Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) took a steep dive on the heels of the company’s Q4 and FY 2023 earnings call, dropping over 9% as of writing. With the company stating that volume growth would be tempered this year due to its focus on the next-generation platform and executives being quite vague about its guidance for 2024, analysts, including some TSLA bulls, are not happy.
Tesla actually had a record 2023, with vehicle sales growing nearly 40% year-over-year in 2023 to over 1.8 million units worldwide. Wall Street currently expects Tesla to post about 2.1 to 2.2 million vehicle sales for 2024, which would translate to a growth of about 20%. This number seems conservative and attainable enough, but Tesla simply maintained that its volume growth would be substantially lower than 2023’s ~40%.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives shared his sentiments about Tesla’s earnings call, in a post on X. Ives described the call, which provided some high-level long-term views on the company, as another “train wreck” conference call. Following the earnings call, Ives adjusted his price target for Tesla from $350 to $315 per share, though he also noted that Wedbush remains bullish on the company.
Great to join @bsurveillance discussing another train wreck conf call in our view from Tesla and Musk lacking margin outlook and firm guidance for 24. Remain bullish for long term EV/AI vision but near term headwinds @lisaabramowicz1 @FerroTV @annmarie @BloombergTV https://t.co/E40CMG2Mg0— Dan Ives (@DivesTech) January 25, 2024
“We were dead wrong expecting Musk and team to step up like adults in the room on the call and give a strategic and financial overview of the ongoing price cuts, margin structure, and fluctuating demand. Instead, we got a high-level Tesla long-term view with another train wreck conference call,” Ives noted.
RBC analyst Tom Narayan also maintained his “Buy” rating on Tesla, though he lowered his price target from $300 to $297 per share. “We leave our delivery estimates unchanged after the vague guide, but lower our car gross margin expectations on less robust cost down opportunity,” he noted in a report. Narayan also pointed out that Tesla’s next-generation vehicle platform is still “many quarters away” from impacting the company’s numbers.
New $TSLA report from Adam Jonas: 5 thoughts post earnings call
“We reiterate our OW $TSLA rating ($345 price target) which offers over 80% upside from current levels which we believe is compelling in proportion to the investment level within our US auto coverage.” pic.twitter.com/TdZ2cLavdc— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 25, 2024
Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas, for his part, pointed out that Tesla almost did not provide any guidance during the call. He also observed that there were no “AI rabbits” pulled out of Tesla’s hat during the call, which was highlighted by Musk’s conservative comments about Dojo. Despite this, Morgan Stanley opted to maintain its “Overweight” rating and $345 price target on Tesla, with a bear case PT of $100 and a bull case PT of $500 per share.
While the sentiments surrounding Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2023 earnings call seem generally negative, some analysts opted to take a more optimistic stance on the company. Canaccord lowered its price target for Tesla from $267 to $234 per share, though the firm also noted that it is time for investors to be patient about the company. The firm noted that it remains bullish about Tesla’s long-term prospects.
NEWS: Canaccord Genuity has lowered its $TSLA price target to $234 (from $267), maintains a BUY rating.
They put out a good note:
“It’s time to be patient. The next-generation vehicle, FSD upgrades, margin improvement, and Optimus will likely bring an acceleration in revenue…— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 25, 2024
“It’s time to be patient. The next-generation vehicle, FSD upgrades, margin improvement, and Optimus will likely bring an acceleration in revenue growth. But not this year — 2024 will be subdued; probably a trough, but still relatively slow (we model ~18% y\y revenue growth). Growth curves are seldom smooth, and Tesla is no different.
“We are still quite bullish on Tesla’s long-term growth prospects. We think EVs will replace ICE vehicles despite recent countervailing narratives. We see vehicle autonomy as one of the highest value-creating technologies to be deployed. Ever. And Tesla, with its razor/ razorblade approach, is a leader in this real-world AI. We think Tesla is Apple on steroids as it focuses on manufacturing and a higher level of vertical integration. Tesla is THE sustainability behemoth, in our opinion,” the firm noted.
The critical metric, auto gross margins ex credits, came in at 17%, compared to the Street at 17.3%. I was expecting 16.7%.
While this missed the Street, it marks the end of four consecutive quarters of margin decline, up from 16.3% in the Sep-23.
Over this is a positive.— Gene Munster (@munster_gene) January 24, 2024
Longtime Tesla bull Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management also pointed out that Tesla’s auto gross margins for the past quarter ended a streak of dropping margins. “The critical metric, auto gross margins ex credits, came in at 17%, compared to the Street at 17.3%. I was expecting 16.7%. While this missed the Street, it marks the end of four consecutive quarters of margin decline, up from 16.3% in the Sep-23. Over, this is a positive,” Munster wrote on X.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
