Tesla stock is defying gravity

Every time Tesla stock declines, there’s another article saying the stock is collapsing. Like every stock, there are spikes in the long-term history, but if you plot a best-fit regression through Tesla stock prices since 2023, it’s been increasing. It is currently at an all-time high.*

But some are questioning the relationship between current Tesla stock prices and value:

“"Tesla is being viewed more and more on autonomy and energy," Jed Dorsheimer, group head of energy research at William Blair, told Yahoo Finance's Opening Bid.

“Dorsheimer, who evaluates Tesla through the lens of energy and infrastructure, pointed to a startling disconnect in the company's valuation. "There's really a deemphasis on the auto business, which we value in some of the parts analysis that we've published," he said. "It really only [represents] about $30 to $40 per share in that business."

So what accounts for Tesla’s gravity-defying performance?

“Tesla's rally has been powered by reports of driverless robotaxi testing in Austin, Texas, and growing belief that the company is successfully pivoting from a struggling EV maker into an autonomous driving juggernaut.

“For Dorsheimer, the current stock price is almost entirely a bet on things that don't yet fully exist. In his view, the "transition" is already complete. That is, Tesla is no longer being judged by how many EVs it delivers, but by its progress in robotics and artificial intelligence.

“According to Dorsheimer's analysis, he estimates autonomy now accounts for over 70% of Tesla's total value. This includes the long-promised Robotaxi platform and Optimus, the company's humanoid robot project, which some have dubbed "spooky."”

So will Musk see a market correction? Or, like Space X, will Tesla keep heading for Mars? Place your bets!

*full disclosure: I don’t own Tesla stock, and I don’t drive a Tesla.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-car-business-is-only-worth-30-a-share-analyst-warns-182354067.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIiQNcTq_9VsmlnIDKR925wzwJgnmhWHxyu1xg-xXFBNN-Aea2pX48Fk85XXqxDFjAjp7ae-rQTi79Y2cNiUhtu7zIOKczPo5bHy_sN0e2DT0yAlnA3jvC6uYhOcxZYdm-Ub5TqxZar_IaHzSy48f4tBGLVC3S-e3dlO4mv7CFNd 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more