Tesla has the makings of a controversial stock. It’s a company with products that are loved by its users and hated by its skeptics, and it’s led by a man that’s both admired by his supporters and loathed by his critics. It was then no surprise when Tesla became one of the most-shorted companies in the market. But amidst Tesla’s rise last year and the release of its Q1 2021 vehicle production and delivery report, it appears that TSLA bears, or at least a good number of them, are starting to go extinct.
A good overview of how a company is perceived could be found in the overall stance of analysts covering the stock. Among the 41 analysts covering TSLA today, 15 have a “Buy” rating, 14 maintain a “Hold” rating, and 12 have a “Sell” rating, as per data from Bloomberg. This suggests that Tesla remains quite polarizing, as Buy ratings typically outnumber Sell ratings 10-to-1 for stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Tesla (TSLA) sets new records with with 184k vehicle deliveries in Q1 2021
The same is true for TSLA’s price targets. Tesla’s bull-bear spread between its highest price target ($1,036) and its lowest ($135) stands at $901, or about 133% of the current $661.75 stock price. In the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the average bull-bear spread for stocks is less than 50%. While Tesla has maintained its polarizing nature in the market, however, there is one metric that suggests that a TSLA bear exodus is taking place.
There was a time not too long ago when Tesla’s short-interest ratio was about 25%, which meant that one in every four shares was borrowed and sold by investors betting on the company to fail. Such a short-interest ratio was insane, as the average for stocks in the S&P 500 is just about 3%. Today, this ratio stands at just about 6%, which is still higher than average but significantly lower than its figures three years ago.
As noted in a Barron’s report, there is an important mitigating factor in Tesla’s short-interest ratio, in the form of hundreds of millions in convertible bonds outstanding, most of which were issued long ago and are capable of being converted into TSLA stock at around $65 per share. Considering that Tesla stock is worth more than 10x that amount today, the convertible bonds have rallied over 500% over the past year.
While this is great for convertible bond holders, numerous bond investors are actually not interested in Tesla stock. Instead, some are convertible arbitrage investors, who buy convertible bonds and short the underlying stock. This way, the arbitrage trader is able to lock in a notable bond yield. S3 Partners managing director of predictive analytics Ihor Dusaniwsky has noted that the bonds are “mostly held by hedge funds.” He also estimates that about half of Tesla’s current short interest might be part of a convertible arbitrage strategy.
If the S3 Partners’ executive’s estimates are accurate, it would suggest that about 22 million Tesla shares are sold short, or about 2.9% of TSLA stock. This number is substantial, but it is small compared to the 200 million TSLA shares sold short back in 2019. This does not mean to say that Tesla bears have entirely given up, of course, as some will likely remain with their short position for a long time to come. However, the declining number of TSLA shares that are sold short does suggest that bears, or at least a good number of them, may be throwing in the towel.
Former Goldman Sachs Asset Management CIO Gary Black has noted that the declining number of TSLA bears may be due to the fact that some critical bearish arguments against Tesla are being soundly debunked. One of these is the notion that Tesla’s share of the EV market will get drastically smaller as soon as other automakers enter the electric car segment. Despite the noise by proponents of this thesis, the opposite has been true, as more and more car buyers tend to leave gas-powered vehicles–not other electric cars like Tesla–when they purchase EVs made by other automakers.
Disclaimer: I am long TSLA
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
