This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
Earlier this week, NTSB Chief Jennifer Homendy made some disparaging comments regarding Tesla’s use of “Full Self-Driving” to explain its semi-autonomous driving suite. The remarks from Homendy show that Tesla may not have a fair chance when it ultimately comes to proving the effectiveness of its FSD program, especially considering agency officials, who should remain impartial, are already making misdirected comments regarding the name of the suite.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Homendy commented on the company’s use of the phrase “Full Self-Driving.” While Tesla’s FSD suite is admittedly not capable of Level 5 autonomy, the idea for the program is to eventually roll out a fully autonomous driving program for those who choose to invest in the company’s software. However, instead of focusing on the program’s effectiveness and commending Tesla, arguably the leader in self-driving developments, Homendy concentrates on the terminology.
Homendy said Tesla’s use of the term “Full Self-Driving” was “misleading and irresponsible,” despite the company confirming with each driver who buys the capability that the program is not yet fully autonomous. Drivers are explicitly told to remain vigilant and keep their hands on the wheel at all times. It is a requirement to use Autopilot or FSD, and failure to do so can result in being locked in “Autopilot jail” for the duration of your trip. Nobody wants that.
However, despite the way some media outlets and others describe Tesla’s FSD program, the company’s semi-autonomous driving functionalities are extraordinarily safe and among the most complex on the market. Tesla is one of the few companies attempting to solve the riddle that is self-driving, and the only to my knowledge that has chosen not to use LiDAR in its efforts. Additionally, Tesla ditched radar just a few months ago in the Model Y and Model 3, meaning cameras are the only infrastructure the company plans to use to keep its cars moving. Several drivers have reported improvements due to the lack of radar.
These comments regarding FSD and Autopilot are simple: The terminology is not the focus; the facts are. The truth is, Tesla Autopilot recorded one of its safest quarters, according to the most recently released statistics that outlined an accident occurring on Autopilot just once every 4.19 million miles. The national average is 484,000 miles, the NHTSA says.
It isn’t to say that things don’t happen. Accidents on Autopilot and FSD do occur, and the NHTSA is currently probing twelve incidents that have shown Autopilot to be active during an accident. While the conditions and situations vary in each accident, several have already been proven to be the result of driver negligence, including a few that had drivers operating a vehicle without a license or under the influence of alcohol. Now, remind me: When a BMW driver is drunk and crashes into someone, do we blame BMW? I’ll let that rhetorical question sink in.
-
Of course, Homendy has a Constitutional right to say whatever is on her mind. It is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of self-driving systems. I’ll admit, the first time I experienced one, I was not a fan, but it wasn’t because I didn’t trust it. It was because I was familiar with controlling a vehicle and not having it manage things for me. However, just like anything else, I adjusted and got used to the idea, eventually becoming accustomed to the new feelings and sensations of having my car assist me in navigating to my destination.
To me, it is simply unfortunate for an NTSB official to claim that Tesla “has clearly misled numerous people to misuse and abuse technology.” One, because it isn’t possible, two, because it would be a massive liability for the company, and three, because Tesla has never maintained that its cars can drive themselves. Tesla has never claimed that its cars can drive themselves, nor has Tesla ever advised a driver to attempt a fully autonomous trek to a destination.
The numerous safety features and additions to the FSD suite have only solidified Tesla’s position as one of the safest car companies out there. With in-cabin cameras to test driver attentiveness and numerous other safety thresholds that drivers must respond to with the correct behaviors, Tesla’s FSD suite and its Autopilot program are among the safest around. It isn’t favorable for NTSB head Homendy to comment in this way, especially as it seems to be detrimental to not only Tesla’s attempts to achieve Level 5 autonomy but the entire self-driving effort as a whole.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
-Joey
-
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
