News
Tesla's historic decade makes it the auto industry's best performer–and it's not even close
Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA) performance in the stock market has surprised many people. Very few analysts expected a small electric car startup based out of Palo Alto, California to become the highest performing automaker in terms of growth, total return, and shareholder value over the past decade.
Investors who have stuck with Tesla since the electric car maker went public in 2010 have seen their investments rise over 1,100%. Data compiled by Bloomberg showed that the auto industry, in general, has appreciated 158% over the past 10 years.
While Musk is seen as one of the most ridiculed automotive CEOs in the business, his company’s performance speaks for itself. After he was forced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to pay a $20 million fine (on top of another $20 million that Tesla had to pay) for a tweet that allegedly “misled stockholders,” he still inspired confidence among Tesla’s investors. This seemed to have paid off for the company’s supporters, as TSLA recently had its shares spike to over $420 apiece.
Tesla’s sharp and consistent growth has given the company a ranking as the third-most valuable car manufacturer in the world with a $78 billion valuation. This figure trails only Volkswagen ($98 billion) and Toyota ($230 billion) among 38 total manufacturers in the world. Tesla is over 30% more valuable than General Motors and over twice as valued as the Ford Motor Company.
The company has also successfully outperformed some of the biggest and most consistent car manufacturers in the world in terms of sales. The Model 3 sedan has become the most popular vehicle in the United States’ luxury segment, beating veterans from Japan and Germany. Since the Model S first went on sale in 2012, Tesla has also seen its sales grow 52x (5200%) while the rest of the automotive sector has only seen a 46% growth.
In the past six months, TSLA shares saw a rise of 85%. This is so drastic that the company would have been the best performer in the S&P 500 if it was included in the esteemed list. This also allowed Tesla to be the top company among 38 of its peers that are listed in the Bloomberg Intelligence Global Automobile Index.
Despite the undeniable growth from the company, there are still analysts on Wall Street who believe Tesla’s growth is unimpressive and not worth mentioning. Kynikos Associates’ Jim Chanos stated that the electric car maker is still “one of our biggest and our best short positions.” Notorious Tesla short David Einhorn has insisted that the “wheels are falling off” of Tesla.
These shorts continue to believe this despite more than $2 billion worth of losses, particularly as the company has been in a rally since breaking the $400 mark in mid-December. That being said, some shorts have been leaving due to the damages they sustained, causing short-selling to drop around 9.2%, according to Bloomberg Opinion.
Tesla’s continuing growth is undeniable and forecasts suggest the company is not even close to finished. Bloomberg analysts suggest 14% more growth by the end of the year, 21% in 2020 and 18% in 2021. This is compared to an estimated 1%, 4%, and 3% growth for legacy automakers in the same time period.
The growth of the electric car market as a whole this decade is notable, to begin with, but Tesla seems to be responsible for the majority of this. With the carmaker now beginning to produce more than just fast and technologically advanced sedans, it seems another decade of growth is in the cards for the company.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
