Hubbry Logo
TSLAQTSLAQMain
Open search
TSLAQ
Community hub
TSLAQ
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
TSLAQ
TSLAQ
TSLAQ
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

This article is part of
a series about
Elon Musk
Personal
Companies
Politics
In the arts and media

TSLAQ (pronounced "Tesla Q") is a loose, international[1] collective of largely anonymous short-sellers,[2] skeptics, and researchers who openly criticize Tesla, Inc. and its CEO Elon Musk.[3] The group primarily organizes on social media, often using the $TSLAQ cashtag, and on Reddit to coordinate efforts and share news, opinions, and analysis about the company and its stock.[4][5] Edward Niedermeyer, in his book Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors (2019), pinpoints the July 2018 doxxing of Twitter user Lawrence Fossi,[6] a Seeking Alpha writer and Tesla short seller operating under the pseudonym Montana Skeptic, as the catalyst for the formation of TSLAQ.[7]

TSLAQ highlights what it claims to be a variety of dangerous, deceptive, unlawful or fraudulent business practices by Tesla. On occasion, TSLAQ has exchanged hostilities with Tesla fans over social media. Primarily an online group, TSLAQ's activities at times include aerial and traffic photography and visiting parking lots used by Tesla to store cars not yet sold.

Motivations

[edit]
See also: List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc. and Criticism of Tesla, Inc.

According to the Los Angeles Times in 2019, TSLAQ members believe Tesla is a fraudulent company and its stock will eventually crash, while also specifically claiming that Tesla was experiencing a "demand cliff" for its products and has had to regularly distort its sales numbers.[8] Their self-reported main goal as of 2019 was to "change the mind of Tesla stock bulls and the media."[8] Tesla was the most shorted stock in the U.S. in December 2020, with over US$34.5 billion in shorted share value at its peak.[9] Business Insider described TSLAQ member activity in 2019 as consisting of "exchang[ing] research, news articles, and sometimes outlandish conspiracy theories about the company" and that members were "betting on the company's death and have found much success in irritating the billionaire executive."[10]

Criticizing Tesla's practices

[edit]

Tesla under Musk's leadership has been involved in a number of lawsuits and controversies,[11] including investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice.[12] News of such investigations and subsequent litigation, the alleged fraud and insider-dealing in connection with Tesla's acquisition of SolarCity in 2016 (Tesla won the SolarCity fraud case in 2022[13]), are major organizing points for TSLAQ members.[14] Notably, Elon Musk revealed a "solar roof" shingle in October 2016 that later was disclosed to be fake, as originally speculated by TESLAcharts.[14][15] The group has also raised questions about accounting irregularities related to warranty reserves, accounts receivables, and regulatory credits.[16]

TSLAQ has highlighted a California judge's ruling in 2019 that Tesla had violated labor laws by unfairly disciplining employees who engaged in pro-union activity.[17][18][19] According to TSLAQ member Paul91701736, Tesla has frequently failed to achieve overly optimistic production projections.[8] Following Musk's statement that "Tesla does not need to ever raise another funding round" in 2012,[20] TSLAQ and others argue Tesla has had a total negative cash flow of over $8 billion and subsequently raised over $18 billion in additional debt and equity via subsidies and other means.[21] Musk also planned to build a fully automated factory for mass production of the Tesla Model 3,[22] describing the factory as an "unstoppable alien dreadnought ... [the] machine that builds the machine."[23] However, footage produced by a TSLAQ member of activity at the Fremont factory revealed that cars were largely being built by hand.[24]

Hothi defamation lawsuit

[edit]

In April 2019, Tesla filed a lawsuit and a request for a restraining order against TSLAQ member Randeep Hothi,[25] also known as skabooshka.[24] The allegations were:

  1. In February 2019, Mr. Hothi was found sitting in his car in the Tesla Fremont Factory parking lot. Security ordered him to leave, at which point Tesla alleged he exited at high speed and nearly struck an employee.[26]
  2. In April 2019, Mr. Hothi spotted a Tesla car on the highway fitted with numerous camera systems and personnel in the car. He proceeded to film the vehicle, believing it to be demonstrating and filming Tesla's Autopilot capabilities. Tesla alleged that he drove erratically and dangerously.[27][28]

In response to the allegations, TSLAQ members led by Lawrence Fossi ran a GoFundMe campaign that raised more than $100,000 for Hothi's defense fund. Tesla refused to produce footage from within the test car on the grounds it "risked the safety and privacy of the employees involved in the case", and dropped the lawsuit and the request for a temporary restraining order against Hothi.[29] After reviewing the surveillance camera footage of the Tesla parking lot from the February incident, Fremont police declined to press charges.[30]

In August 2020, Hothi sued Elon Musk for defamation over Musk's accusations in an email exchange with PlainSite's owner Aaron Greenspan that Hothi had almost killed Tesla employees.[31] The presiding judge rejected Musk's motion to strike the lawsuit in January 2021, allowing the trial to move forward.[32] In January 2022, Musk's appeal to strike the lawsuit under anti-SLAPP laws was denied.[33] In April 2023, the parties settled, with Hothi receiving $10,000.[34]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

TSLAQ

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

TSLAQ (pronounced "Tesla Q") is a decentralized, international collective of predominantly anonymous short-sellers, financial analysts, engineers, and researchers who scrutinize and criticize , its business practices, and CEO , often under the hashtag $TSLAQ on platforms like X (formerly ). The "Q" suffix alludes to bankruptcy notations in stock tickers, reflecting members' conviction that Tesla's elevated valuation and operational challenges presage financial distress. Emerging around 2017 amid Tesla's SolarCity acquisition and persistent cash burn, the community conducts crowdsourced , publishing analyses on topics including production bottlenecks, failures, and questionable . Participants, spanning professions from to , collaborate to challenge Tesla's growth projections and Musk's promotional statements, which they argue inflate investor expectations beyond empirical fundamentals. While Tesla's stock has surged, generating billions in losses for short positions including those aligned with TSLAQ, the group maintains its efforts, citing validated concerns like delayed launches and regulatory probes as evidence of systemic overoptimism. TSLAQ's adversarial dynamic with Tesla enthusiasts underscores broader tensions in equity markets between narrative-driven valuations and rigorous financial scrutiny.

Origins and History

Formation and Early Activities (2018–2019)

TSLAQ originated as an informal network of Tesla critics, primarily short-sellers and independent researchers, who began organizing on Twitter around 2018 amid the company's struggles to scale Model 3 production. The hashtag $TSLAQ, combining Tesla's stock ticker TSLA with "Q" to signify questioning or queuing doubts, served as a rallying point for sharing analyses that challenged Tesla's optimistic projections on output, demand, and financial health. Early activities centered on crowdsourced investigations into Tesla's operations, including on-site observations at the Fremont factory where members like Hothi compiled estimates suggesting production shortfalls below official figures. In August 2018, the group highlighted incidents such as a reported unintended in a Model 3, fueling discussions on vehicle safety and software reliability. These efforts often amplified regulatory scrutiny, particularly following Elon Musk's August 7, 2018, "funding secured" tweet, which led to an SEC investigation and settlement, with TSLAQ members portraying it as evidence of erratic leadership. By 2019, TSLAQ's discourse expanded to include critiques of Tesla's management and delivery metrics, such as discrepancies in Q1 2019 reports where actual vehicle handovers fell short of expectations, prompting collective threads dissecting earnings calls and vulnerabilities. The community, largely anonymous to shield from potential retaliation, operated without formal structure, relying on for real-time collaboration and dissemination to counter pro-Tesla narratives. While mainstream coverage noted their role in fostering doubt among investors, TSLAQ's outputs frequently blended verifiable data with speculative claims of systemic , reflecting the high-stakes short-selling environment where Tesla's volatility offered both risks and opportunities.

Expansion and Community Dynamics (2020–Present)

Despite Tesla's stock surging over 700% in 2020 amid inclusion in the index and production milestones, the TSLAQ community endured significant financial losses for affiliated short sellers, estimated at $38 billion collectively. This period marked a contraction in overall short interest, which dropped to historic lows by early 2021 as many institutional shorts capitulated. However, the grassroots TSLAQ network, tracked via the $TSLAQ hashtag on (now X), persisted as a hub for skeptics emphasizing Tesla's unmet promises, such as Full Self-Driving capabilities and battery innovations unveiled at Battery Day in September 2020. The community's dynamics evolved toward crowdsourced investigative research rather than pure short-selling speculation, with tslaq.org serving as a platform for detailed analyses of Tesla's financial reporting, discrepancies, and technological timelines. Following the 2020 Reddit ban of r/tslaq subreddit amid allegations of doxxing and harassment, members migrated to r/RealTesla, fostering ongoing discussions on production shortfalls and regulatory scrutiny. Interactions with intensified, as he publicly mocked shorts during the 2020 rally—declaring it the "short burn of the century"—while TSLAQ accounts highlighted persistent issues like delayed Cybertruck production and FSD regulatory hurdles. From 2022 onward, TSLAQ gained traction amid Tesla's stock volatility, including a 65% decline in and renewed short profitability as vehicle delivery growth slowed to single digits by 2024. The 2022 acquisition by led to reinstatements of some suspended TSLAQ-linked accounts, amplifying debates on platform governance and Tesla's autonomy narrative. Community cohesion faced challenges from internal debates over Tesla's pivot to AI and , yet it maintained influence through viral threads critiquing events like the delayed 2024 Robotaxi unveil. By 2025, as short sellers recouped approximately $10 billion year-to-date amid EV market saturation, TSLAQ's emphasis on empirical scrutiny of Tesla's capital-intensive expansions underscored its role in countering hype-driven valuations.

Core Criticisms and Research Focus

Financial Reporting and Valuation Concerns

Members of the TSLAQ community have scrutinized Tesla's financial reporting practices, alleging aggressive methods that obscure underlying operational inefficiencies and inflate profitability metrics. A primary concern involves Tesla's capitalization of significant costs as property, plant, and equipment (PP&E) rather than expensing them immediately, including expenditures on supplier tooling and factory retooling during model transitions. For instance, in its 2024 10-K filing, Tesla reported PP&E net of $35.8 billion, reflecting capitalized investments that critics argue should be treated as period costs to better reflect the cyclical nature of automotive production scaling, potentially overstating operating by deferring expenses. Short sellers aligned with TSLAQ, such as those from firms like GLJ , have contended that this practice, permissible under but unusually extensive for the industry, masks the true cash burn associated with frequent redesigns and contributes to discrepancies between reported capital expenditures and asset growth. Another focal point is , particularly Tesla's dependence on regulatory credits sold to other automakers to meet emissions standards, which have accounted for a disproportionate share of profits in certain quarters. In Q3 2025, while Tesla reported record revenue of $28.1 billion, fell 37% year-over-year to $1.4 billion, with critics noting that credits—totaling over $1 billion annually in prior years—represent non-core, unsustainable income vulnerable to competitors achieving compliance independently. TSLAQ analyses often highlight inventory accumulation and potential channel stuffing, where vehicles are delivered to distributors to boost reported sales figures ahead of quarter-end, as evidenced by Tesla's rising days sales of inventory metrics exceeding industry norms. Regarding valuation, TSLAQ posits that Tesla's , exceeding $800 billion as of late October 2025, is detached from fundamentals, trading at a forward P/E ratio approaching 100x despite decelerating revenue growth and shrinking automotive margins. This premium, they argue, hinges on speculative narratives around full self-driving software and robotaxis, which lack regulatory approval and empirical validation of scalability, contrasting with traditional automakers like Ford or valued at under 10x earnings. Analysts contributing to TSLAQ discussions, including those from , have warned that eroding pricing power and competition could exacerbate the valuation disconnect, with models suggesting overvaluation by 100% or more under conservative growth assumptions. While Tesla's audited financials comply with SEC standards, TSLAQ emphasizes the incentive misalignment from stock-based compensation and Elon Musk's influence, urging scrutiny of sustainability amid ongoing high capital expenditures projected at over $10 billion annually.

Production, Quality, and Supply Chain Issues

Tesla has encountered significant challenges in scaling production, as evidenced by the Model 3 ramp-up in 2018, which CEO described as "production hell," involving missed weekly targets of 5,000 units and necessitating manual assembly processes that risked company solvency. Similar delays plagued the Cybertruck, with initial production postponed from late 2021 to early 2023 and into 2024, followed by production pauses at the in June 2025 for Model Y and Cybertruck lines amid supply constraints. Quality issues have persisted, with Musk acknowledging in 2021 that critics were correct about Model 3 defects, including inconsistent panel gaps and paint problems stemming from rushed manufacturing. Tesla vehicles have faced over 50 NHTSA recalls since 2018, including recent 2024-2025 actions for battery contactor failures in nearly 13,000 Model 3 and Y units, accelerator pedal issues in Cybertrucks, and airbag defects affecting millions, often linked to manufacturing variances rather than software fixes alone. Supply chain vulnerabilities exacerbate these problems, as Tesla depends on China for approximately 40% of its material suppliers, exposing it to geopolitical tensions, tariffs, and raw material shortages like and . Early battery production was hampered by slow pacing and quality inconsistencies, contributing to broader delays.

Safety, Regulatory, and Ethical Allegations

Tesla's and Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems have faced repeated allegations of deficiencies, including failure to prevent misuse and inadequate response to hazards, leading to fatal crashes. In August 2025, a jury held Tesla partially liable for a 2019 Model S crash involving , awarding $329 million in after determining the system contributed to the driver's death by not alerting him to a stopped . A expert testified in related proceedings that Tesla failed to implement sufficient safeguards against driver overreliance on the partially automated system. Further, in December 2024, a lawsuit accused Tesla of fraudulent misrepresentation of capabilities in a 2023 fatal collision, claiming the marketing overstated the technology's reliability. The (NHTSA) has launched multiple investigations into these systems. In October 2025, NHTSA opened a probe into 2.9 million Tesla vehicles equipped with FSD, citing 58 reported incidents of traffic violations, including 14 crashes and 23 injuries, such as running red lights and wrong-way driving. An earlier NHTSA inquiry examined FSD performance in low-visibility conditions like fog and glare, following four crashes. Additionally, in August 2025, NHTSA investigated Tesla for delayed reporting of crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems, potentially understating risks to regulators. Regulatory scrutiny has extended to potential in promoting self-driving features. U.S. prosecutors in the Department of Justice (DOJ) have examined whether Tesla engaged in securities or wire by misleading investors and consumers about and FSD capabilities, focusing on claims that exaggerated autonomy levels. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has pursued related inquiries into Tesla's disclosures, amid broader concerns over unfulfilled promises of full autonomy. Ethical allegations against Tesla include workplace safety lapses and discriminatory practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Tesla in September 2023 for tolerating widespread racial harassment against Black workers at its Fremont factory, including racial slurs and retaliatory actions against complainants. In April 2023, a judge ruled that Tesla violated U.S. labor law by instructing employees at a service center not to discuss wages or conditions, stifling union organizing efforts. Construction workers at Tesla's alleged in a 2022 constant hazards, unreported accidents, and wage theft during facility expansion. ethics have drawn criticism, with a 2025 accusing Tesla of greenwashing and benefiting from forced labor in its cobalt sourcing from the Democratic Republic of Congo. OSHA cited Tesla in 2023 for safety violations contributing to a worker's death at a plant. In August 2025, former HR executives claimed they were penalized and pushed out for reporting bias and high attrition in roles.

Leadership and Governance Critiques

TSLAQ members have frequently criticized Tesla's leadership structure as overly centralized around CEO , arguing that it enables unchecked decision-making and prioritizes personal interests over . They contend that Musk's charismatic but erratic style, marked by repeated unfulfilled promises on timelines for products like Full Self-Driving capability, reflects poor strategic oversight rather than visionary leadership. A core focus of these critiques is the ' lack of , which TSLAQ describes as "the worst board in America" for routinely granting leeway on controversies without rigorous scrutiny. Board composition includes family members like and associates with longstanding ties, such as and Antonio Gracias, who TSLAQ claims foster a of rather than . This dynamic was empirically underscored in the Delaware Court of 's January 30, 2024, ruling in Tornetta v. , which invalidated 's 2018 compensation package valued at approximately $55.8 billion. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick found that only one director was truly independent, citing the board's personal relationships with —including shared vacations and substance use—as compromising its ability to negotiate at arm's length, with the approval process deemed unfair and uninformed to shareholders. TSLAQ also highlights historical governance lapses, such as the 2016 acquisition of , where held over 20% ownership and chaired the board, proposing the deal himself amid Tesla's cash constraints and SolarCity's liquidity issues tied to guarantees. Community analyses argue this exemplified conflicts, with the board failing to explore alternatives or enforce independent valuation, leading to lawsuits alleging breach of —though later partially dismissed, the episode is cited as evidence of entrenched . Compensation practices draw sharp rebuke from TSLAQ, who view Musk's packages as misaligned with performance, rewarding stock appreciation driven by hype over operational metrics like consistent profitability or delivery targets met. The 2024 court rescission reinforced this, noting the plan's unprecedented scale lacked comparable benchmarks and board rigor. As of October 2025, Tesla's proposal for a new equity award potentially exceeding $1 trillion in value—tied to ambitious market cap and operational milestones—has amplified these concerns, with TSLAQ echoing broader investor groups in decrying it as an escalation of flaws, especially amid Musk's demands for 25% voting control to safeguard AI initiatives from activist interference. Additionally, TSLAQ critiques the board's tolerance of Musk's divided focus across ventures like , xAI, and X (formerly ), alongside escalating political engagements, as eroding CEO accountability without imposed guardrails. Instances include Musk's 2018 "funding secured" tweet prompting SEC fraud charges and a $40 million settlement with reforms like a overseer—reforms TSLAQ claims were superficial and unenforced. These elements, per TSLAQ, perpetuate a governance model vulnerable to individual whims over institutional resilience.

Key Events and Engagements

Major Research Releases and Public Campaigns

The TSLAQ community has produced several notable research pieces through crowdsourced efforts, often hosted on tslaq.org and shared via social media platforms like Twitter. One prominent example is the January 22, 2024, essay "Elon Musk 101" by pseudonymous contributor Optimus Bongrat, which critiques Musk's business practices and personal history as indicative of broader corporate issues at Tesla. Earlier entries include analyses of Tesla's Fremont factory operations, highlighting alleged inefficiencies and quality control problems based on whistleblower accounts and public data, as well as examinations of the 2016 SolarCity acquisition, framing it as a bailout for Musk's interests rather than a synergistic merger. These pieces draw on SEC filings, earnings transcripts, and independent investigations to question Tesla's reported metrics, such as inventory accounting and revenue recognition. Individual TSLAQ-affiliated researchers have released detailed financial critiques, exemplified by Lawrence Fossi's (pseudonym Montana Skeptic) January 15, 2020, Seeking Alpha article "Tesla's Decidedly Mediocre Margin," which dissected Tesla's gross margins by arguing that regulatory credits and cost deferrals inflated reported figures, rendering them unsustainable without ongoing subsidies. Fossi, a key figure in the community, emphasized forensic accounting of Tesla's 10-K filings to contend that automotive margins hovered around industry medians when adjusted for one-time items, challenging narratives of exceptional profitability. Public campaigns by TSLAQ have primarily leveraged to amplify research and pressure Tesla, using the hashtag to coordinate threads exposing perceived discrepancies, such as the October 2016 edited demonstration video, which omitted human interventions and mapping aids to portray full . In 2019, the group organized informal fundraising for short sellers facing legal threats from Tesla, including a "Skabooshka defense fund" to support Gotham Research analyst Aatish Patel after his report on production shortfalls prompted company scrutiny. These efforts aimed to sway retail investors, journalists, and regulators by data on issues like vulnerabilities and safety incidents, often tagging media outlets and officials to demand investigations. The campaigns positioned TSLAQ as a counter-narrative to Tesla's promotional materials, though they relied heavily on anonymous contributions, raising questions about verification amid the community's short-selling incentives. In 2019, Randeep Hothi, a prominent Tesla critic and active participant in the TSLAQ community known for posting investigative threads on Tesla's operations, filed a defamation lawsuit against in Alameda County Superior Court. The suit arose from Musk's public statements and tweets accusing Hothi of behavior, including incidents where Hothi was observed in his vehicle near Tesla's Fremont factory parking lot in February 2019 and photographing operations in April 2019, which Musk characterized as suspicious and potentially unlawful. Hothi alleged these statements falsely portrayed him as a , damaging his among Tesla supporters. Musk defended the claims by arguing that his statements were protected opinions based on security reports of Hothi's repeated presence at Tesla facilities without authorization, and that Hothi had not proven or falsity required for under law. The case, docketed as RG20069852, proceeded toward trial but was settled on May 1, 2023, with agreeing to pay Hothi $10,000; no admission of liability was made, and Hothi dropped the suit. Tesla and maintained that the settlement avoided protracted litigation costs without conceding the merits, consistent with 's prior public stance against yielding on perceived unjust accusations. Separately, Aaron Greenspan, a Tesla short seller and TSLAQ-affiliated researcher who operates the PlainSite platform for public company filings, initiated multiple legal actions against Tesla, , and related entities, including a 2021 securities fraud and complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Greenspan alleged Tesla engaged in misleading disclosures and that defamed him through responses to his criticisms of Tesla's and financial reporting. In May 2022, Federal Judge dismissed the core claims, ruling that Greenspan failed to adequately plead securities violations under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act or establish elements, as 's statements were deemed non-actionable opinions or protected speech. Tesla responded aggressively to Greenspan's filings by filing motions to dismiss, arguing the claims lacked specificity and relied on speculative interpretations of public data rather than material misrepresentations; the court agreed, sanctioning portions of the suit for failing to meet federal pleading standards. Ongoing related litigation by Greenspan, such as a 2024 racketeering complaint (Case No. 3:24-cv-04647), has seen partial dismissals, including Musk successfully moving to strike pay-for-votes allegations in October 2024 as unrelated to underlying fraud claims. Tesla has consistently countered such suits by emphasizing robust SEC compliance and viewing them as attempts by short interests to manufacture doubt, without initiating offensive litigation against TSLAQ as a group. No verified instances exist of Tesla or filing lawsuits directly targeting TSLAQ members for their collective research or short-selling activities, despite 's public criticisms of short sellers as engaging in manipulative practices; instead, responses have focused on defending against individual claims through dismissal motions and minimal settlements to resolve peripheral disputes. These cases highlight tensions between Tesla critics' allegations of and the company's legal strategy of challenging evidentiary thresholds in .

Impact and Outcomes

Influence on Markets and Short Selling

The TSLAQ community, originating as a Twitter-based around , sought to exert downward pressure on Tesla's stock price by aggregating and publicizing alleging financial misreporting, production shortfalls, and issues, with the explicit aim of bolstering short-selling activity and attracting institutional scrutiny. Members coordinated to disseminate data on metrics such as delivery discrepancies and supplier constraints, framing these as evidence of systemic overvaluation, in hopes of catalyzing retail and professional short interest during periods of Tesla's volatility, including the 2019 "production hell" phase when quarterly deliveries fell short of guidance. Despite these efforts, TSLAQ's influence on overall market dynamics remained marginal, as Tesla's price continued its upward trajectory amid scaling production and profitability gains. Short interest as a of float peaked above 30% in late 2019 but declined sharply thereafter, stabilizing below 3% by 2025, reflecting diminished conviction among bears as Tesla achieved consistent positive and expanded in electric vehicles. This contraction coincided with Tesla's surpassing $1 trillion multiple times, underscoring how empirical delivery growth and technological milestones outweighed TSLAQ-driven narratives in investor assessments. Short sellers targeting Tesla, including those aligned with TSLAQ theses, incurred substantial losses, with estimates indicating over $35 billion in mark-to-market declines in alone as the stock rose more than 700% that year. While isolated dips—such as a 14% single-day drop in June 2025 yielding $4 billion in short profits—provided temporary gains, the net effect over TSLAQ's lifespan has been asymmetric downside for shorts, as Tesla's execution on cost reductions and autonomous driving promises sustained premium valuations. TSLAQ's approach amplified bearish sentiment in online forums but failed to precipitate sustained regulatory interventions or revisions that could validate widespread short positions.

Accuracy of Predictions Versus Tesla's Performance

TSLAQ advocates and affiliated short sellers frequently forecasted Tesla's or drastic undervaluation, with prominent predictions including by mid-2019 amid Model 3 production challenges and cash burn exceeding $1 billion quarterly. However, Tesla secured $2.3 billion in capital raises in 2019, achieved positive by Q4 2019, and reported its first full-year profit of $721 million in 2020, defying collapse scenarios. By contrast, vehicle deliveries scaled from 245,240 units in 2018 to 1.81 million in 2023, representing over 600% growth, while automotive revenue expanded from $17.6 billion in 2018 to $77.1 billion in 2024. Bear theses, such as those from analyst Gordon Johnson of GLJ Research, emphasized overstated demand, production shortfalls, and inevitable margin erosion, projecting Tesla's enterprise value near zero by 2020 due to execution failures. These views aligned partially with early setbacks, including 2018's "production hell" where output fell short of 5,000 weekly Model 3 targets, leading to temporary gross losses. Yet, Tesla's stock price, adjusted for splits, rose from approximately $20 per share in December 2018 to peaks above $400 by late 2021, yielding multibagger returns for longs and heavy losses for shorts, who faced $40 billion in cumulative mark-to-market deficits from 2019 to 2021. surpassed $1 trillion in October 2021, positioning Tesla as the world's most valuable automaker by that metric. Subsequent predictions of sustained revenue stagnation proved inaccurate amid expansion into and international markets, with reaching $96.8 billion in 2023 despite bear warnings of EV market saturation. Critics like Johnson reiterated unreliability and consumer defection, citing safety probes and range discrepancies, elements substantiated by NHTSA investigations into over 2 million vehicles for issues by 2023. Nonetheless, Tesla maintained vehicle delivery growth averaging 40-50% annually through 2022, outpacing competitors and achieving GAAP profitability for eight consecutive quarters by mid-2023. In 2024-2025, accuracy improved amid slowing growth: deliveries declined 1% year-over-year in Q1 2025, with automotive gross margins compressing to 16.2% from prior highs above 25% due to price cuts and Chinese . Short sellers profited $11.5 billion mark-to-market by April 2025 as shares fell nearly 40% year-to-date, validating concerns over demand softness and delayed Full Self-Driving commercialization. Q3 2025 earnings reflected this, with EPS at $0.50 versus $0.54 expected and growth at 4.2%, below historical compounded rates exceeding 50%. Despite these validations, core TSLAQ narratives of systemic or terminal decline remain unproven, as Tesla held $33 billion in cash equivalents by Q2 2025 and expanded production capacity to over 2 million annual units.
MetricBear Prediction (Circa 2018-2020)Actual Outcome (Through 2025)
Bankruptcy RiskImminent by 2019 due to cash burnAvoided; positive since 2020
Annual DeliveriesStagnant or <500k post-2018Peaked at 1.81M (2023); ~1.8M estimated 2024
ProfitabilityPerpetual losses; EV unviable profits $15B+ cumulative 2020-2024
Stock ValuationNear-zero enterprise value$1T+ market cap multiple years; volatile but up 1,500% from 2018 lows
This table highlights divergences, where early existential threats underestimated Tesla's financing resilience and scaling, though recent margin and growth pressures affirm select operational critiques. Overall, while TSLAQ identified risks like execution delays and —evident in 2025's tempered performance—their overarching collapse predictions have not materialized, with Tesla sustaining leadership in EV adoption and diversification.

Broader Reception and Debates

The TSLAQ collective has polarized observers in financial markets and the automotive sector, with proponents praising its crowdsourced investigations into Tesla's practices, production metrics, and technological claims as a necessary check against unsubstantiated hype. Detractors, including prominent investors, contend that the group's predominant short positions foster a profit-driven negativity, where anonymous accounts prioritize over balanced analysis. For instance, hedge fund manager expressed bewilderment at TSLAQ's persistence in 2025, arguing that Tesla's innovation trajectory under defies their bearish outlook despite evident execution risks. Central debates revolve around the empirical validity of TSLAQ's theses, which have included predictions of Tesla's due to cash burn and supply constraints. While certain critiques aligned with realities like delayed production ramps in 2018–2019, broader forecasts of systemic or market dominance failure have largely faltered against Tesla's expansion to over 1.8 million vehicle deliveries in 2023 and a surpassing $1 trillion at peaks. Short sellers targeting Tesla suffered aggregate losses of $40.1 billion in , the largest ever recorded for any company's shorts in a single year, underscoring the high of sustained opposition to the firm's growth. Yet, intermittent validations persist; TSLAQ-highlighted concerns over manipulations and odometer discrepancies prompted regulatory inquiries, though Tesla refuted these as baseless in public statements. Critics of TSLAQ further question its methodological rigor, pointing to repeated inaccuracies in high-profile bears' projections, such as investor Mark Spiegel's multi-year warnings of production collapse that did not materialize by 2018. In response, TSLAQ advocates emphasize causal factors like Tesla's reliance on regulatory credits for profitability—$1.79 billion in 2023—and vulnerability to macroeconomic shifts, as evidenced by a 7.5% stock decline on July 7, 2025, yielding shorts roughly $1.4 billion in gains amid CEO political engagements. These episodes fuel arguments over whether TSLAQ represents vigilant skepticism or a self-reinforcing echo chamber, with Elon Musk warning in August 2025 that shorts risk devastation if Tesla's Full Self-Driving software achieves scalability. Reception extends to institutional dynamics, where TSLAQ's online campaigns have intersected with media amplification of Tesla scrutiny, occasionally prompting SEC probes into disclosures but rarely yielding conclusive fraud findings. Defenders attribute this to resilient fundamentals, including reducing costs to $35,000 per vehicle by 2024, while skeptics highlight ongoing litigation over autonomous claims as evidence of overstated capabilities. Overall, the discourse underscores tensions between short-term volatility—profitable for shorts in downturns—and long-term execution, with TSLAQ's influence waning as Tesla's empirical milestones outpace many doomsday scenarios.

References

  1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-01-22/the-tesla-tslaq-skeptics-who-bet-against-elon-musk
  2. https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/tslaq-telsacharts-tesla-elon-musk/
  3. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/04/a-message-to-the-tesla-community/
  4. https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-twitter-musk-fans-bears-2019-4
  5. https://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-short-sellers-musk-20190408-story.html
  6. https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-twitter-fans/
  7. https://tslaq.org/category/journal/
  8. https://financialpost.com/investing/tesla-short-sellers-lost-massive-38-billion-in-2020-as-stock-surged-to-new-heights
  9. https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-battle-over-tesla-stock-is-overfor-now-51617334560
  10. https://tslaq.org/
  11. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-tsla-ath-600-per-share-tslaq-bloodbath/
  12. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/F/pressreleases/31678877/tesla-stock-short-sellers-have-made-10-billion-in-2025-should-you-sell-tsla/
  13. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000162828025003063/tsla-20241231.htm
  14. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/net-property-plant-equipment
  15. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4832386-tesla-stock-deserves-to-fall-further
  16. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/22/tesla-tsla-q3-2025-earnings-report.html
  17. https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/22/business/tesla-regulatory-credit-sales-revenue
  18. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/concerned-teslas-q3-earnings-miss-234600734.html
  19. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4831231-why-i-finally-broke-my-own-rule-and-shorted-tesla
  20. https://www.investopedia.com/tesla-valuation-problem-could-get-worse-before-it-gets-better-morgan-stanley-says-11738491
  21. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/assessing-teslas-valuation-22-surge-120400654.html
  22. https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/analyst-says-tesla-tsla-valuation-makes-zero-sense-amid-atrophying-fundamentals-what-do-you-own-here-1621248/
  23. https://ir.tesla.com/_flysystem/s3/sec/000162828025035806/tsla-20250630-gen.pdf
  24. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-12/how-tesla-s-model-3-became-elon-musk-s-version-of-hell
  25. https://www.npr.org/2018/07/02/625250383/elon-musk-hails-tesla-reaching-goal-of-5-000-model-3s-a-week
  26. https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-tesla-delays-initial-production-cybertruck-early-2023-source-2022-01-13/
  27. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/17/tesla-stock-cybertruck-model-y.html
  28. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/03/business/elon-musk-tesla-quality-problems
  29. https://brclegal.com/tesla-recall-statistics/
  30. https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/3264/tesla-recalls-almost-13000-model-3-and-model-y-vehicles-due-to-potential-power-loss
  31. https://asia.nikkei.com/business/automobiles/tesla-relies-on-china-for-40-of-battery-supply-chain-analysis
  32. https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/37902-chinese-companies-make-up-almost-40-of-teslas-battery-material-suppliers
  33. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/25/tesla-employees-say-gigafactory-problems-worse-than-known.html
  34. https://www.riskwatch.com/tesla-supply-chain-issues/
  35. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/01/tesla-must-pay-329-million-in-damages-in-fatal-autopilot-case.html
  36. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-16/tesla-failed-to-stop-autopilot-misuse-safety-expert-testifies
  37. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/09/tesla-accused-of-fraudulent-misrepresentation-of-autopilot-in-crash-.html
  38. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-opens-probe-into-28-million-tesla-vehicles-over-traffic-violations-when-using-2025-10-09/
  39. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/nhtsa-opens-probe-into-24-mln-tesla-vehicles-over-full-self-driving-collisions-2024-10-18/
  40. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/21/tesla-musk-safety-probe-crash-report.html
  41. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-autopilot-probe-us-prosecutors-focus-securities-wire-fraud-2024-05-08/
  42. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-tesla-racial-harassment-and-retaliation
  43. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-broke-us-labor-law-by-silencing-workers-official-rules-2023-04-26/
  44. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/14/tesla-texas-construction-workers-gigafactory-lawsuit-labor-violations
  45. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/usa-tesla-sued-over-alleged-forced-labour-and-greenwashing-in-cobalt-supply-chain/
  46. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/usa-safety-violations-at-tesla-plant-contributed-to-workers-death-rules-osha/
  47. https://www.hrdive.com/news/tesla-hr-pros-penalized-pushed-reporting-bias/757254/
  48. https://tslaq.org/elon-musk-101-an-essay-by-optimus-bongrat/
  49. https://tslaq.org/who-is-elon-musk/
  50. https://www.promarket.org/2024/06/08/tesla-is-short-on-director-independence/
  51. https://www.clearymawatch.com/2024/02/its-not-de-its-you-55-billion-reasons-tesla-is-not-your-company/
  52. https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/02/alerts-practices-pca-delaware-court-of-chancery-rescinds-elon
  53. https://tslaq.org/solarcity-lawsuit/
  54. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/09/29/the-trillion-dollar-man-comparing-musks-2018-pay-plan-to-his-latest-tesla-award/
  55. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/21/take-back-tesla-urges-shareholders-to-reject-musk-1-trillion-pay-plan.html
  56. https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-warning-about-tesla-stake-raises-governance-questions-2024-01-16/
  57. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4316996-teslas-decidedly-mediocre-margin
  58. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-05-01/musk-settles-defamation-suit-randeep-hothi-tesla
  59. https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/01/elon-musk-defamation-suit-tesla-hothi-tslaq/
  60. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-01/musk-to-pay-10-000-to-tesla-critic-over-ceo-s-alleged-smear
  61. https://fortune.com/2023/05/01/elon-musk-settlement-defamation-lawsuit-tesla-critic/
  62. https://www.dailyjournal.com/verdicts_and_settlement/141393-randeep-hothi-v-elon-musk
  63. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-elon-musk-tslaq-lawsuit-aaron-greenspan-officially-dismissed/
  64. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/musk-gets-plainsite-founders-pay-for-votes-allegations-tossed
  65. https://www.courthousenews.com/musk-reading/
  66. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/key-statistics/
  67. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/tsla/short-interest
  68. https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/10/tesla-tsla-short-sellers-lost-more-than-the-u-s-airline-industry-this-year/
  69. https://qz.com/gateway/tsla-shorts-bears-profits-threats-june-6-2025-1851783816
  70. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4800359-tesla-the-worst-is-yet-to-come-earnings-preview
  71. https://www.fool.com/investing/2025/10/23/where-will-tesla-be-in-5-years/
  72. https://www.cnbc.com/video/2023/12/27/teslas-are-unreliable-unsafe-dont-have-mileage-and-consumers-are-moving-away-gordon-johnson.html
  73. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/stock-price-history
  74. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/history/
  75. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4814046-tesla-the-fatal-mistake-bears-and-shorts-keep-making
  76. https://www.reddit.com/r/teslainvestorsclub/comments/1lduhnk/what_is_your_bear_case_argument_for_tsla/
  77. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/22/tesla-short-sellers-have-made-11point5-billion-from-this-years-selloff-.html
  78. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/short-sellers-have-made-15-billion-betting-against-tesla-and-nvidia-in-2025-164652312.html
  79. https://www.cbtnews.com/tesla-expected-to-post-revenue-growth-despite-margin-pressures/
  80. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4827246-this-is-why-the-bears-are-wrong-on-tesla-rating-downgrade
  81. https://www.warriortrading.com/tesla-what-the-bulls-and-bears-are-saying/
  82. https://www.tesery.com/blogs/news/i-don-t-understand-tslaq-notable-investor-backs-tesla-elon-musk
  83. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/investing/tesla-shorts-losses-elon-musk-win
  84. https://www.torquenews.com/11826/elon-musk-responds-accusations-tesla-speeds-odometers-avoid-warranty-repairs
  85. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/04/5-years-of-incorrect-claims-forecasts-about-tesla-from-tsla-bear-mark-spiegel/
  86. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-short-sellers-set-pocket-134257811.html
  87. https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-dire-warning-tesla-tsla-shorts/
  88. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/tesla-tsla-wins-legal-battle-over-false-self-driving-claims
  89. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4824952-i-lost-money-shorting-tesla-heres-what-i-learned
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.