Investor's Corner
The Tesla Killer’s death and Elon Musk’s long-term play on batteries, vertical integration
At a press conference last year at Volkswagen’s global headquarters in Wolfsburg, Germany, VW Chairman of the Board Herbert Diess stated that “anything that Tesla can do, we can surpass.” The VW boss even noted that its dedicated MEB electric car architecture would give the company cost advantages at a scale that’s out of Tesla’s reach.
This year, the Tesla Model 3 is steadily making its presence known in the United States auto market. In September alone, the Model 3 was listed as the 4th best-selling passenger car in the US, beating the ubiquitous Toyota Corolla Family. Tesla also finished Q3 on a strong note, manufacturing a total of 80,142 electric cars including 53,239 Model 3, as well as delivering a total of 83,500 vehicles, comprised of 55,840 Model 3, 14,470 Model S, and 13,190 Model X. This Q4, Tesla seems poised to deliver and produce an even more impressive number of vehicles.
For years, Tesla skeptics have pointed at upcoming competition from legacy automakers as a reason for the impending fall of the electric car maker. Just like Herbert Diess, many of Tesla’s critics pointed out that legacy auto’s years of experience, as well as their network of factories, should allow them to leapfrog Tesla in the electric car market as soon as they decide to enter the electric car market.
As companies like Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Jaguar, and Porsche are learning today, though, it is not so simple to build a compelling electric car that’s capable of challenging Tesla’s premium vehicles in their respective segments. Mercedes-Benz, for one, has announced that the EQC — its plush competitor for the Model X — will adopt a gradual rollout due to possible warranty concerns over the vehicle’s battery and other electric car components. German news agency Bild am Sonntag recently noted that the Audi e-tron would be released later than expected as well, due to a software issue and ongoing discussions with its battery provider, LG Chem, which is allegedly adjusting the price of the vehicle’s batteries.
Even legacy carmakers that seem to be fully embracing the transition to electrified transport seem to be learning a lesson in designing and producing electric cars. Jaguar, for one, recently confirmed that the I-PACE has a range of 234 miles per charge, lower than the company’s initial estimates for the vehicle. Porsche, on the other hand, is preparing to build the Taycan, but even workers at its plant in Stuttgart, Germany have to pitch in to make the car a reality. Porsche head of production Albrecht Reimold, for one, noted that employees at the Taycan’s upcoming factory would not have regular salary increases for the next few years as the Taycan’s factory gets constructed.
With legacy automakers revealing their highly-anticipated Tesla competitors, and with each company running into challenges of their own, analysts are starting to retire myth of the “Tesla Killer.” Last month, Toni Sacconaghi of Bernstein, a known skeptic of the electric car maker, stated that the Model 3 faces “no credible competition” from legacy auto until at least 2020. More recently, Berenberg analyst Alexander Haissl reiterated a Buy rating on TSLA stock with a $500 price target, stating that fears over competition from legacy automakers are overblown. Haissl further noted that Tesla’s driving ranges and vehicle efficiencies are well ahead of the competition.
Perhaps the most notable death knell on the Tesla Killer myth came from known TSLA short-seller-turned-long Andrew Left of Citron Research; who pointed out that “there is NO Tesla killer. Competition is nowhere to be found, and no electric vehicle is slated to launch at the Model 3 price point until 2021.”
Ultimately, Tesla’s prominent lead in the electric car market is the culmination of Elon Musk’s long-term play on electric car batteries and the company’s vertical integration. Since Tesla is producing its own battery cells from Panasonic’s lines in Gigafactory 1, the company is saving itself from any of the issues currently being faced by Audi as it struggles to reach a deal with LG Chem for the e-tron’s batteries, or Mercedes-Benz as it deals with uncertainties over the EQC’s battery warranty. The deep integration of Tesla’s hardware and software also creates a unified user experience that is not unlike Apple, allowing the company’s electric cars to perform at their best and preventing issues such as those being faced by Jaguar with regards to the I-PACE’s apparent inefficiency.
The death of the Tesla Killer and the improvements in Tesla’s Model 3 ramp, together with the announcement that the Q3 2018 earnings call would happen on Wednesday, appear to have improved investor sentiment for the company’s stock. On Tuesday, Tesla stock (NASDAQ:TSLA) rose $33.19, ending the day at $294.14, up 12.72% from Monday’s close.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
