New Street Research managing partner Pierre Ferragu recently explained why Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA) EV credits is only icing on the cake for the electric car maker. Tesla reported a revenue of $8.771 billion with a net income of $331 million in Q3, with regulatory credits accounting for $397 million of the EV maker’s earnings.
When asked about how regulatory credits have boosted Tesla’s numbers this year, Ferragu told Fox Business that the EV credits aren’t a big part of the electric car maker’s future valuation at all. This is partly due to regulatory credits being short-term, and Tesla’s vehicle margins.
“Why are you looking at profits of this year? You know Tesla is trading on maybe, like over 100x that, more than 100x that, so that’s not reason to drive our valuation of TSLA. What really matters is how much profit Tesla makes in 2025, in 2030. We’ve had a string of conversations about that,” said Ferragu.
He explained his stance further, saying: “So, to give you a sense of that, in 2025, I have Tesla making $16 of earnings per share just out of the auto business. And in that, there’s absolutely no credit revenues. We don’t have credit revenues in our model. Credit revenues are very short-term, have a very short duration, so you arrive at about $1.5 billion in pure profit this year. So that’s like free money Tesla gets and Tesla will be able to reinvest in their business.”
A big portion of Tesla’s EV credits come from its Fiat pooling deal which was estimated to be worth $1.8 billion through 2023 by Baird analyst Ben Kallo. Recently, Honda joined Tesla’s pooling deal with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), probably increasing TSLA’s profitability with EV credits.
Many TSLA bulls, specifically retail investors who have accumulated a good number of shares over the years, agree with Ferragu’s assessment of Tesla’s use of EV credits. As TSLA Bull @stevenmarkryan explained, EV credits are more of a byproduct of Tesla doing what it is already doing. During his interview with Fox Business, Ferragu strived to explain Tesla’s profitability without EV credits on the table.
“But that money is going away relatively rapidly in the next three or four years. And that’s not part of the overall picture. What really matters today is to look at the gross margins of Tesla excluding the regulatory credits. And excluding credits, Tesla’s gross margins is about 20%, it’s a leading gross margin for a car manufacturer. And it continues to expand as the Model Y is a higher margin, the Model Y is included in the mix. That’s what really matters, and credits have nothing to blame there,” Ferragu said.
Morgan Stanley recently raised its price target for TSLA to $540. “Mine is a tad above that. It’s $578. They’re getting closer to the truth,” Ferragu commented during his interview.
In October, Ferragu released a New Street Research analysis on Tesla and set his $578 TSLA price target for the company. The analysis hinted at a decade of hyper-growth for Tesla. In it, Ferragu and his fellow analysts estimated that Tesla had an addressable market of 20 million units. The S3XY lineup directly addressed 8 million units with an additional “trading up” opportunity of 12 million units. The Cybertruck added an extra 3 million units to the equation.
Recently, Tesla joined the Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA) along with 28 other companies, like Rivian, Duke Energy, Seimens, and Lucid Motors. ZETA wants to reach 100% EV adoption by 2030 in the United States. In Europe, the EU Commission plans to enforce stricter emission standards that could kill the combustion engine by 2025. Other countries seem be preparing for an EV-lead auto industry as well, which could bring about Tesla’s hyper-growth in the next decade.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new rules that the Trump Administration is aiming to enforce on autonomous vehicles. On Thursday, NHTSA, under the Trump Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation, commenced rulemaking on the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).
This effort aims to eliminate the mandate for manual brake pedals in vehicles that are designed to be driven exclusively by automated driving systems. This would impact the Tesla Cybercab, which the company has stated would operate without a steering wheel or pedals.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
The Trump Administration is looking to revise FMVSS No. 135, which requires standard braking systems on light-duty vehicles.
Currently, the regulation requires light-duty cars to use traditional manual braking systems that allow operators to slow the vehicle. With the advent of self-driving in the U.S., these regulations need updating, and these are the changes that could come to FMVSS No. 135:
- Removes requirements for hand- or foot-operated brake controls for vehicles designed never to be operated by a human. Existing rules still apply to AVs that retain manual controls.
- All subject vehicles must still meet the same stopping distance performance criteria via alternative testing procedures.
- While this update ensures AVs can physically stop when commanded, NHTSA is separately developing safety performance requirements for AVs in real-world driving scenarios.
- NHTSA will continue to use its broad defect enforcement authority to investigate unsafe ADS behavior and oversee recalls.
As autonomy becomes a greater part of passenger travel, these types of rule adjustments will be more than reasonable. It will give manufacturers the ability to self-certify their vehicles and avoid any red tape that could ultimately delay the deployment of these vehicles.
Administrators are also incredibly excited about the opportunity to play a role in the advancement of self-driving vehicles.
“We are at the cusp of the greatest technological revolution in vehicle technology since the innovation of the Model T,” NHTSA Administrator Jonathan Morrison said. “If we want America to lead the way, we have to reimagine our regulatory framework. That’s why under Secretary Sean Duffy’s AV Framework, NHTSA is tearing down pointless barriers to innovative designs while strengthening the fundamental safety requirements that matter and holding AV developers accountable for safe performance.”
The Cybercab entered mass production at Gigafactory Texas in April. Tesla ultimately plans to push the vehicle into its Robotaxi fleet, potentially when frameworks like these are established.
Tesla plans to boost production at its Gigafactory Berlin plant in Germany following a sharp rebound in sales and demand in Europe after a softer 2025.
The plans put Tesla in a better position to compete with strengthening companies in Europe and potentially other markets; demand indicators show Tesla is much better off than in 2025.
Last year was a tough year for Tesla in terms of overall demand in Europe. The company produced over 200,000 vehicles at the German plant last year, a soft figure compared to the 375,000 vehicles Tesla lists as its current capacity at the factory.
🚨 Tesla said this morning it will ramp up production at Gigafactory Berlin to a volume of 7,500 vehicles per week.
This is a 20 percent boost in production. Tesla will hire 1,000 new employees to help with the increase.$TSLA pic.twitter.com/kravKfRO5n
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 25, 2026
Tesla’s overall European sales dropped significantly last year due to a variety of factors. However, sales are rebounding, and demand is strong once again, and only getting stronger. Tesla is now planning to bump production of Model Y vehicles at Giga Berlin upward by about 20 percent. It will also bring 1,000 new jobs to the plant.
Tesla confirmed the details of its planned production expansion in Germany this morning. It is a strategy to keep up with strengthening demand.
In Q1, Tesla saw a record 61,000 vehicles produced at Giga Berlin. European registrations rebounded sharply, with Model Y seeing 117 percent increases in March 2026 compared to last year. Germany alone saw stark increases, with a quadrupling in registrations to 9,252 units.
This trend continued in other key European markets, including France, Denmark and Sweden. Tesla registrations were up over 46 percent in some of these markets, and Model Y continued its trend as a top BEV in the market.
Demand has been recovering strongly in 2026, giving Tesla a reason to expand production efforts at the factory. These increases signal management’s confidence in sustained or growing European pull for Berlin-built vehicles.
Tesla is being sued by the family of the woman who was killed in a Texas crash involving a Model 3. The driver, who is also being sued, claimed the vehicle was operating on Autopilot mode, but Tesla executives have come out challenging that claim, stating that the driver of the vehicle overrode the system.
The lawsuit was filed by 76-year-old Martha Avila’s daughter and her husband, who allege a “design defect” involving a Tesla and a failure to warn. The suit alleges negligence against Tesla and the driver, Michael Butler.
Butler “stated he was operating with an automated driving assistance system engaged at the time of the crash,” the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. He showed no signs of intoxication and was cooperative, the Sheriff’s Office said, according to NBC News.
Just after reports of the crash and numerous headlines that immediately blamed Tesla’s Autopilot suite, both Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Head of AI Ashok Elluswamy challenged that. Musk said the crash made “no sense” given that Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving do not travel at the speeds the door cameras captured the car traveling at, which Tesla says was 73 MPH.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
Elluswamy also revealed that Tesla data showed Butler overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100%, and that the pedal was compressed fully even after the car had crashed. Tesla has not released this data to the public, likely because it is communicating with agencies like the NHTSA on an investigation.
The suit uses a Washington Post analysis of government data that “identified at least 17 fatal incidents linked to Tesla Autopilot.”
This is far from the first time an accident has been blamed on Autopilot. A fatal crash in Texas was blamed on Autopilot several years ago, but when Tesla released data to the NTSB, which was investigating the crash, Autopilot was not available where the crash occurred, and Autosteer was never enabled, meaning the car was manually controlled at the time of the accident.
“Application of the accelerator pedal was found to be as high as 98.8 percent,” the NTSB said in their findings. The highest recorded speed in the five seconds leading up to the impact was 67 miles per hour. The area where the crash occurred is residential, and Texas State laws… pic.twitter.com/XGD97NHVZ2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 18, 2026
More information on the accident will be released as Tesla works with agencies to find the cause of the crash. From personal experience, it is hard to imagine Tesla Autopilot or FSD operating in this manner. It drives sometimes too cautiously in residential areas in parking lots, at least in my experience. Speeding happens, but at this rate in this type of area, it is hard to believe.
We look forward to more details being released with time.
Tesla Cybercab stands to gain from new Trump autonomy rules
Tesla plans production boost at Giga Berlin following rebound in Europe
