Elon Musk controversy creates new problem for Tesla stock
Elon Musk controversy creates new problem for Tesla stock originally appeared on TheStreet.
Last week, a social media post from Elon Musk caused many people to stop what they were doing and look down at their phones. Even for the Tesla () CEO, known for his controversial and bold opinions, what they saw seemed surprising.
Musk had previously announced plans to cease his political spending. But only a few days later, he accused Trump of having direct ties to notorious criminal Jeffrey Epstein and alleged that without his help, the Republican president would not have won last year's election.
💵💰💰💵
Since then, Tesla has been in the spotlight, as the dispute between two of the world's most powerful men continues. While TSLA stock initially plunged on news of the argument, it has since regained some of its momentum.
Even as shares slowly trend upward, though, experts speculate that short sellers may regard the Musk-Trump fallout as an opportunity to bet against the stock.
Over the past few months, Musk's behavior has sparked a global backlash against Tesla's brand, causing sales to fall across the U.S. and Europe. This clear indication of consumer sentiment toward him has caused some financial experts, including Tesla shareholder and fund manager Ross Gerber, to call for him to step down.When Musk announced that he would be stepping back from his role with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), TSLA stock surged, and some investors speculated that the company's troubles were over. But now his falling out with Trump has generated further uncertainty.
When a prominent company starts showing signs of weakness or instability, short sellers are likely to start closing in. So far, Tesla's recent declines have been highly profitable for those willing to bet against it. The Wall Street Journal reports that as TSLA stock plunged last week, short sellers pocketed up to $4 billion, noting:
'Investors have made $7 billion betting against Tesla year-to-date, a roughly 30% return. Elon Musk's company is currently the second most shorted stock in the U.S. by total value of the position, with around $27.7 billion of shares sold short, according to S3.'
Betting against an industry-leading company like Tesla will always carry some risk, regardless of how bleak its prospects may appear. But experts see a case for shorting TSLA stock, provided investors understand its volatile nature, which includes surging unexpectedly.
'I think Musk dragged Tesla into a political spectacle,' Galileo FX CEO David Materazzi tells TheStreet. 'That creates perceived instability. Short sellers don't need real damage, just the illusion of it. Volatility invites them in. When the CEO becomes the story, the stock turns into a target.'
Financial education platform First Information's CEO Vince Stanzione holds a short position in TSLA. He says his reasons are 'business not personal,' however, citing the company's high valuation and questionable market share over the feud between Musk and Trump.
More Tesla News:
The 'anti-Tesla' gives American buyers more good news
Analyst sets eye-popping Tesla stock price target
Elon Musk's feud with Trump is hurting an unexpected investment
'The P/E ratio is over 100 and growth the last few years has been near zero,' he says of Tesla.
'The bulls will say you're paying for the future and Elon Musk's brilliance, and I am not disputing that Tesla could have some future hits in the pipeline, but Elon Must is very good at promising 'jam tomorrow' which never seems to materialize, or if and when it does, it's not the flavour he promised.'
Stanzione also raises a concern regarding Tesla's foray into robotics, something on which Musk has hinged a lot of the company's prospects. This part of Tesla's business just became more complicated due to the abrupt departure of one of its leaders.'Unless robotaxis start showing up en masse by the end of this year, then investors will keep selling,' states Stanzione. 'I am very bullish on robotics. It's something I have been investing in for over a decade, especially in medical and military uses, however, Tesla is not the only game in town.'
He names rivals such as Hyundai Motor Group and Boston Dynamics, both of which are making notable advances in the robotics field that could threaten Tesla's progress.
Daytrading.com Chief Analyst Dan Buckley also highlights the potential valuation problem, stating 'Tesla short sellers may see their edge in the long-term mismatch between its ~$1 trillion valuation and the current reality of its business – i.e., nearly all auto-based revenue – and the uncertain viability of its highly speculative emerging tech bets.'
That said, Buckley advises investors considering a Tesla short to 'treat political feuds as a volatility amplifier rather than a directional signal' and highlights the importance of caution when betting against such an unpredictable stock.Elon Musk controversy creates new problem for Tesla stock first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 10, 2025
This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 10, 2025, where it first appeared.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The decline of coal isn't a conspiracy — it's the market reality
A core misunderstanding fuels a recent lawsuit that has made headlines. The Republican attorneys general of Texas and 10 other states have accused some of the nation's largest asset managers of 'colluding' to harm coal companies, claiming falsely that the decline of coal is the result of some coordinated political vendetta rather than simple, demonstrable market economics. With the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission joining the conversation, it is important to delve into the details and consider market trends over the past few decades. Coal's decline in the U.S. did not start with asset managers or so-called 'environmental, social and governance' or ESG investment policies. It started decades ago, with the shale gas revolution, when fracking technology unleashed an abundant, cheap and cleaner-burning alternative. U.S. Energy Information Administration data show that U.S. coal production was 1.13 trillion short tons in 2001, but by 2020 that number had declined to 535 billion short tons — its lowest level since 1965. Natural gas outcompeted coal because it made economic sense. It has lower operating costs, fewer regulatory burdens and, perhaps most importantly, reduced environmental impact. Add in the drop in the cost of renewables, and coal's decline was predictable. Asset managers saw the writing on the wall and adjusted their investments, as their fiduciary duty to their clients demands. This is about economics, not ideology — business decisions, not politics. Power utilities, manufacturers and even global markets have made decisions based on price, efficiency and reliability. We know this because coal's decline happened in both public and private coal companies. Coal companies themselves have noted the decline in prior Securities and Exchange Commission annual reports. Capital flows based on competitive advantage, not political talking points. What these attorneys general attempt to frame as 'coal collusion' is, in fact, a textbook example of fiduciary responsibility and following industry direction. Asset managers have a legal duty to evaluate long-term risks and returns for their clients. When coal projects increasingly face uncertain demand, regulatory headwinds and operational volatility, it is prudent investing to limit exposure. The lawsuit itself notes that coal production increased (incrementally) in 2021, the first year of the supposed 'conspiracy.' This further shows the inconsistency of the argument, raising questions about whether the lawsuit is really about coal or about weaponizing an economic trend — a dangerous precedent to set. We must be honest about what's happening to coal, and to energy more broadly. Rather than distort reality for short-term political gain, let's focus on developing solutions that respect our economic system, support innovation and ensure energy security. The real conversation we should be having is about ensuring energy abundance through all means. Let's talk about how to accelerate nuclear energy, streamline permitting for cleaner domestic production, invest in resilient grid infrastructure, and maintain American leadership in next-generation energy technologies. Allowing for a truly 'all of the above' energy strategy enables investments in diverse, dependable and secure energy sources. Climate, energy and market decisions are complex and intertwined. They deserve meticulous debate. It's time to refocus the conversation on pragmatism and opportunity — not partisan politicking. We should all care about America's energy future, and to best do so, we have to stop pretending market evolution is sabotage. The decline of coal in the U.S. is simply capitalism doing exactly what conservatives have always trusted it to do: adapt and allocate capital where it best serves growth, stability and prosperity. Benji Backer is the Founder and CEO of Nature Is Nonpartisan. He also serves as the executive chairman of the American Conservation Coalition and is the best-selling author of 'The Conservative Environmentalist: Common Sense Solutions for a Sustainable Future.'
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Amazon Prime quietly makes controversial change to beloved service
Over the past few years, Amazon Prime, which currently costs $14.99 a month, has seen rapid growth in U.S. subscribers. The subscription service, which offers Amazon (AMZN) customers access to exclusive benefits such as free shipping, one-day delivery, Prime Day discounts, and a free Grubhub+ membership, reached roughly 180.1 million U.S. subscribers last year, which is about 44% higher than number of U.S. subscribers it had in 2017, according to data from Statista. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Amazon Prime is projected to reach 185 million U.S. subscribers this year as the service continues to see increased momentum from consumers. Related: Amazon faces another major boycott threat from consumers In Amazon's first-quarter earnings report for 2025, it revealed that it generated $11.7 billion in revenue from its subscription services (including income earned from Amazon Prime membership fees), which is almost 2% higher than what it earned during the same quarter last year. As Amazon Prime becomes more popular, its Prime Video service has quietly undergone a controversial change that will help increase the retail giant's revenue, and customers may not like it. Amazon Prime Video ads have gradually been elongated to last four to six minutes per hour, according to a new report from Adweek. When ads were first introduced to the platform last year, they only lasted two to three-and-a-half minutes per hour. Amazon recently confirmed this change to ad buyers, who are curious about how this will impact the platform's performance. Related: Paramount makes drastic decision amid shift in customer behavior "They told us the ad load would be increasing," said Kendra Tang, a programmatic supervisor at Rain the Growth Agency, while speaking to Adweek. "That's been confirmed recently when we noticed more avails in the system." When Amazon Prime introduced ads to its platform in January last year, it claimed in an email to customers that it aims "to have meaningfully fewer ads than linear TV and other streaming TV providers," so this change comes as a surprise. In a statement to TheStreet, an Amazon spokesperson said the company is focused on improving the customer experience on Prime Video. "We remain focused on prioritizing ad innovation over volume," said the Amazon spokesperson. "While demand continues to grow, our commitment is to improving ad experiences rather than simply increasing the number of ads shown." The recent news of longer ads on Prime Video is making some customers reconsider their subscriptions. "My Prime account is up for renewal in August. I will definitely be cancelling. Not only are the ads numerous, they are sometimes double in volume (loudness). I can't always hit the mute button fast enough," wrote one Amazon Prime user on Reddit. "Perfect, I was really hoping to finally cut myself off Prime Video, and this should do it," wrote another Amazon user on Reddit. More Retail: Costco quietly plans to offer a convenient service for customersT-Mobile pulls the plug on generous offer, angering customersKellogg sounds alarm on unexpected shift in customer behavior This doesn't come as a surprise, as Prime Video users have previously made it loud and clear on social media that they are not fans of ads on the platform, despite having the option to remove them for an extra $2.99 a month. Shortly after Amazon began rolling out ads on Prime Video, it was hit with a class-action lawsuit from a frustrated customer. The lawsuit accused Amazon of being "deceptive" and "unfair," violating state consumer protection laws, as it had advertised Prime Video as "commercial-free" for years. "To stream movies and tv shows without ads, Amazon customers must now pay an additional $2.99 per month," reads the lawsuit. "This is true even for people who purchased the yearly, ad-free subscription, and who are now mid-way through their subscription. This is not fair, because these subscribers already paid for the ad-free version; these subscribers should not have to pay an additional $2.99/month for something that they already paid for." Related: Best Buy CEO raises red flag about startling customer behavior The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Starbucks CEO admits the struggling chain made a major mistake
Consumers have had a rude awakening this year. After President Donald Trump announced the finer details of his plan for tariffs on April 2, the reality of how they would affect Americans' everyday lives started to sink in. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Some of the biggest retailers in the country, from Walmart to Target, soon indicated that prices may have to rise in order to offset tariff cost increases. In other words, the businesses were planning to pass the costs along to the customer, something no one in the country struggling with an already-high cost of living wants to hear. Related: Starbucks makes huge investment to solve a key problem Customers quickly pivoted in response, pulling back on luxuries like eating out, getting coffee on the go, and vacation planning. In a recent survey from McKinsey & Company, 43% of consumers reported rising prices as their top concern, with more than half planning to cut back on nonessential spending. Retailers are scrambling as profits are dropping before their eyes, trying to find ways to coerce customers to spend, despite the current climate of uncertainty. Starbucks is taking an unusual approach to that, not only promising big in-store changes, but admitting that it made a big misstep. Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol recently told Axios in an interview that pulling back on in-store seating was a mistake, saying, "We had this strategy that I think was just a misfire of a purpose-driven store." More Retail: Huge retail chain closing more stores soon (locations revealed)Struggling drugstore chain announces second bankruptcyBeloved discount grocery chain has massive US plans Now Niccol says the focus needs to move away from purpose-driven efficiency and towards what he calls "community connection." As a part of its Back to Starbucks plan announced in September 2024, Niccol says new menu items are coming. Currently in testing is a "chocolate protein cold foam" and banana bread lattes. But another innovation Niccol mentioned is of significant interest: food that's actually baked in stores. Starbucks has traditionally stocked frozen foods that it reheats before serving to customers, but this approach would support Niccol's plan to attract a community who would prize fresh over frozen foods. Related: Starbucks faces huge new rival Niccol also told Axios that the company has to create new "fastballs" for the business, like its oh-so-famous Pumpkin Spice Latte. Starbucks is also investing heavily in its workforce as a part of the plan. "Starbucks is expanding its workforce by adding at least one full-time assistant store manager to most company-operated stores nationwide beginning this fall," TheStreet's Fernanda Tronco reports. Lastly, Starbucks is also working on a plan that will make many customers happy: its "Green Apron Service Model," which aims to deliver drinks into customers' hands in four minutes. While Niccol's planned changes sound promising, they're also necessary to revive a struggling business. Starbucks' sales have fallen for four quarters in a row, and the company reported during its April 29 earnings call that net earnings fell 50% to $384.2 million from the prior year. Starbucks attributed some of the decline to hiring efforts focused on its turnaround strategy and various restructuring costs. While tariff fears certainly have had an impact on this year's sales, it's clear that Starbucks' current problem predates that. Naturally, Niccol's ambitious plans will take time to crystallize. "We're not just building back our business," he said. "We're building back a better business," he told investors and Wall Street analysts during the call. Related: McDonald's launches unusual new drink to recover customers The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
