저자: CathieWood등인용인물다수—주출연자미상 · 외국인
요약 보기
캐시 우드가 테슬라·스페이스X 지분을 추가 매수했으며 테슬라 2029년 목표가 2,600달러를 유지. 테슬라 FSD의 무개입 대륙횡단 성공 사례와 FSD 사용 확대를 근거로 제시. 스페이스X-테슬라 합병 가능성을 두고 Gary Black은 희석 우려로 회의적, Dan Ives는 2027년 합병 확률 80% 이상으로 봄. 발표자는 테슬라 장기 강세, 합병 후 시총 20조 달러 전망. 다만 합병 모델·정치 변수 등 불확실성 언급.
다듬은 글
Katie Wood just bought more Tesla shares. About another $10 million. She is clearly buying on the dip, and not just Tesla shares, but also increasing her stake in SpaceX. She buys both of these stocks at the same time. Katie is trying to increase her position in SpaceX shares. She actually bought another $21 million worth of SpaceX shares.
Katie Wood still maintains a $2,600 price target for Tesla stock for 2029. Personally, I believe that if Katie Wood announces a target price for SpaceX, they usually give 5- year forecasts, as was the case with Tesla. If they do the same for SpaceX stock, I think it will be at least $1,000. Probably much more.
Additionally, Katie Wood believes Tesla will merge with SpaceX, as she said here. What is your favorite AI- related stock right now ? Well, it should be Tesla, and eventually SpaceX, I think , when they merge. And the head of Tesla's autopilot development department responded to Omar's post, where he says: "The fact that people are competing to see who can drive across the country on autopilot from New York to Los Angeles the fastest is just crazy.
And the fact that it's been done so many times that no one even pays attention to driving across the country without the driver's intervention. This is just one of the reasons why Katie Wood is still so bullish on Tesla stock.” Ash replies, "Yes, controlling AI from coast to coast without intervention was supposed to be a big event, something like a Turing test for drones, but it went unnoticed." By the way, who are these people who complete these trips across the country?
Dave and Matt, for example. Then we have Spencer, there's Owen Sparks. And these are just the ones that just happened. There were others before. For example, Zak. It becomes so routine that when they completed some of these trips, it didn't even cross my line of sight. And I follow all the news and haven't seen this.
Regarding the merger: apparently, Katie Wood considers it virtually inevitable. Gary Black predicts that a SpaceX-Tesla merger now looks less likely. This is partly because SpaceX, with a market cap of $1.49 trillion, would have to issue 82% of its shares to buy Tesla for $1.22 trillion. Instead of owning nearly two- thirds of the company, SpaceX investors would only own 55%.
They would suffer a massive 45% capital dilution. But that's not for SpaceX investors to decide. This is something Elon has to decide on the SpaceX side, because he actually has full control over SpaceX, although not over Tesla. And fund manager Gary Black also explained his opinion specifically on the merger.
I'm amazed at how many investors hold Tesla shares because they believe SpaceX will buy them out. In my opinion, this won't happen anytime soon, as the potential dilution for SpaceX shareholders is too significant if SpaceX pays a 20% premium for Tesla so that the combined company trades at Tesla's lower multiple.
Own Tesla if you believe that uncontrolled autonomy will make more customers buy Tesla, or if you believe it will grow faster than the market expects, or because of other fundamental factors in Tesla's profitability. So, buying Tesla in anticipation of a SpaceX buyout is acting on the principle of the “ greater fool theory.” Remember, however, that Gary Black is a fund manager, and his predictions often relate to the next 6–12 months.
I don't think he's looking at the 5-year horizon. My personal opinion is that Elon Musk definitely wants to merge these two companies, as it effectively gives him full control over Tesla. And we know clearly from the polls Elon has conducted in recent years that he definitely wants to have significantly more control over Tesla if he can.
And that's the easiest, most direct way for him to actually gain full control of Tesla. There are so many synergies between SpaceX and Tesla : talent, culture. And Dan Ives, in my opinion , is a better analyst overall than Gary Black. Dan Ives believes, he said, that there is more than an 80% probability that Tesla and SpaceX will merge in 2027.
This is a logical step from an engineering perspective and from Musk's ownership perspective. It's too logical for this not to happen. And, of course, Katie Wood also believes that the merger will happen. The only question is when. I think the only logical option in which this won't happen is some serious circumstances that would actually prevent Elon Musk from doing it.
And that's why Katie Wood remains so bullish on Tesla stock. Look at this. This is David Moss. It just hit the 19,000 mile mark. No shutdowns in 19,000 miles. And shortly after that, he posts another video, showing that his streak is now 20,000 miles. And by the way, he drives in "Mad Max " mode. Did you see that?
Did you notice this? Mad Max. What? Oho. OK. This is becoming commonplace, you know? And it's not just one, well, I believe he's the first person to reach 20,000 miles, but now there's more people, I've seen so many 1,000, 2,000, 5,000, and 10,000 mile markers. This is the first 20,000 that I've seen, but I'm sure there'll be many more soon.
It's incredible what we're seeing here. So, a big thank you to David Moss, Owen Sparks and all the members of their team who set this new record, covering the distance from New York to Los Angeles in just 47 hours and 15 minutes, beating the previous record of 49 hours and 55 minutes. Congratulations, guys.
Congratulations. So how do we all know how many times the coast-to- coast trip has already been made? Several times, at least a dozen publicly documented cases, and even more private trips, so it's now considered routine, not exceptional. By the way, without system shutdowns. Tesla itself announced this in early June 2026, but after these controllers we saw FSD complete several coast-to- coast trips without human intervention, which actually pushes the limits, because you can drive with FSD on and press the accelerator pedal a little, which is some human intervention.
In fact, this is not an intervention, and certainly not a system shutdown. And Tesla emphasized zero human intervention. So, David Moss made the first confirmed coast-to- coast trip of the US last December. Then there was also a trip from coast to coast in Canada. Also, someone drove through all 48 contiguous US states.
In fact, FSD is becoming so advanced that some leading publications are writing about it like this. Forget ridesharing, how seniors use Tesla FSD for commuting. This is from the Detroit News. They write: “In an effort to maintain their independence in mobility, they use the Tesla FSD hands-free system as a driver aid.
While this ability to add another pair of eyes on the road is by no means limited to the elderly, FSD helps older drivers keep their vehicle safe as their confidence, reactions, and vision naturally decline. 92- year-old Leonard Krause uses a controlled Tesla FSD for 87% of his runs. He recommended Tesla FSD to his 95-year-old brother-in-law.” I don't think I could drive without it.
“She drives as well as I do,” said this 78-year-old retired General Motors engineer who drives his Model 3 on FSD 98% of the time . And they have times when the machine does something that seems a little strange to them, but then they realize that it was actually the right decision. For example, a car pulled over to the side of the road because an emergency vehicle was approaching , which they didn't notice.
And Steve Bland here is 76 years old, in good health, always loved driving, but he says, "Now I use FSD 98% of the time, like everyone else." He drives better than me because he sees everything around him constantly and reacts accordingly. "And you know what's interesting? If you add in FSD subscription revenue and robotaxi revenue, Tesla is already the largest company in the self-driving space by revenue.
That's twice as much as Waymo, and they're growing faster: $1 billion versus $500 million. That's why I'm playing long with Tesla," says Gali. As for the merger, he says, "The biggest issue with a SpaceX-Tesla merger would be shareholder voting." Personally, I'm all for it, but I think there will be many institutions that will complicate this process." Now, Elon recently said that money will not matter in 2036 because of AI and robots.
So, for all the Tesla investors with their 10-year planning horizons—it will be for naught. Of course, this is a bit of a joke. Money will definitely matter. It's just that many things will become cheaper. There will definitely be much more money, but some things are simply limited. For example, on our planet Earth, land is scarce, and many people want to live in the same places, and land is limited in quantity.
So I personally completely reject the idea that money will become completely unnecessary. Absolutely not. I completely disagree with this. Because there are things that cannot be created again, like land. Of course, you can build higher, and maybe we can build much higher, but if you were given a choice: let's say, living in a private house in one of the best locations with all the amenities nearby, extremely safe, and with very friendly neighbors, versus living in a good neighborhood, but in a high-rise building surrounded by a hundred other high-rise buildings.
You know , some people will like it, and some will definitely prefer it, but most families, I'm sure, would prefer to live in a separate house, especially when they have children. Just meeting your needs, I think, will become much easier. And many jobs will certainly be displaced, but money, I believe, will still be very important.
So, regarding the merger: Alexandra Merz just wrote a new article about the merger with Tesla. Her previous articles about the potential merger were really spot on, so let's break this one down. By the way, she was once a fund manager, so she has a very strong financial background and is well versed in all these subtleties.
So, she writes: “I’m constantly asked why I support a Tesla-SpaceX merger and why I would like it to be structured and announced as soon as possible. The reasons are practical. They focus on governance, sustainability, capital market capacity for AI infrastructure development, management focus, vertical integration, team cohesion, and timing.” Management that protects task completion.
The structure of Tesla's 2010 IPO left the company vulnerable to years of costly distraction, lengthy litigation in Delaware that drained management's time and resources, and the patience of retail shareholders. A subsequent re-registration in Texas improved the situation, but reliable supervoting rights for Elon, the chief operating decision maker, remain absent.
Tesla operated under constant external pressure throughout 2025. I would say, especially in 2024 , you know, an election year. Oh. This included protests and incidents at service centers, as well as a series of regulatory investigations under the previous administration. SpaceX, instead, acts as a major contractor for NASA and the Department of Defense , providing launches, communications, and related capabilities that the U.S.
government considers critical. The combined organization would place Tesla's commercial operations within a broader structure that already has such institutional status . The result is not immunity from inspections, but a different political and regulatory context, shaped by national security and space relations, rather than purely commercial interests.
The work ahead— scaling the infrastructure for AI training, deploying humanoid robots at scale, developing autonomous systems, and integrating space communications— will require rapid, high- stakes decisions over the long term. A SpaceX-style structure, already designed with stronger founder protections, reduces the likelihood of recurring management disputes and allows our leadership team to focus on products, services, capital allocation, and execution, rather than processes.
This is effective risk management for long-term technological progress. Access to capital markets at the scale required for AI. The numbers currently circulating on Wall Street are instructive. Investment bankers at Goldman Sachs predict about $7.5 trillion in spending on chips, data centers, and energy over the next 5 years, which amounts to about 140 gigawatts of capacity.
For context, the entire US interstate highway system cost about $600 billion over 37 years. Much of the AI spending will be recurring, as GPUs and related chips have a lifespan measured in only a few years. Public and private markets have now absorbed an extraordinary volume of securities since the beginning of the year.
In less than 7 months, AI-related deal volume has already surpassed $1 trillion, compared to an estimated $555 billion for all of 2025. The issuance of digital infrastructure investment securities has grown from 6% of the market last year to 18% this year. Long-term securities are even more concentrated.
SpaceX recently completed its first $25 billion bond issue, becoming one of three companies, along with Nvidia and Amazon, whose $ 25 billion deals have come out one after the other. These successive large deals have created what bankers call market digestion problems . Secondary spreads widened by 20-50 basis points, order books shrank, and investors began demanding a higher premium for new issues.
The limitation is not an absolute lack of capital. Equity partnerships , construction bonds , private credit, and creative lease structures continue to emerge, but the market is becoming more selective. A combined Tesla and SpaceX structure would present a single, larger, and more diversified credit and equity story spanning automotive, energy storage, robotics, satellite communications, and launches.
Such scale and diversification typically improve pricing power and investor appetite just when the market is digesting a large supply. Energy supply and permitting remain tougher bottlenecks than financing. Space will become a viable alternative, and when trillions need to be raised and refinanced over the course of a decade, structural advantages in access to capital matter .
And now—management resources and vertical integration. Managing two separate organizations already spreads management's attention between regulatory, financial, and operational issues. A single unified platform reduces duplication of processes, investor engagement, calendar conflicts, and capital structure negotiations.
The same management team can distribute engineering talent and funds between ground autonomy, orbital systems, and energy without the inter-corporate friction and media attention that is currently a particular problem. The industrial logic here is quite simple. Tesla is already integrating battery cells, car software, energy products, and AI training.
SpaceX adds high-volume production of complex equipment , rapid iteration, and a global communications network. Together, they form an extremely deep vertically integrated platform—from silicon and power electronics to launch vehicles and satellite constellations. This integration reduces friction when the next bottleneck arises, whether it's power supply, compute density, or logistics.
Next is the coordination of employees' interests. Talents are mobile. When two closely related companies operate separately, engineers and managers inevitably compare stock packages, mission prestige, and growth trajectories. A single structure eliminates this internal competition. People work towards one set of results, instead of following the progress of another group.
Staff retention and focus improve when incentives and culture are aligned. Then there is time, the political window, and opportunity costs. An early announcement would come in the current political and regulatory climate, which has so far been relatively constructive for large technology and infrastructure mergers.
And, of course, the current administration in the US has a rather favorable attitude towards Elon Musk, largely because he helped the current president get elected. The November midterm elections could change the makeup of the House of Representatives or the Senate. Any resulting change in Congressional control would introduce new variables into the legislative and regulatory environment surrounding such an agreement.
Therefore, the expectation carries a political uncertainty that is not present today. And I can certainly imagine if another government were in power , upon hearing about the Tesla and SpaceX merger, they would use it as a political tool to probably prevent the merger. I mean, it would bring political points, that is, votes.
This definitely sounds like a potential problem to me. There is also net opportunity cost. Each quarter of delay means continued separate capital raising under the pressure already seen in the bond market, further distractions from corporate governance, and slower realization of the benefits of integration as the $7.5 trillion wave of AI infrastructure accelerates.
Capital markets, talent, and supply chain capabilities are already being distributed . Postponement is not free. Summing up the situation. So, Alessandro continues , there is nothing frictionless here. Evaluation, regulatory approvals, and integration will require careful work, as we have seen in recent weeks.
Markets may change, and demand for AI will have cyclical pauses. However, the alternative— continued separate capitalization, ongoing corporate governance risks, unfocused management attention, and the risk of a less favorable political window— carries its own measurable costs, as the past few years have already demonstrated.
The $ 7.5 trillion infrastructure wave will reward entities that can effectively raise capital, make decisions quickly, and act across multiple areas. A well-thought-out merger is one of the most obvious ways to position yourself in such an environment, while reducing bureaucratic delays that have already taken up time and resources .
This is my best case scenario and I look forward to hearing the details of a possible offer. At the end of the article, she shares a link to a simple merger simulation model available to us. You will be able to find this post from Alexandra in my X feeds. If you want to find the link, just go to my X profile and you will find it there.
A brief overview of what it is . The scenario is right here, assumptions , notes, net share issuance level, tax rate modeling, number of shares per tranche, and you can see how it would all work. So, Tesla price, SpaceX price, feel free to pause and look at it in detail at any time. Many thanks to Alexander for preparing this and sharing it with all of us.
The tech sector is down nearly 2% today, but Tesla shares are outperforming the tech sector. They did n't fall nearly as much. And SpaceX shares actually rose 2.6%. By the way, the Nasdaq 100 also fell. Only the S&P 500, by the way, rose by 0.2%, essentially remaining unchanged. But the more accurate comparison, you know, when comparing Tesla to an index—it's definitely the Nasdaq 100, and especially the technology sector .
Both Tesla and SpaceX clearly outperform both of these indices. So, today is a wonderful day. I believe that SpaceX and Tesla will eventually become a single entity, and I believe that this entity will reach a market capitalization of $20 trillion. My name is Matt Post. You guys, be sure to like and subscribe if you haven't already , and I'll see you in the next video. Thank you very much for watching.
Comments 0