Connect with us

News

Tesla bears are becoming an endangered species

Credit: Tesla Owners Ontario/Twitter

Published

on

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. 

Advertisement

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. 

A Tesla logo on the Gigafactory Berlin site. (Credit: @gigafactory_4/Twitter)

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. 

Advertisement

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.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Energy

Tesla’s newest “Folding V4 Superchargers” are key to its most aggressive expansion yet

Tesla’s folding V4 Supercharger ships 33% more per truck, cuts deployment time and cost significantly.

Published

on

By

Tesla V4 Supercharger installation ramping in Europe

Tesla is rolling out a folding V4 Supercharger design, an engineering change that allows 33% more units to fit on a single delivery truck, cuts deployment time in half, and reduces overall installation cost by roughly 20%.

The folding mechanism addresses one of the least glamorous but most consequential bottlenecks in charging infrastructure: getting hardware from factory floor to job site efficiently. By collapsing the form factor for transit and unfolding into an operational configuration on arrival, the new design dramatically reduces the logistics overhead that has historically slowed Supercharger rollouts, particularly at large or remote sites where multiple units are needed simultaneously.

The timing aligns with a broader acceleration in Tesla’s network strategy. In March 2026, Tesla’s Gigafactory New York produced its final V3 Supercharger cabinet after more than seven years and 15,000 units, pivoting entirely to V4 cabinet production. The V4 cabinet itself is already a generational leap, delivering up to 500 kW per stall for passenger vehicles and up to 1.2 MW for the Tesla Semi, while supporting twice the stalls per cabinet at three times the power density of its predecessor. The folding transport innovation layers logistical efficiency on top of that technical foundation.

Tesla launches first ‘true’ East Coast V4 Supercharger: here’s what that means

Advertisement

Tesla Charging’s Director Max de Zegher, commenting on the V4 cabinet when it launched, captured the operational philosophy behind these changes: “Posts can peak up to 500kW for cars, but we need less than 1MW across 8 posts to deliver maximum power to cars 99% of the time.” The design philosophy has always been about maximizing real-world throughput, not just peak specs, and the folding transport upgrade extends that thinking into the supply chain itself.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

The Boring Company clears final Nashville hurdle: Music City loop is full speed ahead

The Boring Company has cleared its final Nashville hurdles, putting the Music City Loop on track for 2026.

Published

on

By

The Boring Company has cleared one of its most significant regulatory milestones yet, securing a key easement from the Music City Center in Nashville just days ago, the latest in a series of approvals that have pushed the Music City Loop project firmly into construction reality.

On March 24, 2026, the Convention Center Authority voted to grant The Boring Company access to an easement along the west side of the Music City Center property, allowing tunneling beneath the privately owned venue. The move follows a unanimous 7-0 vote by the Metro Nashville Airport Authority on February 18, and a joint state and federal approval from the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration on February 25. Together, these green lights have cleared the path for a roughly 10-mile underground tunnel connecting downtown Nashville to Nashville International Airport, with potential extensions into midtown along West End Avenue.

Music City Loop could highlight The Boring Company’s real disruption

Nashville was selected by The Boring Company largely because of its rapid population growth and the strain that growth has placed on surface infrastructure. Traffic has become a persistent problem for residents, convention visitors, and airport travelers alike. The Music City Loop promises an approximately 8-minute underground transit time between downtown and the Nashville International Airport (BNA), removing thousands of vehicles from surface roads daily while operating as a fully electric, zero-emissions system at no cost to taxpayers.

Advertisement

The project fits squarely within a broader vision Musk has championed for years. In responding to a breakdown of the Loop’s construction costs, Musk posted on X: “Tunnels are so underrated.” The comment reflected a longstanding belief that underground transit represents one of the most cost-effective and scalable infrastructure solutions available. The Boring Company has claimed it can build 13 miles of twin tunnels in Nashville for between $240 million and $300 million total, a fraction of what comparable projects cost elsewhere in the country.

The Las Vegas Loop, The Boring Company’s first operational system, has served as a proof of concept. During the CONEXPO trade show in March 2026, the Vegas Loop transported approximately 82,000 passengers over five days at the Las Vegas Convention Center, demonstrating the system’s capacity during large-scale events. Nashville draws millions of convention visitors and tourists each year, and local business leaders have pointed to that same capacity as a major draw for supporting the project.

The Music City Loop was first announced in July 2025. Construction began within hours of the February 25 state approval, with The Boring Company’s Prufrock tunneling machine already in the ground the same evening. The first operational segment is targeted for late 2026, with the full route expected to be complete by 2029. The project represents one of the largest privately funded infrastructure efforts currently underway in the United States.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Elon Musk demands Delaware Judge recuse herself after ‘support’ post celebrating $2B court loss

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

Published

on

elon musk
Ministério Das Comunicações, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s legal team has filed a motion demanding that Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick disqualify herself from an ongoing high-stakes Tesla shareholder lawsuit.

The filing, submitted March 25, cites an apparent LinkedIn “support” reaction from McCormick’s account to a post celebrating a $2 billion jury verdict against Musk in a separate California securities-fraud case.

The move escalates long-simmering tensions between Musk, Tesla, and the Delaware judiciary, where McCormick previously presided over the landmark challenge to Musk’s record $56 billion 2018 compensation package.

Delaware Supreme Court reinstates Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla CEO pay package

Advertisement

The LinkedIn post was written by Harry Plotkin, a Southern California jury consultant who assisted the plaintiffs who sued Musk over 2022 tweets about his Twitter acquisition. Plotkin praised the trial team for “standing up for the little guy against the richest man in the world.”

The New York Post initially reported the story.

A banner on the post read “Katie McCormick supports this,” using LinkedIn’s heart-in-hand “support” icon, an endorsement stronger than a simple “like.” Musk’s lawyers argue the action creates “a perception of bias against Mr. Musk,” warranting immediate recusal to preserve judicial impartiality.

McCormick swiftly denied intentional endorsement. In a letter to attorneys, she stated she was unaware of the interaction until LinkedIn notified her. She wrote:

“I either did not click the ‘support’ icon at all, or I did so accidentally. I do not believe that I did it accidentally.”

Advertisement

The chancellor maintains the reaction was inadvertent, but critics, including Musk allies, call the explanation implausible given the platform’s deliberate interface.

McCormick’s central role in the Tesla pay-package litigation underscores the stakes. In Tornetta v. Musk, in January 2024, she ruled the 2018 performance-based stock-option grant, potentially worth $56 billion at the time and now valued far higher, was invalid.

The package consisted of 12 tranches of options, each vesting only after Tesla achieved ambitious market-cap and operational milestones. McCormick found Musk exercised “transaction-specific control” over Tesla as a controlling stockholder, the board lacked sufficient independence, and proxy disclosures to shareholders were materially deficient.

Applying the entire-fairness standard, she concluded defendants failed to prove the deal was fair in process or price and ordered full rescission, an “unfathomable” remedy she described as necessary to deter fiduciary breaches.

Advertisement

After the ruling, Tesla shareholders ratified the package a second time in June 2024. McCormick rejected that ratification in December 2024, holding that post-trial votes could not cure defects.

Tesla appealed. On December 19 of last year, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the rescission remedy while largely leaving McCormick’s liability findings intact. The high court deemed total unwinding inequitable and impractical, restoring the package but awarding the plaintiff only nominal $1 damages plus reduced attorneys’ fees. Musk ultimately received the full award.

The current recusal motion arises in yet another Tesla derivative suit before McCormick. Legal observers say granting it could signal heightened scrutiny of judicial social-media activity; denial might reinforce perceptions of an insular Delaware bench.

Broader fallout includes accelerated corporate migration out of Delaware, Musk himself moved Tesla’s incorporation to Texas after the first ruling, and renewed debate over whether the state’s specialized courts remain the gold standard for corporate governance disputes.

Advertisement

A decision is expected soon; whichever way it lands, the episode highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and public confidence in high-profile litigation.

Continue Reading