News
Tesla’s 2020 Aftermath: A look at the shorts who said 500k was ‘absurd’
Tesla’s 2020 showing has created an aftermath of reflection from bulls and bears alike. Despite the company coming off of a record year with a massive 500,000 vehicle delivery and production rate, which was considered “absurd” by some short-sellers in years past, Tesla proved the doubters wrong once again.
Everyone knows that the stock market is really an unpredictable and unfathomably tough thing to read. Some of the world’s best analysts can misread even the slightest bit of data and be miles off of what a particular stock accomplishes. Tesla, which is one of the more polarizing stocks despite its 700% climb in 2020, has had doubters since day 1. The difference between doubters of Tesla and doubters of other companies is that Tesla shorts and bears are some of the most vocal on Wall Street because the company’s momentum and hype have been talked about for nearly a decade.
2020 was easily the toughest year for the U.S. automotive market since the Great Recession of 2008. Tesla was one of the few companies that accomplished the feat of sustaining growth through the year of the COVID-19 pandemic, which crippled many industries, not just the automotive one, for most of the year. However, doubts on Tesla set in way back when the company started in 2008. Six years after Tesla built the original Roadster, analysts were still curious about the automaker’s capabilities moving forward and doubted that it would be able to scale its production to half-a-million cars by 2020. The old saying goes, “hindsight is 2020,” and as Tesla reached its goal for the year, it is easy to sit back and judge those who were wrong. However, their reasoning for not reaching 500,000 vehicles was completely flawed, and everything Tesla said it would do years ago has been accomplished.
Mark Spiegel called 500,000 cars in 2020 “absurd”
Mark Spiegel is a notable Tesla short-seller and has been bearish on the automaker’s stock for years. In 2014, Spiegel posted an article to Seeking Alpha, titled, “Why Projections For Tesla To Sell 500,000 Cars In 2020 Are Absurd.”
Spiegel used data like the compound annual growth rate to support his evidence, stating, “If Tesla sells 35,000 cars this year, 500,000 sales in 2020 would imply a six-year CAGR of 56%.” Additionally, Spiegel did not believe that Tesla could scale growth at that rate in six years because “no complex product manufacturer has ever grown that quickly from a revenue base of $3 billion or more.” But hey, there is a first time for everything.
Microsoft was able to scale its CAGR by 32.1% from 1993 to 1999, which is a six-year time span and was identical to Tesla’s outlook that was challenged in the 2014 article. While Microsoft managed a remarkable 32.1% CAGR because of the evergrowing popularity of the computer and other technology, Tesla’s overwhelming growth throughout the same timespan was due to tech developments, industry influence, proving affordability of electric cars, and a consistent growth rate that proved the company was here to stay.
Spiegel’s outlook for 2020 was 186,000 cars sold by Tesla, but the company managed to nearly accomplish this figure in Q4 alone, as it delivered 180,570 cars in the final three months of the year. Spiegel was way off in his predictions, and Tesla’s domination in 2020 was just one of many examples of analysts getting it completely wrong.
Tesla wasn’t a prime candidate for scaling its products, according to Thomas Bartman
In an April 2015 article in the Harvard Business Review, Thomas Bartman wrote an opinionated piece called, “Why Tesla Won’t Be Able to Scale.” Bartman claimed that Tesla’s EVs were “not actually disruptive, which will likely cause it to struggle to scale.” Bartman didn’t have the Model 3 to use as a benchmark at the time, but he doubted that Tesla would be able to sell a vehicle for $35,000, which it did.
“Tesla plans to launch a ‘mainstream’ luxury car, the Model 3,” Bartman wrote, “which it estimates will cost $35,000, although analysts have begun to question the feasibility of reaching that price point.” Tesla did discontinue this variant in late 2020, but the Standard Range Model 3 was available for over three years. The Standard Range+ was only $2,770 more and was more popular because of the range. Also, the SR was not listed on Tesla’s website and had to be ordered in a showroom or over the phone.
Bartman believed that Tesla had launched two good vehicles in the Model S and Model X, but legacy auto would quickly catch up after a few years. However, this has been proven wrong repeatedly, as companies like Mercedes-Benz and Audi have failed to launch effective and competitive EVs that are comparable to Tesla’s models globally. The Model 3 continues to dominate in China and the U.S., and the Model Y is gaining plenty of momentum as it nears the one-year mark since its first deliveries.
Tesla China Model Y attracts flocks of customers in local showrooms
“As Tesla attempts to scale, it’s likely to discover that its internal impediments, combined with competitor responses, make it much harder than anticipated,” Bartman said. “The symptoms of these problems will manifest as product launch delays, cost overruns, and higher than expected prices.”
The only issue is that Tesla was able to internally combat production issues, even though Elon Musk has admitted many times that Model 3 manufacturing was “production hell.” The company has effectively beaten all of its competitors to launching an effective and cost-worthy electric car by launching four of them.
Hindsight is 2020
With 2020 over (thank God), Tesla and analysts are already looking forward to the new year. 2021 has plenty in store for Tesla: Two production facilities in the U.S. and Europe are set to begin manufacturing efforts, the launch of the Cybertruck at the tail-end of the year, and a possible refresh of the Model S and Model X. Moving forward, Tesla shorts may be more cautious, especially considering their traumatic $38 billion loss this year.
News
Tesla Giga Berlin plant manager faces defamation probe after IG Metall union complaint
Prosecutors in Frankfurt (Oder) confirmed they have opened a defamation probe into Gigafactory Berlin plant manager André Thierig.
Tesla’s Giga Berlin plant manager is now under investigation after a complaint from trade union IG Metall, escalating tensions ahead of next month’s works council elections.
Prosecutors in Frankfurt (Oder) confirmed they have opened a defamation probe into Gigafactory Berlin plant manager André Thierig, as per a report from rbb24.
A spokesperson for the Frankfurt (Oder) public prosecutor’s office confirmed to the German Press Agency that an investigation for defamation has been initiated following a criminal complaint filed by IG Metall against Thierig.
The dispute stems from Tesla’s allegation that an IG Metall representative secretly recorded a works council meeting using a laptop. In a post on X, Thierig described the incident as “truly beyond words,” stating that police were called and a criminal complaint was filed.
“What has happened today at Giga Berlin is truly beyond words! An external union representative from IG Metall attended a works council meeting. For unknown reasons, he recorded the internal meeting and was caught in action! We obviously called police and filed a criminal complaint!” Thierig wrote in a post on X.
Police later confirmed that officers did seize a computer belonging to an IG Metall member at Giga Berlin. Prosecutors are separately investigating the union representative on suspicion of breach of confidentiality and violation of Germany’s Works Constitution Act.
IG Metall has denied Tesla’s allegations. The union claimed that its member offered to unlock the laptop for review in order to accelerate the investigation and counter what it called false accusations. The union has also sought a labor court injunction to “prohibit Thierig from further disseminating false claims.”
The clash comes as Tesla employees prepare to vote in works council elections scheduled for March 2–4, 2026. Approximately 11,000 Giga Berlin workers are eligible to participate in the elections.
News
Tesla wins FCC approval for wireless Cybercab charging system
The decision grants Tesla a waiver that allows the Cybercab’s wireless charging system to be installed on fixed outdoor equipment.
Tesla has received approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use Ultra-Wideband (UWB) radio technology in its wireless EV charging system.
The decision grants Tesla a waiver that allows the Cybercab’s wireless charging system to be installed on fixed outdoor equipment. This effectively clears a regulatory hurdle for the company’s planned wireless charging pad for the autonomous two-seater.
Tesla’s wireless charging system is described as follows in the document: “The Tesla positioning system is an impulse UWB radio system that enables peer-to-peer communications between a UWB transceiver installed on an electric vehicle (EV) and a second UWB transceiver installed on a ground-level pad, which could be located outdoors, to achieve optimal positioning for the EV to charge wirelessly.”
The company explained that Bluetooth is first used to locate the charging pad. “Prior to the UWB operation, the vehicular system uses Bluetooth technology for the vehicle to discover the location of the ground pad and engage in data exchange activities (which is not subject to the waiver).”
Once the vehicle approaches the pad, the UWB system briefly activates. “When the vehicle approaches the ground pad, the UWB transceivers will operate to track the position of the vehicle to determine when the optimal position has been achieved over the pad before enabling wireless power charging.”
Tesla also emphasized that “the UWB signals occur only briefly when the vehicle approaches the ground pad; and mostly at ground level between the vehicle and the pad,” and that the signals are “significantly attenuated by the body of the vehicle positioned over the pad.”
As noted by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, the FCC ultimately granted Tesla’s proposal since the Cybercab’s wireless charging system’s signal is very low power, it only turns on briefly while parking, it works only at very short range, and it won’t interfere with other systems.
While the approval clears the way for Tesla’s wireless charging plans, the Cybercab does not appear to depend solely on the new system.
Cybercab prototypes have frequently been spotted charging at standard Tesla Superchargers across the United States. This suggests the vehicle can easily operate within Tesla’s existing charging network even as the wireless system is developed and deployed. With this in mind, it would not be surprising if the first batches of the Cybercab that are deployed and delivered to consumers end up being charged by regular Superchargers.
Elon Musk
Tesla posts updated FSD safety stats as owners surpass 8 billion miles
Tesla shared the milestone as adoption of the system accelerates across several markets.
Tesla has posted updated safety stats for Full Self-Driving Supervised. The results were shared by the electric vehicle maker as FSD Supervised users passed more than 8 billion cumulative miles.
Tesla shared the milestone in a post on its official X account.
“Tesla owners have now driven >8 billion miles on FSD Supervised,” the company wrote in its post on X. Tesla also included a graphic showing FSD Supervised’s miles driven before a collision, which far exceeds that of the United States average.
The growth curve of FSD Supervised’s cumulative miles over the past five years has been notable. As noted in data shared by Tesla watcher Sawyer Merritt, annual FSD (Supervised) miles have increased from roughly 6 million in 2021 to 80 million in 2022, 670 million in 2023, 2.25 billion in 2024, and 4.25 billion in 2025. In just the first 50 days of 2026, Tesla owners logged another 1 billion miles.
At the current pace, the fleet is trending towards hitting about 10 billion FSD Supervised miles this year. The increase has been driven by Tesla’s growing vehicle fleet, periodic free trials, and expanding Robotaxi operations, among others.
Tesla also recently updated the safety data for FSD Supervised on its website, covering North America across all road types over the latest 12-month period.
As per Tesla’s figures, vehicles operating with FSD Supervised engaged recorded one major collision every 5,300,676 miles. In comparison, Teslas driven manually with Active Safety systems recorded one major collision every 2,175,763 miles, while Teslas driven manually without Active Safety recorded one major collision every 855,132 miles. The U.S. average during the same period was one major collision every 660,164 miles.
During the measured period, Tesla reported 830 total major collisions with FSD (Supervised) engaged, compared to 16,131 collisions for Teslas driven manually with Active Safety and 250 collisions for Teslas driven manually without Active Safety. Total miles logged exceeded 4.39 billion miles for FSD (Supervised) during the same timeframe.
Tesla Giga Berlin plant manager faces defamation probe after IG Metall union complaint
Tesla wins FCC approval for wireless Cybercab charging system
