It’s the question that puzzles pundits and makes short-sellers see red: Why isn’t Tesla broke yet? The company has posted losses almost every quarter since its founding, but not only does it remain in business, it steadily rolls out new products and opens up new markets, as Tesla fanboys cheer and the stock (over the long term) has soared.
Many have sought an answer to this consequential question – the latest is the Youtube channel The Rest of Us, in a charmingly childlike animated video that explains Tesla’s unique financial model in the simplest of terms.
Above: Exploring the financials at Tesla (Youtube: The Rest of Us)
In short, Tesla isn’t broke because it isn’t running out of cash. Theoretically, losses can continue indefinitely, as long as the kitty is regularly replenished. But where does the cash come from? Some comes from the sale of vehicles – Tesla earns a healthy margin on each car it sells (despite the disingenuous claims of some naysayers), and it sometimes even gets cash in the form of deposits before it even builds a vehicle (a clever financial feat that’s the envy of other automakers).
However, even as Tesla rakes in piles of money from product sales, it shovels out much more. Whence cometh the cash to top up Tesla’s reserves? Some is borrowed (debt financing), but more comes from the stock market (equity financing). Why do investors keep buying shares in a company that perennially loses money? Because savvy investors don’t base their decisions on what a company is doing today, but on its prospects for the future. Tesla is focused on the future like no other automaker, and has steadily invested huge sums to prepare for a future in which it sees huge opportunities.
Many articles about Tesla and other high-flying tech companies use terms such as “burn rate,” which can give the false impression that the cash that’s coming in just disappears, frittered away, heedlessly tossed to the winds, flushed down the…you get the idea.
Back in 2016, Vincent Paver, writing in Medium, made some good points as he explained that, far from throwing its cash in the fireplace, Tesla has invested much of it in capital goods – handy things like factories, machine tools, robots and charging facilities. Paver points out that, at the time of writing, Tesla had “burned” $1.6 billion over the last 12 months, but the book value of its equipment had increased by $2.8 billion over the same period. Other expenditures, such as vehicle development costs and employee training, may not result in tangible bricks-and-mortar assets, but they are also investments, as they allow Tesla to create new products that it can sell for more lovely cash.
Paver concludes that what we have here is not a company that is recklessly flinging away money, but one that is “in a capital-intensive business, and is [investing] substantial but appropriate sums of money on equipment and capacity expansion, tied directly to strong end user demand.”
And there you have the real key to why the callow California carmaker hasn’t gone belly-up, and won’t if current trends continue. The demand for Tesla’s products is strong – the backlog of Model 3 orders remains huge, and Models S and X continue to sell at a steady pace. Yes, not being able to produce vehicles fast enough to meet demand is a problem, but the reverse would be much worse. If Tesla’s waiting list disappears, and sales figures start going down, then it will truly be time to worry about the company’s cash flow.
Paver calls Tesla “a rare example of a public company aggressively chasing a market opportunity many multiples greater than its current scale.” Elon Musk’s new compensation plan, which was recently approved by shareholders, envisions the automaker growing to a market cap of $650 billion, which would make Tesla one of the five largest companies in the US. If and when that happens, rest assured that plenty more cash will be burned along the way.
===
Note: Article originally published on evannex.com by Charles Morris
Investor's Corner
Tesla’s flying Roadster just revealed something bigger than the car
Analysts say the Roadster demo puts a Tesla and SpaceX merger back on the table.
The Roadster unveiling near Waco ended Thursday night, and by Friday morning much of the investor reaction had less to do with the car than with who owns the rocket technology inside it.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said the event “puts the Tesla/SpaceX relationship on the table in a tangible way,” pointing to the propulsion, pressure vessel and control hardware sitting on a Tesla product. Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management called the demo “a ridiculous display of engineering” with “no commercial value” beyond embarrassing traditional automakers, though he said it showed Musk wants the two companies together.
The more specific forecast came a day earlier from Barclays. Analyst Dan Levy told clients a deal could be announced before Tesla’s annual meeting, which must happen by December 6, and that an announcement in late October or early November could make shareholder approval harder. Barclays expects SpaceX to be the buyer in an all stock deal, with Tesla holders receiving SpaceX shares at a premium, based on market values of roughly $2.1 trillion for SpaceX and $1.5 trillion for Tesla. If nothing lands around the meeting, the bank still sees an announcement within 6 to 12 months.
The Roadster demo just added more weight to merger speculations. Tesla’s demo used cold gas thrusters and pressure tanks of the kind SpaceX uses on Falcon 9, and Musk described the car as a collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX engineers, as we mentioned in our breakdown of the three Roadster configurations.
Musk has not publicly addressed a deal since the event, as far as we have seen. His most direct answer remains the one he gave at the All In Summit, when he said that with so much collaboration, “who can imagine what action one might take” without ruling anything out. Ives has held to a 2027 timeline since his March note, and Musk pushed back on the China piece of the speculation when ARK floated a year end announcement in August.
The next test is Tesla’s third quarter earnings call on October 21. However, we recall in July that Musk told analysts, “we can’t talk about combining companies and that kind of thing on an earnings call,” so a clear answer wouldn’t be expected.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Tesla Roadster owners to get “Flying Stunt Mode” and looping track access
How to use Grok Bot to block spam calls and texts
Tesla’s flying Roadster just revealed something bigger than the car
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
Elon Musk’s Boring Company lands a new Middle East deal, and Nashville is about to get faster
