News
Tesla is bringing a machine gun to a knife fight using an ‘AK-47 disguised as a butter knife’
Just recently, Tesla received what could very well be one of its most bullish takes from Wall Street to date, with Canaccord Genuity analyst Jed Dorsheimer acknowledging the potential of the company’s battery business, among other things. During a segment at CNBC’s The Squawk, Dorsheimer noted that Tesla’s primary edge lies in the fact that it simply tackles problems in a way that is fundamentally different from the norm.
And this, according to the analyst, is a crucial advantage—one that could help the EV maker keep its lead in the electric car sector. “Tesla is bringing a machine gun to a knife fight,” Dorsheimer noted.
In a lot of ways, Dorsheimer’s statements ring true. CEO Elon Musk has noted that Tesla should be seen as a chain of about a dozen startups that are each working towards a specific goal. As Musk said, many of the “startups” under Tesla’s umbrella actually have little to no correlation with traditional automotive companies. These include the company’s energy business, which the CEO predicts would comprise a large portion of Tesla in the future.
Despite this, few have looked at Tesla with such a lens. A look at the coverage of Tesla in the mainstream media over the years would show that numerous traditional auto analysts have been wrong about the stock, and even big bulls like Cathie Wood of ARK Invest do not typically cover Tesla’s potential in segments such as battery storage and residential solar. And this, at least for many of Tesla’s critics, has proven to be a costly misstep, as evidenced by TSLA shorts’ $38 billion loss last year.
A group that may very well have acknowledged Tesla’s bigger picture could be retail investors, many of whom are not investing experts. Instead, they are category experts, mastering the unique niche that Tesla was carving for itself. Partly thanks to the emergence of such a group, Tesla’s mid-2019 to 2020 stock performance represented one of the largest transfers of wealth from Wall Street to Main Street investors to date.
What is rather remarkable is that Tesla’s potential is hiding in plain sight. Its electric car business may not produce vehicles at the same volume as Toyota for now, but its numbers are growing massively every year. It only has a couple of functioning car factories today, but both are pushing out vehicles with frightening efficiency. Tesla’s battery storage and solar business may be easy to overlook as well, but its potential is vast as it exists in a sector that’s ripe for disruption.
Inasmuch as all the pieces of the Tesla puzzle are visible, however, it is very easy for someone with a narrow-minded lens—perhaps one focused on month-over-month vehicle deliveries in specific territories—to miss the forest for the trees. And in a way, this is partly due to Tesla’s strategy itself, which tends to keep things understated, despite Elon Musk’s Twitter habits.
From its vehicles to its battery storage systems, Tesla’s entire lineup is designed with simplicity in mind. This was something that Top Gear presenter Chris Harris mentioned back in 2019 when he went behind the wheel of the Model 3 Performance. Harris sharply criticized the Model 3 for its unassuming look, but he was blown away by its performance, which included the vehicle walking all over the best of ICE on the track. Summing up his thoughts, Harris noted that the Model 3 was an “AK-47 disguised as a butter knife.”
This still pretty much applies to Tesla’s current lineup of products. From the Semi to Full Self-Driving to Autobidder, most of Tesla’s creations are designed to usher in a paradigm shift in their respective segments. They just typically come in packages that are easily judged and just as easily miscalculated. Fortunately, and considering the growing community of people well-versed in Tesla’s efforts, the company’s efforts will likely not remain unacknowledged. After all, if Canaccord Genuity analyst Jed Dorsheimer’s recent statements are any indication, it appears that even Wall Street is starting to appreciate the forest a little bit more.
Don’t hesitate to contact us for news tips. Just send a message to tips@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
