Pinned Tweet
Selling a bit more $nvda and added some $tsla in last few weeks (@ $380 range before the dip). Still holding $avgo and haven't sold any $aapl RSU vesting since last 1 year as I have started to feel better about it
Selling $NVDA and building cash for attacking the AI application companies. Still like both $TSLA and $AVGO. Tesla is definitely going to rule the AI application layer (if Elon stays sane) while Broadcom will take over the crown for AI datacenter from Nvidia. However, finally inference will move to edge, i.e., AVs, humanoid robots.
$AVGO now becomes my 2nd largest holding overtaking $NVDA !
Please let me get out of my calls i sold for an easy $1 move. I’d never do that again 😅 $tsla
This is like the student debt crisis. One should only fund where there’s a safe path to repayment 😬
Replying to @chamath
Pretty much.
As of the past few weeks, debt markets have almost entirely shut off access to money for any company that doesn’t have substantial revenue independent of AI data centers.
SpaceX closed $40B of debt for GPUs, but we’re investment grade and have Starlink & launch revenue.
That means the 200+ neoclouds are going to see guppy-level death and consolidation. Some will make it through, but not many.
Looks like a lot of people are stuck in neoclouds 😬
I saw things Elon has been posting about the neoclouds. You can’t trust what Elon says. Just look at the history of $TSLA. His timing has never been correct.
Not just his timing, but also what he says and what ends up happening.
Average human being is right less than 20% of the time on predictions and Elon is no different.
Smart move if this is what indeed he is doing. However, why won't he just use them now? I mean why is the rest of the world willing to pay such high spot price right now?
Replying to @TSLAFanMtl
I think Elon is rushing to build as much compute as possible right now, because it can get paid for by other companies within 6-9months at current spot prices
Then, in 2 years from now as pricing begins to stabilize he can re route that same compute to Grok, FSD, robotaxis and humanoids as they scale up
So all that compute he’ll need in a couple years is just getting paid for by other companies now
Will save a lot of time for $spcx to bring these DCs online with permits
Replying to @BritishHodl
SpaceX won’t be buying any neoclouds.
But as I explained earlier today in this thread, they might buy some of their distressed assets or unbuilt data centers where power permits are in place…
But nonetheless… yes. you should probably own some SpaceX.
Of course, neoclouds have no chance to compete against $spcx .. also they don’t have much of a moat. SpaceX can raise capital easily and use turbine expertise in generating power..
goodness Elon is being ruthless to the neoclouds
“That means the 200+ neoclouds are going to see guppy-level death and consolidation. Some will make it through, but not many.”
my theory is that for him to get that $500B-$1T ARR, it will primarily come from SpaceX’s datacenter business scaling exponentially
which means he wants every contract possible, every GPU possible, and he knows he can actually do this because he has a business that can get cheap capital compared to everyone else
The ratios matter, the floor price matters ... I LOVE SpaceX as a company but I can't just take their newly inflated currency at unknown terms...
I enjoyed this video and love the work Alexandra (@TeslaBoomerMama) and Amy (@Amy787) are doing to help with this potential merger. But I like to address something Herbert (@herbertong) said that not only I disagree with, I actually think is counterproductive to spread that message.
No, Herbert, the share exchange ratio matters enormously, both short and long term. Suggesting it won’t matter because the combined company might eventually be worth $100 trillion is absurd. Our ownership percentage determines how much of that $100 trillion we get!
The reason I want to address it is because this is the third time I’ve heard Tesla investors and content creators suggesting that getting the merger done quickly is more important than the terms. Frankly, I’m concerned we’ll start hearing this more frequently from the people who wanted bad to be done fast.
So let’s remember a few things and think this through:
1- xAI was built partly with talent developed at Tesla, but Elon created it outside Tesla to maintain control. SpaceX eventually acquired it, leaving Tesla shareholders without direct participation in its growth.
2- SpaceX shareholders have already enjoyed extraordinary returns and now stand to benefit enormously from xAI. Meanwhile, Tesla investors have endured years of volatility, delays, and disappointing returns while financing the development of FSD, robotaxis, and Optimus.
3- Tesla is finally approaching the commercialization of those technologies, whose enormous potential isn’t yet reflected in earnings. Why should we surrender that upside without a healthy acquisition premium? Any other company trying to acquire Tesla today would have to pay a substantial premium. Why should SpaceX be any different?
4- we’ll probably hear the reasoning that SpaceX’s AI compute revenue is about to explode, potentially reaching $500B to $1T, so Tesla shareholders should accept whatever terms are offered to participate in that growth ASAP. That’s nonsense. Elon is an extraordinary entrepreneur, but forecasting market demand has never been his strongest skill. Assuming today’s reported $50 per watt compute pricing will persist as another 20 GW of capacity comes online is extremely optimistic. Demand may remain enormous, but prices can fall substantially.
5- Waiting could actually benefit shareholders of both companies. Suppose SpaceX reaches $250B in revenue, only half of Elon optimistic prediction, it could generate $80B–$100B in profits, and commands a $4T–$5T valuation. Meanwhile, Tesla probably will trade around $400–$450, worth approximately $1.5T–$1.75T, as robotaxi and Optimus profits take longer to materialize. SpaceX could then make an offer of share exchange ratio of 2.5 to 1 and it will be over 80% premium for Tesla shareholders and it would dilute much less SpaceX shareholders. Waiting is not necessarily bad, a larger SpaceX valuation could make it easier to offer Tesla shareholders a substantial premium while limiting the percentage dilution experienced by SpaceX shareholders. We might lose some initial SpaceX growth but we might gain bigger premium and easier approval process which is very important.
I agree that getting the merger done sooner rather than later would be preferable, especially considering the political and regulatory uncertainties surrounding the next election cycle. Ideally, I would like to see the transaction completed, sealed, and locked in well before that becomes an issue, but that doesn’t mean the terms shouldn’t be favorable.
Finally, we need to trust the process. The people working on a potential merger understand these issues far better than most of us. I am sure they are working hard to find terms that are acceptable to both groups of shareholders while minimizing conflicts of interest, legal challenges, and unnecessary litigation.
The merger matters and the timing matters, but the valuation, premium, dilution, and exchange ratio matter just as much.
Replying to @chamath
Pretty much.
As of the past few weeks, debt markets have almost entirely shut off access to money for any company that doesn’t have substantial revenue independent of AI data centers.
SpaceX closed $40B of debt for GPUs, but we’re investment grade and have Starlink & launch revenue.
That means the 200+ neoclouds are going to see guppy-level death and consolidation. Some will make it through, but not many.
Great advice
Watch who you listen to on X, including me.
A lot of people sold $TSLA to swap into $SPCX. They will keep justifying that move - they’re talking their book. Why else wouldn't they?
I kept my TSLA. I've been justifying that move with what I think is rational thought, and I've even recommended a hedge for the no-deal case. I'm talking my book too.
Disingenuousness lives on both sides. Conviction posts. "Just merge" letters. "I already rotated and I'm sleeping fine." Same game. Different jersey.
Before you commit to anyone's idea, ask what they already own and what they need to be true. Perspective and incentives beat vibes every time.
If their timeline only works if their bag wins, you're not getting advice. You're getting a pitch.
Don't outsource your brain. Not to them. Not to me.
Neoclouds aren’t great businesses when competing with SpaceX
Yep.
Maybe I wasn't clear last week:
I am generally BEARISH on Neoclouds like Coreweave etc.
The demand is effectively unlimited - but how can they compete with SpaceX in setting up datacenters ?
They can't.
And being a year or two slower in buildout creates a 5-10B cash cost disadvantage that I don't think they can survive.
I might be wrong and some will pull of a miracle - but it's an uphill battle, and I don't like to invest in uphill battles when there are alternatives that just fly.
100% agree. And yes, I do care about my Tesla gains as much as I care about the mission for these two amazing companies $tsla $spcx
테슬라와 스페이스 X의 합병으로
시너지가 나지 않을 거라고 생각하는
테슬라 주주들은 단 한 명도 없습니다.
테슬라 주주 입장에서는
5년에서 6년간 횡보한 주식이
이제 결실을 맞이할 순간에
합병이라는 리스크를 떠맡게 된다는 것입니다.
테슬라 주주들이 반대하는 그 의미가
무엇인지 본질을 이해하고
그 부분에 대한 충분한 보상이 이루어져야만
이 합병의 찬성을 하게 되는 것입니다.
다시 한번 강조드리지만
합병에서 두 회사 간의 기술 시너지는 당연히
이 세상 그 어떤 기업도 따라올 수 없는 수준의
도달할 것이라고 저도 확신합니다.
하지만 문제는 테슬라 주가입니다.
Osman Sarood retweeted
FSD is very liberating for the elderly.
Replying to @RonDeSantis
FSD is transformational and will be an amazing utility, especially for those only marginally able to drive.
The elderly especially will benefit from it.
wow! thanks for sharing. Very useful post. Though I knew some of these failed merger attempts, I had NO idea about the vast majority of them! $tsla $spcx
Tesla/SpaceX merger, there are opinions like "Since they're both American companies, no approval from major countries is needed," but I see that as a complacent thought.
1. Even if SpaceX claims it's not a defense company itself, a company that launches rockets and deploys satellites has no choice but to be viewed as a defense/security firm from the perspective of various governments.
2. Starlink is already integrated into war zones and national communication networks, and it has contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence agencies.
3. On the other hand, Tesla operates worldwide, with a Shanghai factory and significant revenue in China.
4. In countries where revenue exceeds a certain scale, merger approval is required regardless of nationality. Even for U.S. companies, this is why approval from China/EU etc. is needed.
5. From China's perspective, it's a U.S. defense company merging with a firm that has a domestic factory and vehicle data. This gives them grounds to block it on security grounds.
6. The U.S. would also find it hard to just let a core defense company merge with one that has a major production base in China.
※ Precedents of major M&A deals blocked by major countries' approvals
[Blocked on national security grounds]
1. Broadcom→Qualcomm (2017, ~$117B): Blocked by U.S. presidential order
2. Canyon Bridge (Chinese-backed)→Lattice (2016, $1.3B): Blocked by U.S. presidential order
[China's SAMR refused approval and held firm]
3. Qualcomm→NXP (2016, $44B): Abandoned after 21 months, $2B breakup fee
4. Intel→Tower (2022, $5.4B): Abandoned after 18 months, $353M breakup fee
5. Nvidia→ARM (2020, $40B): Abandoned after 17 months due to opposition from U.S./UK/EU/China, $1.25B lost
[Blocked by U.S. FTC/DOJ]
6. Applied Materials–Tokyo Electron (2013, $29B): Abandoned after 19 months
7. Lockheed→Northrop (1997, $11.6B): Abandoned over defense competition restrictions
8. Lockheed→Aerojet Rocketdyne (2020, $4.4B): Abandoned over vertical integration in missile propulsion
9. AT&T→T-Mobile (2011, $39B): $4B breakup fee
10. Kroger→Albertsons (2022, $24.6B): Fell through, now in $9B+ lawsuit
11. JetBlue→Spirit (2022, $3.8B): Abandoned, followed by Spirit's bankruptcy protection
12. Penguin Random House→Simon & Schuster (2020, $2.175B): $200M breakup fee
[Blocked by EU/UK]
13. GE→Honeywell (2000, ~$42B): EU blocked it despite U.S. approval
14. Boeing→Embraer (2018, $4.2B): Canceled amid EU review delays
15. Siemens–Alstom (2017): Blocked by EU
16. Hyundai Heavy Industries→Daewoo Shipbuilding (2019, ~$2B): EU blocked after 3 years
17. Adobe→Figma (2022, $20B): $1B breakup fee
18. Amazon→iRobot (2022, $1.7B): Abandoned due to EU opposition
19. Illumina→GRAIL (2020, ~$7.1B): Pushed through but ultimately divested, CEO resigned
Cases that were blocked but revived: MS→Activision passed after restructuring, and Japan Steel→U.S. Steel passed with U.S. government golden share condition.
Most fall through after 9–26 months. Meanwhile, the companies are tied up in uncertainty.
※ Unlike these cases, reasons why failure would be especially fatal for Elon
1. In the above cases, they were deals between unrelated third-party companies, so failure ends with "blame the regulations."
2. Tesla/SpaceX is a same controlling shareholder transaction where Elon dominates both sides. If it fails, the arrows won't point to regulations but to "Why did he push so hard between his own companies?"
3. From Tesla shareholders' perspective, it becomes a conflict of interest issue of whether Elon used Tesla resources for his other company. This creates grounds for breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits.
4. During the SolarCity acquisition (2016), shareholders sued Elon and ultimately won, but it tied him up in litigation for nearly 7 years.
Most people have ZERO idea what they are missing $tsla
Agree! Elon is great and LOVE his innovation. However, I'v been invested in Tesla for 8 years now. I've believed in FSD for a VERY long time. It is fricking amazing.
I also think that starlink and starship are revolutionary. I am also SUPER bullish on starmind (orbital datacenters). BUT they will take WAY longer to generate earnings, much longer than FSD and Optimus. And yes, while terrestrial datacenters are cool for the short term, I am not convinced they'd materially contribute to earnings in the long term (which is where most of $SPCX revenue is coming from).
Given all of the above, I do NOT want this merger unless SpaceX gets the majority share of the merged company. I understand SpaceX is the cool kid on the block but its currency (stock price) is currently inflated.
P.S: I am adding to my $SPCX because I love the company but I don't expect it to get to 10T in the next 3 years...
Shows you how bad is @grok bot that @elonmusk had to advertise it 😂
Didn't we say that great products don't need advertising .. @garyblack00 would be fuming...
Donno why people don't understand simple maths...
A hedge and a rotation are not the same trade.
Sell a slice of $TSLA against a no-deal outcome?
That’s a probability bet and that's fine.
Dump all of your TSLA for $SPCX before the ratio locks?
You’re not hedging. The spread is ~30% today and it’ll swing day-to-day. If 50/50 is the final ratio then that gap is your discount into the merger but only from the TSLA side. Pay up now swapping fully into SPCX and you lose the major discount opportunity and your vote.
Same destination, worse entry.






















