Investor's Corner
Tesla stock (TSLA) one week after Q2 2016 Report
Post Q2 Report Action
As we previously reported, the Q2 quarterly results were “mixed”:
- Revenue matched expectation, a positive for Wall Street;
- Earning losses were higher than anticipated, a negative, but for a company like Tesla, where the stock price is based on future expectations, the earning numbers are really not what counts;
- Slightly increasing gross margins, a positive;
- Practically zero ZEV credits for the quarter, a negative;
- Production and demand on track to support 50,000 deliveries in 2H 2016, a positive;
- Lower production numbers than previously anticipated, a negative.
When you have such a mix of positives and negatives, it is fairly normal for traders to have a “subdued” response, unlike the usually wild responses to results that are big misses or big beats on expectations.
Accordingly, this time around the technical response of the stock market to last week’s Tesla Q2 2016 report has been “muted.” The stock has been in “compression” (a horizontal back and forth) since the report, staying in the $225-$230 range, but overall 12-month Analyst Price Targets have actually decreased with the average dropping from $277 to $244.
Looking at more details of the reactions to the report, this is a small sample from Top Analysts, noting that none of them changed their position.
Alexander Potter of Piper Jaffray says “Teslas untouchable brand helps investors look past million-dollar losses.”
“It’s hard to recommend a cash-burning company with such an uncertain outlook,” said Potter, who reiterated a neutral rating and $223 price target on the stock. But consumers and investors still seem captivated by Tesla’s products, said Potter. And as long as the company “retains this aura,” its stock multiple will “probably stay buoyant,” he said.
Brad Erickson of Pacific Crest says “The risks still outweigh the rewards.”
“Brad rattled off a number of challenges Tesla still needs to tackle in a note to clients. But he reiterated a sector weight rating on the stock, said Tesla’s cash burn wasn’t as bad as expected during the quarter, and maintained the belief that the company’s longer-term vision is “second to none.”
Ben Kallo of Robert W. Baird says “Focus [is] on Tesla (TSLA) Production Ramp and Long Term Goals, Not Q2 Miss.”
Kallo commented, “Q2 revenue was in line with our estimate, but TSLA missed on EPS with higher-than-expected OPEX. Additionally, gross margin missed consensus estimates and was pressured during the quarter with the Model S refresh and X ramp, but automotive gross margin improved sequentially, which was better than we expected. Importantly, TSLA reaffirmed its 2H:16 delivery target of ~50k vehicles, expects margins to ramp in 2H:16 given higher manufacturing efficiency, and the Model 3 remains on track for 2H:17 production.”
Kallo also covers SolarCity (SCTY) and he commented that “Although SCTY has a 45-day go-shop period which could provide additional upside, we believe it is highly likely the TSLA and SCTY merger will go through, and we are moving to the sidelines.”
Colin Rusch of Oppenheimer “noted that Tesla appears to be taking on increasing responsibility when it comes to technology development.”
“Rusch wasn’t surprised by Tesla’s quarter, and the firm remains on the sidelines until Tesla can show some progress toward profitability. It also appears to have taken a hard line with suppliers on timelines, pricing and allocation of resources,” he explained. “While we see potential benefits, we note increasing risk on supplier pushback.”
Ryan Brinkman of J.P. Morgan noted that “JPMorgan cuts Tesla estimates on higher operating expenses.”
“To reflect lower revenue and higher operating expenses following the company’s Q2 results, Brinkman cut his 2016 earnings per share estimate for Tesla to (32c) from $1.60. The analyst notes his 2016 earnings estimate was $4.62 a year ago and $2.74 at the start of this year. This reflects the “degree of consistent ratcheting down of near-term earnings,” Brinkman tells investors in a post-earnings research note. The analyst keeps an Underweight rating on Tesla with a $180 price target.”
Shelby Seyrafi of FBN Securities “reiterated a Buy rating on Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA), with a price target of $275.”
Seyrafi is a 3-star analyst with an average return of 0.5% and a 51.5% success rate. Seyrafi covers the Technology sector, focusing on stocks such as Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Dot Hill Systems Corp., and Concur Technologies.
Colin Langan of UBS, says “Tesla, SolarCity synergies still cloudy.”
“Colin noted Tesla announced details of its agreement to acquire SolarCity (SCTY) and provided synergy targets with the deal. UBS said they remain cautious on the deal given the lack of compelling synergies and the fact the deal is an unneeded distraction for Tesla management, which already faces challenges with its Model 3 launch and production targets. UBS maintained its Sell rating and $160 price target on Tesla shares.”
The overall consensus of analysts covering Tesl Motors, reported at tipranks.com, is neutral (hold).
Source: TipRanks
Trade Analysis
Quarterly Reports are usually the catalyst that start or stop actions for swing traders. The Q2 report was no different. I called for a bullish swing trade when the MACD crossed to the bulls on July 1st. The trade closed on August 4th when the MACD crossed to the bears, the day after the Q2 report was released. This was a good trade that gained over $14 in about a month period to traders that went long on the stock (see the shaded band in the chart below). For option traders this was a “fabulous” trade.
A week after the report the market is undecided on what to do with TSLA in the short term. All indicators are “neutral”: the stock has gone sideways for a week; the MACD averages are flat and overlapping; the MACD itself is at zero; both the 50-day moving average (the red line in the chart below) and the 200-day moving average (the yellow line in the chart below) are flat. All of these indicators are showing the absence of a trend. Trading in these conditions is not advisable and fairly risky. I’m personally out of trading TSLA until a trend appears.
Source: Wall Street I/O
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.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
