Connect with us

Investor's Corner

Tesla isn’t “losing” all of its executives — it just has a ton

Published

on

Over the past week, you’ve probably heard reports of Tesla “losing” executives, and while the reports are correct, the narrative is wrong. As Musk pushes the Model 3 production ramp forward, he’s also aiming to bring the company to profitability in the second half of the year. Shedding unnecessary positions on the executive level certainly seems to be part of this plan.

But with reports of “executives” leaving Tesla surfacing what feels like, everyday, it seems like the company is spiraling out of control. This is fundamentally incorrect because the media is highlighting any “senior” departure as a major loss and isn’t providing context to Tesla’s broader management structure.

First, reports of “key” people leaving Tesla now range from Vice Presidents, Product Directors, Managers, and Directors. But how are we determining people to be key? Bloomberg’s Dana Hull reported that Bob Rudd and Arch Padmanabhan left the company. Rudd and Padmanabhan’s positions were Senior Director and Director respectively. Padmanabhan had been at Tesla for 5 years, while Rudd joined SolarCity in 2012 at VP of Project Development for Energy Storage & Microgrids.

It’s unclear why Rudd and Padmanabhan have left the company, but it could be part of Musk’s broader company reorganization. On Monday, Musk sent out a memo to employees telling them, “To ensure that Tesla is well prepared for the future, we have been undertaking a thorough reorganization of our company.”

In addition to the company’s overall structure, Musk is aiming to rid a significant number of contract workers at the company. During Tesla’s Q1 2018 earnings call, Musk referred to contractors as “barnacles” stating that, “…we’re going to scrub the barnacles on that front.”

“It’s pretty crazy. We’ve got barnacles on barnacles. So there’s going to be a lot of barnacle removal.”

Advertisement
-

I could list dozens of executive departures at Tesla that were not previously reported in the past year, all senior to both Rudd and Padmanabhan, but I think it’s more important to provide perspective on the number of executives Tesla actually employs. After an in-depth analysis of LinkedIn data, I have found 23 active Vice Presidents at Tesla. There were far too many Directors and Senior Directors to conduct an accurate analysis.

Since the beginning of 2017, Tesla has lost 9 VPs and 3 other major executives (CAO, CFO, and President). Of the executives that left, their average tenure was 3.9 years — nearly a third less than existing VPs. Comparably, the VPs that are currently employed by Tesla hold an average tenure of 4.8 years.

Of the executives that have left since the start of 2017, only 4 had stayed at the company longer than 3 years, suggesting that their departures could have been related to culture clash (Chris Lattner) or a stepping stone to a C-Suite position at another company (Jon McNeill, Diarmuid O’Connell).

While it isn’t clear how exactly Tesla will be “restructured,” you can be certain that nearly all departures will be “high profile” as investors watch closely.

Full list of executives included in this analysis:

Active (23):

  • VP, Legal: Jonathan Chang
  • VP, Manufacturing: Gilbert Passin
  • VP, Materials Engineering: Charles Kuehmann
  • VP, Sales: John Walker
  • VP, Communications: Sarah O’Brien
  • VP, Gigafactory Operations and EPC: Kevin Kassekert
  • VP, Treasurer: Ron Klein
  • VP, Automation, Equipment and MES Engineering: Pablo Gonzalez
  • VP, Global Supply Chain: Sascha Zahnd
  • VP, Worldwide Service and Customer Experience: Karim Bousta
  • VP, Technology:  Drew Baglino
  • VP, Legal: Phil Rothenberg
  • VP, Engineering: Steve MacManus
  • VP of Engineering: Nick Kalayjian
  • VP of Engineering: Dr. Michael Schwekutsch
  • VP, Technology and Engineering: Nagesh Saldi
  • VP, Asia Pacific: Robin Ren
  • VP, US Energy Sales: Bryan Ellis
  • VP, Global Recruiting: Cindy Nicola
  • VP, Environment, Health, and Wellness: Laurie Shelby
  • VP, Worldwide Finance and Operations: Justin McAnear
  • VP: Ganesh Srivats
  • VP, Production: Peter Hochholdinger
  • VP, Gigafactory 1: Jens Peter Clausen
  • VP, Trucks and Programs: Jerome Guillen
  • VP, Powertrain Hardware Engineering: Jim Dunlay
  • VP, Global Supply Management at Tesla Motors: Liam O’Connor
  • VP of Vehicle Software, Services, and Diagnostics: David Lau
  • VP of Energy Sales and Operations: Cal Lankton
  • VP, Product Marketing: Elliott Summers

Executive Departures from 2017-current (8 VPs, 3 other Major Execs) :

  • VP, Finance and Corporate Treasurer: Susan Repo
  • VP, Investor Relations: Jeff Evanson
  • VP, Talent Acquisition & Analytics: Raj Dev
  • President, Global Sales, Marketing, Delivery, and Service: Jon McNeill
  • VP, Autopilot Hardware Engineering: Jim Keller
  • CFO, Jason Wheeler
  • CAO, Eric Branderiz
  • VP, Autopilot: Chris Lattner
  • VP, HR: Arnnon Geshuri
  • VP, HR: Mark Lipscomb
  • VP, Autopilot Vision David Nister

Disclaimer: This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Teslarati and its owners. Christian Prenzler does not have a position in Tesla Inc. or any of its competitors and does not have plans to do so in the next 30 days.

Christian Prenzler is currently the VP of Business Development at Teslarati, leading strategic partnerships, content development, email newsletters, and subscription programs. Additionally, Christian thoroughly enjoys investigating pivotal moments in the emerging mobility sector and sharing these stories with Teslarati's readers. He has been closely following and writing on Tesla and disruptive technology for over seven years. You can contact Christian here: christian@teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

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.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s new Roadster, upside down and trailing cold gas thruster smoke, flips over a lineup of Tesla vehicles at the Roadster unveiling near Waco, Texas on October 15, 2026. (Image: Tesla)
Tesla’s new Roadster, upside down and trailing cold gas thruster smoke, flips over a lineup of Tesla vehicles at the Roadster unveiling near Waco, Texas on October 15, 2026. (Image: Tesla)

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.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.”

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.”

Advertisement
-

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.

SpaceX pitches subscription model for Trump’s Golden Dome

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

By

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.

Advertisement
-

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.

Continue Reading