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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk gives his most telling Tesla-SpaceX merger conversation yet
Elon Musk hinted a Tesla-SpaceX merger could be coming, and Wall Street is taking notice.
Elon Musk gave his clearest signal yet that Tesla and SpaceX could eventually combine, telling the All-In Summit in Los Angeles that the two companies’ deepening collaboration makes the question worth asking. Sawyer Merritt first surfaced the highlight on X Tuesday.
Asked directly why Tesla and SpaceX remain separate given how closely they already work together, Musk told hosts at the summit: “Great question there. With all this collaboration, on so many levels, who can imagine what action one might take when there’s so much close collaboration in so many areas.” SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, who joined Musk on stage, added that SpaceX personnel have already moved into xAI to fill leadership and engineering gaps, saying the businesses are integrating “faster than I thought,” though “not fully integrated yet,”
The comments landed on top of merger speculation that has been building on Wall Street for months. JPMorgan has called a tie-up “strategically coherent on paper,” pointing to overlapping ambitions in AI, robotics, energy, transportation and space. Jefferies went further, estimating Musk could retain roughly 55.3 percent voting control in a deal structured without a premium, a scenario that would still leave room for Tesla shareholders to come out ahead. On Kalshi, traders now put the odds of a merger before 2028 at 66 percent.
Tesla’s stake in SpaceX, still under one percent, traces back to its earlier investment in xAI, which converted to SpaceX equity after SpaceX absorbed the AI company. The two are also jointly building Terafab, a chip facility in Austin meant to serve both Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s satellite ambitions. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives has stood by a 2027 merger timeline for months, and Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest recently floated a similar case, an idea Musk pushed back on directly at the time.
Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking
The timing adds another layer. Tesla has scheduled an October 1 unveiling for its next generation Roadster at a venue near SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas test site, using the phrase “Go for launch” in its promotional material. Both stocks dipped roughly 2 percent Monday before recovering slightly in premarket trading Tuesday, with SpaceX shares up about 0.4 percent and Tesla essentially flat.
Musk stopped short of confirming anything is in motion. But unlike his past denials of a corporate restructuring, this response didn’t rule one out, and it came with Shotwell sitting next to him describing an integration that’s already underway.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
