News
Tesla stock spikes on China delivery figures, then cools down for no reason
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) stock spiked nearly 3% this morning after positive news from China that effectively debunked rumors of declining sales figures in May. However, the increase in price was short-lived, as the stock dropped back down to the $600 level after opening at $623.01, despite no negative news being reported regarding Tesla this morning.
Earlier today, the Chinese Passenger Car Association (CPCA) reported Tesla delivered a total of 33,463 vehicles in May. Tesla delivered 21,936 domestically after being produced at Tesla’s Giga Shanghai production facility. The remaining 11,527 were exported to other areas, including Europe, where Tesla started shipping vehicles from China in January.
Tesla China sales rise 30% in May, definitively debunks reports of weak demand
The figures released by the CPCA earlier today directly contradict reports from earlier this month, when The Information stated that an internal source familiar with Tesla’s EV sales in China indicated the electric automaker’s orders had slumped significantly in May compared to April. The figures indicated Tesla had only 9,800 orders in May, suggesting a decrease by as much as 50%. The news sent Tesla stock on a steep decline after the report hit mainstream media, who started to aggregate the story as fact.
The report was met with criticism just a few days later by the CPCA’s Secretary General Cui Dongshu, who said (via Global Times):
“Placed orders cannot equal the sales number in one month. Usually, monthly sales are accumulated units of orders over previous months, so the immediate results in May might not truly reflect whether the recently reported accidents have had any real impact on Tesla’s sales.”
Cui suggested that if Tesla were experiencing decreasing order and sales figures, they wouldn’t be identifiable until July or August.
After Tesla shares spiked this morning on the news of the positive delivery figures in China, the surge cooled down. Analyst Gary Black attributed the drop off to two things: Traders buying on the rumor of low delivery figures, and now selling after shares rose when the CPCA released positive news this morning, or the possibility of Bitcoin’s plummet affecting Tesla’s shares.
1/ Traders bought the China rumor; now selling the news.
2/ #btc collapsing again$tsla https://t.co/NQzxzyoQZE— Gary Black (@garyblack00) June 8, 2021
There is a chance that Jerome Guillen, Tesla’s now-former Head of Heavy Trucking, leaving the company could be affecting the price.
Tesla’s rocky road in China
Tesla has had somewhat of a tumultuous relationship in China over the past few months. After growing concerns of security issues due to Tesla’s external cameras, several State-owned businesses and entities banned the company’s cars on their premises in fear of a security breach that could take pictures of potentially sensitive information. Tesla stated that its cabin cameras are not active, and Elon Musk stated that Tesla’s vehicles were not being used to spy on Chinese entities. “If Tesla used cars to spy in China or anywhere, we would get shut down,” Musk said.
In the following months, Tesla would battle numerous reports of brake failures by numerous owners in China. The most public occurrence of this happening was at the Shanghai Auto Show, where a Model 3 owner claimed her brakes failed and led to an accident. Tesla offered to have a third-party company complete testing on the car to determine the cause of the accident. The owner declined this.
Other owners in China have also come out with similar claims, all of them eventually being debunked or disproven in the following days or weeks. In response to the claims, Tesla created a “Special Handling Team” in China to deter and navigate through false narratives related to the company’s products. Tesla said the team would “meet the demands of car owners and strive to satisfy car owners while complying with laws and regulations.”
Tesla Stock
Tesla shares have dropped 14.49% so far in 2021. Interestingly, Tesla has continued its trend of strong financials and delivery and production performances, citing Quarter-over-Quarter growth in both of the company’s Earnings Calls that have taken place this year. In addition, Q1 2021 proved to be Tesla’s biggest quarter yet in terms of production and delivery figures, despite only manufacturing two of its four currently-offered automobiles. The Model S and Model X lines at Tesla’s Fremont production facility were being retooled during the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021 as the flagship models were being “refreshed.”
At the time of writing, Tesla shares were trading at $601.16.
Disclosure: Joey Klender is a TSLA Shareholder.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
