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.
-
Cybertruck
Tesla Cybertruck production snaps back after ugly supplier fight
Cybertrucks are piling up again at Giga Texas after Tesla’s court win against a parts supplier.
Cybertruck production at Giga Texas is showing its first visible recovery since Tesla sued a supplier last month over withheld manufacturing tooling.
Aerial observer Joe Tegtmeyer flew over the Austin factory Wednesday morning and counted roughly 100 or more Cybertrucks filling the outbound lot, a sharp jump from the thin numbers seen in recent weeks. The flyover came a day after a judge granted Tesla a temporary restraining order against Angstrom Automotive Group, the parts supplier at the center of the dispute.
Tesla filed an emergency lawsuit in late July after Angstrom told the automaker it planned to close the Troy, Texas facility where Tesla’s die-cast tools, trim dies and other Cybertruck stamping equipment were housed. According to Tesla’s complaint, a shipment of 700 finished parts never left the building, and when Tesla sent representatives to retrieve its equipment, accompanied by law enforcement, they were turned away. Angstrom allegedly then asked for an extra $250,000 a week to keep operating, which Tesla’s filing described as holding its own property for ransom.
TESLA: U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Wolfe of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division granted Tesla a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Replevin in its dispute with Angstrom Automotive (Case No. 6:26-cv-00477).
The order authorizes… https://t.co/E1DKcQSxMn pic.twitter.com/LR8aAiV2Og
— S.E. Robinson, Jr. (@SERobinsonJr) August 5, 2026
The restraining order gives Tesla immediate right of entry to Angstrom’s facility to recover the tooling. It is temporary, with a fuller hearing still to come, but the speed of Wednesday’s rebound suggests the Angstrom shortage was indeed the main bottleneck limiting Cybertruck output. Outbound lot counts are an imperfect measure of actual production, since finished trucks can sit for days before shipping, but a lot that full after a lean stretch is a meaningful signal.
Cybertruck output at Giga Texas has fluctuated all year as Tesla worked through supply issues and introduced new trims, including a cheaper Dual Motor AWD version that drew strong early demand.
Venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya has cautioned investors shorting SpaceX shares, drawing a direct parallel to the intense short-selling pressure Tesla faced in its early public years.
Responding to reports of elevated short interest in the newly public rocket, satellite, and AI company, Palihapitiya noted that similar dynamics played out with Tesla, where aggressive short sellers ultimately “went broke.”
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) went public on June 12, 2026, in the largest IPO on record, pricing at $135 per share. Shares quickly surged to an all-time high of $225.64 just days later, briefly implying a valuation exceeding $2 trillion. The stock has since retreated sharply amid valuation concerns, lockup expiration fears, and broader market dynamics.
By early August, it traded near $108–$125, representing a roughly 50 percent decline from the peak and bringing the market capitalization closer to the $1.5–1.7 trillion range. On August 4, shares closed up more than 9 percent at $125.33 ahead of earnings before facing pressure in after-hours and premarket trading.
Short interest has climbed dramatically. According to S3 Partners data widely cited in market reports, short positions reached approximately 219.3 million shares by late July, about 34 percent of the limited public float of roughly 640 million shares, and represented a notional value of around $24.6 billion.
Utilization of shares available to borrow hit 95 percent, with borrow fees rising. This level of shorting exceeded the dollar value of short bets against Tesla at the time and built rapidly ahead of two catalysts: the company’s first post-IPO earnings and an August 6 lockup expiration that could free up to 911.5 million additional shares.
CEO Elon Musk has issued warnings of his own. In mid-July, as short interest approached one-third of the float, he posted that “the survival probability of firms who maintain a significant short position in SpaceX over time is very low,” reiterating his view that the company could ultimately be worth more than Earth if it achieves its goals.
On August 4, just before earnings, Musk responded to the latest short-interest data by saying, “I try to warn them, but they just double down.”
SpaceX delivered its first quarterly results as a public company after the close on August 4. Second-quarter revenue rose 92 percent year-over-year to $7.8 billion, beating consensus estimates near $6.8–6.9 billion.
The net loss narrowed to $541 million, or 9 cents per share, better than the roughly 23–24 cent loss expected. Starlink/connectivity contributed about $4.3 billion (up 66 percent), while the AI business generated $2.6 billion (up roughly 250 percent). Capital expenditures were heavy at $18.4 billion, largely tied to AI infrastructure. Management projected a $100 billion annualized revenue run rate by year-end 2026 and outlined a path toward $1 trillion in annual revenue by 2030.
The combination of Chamath’s historical reminder, Musk’s repeated alerts, and the company’s ambitious growth targets underscores the high-stakes debate surrounding SPCX. Short sellers are positioned for near-term supply pressure from the lockup, while long-term bulls point to Starlink scale, Starship progress, and AI compute expansion as reasons the bears may ultimately face the same fate as many early Tesla skeptics.
Investor's Corner
SpaceX and Nvidia team up on Musk’s orbital AI bet
SpaceX revealed a new Nvidia satellite partnership, then Musk pledged an exclusive Nvidia hardware commitment.
SpaceX and Nvidia are now working together on the hardware that will power Musk’s orbital data center ambitions. SpaceX announced on X on Tuesday that it is partnering with Nvidia to design the compute payload for Starmind AI1, the first satellite in a planned constellation built to run AI workloads directly in orbit. Each Starmind satellite will carry Nvidia’s Rubin GPUs and Vera CPUs, according to the post, which included renderings of the payload design.
The announcement landed hours before SpaceX’s first earnings call as a public company, where Musk went further, saying the company has committed to building its AI infrastructure exclusively on Nvidia hardware. “We think the Vera Rubin architecture is the best architecture. We think it’s the best AI computer, and we greatly value our close cooperation and partnership on many levels with Nvidia,” Musk told investors on the call,. “So we’re exclusive to Nvidia.”
Musk said SpaceX plans to deploy Nvidia’s Vera Rubin NVL72 rackscale system, codenamed Kyber, both on the ground and in space. He set a target of 2 gigawatts of compute capacity online by the end of this year, scaling to roughly 10 gigawatts by the end of 2027.
SpaceX’s newest Starmind will make earth data centers obsolete
Starmind has been in development since Musk confirmed the name in June, following an xAI trademark filing that tipped off the project before SpaceX made it official. The idea is massive in scope and instead of moving data down to ground based servers, satellites equipped with onboard processors and large solar arrays would compute AI workloads in orbit and beam results back to Earth. SpaceX has already filed with the FCC for a constellation of up to one million satellites to support the effort, citing constant solar power and the absence of zoning restrictions as advantages over terrestrial data centers.
The Nvidia exclusivity marks a shift in tone from just two weeks ago, when Musk was busy knocking down a report that SpaceX had ordered $52 billion worth of Nvidia GPUs through Foxconn, calling it fake news at the time. The dollar figure in that rumor may have been wrong, but the underlying direction seems correct. SpaceX’s AI division already leases Colossus compute capacity to Anthropic and Google, and Tuesday’s earnings report showed AI revenue climbing sharply as those deals ramp up.
Nvidia shares rose roughly 3% in Tuesday trading on the news, while SpaceX stock climbed nearly 9% during the day before giving back gains after hours as investors digested the earnings report’s capital spending figures.
Tesla Cybertruck production snaps back after ugly supplier fight
Space finally faced the people living next to its next Terafab mega-project
