Look I don't like Tesla as much as the next person, I think it is wildly over-hyped and over-valued. But this article is just slop.

The headline says - "How Tesla hid accidents to test its Autopilot" but the actual article has no explanation as to (1) how Tesla hid anything or, for that matter, (2) who did Tesla hide this information from

It mashes together a Tesla data leak from 2022 and an unconnected lawsuit from 2026 without ever explaining how those 2 are connected.

Tesla has a pattern of making deceptive promises and deceptive disclosures but this article doesn't make that case at all.

>Tesla has a pattern of making deceptive promises and deceptive disclosures but this article doesn't make that case at all.

This is something I find frequently as well, moreso with Musk related things than Tesla. Lord knows there are plenty of things to be critical of.

If investigative journalism wants to regain the respect it once had, fewer allegations with concrete claims serves both the public and faith in media over large quantities of vague claims.

I admit if you want to sway public opinion, the latter is more effective, but is also a mechanism that doesn't require alignment with the truth. When that approach is normalised, it opens the door for anyone to shove popular opinion around.

After you wrote this, I went and read the article I also didn't see much there either. And wonder why you are getting down voted. And TBC, also not a tesla fan (the truck is dumb).

Thanks

Coca Cola indeed has a lot of value its market capitalization is USD 76 billion making it one of the 30 most valuable companies in the world!

The problem with SpaceX is that its valuation is almost entirely driven by its expected future growth. For 2025 SpaceX reported EBITDA of USD 7.5 billion. Other mature aerospace companies (Lockheed, Northman, Airbus, Boeing etc.) are currently valued as ~19x EBITDA (i.e., Market Cap / EBITDA is ~19x). But SpaceX is being valued at 166x EBITDA (USD 1.25 trillion market cap / USD 7.5 billion EBITDA).

What drives this difference in valuation? The answer is quite simple, investors expect the EBITDA to grow and quite rapidly. EBITDA could grow via higher margins (EBITDA margins is EBITDA / Revenue, and for SpaceX it is already a decent 50%), but even at 100% EBITDA margin (i.e., zero operating cost) its valuation multiple would b 83x EBITDA. So the only way to justify SpaceX valuation is if its revenue grows and gorws rapidly.

A quick back of the envelop calculation would shows that investors expect SpaceX revenue to grow at minimum of 65-70% annually for the next 5 years. If the revenue grows at less than that the investors are unlikely to earn a good return on their investment.

Someone else here pointed out that when your biggest asset is a network of thousands of satellites that all have a five-year lifespan, earnings after depreciation is unusually important.