Tesla Stock (TSLA) Jumps on New Elon Musk Pay Package
Elevate Your Investing Strategy:
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
A Delaware court blocked Elon Musk from receiving his 2018 CEO Performance Award, which would have been the largest in U.S. history. Tesla is still battling the court in appeals to reinstate this pay package. If it wins, Musk's ownership of TSLA stock would increase from 13% to 20%.
The new pay package for Elon Musk is designed to keep the CEO as the head of the EV company. The board believes that Musk's leadership is crucial for its success. Musk has threatened to leave the company if his TSLA share ownership isn't increased. He has only recently returned to full leadership after splitting his time between his companies and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). His demands also came after Tesla reported poor results in Q2 2025.
Tesla Stock Movement Today
Tesla stock was up 2.07% in pre-market trading on Monday, following a 1.83% dip on Friday. The shares have also fallen 25.06% year-to-date but have remained up 52.17% over the past 12 months. Roughly 1.5 million shares have traded this morning, compared to a three-month daily average of about 97 million units.
Is Tesla Stock a Buy, Sell, or Hold?
Turning to Wall Street, the analysts' consensus rating for Tesla is Hold, based on 14 Buy, 15 Hold, and eight Sell ratings over the past three months. With that comes an average TSLA stock price target of $310.84, representing a potential 2.71% upside for the shares.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lucid Q2 earnings preview: Gravity SUV ramp, path to profitability big questions for investors
Pure-play EV maker Lucid (LCID) will report second quarter results after the bell as the company ramps up production of its Gravity SUV and hopes to assuage investors' fears over a lack of profitability. Meanwhile, Lucid stock is down over 20% year to date. Lucid is expected to report Q2 revenue of $262.4 million, per Bloomberg consensus estimates, higher than the $200.6 million reported a year ago. Lucid is expected to post an adjusted EPS loss of $0.22, with an adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) loss of $603.6 million. The company has had a busy 2025 so far, including the start of low-volume production of the Gravity SUV. Early last month, Lucid said it produced 3,863 vehicles and delivered 3,309 vehicles in the second quarter, with its total for the first half of the year hitting 6,075 vehicles produced and 6,418 vehicle deliveries. Read more: Live coverage of corporate earnings Lucid also announced in July that it would partner with Uber (UBER) to create a robotaxi service run by the ride-hailing company, which will purchase 20,000 Lucid EVs over the next five years. The company also added access to the Tesla (TSLA) Supercharger network for its vehicles, unlocking more than 23,000 new chargers for use. Lucid also initiated plans to perform a 10-to-one reverse stock split, which won't occur until later this year. In terms of guidance, Lucid said in the past that it expects 2025 production to hit 20,000 EVs, more than double the 9,029 it produced last year. The company also said it would launch its upcoming midsize-volume SUV in 2026, which is expected to help the company increase scale and bring it closer to profitability. Profitability is the big question mark for the company. Given its production and expected loss figures, Lucid is expected to post an adjusted EBITDA loss figure of around $161,000 per car produced. On the earnings call, analysts likely will be asking management about how the company intends to bridge itself to profitability in the near future. Rivian (RIVN), for example, has achieved gross profit in its operations. The expected loss of the $7,500 federal tax credit on Sept. 30 is also likely to put a dent in Lucid's sales. Lucid is able to receive the credit for all of its vehicles via a lease loophole known as the "commercial clean vehicle credit." Pras Subramanian is the lead auto reporter for Yahoo Finance. You can follow him on X and on Instagram.
Fast Company
14 minutes ago
- Fast Company
How Tesla's Autopilot verdict could stifle Musk's robotaxi expansion
A court verdict against Tesla last week, stemming from a fatal 2019 crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, could hurt its plans to expand its nascent robotaxi network and intensify concerns over the safety of its autonomous vehicle technology. A Florida jury ordered Musk's electric vehicle company on Friday to pay about $243 million to victims of the crash, finding its Autopilot driver-assistance software defective. Tesla said the driver was solely at fault and vowed to appeal. The verdict follows years of federal investigations and recalls related to collisions involving Tesla's autonomous-vehicle technology, and comes as CEO Elon Musk seeks regulatory approval to rapidly expand the robotaxi service across the U.S. 'The public perception of this verdict or things like this are going to fuel pressure on regulators to say, 'We just can't let this stuff be launched without a lot more due diligence',' said Mike Nelson, founder of Nelson Law and an expert on legal issues in the mobility sector. Tesla could have a tough time convincing state regulators that its technology is road-ready, threatening Musk's goal of offering robotaxis to half the U.S. population by year-end, legal experts and Tesla investors said. Expanding its robotaxi service is crucial for Tesla as demand for its aging lineup of EVs has cooled amid rising global competition and a backlash against Musk's far-right political views. Much of Tesla's trillion-dollar market valuation hinges on his bets on robotics and artificial intelligence. Success in the self-driving realm will require winning the confidence of regulators and potential customers on the full-self driving (FSD) software that underpins Tesla's robotaxis, analysts said. 'The timing (of the verdict) for Tesla in light of the FSD rollouts and robotaxis is awful,' said Aaron Davis, co-managing partner at law firm Davis Goldman. 'Now there's essentially an opinion that some aspect of Tesla's business is not safe and maybe the safety that the company advertises isn't what it's cracked up to be.' The FSD is an advanced version of Autopilot. Autopilot, which was been updated since 2019, controls speed, distance and lane centering on highways, while the FSD can operate on city streets, helping the vehicle make automatic turns and change lanes. 'This case does not have direct implications for Tesla's FSD roll-out,' analysts at Piper Sandler said in a note on Sunday, citing the modern iterations of the software. A spokesperson on behalf of Tesla acknowledged the company had received a request for comment from Reuters but had not provided one by the time of publication. Regulatory road ahead Perfecting autonomous vehicles has been harder than expected. The high costs of hardware, years of trial and error, and regulatory hurdles have forced many players to close shop or pivot, including General Motors' Cruise unit. Musk, however, has pursued what he calls a simpler and cheaper path, relying only on cameras and AI instead of pricey sensors such as lidars and radars used by Alphabet's Waymo, Amazon's Zoox and others. After years of missed deadlines, Musk rolled out a small robotaxi trial in June with about a dozen Model Y crossover SUVs in Austin, Texas, each overseen by a human safety monitor in the front passenger seat. While Musk has said Tesla was being 'super paranoid about safety', he has also pledged to expand the service fast and make it available for half of the U.S. population in the next five months – a stark contrast to Waymo's cautious years-long rollout. Until Tesla's entry, Waymo was the only U.S. firm to operate a paid, driverless robotaxi service. Tesla is currently awaiting approvals in several states, including California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. California's department of motor vehicles declined to comment on the impact of the verdict on regulatory approval. Nevada said it held talks with Tesla about a robotaxi program several weeks ago, while Arizona said it was still considering Tesla's request for certification. Both did not comment on the verdict. Florida did not respond. Tesla has typically either won other Autopilot litigation or resolved the case with the plaintiffs out of court. The Florida verdict stands out. Several such cases are pending. The case involved a Model S sedan that went through an intersection and hit the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it. The driver had reached down to retrieve a dropped cellphone and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign before the crash. The jury found that Tesla's Autopilot had a defect and held the company partially responsible, despite the driver admitting fault. 'It's going to take time to get regulators to move forward and time being more than the end of the year,' said Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, a Tesla investor. 'From an image standpoint, it's a black eye.' —Abhirup Roy, Reuters The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla but no Rivian? Electric vehicle maker sues Ohio over ban on direct car sales
A California-based electric vehicle maker is suing the state's Registrar of Motor Vehicles, saying Ohio law prevents it from selling cars in the state while letting Tesla do precisely that. Rivian, a manufacturer of electric vehicles, filed the lawsuit on Aug. 4 in U.S. District Court in Columbus, asking the court to determine that the provision of Ohio's law violates the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights of Ohio consumers. According to the lawsuit, a 2014 Ohio law allows the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to deny a license for a motor vehicle dealer to "a manufacturer, or a parent company, subsidiary or affiliated entity of a manufacturer." "Shortly thereafter, and to cut-off future competition, OADA (the Ohio Automobile Dealerships Association) lobbied the Ohio General Assembly to enact a law that would prohibit the direct-sales-only business model for every manufacturer but Tesla," the lawsuit says. At the time the law was enacted in 2014, Tesla had two dealerships in Ohio and has since opened a third. Like Tesla, Rivian does not use franchised dealerships but operates its own dealerships in 16 states. "Ohio law permits manufacturers like Rivian to do practically anything other than sell vehicles in the state directly to consumers," the lawsuit says. This includes performing service on vehicles, renting vehicles, delivering vehicles to Ohioans who have purchased them in other states, and assisting with financing, titling, and registration of the vehicles. "If Rivian, LLC obtains the relief sought in this lawsuit, it will take every step necessary to obtain an Ohio dealership license and sell its vehicles in Ohio directly to consumers," the lawsuit says. "There is nothing unfair about Rivian selling its own vehicles to consumers in Ohio without using any middlemen, as Ohio already permits certain manufacturers to do." The lawsuit requests that a federal judge allow Rivian to operate in Ohio, allowing for increased competition and consumer choice in the electric vehicle market. In January, the Department of Energy under President Joe Biden's administration approved a $6.5 billion loan to Rivianfor assistance in building a second manufacturing plant in Georgia. The company currently has a manufacturing plant in Illinois. No court date has been set, according to federal court records. Reporter Bethany Bruner can be reached at bbruner@ or on Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: EV maker Rivian sues Ohio, citing Tesla's presence Solve the daily Crossword
