loss.
Source: Bloomberg, September 2016
Bill Wolters, of the Texas Automobile Dealers Association, is claiming that the introduction of Tesla into the Texas car market would “reduce competition”, and will incur costs for Texas. However, this argument assumes that dealers are creating added value for their consumers, and if that argument holds, then dealers should be able to keep customers in the market after Tesla enters. Additionally, Tesla is competing against other manufacturers and not franchises.
Racecar driver and environmental activist Leilani Munter protest’s North Carolina’s ban on Tesla’s direct sales model (Photo: Medium/Leilani Munter)
Out of a presumed 400,000 reservations for the Tesla Model 3, it is estimated that roughly half originate from the United States, according to the distribution of early Model 3 reservation data from Model3Tracker.info. Using a loosely estimated assumption of Tesla Model 3 reservations originating from banned states via Model3.ocasual.com, we get the following numbers: 1,250 in Louisiana, 2,980 in Connecticut, 3,076 in Utah, 15,670 in Texas, and 4,230 in Michigan.
The sales tax for Michigan is 6%, Louisiana is 9%, Connecticut is 6.35%, Utah is 4.7%, and Texas is 6.25%
This equates to a loss of $8,883,000 for Michigan, $3,937,500 for Louisiana, $34,278,125 for Texas, $6,623,050 for Connecticut, and $5,060,020 for Utah. That’s a total of $59,791,695 in loss revenue, which does not factor in current sales of Model S and Model X.
| States with Tesla Ban | Sales Tax | Estimated Tesla Model 3 Reservations | Projected state revenue loss (in dollars) |
| Louisiana | 9% | 1250 | $3,937,500 |
| Texas | 6.25% | 15670 | $34,278,125 |
| Michigan | 6% | 4230 | $8,883,000 |
| Connecticut | 6.35% | 2980 | $6,623,050 |
| Utah | 4.70% | 3076 | $5,060,020 |
Navigant Research believes that sales electric vehicles, including hybrid/plug-in hybrid, are set to comprise 9 percent of total vehicle sale by 2025. Currently, EVs make up 3% of total vehicle sales, but the number in 2016 saw a 36 percent increase in sales in the US alone. In 2016, 4,500 EVs were sold in Texas, 2,470 in Michigan, 270 in Louisiana, 1,452 in Connecticut, 1,132 in Utah, and 70 in West Virginia. Texas, Connecticut, and Michigan ranked among states with some of the highest EV sales. Of electric vehicles sold total in 2016, the Tesla Model S was the leading electric vehicle with ringing in at 29,156 vehicles. The Tesla Model S also outsold its entire class of vehicles, combined. Tesla is expecting high demand for Model 3, which will start at roughly half the cost of the Model S.
Source: Topspeed.com
There are currently 223,319 estimated Model 3 reservations in the United States, far greater than the sales of comparable vehicles. The BMW 3 and 4 series which sold around 106,000 vehicles in 2016 and the Mercedes C-Class sold around 77,000 vehicles in 2016. Tesla CEO Elon Musk is expecting to produce 500,000 vehicles in 2018 and tens of thousands this year (Tesla hasn’t released Model 3 production guidance for 2017). Musk’s expectations could make the Model 3 the highest selling vehicle in its class in both 2017 and 2018. The states that ban Tesla dealerships not only miss out on sales tax revenue from Tesla vehicles but in turn create an inconvenience for residents. By instating a direct sales ban on Tesla before the launch of Tesla Model 3, states will not only lose millions of dollars in sales revenue per year but also interfere with and disrupt free market competition and consumer activities.
Feature image courtesy of Delanman via Twitter.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
