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.
NASA has filed a procurement notice announcing its intent to add six post-certification missions to SpaceX’s existing Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contract. The agency said it would order up to three of those missions immediately upon adding them to the contract, with the remaining three available as needed through the end of the International Space Station’s planned operations in 2030.
The reason for the expansion is straightforward. NASA cited recently shortened ISS mission durations, technical issues and schedule delays encountered by Boeing, the allocation of missions between Boeing and SpaceX, and the ongoing technical challenges of maintaining a reliable crew transportation capability as the driving factors behind the decision. Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner has still not been certified for crewed flights, and a cargo-only Starliner mission was not included on NASA’s most recent mission manifest. With Boeing effectively sidelined for the foreseeable future, SpaceX is the only American company capable of rotating crews to the station.
The history behind this contract tells the fuller story of how SpaceX got here. NASA originally awarded SpaceX its Commercial Crew contract in 2014 for $2.6 billion. In 2022 NASA modified the contract to add five missions covering Crew-10 through Crew-14, worth $1.436 billion, bringing the total contract value at that point to $4.9 billion. The recent May 18 filing by NASA extends that runway further, with Crew-12 currently docked at the station and Crew-13 assigned and targeting a mid-September 2026 launch.
According to a report by SpaceNews, NASA stated in its filing: “It is necessary to award additional PCMs to SpaceX given the recently shortened ISS mission durations, technical issues and schedule delays encountered by Boeing, the allocation of missions between Boeing and SpaceX, NASA’s projections for when an alternative crew transportation system may become available, and the ongoing technical challenges of maintaining a reliable capability for crewed flights to ISS.”
No dollar value for the new six missions has been publicly confirmed yet, but based on the 2022 precedent of roughly $287 million per mission, the new block could represent close to $1.7 billion in additional contract value. With SpaceX simultaneously preparing Starship as NASA’s Artemis lunar lander, filing its S-1 for a June IPO, and now absorbing more ISS crew rotation work, the company’s role as the primary contractor for American human spaceflight is no longer a matter of circumstance. It is NASA policy.
In a notable intersection of Big Tech powerhouses, Meta, led by Mark Zuckerberg, has partnered with Canadian energy infrastructure giant Enbridge on a significant renewable energy initiative that will rely on battery technology from Elon Musk’s Tesla.
The project, which was announced this week, marks another step in Meta’s aggressive push to power its expanding data center operations with clean energy, dispelling many of the complaints people have about them.
This new development is located near Cheyenne, Wyoming, and will feature a 365-megawatt (MW) solar farm paired with a 200 MW/1,600 megawatt-hour (MWh) battery energy storage system, also known as BESS. Tesla is providing the batteries for the project, valued at roughly $200 million.
The story was originally reported by Utility Dive.
This Wyoming project represents the first phase of Enbridge and Meta’s joint “Cowboy Project.” Once operational, it will deliver power to Meta’s regional data centers through Cheyenne Light, Fuel, and Power under Wyoming’s Large Power Contract Service tariff.
This tariff, originally developed in collaboration with Microsoft and Black Hills Energy, is designed specifically for large loads like data centers. It ensures that the renewable supply serves hyperscale customers without impacting retail electricity rates for other users.
The battery system will operate under a long-term tolling agreement, providing dispatchable capacity that enhances grid reliability. During periods of high demand, the utility can access the backup generation, addressing one of the key challenges of integrating large-scale renewables with the explosive growth of data center electricity demand driven by artificial intelligence.
This latest collaboration builds on prior joint efforts between Enbridge and Meta in Texas, including the 600 MW Clear Fork Solar, 152 MW Easter Wind, and 300 MW Cone Wind projects. Together with the Wyoming initiative, the companies have now partnered on roughly 1.6 gigawatts (GW) of combined solar, wind, and storage capacity.
The deal highlights the intensifying demand for reliable, low-carbon power from technology giants. Meta has committed to supporting its data center growth with renewable energy, joining peers like Microsoft and Google in seeking large-scale solutions. Enbridge’s Allen Capps described the project as “one of the larger utility-scale battery installations supporting U.S. data center operations and growth.”
The involvement of Tesla’s battery technology adds an intriguing layer, linking two of the world’s most prominent tech leaders—Zuckerberg and Musk—in the clean energy transition.
As data centers continue to drive unprecedented electricity load growth across the United States, projects like this one illustrate how hyperscalers are turning to strategic partnerships with traditional energy players and innovative storage solutions to meet both sustainability goals and reliability needs.
SpaceX has decided to stand down from what was supposed to be the first test launch of Starship’s v3 rocket tonight after a minor issue with a hydraulic pin delayed the flight once more.
The company scrubbed its first test flight of the upgraded Starship v3 on May 21 in the final minutes of the countdown. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk quickly took to social media platform X, explaining that a hydraulic pin on the launch tower’s “chopsticks” arm failed to retract properly.
Musk added that the company would fix the issue this evening. SpaceX will attempt another launch tomorrow night at 5:30 p.m. CT, 6:30 p.m. ET, and 3:30 p.m. PT.
The hydraulic pin holding the tower arm in place did not retract.
If that can be fixed tonight, there will be another launch attempt tomorrow at 5:30 CT. https://t.co/DJAdvDYQpH
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 21, 2026
The countdown for Starship Flight 12 — featuring the taller and more capable V3 stack with Booster 19 and Ship 39 — had been progressing smoothly until the late-stage issue surfaced. The Mechazilla tower arm, designed to secure the vehicle on the pad and eventually catch returning boosters, could not complete its retraction sequence.
SpaceX teams immediately began troubleshooting the hydraulic system for an overnight repair.
Starship V3 introduces several significant upgrades over earlier versions. These include greater propellant capacity, more powerful Raptor 3 engines, larger grid fins, enhanced heat shielding, and an improved fuel transfer system.
We covered the changes that were announced just days ago by SpaceX:
SpaceX unveils sweeping Starship V3 upgrades ahead of May 19 launch
The changes are intended to increase payload performance, support higher flight rates, and advance the vehicle toward operational missions, including Starlink deployments, NASA Artemis lunar landings, and future crewed Mars flights. The debut flight from Starbase’s new Launch Pad 2 marked an important milestone in scaling up the fully reusable Starship system.
This stand-down highlights the intricate challenges of preparing the world’s most powerful rocket for flight. Despite extensive pre-launch checks, a single component in the ground support equipment can force a scrub.
The incident aligns with Starship’s proven iterative development approach. Previous test flights have encountered both successes and setbacks, each providing critical data that refines hardware and procedures. Some outlets may call some of these flights “failures,” when in reality, they are all opportunities for SpaceX to learn for the next attempt.
With V3, SpaceX aims to reduce ground-system dependencies and increase launch cadence to meet ambitious long-term goals.
NASA just gave SpaceX more crew missions because Boeing can’t certify
Elon Musk called it Epic: The full story of SpaceX’s Starship Flight 12
