Connect with us

Investor's Corner

Tesla short-seller and TSLA bull face off in classic Bull vs. Bear debate

Published

on

The Quoth the Raven podcast recently hosted a debate between notable Tesla bear and SeekingAlpha contributor Montana Skeptic and Tesla bull and YouTube host Galileo Russell. Over the hourlong session, both bull and bear discussed issues from Tesla’s financial status, competition from other carmakers, and the company’s future.

MontanaSkeptic1 is an outspoken Tesla critic and a supporter of the bear thesis against the company. An interview with QTR on Seeking Alpha states that Montana has a JD from Yale Law School and manages a $1 billion portfolio. After graduating from Yale, Montana has 30 years experience as a trial lawyer. Montana also notes that he did not take a bearish stance on Tesla from the start. Rather, he states that after reading the company’s filings, he was reminded of Enron, an American energy, and commodities company that went defunct in 2001 after a scandal caused by accounting fraud.

Galileo Russell, on the other hand, is 25 years old but is a self-confessed “finance geek” who has a bullish stance on Tesla. Galileo studied Finance & Entrepreneurship at New York University – Leonard N. Stern School of Business. He currently runs a YouTube channel called HyperChange TV, where he discusses stocks such as TSLA, SNAP, AMZN and other tech companies. Galileo first made waves after he predicted Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods months before it was announced, but more recently rose to fame after having 23 minutes of airtime with Elon Musk during Tesla’s Q1 2018 earnings call.

The debate between the Tesla bull and bear adopted a structured format, with Montana and Galileo getting an equal amount of time to state their case for a particular topic. The hourlong debate started with a discussion on whether Tesla’s CapEx would be sufficient for the company’s future projects like the Model Y, Tesla Semi, Solar Roofs and its other upcoming products, followed by Tesla’s market share and sales in the United States. Elon Musk’s behavior on social media was also discussed. During these rounds, each side presented a number of compelling arguments, with Montana Skeptic pointing out Tesla’s losses every quarter and Galileo arguing that becoming a profitable car maker requires a heavy time investment. Both reached a consensus that Elon Musk should be more restrained on Twitter.

Ultimately, however, the Tesla bull focused on the long-term prospects of Tesla, as well as the potential of the company in the future, while the bear case is founded on skepticism that Tesla could deliver a $35,000 Model 3, the China Gigafactory, and compete with profitable automakers that have a proven history of manufacturing at scale. The final arguments of Montana and Galileo summed up their stance on the electric car maker.

Advertisement

“I think Tesla is just extraordinarily weak. It lives from capital raise to capital raise. But for a capital raise, it is always on the brink of insolvency. I think that other automakers have a huge advantage. They have a portfolio of products, and those products are largely profitable, and the fact that they are compelled to make EVs that don’t make economic sense, and would never be bought other than as niche performance products, absent huge subsidies. That makes a huge difference. They would be able to outpace Tesla. The interior of the Model 3 has become tired. It was never all that luxurious, and I think it won’t be the aspirational car much longer, especially when these other cars hit the market, and this is happening,” Montana said.

“If you see Tesla’s business unfold and that’s why if you compare them to all the old metrics and look at how much money they’re losing now, you’ve missed the entire story because you’re failing to appreciate just how rapidly Tesla is growing. This is a Silicon Valley company. Software is eating the world. Software is eating every single aspect and niche of the way we build cars, what’s in cars, how they run, how we interact with our cars. This is a totally, fundamentally different set of skills than building an internal combustion engine,” Galileo said.

Listen to the full Montana Skeptic vs. Galileo Russell debate in a recording of the Quoth the Raven podcast below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=190&amp=&v=LqKEP6j0qe0

Advertisement

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

SpaceX Starship just nailed something it’s never done before

SpaceX’s Starship flew successfully Friday, landing both stages and deploying its first Starlink V3 satellites.

Published

on

By

Starship’s thirteenth test flight delivered exactly what SpaceX needed with a clean liftoff, two successful stage recoveries, and the first real payload the vehicle has ever carried to space. Booster 20 and Ship 40 lifted off at 5:51 p.m. CT from Starbase, and by the time the mission wrapped roughly an hour later, both halves of the rocket had done exactly what they were supposed to do.

Booster 20 separated from Ship 40 a few minutes into the flight and stuck a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico about six minutes after liftoff. That is a meaningful turnaround from Flight 12 in May, when the booster lost several engines during its boostback burn before a hard water landing attempt.


Starship 40’s performance was arguably the bigger win. The vehicle deployed the first 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites Starship has ever carried, then flew a suborbital arc to a landing in the Indian Ocean that SpaceX commentator Dan Huot called the company’s softest splashdown yet. “This is a dream scenario for this team that’s trying to get this heat shield data,” Huot said on the live broadcast, according to Space.com’s live coverage. “I’m a little over the moon right now. Wow. Lucky number 13.”

Unlike the mass simulators SpaceX flew on Flight 12, these were production Starlink V3 satellites, meant to extend solar arrays and antennas and attempt to link with the broader constellation before reentering minutes later. Getting real hardware through a full deploy sequence on only the second flight of the V3 generation keeps Starship on schedule for the payload work NASA is counting on for future Artemis lunar landings.

Advertisement

— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 25, 2026

The flight also arrives at a moment when SpaceX needed a win. SPCX has traded below its $135 IPO price since mid-July, as Teslarati reported when the mission slipped to Friday, and short interest has climbed to roughly a third of the tradable float. A clean flight will not fix a balance sheet, but it does answer the one question SpaceX absolutely needed answered this week: whether the fixes made after the July 16 abort would hold up under real flight conditions. They did, on both stages, on the first try after the redesign.

SpaceX has not set a target date for Flight 14, though the company has said it wants to push toward an orbital attempt on the next mission. After Friday, that goal looks a lot more within reach.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla short sellers win big after shares fall after earnings

Published

on

A red Tesla Roadster driving around a turn
(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.

Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to BloombergShares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.

Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.

Advertisement

However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.

S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.

Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue

Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.

Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.

Advertisement

At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.

The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.

Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue

Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.

The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.

Advertisement

Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.

The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.

Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.

Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.

Advertisement
Continue Reading