Investor's Corner
Tesla Model 3 headlights gain the IIHS’ elusive ‘Good’ rating after design update
Earlier this year, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing the number of accidents and injuries on the road, awarded the Tesla Model 3’s headlights with an “Acceptable” rating. While the IIHS’ tests gave a “Superior” rating for the vehicle’s front crash avoidance features then, the safety organization only listed the vehicle’s headlights as “Acceptable,” due to glaring issues from the Model 3’s low beams.
In a recent Twitter announcement, though, the IIHS noted that the Tesla Model 3 now earns a “Good” rating for its standard LED reflector headlights. The IIHS stated that the vehicle’s improved, updated score reflects the headlights of Model 3 that were produced after June 2018, a time when Tesla was starting to hit its stride with the production of the electric sedan.
The IIHS’ updated results could be seen in the Model 3’s page on the nonprofit’s website. So far, though, the IIHS has not released the Model 3’s official full safety ratings, which include metrics such as “Roof Strength” and “LATCH ease of use.”
That said, the Model 3’s “Good” rating for its headlights says a lot about Tesla’s focus on designing an incredibly safe electric car. The IIHS, after all, utilizes one of the strictest metrics for testing headlights. The headlights of the Tesla Model S, for one, were given a “Poor” rating by the IIHS. The Chevy Bolt EV’s headlights, which are incredibly bright, were also rated as “Poor.”
The IIHS evaluates headlights based on the lamps’ reach as the vehicle travels on straight and curved lines. Low beams are measured on five approaches — straightaways, left and right curves on an 800-foot radius, and sharp left and right curves on a 500-foot radius. The IIHS weighs low beams more heavily than high beams since they are used more often when driving. During the Model 3’s initial tests earlier this year, the vehicle’s low beams exhibited a 15.2% glare during straightways, preventing the Model 3 from earning the IIHS’ “Good” rating. As noted by the IIHS, this particular issue was addressed in Model 3 produced after Q2 2018.
The updated score of the Model 3’s headlights highlights Tesla’s unique tendency to update its vehicles as soon as improvements are available. This was pointed out by Elon Musk on Twitter, when he stated that when it comes to Tesla’s electric cars, there is “no such thing as a full refresh” since all vehicles are “partially upgraded every month as soon as a new subsystem is ready for production.” This practice was also mentioned by Tesla President of Automotive Jerome Guillen in an interview with CNBC, when he noted that the company’s technology is always in a process of evolution.
The 2018 Tesla Model 3 now earns a good rating for its standard LED reflector headlights for models built after June 2018. Previous models earn an acceptable rating. https://t.co/EUWXFLBnkm pic.twitter.com/TOctSTGaAl
— IIHS (@IIHS_autosafety) December 26, 2018
-
In a statement to CNET, IIHS senior vice president for communications Russ Rader explained the organization’s focus on headlights as a metric for vehicle safety. Rader also noted that headlights must be seen not just as a decorative component of a vehicle. Instead, they should be perceived as safety equipment.
“When one vehicle’s low beams only illuminate the right side of a straightaway for 148 feet, and another vehicle’s low beams allow a driver to see more than twice as far, there’s a problem. IIHS has incorporated headlight performance into our Top Safety Pick awards. We’re already seeing manufacturers make improvements, especially tightening up aim at the factory. Headlights shouldn’t just be about what looks cool. They’re important safety equipment. When they perform well, they can help drivers spot trouble sooner and avoid a crash.”
Apart from the IIHS, the Model 3 is also gaining accolades from other safety organizations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), for one, has given the Model 3 a flawless 5-Star Safety Rating. The organization tested the Model 3 on frontal crash, side crash, and rollover safety; and in all categories and subcategories, the electric car displayed a level of industry-leading driver and passenger safety. As highlighted by Tesla in a following blog post, the scores of the Model 3 from the NHTSA’s tests place the electric car as the vehicle with the “lowest probability of injury” among all cars tested by the NHTSA to date.
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.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
-
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
