Investor's Corner
Concerns about Tesla’s (TSLA) alleged ‘demand problem’ are likely overblown
The past few months have not been kind to Tesla stock (NASDAQ:TSLA). Following the company’s lower-than-expected production and delivery figures from the first quarter, the negative narrative surrounding Tesla has gone on overdrive. At the forefront of this is a thesis that the electric car maker’s critics have been pushing: Tesla has a demand problem.
This particular point has spread like wildfire, particularly over the past few weeks. Analysts that recently downgraded TSLA stock would reference weak demand for the Model 3, and bears would echo the same assumption during segments in mainstream media. While this narrative is compelling in the way that it appears to be a foreshadowing of Tesla’s eventual demise, the demand problem thesis is at best inaccurate and at worst flat-out wrong, simply because one can’t base a thesis in one data point.
TSLA investor @Incentives101, an economist with a background in macro research, notes that there is a considerable misconception surrounding Tesla’s Q1 results and how it relates to the demand for the company’s electric cars. In a conversation with Teslarati, the investor explained that while it is easy to make assumptions based on Tesla’s Q1 2019 figures, there is simply not enough data to accurately and responsibly forecast Model 3 (and in extension, Model S and X) demand. Tesla’s Q1 2019 data is nevertheless useful, as it reveals a series of factors that could shed light on what is happening to the electric car maker.
Shocks, Backlogs, and Demand
The economist notes that demand shocks could be transitory or permanent. Taxes, for example, normally have a permanent effect and natural disasters have a transitory one. But these shocks have different effects over time depending on whether a shock is sudden or expected. Understanding how demand normally reacts to these shocks is very important, as it provides clues at what could be expected to make informed assumptions about Q1. When a shock such as a federal tax credit reduction comes, for example, its effect happens in three stages — given that consumers knew it was coming. Before the shock hits, demand generally increases (pulling demand), followed by a period where demand decreases by more than what could be considered a new equilibrium. Following these is another period where demand increases to reach a new equilibrium. Q1 most likely was the worst part of the second stage.
The backlog of Model 3 reservations was primarily used as a point against Tesla by critics, with an assumption suggesting that there will be no demand for the vehicle after the company clears out its initial batch of reservations. The economist argued that while Tesla’s backlog is widely believed to be a factor impacting demand, such a factor would likely not be relevant in the bigger picture. “Given the characteristics of auto demand (it recycles constantly, consumers preferences are well understood, and trends are clear) a ‘backlog’ has the same effect as a natural disaster if you really want to compare it to something. If the backlog happens at the same time as a tax shock or other shocks, it just exacerbates the move. The duration of the shock could be discussed, but in the end, the effect of the backlog is just irrelevant,” the investor said.
Tesla faced a number of shocks in the US auto market in recent months, and these could be translated into inaccurate assumptions. Among these are negative shocks such as the reduced federal tax credit, the “end” of the Model 3 reservation backlog, seasonality, and supply; as well as positive shocks like price reductions on the company’s vehicle lineup.
“There are some main conclusions that one can infer from the data: 1) There isn’t information available to know what the initial equilibrium was. The exponential shape of the curve gives no reference whatsoever to know this. Comparing Model S/X vs. Model 3, is easy to see that S/X had a stable path which would make it easier to measure the impact of these type of shocks; 2) Over time, the shock will be (almost) totally explained by the reduction in supply; 3) Shocks were expected, and price adjustments should more than cancel any negative permanent shock that taxes would have; and 4) Tesla had really bad luck with all these things happening at the same time,” the economist remarked.
Consumer Preferences
Based on these data, one can infer that the primary constraint that Tesla is facing is not demand, but supply. Demand for the company’s vehicles is not exclusive to the United States auto market. It is global, and in this sense, there is simply no indication that global supply for Tesla’s electric cars is already meeting global demand. The investor noted that the effect of the “backlog” argument in global markets would likely be marginal and transitory, and just as demand is not static, supply and prices have not been either.
Ultimately, the most significant factor that would affect the demand for Tesla’s vehicles is consumer preferences. In recent years, consumer preferences are changing in favor of smart devices, and this cascades into the auto industry. Tesla’s electric cars, which are arguably the most tech-focused consumer vehicles on the road today, are a perfect fit for this changing landscape.
-
According to the economist, “Consumer preferences and regulation actually affect demand. Prices technically don’t affect demand — just the quantity demanded — and the trend shows that it will have a multiplier effect. It’s always important to ask the correct questions, and the question today is not what are they doing to ‘fix’ a transitory shock? Or where’s demand? The question is, how will you increase supply?”
Alleged ‘Cannibalization’ of the Model S and X by the Model 3
In terms of the alleged cannibalization of Model S and X sales by the Model 3, the investor notes that there is no reason, at least at present, to believe that cannibalization is actually happening. Tesla Model 3 sales increased while Model S and X remained in their path, and as sales of the flagship sedan and SUV decreased, Model 3 sales in the US decreased as well.
“Even if you disaggregate data to try to find signs of cannibalization, there’s still no proof. There’s only one market — Norway — that is big enough, that has reliable data and didn’t face any distortions (tax or subsidy), that could give us any insight about cannibalization. Without further information, it would seem that there was significant cannibalization. The only problem is that Tesla distorted the market by eliminating the most popular Model S and X variant (75kWh), which was, on average 70%+ of sales. It is simply impossible to know which effect (the Model 3’s introduction or the 75kWh variant’s elimination) had the biggest impact, or even measure them in any way. And even then, one market may not be enough to prove it,” the investor stated.
Ultimately, the continuing phase-out period of the federal tax credit in the US would likely affect Model S and X sales in the country. But similar to the Model 3, these effects will likely be transitory and not permanent, especially given that prices have changed accordingly, given that the vehicles have better value per dollar. As with the Model 3, the sharp decrease in Model S and X sales in Q1 2019 could be explained by supply changes in its totality. Thus, demand should return to its previous path after a short period of time.
Disclosure: I have no ownership in shares of TSLA and have no plans to initiate any positions within 72 hours.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Elon Musk
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.
Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.
On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.
Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.
The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.
Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.
For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
