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.
Tesla deliveries got a big boost in expectations from Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, who believes the company will report some stronger-than-expected numbers when the second quarter comes to an end in the coming weeks.
Goldman Sachs has raised its vehicle delivery forecast for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) in the second quarter of 2026, signaling growing confidence in the electric vehicle leader’s near-term momentum despite mixed market signals. Analyst Mark Delaney lifted the bank’s Q2 estimate to 420,000 units from a previous 405,000, surpassing the Visible Alpha consensus estimate of 400,000.
The upward revision stems from stronger-than-expected sales data across key regions. Europe stands out with projected year-over-year growth of 85-90 percent, driven by robust demand for Tesla’s Model Y and refreshed offerings. China posted high single-digit gains, while markets like South Korea and Australia also contributed positive momentum. These gains help offset mid-teens declines in U.S. deliveries through May, where broader EV market headwinds and competition persist.
Goldman extended its optimism to the full year, increasing its 2026 delivery projection to 1.73 million vehicles from 1.72 million. Longer-term forecasts remain unchanged, with 1.88 million units expected in 2027 and 1.96 million in 2028. The bank also nudged its 2026 earnings-per-share estimate higher to $1.35 from $1.30, reflecting anticipated margin benefits from higher volumes and operational efficiencies.
Despite these positive adjustments, Goldman maintained its Neutral rating and $375 price target on Tesla shares. At current trading levels near $411, the stock sits about 8-9 percent above the target, highlighting ongoing valuation concerns even as delivery momentum builds. Tesla’s Q1 2026 deliveries totaled 358,023 units, setting a baseline for recovery expectations in the current period.
This update arrives as Tesla prepares to report official Q2 figures shortly after June 30. Investors and analysts will closely watch not only headline delivery numbers but also regional breakdowns, average selling prices, and progress on energy storage deployments and autonomous technology initiatives.
The move by Goldman Sachs underscores a broader narrative for Tesla: while legacy auto markets face softening demand and tariff uncertainties, Tesla’s global footprint and product pipeline provide resilience. Europe’s surge reflects pent-up demand and policy support for EVs, while China’s steady growth highlights Tesla’s competitive positioning against local rivals.
Tesla still has its work cut out for it, including U.S. price sensitivity and intensifying competition. Yet Goldman’s revision adds to a series of analyst notes suggesting Q2 could mark a turning point. As Tesla pushes toward higher production rates at facilities in Fremont, Shanghai, and Berlin, sustained execution will be key to validating these higher forecasts.
We have said numerous times that deliveries are becoming a less important metric in the grand scheme of things, as AI truly takes precedence in the company’s thesis.
For Tesla bulls, the Goldman note reinforces faith in underlying demand trends. For skeptics, the unchanged rating serves as a reminder that delivery beats alone may not immediately resolve valuation debates in a high-interest-rate environment. Tesla’s stock reaction will likely hinge on the official numbers and management commentary in the coming weeks.
Renowned investor Ron Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital, has once again demonstrated his unwavering faith in Elon Musk’s ventures.
Just after SpaceX’s record-breaking IPO, Baron announced he purchased an additional $1 billion in SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) shares. This move pushes Baron Capital’s total holdings in the company to a staggering $25 billion in market value, underscoring one of the most successful private-to-public investment stories in recent history.
Baron’s relationship with SpaceX dates back to 2017, when his firm began investing approximately $1.75–2 billion through secondary markets and employee tender offers at valuations around $20–22 billion.
By the time of the IPO, which valued SpaceX at over $2 trillion with shares closing near $161, those early stakes had generated more than $13 billion in unrealized gains. Post-IPO, Baron’s position ballooned further, reflecting the company’s meteoric rise driven by reusable rocketry, Starlink’s global satellite internet constellation, Starshield defense applications, and ambitious plans for orbital infrastructure.
In a recent interview, Baron articulated his bullish outlook with characteristic enthusiasm.
Ron Baron said today that he bought $1 billion of @SpaceX IPO shares last Friday, and said that all of Baron Capital’s $SPCX holdings are now worth $25 billion.
“I think we’re going to make hundreds of billions of dollars; If you read the prospectus, you realize what they… pic.twitter.com/U8F471KtJS
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 15, 2026
“I think we’re going to make hundreds of billions of dollars,” he stated, emphasizing that SpaceX’s achievements in rocketry and satellite technology are “not possible for anyone else to accomplish.” He envisions the company as a cornerstone of humanity’s multi-planetary future, potentially reaching valuations of $10–30 trillion within 10–15 years.
Baron has repeatedly affirmed he has no plans to sell, viewing SpaceX as a “lifetime investment” alongside Tesla.
Tesla bull Ron Baron reveals $100M SpaceX investment, sees 3-5x return on TSLA
This conviction stems from SpaceX’s unparalleled execution. The company has revolutionized access to space with Falcon 9 reusability, deployed thousands of Starlink satellites, and is advancing Starship for Mars missions and point-to-point Earth transport.
Baron highlights emerging opportunities like space-based AI data centers and direct-to-cell satellite connectivity, positioning SpaceX at the forefront of a new space economy projected to generate trillions in value.
Critics may question the lofty projections amid high valuations and execution risks, but Baron’s track record speaks volumes. His Tesla holdings, initiated in the mid-2010s, have also delivered outsized returns. As one of the largest institutional holders of SpaceX pre-IPO, Baron Capital’s funds, such as Baron Partners, benefited immensely from valuation markups.
Baron’s $1 billion IPO purchase signals deep confidence in SpaceX’s post-IPO trajectory. In an era of short-term market noise, his strategy exemplifies patient capital: backing visionary leadership and transformative technology.
For investors watching the space sector, it serves as a powerful endorsement that the final frontier may indeed yield the next great wealth-creation engine. As Baron puts it, SpaceX isn’t just building rockets—it’s trying to “save humanity” by expanding our horizons beyond Earth.
Elon Musk
SpaceX (SPCX) IPO is live today at $135: Here’s exactly what you need to know
SpaceX priced its historic IPO at $135 per share today, raising a record $75 billion.
SpaceX officially priced its initial public offering at $135 per share, offering 555,555,555 shares of Class A common stock and raising $75 billion in what is the largest IPO in stock market history. Shares are set to begin trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on Friday, June 12, under the ticker symbol SPCX. The previous record holder was Saudi Aramco’s 2019 offering at $29 billion, followed by Alibaba’s $22 billion offering in 2014.
At $135 per share and roughly 555.6 million shares, the implied valuation sits near $1.75 trillion, which would make SpaceX roughly the seventh largest company in the United States, just above Tesla’s current market cap. Regular investors can request shares at the IPO price through Robinhood, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, SoFi, and E*TRADE, though the deal is heavily oversubscribed and most retail allocations will be partial or unfilled. Once trading opens June 12, anyone with a brokerage account can buy SPCX on the open market.
SpaceX’s amended S-1 is sparking a major Tesla merger conversation
The valuation is anchored primarily by Starlink. Starlink crossed 10 million subscribers as of February 2026 and is adding 750,000 to 1.5 million new users per month, with the connectivity segment already posting a $1.19 billion profit last quarter. The offering also bundles in xAI following SpaceX’s all-stock merger earlier this year, adding Grok and the Colossus supercomputer to the investment thesis. As Teslarati reported, Starlink ended 2025 with $10 billion in revenue, a figure analysts project could reach $24 billion by end of 2026.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives has been vocal in his support. “I think the time is right,” Ives said, adding that the offering expands the Elon Musk ecosystem rather than competing with Tesla. An average 12-month price target of $165 per share represents roughly 22% upside from the IPO price. Not everyone agrees – Motley Fool noted xAI is spending $1 billion per month playing catch-up to OpenAI and Anthropic.
Musk founded SpaceX in 2002 with a single stated purpose. “Elon founded SpaceX with a goal to change humanity, to make us a multi-planet species,” CFO Bret Johnsen said in the company’s retail roadshow video this week. Musk himself has been more direct: “We are building the systems and technologies necessary to provide global connectivity on Earth and beyond, to understand the true nature of the universe, and to extend the light of consciousness to the stars.”
Apple is developing the missing link for Tesla to get CarPlay: report
Tesla deliveries get a big boost in expectations from Wall Street
