News
Tesla Stock Soars 16+% in 1 Day
Tesla’s Model S sedan is red hot.
By Silicon Valley standards, 10-year-old Tesla Motors is middle-aged. But in the world of automotive startups, it’s just crossed a threshold few fledgling companies ever get near: profitability. Late last night California time — in time to make it clear this was no April Fools joke — the company announced it has delivered 4750 cars in the first quarter and expected to report an accounting profit when it announces its official results next month. While the company’s vehicles lack engines, in the past 6 months, it’s begun to hit on all cylinders:
- Shipments of the Model S sedan begin late last year with 2400 delivered in the fourth quarter. The company nearly doubled that in the next 3 months.
- Tesla launched its high-speed “Supercharger” charging stations, which allow recharging half the battery pack in about 30 minutes. Last week, it announced plans to expand the network in the Pacific northwest, Texas, Illinois, and Florida, while improving coverage in the initial regions in the northeast and California.
- The company announced a plan to pay back its Department of Energy loan 5 years ahead of schedule, by the end of 2017. This $465 million loan, part of the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, was essential to the launch of the Model S and came at a time when Tesla’s future was very much in doubt.
Today, though, that future looks bright enough that the naysayers holding more than 30 million shares short may be wishing they were betting against something else. CEO Elon Musk mentioned on Twitter last week that he had a big announcement to make regarding Tesla (due tomorrow) and clarified last night that this isn’t it: “Also, some may differ, but imo the Tues news is arguably more important,” he wrote. Depending on the nature of that, I may be back with another post.
There was some more interesting news in yesterday’s press release on profitability. The company canceled an option to buy the Model S with the smallest battery, a version that retailed for just around $52,000 after the federal tax credit. Why? Lack of demand. It seems only 4% of buyers were opting for that smallest configuration. They’ll still get it, but instead of producing a battery that small, Tesla will sell them a car with the mid-sized battery and disable part of the capacity in software. If owners — present or future — wish to upgrade to the larger capacity, Tesla will allow them to purchase some software magic to make it happen. The mid-sized battery offers a range of just over 200 miles per the EPA and the smallest battery has about 2/3 the capacity. Given there was a $10,000 gap between the two, it’s noteworthy that people were rejecting the smallest battery so clearly.
This points out the radically different approach Tesla is taking versus Nissan with the Leaf and really everyone else building electric vehicles right now. The two sizes of Tesla people are choosing are 200+ mile vehicle while the other brands are sold as 70-80 mile commuter vehicles. Apparently, a “tweener” that gets around 140 miles wasn’t something Tesla customers wanted and might not be appealing to much of anyone as it doesn’t really address the “go almost anywhere” problem Tesla is solving and doesn’t really do much for commuters. (More than 80% of commutes in the U.S. can be made roundtrip in a Leaf.)
In addition to eliminating the small battery, Tesla also decided to build access to the Supercharger network in every car. It was already standard with the largest battery and is still an option with the smaller one, but now you can decide to add the option after purchase because — again — it’s a software change. The Superchargers are free “fill-ups” along highway corridors, but those with the smaller battery will pay $2000 for the privilege. This software-upgradeable car might not be as much of a milestone as a 200+ mile EV is, but it has already become a hallmark of the way Tesla works and really shows how Silicon Valley DNA can be an important part of this 21st century automaker.
When the company announced its earnings last quarter, the news actually disappointed investors. On some level, that was odd because the quarter inherently represented a transition where production was ramping up and it would be hard to really get a sense of what the business looked like on a steady-state basis. This quarter, however, is going to provide a very real snapshot into Tesla as a business. Through the rest of 2013 and well into next year, the company is likely to look as it does this quarter, with small improvements in unit shipments and gross margin over each quarter until the company begins delivering its Model X crossover late in 2014. None of that is likely exciting to watch, but it is likely to be material financially.
If deliveries do creep into the range of 6000-7000 per quarter — which is expected — and the company hits its gross margin goal of 25% by year end, this quarter’s profit is going to be pretty small compared to the ones set to come. It’s this kind of steady profitable growth upon which you build a company that will be around for a long time to come. And with the focus on larger batteries and more Superchargers, Tesla seems to be saying its cars are going to run long and far as well.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
