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
Tesla Full Self-Driving statistic impresses Wall Street firm: ‘Very close to unsupervised’
The data shows there was a significant jump in miles traveled between interventions as Tesla transitioned drivers to v14.1 back in October. The FSD Community Tracker saw a jump from 441 miles to over 9,200 miles, the most significant improvement in four years.
Tesla Full Self-Driving performance and statistics continue to impress everyone, from retail investors to Wall Street firms. However, one analyst believes Tesla’s driving suite is “very close” to achieving unsupervised self-driving.
On Tuesday, Piper Sandler analyst Alexander Potter said that Tesla’s recent launch of Full Self-Driving version 14 increased the number of miles traveled between interventions by a drastic margin, based on data compiled by a Full Self-Driving Community Tracker.
🚨 Piper Sandler reiterated its Overweight rating and $500 PT on Tesla $TSLA stock
Analyst Alexander Potter said FSD is near full autonomy and latest versions showed the largest improvement in disengagements, from 440 miles to 9,200 miles between critical interventions pic.twitter.com/u4WCLfZcA9
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) December 9, 2025
The data shows there was a significant jump in miles traveled between interventions as Tesla transitioned drivers to v14.1 back in October. The FSD Community Tracker saw a jump from 441 miles to over 9,200 miles, the most significant improvement in four years.
Interestingly, there was a slight dip in the miles traveled between interventions with the release of v14.2. Piper Sandler said investor interest in FSD has increased.
Full Self-Driving has displayed several improvements with v14, including the introduction of Arrival Options that allow specific parking situations to be chosen by the driver prior to arriving at the destination. Owners can choose from Street Parking, Parking Garages, Parking Lots, Chargers, and Driveways.
Additionally, the overall improvements in performance from v13 have been evident through smoother operation, fewer mistakes during routine operation, and a more refined decision-making process.
Early versions of v14 exhibited stuttering and brake stabbing, but Tesla did a great job of confronting the issue and eliminating it altogether with the release of v14.2.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk also recently stated that the current v14.2 FSD suite is also less restrictive with drivers looking at their phones, which has caused some controversy within the community.
Although we tested it and found there were fewer nudges by the driver monitoring system to push eyes back to the road, we still would not recommend it due to laws and regulations.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.2.1 texting and driving: we tested it
With that being said, FSD is improving significantly with each larger rollout, and Musk believes the final piece of the puzzle will be unveiled with FSD v14.3, which could come later this year or early in 2026.
Piper Sandler reaffirmed its $500 price target on Tesla shares, as well as its ‘Overweight’ rating.
Tesla received a price target boost from Morgan Stanley, according to a new note on Monday morning, but there is some considerable caution also being communicated over the next year or so.
Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco took over Tesla coverage for the firm from longtime bull Adam Jonas, who appears to be focusing on embodied AI stocks and no longer automotive.
Percoco took over and immediately adjusted the price target for Tesla from $410 to $425, and changed its rating on shares from ‘Overweight’ to ‘Equal Weight.’
Percoco said he believes Tesla is the leading company in terms of electric vehicles, manufacturing, renewable energy, and real-world AI, so it deserves a premium valuation. However, he admits the high expectations for the company could provide for a “choppy trading environment” for the next year.
He wrote:
“However, high expectations on the latter have brought the stock closer to fair valuation. While it is well understood that Tesla is more than an auto manufacturer, we expect a choppy trading environment for the TSLA shares over the next 12 months, as we see downside to estimates, while the catalysts for its non-auto businesses appear priced at current levels.”
Percoco also added that if market cap hurdles are achieved, Morgan Stanley would reduce its price target by 7 percent.
Perhaps the biggest change with Percoco taking over the analysis for Jonas is how he will determine the value of each individual project. For example, he believes Optimus is worth about $60 per share of equity value.
He went on to describe the potential value of Full Self-Driving, highlighting its importance to the Tesla valuation:
“Full Self Driving (FSD) is the crown jewel of Tesla’s auto business; we believe that its leading-edge personal autonomous driving offering is a real game changer, and will remain a significant competitive advantage over its EV and non-EV peers. As Tesla continues to improve its platform with increased levels of autonomy (i.e., hands-off, eyes-off), it will revolutionize the personal driving experience. It remains to be seen if others will be able to keep pace.”
Additionally, Percoco outlined both bear and bull cases for the stock. He believes $860 per share, “which could be in play in the next 12 months if Tesla manages through the EV-downturn,” while also scaling Robotaxi, executing on unsupervised FSD, and scaling Optimus, is in play for the bull case.
Will Tesla thrive without the EV tax credit? Five reasons why they might
Meanwhile, the bear case is placed at $145 per share, and “assumes greater competition and margin pressure across all business lines, embedding zero value for humanoids, slowing the growth curve for Tesla’s robotaxi fleet to reflect regulatory challenges in scaling a vision-only perception stack, and lowering market share and margin profile for the autos and energy businesses.”
Currently, Tesla shares are trading at around $441.
Tesla bear Michael Burry got blunt with his beliefs over the company’s valuation, which he called “ridiculously overvalued” in a newsletter to subscribers this past weekend.
“Tesla’s market capitalization is ridiculously overvalued today and has been for a good long time,” Burry, who was the inspiration for the movie The Big Short, and was portrayed by Christian Bale.
Burry went on to say, “As an aside, the Elon cult was all-in on electric cars until competition showed up, then all-in on autonomous driving until competition showed up, and now is all-in on robots — until competition shows up.”
Tesla bear Michael Burry ditches bet against $TSLA, says ‘media inflated’ the situation
For a long time, Burry has been skeptical of Tesla, its stock, and its CEO, Elon Musk, even placing a $530 million bet against shares several years ago. Eventually, Burry’s short position extended to other supporters of the company, including ARK Invest.
Tesla has long drawn skepticism from investors and more traditional analysts, who believe its valuation is overblown. However, the company is not traded as a traditional stock, something that other Wall Street firms have recognized.
While many believe the company has some serious pull as an automaker, an identity that helped it reach the valuation it has, Tesla has more than transformed into a robotics, AI, and self-driving play, pulling itself into the realm of some of the most recognizable stocks in tech.
Burry’s Scion Asset Management has put its money where its mouth is against Tesla stock on several occasions, but the firm has not yielded positive results, as shares have increased in value since 2020 by over 115 percent. The firm closed in May.
In 2020, it launched its short position, but by October 2021, it had ditched that position.
Tesla has had a tumultuous year on Wall Street, dipping significantly to around the $220 mark at one point. However, it rebounded significantly in September, climbing back up to the $400 region, as it currently trades at around $430.
It closed at $430.14 on Monday.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirms Robotaxi safety monitor removal in Austin: here’s when
SpaceX reportedly mulling IPO, eyeing largest of all time: report
