I Strongly Oppose the Tesla–SpaceX Merger (3/13) @elonmusk @Gwynne_Shotwell Tw… · @mylifeonmystyle · TwKit

@mylifeonmystyle

I Strongly Oppose the Tesla–SpaceX Merger (3/13) @elonmusk @Gwynne_Shotwell Two Growth Curves. One Critical Question: Will Tesla Shareholders Be Forced to Wait Longer? Imagine two investment paths. Path A: Tesla remains independent and begins monetizing years of investment in autonomy, robotics, and energy. Path B: Tesla merges with SpaceX, creating a potentially much larger company—but with enormous additional capital requirements. Here’s my concern: Path B could eventually produce a bigger company while delivering worse returns to Tesla shareholders for years. ① Tesla May Be Approaching Its Payoff Phase Tesla has spent years investing in FSD, Robotaxi, Optimus, and AI infrastructure. Those investments have yet to deliver their full earnings potential. But commercialization is progressing. Tesla generated $1.53 billion in free cash flow in Q3 2026. If Robotaxi scales successfully and Optimus becomes commercially viable, Tesla could experience significant operating leverage. The investment cycle may finally begin shifting toward cash generation. ② SpaceX Is Entering an Extraordinary Spending Cycle SpaceX reported impressive Q3 results: Revenue: $14.6 billion. Net income: $4.4 billion. But Q4 capital expenditures are projected at $35–40 billion. That’s an enormous investment commitment. Starship, Starlink, AI computing, and potentially orbital data centers could require years of additional capital. SpaceX may ultimately generate spectacular returns. But spectacular long-term opportunities don’t necessarily produce attractive near-term cash flows. ③ A Merger Changes Capital Allocation Suppose Tesla’s Robotaxi business begins generating substantial free cash flow. As an independent company, Tesla could reinvest that money in autonomy, robotics, or shareholder returns. After a merger, the same cash could help finance SpaceX’s infrastructure expansion. That investment might eventually pay off. But what if its returns arrive five or ten years later? Tesla shareholders could be exchanging an earlier payoff for a much later one. ④ Bigger Isn’t Necessarily Better Consider the two curves in my illustration. Tesla standalone: faster initial shareholder-value growth. Tesla–SpaceX: slower initial growth, potentially accelerating later and eventually overtaking the standalone path. The crossover point matters. So do the years before it. And there’s another complication: Tesla shareholders would own only a percentage of the combined company, potentially subject to future dilution. A larger corporate valuation does not automatically mean greater wealth per original Tesla share. ⑤ My Investment Thesis I’m not arguing that SpaceX is inferior to Tesla. I’m arguing that the best investment for Tesla shareholders may not be the best capital allocation strategy for Musk’s entire business empire. Before approving a merger, shareholders deserve a credible comparison of both paths. Not just total market capitalization. Not just projected revenue. Long-term value per original Tesla share, including the timing of cash flows, ownership dilution, and opportunity costs. Until management demonstrates that a merger delivers superior risk-adjusted shareholder returns, I prefer Tesla to remain independent. A bigger empire may be worth waiting for. But Tesla shareholders shouldn’t be forced to wait. Next (4/13): Is a 30% Acquisition Premium Enough? Let’s Do the Math. @mylifeonmystyle #Tesla #SpaceX #TSLA

曝光 222 · 评论 1 · 点赞 3 · 书签 0