Investor's Corner
Tesla is being ‘anti-subsidized’ in the US, and it’s thriving in spite of it
Ask any TSLAQ believer about one of the biggest reasons for Tesla’s ongoing success, and there’s a good chance that one will hear the word “subsidies.” More often than not, Tesla critics would argue that the electric car maker has only survived because the US government heavily subsidizes it — and without these subsidies, Tesla would fall.
Unfortunately for TSLA bears, this is not an accurate assumption. In fact, if one were to look at what Tesla has had to deal with in the past years (and is still dealing with today), it would actually be more accurate to state that the company had been “anti-subsidized” for the most part, both in its home country and some key territories abroad.
As thoroughly discussed by Tesla investor KarenRei on Twitter, Tesla actually has dealt with a lot of handicaps when selling its cars to consumers. Take the United States, for example. Being a pure electric car company, it was no surprise that Tesla was the first to trigger a phaseout of the $7,500 tax credit given to EV buyers in the country.
Today, Tesla buyers no longer receive tax credits from the United States government, which means that at this point, the company is taking on traditional automakers solely through its vehicles’ own merits. Buyers of pretty much every other car except the Chevy Bolt still receive a $7,500 tax credit, while those who purchase Teslas do not get any incentives. Yet, despite this, the demand for the company’s vehicles has remained healthy.
Another ghost from Tesla’s past that always emerges in the constant bull vs. bear debates online is the loan that the company received during the US financial crisis. Tesla did receive a loan from the Obama administration, but so did other companies, the biggest of which was General Motors, the quintessential American automaker. Tesla would eventually pay back the $465 million loan it received from the US government — 10 years early. GM, in comparison, defaulted on their own loan. This nifty little detail usually gets a bit overlooked whenever Tesla’s loans are discussed among critics.
But what about state incentives that are granted to Tesla for, say, building Giga Nevada? Well, that’s not particularly unique to the electric car maker, either. It should be noted that it is a pretty common practice for states to offer incentives to attract large corporations to invest and build their facilities within their borders. Doing so triggers an influx of jobs, as well as potentially positive effects for local businesses.
And don’t forget that Tesla is still struggling to formally sell its cars in several US states. It’s almost ironic how Tesla was able to secure land, build a factory, and start delivering locally-produced Model 3s in China to consumers before it was able to get permission to sell its cars in parts of its home country, like Texas.
In other territories, Tesla receives anti-incentives as well. This happened to the Model 3 in Canada, whose EV incentives required the base price of qualified vehicles to start below the cost of the Model 3, effectively excluding Tesla’s most affordable vehicle. This reflected a similar strategy adopted in Germany when the Model S was released in the country.
Keeping these in perspective, it almost seems like governments across the globe earnestly want electric cars to succeed. But when it comes to Tesla, the company has not been handled with kid gloves at all. Far from it. In a way, it seems fair to argue at this point that Tesla’s success, as evidenced by its 112,000 vehicle deliveries in the fourth quarter of 2019, is happening in spite of anti-incentives that are consistently thrown its way. Perhaps, just as argued by the company’s supporters, Tesla’s products just happen to be very compelling for buyers.
H/T @enn_Nafnlaus/Twitter
Investor's Corner
Tesla’s flying Roadster just revealed something bigger than the car
Analysts say the Roadster demo puts a Tesla and SpaceX merger back on the table.
The Roadster unveiling near Waco ended Thursday night, and by Friday morning much of the investor reaction had less to do with the car than with who owns the rocket technology inside it.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said the event “puts the Tesla/SpaceX relationship on the table in a tangible way,” pointing to the propulsion, pressure vessel and control hardware sitting on a Tesla product. Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management called the demo “a ridiculous display of engineering” with “no commercial value” beyond embarrassing traditional automakers, though he said it showed Musk wants the two companies together.
The more specific forecast came a day earlier from Barclays. Analyst Dan Levy told clients a deal could be announced before Tesla’s annual meeting, which must happen by December 6, and that an announcement in late October or early November could make shareholder approval harder. Barclays expects SpaceX to be the buyer in an all stock deal, with Tesla holders receiving SpaceX shares at a premium, based on market values of roughly $2.1 trillion for SpaceX and $1.5 trillion for Tesla. If nothing lands around the meeting, the bank still sees an announcement within 6 to 12 months.
The Roadster demo just added more weight to merger speculations. Tesla’s demo used cold gas thrusters and pressure tanks of the kind SpaceX uses on Falcon 9, and Musk described the car as a collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX engineers, as we mentioned in our breakdown of the three Roadster configurations.
Musk has not publicly addressed a deal since the event, as far as we have seen. His most direct answer remains the one he gave at the All In Summit, when he said that with so much collaboration, “who can imagine what action one might take” without ruling anything out. Ives has held to a 2027 timeline since his March note, and Musk pushed back on the China piece of the speculation when ARK floated a year end announcement in August.
The next test is Tesla’s third quarter earnings call on October 21. However, we recall in July that Musk told analysts, “we can’t talk about combining companies and that kind of thing on an earnings call,” so a clear answer wouldn’t be expected.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
How to use Grok Bot to block spam calls and texts
Tesla’s flying Roadster just revealed something bigger than the car
How Tesla’s Roadster fan system and thrusters are built to dominate the corners
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
Elon Musk’s Boring Company lands a new Middle East deal, and Nashville is about to get faster
