Investor's Corner
Tesla is poised to survive 2020’s worst economic shocks; other automakers, not so much
Just before being proven wrong by Tesla’s first-quarter delivery and production numbers, TSLA bears were hard at work, spreading the now-aging narrative that the company’s electric cars will soon see a drop in demand. Hours before Tesla released its numbers, short-seller Jim Chanos even remarked that he remains “maximum short TSLA,” arguing that the company stands to lose money this year.
What the noted short-seller failed to mention was that this year would likely be downright brutal on the entire auto industry. 2020 only started, but the onset of the coronavirus pandemic has given the whole car market an economic shock that will resonate for a substantial period of time. Tesla will see adverse effects, most likely in the second quarter, but compared to the rest of the industry, the electric car maker may very well be poised to be a company that can not only survive, but thrive in these times of crisis. The same cannot be said for legacy carmakers, or the scheduled “Tesla Killers” that are set to be released in the near future.
Gene Munster of Loup Ventures noted that Tesla’s Q1 production and delivery results show that Tesla is winning despite the current headwinds simply because it has a product that is measurably better than both gas and electric competitors. The Wall Street veteran further added that while the next quarters will be challenging for Tesla and all other automakers like BMW and General Motors, he still expects Tesla to continue reporting 15-25% better delivery results compared to its peers.
A lot of this is due to the company’s products, specifically the Model 3 sedan and the Model Y crossover. Both vehicles are high-volume EVs, and they are designed to disrupt their respective segments. The Model Y, in particular, is designed to be competitive in the crossover market, which happens to be one of the fastest-growing segments in the auto industry today. Munster argued that over time, the price and performance gap between Tesla and its competitors would likely get broader. This is because rivals, such as legacy automakers and their respective EVs, will either have to sell a vehicle that’s at parity with Tesla’s features and range but at a higher price, or a car whose cost is subsidized by the company, resulting in financial strain. For automakers, such is a notable dilemma.
Tesla investor @Incentives101, an economist with a background in macro research, stated in a message to Teslarati that the demand for the electric car maker’s vehicles will largely depend on how distinct they are from other EVs on the market. It’s quite difficult to analyze a product’s demand from a consumer preferences standpoint. In the case of apparel, for example, it is challenging to determine why some consumers prefer Adidas over Nike. The auto industry is quite the same. When one looks at the demand for vehicles, it is difficult to pinpoint why some consumers buy a BMW 3-Series over an Audi A4, or a Mercedes-Benz C-Class; or why some customers buy a Honda Accord instead of a Toyota Camry.
Explaining further, the economist noted that instances such as these usually mean that the products consumers are purchasing are almost perfect substitutes for each other. If one were to study the size, efficiency, performance, and price of any category of cars, one would see that the differences are usually so marginal between each option and segment that consumer decisions often fall on subjective variables such as looks or brand loyalty. This is something that veteran automakers such as Ford rely on, with the company being proud of F-150 owners sticking with the company for years, or at times, even generations.
In the auto sector, there are various tradeoffs that customers are likely to compromise with. For buyers of cars with an internal combustion engine, opting for a low price will likely sacrifice performance, as is the case with the Toyota Camry. Buyers of electric vehicles from traditional automakers, on the other hand, will probably sacrifice something vital such as range for performance, as is the case with the Porsche Taycan. Tesla’s electric vehicles have pretty much eliminated these tradeoffs over time, largely thanks to the company’s own experience in producing and designing electric vehicles and their unique vertical integration, which provides the company unprecedented control over their products and the way they function.
Amidst the coronavirus pandemic, the health and economic shock that the world is facing are unprecedented. These shocks affect everyone, and for automakers, it will all come down to whoever can recover the fastest. Veteran automakers are fighting at a disadvantage as Tesla extends its gap in performance and tech. Tesla, on the other hand, may very well be poised to hit the ground running and crush its competitors in the process. The Model 3 and Tesla’s first-quarter results highlighted how demand for the company’s vehicles would likely be steady. As for demand concerns about Tesla, the economist noted that such concerns remain overblown.
“Until today, demand concerns about Tesla vehicles are overblown and based on a poor understanding of economics. Demand is a function of consumer preferences, basically what consumers value. It is also a function of income, price of substitutes, and few other things. How much each of these variables affects demand is not static. It may be that consumer preferences don’t change but income does, so in a scenario of rapid economic downturn with relatively fast recovery demand for Tesla would behave the same,” the economist wrote.
Disclosure: I have no ownership in shares of TSLA and have no plans to initiate any positions within 72 hours.
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.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.
Elon Musk says Tesla’s Roadster demo could be a bang, quite literally
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
The Pentagon taps Elon Musk to design the battlefield of the future
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
