Investor's Corner
Tesla’s Autopilot probe worries Morgan Stanley with ‘reputational risks’
The recently launched Tesla Autopilot probe by the NHTSA is said to be a greater threat to the automaker’s reputation than its financial situation, according to a new note from Morgan Stanley. Headed by analyst Adam Jonas, the note outlines the potential risks that Tesla could face with the probe, which intends to investigate 11 instances of Autopilot-equipped cars crashing into emergency vehicles, according to the documents.
The note outlines four potential risk factors that Tesla could face in a long and drawn-out battle to clear its name of any wrongdoing. In the initial years of autonomous driving development, nearly any instance of a vehicle being involved in an accident has increased skepticism over the potential of future self-driving cars. While Tesla Autopilot only operates on Level 2 autonomy, with Level 5 being a fully operational self-driving machine, the company admittedly states that drivers should still remain alert while the vehicle is in operation, never taking their eyes off the road.
However, this is not the instance for every driver. While Autopilot vehicles from Tesla were involved in accidents on a significantly less-frequent occasion than the national average based on NHTSA statistics, Tesla vehicles involved in accidents seem to catch more media attention than any other instance on the road. After all, we don’t hear about every Chevy Malibu or Ford F-150 crash that occurs, but the false narrative that Teslas drive themselves still floats around in the form of catchy headlines or misleading articles.
The chance for reputational risks is one of the most notable points of the Morgan Stanley note and is the point that the analysts expand on the most. “Vehicle safety actions and recalls (both voluntary and involuntary) are a fact of life in the auto industry, despite cars achieving greater capability and quality over time. While we are not making any changes to our Tesla model and price target at this time, the NHTSA serves as a reminder to investors about the importance of vehicle safety as we turn over greater portions of driving to software in a network,” the note said.
A Tesla Model 3 on Autopilot. [Credit: LivingTesla/YouTube]
Of course, semi-autonomous vehicles, and autonomy in general for automotive, is a young and relatively new feature in the world of cars. There are bound to be mistakes and incidents just as there were with early vehicles. Accidents happen, but the early adopters of motor vehicles did not give up on the task of making them better and safer, and that’s precisely what will happen as more companies take a crack at the potential autonomous driving sector.
“The regulatory, legal, and moral/ethical nuances are difficult, if not impossible, to model. As human driving transitions to computer driving, accident frequency is expected to decline by 90% or more (some experts insist accident frequency must ultimately fall by greater than 99.9%). At the same time, accident ‘fault’ transitions from someone to something,” the note also states. “Just our view, but there is no moral equivalency between a ‘human-caused’ traffic fatality and a ‘system-caused’ traffic fatality. Over time, we believe the industry should be in position to provide vehicle data for 3rd party validation to prove the significant societal/health and safety benefits of autonomy.
Morgan Stanley on the NHTSA probe ??$TSLA pic.twitter.com/wF9r2fuMsq
— David Tayar (@davidtayar5) August 18, 2021
As noted yesterday in an interview with former Ford CEO Mark Fields, the NHTSA study into Tesla could take up to 18 months. Morgan Stanley reiterates this point in its note, especially with Autopilot’s “high profile nature.” Unfortunately, Tesla’s flashy name and mainstream personality as an automaker, especially a revolutionary one, has put them at center stage for this kind of attention. Those with a reasonable platform may not understand all of the functionalities or safety precautions of Autopilot’s nature. Still, unfortunately, many of the accidents are being described as the software’s fault, although many of the instances are actually driver errors.
At the time of writing, TSLA stock was trading at $689.79, up over 3.6%.
Disclosure: Joey Klender is a TSLA Shareholder.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.