正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

I just sat down with Gordon Johnson and we did something that apparently nobody on Wall Street wants to do anymore: We valued Tesla like an actual BUSINESS. Not a narrative or a promise about what might happen in 2030. We took each of Tesla's 4 business segments, assigned...

gnoble79's profile picture

George Noble

103,927 subscribers

69,342 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治财经
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Last night was the biggest disaster in the history of Tesla. Let me walk you through what actually happened on that earnings call, because the headlines are doing you a disservice: Elon Musk got on the call and admitted (his words) that Hardware 3 "simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD." He said he wished it were otherwise. He said the memory bandwidth is one-eighth of what Hardware 4 has. And that's the end of the conversation. Approximately 4 million Tesla vehicles on the road right now have Hardware 3. Many of those owners paid $8,000 to $15,000 for Full Self-Driving capability based on Musk's repeated promises (going back to 2016) that the hardware was sufficient for full autonomy. As recently as 2022, Musk was publicly assuring owners that HW3 had the processing power to get it done. BUT IT DIDN'T Those promises are now officially broken. The solution is a "discounted trade-in" toward a new car with Hardware 4. Not a refund or a free upgrade... A discount on buying ANOTHER Tesla. Investor Ross Gerber said it too - all HW3 owners got screwed, and with roughly 285,000 FSD purchasers affected, the potential liability runs into the BILLIONS. But that's not even the worst part. Musk was asked if the current FSD v14.3 was ready for unsupervised deployment. He said yes. Then immediately walked it back and admitted Tesla has "major architectural improvements" in the pipeline that would significantly improve safety. What he really means: the software isn't SAFE ENOUGH to deploy without a human watching. Full unsupervised FSD for consumer cars is pushed to Q4 2026. At the earliest... Maybe. How many times has this deadline been pushed? I've lost count. And trust me, I've seen a lot of broken promises. But this one takes the cake. Now let's talk about the numbers everyone is celebrating: Tesla reported $22.4 billion in revenue and $0.41 in non-GAAP earnings. A "double beat." The stock popped 4% after hours. Victory, right? WRONG Dig into the actual filing: The number one driver of operating income improvement wasn't cost reductions, wasn't volume growth, wasn't FSD revenue. It was - and Tesla listed this FIRST in their own shareholder letter - "one-time benefits related to warranty and tariffs." They released warranty reserves. They booked tariff refund windfalls. They stretched supplier payments by 10 days. They took on billions in new debt. Then they presented everything through non-GAAP metrics that strip out over $1 billion in stock-based compensation. GAAP net income was $477 million on $22.4 billion in revenue. That's a 2.1% net margin. On a $1.4 trillion market cap. Let me put that in perspective: 3.75 billion shares outstanding. Annualize the Q1 GAAP profit and you get roughly $1.9 billion. That's a trailing P/E ratio north of 700. Use the adjusted number - strip out stock comp, which is a REAL cost to shareholders through dilution - and you're still at around 250x earnings. All of this is extremely bad, but I didn't even talk about the CAPEX BOMB yet... 3 months ago, Tesla guided to "over $20 billion" in 2026 capital expenditure. Last night they raised it to over $25 billion. A $5 billion increase in a single quarter. That's 3x their historical annual capex run rate - $8.5 billion in 2025, $11.3 billion in 2024. The CFO confirmed on the call that Tesla expects NEGATIVE free cash flow for the rest of the year. So you have a company generating roughly $6 billion in annual free cash flow on a good year, and they're about to spend $25 billion. The math doesn't work. They will almost certainly need to issue equity. Which means dilution. Which means the $1.9 billion in annual earnings gets spread across even MORE shares. The core auto business is literally deteriorating in real time: Tesla delivered 358,000 vehicles in Q1 (missed estimates again). They produced 408,000. That's 50,000 cars sitting on lots that nobody bought. Inventory days jumped from 10 to 27 in just a few quarters. California (their most important US market) saw registrations crash 24% year over year. Their market share in the state fell from 9.2% to 7.7%. That's on top of a Q1 2025 that was ALREADY weak from Model Y retooling. They're declining off a decline. And here's what really kills the bull case... The entire valuation rests on robotaxis, Optimus robots, and autonomy. So let's put numbers on it: Waymo - the actual leader in autonomous driving with 15 million completed rides in 2025 alone, over 127 million autonomous miles driven, operating commercially across 6 US cities with plans to expand to 20 more - just raised $16 billion at a $126 billion valuation. That's the market's verdict on what the LEADING robotaxi company is worth. $126 billion. And Waymo is YEARS ahead of Tesla in actual deployment. Tesla has 3.75 billion shares outstanding. So even if you assign $126 billion in robotaxi value (giving Tesla full credit for matching Waymo despite being nowhere close) that's $33 a share. Add the auto business at generous auto-industry multiples, maybe $20 a share. Throw in energy storage and services, $10-15. Sum of the parts gets you to roughly $65-70 a share if you're feeling generous. Maybe $50 if you're not. The stock is $387. So what exactly are you paying for? You're paying for a STORY. You're paying for PROMISES that keep getting pushed back, technology that keeps falling short, and a business plan that requires spending $25 billion a year while the core product sells fewer units at declining margins in a market where California sales just fell 24% and the federal EV tax credit is gone. I managed the number one mutual fund in America. I founded two billion-dollar hedge funds. I've been doing this since 1981. And I am telling you: Tesla at $387 is one of the most egregious mispricings I have seen in my entire career. THE CRASH WILL BE EPIC
5:21

Last night was the biggest disaster in the history of Tesla. Let me walk you through what actually happened on that earnings call, because the headlines are doing you a disservice: Elon Musk got on the call and admitted (his words) that Hardware 3 "simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD." He said he wished it were otherwise. He said the memory bandwidth is one-eighth of what Hardware 4 has. And that's the end of the conversation. Approximately 4 million Tesla vehicles on the road right now have Hardware 3. Many of those owners paid $8,000 to $15,000 for Full Self-Driving capability based on Musk's repeated promises (going back to 2016) that the hardware was sufficient for full autonomy. As recently as 2022, Musk was publicly assuring owners that HW3 had the processing power to get it done. BUT IT DIDN'T Those promises are now officially broken. The solution is a "discounted trade-in" toward a new car with Hardware 4. Not a refund or a free upgrade... A discount on buying ANOTHER Tesla. Investor Ross Gerber said it too - all HW3 owners got screwed, and with roughly 285,000 FSD purchasers affected, the potential liability runs into the BILLIONS. But that's not even the worst part. Musk was asked if the current FSD v14.3 was ready for unsupervised deployment. He said yes. Then immediately walked it back and admitted Tesla has "major architectural improvements" in the pipeline that would significantly improve safety. What he really means: the software isn't SAFE ENOUGH to deploy without a human watching. Full unsupervised FSD for consumer cars is pushed to Q4 2026. At the earliest... Maybe. How many times has this deadline been pushed? I've lost count. And trust me, I've seen a lot of broken promises. But this one takes the cake. Now let's talk about the numbers everyone is celebrating: Tesla reported $22.4 billion in revenue and $0.41 in non-GAAP earnings. A "double beat." The stock popped 4% after hours. Victory, right? WRONG Dig into the actual filing: The number one driver of operating income improvement wasn't cost reductions, wasn't volume growth, wasn't FSD revenue. It was - and Tesla listed this FIRST in their own shareholder letter - "one-time benefits related to warranty and tariffs." They released warranty reserves. They booked tariff refund windfalls. They stretched supplier payments by 10 days. They took on billions in new debt. Then they presented everything through non-GAAP metrics that strip out over $1 billion in stock-based compensation. GAAP net income was $477 million on $22.4 billion in revenue. That's a 2.1% net margin. On a $1.4 trillion market cap. Let me put that in perspective: 3.75 billion shares outstanding. Annualize the Q1 GAAP profit and you get roughly $1.9 billion. That's a trailing P/E ratio north of 700. Use the adjusted number - strip out stock comp, which is a REAL cost to shareholders through dilution - and you're still at around 250x earnings. All of this is extremely bad, but I didn't even talk about the CAPEX BOMB yet... 3 months ago, Tesla guided to "over $20 billion" in 2026 capital expenditure. Last night they raised it to over $25 billion. A $5 billion increase in a single quarter. That's 3x their historical annual capex run rate - $8.5 billion in 2025, $11.3 billion in 2024. The CFO confirmed on the call that Tesla expects NEGATIVE free cash flow for the rest of the year. So you have a company generating roughly $6 billion in annual free cash flow on a good year, and they're about to spend $25 billion. The math doesn't work. They will almost certainly need to issue equity. Which means dilution. Which means the $1.9 billion in annual earnings gets spread across even MORE shares. The core auto business is literally deteriorating in real time: Tesla delivered 358,000 vehicles in Q1 (missed estimates again). They produced 408,000. That's 50,000 cars sitting on lots that nobody bought. Inventory days jumped from 10 to 27 in just a few quarters. California (their most important US market) saw registrations crash 24% year over year. Their market share in the state fell from 9.2% to 7.7%. That's on top of a Q1 2025 that was ALREADY weak from Model Y retooling. They're declining off a decline. And here's what really kills the bull case... The entire valuation rests on robotaxis, Optimus robots, and autonomy. So let's put numbers on it: Waymo - the actual leader in autonomous driving with 15 million completed rides in 2025 alone, over 127 million autonomous miles driven, operating commercially across 6 US cities with plans to expand to 20 more - just raised $16 billion at a $126 billion valuation. That's the market's verdict on what the LEADING robotaxi company is worth. $126 billion. And Waymo is YEARS ahead of Tesla in actual deployment. Tesla has 3.75 billion shares outstanding. So even if you assign $126 billion in robotaxi value (giving Tesla full credit for matching Waymo despite being nowhere close) that's $33 a share. Add the auto business at generous auto-industry multiples, maybe $20 a share. Throw in energy storage and services, $10-15. Sum of the parts gets you to roughly $65-70 a share if you're feeling generous. Maybe $50 if you're not. The stock is $387. So what exactly are you paying for? You're paying for a STORY. You're paying for PROMISES that keep getting pushed back, technology that keeps falling short, and a business plan that requires spending $25 billion a year while the core product sells fewer units at declining margins in a market where California sales just fell 24% and the federal EV tax credit is gone. I managed the number one mutual fund in America. I founded two billion-dollar hedge funds. I've been doing this since 1981. And I am telling you: Tesla at $387 is one of the most egregious mispricings I have seen in my entire career. THE CRASH WILL BE EPIC

George Noble

1,225,064 次观看 • 3 个月前

Tesla is a $1.3 trillion company that sold fewer cars this year than last year. And fewer last year than the year before. That should tell you everything you need to know. 2 consecutive years of declining deliveries. Down 9% in 2025 to 1.63 million vehicles. The steepest annual drop in the company's history. And 2026 is starting even worse - US sales down 17% in January, Europe down 44% across major markets. France down 42%. Netherlands down 67%. Norway down 88%. BYD passed them as the global EV leader. In the UK, BYD outsold Tesla 2 to 1 last month. The brand is in FREEFALL. Brand Finance measured a 36% collapse in Tesla's brand value last year - down to $27.6 billion, less than half its 2023 peak. In California, their most important US market, share dropped from 11.6% to 9.9%. And the stock trades at 365 times trailing earnings. Let me say that differently: Tesla earned $3.8 billion last year. The market is valuing those earnings at $1.3 trillion. You are paying $365 for every dollar this company earns. The bull case has completely abandoned the car business. It's all robotaxis and Optimus robots now. They discontinued the Model S and Model X. They told investors on the last earnings call to stop focusing on vehicle deliveries and start thinking about "transportation as a service." So in other words: please ignore the business we actually have and value us on the business we MIGHT have someday. Trust me, every time management tells you to look over there instead of over here... LOOK OVER HERE. The car business is deteriorating. Margins are compressing. Competition from BYD, Volkswagen, and a dozen Chinese manufacturers is intensifying quarter by quarter. The $7,500 federal EV tax credit is gone, which effectively raised the price of every Tesla overnight. And instead of addressing any of that, they're doubling capex to $20 billion this year - almost entirely directed at AI and autonomous driving infrastructure. So you have a company with shrinking revenue, shrinking deliveries, a damaged brand, and intensifying competition pouring $20 billion into a technology that hasn't been proven at commercial scale. On 365 times earnings. Even if you give them the most generous robotaxi assumptions imaginable (full regulatory approval, nationwide deployment, dominant market share) you still can't justify this valuation. The present value of that optionality doesn't come close to $1.3 trillion when the core business is going backwards. I think this stock goes down 90% from here. Not because Tesla is worthless. They'll sell cars. The energy storage business has potential. But the equity is priced for a future that isn't coming on the timeline the market expects. A $37 stock. That's where the math takes you when you strip out the narrative and price what actually exists. I know that sounds extreme. But 45 years of doing this has taught me something: When you can see the seams on the fastball, you SWING. I can see the seams.
1:40

Tesla is a $1.3 trillion company that sold fewer cars this year than last year. And fewer last year than the year before. That should tell you everything you need to know. 2 consecutive years of declining deliveries. Down 9% in 2025 to 1.63 million vehicles. The steepest annual drop in the company's history. And 2026 is starting even worse - US sales down 17% in January, Europe down 44% across major markets. France down 42%. Netherlands down 67%. Norway down 88%. BYD passed them as the global EV leader. In the UK, BYD outsold Tesla 2 to 1 last month. The brand is in FREEFALL. Brand Finance measured a 36% collapse in Tesla's brand value last year - down to $27.6 billion, less than half its 2023 peak. In California, their most important US market, share dropped from 11.6% to 9.9%. And the stock trades at 365 times trailing earnings. Let me say that differently: Tesla earned $3.8 billion last year. The market is valuing those earnings at $1.3 trillion. You are paying $365 for every dollar this company earns. The bull case has completely abandoned the car business. It's all robotaxis and Optimus robots now. They discontinued the Model S and Model X. They told investors on the last earnings call to stop focusing on vehicle deliveries and start thinking about "transportation as a service." So in other words: please ignore the business we actually have and value us on the business we MIGHT have someday. Trust me, every time management tells you to look over there instead of over here... LOOK OVER HERE. The car business is deteriorating. Margins are compressing. Competition from BYD, Volkswagen, and a dozen Chinese manufacturers is intensifying quarter by quarter. The $7,500 federal EV tax credit is gone, which effectively raised the price of every Tesla overnight. And instead of addressing any of that, they're doubling capex to $20 billion this year - almost entirely directed at AI and autonomous driving infrastructure. So you have a company with shrinking revenue, shrinking deliveries, a damaged brand, and intensifying competition pouring $20 billion into a technology that hasn't been proven at commercial scale. On 365 times earnings. Even if you give them the most generous robotaxi assumptions imaginable (full regulatory approval, nationwide deployment, dominant market share) you still can't justify this valuation. The present value of that optionality doesn't come close to $1.3 trillion when the core business is going backwards. I think this stock goes down 90% from here. Not because Tesla is worthless. They'll sell cars. The energy storage business has potential. But the equity is priced for a future that isn't coming on the timeline the market expects. A $37 stock. That's where the math takes you when you strip out the narrative and price what actually exists. I know that sounds extreme. But 45 years of doing this has taught me something: When you can see the seams on the fastball, you SWING. I can see the seams.

George Noble

529,597 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 According to Dan Ives, TESLA IS NOW MORE AN AI COMPANY THAN A CAR COMPANY 🏆 Here are the key takeaways from Ives regarding Tesla's strategic direction and future valuation after the Q1.2026 earnings release 🔥 📈 Earnings matter for tracking demand stabilization Investors still need to pay attention to earnings numbers because they indicate whether demand is stabilizing, particularly in key markets like China and Europe. "But you care because ultimately you need a stabilization of demand. I think they've seen that in spots like China, Europe, and that is important in terms of the course of the reality going forward." 🤖 Tesla's future valuation hinges on AI, not just cars Tesla should be viewed primarily as an AI, autonomous driving, and robotaxi company, which will be the primary driver for its next trillion-dollar valuation increase. "To get the incremental trillion dollars valuation, trillion and a half, it's going to be in AI. It's going to be really what I view—this is much more of an AI company, disruptive tech, than a car company." 🛣️ The timeline for "Physical AI" and a second-half ramp-up is crucial Along with Nvidia, Tesla is one of the top two "physical AI" investments in the market today. To turn the stock around, management needs to outline a realistic timeline for production and city rollouts for the second half of the year. "You look for physical AI, the two best physical AI plays in the market today are Nvidia and Tesla. But really right now, it's the path to actually start to see the ramp in the second half of the year. This is a very important conference call." 🛡️ The autonomous rollout is deliberately cautious While the rollout of autonomous features in cities has been slower than expected, this is an intentional and careful strategy to avoid safety issues as they ramp up city by city. "If you look, it's been slower than expected, but then that's also been carefully done because the last thing they want to do is ultimately have some issue. So you're seeing city by city them ramping." 🌎 Tesla is positioned to dominate the global autonomous market Tesla is expected to eventually command 80% of the world's autonomous market, starting with smaller city networks. Because of this, Dan expects the stock to significantly outperform over the next 3 to 6 months. "In my opinion, they're going to own 80% of the autonomous market in the world, but it's been talked about, it does all start with rolling it out, showing the physical AI play. It's been underperforming this year, but I believe if we sit here three, six months from now, it has actually significantly outperformed." 🚀 A potential merger with SpaceX is on the horizon A major "golden goose" for investors is the expectation that Tesla could merge with SpaceX within the next year, creating a broader trend for investors to capitalize on. "It's our view that in the next year Tesla eventually merges with SpaceX, and this is just an important dynamic as it plays out. I think that's sort of part of the golden goose for us as investors start to play this broader trend."
5:08

🚨 According to Dan Ives, TESLA IS NOW MORE AN AI COMPANY THAN A CAR COMPANY 🏆 Here are the key takeaways from Ives regarding Tesla's strategic direction and future valuation after the Q1.2026 earnings release 🔥 📈 Earnings matter for tracking demand stabilization Investors still need to pay attention to earnings numbers because they indicate whether demand is stabilizing, particularly in key markets like China and Europe. "But you care because ultimately you need a stabilization of demand. I think they've seen that in spots like China, Europe, and that is important in terms of the course of the reality going forward." 🤖 Tesla's future valuation hinges on AI, not just cars Tesla should be viewed primarily as an AI, autonomous driving, and robotaxi company, which will be the primary driver for its next trillion-dollar valuation increase. "To get the incremental trillion dollars valuation, trillion and a half, it's going to be in AI. It's going to be really what I view—this is much more of an AI company, disruptive tech, than a car company." 🛣️ The timeline for "Physical AI" and a second-half ramp-up is crucial Along with Nvidia, Tesla is one of the top two "physical AI" investments in the market today. To turn the stock around, management needs to outline a realistic timeline for production and city rollouts for the second half of the year. "You look for physical AI, the two best physical AI plays in the market today are Nvidia and Tesla. But really right now, it's the path to actually start to see the ramp in the second half of the year. This is a very important conference call." 🛡️ The autonomous rollout is deliberately cautious While the rollout of autonomous features in cities has been slower than expected, this is an intentional and careful strategy to avoid safety issues as they ramp up city by city. "If you look, it's been slower than expected, but then that's also been carefully done because the last thing they want to do is ultimately have some issue. So you're seeing city by city them ramping." 🌎 Tesla is positioned to dominate the global autonomous market Tesla is expected to eventually command 80% of the world's autonomous market, starting with smaller city networks. Because of this, Dan expects the stock to significantly outperform over the next 3 to 6 months. "In my opinion, they're going to own 80% of the autonomous market in the world, but it's been talked about, it does all start with rolling it out, showing the physical AI play. It's been underperforming this year, but I believe if we sit here three, six months from now, it has actually significantly outperformed." 🚀 A potential merger with SpaceX is on the horizon A major "golden goose" for investors is the expectation that Tesla could merge with SpaceX within the next year, creating a broader trend for investors to capitalize on. "It's our view that in the next year Tesla eventually merges with SpaceX, and this is just an important dynamic as it plays out. I think that's sort of part of the golden goose for us as investors start to play this broader trend."

Ming

11,605 次观看 • 3 个月前

Tesla just invested $2 BILLION into xAI. Shareholders voted AGAINST this exact move in November. But Elon did it anyway. And here's why this might be the most genius corporate power play of 2026... The shareholder vote wasn't even close to ambiguous. 1.06 billion shares voted YES. 916 million voted NO. Sounds like approval right? Wrong. Under Tesla's bylaws, abstentions count as NO votes. The measure failed. Elon's response on the earnings call: "We're just doing what shareholders asked us to do, pretty much." Translation: I heard you. I disagree. So we're doing it anyway. Now here's why this actually MAKES SENSE... On January 16th, Tesla quietly acquired Series E Preferred Stock in xAI as part of their $20 billion funding round. The same xAI that powers Grok. The same Grok already installed in Tesla vehicles. The same Tesla that supplies Megapack batteries to power xAI's data centers. See the pattern? Most CEOs build one company and pray the board doesn't fire them. Elon builds an empire where every company feeds the others. Tesla needs AI for Full Self-Driving and Optimus robots. Instead of burning 5 years and $10 billion on internal R&D, they buy into xAI and get frontier AI research on tap. xAI needs massive compute power. Instead of begging Amazon or Microsoft for data center capacity, they run on Tesla Megapacks. xAI told investors they're building AI specifically for humanoid robots. Guess who's manufacturing humanoid robots at scale? Tesla's Optimus line. Every dollar Elon spends comes back to Elon. This is what critics miss when they scream "conflict of interest." It's not a conflict. It's a closed-loop economic engine. And the timing is absolutely ruthless. The same earnings call where Tesla announced the xAI investment, they also announced they're KILLING the Model S and Model X. Two of the most iconic electric vehicles ever made. Gone. Why? To convert the Fremont factory line into Optimus robot production. 1 million humanoid robots per year. From the same floor that used to make luxury cars. Tesla's metamorphosing from a car company into a robotics and AI empire. And the $2 billion xAI investment is the software layer for the entire physical AI strategy. Now here's the part that should make every founder pay attention... Tesla disclosed the investment was made "on market terms consistent with those previously agreed to by other investors." Same terms as Fidelity. Same terms as Qatar Investment Authority. Same terms as Nvidia. No sweetheart deal. No insider pricing. Just strategic positioning at market rates. SpaceX already put $2 billion into xAI's earlier round. Now Tesla's in for another $2 billion. The Musk empire is consolidating around AI as the gravitational center. Tesla vehicles collect real-world driving data. xAI trains models on it. Grok gets smarter. Tesla's FSD improves. More Teslas sell. More data flows back. Flywheel economics at planetary scale. Meanwhile most companies are still running "AI task forces" and scheduling committee meetings about prompt engineering or whatever. The gap between founders building AI ecosystems and executives "implementing AI strategies" is becoming a canyon. One group is buying equity in the infrastructure of the future... The other is paying monthly subscriptions to rent access to it. Elon just mass-produced another unfair advantage. Shareholders said no. He said fuck it. And in 5 years when Tesla's market cap is driven more by robots than cars, everyone will pretend they saw it coming.
1:32

Tesla just invested $2 BILLION into xAI. Shareholders voted AGAINST this exact move in November. But Elon did it anyway. And here's why this might be the most genius corporate power play of 2026... The shareholder vote wasn't even close to ambiguous. 1.06 billion shares voted YES. 916 million voted NO. Sounds like approval right? Wrong. Under Tesla's bylaws, abstentions count as NO votes. The measure failed. Elon's response on the earnings call: "We're just doing what shareholders asked us to do, pretty much." Translation: I heard you. I disagree. So we're doing it anyway. Now here's why this actually MAKES SENSE... On January 16th, Tesla quietly acquired Series E Preferred Stock in xAI as part of their $20 billion funding round. The same xAI that powers Grok. The same Grok already installed in Tesla vehicles. The same Tesla that supplies Megapack batteries to power xAI's data centers. See the pattern? Most CEOs build one company and pray the board doesn't fire them. Elon builds an empire where every company feeds the others. Tesla needs AI for Full Self-Driving and Optimus robots. Instead of burning 5 years and $10 billion on internal R&D, they buy into xAI and get frontier AI research on tap. xAI needs massive compute power. Instead of begging Amazon or Microsoft for data center capacity, they run on Tesla Megapacks. xAI told investors they're building AI specifically for humanoid robots. Guess who's manufacturing humanoid robots at scale? Tesla's Optimus line. Every dollar Elon spends comes back to Elon. This is what critics miss when they scream "conflict of interest." It's not a conflict. It's a closed-loop economic engine. And the timing is absolutely ruthless. The same earnings call where Tesla announced the xAI investment, they also announced they're KILLING the Model S and Model X. Two of the most iconic electric vehicles ever made. Gone. Why? To convert the Fremont factory line into Optimus robot production. 1 million humanoid robots per year. From the same floor that used to make luxury cars. Tesla's metamorphosing from a car company into a robotics and AI empire. And the $2 billion xAI investment is the software layer for the entire physical AI strategy. Now here's the part that should make every founder pay attention... Tesla disclosed the investment was made "on market terms consistent with those previously agreed to by other investors." Same terms as Fidelity. Same terms as Qatar Investment Authority. Same terms as Nvidia. No sweetheart deal. No insider pricing. Just strategic positioning at market rates. SpaceX already put $2 billion into xAI's earlier round. Now Tesla's in for another $2 billion. The Musk empire is consolidating around AI as the gravitational center. Tesla vehicles collect real-world driving data. xAI trains models on it. Grok gets smarter. Tesla's FSD improves. More Teslas sell. More data flows back. Flywheel economics at planetary scale. Meanwhile most companies are still running "AI task forces" and scheduling committee meetings about prompt engineering or whatever. The gap between founders building AI ecosystems and executives "implementing AI strategies" is becoming a canyon. One group is buying equity in the infrastructure of the future... The other is paying monthly subscriptions to rent access to it. Elon just mass-produced another unfair advantage. Shareholders said no. He said fuck it. And in 5 years when Tesla's market cap is driven more by robots than cars, everyone will pretend they saw it coming.

Ricardo

16,572 次观看 • 6 个月前

Ron Baron in a new video says each Tesla Cybercab could generate the company $40,000 in profits per year. He sees Robotaxi generating over $120B in revenue per year in the not too distant future. "They’re switching to having a car that they’re going to make for themselves, costing them about $30,000, and doing at least a million of them a year. And on those cars, Waymo does 66,000 revenue miles a year. They charge $3 a mile. We’re probably going to charge less than that. I would guess $1 or $2. But if we charge $1, that would give us $60,000 in revenues a car, $40,000 roughly in profit per year for a car that costs us $30,000 and lasts a million miles, therefore forever. And what Tesla would be at that point is $40 billion of profit in year one, $80 billion in year two, $120 billion in year three. And on top of that, you’re then going to have robots, which he thinks is the biggest product ever."
0:59

Ron Baron in a new video says each Tesla Cybercab could generate the company $40,000 in profits per year. He sees Robotaxi generating over $120B in revenue per year in the not too distant future. "They’re switching to having a car that they’re going to make for themselves, costing them about $30,000, and doing at least a million of them a year. And on those cars, Waymo does 66,000 revenue miles a year. They charge $3 a mile. We’re probably going to charge less than that. I would guess $1 or $2. But if we charge $1, that would give us $60,000 in revenues a car, $40,000 roughly in profit per year for a car that costs us $30,000 and lasts a million miles, therefore forever. And what Tesla would be at that point is $40 billion of profit in year one, $80 billion in year two, $120 billion in year three. And on top of that, you’re then going to have robots, which he thinks is the biggest product ever."

Nic Cruz Patane

135,900 次观看 • 2 天前

This might be the most insane battle in tech history. And everyone's watching the wrong thing. Waymo just raised $15 billion at a $100 BILLION valuation. That's a 122% jump in 14 months. Meanwhile, Tesla started testing truly driverless robotaxis in Austin last week. But here's what nobody's saying out loud: This war was already decided. And Waymo won. The market just told us exactly how much real autonomy is worth versus promises. Tesla's entire $1.5 trillion valuation assumes robotaxis will generate trillions in revenue. Waymo's actual working robotaxis doing 450,000 weekly paid rides across five cities are worth $100 billion. That's the gap between fantasy and reality priced in real money. And it gets crazier when you look at what's actually happening on the ground. Waymo crossed 127 million fully autonomous miles. Zero humans in the car. Ever. They went from testing to fully autonomous in Dallas and Houston in six months. The "can't scale" argument just died in Texas. Meanwhile Tesla just removed the safety driver from 30 cars in Austin. After six months of supervised testing. With seven reported crashes to NHTSA. Elon claimed they'd have 500 robotaxis in Austin by end of 2025. They have 29. Deutsche Bank predicted 1,500 across Austin and San Francisco. But they're nowhere close. The real story isn't the numbers. It's the business model everyone missed. For years, Tesla bulls said Waymo's approach was too expensive to scale. Lidar costs tens of thousands. HD mapping takes forever. Remote monitoring eats margins. Tesla's vision-only system costs $400 per car. Waymo's sensor suite costs $12,700. Simple math says Tesla wins, right? Wrong. Because they're not selling the same product. Tesla is selling supervised driver assistance to consumers who pay $99/month and still have to watch the road. Waymo is selling fully autonomous rides to passengers who literally sleep in the back seat. Those are completely different businesses with completely different economics. And the market just valued the difference at $100 billion. Here's the part that destroys the Tesla narrative: Waymo's cost per vehicle is dropping faster than anyone predicted. Their 6th generation system coming in the new Zeekr van will cost under $20,000. Getting competitive with Tesla's hardware while maintaining full autonomy. Meanwhile Tesla's FSD has been "months away" from unsupervised operation for five years straight. The technical gap is widening and NOT closing. Waymo just launched freeway operations across San Francisco, Phoenix, and LA. They're expanding to 12 new U.S. cities in 2026 plus London and Tokyo. That's the opposite of "can't scale." Tesla can't even get a California permit to test without a safety driver. But wait, there's more... Waymo's safety data makes Tesla look reckless. 88% reduction in property damage claims compared to humans. 92% reduction in bodily injury claims. Those numbers come from Swiss Re, not Waymo's marketing team. Tesla's response? "Trust us, it's safer than humans." No comprehensive data. No third-party verification. Meanwhile actual insurance companies are pricing the difference. Everyone's debating cameras versus lidar. That's like arguing about gasoline versus diesel when one company has working cars and the other has prototypes. The real question is: who understood the path to market first? Waymo spent 15 years building a system that actually works. Incremental progress. Conservative timelines. Real safety validation. They're boring. They're slow. They're methodical. And they won. Tesla promised magic. Flashy demos. Aggressive timelines. Revolutionary technology. They're exciting. They're fast. They're bold. And they're stuck in supervised mode with 29 cars. Here's what happens next: Waymo takes this $15 billion and floods the market. 100,000 vehicles. At current utilization rates, that's 10% of the entire U.S. ride-hailing market. They become the default autonomous option in every major city by 2027. Tesla either admits FSD Supervised isn't ready for full autonomy, or they keep testing with 30 cars and hoping for a breakthrough. The market has spoken. Real autonomy with expensive sensors beats cheap cameras that need human supervision. Not because the technology is better. Because the business model actually works. You can't scale "almost autonomous." You scale fully autonomous or you stay a driver assistance feature forever. Waymo chose the hard path and won. Tesla chose the impossible path and got stuck. The $100 billion valuation is the market pricing that difference. This was never about who has better AI. It was about who understood the economics of autonomy first. And Waymo just proved they did.
1:00

This might be the most insane battle in tech history. And everyone's watching the wrong thing. Waymo just raised $15 billion at a $100 BILLION valuation. That's a 122% jump in 14 months. Meanwhile, Tesla started testing truly driverless robotaxis in Austin last week. But here's what nobody's saying out loud: This war was already decided. And Waymo won. The market just told us exactly how much real autonomy is worth versus promises. Tesla's entire $1.5 trillion valuation assumes robotaxis will generate trillions in revenue. Waymo's actual working robotaxis doing 450,000 weekly paid rides across five cities are worth $100 billion. That's the gap between fantasy and reality priced in real money. And it gets crazier when you look at what's actually happening on the ground. Waymo crossed 127 million fully autonomous miles. Zero humans in the car. Ever. They went from testing to fully autonomous in Dallas and Houston in six months. The "can't scale" argument just died in Texas. Meanwhile Tesla just removed the safety driver from 30 cars in Austin. After six months of supervised testing. With seven reported crashes to NHTSA. Elon claimed they'd have 500 robotaxis in Austin by end of 2025. They have 29. Deutsche Bank predicted 1,500 across Austin and San Francisco. But they're nowhere close. The real story isn't the numbers. It's the business model everyone missed. For years, Tesla bulls said Waymo's approach was too expensive to scale. Lidar costs tens of thousands. HD mapping takes forever. Remote monitoring eats margins. Tesla's vision-only system costs $400 per car. Waymo's sensor suite costs $12,700. Simple math says Tesla wins, right? Wrong. Because they're not selling the same product. Tesla is selling supervised driver assistance to consumers who pay $99/month and still have to watch the road. Waymo is selling fully autonomous rides to passengers who literally sleep in the back seat. Those are completely different businesses with completely different economics. And the market just valued the difference at $100 billion. Here's the part that destroys the Tesla narrative: Waymo's cost per vehicle is dropping faster than anyone predicted. Their 6th generation system coming in the new Zeekr van will cost under $20,000. Getting competitive with Tesla's hardware while maintaining full autonomy. Meanwhile Tesla's FSD has been "months away" from unsupervised operation for five years straight. The technical gap is widening and NOT closing. Waymo just launched freeway operations across San Francisco, Phoenix, and LA. They're expanding to 12 new U.S. cities in 2026 plus London and Tokyo. That's the opposite of "can't scale." Tesla can't even get a California permit to test without a safety driver. But wait, there's more... Waymo's safety data makes Tesla look reckless. 88% reduction in property damage claims compared to humans. 92% reduction in bodily injury claims. Those numbers come from Swiss Re, not Waymo's marketing team. Tesla's response? "Trust us, it's safer than humans." No comprehensive data. No third-party verification. Meanwhile actual insurance companies are pricing the difference. Everyone's debating cameras versus lidar. That's like arguing about gasoline versus diesel when one company has working cars and the other has prototypes. The real question is: who understood the path to market first? Waymo spent 15 years building a system that actually works. Incremental progress. Conservative timelines. Real safety validation. They're boring. They're slow. They're methodical. And they won. Tesla promised magic. Flashy demos. Aggressive timelines. Revolutionary technology. They're exciting. They're fast. They're bold. And they're stuck in supervised mode with 29 cars. Here's what happens next: Waymo takes this $15 billion and floods the market. 100,000 vehicles. At current utilization rates, that's 10% of the entire U.S. ride-hailing market. They become the default autonomous option in every major city by 2027. Tesla either admits FSD Supervised isn't ready for full autonomy, or they keep testing with 30 cars and hoping for a breakthrough. The market has spoken. Real autonomy with expensive sensors beats cheap cameras that need human supervision. Not because the technology is better. Because the business model actually works. You can't scale "almost autonomous." You scale fully autonomous or you stay a driver assistance feature forever. Waymo chose the hard path and won. Tesla chose the impossible path and got stuck. The $100 billion valuation is the market pricing that difference. This was never about who has better AI. It was about who understood the economics of autonomy first. And Waymo just proved they did.

Ricardo

212,043 次观看 • 7 个月前

Longtime $TSLA bear Craig Irwin, from Roth Capital, who has frequently appeared on CNBC to speak negatively about Tesla, just raised his $TSLA price target by a whopping 347% to $380 (from $85). For years, he had called Tesla "egregiously overvalued." Now, he has a BUY rating on the stock. Here's what he said today about Tesla: "This quarter is probably the last quarter of relative weakness; Now he (Elon) has got a new pool of buyers. Conservatives that might not have looked at EVs quite as closely in the past that allow an acceleration of demand in the core U.S. market; I don't see very many negative catalysts. There are abundant positive catalysts. Bias is now to the upside. The market cap may be huge, but they are doing big things." On FSD he says: "Where I need to look at things a little differently than how I did previously is we look at the incremental solution for FSD and the incremental solutions for robtoaxis. The use of Lidar is not long term sustainable because of the cost. It's something that does need to come out of the (Waymo) vehicles over the long term. As I've talked to more of the engineers involved in these different projects, I've learned that there's often two or three teleoperation engineers. Basically human operators there to catch something that goes wrong. Tesla even started hiring teleoperation engineers last week. Tesla is not going to do any worse than Waymo. If they're more intently focused on an optical only solution, I think competing at the edge, some of this technology that's being brought to bring down the energy consumption for the computer is something that Tesla is going to be more adept at. I think they're a real contender in the long run." On Cyberacb he said: "We're going to see incremental progress and people are going to be able to have a tangible experience, and that's what I think drives value in the stock and drives enthusiasm to own the stock."
4:10

Longtime $TSLA bear Craig Irwin, from Roth Capital, who has frequently appeared on CNBC to speak negatively about Tesla, just raised his $TSLA price target by a whopping 347% to $380 (from $85). For years, he had called Tesla "egregiously overvalued." Now, he has a BUY rating on the stock. Here's what he said today about Tesla: "This quarter is probably the last quarter of relative weakness; Now he (Elon) has got a new pool of buyers. Conservatives that might not have looked at EVs quite as closely in the past that allow an acceleration of demand in the core U.S. market; I don't see very many negative catalysts. There are abundant positive catalysts. Bias is now to the upside. The market cap may be huge, but they are doing big things." On FSD he says: "Where I need to look at things a little differently than how I did previously is we look at the incremental solution for FSD and the incremental solutions for robtoaxis. The use of Lidar is not long term sustainable because of the cost. It's something that does need to come out of the (Waymo) vehicles over the long term. As I've talked to more of the engineers involved in these different projects, I've learned that there's often two or three teleoperation engineers. Basically human operators there to catch something that goes wrong. Tesla even started hiring teleoperation engineers last week. Tesla is not going to do any worse than Waymo. If they're more intently focused on an optical only solution, I think competing at the edge, some of this technology that's being brought to bring down the energy consumption for the computer is something that Tesla is going to be more adept at. I think they're a real contender in the long run." On Cyberacb he said: "We're going to see incremental progress and people are going to be able to have a tangible experience, and that's what I think drives value in the stock and drives enthusiasm to own the stock."

Sawyer Merritt

679,724 次观看 • 1 年前

Meta just filed SEC documents tying executive pay to a $9 trillion valuation by 2031. $9 TRILLION. The company is worth $1.5 trillion today. That means they need a 500% increase in 5 years. And they're not the only ones playing this game. Tesla shareholders approved a $1 trillion pay package for Elon Musk in November tied to an $8.5 trillion valuation target. Let me be clear about what's happening here: These companies aren't building businesses anymore. They're building stock prices. Look at the actual numbers. Tesla posted its first annual revenue decline in history in 2025. Revenue fell 3%. Net income collapsed 47% year over year to $3.8 billion. Automotive revenue dropped 10%. The stock trades at 327 times trailing earnings. That's not a valuation. More like a hallucination. Musk's compensation requires 20 million vehicles a year, 1 million robotaxis, and 1 million humanoid robots. Tesla delivered roughly 1.8 million cars last year. Meanwhile Meta has incinerated nearly $80 billion in cumulative losses on Reality Labs since late 2020. The metaverse division's revenue doesn't even cover 16% of its operating costs. In 2025 alone, Reality Labs lost $19.2 billion. And stock-based compensation at Meta consumed 96% of the company's free cash flow last year. $42 billion. GONE. Not to shareholders or R&D with measurable returns, but to insiders betting on their own stock price. So here's what both companies are REALLY doing: Step 1: Make outrageous promises about AI, robotaxis, metaverse, humanoid robots. Step 2: Tie executive compensation to market cap targets, not earnings, not revenue, not cash flow. Step 3: Spend billions on unproven bets that may never generate returns. Step 4: Use the promise of future transformation to justify present valuations that have zero relationship to current fundamentals. This is the financialization of hype. In 45 years on Wall Street, I've watched this playbook run over and over. The technology changes. The pitch changes. But the ending doesn't. Stock prices follow earnings. Always have. Always will. And when the gap between the story and the numbers gets this wide, you already know how it ends.
0:59

Meta just filed SEC documents tying executive pay to a $9 trillion valuation by 2031. $9 TRILLION. The company is worth $1.5 trillion today. That means they need a 500% increase in 5 years. And they're not the only ones playing this game. Tesla shareholders approved a $1 trillion pay package for Elon Musk in November tied to an $8.5 trillion valuation target. Let me be clear about what's happening here: These companies aren't building businesses anymore. They're building stock prices. Look at the actual numbers. Tesla posted its first annual revenue decline in history in 2025. Revenue fell 3%. Net income collapsed 47% year over year to $3.8 billion. Automotive revenue dropped 10%. The stock trades at 327 times trailing earnings. That's not a valuation. More like a hallucination. Musk's compensation requires 20 million vehicles a year, 1 million robotaxis, and 1 million humanoid robots. Tesla delivered roughly 1.8 million cars last year. Meanwhile Meta has incinerated nearly $80 billion in cumulative losses on Reality Labs since late 2020. The metaverse division's revenue doesn't even cover 16% of its operating costs. In 2025 alone, Reality Labs lost $19.2 billion. And stock-based compensation at Meta consumed 96% of the company's free cash flow last year. $42 billion. GONE. Not to shareholders or R&D with measurable returns, but to insiders betting on their own stock price. So here's what both companies are REALLY doing: Step 1: Make outrageous promises about AI, robotaxis, metaverse, humanoid robots. Step 2: Tie executive compensation to market cap targets, not earnings, not revenue, not cash flow. Step 3: Spend billions on unproven bets that may never generate returns. Step 4: Use the promise of future transformation to justify present valuations that have zero relationship to current fundamentals. This is the financialization of hype. In 45 years on Wall Street, I've watched this playbook run over and over. The technology changes. The pitch changes. But the ending doesn't. Stock prices follow earnings. Always have. Always will. And when the gap between the story and the numbers gets this wide, you already know how it ends.

George Noble

279,736 次观看 • 4 个月前

Google just reported $99 billion in profits it never actually received. Alphabet posted net income of $112.1 billion for a single quarter. Earnings per share came in at $9.11 against a Wall Street estimate of $2.87. That is one of the largest profit quarters any company has ever printed. Yet the stock fell about 7% the same day. When people read past the headline and opened the earnings release, they found the reason sitting in one footnote... $99 billion of that profit came from a line called other income. Alphabet describes it as "primarily the result of net unrealized gains on our equity securities." So Google did not sell anything. It marked up shares it already owned and ran the increase through its income statement. That single line added $77.1 billion to net income after tax. It accounted for $6.26 of the $9.11 in earnings per share. Strip it out and adjusted earnings per share were $2.85. Analysts wanted $2.89. The ACTUAL business missed. Now here is what makes this insane: Most of that $99 billion came from two holdings, SpaceX and Anthropic. SpaceX went public on June 12 at roughly $1.77 trillion, up from about $400 billion a year earlier. Alphabet's stake is worth $94.1 billion, and roughly $80 billion of it sits under sale restrictions. Anthropic went from a $350 billion valuation to $965 billion inside the same quarter. Alphabet's private company holdings were worth about $124.3 billion on June 30, and the vast majority of that is Anthropic. Google cannot sell either position right now. Now trace where that valuation came from: Google started putting money into Anthropic in 2023. A $300 million bet has grown into a $13.3 billion position with commitments of up to $30 billion more. Anthropic committed to buying at least five gigawatts of computing capacity from Google Cloud. Google Cloud revenue then grew 82% to about $24.8 billion, the strongest quarter that business has ever had. That growth is part of the story the market uses to price both companies. And when Anthropic's valuation jumped, Google booked the jump as its OWN profit. Google is the investor, the supplier, and the party deciding what the asset is worth. A tax and accounting consultant named Robert Willens flagged this back in April, pointing out that Alphabet is able to influence the value of one of its own assets. And Alphabet's free cash flow for the quarter was negative $5.9 billion. That is the first negative quarter since Google went public in August 2004. Capital spending hit $44.9 billion. Operating cash flow was $39.1 billion. Capex now eats about 37.5% of every dollar of revenue, the highest share in the company's public life. To fund it, Alphabet has taken on roughly $100 billion of debt this year and raised about $85 billion in a June share sale, its first in more than two decades. This is a company that spent years buying its own stock back. What happens next: Alphabet raised 2026 capital spending guidance to between $195 billion and $205 billion, the second raise in three months. The finance chief told analysts 2027 spending will rise significantly. The company also disclosed $811 billion in contracted future spending commitments as of June, up nearly $500 billion from March. Those commitments are signed contracts that get paid in cash. The profit is an estimate of what a private company might be worth on a given day. Estimates move in both directions. If Anthropic or SpaceX gets repriced downward, the same line that produced the biggest quarter in Google's history runs backwards, and this quarter produced no free cash flow to absorb it. Meta, Microsoft and Amazon are all carrying their own private AI stakes into their own earnings reports. Watch how much of their profit they actually collected in cash...
0:48

Google just reported $99 billion in profits it never actually received. Alphabet posted net income of $112.1 billion for a single quarter. Earnings per share came in at $9.11 against a Wall Street estimate of $2.87. That is one of the largest profit quarters any company has ever printed. Yet the stock fell about 7% the same day. When people read past the headline and opened the earnings release, they found the reason sitting in one footnote... $99 billion of that profit came from a line called other income. Alphabet describes it as "primarily the result of net unrealized gains on our equity securities." So Google did not sell anything. It marked up shares it already owned and ran the increase through its income statement. That single line added $77.1 billion to net income after tax. It accounted for $6.26 of the $9.11 in earnings per share. Strip it out and adjusted earnings per share were $2.85. Analysts wanted $2.89. The ACTUAL business missed. Now here is what makes this insane: Most of that $99 billion came from two holdings, SpaceX and Anthropic. SpaceX went public on June 12 at roughly $1.77 trillion, up from about $400 billion a year earlier. Alphabet's stake is worth $94.1 billion, and roughly $80 billion of it sits under sale restrictions. Anthropic went from a $350 billion valuation to $965 billion inside the same quarter. Alphabet's private company holdings were worth about $124.3 billion on June 30, and the vast majority of that is Anthropic. Google cannot sell either position right now. Now trace where that valuation came from: Google started putting money into Anthropic in 2023. A $300 million bet has grown into a $13.3 billion position with commitments of up to $30 billion more. Anthropic committed to buying at least five gigawatts of computing capacity from Google Cloud. Google Cloud revenue then grew 82% to about $24.8 billion, the strongest quarter that business has ever had. That growth is part of the story the market uses to price both companies. And when Anthropic's valuation jumped, Google booked the jump as its OWN profit. Google is the investor, the supplier, and the party deciding what the asset is worth. A tax and accounting consultant named Robert Willens flagged this back in April, pointing out that Alphabet is able to influence the value of one of its own assets. And Alphabet's free cash flow for the quarter was negative $5.9 billion. That is the first negative quarter since Google went public in August 2004. Capital spending hit $44.9 billion. Operating cash flow was $39.1 billion. Capex now eats about 37.5% of every dollar of revenue, the highest share in the company's public life. To fund it, Alphabet has taken on roughly $100 billion of debt this year and raised about $85 billion in a June share sale, its first in more than two decades. This is a company that spent years buying its own stock back. What happens next: Alphabet raised 2026 capital spending guidance to between $195 billion and $205 billion, the second raise in three months. The finance chief told analysts 2027 spending will rise significantly. The company also disclosed $811 billion in contracted future spending commitments as of June, up nearly $500 billion from March. Those commitments are signed contracts that get paid in cash. The profit is an estimate of what a private company might be worth on a given day. Estimates move in both directions. If Anthropic or SpaceX gets repriced downward, the same line that produced the biggest quarter in Google's history runs backwards, and this quarter produced no free cash flow to absorb it. Meta, Microsoft and Amazon are all carrying their own private AI stakes into their own earnings reports. Watch how much of their profit they actually collected in cash...

Ricardo

363,984 次观看 • 19 天前

Elon Musk is not that smart. Musk says that "the right metric for intelligence is the ability to predict the future, if your predictions are not that good, you're not that smart." Let's look at Elon's predictions for 2025, now the year is nearly over: ❌ Predicted 1,000 Tesla Robotaxis. Actual result was ~100 taxis with human supervisors. ❌ Predicted 10,000 Optimus robots doing useful tasks in the Tesla factory but only managed a handful of embarrassing teleoperated demos. ❌ Predicted 20-30% Tesla sales growth but sales are declining globally. ❌ Predicted $2 trillion in DOGE cuts, achieved ~10% of this and even that figure is disputed. According to Musk's own metric, the guy is an idiot.
5:40

Elon Musk is not that smart. Musk says that "the right metric for intelligence is the ability to predict the future, if your predictions are not that good, you're not that smart." Let's look at Elon's predictions for 2025, now the year is nearly over: ❌ Predicted 1,000 Tesla Robotaxis. Actual result was ~100 taxis with human supervisors. ❌ Predicted 10,000 Optimus robots doing useful tasks in the Tesla factory but only managed a handful of embarrassing teleoperated demos. ❌ Predicted 20-30% Tesla sales growth but sales are declining globally. ❌ Predicted $2 trillion in DOGE cuts, achieved ~10% of this and even that figure is disputed. According to Musk's own metric, the guy is an idiot.

Dan O'Dowd

274,057 次观看 • 8 个月前

🚨 SPACEX IS ABOUT TO REPEAT TESLA 2016 And nobody is ready for what will happen. 2016: Tesla merged with SolarCity. $9.47 → $25.98 +174.34% in days. Now look at today: 2026: – SpaceX is already down 50% from its IPO price at launch – The share unlock is about to hit the market – After new lows, Elon could absorb the shares cheaply and make them expensive But there’s one thing… Tesla mergers in 2016–2019: – Low-market-cap companies merged with Tesla – Pre-COVID market – Low expectations – No questionable trillionaire status SpaceX 2026: – Starlink + xAI + Tesla = multitrillion-dollar companies merged into one – The stock market is at the most overvalued level in history – A pure monopoly in space That is not the same opportunity. Most people think a Tesla merger with SpaceX would be a nothingburger: Yes, Tesla is already a high-market-cap company. But the history of its mergers with SolarCity, Maxwell, and Hibar brought investors gains of many hundreds of percent in a short period of time. So now you have two choices: Stay away from the most hyped IPO in history after a 50% post-launch drop… Or understand what Tesla in 2016 already showed you. Reminder: I’ve called every major market top and bottom for the last 15 years, including the tops in Gold and Silver, the collapse in Oil, the SpaceX drop, and Bitcoin’s crash. When I start buying SpaceX, I’ll post it here publicly like I always do. Turn notifications on. If you’re not following yet, you’ll understand why that was a mistake later.
0:40

🚨 SPACEX IS ABOUT TO REPEAT TESLA 2016 And nobody is ready for what will happen. 2016: Tesla merged with SolarCity. $9.47 → $25.98 +174.34% in days. Now look at today: 2026: – SpaceX is already down 50% from its IPO price at launch – The share unlock is about to hit the market – After new lows, Elon could absorb the shares cheaply and make them expensive But there’s one thing… Tesla mergers in 2016–2019: – Low-market-cap companies merged with Tesla – Pre-COVID market – Low expectations – No questionable trillionaire status SpaceX 2026: – Starlink + xAI + Tesla = multitrillion-dollar companies merged into one – The stock market is at the most overvalued level in history – A pure monopoly in space That is not the same opportunity. Most people think a Tesla merger with SpaceX would be a nothingburger: Yes, Tesla is already a high-market-cap company. But the history of its mergers with SolarCity, Maxwell, and Hibar brought investors gains of many hundreds of percent in a short period of time. So now you have two choices: Stay away from the most hyped IPO in history after a 50% post-launch drop… Or understand what Tesla in 2016 already showed you. Reminder: I’ve called every major market top and bottom for the last 15 years, including the tops in Gold and Silver, the collapse in Oil, the SpaceX drop, and Bitcoin’s crash. When I start buying SpaceX, I’ll post it here publicly like I always do. Turn notifications on. If you’re not following yet, you’ll understand why that was a mistake later.

Alex Mason 👁△

106,999 次观看 • 11 天前

Elon Musk's biggest competitor is secretly paying him $1.25 BILLION per month. SpaceX just revealed its financials for the first time in 23 years of existence. And buried deep in the S-1 is a detail that changes how you should think about the entire AI race. Anthropic, the company building Claude, the company that positions itself as OpenAI's biggest threat, the company valued at over $100 billion, is paying SpaceX $1.25 billion EVERY SINGLE MONTH for compute capacity through May 2029. That is $15 billion a year flowing directly from Elon's top AI competitor into Elon's bank account. Think about what that means: Every time Anthropic trains a new model, improves Claude, or lands an enterprise customer, a massive chunk of that revenue goes straight to the guy who owns the competing AI product. Anthropic is literally funding the war against itself. And that's just the beginning of what this filing reveals... The entire SpaceX IPO is structured around a bet most people haven't figured out yet. In 2025, SpaceX spent $20 billion in capex. 60% of that, roughly $12 billion, went to AI infrastructure. Rockets and satellites got the leftovers. In Q1 2026 alone, $7.7 billion out of $10 billion in total capex went to AI. The "rocket company" is spending like an AI company. Meanwhile, xAI, the division that houses Grok, generated $3.2 billion in revenue for the full year of 2025. But its R&D costs TRIPLED to $5 billion. It's burning cash at a pace that would have destroyed it as a standalone company. Which is exactly why Elon merged it into SpaceX two months before filing the IPO. And Starlink is the engine that makes the whole thing work: $11.4 billion in revenue, $4.4 billion in operating profit, and 10.3 million subscribers across 164 countries. It's one of the most profitable subscription businesses on the planet right now. But the average revenue per user DROPPED from $99 per month in 2023 to $66 per month in March 2026. Subscribers quadrupled but each one is paying a third less. Starlink is growing by getting cheaper. SpaceX has lost $37 BILLION since it was founded. Net loss in 2025 was $4.9 billion. This is a company that has never turned an annual profit in 23 years of operation, and it is about to IPO at a $1.75 trillion valuation. And the total addressable market SpaceX claims in the filing is $28.5 trillion. That is a QUARTER of global GDP. So here is what investors are actually buying when this IPO prices: They are buying the most profitable satellite internet business in history, stapled to an AI lab that is burning cash, wrapped inside a Mars colonization pitch that requires building a permanent city on another planet, funded by monthly billion-dollar payments from a direct competitor who has no other option for compute at that scale. This is the kind of thing only Elon could pull off.
2:03

Elon Musk's biggest competitor is secretly paying him $1.25 BILLION per month. SpaceX just revealed its financials for the first time in 23 years of existence. And buried deep in the S-1 is a detail that changes how you should think about the entire AI race. Anthropic, the company building Claude, the company that positions itself as OpenAI's biggest threat, the company valued at over $100 billion, is paying SpaceX $1.25 billion EVERY SINGLE MONTH for compute capacity through May 2029. That is $15 billion a year flowing directly from Elon's top AI competitor into Elon's bank account. Think about what that means: Every time Anthropic trains a new model, improves Claude, or lands an enterprise customer, a massive chunk of that revenue goes straight to the guy who owns the competing AI product. Anthropic is literally funding the war against itself. And that's just the beginning of what this filing reveals... The entire SpaceX IPO is structured around a bet most people haven't figured out yet. In 2025, SpaceX spent $20 billion in capex. 60% of that, roughly $12 billion, went to AI infrastructure. Rockets and satellites got the leftovers. In Q1 2026 alone, $7.7 billion out of $10 billion in total capex went to AI. The "rocket company" is spending like an AI company. Meanwhile, xAI, the division that houses Grok, generated $3.2 billion in revenue for the full year of 2025. But its R&D costs TRIPLED to $5 billion. It's burning cash at a pace that would have destroyed it as a standalone company. Which is exactly why Elon merged it into SpaceX two months before filing the IPO. And Starlink is the engine that makes the whole thing work: $11.4 billion in revenue, $4.4 billion in operating profit, and 10.3 million subscribers across 164 countries. It's one of the most profitable subscription businesses on the planet right now. But the average revenue per user DROPPED from $99 per month in 2023 to $66 per month in March 2026. Subscribers quadrupled but each one is paying a third less. Starlink is growing by getting cheaper. SpaceX has lost $37 BILLION since it was founded. Net loss in 2025 was $4.9 billion. This is a company that has never turned an annual profit in 23 years of operation, and it is about to IPO at a $1.75 trillion valuation. And the total addressable market SpaceX claims in the filing is $28.5 trillion. That is a QUARTER of global GDP. So here is what investors are actually buying when this IPO prices: They are buying the most profitable satellite internet business in history, stapled to an AI lab that is burning cash, wrapped inside a Mars colonization pitch that requires building a permanent city on another planet, funded by monthly billion-dollar payments from a direct competitor who has no other option for compute at that scale. This is the kind of thing only Elon could pull off.

Ricardo

208,495 次观看 • 2 个月前

In 2018, Tesla $TSLA was worth just under $60 billion. They signed a 10-year CEO extension & compensation deal with Elon Musk , which offered him *zero base compensation*, but up to $55 billion in compensation if, and only if, he could more than *10x the company's value* to $650 billion, a feat no CEO has ever accomplished. By 2020, less than 3 years later, Tesla did indeed hit a $650 billion market cap, despite the skeptics who literally called it "laughably impossible" when the plan was publicized. Now, the Delaware courts are shooting down that compensation package, citing that the Board of Directors were not truly independent and that shareholders weren't aware of the Board's relationship with Musk. This is a joke, an insult to basic capitalist principles, and a mockery of the work that Elon put in to grow Tesla to this point. Below is a clip from 2018 highlighting how wildly ambitious these milestones were considered by the media at that time:
1:51

In 2018, Tesla $TSLA was worth just under $60 billion. They signed a 10-year CEO extension & compensation deal with Elon Musk , which offered him *zero base compensation*, but up to $55 billion in compensation if, and only if, he could more than *10x the company's value* to $650 billion, a feat no CEO has ever accomplished. By 2020, less than 3 years later, Tesla did indeed hit a $650 billion market cap, despite the skeptics who literally called it "laughably impossible" when the plan was publicized. Now, the Delaware courts are shooting down that compensation package, citing that the Board of Directors were not truly independent and that shareholders weren't aware of the Board's relationship with Musk. This is a joke, an insult to basic capitalist principles, and a mockery of the work that Elon put in to grow Tesla to this point. Below is a clip from 2018 highlighting how wildly ambitious these milestones were considered by the media at that time:

Stock Talk

39,791,284 次观看 • 2 年前

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”
1:58

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

David Senra

518,747 次观看 • 3 个月前

$SPCX RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT TO GET AN EXPENSIVE LESSON. Here's what the price doesn't show you. This company lost $4.94 billion last year. Not a small startup burning through seed money a $1.75 trillion valued company losing nearly $5 billion in a single year. One business line is profitable. Just one Starlink. Everything else is a cash furnace. The AI division alone burned through $6 billion. Not invested burned gone. Now do the math on the valuation. $1.75 trillion on revenue that prices it at nearly 90x sales. For a company that's net negative by almost $5 billion annually. And then there's the control structure nobody is reading past the headline. Musk holds 85% of the voting power on 42% of the equity. Which means the people buying shares at $230 are getting financial exposure with almost no actual say in how the company is run. None of this matters right now that's the point. Euphoria doesn't need fundamentals. It only needs the next buyer to believe in the story harder than the last one did. The second that chain breaks the second euphoria runs out of new buyers all of this matters simultaneously. I called the SpaceX IPO trap before Day 3 even peaked. The structure was visible. Same playbook as Tesla 2010. Same entry point, Same crowd, Same ending incoming. The most important move in this stock is setting up right now. Follow now, everything that's coming was already written before the IPO launched.
0:58

$SPCX RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT TO GET AN EXPENSIVE LESSON. Here's what the price doesn't show you. This company lost $4.94 billion last year. Not a small startup burning through seed money a $1.75 trillion valued company losing nearly $5 billion in a single year. One business line is profitable. Just one Starlink. Everything else is a cash furnace. The AI division alone burned through $6 billion. Not invested burned gone. Now do the math on the valuation. $1.75 trillion on revenue that prices it at nearly 90x sales. For a company that's net negative by almost $5 billion annually. And then there's the control structure nobody is reading past the headline. Musk holds 85% of the voting power on 42% of the equity. Which means the people buying shares at $230 are getting financial exposure with almost no actual say in how the company is run. None of this matters right now that's the point. Euphoria doesn't need fundamentals. It only needs the next buyer to believe in the story harder than the last one did. The second that chain breaks the second euphoria runs out of new buyers all of this matters simultaneously. I called the SpaceX IPO trap before Day 3 even peaked. The structure was visible. Same playbook as Tesla 2010. Same entry point, Same crowd, Same ending incoming. The most important move in this stock is setting up right now. Follow now, everything that's coming was already written before the IPO launched.

philarekt

18,840 次观看 • 1 个月前

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”
1:58

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

David Senra

154,426 次观看 • 1 个月前

Tesla is the most successful CON in the history of capital markets. Not because the cars are bad. But because the entire business is engineered to impress on first glance and collapse under scrutiny. And the culture around it has made facts completely IRRELEVANT. I've never seen a company where the gap between what is promised and what is delivered is this wide, for this long, with this little accountability. Tesla's Full Self-Driving system is marketed as autonomy. But it is not autonomy. It is a camera-only system running probabilistic inference. The car is making statistical guesses about what it sees, thousands of times per second, with no redundancy when those guesses are wrong. Probabilistic inference controlling a two-ton vehicle at highway speed with your family inside. NHTSA has two open investigations covering 3.2 million Tesla vehicles. One was escalated to a formal Engineering Analysis in March after 9 crashes, including a fatality, where the system FAILED to detect sun glare, fog, and dust. The cameras went blind and the car kept driving. In Austin, Tesla's robotaxi fleet has reported 15 crashes across roughly 800,000 miles. One crash every 57,000 miles. The average American driver has a police-reported crash every 500,000 miles. Tesla's robotaxis crash at roughly 4x the human rate, WITH a safety monitor sitting in the car whose only job is to prevent crashes. Waymo operates over 2,500 fully driverless vehicles across multiple cities with no human backup and maintains a crash rate 85% below human drivers across 127 million autonomous miles. Tesla has ONE unsupervised vehicle in a tiny section of Austin. But here's what really makes Tesla different from every overvalued company I've ever analyzed: The facts do not matter to the people who own this stock. Every missed deadline, every broken promise gets filtered through the same response: attack the messenger. Call them a short seller. Call them a hater. Anything to avoid looking at the actual numbers. It's an online ecosystem that has made itself completely immune to facts. And Musk baked that dynamic into the culture from the beginning. Every time the fundamentals deteriorate, the faithful don't sell. They double down. When your shareholder base treats every dip as a buying opportunity regardless of the data, the stock becomes untethered from reality entirely. That's literally a religion with a ticker symbol. I highly suggest you read Edward Niedermeyer's book Ludicrous on this. And now it even gets WORSE... CapeFearAdvisors published a piece this week that should be required reading. Tesla's 2025 CEO Performance Award contains a change-of-control provision: In the event of a change of control, ALL operational milestones are disregarded. No million robotaxis, Optimus robots, or $400 billion EBITDA. NONE of it. So if SpaceX acquires Tesla at $8.5 trillion, every tranche of Musk's 423 million share award vests immediately. A single acquisition at that price triggers the full vesting of both plans at once, with no way to claw them back. The milestones everyone argues about are just a distraction. The mechanism is the change-of-control language buried in the SEC filing. This is about engineering the largest personal wealth transfer in modern financial history and using the narrative machine to keep the price elevated long enough to execute it. I've seen every bust of the last four decades. But this one is different because the cult of personality is stronger than anything I've witnessed. The movement around this stock cannot be touched by facts, and that is what makes it so dangerous. But the math always wins. ALWAYS. It just takes longer when the con is this good.
2:02

Tesla is the most successful CON in the history of capital markets. Not because the cars are bad. But because the entire business is engineered to impress on first glance and collapse under scrutiny. And the culture around it has made facts completely IRRELEVANT. I've never seen a company where the gap between what is promised and what is delivered is this wide, for this long, with this little accountability. Tesla's Full Self-Driving system is marketed as autonomy. But it is not autonomy. It is a camera-only system running probabilistic inference. The car is making statistical guesses about what it sees, thousands of times per second, with no redundancy when those guesses are wrong. Probabilistic inference controlling a two-ton vehicle at highway speed with your family inside. NHTSA has two open investigations covering 3.2 million Tesla vehicles. One was escalated to a formal Engineering Analysis in March after 9 crashes, including a fatality, where the system FAILED to detect sun glare, fog, and dust. The cameras went blind and the car kept driving. In Austin, Tesla's robotaxi fleet has reported 15 crashes across roughly 800,000 miles. One crash every 57,000 miles. The average American driver has a police-reported crash every 500,000 miles. Tesla's robotaxis crash at roughly 4x the human rate, WITH a safety monitor sitting in the car whose only job is to prevent crashes. Waymo operates over 2,500 fully driverless vehicles across multiple cities with no human backup and maintains a crash rate 85% below human drivers across 127 million autonomous miles. Tesla has ONE unsupervised vehicle in a tiny section of Austin. But here's what really makes Tesla different from every overvalued company I've ever analyzed: The facts do not matter to the people who own this stock. Every missed deadline, every broken promise gets filtered through the same response: attack the messenger. Call them a short seller. Call them a hater. Anything to avoid looking at the actual numbers. It's an online ecosystem that has made itself completely immune to facts. And Musk baked that dynamic into the culture from the beginning. Every time the fundamentals deteriorate, the faithful don't sell. They double down. When your shareholder base treats every dip as a buying opportunity regardless of the data, the stock becomes untethered from reality entirely. That's literally a religion with a ticker symbol. I highly suggest you read Edward Niedermeyer's book Ludicrous on this. And now it even gets WORSE... CapeFearAdvisors published a piece this week that should be required reading. Tesla's 2025 CEO Performance Award contains a change-of-control provision: In the event of a change of control, ALL operational milestones are disregarded. No million robotaxis, Optimus robots, or $400 billion EBITDA. NONE of it. So if SpaceX acquires Tesla at $8.5 trillion, every tranche of Musk's 423 million share award vests immediately. A single acquisition at that price triggers the full vesting of both plans at once, with no way to claw them back. The milestones everyone argues about are just a distraction. The mechanism is the change-of-control language buried in the SEC filing. This is about engineering the largest personal wealth transfer in modern financial history and using the narrative machine to keep the price elevated long enough to execute it. I've seen every bust of the last four decades. But this one is different because the cult of personality is stronger than anything I've witnessed. The movement around this stock cannot be touched by facts, and that is what makes it so dangerous. But the math always wins. ALWAYS. It just takes longer when the con is this good.

George Noble

171,793 次观看 • 3 个月前

The man who called the 2008 housing collapse just made a prediction about Elon Musk that is hard to ignore (Save this). Steve Eisman, the Big Short investor says he fully expects Musk to use the SpaceX IPO stock price to buy Tesla and merge both companies into one giant entity called X. Tesla's earnings have declined for four consecutive years. The EV business, Eisman argues, is not structurally attractive but rather is capital intensive, it is highly competitive, and China is producing electric vehicles at costs Tesla simply cannot match. The issue with using SpaceX stock to buy Tesla is precisely what it sounds like. SpaceX is about to list as what would be the largest IPO in history, targeting a valuation around $1.77 trillion, with a thesis built on orbital compute, Starlink and the future of AI infrastructure. Tesla is a car company with four years of declining earnings, competing on price against manufacturers who have a structural cost advantage. Combining those two businesses would force SpaceX shareholders to absorb Tesla's problems, its margin pressure, its China exposure, its capital requirements at the exact moment SpaceX is trying to tell the cleanest possible growth story to public markets.
1:01

The man who called the 2008 housing collapse just made a prediction about Elon Musk that is hard to ignore (Save this). Steve Eisman, the Big Short investor says he fully expects Musk to use the SpaceX IPO stock price to buy Tesla and merge both companies into one giant entity called X. Tesla's earnings have declined for four consecutive years. The EV business, Eisman argues, is not structurally attractive but rather is capital intensive, it is highly competitive, and China is producing electric vehicles at costs Tesla simply cannot match. The issue with using SpaceX stock to buy Tesla is precisely what it sounds like. SpaceX is about to list as what would be the largest IPO in history, targeting a valuation around $1.77 trillion, with a thesis built on orbital compute, Starlink and the future of AI infrastructure. Tesla is a car company with four years of declining earnings, competing on price against manufacturers who have a structural cost advantage. Combining those two businesses would force SpaceX shareholders to absorb Tesla's problems, its margin pressure, its China exposure, its capital requirements at the exact moment SpaceX is trying to tell the cleanest possible growth story to public markets.

StockMarket.News

696,789 次观看 • 2 个月前

Men and women of Tesla, read this and really listen. Listen to exactly what Jason, one of Elon’s closest friends, said about what he saw and felt when he experienced Optimus Gen 3. If this doesn’t get you bullish about the future of Tesla, I don’t know what will. This is the biggest insight we’ve had so far into what Tesla is about to become. No one will remember Tesla as a car company when billions of Optimus are in the hands of customers around the world. Everyone will want at least one. FYI, there are 8.3B people living on Earth today. “Two Sundays ago I went to Tesla with Elon. I saw Optimus 3. I can tell you now, nobody will remember that Tesla ever made a car. They will only remember Optimus and that he is going to make a billion of those. It’s going to be the most transformative technology product ever made in the history of humanity, because what LLMs are going to enable those products to do is understand the world and then do things in the world that we don’t want to do. I believe it will be a one-to-one ratio of humans to Optimus, and I think he’s already won.” - Jason Calacanis
0:45

Men and women of Tesla, read this and really listen. Listen to exactly what Jason, one of Elon’s closest friends, said about what he saw and felt when he experienced Optimus Gen 3. If this doesn’t get you bullish about the future of Tesla, I don’t know what will. This is the biggest insight we’ve had so far into what Tesla is about to become. No one will remember Tesla as a car company when billions of Optimus are in the hands of customers around the world. Everyone will want at least one. FYI, there are 8.3B people living on Earth today. “Two Sundays ago I went to Tesla with Elon. I saw Optimus 3. I can tell you now, nobody will remember that Tesla ever made a car. They will only remember Optimus and that he is going to make a billion of those. It’s going to be the most transformative technology product ever made in the history of humanity, because what LLMs are going to enable those products to do is understand the world and then do things in the world that we don’t want to do. I believe it will be a one-to-one ratio of humans to Optimus, and I think he’s already won.” - Jason Calacanis

Teslaconomics

56,855 次观看 • 7 个月前