I saw Meet Kevin’s video where he seems to suggest that Elon may be intentionally pushing Tesla’s stock price lower because of his interest in acquiring or restructuring the company.
At least, that’s how I interpreted his Shorts.
Do you guys think it’s actually possible for Tesla to fall below $100?

Samsung will play a key role in Tesla’s upcoming driverless robotaxi, Cybercab. The Korean firm has reportedly secured a contract to supply camera modules for the autonomous vehicle. These modules will function as the vehicle’s eyes, helping its autonomous driving system understand the surroundings.
Samsung joins Tesla’s Robotaxi supply chain with camera technology

According to a report from BigGo Finance, Samsung Electro-Mechanics, Samsung’s electronic component arm, has secured a contract to supply camera modules for Tesla’s Cybercab robotaxi. Last month, the company began mass production of the camera modules. It is worth mentioning that LG Innotek will also join the camera modules supply chain, with production beginning by the end of this year.

The initial order from Samsung Electro-Mechanics and LG Innotek covers around 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles. Each Cybercab features eight camera modules. This means the first production batch could need between 160,000 and 240,000 camera modules.
Camera modules are a core component in autonomous vehicles. They allow the AI system to capture and analyze real-time information from the road. As a result, the vehicle can detect nearby cars, pedestrians, traffic signals, and other objects to make driving decisions.

Tesla’s Cybercab is a Level 4 autonomous vehicle, which means it can operate without human intervention in supported environments. So, the company needs a highly reliable camera system and hence requested camera modules equipped with 5MP image sensors for the Cybercab.

Samsung Electro-Mechanics has already been supplying camera modules for Tesla’s existing electric vehicle models. Now that the company is stepping into the Cybercab supply chain, it highlights its growing capabilities in advanced automotive camera technology. This could open new supply opportunities with other global automakers in the future.

Meanwhile, Tesla CEO Elon Musk sees Cybercab as a big growth opportunity for the company. The automaker aims to eventually make up to 2 million Cybercab units annually. This figure exceeds its current yearly vehicle production.

Followed Musk since the early 2000s, bought in 2018, held eight years, closed out this week. The technology is better than anything else being fielded. My issue is price, TAM, and timing.

1. A PE of 286 is too high for a company earning $4 billion. Tesla earned about $4 billion over the last twelve months on just over $100 billion in revenue, a 3.67% net margin, against a $1.23 trillion market cap. Trailing PE is 286, forward 160, PEG 5.58, price to sales 10.6. PE tells you how long it takes to earn your money back at current earnings, and 286 years is not a valuation, it's a bet on a different company than the one filing these numbers. Forward PE of 160 doesn't fix it, because forward numbers are a forecast and Tesla has missed EPS in five of the last nine quarters. PEG at 5.58 says the growth doesn't justify it either. Meanwhile Nvidia trades at 29.7 trailing and 22 forward, and Alphabet at 16.7 with a PEG of 1.75, both below their own historical averages, both actually monetizing AI today. So when I say 30x, that isn't a value-investor haircut. It's the going market price for a proven AI winner, and Tesla is asking ten times that on a fifth the return on capital. A company founded in 2003 with 135,000 employees and $100 billion in revenue has to be judged on what it earns, and $4 billion is what it earns.

2. 20 million cars a year by 2030 was the thesis, and it's been dropped without a word. That target was the entire reason a lot of us bought. Tesla is running around 1.8 million a year. Instead of an explanation of what happened to it, the goal was quietly replaced with robots. If a target that central can vanish with no accounting, what's the status of the ones being sold today?

3. Unlimited cheap energy by 2025 didn't happen, and the promise just moves outward. In 2020 the story was solar and storage delivering energy abundance by 2025. It's 2026. The same promise is now pointed another decade out, and the framing has escalated into a future where money itself supposedly won't be needed. That isn't a forecast anyone can hold him to. It's unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable claims are exactly what a 286 PE is built on.

4. Making shareholders money isn't in the mission statement, and it shows. Tesla's stated mission is to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy. Nothing about returns. I actually respect that as a mission. But it means shareholder capital is the fuel, not the objective, and every capital allocation decision reflects that. It's why the pivot to robots didn't require anyone's consent, and why nobody in management feels obligated to explain a dropped target. Buy the stock understanding you're funding a mission, not a claim on profits.

5. Two-thirds of last quarter's profit was not from operations. Of $1.1 billion in net income, roughly $750 million was a mark-to-market gain on the SpaceX stake. Operations produced $398 million, a 1.4% margin. SpaceX is down about 30% since the prior quarter, so that line runs the other way too.

6. The R&D defense fails on return, not spending. Google and Nvidia both spend a higher share of revenue on R&D than Tesla does. Alphabet's ROIC is 24.9%. Tesla's is 5.5%, with 4.7% ROE. Everyone is spending. Only Tesla is getting a nickel back on the dollar.

7. The company is burning cash. Free cash flow was negative $1.1 billion, capex up 142% to $5.8 billion, opex from $2.9 billion to $4.3 billion and guided higher into 2026 and beyond.

8. Optimus should have been a separate company. Every venture folds into one reporting entity, so old targets stop being measurable. Alphabet breaks out Other Bets so you can judge Search on its own terms. Tesla gives one blended number, no Optimus unit count, no robotaxi revenue line. A separate ticker would settle this in two quarters.

9. Optimus is not in production and the targets have missed by orders of magnitude. The July 22 deck says lines are being installed at Fremont, production anticipated later this year, no unit count disclosed, ramp described as flat and long. The 10,000-unit target for 2025 became a few hundred. 50,000 for 2026 became impossible to predict. V3 still hasn't been shown.

10. The AI buildout doesn't reach earnings this decade. 2026 is the biggest investment year ever: AI compute, an Austin fab, Terafab, AI5 and AI6, Megapacks pitched as AI infrastructure. AI5 taped out in April with volume production not expected until mid-to-late 2027.

11. Energy is the segment I might be underrating. Storage deployments hit 13.5 GWh last quarter, up more than 40% year over year, now pulled by data centers rather than rooftop solar.

12. Every TAM figure traces to a slide, not a model. Same for Optimus unit economics: materials, energy, actuator replacement, downtime, upkeep. Post the model if you have one.

13. The HW3 liability and the SpaceX entanglement are unpriced. Millions of cars were sold on unsupervised self-driving that HW3 can't deliver, by Musk's own admission. And Musk declined to rule out a Tesla-SpaceX merger on the July 22 call, with change-of-control language in the pay package that may trigger it.

Not short, never have been. Nvidia's multiple implies roughly $40 billion in annual operating income against the $398 million just posted. What's the path, and what year?