Investor's Corner
Tesla bear apologizes to clients after releasing inaccurate TSLA note
Gordon L. Johnson, an analyst from Vertical Research Group and an outspoken Tesla bear, issued an apology to his company’s clients on Wednesday, after he published a note containing inaccurate information about the electric car company.
Tesla is currently involved in a class-action lawsuit filed by two investors, Kurt Friedman and Uppili Srinivasan, who alleged that the company, CEO Elon Musk, current Chief Financial Officer Deepak Ahuja, and former CFO Jason Wheeler intentionally misled shareholders about the progress of Model 3 production last year. According to the plaintiffs, Tesla’s executives were aware that the electric car could not be mass produced by the end of 2017. Despite this, Musk and the company as a whole allegedly made “false and misleading statements” about the company’s capability to produce 5,000 Model 3 per week by the end of the year. The plaintiffs noted that the negative market reaction to Tesla’s missed Model 3 goal has hurt their investments.
A hearing for the class-action lawsuit is scheduled for August 31, 2018. Tesla has filed a motion to dismiss the case, especially considering that the company did admit in October 2017 that the Model 3’s production ramp was behind schedule. U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer will hear arguments from both plaintiffs and defendants on the upcoming hearing. On July 11, the plaintiffs of the class-action lawsuit wrote a memo calling on Judge Breyer to not dismiss the case. Part of the plaintiffs’ memo, which could be viewed below, was a section reiterating their case against Tesla.
“Defendants concede the material falsity of Defendant Musk’s August 2, 2017 statement conveying then current facts, about ‘a gigantic machine producing—That’s meant for 5,000 vehicles a week and it’s producing a few hundred vehicles a week.’”
These statements, which were part of the memo, were an argument from the plaintiffs of the case. Amidst the stream of negative articles being directed at the electric car maker, some of the company’s staunch critics shared the plaintiffs’ request to the judge on social media. Considering the phrasing of the plaintiff’s memo, some Tesla bears believed that the company had admitted to misleading investors about Model 3 production. Tesla, for its part, noted in a statement to Barron’s that the assertion it admitted to any wrongdoing was “a complete lie.”
Vertical Research Group analyst Gordon L. Johnson, a rather aggressive Tesla bear (as seen in his debate with Tesla bull Trip Chowdhry from Global Equities Research), opted to write a note based on the plaintiffs’ memo to the judge. Similar to other critics on Twitter, Johnson framed his narrative on the assumption that Tesla had admitted to misleading investors. His note was headlined as “TSLA may have Admitted to Actionably False Statements.” As it became evident that he had committed an error, Johnson opted to correct his note, revising his note with a headline stating “ERRATUM.” Johnson also included an apology in his revision.
“We apologize for the inconvenience,” he wrote.
As Tesla heads into its Q2 2018 earnings call, the company’s stock (NASDAQ:TSLA) continues to exhibit volatility, though it recently received votes of confidence from its supporters from Wall Street. Together with Baird analyst Ben Kallo, Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas, and Consumer Edge Research’s James Albertine, Nomura Instinet analyst Romit Shah also issued a favorable note about Tesla. Shah reiterated the firm’s Buy rating on the electric car maker’s stock, placing a price target of $450.
“We expect improving fundamentals in Q3, consisting of a step-function up in revenue growth and positive operating leverage, driving shares higher. If Tesla can execute to plan, we believe that the narrative around bankruptcy risk will go away, thereby reducing short interest and driving the stock higher,” Shah wrote.
As of writing, Tesla stock is trading up 1.24% at $301.11 per share.
Disclosure: I have no ownership in shares of TSLA and have no plans to initiate any positions within 72 hours.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just filed for the IPO everyone was waiting for
SpaceX filed its public S-1, revealing $18.7 billion in revenue and billions in losses.
SpaceX publicly filed its S-1 registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2026, making its financial details available to the public for the first time ahead of what could be the largest IPO in history.
An S-1 is the formal document a company must submit to the SEC before going public. It includes audited financials, risk factors, business descriptions, and how the company plans to use the money it raises. Companies are required to file one before selling shares to the public, and it must be published at least 15 days before the investor roadshow begins. SpaceX had already submitted a confidential draft to the SEC in April, which allowed regulators to review the filing privately before it went public.
The S-1 reveals that SpaceX generated $18.7 billion in consolidated revenue in 2025, driven largely by its Starlink satellite internet division, which posted $11.4 billion in revenue, growing nearly 50% year over year. Despite that growth, the company lost about $4.9 billion in 2025 and has burned through more than $37 billion since its founding.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
A significant portion of those losses trace back to xAI, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, which was recently merged into SpaceX. SpaceX directed roughly 60% of its capital spending in 2025 to its AI division, totaling around $20 billion, yet that division lost billions and grew revenue by only about 22%.
SpaceX plans to list its Class A common stock on Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX, with Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America leading the offering. The dual-class share structure means going public will not meaningfully reduce Musk’s control, as Class B shares he holds carry 10 votes per share compared to one vote for public Class A shares.
The company is targeting a raise of around $75 billion at a valuation of roughly $1.75 trillion, which would make it the largest IPO ever. The investor roadshow is reportedly planned for June 5.
Elon Musk
Tesla ditches India after years of broken promises
Tesla has ditched its plans to build a factory in India after years of failed negotiations.
Tesla’s long-running effort to establish a manufacturing presence in India is officially over. India’s Minister of Heavy Industries H.D. Kumaraswamy confirmed on May 19, 2026 that Tesla has informed authorities it will not proceed with a manufacturing facility in the country.
Tesla first signaled serious interest in India around 2021, when it began hiring local staff and lobbying the Indian government for lower import tariffs. The ask was straightforward: reduce duties enough for Tesla to test the market with imported vehicles before committing capital to a local factory. India’s position was equally firm, with an ask of Tesla to commit to manufacturing first, then receive tariff relief. Neither side moved, and the talks quietly collapsed.
Tesla to open first India experience center in Mumbai on July 15
India had offered a policy that would reduce import duties from 110% down to 15% on EVs priced above $35,000, provided companies committed at least $500 million toward local manufacturing investment within three years. Tesla declined to participate. The tariff standoff was only part of the problem. Analysts pointed to significant gaps in India’s local supply chain, inadequate industrial infrastructure, and a mismatch between Tesla’s premium pricing and the purchasing power of India’s automotive market as additional factors that made the investment difficult to justify.
First signs of an unraveling relationship came in April 2024, when Musk abruptly cancelled a planned trip to India where he was set to meet Prime Minister Modi and announce Tesla’s market entry. By July 2024, Fortune reported that Tesla executives had stopped contacting Indian government officials entirely. The government at that point understood Tesla had capital constraints and no plans to invest.
The more fundamental issue is that Tesla’s existing factories are currently operating at approximately 60% capacity, making a commitment to building new manufacturing capacity in a new market difficult to defend to investors. Tesla will continue selling imported Model Y vehicles through its existing showrooms in Mumbai, Delhi, Gurugram, and Bengaluru, but local production is no longer part of the plan.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon just joined forces for one reason: Starlink is winning.
America’s three largest wireless carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, announced on On May 14, 2026 that they had agreed in principle to form a joint venture aimed at pooling their spectrum resources to expand satellite-based direct-to-device (D2D) connectivity across the United States in what can be seen as a direct response to SpaceX’s Starlink initiative. D2D, in plain terms, is technology that lets a standard smartphone connect directly to a satellite in orbit, the same way it connects to a cell tower, with no extra hardware required.
The alliance is widely seen as a means to slow Starlink’s rapid expansion in the satellite internet and mobile markets. SpaceX’s Starlink Mobile service launched commercially in July 2025 through a partnership with T-Mobile, starting with messaging before expanding to broadband data. SpaceX secured access to valuable wireless spectrum through its $17 billion deal with EchoStar, paving the way for significantly faster satellite-to-phone speeds.
SpaceX was not shy about its reaction. SpaceX president and COO Gwynne Shotwell responded on X: “Weeeelllll, I guess Starlink Mobile is doing something right! It’s David and Goliath (X3) all over again — I’m bettin’ on David.” SpaceX’s VP of Satellite Policy David Goldman went further, flagging potential antitrust concerns and asking whether the DOJ would even allow three dominant competitors to coordinate in a market where a new rival is actively entering.
Weeeelllll, I guess @Starlink Mobile is doing something right! It’s David and Goliath (X3) all over again — I’m bettin’ on David 🙂 https://t.co/5GzS752mxL
— Gwynne Shotwell (@Gwynne_Shotwell) May 14, 2026
Financial analysts at LightShed Partners were blunt, saying the announcement showed the three carriers are “nervous,” and pointed to the timing: “You announce an agreement in principle when the point is the announcement, not the deal. The timing, weeks ahead of the SpaceX roadshow, was the point.”
As Teslarati reported, SpaceX’s next generation Starlink V2 satellites will deliver up to 100 times the data density of the current system, with custom silicon and phased array antennas enabling around 20 times the throughput of the first generation. The carriers’ JV, which has no definitive agreement, no financial structure, and no deployment timeline yet, will need to move quickly to matter.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX is targeting a Nasdaq listing as early as June 12, aiming for what would be the largest IPO in history. With Starlink now serving over 9 million subscribers across 155 countries, holding 59 carrier partnerships globally, and now powering Air Force One, the carriers’ joint venture announcement landed at exactly the wrong time to look like anything other than a defensive move.
Tesla Model Y becomes first-ever car to reach legendary milestone
SpaceX reveals what Anthropic will pay for massive compute deal
