Julian

Is it beyond Elon to have a bias and float ideas that point to a merger - one that I understand he might like to see - but one that is not actually needed. Or maybe he just said that not pointing to a merger but just stating they’ll need to find a path to access more chips. Not one person has adequately stated why a merger is actually needed. If chips are needed, partnerships among businesses can be the solution idk… same way Panasonic and Tesla have had an excellent partnership all these years. While I lean toward the position of no merger, I’m open enough to say maybe I’m wrong but I actually can’t see why a merger is necessary instead of why it might be ideal, especially to Elon.

I hear you - it does seems like a bit of a contradiction at first. But at scale, where are the chips going to come from? Elon's concluded that he needs Terafab in order to ensure chip supply. Then working back from that, what's the best path to ensuring that Terafab gets built out in time?

How did Cern suddenly go from “Optimus will make Tesla a quadrillion dollar company” To comparing Tesla to Blockbuster?? What in the world changed in the last few months? The sudden change is bewildering This is pro-merger propaganda

Hi Cern. I genuinely don’t know how to take this line of argument. If SpaceX didn’t exist or was run by some other billionaire, would you really be comparing Tesla to blockbuster? Seems absurd. Tesla is still The Disrupter and they’re only just getting started on their next growth verticals to which they have a massive, some bulls might say “unassailable”, lead (SMR 😉) The question remains: Does Tesla need a merger with SpaceX to realize its robotaxi, energy, and Optimus ambitions? Again, partnership, sure. But merger? The answer is obviously no, so then the next question is why merge? To make life easier and better for Musk? To give TSLA shareholders access to SpaceX? Musk will be fine and TSLA shareholders can buy SpaceX after IPO and may even find a better price to buy at after price discovery in the markets for a season. Tesla has several decades of growth ahead. They have Musk, strong leadership team, talented workforce, and a strong market position that makes partnerships with other companies seamless. Comparing Tesla in 2026 to Blockbuster is extremely weak and borderline offensive to Tesla (I know that’s not your intent and you’re using it to make an argument for a merger).

Blockbuster & Tesla -- The Success Trap Blockbuster shareholders, circa 2000: “We want our CEO to stay focused on executing the plan we already approved. The goal is simple: a video rental store on every street corner. That is what shareholders voted for. That is what management must deliver. We do not want our CEO getting distracted by this unproven DVD-by-mail nonsense. And we certainly do not want him wasting time on some reckless fantasy called ‘streaming video.’ Streaming? Over the internet? Please. We are a VHS rental company. Our shelves are full. Our blue-and-yellow signs are iconic. We need more late fee revenue. The model works. Before we even discuss these speculative new ideas, management needs to prove it can hit the targets already laid out in the compensation plan. We have waited too long for a return on our investment. The CEO must focus. Just execute on the model!” Tesla shareholders, circa 2026: “We want our CEO to stay focused on executing the plan we just approved. The goals are simple: 20 million cars, 10 million FSD subscriptions, 1 million Robotaxis, and 1 million humanoid robots. That is what shareholders voted for. That is what management must deliver. We do not want our CEO getting distracted by this unproven Terafab concept. And we certainly do not want him wasting time on some reckless fantasy about 100 terawatts of compute, orbital data centers, or building civilization-scale AI infrastructure. We are an electric car company. Yes, and hopefully soon, a robotaxi company. Perhaps someday a humanoid robot company. But let’s not get carried away. Before we even discuss these speculative new ideas, management needs to prove it can hit the targets already laid out in the 2025 compensation plan. We have waited too long for a return on our investment. The CEO must focus.” Note 1: Blockbuster peaked in 2004 with over 9,000 stores globally and 84,000 employees. The company made roughly $800 million annually in late fees alone. In 2010 they filed for bankruptcy. Note 2: Tesla is not Blockbuster, but it faces the same "Success Trap": the moment a disruptor’s shareholders value the safety of a proven roadmap over the volatility of the next frontier, they inadvertently begin voting for the company's eventual irrelevance.

@chadwahl 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

WestRock CEO went from Palantir skeptic to biggest believer. “What I read and what we see talked about in the AI world and what Palantir’s operating system actually is, I can barely recognize the reality of what they’re doing on the ground with the talk that goes on around AI.” His way of saying what everyone is talking about is enterprise AI Slop vs what Palantir is doing is an AI Operating system for enterprise 3 minutes of nuggets of wisdom here

Great! The combatting of ideas with thoughtful input is the way to go! I’d only say that all the potential issues you mention for Tesla are there for SpaceX. In the end I suspect the shareholder vote for a merger will be a high hurdle to overcome but let’s see what and if it comes to that any time soon and the details of such a deal. Most people are looking out for their own best interest and have no ill will toward Musk or any of his companies. In fact, prior to this debate everyone was mostly aligned. Disagreements are natural and good. Best!

Tesla SHOULD NOT merge with SpaceXAI! The main reason given for Tesla not merging with SpaceXAI is goes something like: "Robotaxi hasn't ramped yet. Tesla stock could 5X. I'm here for the ramp. Optimus hasn't ramped either. Tesla could 10x. Let's give it a few years. I don't want to give my upside to SpaceXAI shareholders who just enjoyed a 4.4X since last summer." On its surface, this is a sound argument. I share these sentiments. Who could argue with that? I will. (I'm capable of holding two opposing thoughts in my mind at the same time). AI waits for no one First, have you seen how fast AI is moving? How durable is Tesla's Robotaxi moat? Honest answer: I believe it's strong, but we just don't know. How durable is Tesla's Optimus moat? Honest answer: I believe Tesla is extremely well positioned, but again, we just don't know. So no one has the luxury of waiting a few years to see how things play out in this space. The good news is that Elon has always been good at seeing the next steps ahead and positioning his companies well before most. Robotaxi Ramp Issues What happens to the Robotaxi ramp if Federal autonomous legislation doesn't come? What happens if Federal autonomous legislation is terrible? Or, perhaps the legislation is favorable, but think about what could happen to the Robotaxi ramp if Elon can't get enough chips to build millions Cybercabs or build tens/hundreds of millions of Optimi. Being chip constrained would materially harm the present value of Tesla if Robotaxi and Optimus can't scale beyond a certain point. Sure the cash flow pours in on the first 10 million Robotaxis, but investors would say: "We're going to give this company a low P/E because their growth is capped. They should have thought ahead and invested in semiconductor capacity. This business can't scale." What does Tesla need SpaceXAI for? 1) Capital - fresh off an IPO SpaceXAI will be flush with cash. 2) Starlink for low-cost global connectivity to cars, Semi and Optimus. 3) Grok is the interface for Robotaxi (so you can speak to the car). 4) Grok is the brain/voice of Optimus. 5) Orbital AI data centers are needed for training & inference for Robotaxi, Optimus and Digital Optimus. 6) Semiconductors from Terafab - a joint project between Tesla and SpaceX (Tesla can't self-fund this). 7) SpaceX's material science expertise. Sharing the Wealth with SpaceXAI Okay, so if Tesla isn't merged with SpaceXAI, how much will Tesla have to pay SpaceXAI for all of the above? - What portion of Robotaxi revenue goes to SpaceXAI? - What portion of Optimus revenue goes to SpaceXAI? Tesla may have to pay SpaceXAI a slice of the economics from Robotaxi and Optimus. That could mean SpaceXAI collects money every time: - a Robotaxi mile is driven, - an Optimus unit uses Grok, - a vehicle connects through Starlink, - Tesla uses orbital data centers, - or Tesla runs fleet-level inference. So Tesla shareholders may think they are avoiding dilution by rejecting a merger. But they may simply be choosing a different kind of dilution: permanent economic leakage. Instead of giving SpaceXAI shareholders ownership upfront, Tesla may end up paying SpaceXAI forever. Pick your poison carefully!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My 2 cents is SpaceX certainly has a bright future and unlimited growth potential but that’ll take many years of extreme execution to pay off (which I don’t doubt they’ll achieve and would personally gladly invest into at some point) Think back when TSLA was valued over $1T in 2020 over robotaxi hype from Musk overstating the timing of autonomy… the same thing is playing out currently in SpaceX. What they need to achieve to unlock truly massive profits is further out than the current hype cycle will have you believe. In the future, the Muskonomy will very likely dominate but valuations with some tethering to both reality and an optimistic narrative is important. The two companies can survive and thrive separately. There is no insurmountable obstacle that prevents them from collaborating. And when the valuations are aligned with each individual’s time horizons and expectations, then people can buy SpaceX shares whenever they want.

~$2T is cheap today? That’s buying into the hype. Look at SpaceX rev/profit and the expensive roadmap ahead. They certainly have a bright future and unlimited growth potential but that’ll take many years of extreme execution to pay off (which I don’t doubt they’ll achieve and would personally gladly invest into at some point) It’s like when TSLA was valued over $1T in 2020 over robotaxi hype… same thing playing out currently in SpaceX. In the future, the Muskonomy will very likely dominate but valuations with some tethering to both reality and an optimistic narrative is important.

SpaceX + X + xAI at $1.75T is sooo cheap. I could make the argument for: X alone to be worth $1T today. xAI to be worth $2T today. SpaceX to be worth $2T today.

A CEO complaining isn’t a compelling argument and the hurdles are hardly insurmountable. At the core, the question is can Tesla unlock profits from its energy, robotaxi, and Optimus business on their own? Sure partnership along the way is beneficial but not necessary. Musk receives so much support and admiration from his retail shareholder base that I think many are somehow willing to put his interest above their own. The strange part is he will be just fine either way. Would it be ideal for him if they were all one entity, sure but would it all come apart if they weren’t together - I think not.

@Julian_7384 @bradsferguson Because the CEO of Tesla is complaining about hurdles in his path (e.g. independent director reviews of everything associated with TERAFAB).

When Long-Term Investing Becomes Short-Term "A lot of long-term Tesla investors didn't buy the stock because Tesla made good cars. The bigger vision was always the autonomy play." - @bradsferguson But now there's an even bigger vision that just Robotaxi. The vision includes autonomous humanoid robots (Optimus). Now add Digital Optimus and TERAFAB, and just recently the prospect of merging with SpaceX. On it's surface, this sentiment sounds entirely reasonable: "We've been waiting all these years and I want to get the return I've been waiting for. Don't dilute me!" However, while this viewpoint appeals to a sense of fairness and "we earned this" after years of pain, but it confuses emotional entitlement with economic reality. 1) Markets are forward-looking - In theory, Tesla's current market capitalization already prices in the market's best estimate of Robotaxi's future cash flows, probability-weighted and discounted. (I happen to think that the market's current estimate of the value is way too low, but the market doesn't agree with me). The stock has traded at massive premiums to traditional auto multiples for years precisely because of that bet. The idea that you must wait for some discrete "re-rating" event (e.g., robotaxi profits suddenly exploding) before merging assumes the market is completely asleep right now and will magically wake up later. Perhaps. 2) Mergers aren't priced off today's market cap alone - In any real deal, the exchange ratio is negotiated using forward-looking projections and DCF models for both companies (where Robotaxi upside is explicitly modeled). Tesla's board should not agree to an exchange that leaves robotaxi value on the table. Waiting for "the market to recognize it" first doesn't protect anyone extra - it just delays potential synergies that could create more total value. 3) Sunk-cost reasoning - The "we funded the hard part through drawdowns and ridicule" narrative is emotionally compelling but economically irrelevant to future capital allocation. Tesla's autonomy R&D was funded by car sales profits - not just "long-suffering shareholders holding the bag." Every current Tesla shareholder bought at a price that already reflected (some version of) the autonomy premium. Past volatility is a sunk cost; it doesn't create a special entitlement to capture 100% of the upside before any structural change. By the way, SpaceX investors also funded their hard parts (many explosions!). A merger would give Tesla shareholders exposure to that upside they didn't fund either. 4) Zero-sum framing ignores value creation - In the video, Bradford treats the merger as purely dilutive to Tesla holders. In reality, combining the companies earlier could accelerate AI/robotics progress, reduce duplicate costs, and unlock synergies that make the pie bigger for everyone. Delaying purely to chase a higher standalone Tesla price risks missing that. 5) Companies should always focus on the long-term - Just because there are some investors who invested five years ago and are waiting for their payoff, their needs shouldn't take priority over all other shareholders. What about the long suffering investors who bought Tesla as just a car company - who don't want an AI play and are waiting for Tesla to produce 20 million vehicles a year - do they no longer matter? What about the people who bought the stock right after the TERAFAB announcement - who are excited about Tesla becoming a major semiconductor maker - do their wishes somehow matter less? The stock market doesn't reward shareholders who have "suffered" - meaning that the NYSE doesn't give people who purchased the stock at $400 five year ago more gains than those who purchase the stock at $400 today. From here the upside is the same, whether you've suffered or not. When you purchase the stock and at what price is on you. It's not Elon's responsibility to somehow find a way to reward your patience in the short-term over the long-term interests of other shareholders. It is Elon's responsibility to maximize the long-term value of Tesla - at all times. Note: I'm not singling out Bradford here - he's drawing attention to an important topic and I appreciate that.

@BoBbyPleWniaK Yeah getting first dibs on SpaceX ipo after its multiplied in value - no thanks. SpaceX investors may now have to see their stock stagnate for years as they wait for the next leg of growth like TSLA has for the past 5 years.

I want SpaceX pre-2024 prices. Pre-2021, you’re funny. So much for “taking care of long-term investors.” Well, unless that means all his friends who kept buying funding rounds into SpaceX and xAI, while Tesla never invested in those rounds despite begging Elon to, or opened the door for Tesla shareholders to get a piece. I get that merging helps Elon and would likely make his life easier. I understand I should be thankful as I’m just an investor who doesn’t do anything. I’ve been 99% invested in Tesla since 2021, and we’re finally at a point where I might see returns beating inflation. After everything I’ve been through, I’d like to see this through a little longer before merging with a company that appears to be cashing in at peak valuations.

It really should be about self interest and time horizon as an investor. If your exposure is TSLA and you’ve held 5-10+ years then you don’t want a merger at current valuations. If your exposure is more SpaceX weighted then you’d probably be salivating over a near term merger. The question is simple: does Tesla need SpaceX to realize their energy, robotaxi, and one day Optimus potential? The answer should be obvious as the Tesla community for years has talked about the upside and never once claimed a merger was Necessary - although partnership along the way would be beneficial. Musk receives so much support and admiration from his retail shareholder base that I think many are somehow willing to put his interest above their own. The strange part is he will be just fine either way. Would it be ideal for him if they were all one entity, sure but would it all come apart if they weren’t together - I think not.

A hot topic that will likely continue to get hotter in the not so distant future. I would say that $TSLA investors haven’t funded the Robotaxi development as much as the Model 3 ramp…after that model 3 ramp TSLA stock hasn’t needed to raise capital again (although they still did in 2020). I am torn myself and wish Robotaxi would ramp up FIRST before the merger so the TSLA valuation can have it’s 3-5x valuation explosion from here we’ve all been patiently waiting for…However, if TSLA gets acquired by SpaceX FIRST then I believe it will #1 hopefully be at at least on somewhat favorable immediate terms for $TSLA shareholders (e.g. 20-30% premium) and #2 the Robotaxi ramp right after such a merger/acquisition would THEN raise the new combined SpaceXai+Tesla valuation still 2-3x from there IMO from let’s say $4 trillion market cap up to $10 trillion market cap pretty quickly IMO…that would be just from Robotaxi ramp alone, not counting Optimus and all SpaceXai advances (e.g. Starship, data centers/AI in space, etc.)

Tesla shareholders funded the robotaxi vision through the hard part. The missed timelines, ridicule, drawdowns, and the “FSD is impossible” years. So if Tesla ever gets folded into SpaceX, the question isn’t “would that be cool?” It’s: who gets paid for the robotaxi value? Bradford breaks it down here.👇

@wholemars 👎

TeslaSpaceXAI Also known as just X

@bradsferguson @CernBasher It’s simple. If you’re only exposure is to TSLA, then you shouldn’t want a merger as it goes against your own interests. If you have a greater exposure to SpaceX, then you’re dreaming of a merger at these reported valuations especially before robotaxi takes off

some of your points are fair... yet SpaceX shareholders are seeing a 15-20x increase in value over the past five years. They are getting full value for a successful Starlink rollout that may grow to $100 billion by 2030. Tesla merging with SpaceX is essentially $TSLA shareholders selling more than half their Tesla shares and buying SpaceX after that 15-20x increase. While $TSLA has returned 0% over the past 4 years and 4 months and we're supposed to just allow SpaceX to buy us out for no premium?

@DillonLoomis Thanks, great points! What you’re saying is 100% rational. The counter is not imo. (Have not seen any financial valuation modeling showing why merger makes sense) Makes you wonder what’s incentivizing push for merger idea.

1) I think most of us would agree, the market has systemically underpriced Tesla's autonomous potential. It won't be priced in (realized for shareholders) until a certain scale is achieved. In short, the markets want more proof. Until that happens, SpaceX has more leverage for exchange ratio negotiations 2) The forward projections are still quite sensitive to current DCF inputs and until those inputs become more robust (greater scale, more paid rides, active in more cities), SpaceX would still have disproportionate negotiating power. In a vacuum I think it's better for $TSLA investors to have the real Robotaxi breakout happen pre-merger 3) I don't think the Tesla investors that have been invested for 7+ years would call their diamond hands activity "economically irrelevant". It's not that they're entitled given past volatility, it's that it wouldn't be fair to see SpaceX investors overly rewarded for the support Tesla investors gave over all those years 4) Yes, synergies are large. And long-term, I'm pro-merger. But many of these synergies don't require a merger and will exist anyway. And this overlooks the very real cash burn SpaceX will likely be in the near term Plus, Elon owns a much larger % of SpaceX so he himself has a natural incentive to maximize SpaceX's relative valuation for voting purposes And this should go without saying but I'm a big fan of Cern. Me sharing counter viewpoints is simply an exercise in sharing thoughts and furthering discourse, allowing others to hear both perspectives ahead of any POTENTIAL vote

@Haeze @Everman Yep timing is everything and that’s why a merger may not be in the cards. Everything has to perfectly align.

I agree, but I see SpaceX having the same sort of value increase, rewarding $TSLA owners for the $SpaceX sacrifices in the past. If the merger is held off until after Tesla realizes the gains from robotaxi, then they merge, and then Space-Based datacenters come out, the $TSLA investors will benefit from BOTH, while the SpaceX investors will have to have paid a huge premium during the merger. I see both companies as having a huge boost that investors in both sides deserve to benefit from.

Not sure why this is lost on so many people.

Practice any art. Not to get money and fame, but to experience becoming. To make your soul grow.

@wholemars Agree… too much speculation but from what is known now, a merger of equals makes zero sense for TSLA shareholders.

It makes sense to have the xAI models and Tesla AI models under the same roof to use for optimus etc it makes sense to be able to use starlink to command and control the robotaxi network It makes sense to have X’s 600 million monthly active users funneled into Robotaxi There’s the existing terafab partnership Most of us would probably agree that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in establish an elon musk megatech conglomerate. the products they can build together would be incredible That’s where I start. That the merger would actually create value for shareholders. It would make the share price go up faster. Now, are there possible deal terms that are bad? Of course. But is it impossible to reach such a deal on good terms for Tesla shareholders? No, it’s not. If the terms of the deal are bad, shareholders will not vote yes. You have not just retail fanboys but institutions, index funds, family offices etc. They are not going to vote yes on a bad deal. Let’s save the fear mongering for when and if the deal is actually proposed rather than worrying about some imaginary horrible outcome

It’s hilarious to me that people are already trying to stoke fears about a Tesla / SpaceX merger that hasn’t been proposed yet Maybe let’s wait to see actual proposed terms before getting our panties in a twist about what the valuations of each company might be at that time?

Yes! Thanks for putting this out there! Also, Tesla shareholders have held up the stock for so many years despite it being “overvalued” That helped Tesla enjoy a higher market cap and all the benefits that come with it. Now is not the time to merge as equals and screw over the TSLA shareholder. There is nothing wrong with SpaceX and Tesla remaining strong partners. All major companies do it and this partnership should be more seamless than most all things considered: You could only merge these two as equals if both their valuations and forecasts were equal otherwise some shareholders are getting burned. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be the case and even it it were not all Tesla shareholders want SpaceX and vice versa.

Eventually sure, but not until SpaceX hype cools / finds true market value and TSLA scales robotaxi… otherwise TSLA shareholders screwed over next ~5 years Math per ARK bullish scenarios: By 2029/2030 Ark sees TSLA valuation to $7T and SpaceX to $2-$3T If they merge as equals, TSLA shareholders will be diluted in upcoming years

99% chance they merge eventually

@arny_trezzi @PLTRs_Palantir @PalantirBullets Great call out 💪

" $PLTR US COMMERCIAL IS SLOWING DOWN." Not really. One "US Commercial" client moved to "US Government." Without the change, growth would have been 143%, up from 137% YoY in Q4. Accelerating dominance.