Investors are buying Musk, like they were buying Warren Buffett with Berkshire Hathaway. Long-term shareholders are not buying space; they are buying Musk. This has been clear to everyone since the beginning; it has been well communicated (look at SpaceX governance rules in Texas), and there is nothing mystical about it.
It's very likely Musk will roll everything up into a single Musk conglomerate.
Whether this trend continues or not indefinitely will largely determine if incestors start looking for the door.
In defence of Mr Musk, despite his character flaws, Tesla is the only Western electric car company in the top 20, and this includes Korea and Japan. Also, SpaceX is ~90% of the world's commercial rocket launch capacity.
But this does not mean SpaceX would be correctly priced at the moment. It may be expensive, but SpaceX is going to have many years to come to reap the benefits of their hard work building the business.
Which is going not too badly for the shorts, so far. There's a reason almost 50% of the float is loaned out.
We'll see once the earnings call rolls around.
This conflates the quality of the product with the value of the business. There is no contradiction between Tesla cars selling well because they fit a market and Tesla the business not being a good investment.
WV is number 6 in the top 20, and BMW is number 10. And while Tesla has good sales now their lack of innovation is a huge risk.
https://www.blackridgeresearch.com/blog/list-of-global-top-e...
id attribute that to the US government rather than musk?
same with the resuable rockets.
american taxpayers have been screwed over by doing these things as money to musk vs just building it
I think Musk's luck is running out, he's been too political this past year and he seems to also have run out of geek "street cred". Remember youtubers visiting (whatever the Tesla trade show was called) were more perplexed than impressed with what has been shown. Similar sentiment seen across trade shows (like CES) where everything was AI and no one seemed to ask themselves "why are we putting AI in this?". The answer, of course, for startups and stock listed companies, to make themselves more valuable on paper.
Investors would probably be aware of that if they run any kind of sentiment analysis on online social media content. And at the same time there's some pull-out from tech stock. So maybe some are starting to realise that things are too shaky for their risk profile?
Because I find your words surprising since critique is what I was raised with in the late 90s early 2000s. Offline and in the media.
At the same time your definition of criticizing is very lax, when I'm stating banal opinions and a broad observation.
You are implying that any successful person should strive to achieve something like that? Or what point are you even trying to trying to make?
If only some billionaires (trillionaires?) could strike a better balance between successful and human. Especially since most wealth is actually wealth transfer from the poor and from taxpayer coffers to the rich.
But, fundamentally,bro become a billionaire, you exploited some people at some point in the process. Their mere existence is not ideal for society. And their assets would be better served distributed to the masses. Unfortunately, we also lack many good and strong governments and policies - so I wouldn't feel great just transfering their wealth to the governments of the world for said distribution, either.
The funniest thing you can write… Can’t believe people still write “Robotaxi” after 12+ years of failed promises… wild wild stuff
Ramping up Cybercab production is definitely high risk play. Which is counter to OP's point that Tesla is now just some boring non-visionary company, especially combined investments in humanoid robots and semiconductors.
If Tesla was just looking to make safe easy money they wouldn't be making huge gambles on new markets.