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.
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.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has awarded the 2025-2026 Tesla Cybertruck crew cab pickup its highest honor: Top Safety Pick+. This marks the Cybertruck as the only full-size pickup to achieve this distinction in recent evaluations.
The award applies specifically to vehicles built after April 2025, following structural upgrades including front underbody reinforcements and footwell modifications.
These changes enabled strong performance in updated crash tests. The Cybertruck earned “Good” ratings in the small overlap front (driver and passenger sides), updated moderate overlap front, and updated side tests—core requirements for the Top Safety Pick+ designation.
It also secured acceptable or good headlights across trims and a “Good” rating for its standard front crash prevention system in pedestrian scenarios, along with acceptable or good performance in vehicle-to-vehicle testing.
The Cybertruck avoided every single pedestrian collision, including:
- Daytime child crossing
- Nightitime adult crossing
- Night parallel adult
In IIHS pedestrian front crash prevention tests, @Cybertruck avoided every single collision – daytime, nighttime & different angles
It was also the only pickup to earn Top Safety Pick+ (highest award) in 2026https://t.co/BNPqT9TbsW pic.twitter.com/M6nwDisBFK
— Tesla (@Tesla) June 24, 2026
In the large pickup category, competitors such as the Toyota Tundra received only a standard Top Safety Pick, while the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500 did not qualify for either award. This positions the Cybertruck as a standout in occupant protection and crash avoidance among its peers.
Credit: IIHS
Ironically, the same vehicle celebrated for superior U.S. safety performance remains banned from public roads in the United Kingdom and much of Europe. Regulators there cite the Cybertruck’s sharp external edges and highly rigid stainless-steel construction as failing pedestrian-protection standards. European and UK rules require rounded surfaces on protruding parts to minimize injury risk in collisions with vulnerable road users.
Critics also point to the truck’s substantial weight and unyielding body structure, which some argue could transfer more force to other vehicles or pedestrians rather than absorbing it.
Tesla’s engineering philosophy underpins the Cybertruck’s strong IIHS results. The vehicle features a distinctive stainless-steel exoskeleton made from ultra-hard 30X cold-rolled stainless steel. This provides exceptional structural rigidity and a robust safety cage that resists deformation in side impacts and rollovers.
Engineers designed integrated load paths to channel crash forces away from the occupant compartment while allowing controlled energy absorption in key zones. Post-April 2025 refinements to the front underbody further optimized performance in overlap crashes.
Complementing the passive structure is Tesla’s advanced active safety suite, including the standard Collision Avoidance Assist system with automatic emergency braking. This contributed directly to the vehicle’s strong front crash prevention scores. The skateboard platform and low center of gravity also enhance stability and handling, reducing the likelihood of certain crashes.
The IIHS recognition highlights how Tesla’s combination of high-strength materials, structural innovation, and software-driven safety systems can deliver top-tier protection in rigorous testing. While global regulatory differences on design and pedestrian interaction continue to limit the Cybertruck’s availability outside North America, its U.S. safety credentials set a new benchmark for full-size pickups.
Elon Musk
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Elon Musk confirmed Starmind as SpaceX’s AI satellite constellation name, targeting one million orbital compute nodes.
Elon Musk confirmed that Starmind will be the official name of SpaceX’s planned AI satellite constellation, following a trademark filing by xAI that surfaced earlier this week. Starmind is what’s being described to the FCC as a constellation of up to one million AI satellites
It’s worth noting that SpaceX’s Starlink communication satellite and Starmind are built on the same orbital infrastructure concept but serve entirely different purposes. Starlink is a connectivity network, with satellites receiving and relaying data between points on Earth, and functioning as a high-speed internet backbone in space. The satellites themselves do not process or think, and move information from one place to another, the same function a fiber cable performs underground.
SpaceX just forced Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to team up for the first time in history
Starmind, on the other hand, is something completely different, and tather than moving data, its satellites would compute data through artificial intelligence and directly in orbit using onboard processors powered by large solar arrays. Where a Starlink satellite is essentially a very fast pipe, a Starmind satellite is a server. The practical implication is that Starmind would allow AI models to run inference, process queries, and generate outputs from space, then beam results down to users anywhere on Earth within milliseconds, and without the data ever needing to travel to a terrestrial data center.
Starship will be able to carry 30 to 50 AI1 satellites per launch, delivering the equivalent of dozens of server racks per flight, with no land acquisition, no power grid approval, and no cooling infrastructure required on the ground.
SpaceX is pursuing this new technology as terrestrial data centers are running into hard limits such as lack of physical space, community opposition, and power and water consumption at a scale that is increasingly difficult to permit. Space has unlimited solar power, natural vacuum cooling, and no zoning boards. Musk said in a June 8 video presentation that he expects space to become the lowest-cost location to deploy AI compute within two to three years. Two AI1 prototypes are scheduled to launch in early 2027, with volume production targeted for the end of that year at a new facility called Gigasat.
The real world applications Starmind enables extend well beyond powering Grok. A constellation of orbiting AI processors could run inference workloads for any paying customer, anywhere on Earth, with latency measured in milliseconds rather than the seconds associated with ground-based cloud routing across continents. Starmind, if it scales as described, would make SpaceX the landlord of AI compute the same way Starlink made it the landlord of satellite internet.
Tesla and driver sued by family of woman killed in Texas crash: what we know
Tesla Cybertruck is officially the safest pickup, IIHS says
