Investor's Corner
Tesla Motors is More Like NASA than GM
5, 4, 3, 2, 1, We Have Liftoff
I never get too excited or depressed about Tesla’s stock price. Stock analysts worry, and a lot. I can’t imagine how they ever sleep at night knowing that during those hours they are completely off the influence grid. Because Tesla went public it made a new bed and as a consequence, has at least two major challenges it must constantly consider.
- Build a new kind of personal transportation that must compete with a 100+ year old industrial age vertical
- Fund itself through a traditional stock market model while not making what that model values as part of their mission
Disclaimer: I own a modest number of Tesla shares and have for years, but it’s not my retirement plan and never will be. For me the primary investment is the Mission of Tesla, which for now means the Model S. I’ve owned one since June 2013.
The idea that someone would have the courage (and smarts) to start a car company from scratch and be able to differentiate it from all other automakers, as well as their products in every way, was extremely attractive to me. Others have tried, Tucker, DeLorean, but they were trying to compete with essentially the same formula. That rarely works out. In this case we have disruption and not the bullying kind which is what we often see in tech sector firms.
Car Guys are Wired that Way
I was nearly born in a car. My mother used to regale me with the story of how she just barely made it to the hospital. Five more minutes and I would have emerged while in the back seat of a 1954 Chevrolet Delray. Growing up I was surrounded by relatives who raced cars, worked on automobile, both personal and commercial, and sold them to the public. I remember sitting in my Uncle’s Chevrolet sales room in Ohio while we were visiting one summer and seeing a sign that read, “A new Chevrolet is sold every minute.” Gasoline and oil ran through my veins and I inhaled more carbon monoxide helping my dad in the garage than was probably good for me. For the record, here’s a list of all the cars my father owned. I think it was all of them. The year column indicates when the car was manufactured, not when he purchased it.
[Image source: ModelScoil.com]
Yes, there’s a very big gap between 1969 and 1982. Completely unexplained. Maybe we both failed to make entries in the diary. Never mind, it’s more fun to call “slacker.” We lost my father to cancer in 1992. He would have been proud to say he preceded his latest car in death by a full year. I frequently imagine what it would be like to pull up in his driveway with my Model S and take him for a ride.
As you can see, my father’s list is heavily weighted toward U.S. carmakers, especially GeneralMotors.The recent stories about how GM covered up defective parts for decades was disturbing to me as someone who rode in, drove and owned them as an adult. The last time I owned a GM car was 1989. I switched because I couldn’t afford to pay the maintenance fees.
Mission Control, We are Go for Launch
When President John F. Kennedy challenged America to “land a man on the moon and return him safely” in 1961, it was the catalyst for a series of missions meticulously planned and executed by NASA. Most had doubts we could do it successfully. The ones who believed worked at NASA. They developed a phased approach with three programs; Mercury, Gemini and Apollo. Mercury set out to successfully orbit the earth, study the ability to operate in space and recover both the astronaut and his craft. Gemini’s role was to study the effects of long term space missions on astronauts, perfect re-entry procedures and give astronauts extended practice time in a weightless environment. Once these were accomplished, the third program could begin. Apollo was about landing a man on the moon and returning him safely. I was enthralled with the space program growing up. I held my breath at every launch, was glued to the television for each mission and wondered what would come next.
Palo Alto, We May Have a Problem
Tesla is on a similar path. They started with the Roadster as a commercial prototype that would tell them lots about the viability of an electric car. From that came the Model S, an amazing form of Personal Transportation that won Motor Trend’s Car of the Year in 2013 and was rated the safest automobile ever built in tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the same year. I view the forthcoming Model X, a SUV version of the Model S, together as a stepping stone to the third stage; the Model III. A smaller, much more affordable car within reach of a large number of U.S. households. Assuming they can progress, the Model E will bring them closer to accomplishing the Tesla mission:
To accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.
The cost of the three NASA programs is hard to pin down, but many sources say that Mercury cost about cost $277 million in 1965 dollars, Gemini cost $1.3 Billion in 1967 dollars and Apollo $20.4 Billion in 1970 dollars. Obviously these number increase greatly when you convert them to today’s dollars. These missions were a stunning achievement and brought innovative technology to the private sector in numerous ways. In other words, we all gained benefit from these programs.
The point of quoting the cost figures is to bring perspective into the discussion. Today’s dollars always appear small when we look back a decade or two. The difference in these programs is that NASA was appropriated the funds from Congress, Tesla must navigate the murky waters of being a public company.
Elon Musk’s release of all of Tesla’s patents was a courageous move. He realizes that no single car company can deliver enough electric vehicles to make a real difference in the planet’s climate. The intellectual property is out there. Others can choose to assist or ignore.
BMW and Chevrolet have purchased, taken apart and reassembled the Model S in their war rooms. Why? Most likely to see how they can defeat Tesla. It’s a competitive game after all, including how Tesla sells its cars. A combined mission here, like the one NASA mounted would be an amazing feat of American collaborative engineering on a level never before achieved, this time on ground vehicles. Automakers coming together, including Tesla, could bring about a change much faster than we could even imagine. I know I’m describing a fantasy in the world of stocks and profits.
Can Tesla really do it? Well, they landed the real estate for the Gigafactory. A great start. I believe it can be done and am pulling for them to succeed. Actually more than pulling for them. I drive the car and and am an ambassador for the brand everyday. I wish them success, not just to disrupt, but to innovate on a grand scale. To change history. A chance like that doesn’t come along all that often.
Image Credits: NASA, Tesla Motors, ModelScoil.com
Originally posted on ModelScoil
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.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk gives his most telling Tesla-SpaceX merger conversation yet
Elon Musk hinted a Tesla-SpaceX merger could be coming, and Wall Street is taking notice.
Elon Musk gave his clearest signal yet that Tesla and SpaceX could eventually combine, telling the All-In Summit in Los Angeles that the two companies’ deepening collaboration makes the question worth asking. Sawyer Merritt first surfaced the highlight on X Tuesday.
Asked directly why Tesla and SpaceX remain separate given how closely they already work together, Musk told hosts at the summit: “Great question there. With all this collaboration, on so many levels, who can imagine what action one might take when there’s so much close collaboration in so many areas.” SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, who joined Musk on stage, added that SpaceX personnel have already moved into xAI to fill leadership and engineering gaps, saying the businesses are integrating “faster than I thought,” though “not fully integrated yet,”
The comments landed on top of merger speculation that has been building on Wall Street for months. JPMorgan has called a tie-up “strategically coherent on paper,” pointing to overlapping ambitions in AI, robotics, energy, transportation and space. Jefferies went further, estimating Musk could retain roughly 55.3 percent voting control in a deal structured without a premium, a scenario that would still leave room for Tesla shareholders to come out ahead. On Kalshi, traders now put the odds of a merger before 2028 at 66 percent.
Tesla’s stake in SpaceX, still under one percent, traces back to its earlier investment in xAI, which converted to SpaceX equity after SpaceX absorbed the AI company. The two are also jointly building Terafab, a chip facility in Austin meant to serve both Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s satellite ambitions. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives has stood by a 2027 merger timeline for months, and Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest recently floated a similar case, an idea Musk pushed back on directly at the time.
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
The timing adds another layer. Tesla has scheduled an October 1 unveiling for its next generation Roadster at a venue near SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas test site, using the phrase “Go for launch” in its promotional material. Both stocks dipped roughly 2 percent Monday before recovering slightly in premarket trading Tuesday, with SpaceX shares up about 0.4 percent and Tesla essentially flat.
Musk stopped short of confirming anything is in motion. But unlike his past denials of a corporate restructuring, this response didn’t rule one out, and it came with Shotwell sitting next to him describing an integration that’s already underway.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
