News
Tesla’s long road to maturity teaches a hard lesson for electric vehicle startups
Elon Musk may be prone to incredibly optimistic release estimates for Tesla’s products, but there is one aspect of the company that the CEO has been very realistic on — the challenges involved in mass production. Over the years, Elon Musk has highlighted this point. In the Q2 2021 earnings call alone, Musk reiterated these challenges when describing just how difficult it was to ramp the production of Tesla’s custom 4680 cells. “Limited production is easy, prototype production is easy but high-volume production is hard. There are a number of challenges in transitioning from sort of small-scale production to large volume production,” Musk said.
Tesla is now a mature electric vehicle company, but it has not always been that way. Before its eight consecutive profitable quarters, Tesla was fighting an uphill battle, coming close to ruin more than once. Today, Tesla is a strong automaker, weathering the issues brought about by the chip crisis admirably and securing $1 billion quarterly profit for the first time in Q2 2021. That’s not bad at all for an 18-year-old company competing in one of the most unforgiving segments in the market.
One thing that may be forgotten today is just how long the road was for Tesla before it was able to secure the stable ground that it stands on today. This long, arduous road, paved with several trips through “production hell,” would likely be faced by other electric car makers as well. This would likely be especially true for companies like Lucid, which entered the stock market even before it delivered its first car to consumers.
There is a trend now among electric vehicle makers. Unlike Tesla, which went public after delivering the original Roadster to customers, other EV makers have gone public through special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). This was the case for controversial hydrogen truck maker Nikola, which saw its stock climb rapidly before plummeting down as issues about its founder Trevor Milton emerged. Nikola is not alone in the SPAC trend, with companies like Lucid and Fisker also going public through SPACs.
As noted in a Bloomberg report, a good number of these EV makers have seen quite a bit of volatility. Nikola’s rapid rise and fall aside, companies like Faraday Future have exhibited volatility not long after they debuted on the Nasdaq. Faraday saw gains in its inaugural day of trading, for example, but the company saw a 23% drop over the next two sessions.
It’s almost expected now that new EV makers that enter the stock market through a SPAC would likely see notable gains and some steep losses. And now that they are publicly traded, management decisions and strategies would likely result in their respective stocks seeing some movement.
This was experienced by Lucid Motors. The SPAC that took Lucid public earlier this year saw dips in its stock after the EV maker postponed the initial production of its Air sedan, which CEO Peter Rawlinson explained was due to the pandemic. What is quite interesting is that Lucid is already one of the more prepared EV makers that are looking to follow Tesla into the mainstream auto segment, since it has a ready product and management that seems to have things in order.
Other EV makers that have gone public through SPACs, such as Nikola, Canoo, and Lordstown Motors, ended up experiencing management turmoil even before they went public. This means that many electric car companies, particularly those who may be entering the stock market through a SPAC, may very well have to learn a hard lesson about how difficult it is to transition from being a maker of EV prototypes to a mass manufacturer of electric cars that can stand beside Tesla in the mainstream auto market.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
-
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
