Investor's Corner
Tesla under scrutiny by the SEC for failing to disclose fatal crash
Last week’s full blown spat between renown publication Fortune and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who hotly denied that the information about the death of Model S owner Joshua Brown on May 7 was in any way material to the company’s $2 billion stock sale, has reportedly prompted the SEC to investigate.
A person familiar with the matter says the inquiry is in a very early stage and may not lead to any enforcement action by regulators. “Tesla has not received any communication from the SEC regarding this issue,” a Tesla spokeswoman said. “Our blog post last week provided the relevant information about this issue.”
“The damage sustained by the Model S in the crash limited Tesla’s ability to recover data from it remotely,” a company spokesman said according to a report published by the Wall Street Journal. “During the last week of May, Tesla was able to finish its review of the logs and complete its investigation. The financing round had already taken place by that time.”
Tesla has said in previous securities filings that a successful liability claim associated with its technology, including the Autopilot feature, could harm the company’s financial condition. In its most recent quarterly report, the company said such a claim “could generate substantial negative publicity about our products and business and would have material adverse effect on our brand, business, prospects and operating results.” Tesla says the report contained “boilerplate language” that was “stating the obvious” and “had no bearing” on the fatal crash that took the life of Brown.
Experts in securities law say there is no clearly defined standard for whether the May 7 accident was “material” enough to require disclosure by the company. Adam Pritchard, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former SEC attorney, said he is “very skeptical” a court would find Tesla’s failure to disclose information about the fatal crash to be a breach of the law. He agreed with Musk that the fact Tesla’s stock price regained its value later the same day is “fairly persuasive evidence that it was not material.” He added, “This is development stage technology. There are going to be wrinkles along the way.”
Erik Gerding, a law professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said he believes the disclosure issue presented a “tough judgment call” for Tesla executives. “The conservative approach is just to disclose it,” he said, adding that the information could be material if it engenders skepticism about Tesla cars.
The Wall Street Journal indicates that vehicle manufacturers usually don’t disclose traffic fatalities involving their products to investors. With over 35,000 deaths in motor vehicle accidents in America every year, that would amount to over 100 disclosures a day. The difference, of course, is that this matter involves Tesla Motors and new technology. The WSJ says, “Investors have flocked to Tesla shares in part amid conviction the company is on the technological cutting edge and poised to leap ahead of more traditional auto makers.”
Even if that is true, no one has ever suggested that Autopilot would eliminate fatalities completely. Any investor who buys shares in Tesla thinking no deaths or injuries will ever occur is foolish. The fact that the SEC has begun an investigation is news, but the likelihood that any violation of securities law will be found is remote.
The unfortunate accident in which Brown was killed was the first death while Autopilot was in use and it will not be the last. Should Tesla notify the investment community every time a person is injured or killed in a Tesla automobile? The suggestion seems absurd on its face.
Investor's Corner
NASA taps SpaceX to launch the telescope that could unlock new worlds
NASA’s Roman Space Telescope heads to orbit this August aboard SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with massive scientific ambitions.
SpaceX is set to play a central role in one of NASA’s most anticipated science missions in years. The company’s Falcon Heavy rocket, currently the most powerful operational launch vehicle in the world, will carry the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope into orbit on August 30 from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Roman is now in final preparations inside the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility, where on June 26 technicians used a crane to lift the observatory into a specialized stand for fueling and pre-launch testing.
Roman is named after Nancy Grace Roman, NASA’s first chief of astronomy, whose career helped shape how the agency approaches space science.
NASA chose SpaceX Falcon Heavy because of Roman’s needs to reach a specific orbit far from Earth, well beyond where a standard Falcon 9 can deliver it. The Falcon Heavy, which first flew in 2018, has since become NASA’s go-to option for missions that need serious muscle without the cost and complexity of older launch systems.
Celebrating SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Tesla Roadster launch, seven years later (Op-Ed)
Roman will carry a field of view at least 100 times wider than the Hubble Space Telescope, meaning it can photograph enormous swaths of the universe in a single shot rather than the narrow slices Hubble captures. That difference in scale is significant. While Hubble reshaped our understanding of the cosmos over 30 years, Roman is built to work faster and wider, surveying hundreds of millions of galaxies at once.
One of Roman’s most compelling capabilities is its potential to discover and photograph planets orbiting stars outside our solar system, and with enough precision to directly image planets that would otherwise be lost. That means scientists could study the atmosphere and surface characteristics of distant worlds rather than simply confirming they exist. Combined with Roman’s sweeping field of view, the telescope could detect thousands of exoplanets, and some of those planets may be in habitable zones where liquid water could exist. No telescope currently in operation has this level of power and capability. That capability alone could change what we know about other worlds, and perhaps finally answer the question: are we the only intelligent lifeforms in existence?
What Roman actually finds once it reaches orbit is an open question, and that is exactly what makes this launch worth watching.
Elon Musk
California snubs Tesla in its newly passed EV incentive that favors Rivian and Lucid
California passed a $135 million EV incentive that rewards Rivian and Lucid while sidelining Tesla
California just drew a line in the EV incentive sand to put Tesla on the wrong side of it. The state recently passed a $135 million program offering first-time electric vehicle buyers a direct incentive with no application required, but the rules were written in a way that leaves Tesla at a structural disadvantage compared to Rivian and Lucid.
The program caps eligible vehicles at $50,000 for new EVs and $25,000 for used ones. That pricing threshold rules out a significant portion of Tesla’s lineup, though some lower-priced Model 3 and Model Y configurations would still qualify. California-based automakers are exempt from the price cap entirely, regardless of what their vehicles cost. Rivian, headquartered in Irvine, and Lucid, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, both benefit from that exemption. Rivian’s R2 starts at roughly $45,000 but has versions above the cap. Lucid’s Air and Gravity start at $70,990 and $79,990 respectively, well above any threshold a non-California company would face.
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
Tesla built its reputation and a significant portion of its early market share in California, where EV adoption has consistently led the nation. The company operates its original factory in Fremont, California, and the state was home to Tesla’s headquarters for most of its existence. That changed in 2021 when Tesla moved its corporate headquarters to Austin, Texas. Since then, the relationship between the company and California Governor Gavin Newsom has been openly adversarial, with Musk and Newsom trading public criticism on multiple occasions.
California’s EV incentive landscape has shifted repeatedly in recent years, and Tesla has previously lost eligibility for state-level programs as its vehicles exceeded income-adjusted price thresholds. The federal $7,500 EV tax credit, which Tesla models have qualified for and lost depending on policy cycles, is no longer available after it expired without renewal, making state-level programs more meaningful to buyers than they have been in years.
The practical impact for buyers is more nuanced than the headline suggests. California residents purchasing a Tesla under $50,000 for the first time can still access the incentive. But the exemption written for California-based manufacturers is a structural advantage that rewards where a company plants its headquarters flag rather than where it builds its products, and Tesla moved that flag to Texas.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest logo confirms everything about what it’s become
SpaceX officially absorbed xAI under the SpaceXAI brand, completing the largest private merger in history.
SpaceX made its corporate transformation official in May 2026 when Elon Musk posted on X that xAI would cease to exist as a standalone company. “xAI will be dissolved as a separate company, so it will just be SpaceXAI, the AI products from SpaceX,” he wrote.
A new SpaceXAI logo was announced today, visually embedding the xAI letters inside the SpaceX identity, which can be seen as a deliberate design choice that signals the merger is not a partnership but a full absorption and XAi a core function of the same company. The same way Starlink is not a separate brand but a SpaceX product. The announcement closed the loop on a process that began February 2, 2026, when SpaceX acquired xAI in the largest private merger in history, valued at $1.25 trillion. SpaceX at $1 trillion and xAI at $250 billion.
We are now @SpaceXAI. pic.twitter.com/ema66xDWC9
— SpaceXAI (@SpaceXAI) July 6, 2026
The reason SpaceX bought xAI was stated plainly by Musk at the time of the deal: to build orbital data centers. SpaceX had simultaneously filed with the FCC to launch up to one million satellites designed to function as AI compute nodes in low Earth orbit, escaping what Musk described as the energy constraints limiting AI development on Earth.
xAI provided the AI software stack, with Grok, the X platform, and the Colossus supercomputer infrastructure in Memphis with over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs, while SpaceX provided the rockets, Starlink, and the capital base to fund it. The two companies needed each other. xAI was burning $2.5 billion in losses on $250 million in revenue. SpaceX was generating an estimated $8 billion in profit on $15 billion in revenue and needed an AI narrative to command the valuation it was targeting for its IPO.
What SpaceX has done, regardless of how the orbital AI vision ultimately plays out, is walk into a public market as something no company has been before: a rocket manufacturer, satellite internet provider, AI software company, social media platform, and supercomputer operator under one ticker. Whether that combination is worth $2 trillion depends entirely on which of those businesses you believe in most.
NASA taps SpaceX to launch the telescope that could unlock new worlds
Tesla confirms crucial detail of Miami Robotaxi launch
