View All Stock Evaluations | Evaluation Date: 2026-01-12
Key Takeaways: Is TSLA a Quality Investment?
This section provides a scannable summary for quick reference.
- Verdict: ❌ FAIL — Score: 101/210 (48.1%)
- Moat Strength: Weakening — Brand eroding as BYD overtakes in global EV sales; market share declining
- Financial Health: Good — Zero net debt, $36B cash, but declining margins and ROIC
- Valuation: Significantly Overvalued — P/E 297x, EV/EBITDA 86x, 12x Graham Number
- Key Risk: CEO distraction and reputational damage affecting brand, combined with extreme valuation
This evaluation uses the Charlie Munger Quality Rubric framework analyzing management, moat, financials, and valuation across 8 dimensions.
How This Company Makes Money
Tesla generates revenue through three primary segments: Automotive (79% of revenue), which includes electric vehicle sales, regulatory credits, and vehicle leasing; Energy Generation and Storage (10%), comprising Powerwall, Megapack batteries, and solar products; and Services and Other (11%), including supercharging, vehicle service, merchandise, and insurance. The company operates a direct-to-consumer sales model, bypassing traditional dealerships, with manufacturing facilities in the US, China, and Germany.
Table of Contents
- Key Takeaways
- Executive Summary Scorecard
- Company Overview
- Leadership & Board of Directors
- Business Model Visual
- Dividends & Upcoming Events
- Competitor Comparison Summary
- Visual Score Summary
- Key Graham/Buffett/Munger Quotes Applied
- Detailed Analysis
- Red Flag Analysis
- Final Verdict: Is TSLA a Quality Buy per Munger’s Rubric?
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Related Munger Quality Rubric Evaluations
- Source Reliability & Citations
Executive Summary Scorecard
| Category | Score | Max | % | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. CEO & Management | 11 | 25 | 44% | 🔴 |
| B. Board of Directors | 8 | 20 | 40% | 🔴 |
| C. Incentive Structures | 10 | 20 | 50% | 🔴 |
| D. Regulatory & Political | 12 | 25 | 48% | 🔴 |
| E. Business Quality & Moat | 18 | 35 | 51% | 🔴 |
| F. Financial Strength | 24 | 35 | 69% | 🟡 |
| G. Country & Geopolitical | 9 | 15 | 60% | 🟡 |
| H. Valuation & Margin of Safety | 9 | 35 | 26% | 🔴 |
| Raw Subtotal | 101 | 210 | 48.1% | |
| I. Red Flag Deductions | 0 | 0 | 6 flags | |
| TOTAL | 101 | 210 | 48.1% | ❌ FAIL |
| Normalized Score | 48.1% | 100% | ||
| J. Graham Screen | 1/7 | Info | FAIL |
Munger Verdict: ❌ FAIL
Scorecard Visualization
Rating Guide: 🟢 = 80%+ | 🟡 = 60-79% | 🔴 = <60%
Company Overview
- Company: Tesla, Inc.
- Ticker: TSLA
- Exchange: NASDAQ
- Industry: Auto Manufacturers
- Sector: Consumer Cyclical
- Founded: 2003
- Headquarters: Austin, Texas, USA
- Employees: ~125,670
- Market Cap: $1.48 trillion
- FY2024 Revenue: $97.7 billion
Revenue Breakdown by Segment (FY2024)
| Segment | FY Revenue | % of Total | YoY Growth | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automotive | $77.07B | 79% | -6.5% | 🔴 |
| Energy Generation & Storage | $10.09B | 10% | +67% | 🟢 |
| Services & Other | $10.53B | 11% | +27% | 🟢 |
Geographic Revenue Mix (FY2024)
| Region | % of Revenue | YoY Change | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 49% | +5.5% | 🟢 Largest market |
| China | 21% | -3.7% | 🔴 BYD competition |
| Other Countries | 30% | -2.6% | 🔴 Europe included |
Leadership & Board of Directors
Executive Leadership
| Role | Name | Notable Background |
|---|---|---|
| CEO & Technoking | Elon Musk | Founder SpaceX, acquired Twitter/X |
| CFO | Vaibhav Taneja | Former CAO, joined Tesla 2017 |
| SVP Powertrain & Energy | Drew Baglino | (Departed April 2024) |
| SVP Vehicle Engineering | Lars Moravy | 17+ years at Tesla |
Board of Directors
| Name | Role | Independence | Notable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robyn Denholm | Chair | Questioned | Former Telstra CFO, $532M stock sales |
| Elon Musk | Director | Not Independent | CEO, ~13-29% ownership |
| Kimbal Musk | Director | Not Independent | Elon’s brother |
| JB Straubel | Director | Not Independent | Co-founder, former CTO |
| James Murdoch | Director | Questioned | Family friend of Musk |
| Ira Ehrenpreis | Director | Questioned | VC investor in Musk companies |
| Joe Gebbia | Director | Independent | Airbnb co-founder |
| Jack Hartung | Director | Independent | Former Chipotle CFO |
| Kathleen Wilson-Thompson | Director | Independent | Walgreens executive |
Board Independence Concern: Delaware Court found board lacked independence; Tesla ranks in bottom 10% of S&P 500 for board independence per ISS ratings.
Business Model Visual
US, China, Germany
CATL, Panasonic
FSD, Autopilot
Model 3/Y/S/X, Cybertruck
Megapack, Powerwall
60,000+ connectors
$77.1B (79%)
$10.1B (10%)
$10.5B (11%)
Dividends & Upcoming Events
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Dividend | None – Tesla does not pay dividends |
| Dividend Yield | 0.0% |
| Next Earnings | Q4 2025 – January 28, 2026 |
| Fiscal Year End | December 31 |
| Annual Meeting | Typically June |
Competitor Comparison Summary
| Company | Ticker | Market Cap | FY Revenue | P/E | EV/EBITDA | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tesla | TSLA | $1.48T | $97.7B | 297x | 86x | This Report |
| BYD Company | BYDDY | ~$100B | $107B | 20x | 12x | Lower valuation |
| Toyota | TM | ~$250B | $275B | 9x | 6x | Traditional auto |
| Rivian | RIVN | ~$15B | $4.4B | N/A | N/A | Unprofitable |
| Ford | F | ~$45B | $176B | 6x | 5x | Legacy auto |
| General Motors | GM | ~$55B | $171B | 5x | 4x | Legacy auto |
Key Insight: Tesla trades at 15-60x the valuation multiples of traditional automakers and 5x BYD’s multiples despite BYD now selling more EVs globally.
Visual Score Summary
Key Graham/Buffett/Munger Quotes Applied
“If you’re looking for a manager, you want someone who is intelligent, energetic, and moral. But if they don’t have the last one, you don’t want them to have the first two.” — Charlie Munger
“Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.” — Charlie Munger
“Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” — Warren Buffett
“The margin of safety is always dependent on the price paid.” — Benjamin Graham
Detailed Analysis
Section A: CEO & Management (Score: 11/25)
A1. Integrity & Honesty (2/5)
Elon Musk’s integrity score is significantly impacted by multiple SEC settlements and ongoing regulatory issues. The 2018 SEC fraud settlement over the “funding secured” tweet resulted in $40 million in fines and Musk’s removal as Chairman. In December 2024, the SEC issued a new settlement demand related to his Twitter acquisition, and in January 2025, the SEC filed an enforcement action alleging securities violations.
Evidence:
- SEC settlement 2018: $20M fine each for Musk and Tesla, plus “Twitter sitter” provision (SEC Press Release, 2018)
- Supreme Court rejected Musk’s challenge to SEC agreement in April 2024 (NBC News, 2024)
- January 2025 SEC lawsuit over Twitter purchase disclosure (LLS Law Review, 2025)
A2. Track Record (2/5)
While Musk has built Tesla from a startup to the world’s most valuable automaker, recent performance shows concerning trends. 2024 marked the first annual delivery decline (-1.1%), and 2025 saw a further 9% decline. BYD overtook Tesla as the global EV leader. The DOJ is investigating potential securities or wire fraud related to self-driving claims.
Evidence:
- First delivery decline in company history in 2024 (CNBC, 2025)
- DOJ investigating self-driving claims (Electrek, 2024)
- BYD overtook Tesla in global EV sales in 2025 (CNN, 2026)
A3. Capital Allocation Skills (2/5)
Tesla’s capital allocation has been mixed. The SolarCity acquisition ($2.6B in 2016) remains controversial. The company raised $6B in debt in 2024 despite holding $37B in cash, which raised questions among analysts. Musk sold $23B in Tesla stock in 2022 to fund the Twitter acquisition.
Evidence:
- SolarCity acquisition questioned as potential bailout of Musk’s family company (Harvard Law, 2024)
- $6B debt raised despite strong cash position (Financial Times, 2024)
A4. Transparency & Communication (3/5)
Tesla provides quarterly updates and earnings calls, but communication has been inconsistent. Musk’s tweets have created legal problems, and guidance has often been overly optimistic (e.g., repeated delays on robotaxis, Cybertruck timing).
A5. Owner-Orientation (2/5)
Musk’s 2024 statement demanding 25% voting control raised concerns about alignment with minority shareholders. His attention is split across Tesla, SpaceX, X (Twitter), xAI, Neuralink, and The Boring Company, plus his government role (DOGE). The Delaware court voided his $56B pay package, finding the process lacked proper shareholder protection.
Evidence:
- Musk seeking 25% voting control (INETECONOMICS, 2024)
- Delaware Court voided $56B compensation (CNBC, 2024)
Section B: Board of Directors (Score: 8/20)
B1. Business Savvy (3/5)
Board members have relevant experience: Denholm (finance/tech), Hartung (CFO experience), Gebbia (entrepreneurship). However, lack of traditional automotive industry expertise is notable.
B2. Personal Financial Stake (2/5)
While board members have significant Tesla holdings, the Delaware Court found this created problematic incentives rather than alignment. Denholm’s $532M in stock sales and “life-changing” compensation compromised her independence per the court.
Evidence:
- Board members earned over $3B through stock options 2018-2024 (ProMarket, 2024)
- Denholm sold $50M+ in stock in 2024 alone (CNBC, 2024)
B3. Independence (1/5)
Tesla ranks in the bottom 10% of S&P 500 for board independence per ISS ratings. Five of nine directors lack independence from Musk: Elon Musk (CEO), Kimbal Musk (brother), JB Straubel (co-founder), and court questioned independence of Denholm, Murdoch, and Ehrenpreis due to personal/business relationships.
Evidence:
- Delaware Court ruled compensation committee lacked independence (Miami Business Law Review, 2024)
- Directors vacationed together, spent Christmas together (Harvard Law Forum, 2024)
B4. Shareholder Representation (2/5)
Despite court criticism, board has not added indisputably independent directors. Shareholders have demanded governance reforms. The board re-ratified Musk’s voided pay package rather than addressing independence concerns.
Section C: Incentive Structures (Score: 10/20)
C1. Long-term Performance Compensation (3/5)
Musk’s compensation is entirely equity-based with no salary. The 2018 and proposed 2025 packages tie vesting to milestones like market cap and deliveries. However, the court found the milestones weren’t truly challenging when set.
C2. Management Stock Ownership (3/5)
Musk owns approximately 13% of Tesla directly (increasing to 25-29% with new compensation), representing significant alignment. However, he sold $23B in stock to fund Twitter acquisition and his attention is divided across multiple companies.
C3. Incentives Aligned with Shareholders (2/5)
The Delaware Court specifically found compensation wasn’t the product of arm’s-length negotiation and didn’t adequately protect shareholders. The $1 trillion 2025 pay package primarily awards voting control rather than performance.
Evidence:
- $1T pay package approved November 2025, increasing Musk to 29% ownership (CNBC, 2025)
C4. No Perverse Short-term Incentives (2/5)
Tesla doesn’t provide non-equity incentive compensation, but accounting concerns have emerged. A $5.9B tax valuation allowance release quadrupled Q4 2023 profits, and a $1.4B gap between capex and asset growth raised questions.
Section D: Regulatory & Political Environment (Score: 12/25)
D1. Political/Regulatory Moat Quality (2/5)
Tesla benefited significantly from EV tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, but these credits ended September 30, 2025. Regulatory credit revenue ($1.79B in 2024) faces pressure as competitors build their own EV lineups.
Evidence:
- IRA EV tax credits ended September 30, 2025 (IRS, 2025)
- Some Tesla models lost tax credit eligibility due to Chinese battery content (NPR, 2024)
D2. Government Relationship Sustainability (3/5)
Musk’s role in the Trump administration (DOGE) creates both opportunities and brand risk. Political polarization has affected Tesla’s brand perception among certain customer segments.
D3. No Corruption/Bribery Scandals (4/5)
No major FCPA or bribery issues identified. Main regulatory issues relate to securities law and safety investigations rather than corruption.
D4. Antitrust Exposure (4/5)
Low antitrust risk as Tesla is one competitor among many in the auto industry. Tesla has actually been a plaintiff in antitrust cases against dealer protection laws.
D5. Regulatory Tailwinds vs Headwinds (0/5)
Significant headwinds:
- NHTSA investigating 2.88M vehicles over FSD safety concerns (October 2025)
- DOJ investigating securities/wire fraud over self-driving claims
- Previous NHTSA investigation into 2.4M vehicles (October 2024)
- Potential for largest software-related recall in US history
Evidence:
- October 2025: NHTSA probing 2.88M vehicles for FSD violations (Road and Track, 2025)
- October 2024: NHTSA investigating 2.4M vehicles after fatal FSD crash (PBS, 2024)
Section E: Business Quality & Moat (Score: 18/35)
E1. Sustainable Competitive Advantage (2/5)
Tesla’s first-mover advantage in EVs has significantly eroded. BYD overtook Tesla as the world’s largest EV seller in 2025, selling 2.26M EVs vs Tesla’s 1.64M. Tesla’s US market share dropped from 75%+ (2022) to <50% (2024).
Evidence:
- BYD sold 600,000+ more EVs than Tesla in 2025 (Electrek, 2026)
- Tesla’s China market share dropped from 16% (2020) to 4.4% (August 2024) (CNBC, 2024)
E2. Pricing Power (2/5)
Tesla has demonstrated negative pricing power, cutting prices ~21% since 2022 to maintain volume. Automotive gross margin fell to 14.6% in Q2 2024, a 5-year low. Musk has prioritized volume over margins.
Evidence:
- 21% price cuts since pre-2022 levels (CBS News, 2024)
- Gross margin at 5-year low (Editorial Institute, 2024)
E3. High Barriers to Entry (3/5)
Barriers are lower than perceived. BYD built comparable scale in China with $107B revenue vs Tesla’s $98B. Supercharger network is an advantage but legacy automakers are adopting Tesla’s NACS standard.
E4. Low Threat of Disruption (2/5)
Tesla faces disruption from multiple directions:
- BYD’s ultra-fast charging (250 miles in 5 minutes vs Tesla’s 15-minute charging)
- BYD’s free driver-assistance vs Tesla’s $8,000 FSD
- Chinese competitors (NIO, XPeng) in premium segment
- Legacy automakers (VW, GM, Ford) ramping EV production
Evidence:
- BYD charging outpaces Tesla Supercharger technology (International Banker, 2025)
E5. Industry Structure (2/5)
The EV industry is intensely competitive and fragmenting. Tesla competes against well-funded legacy automakers, Chinese national champions with government support, and numerous startups. No pricing power exists.
E6. Intellectual Property & Brand Value (4/5)
Tesla brand valued at $71.9B in 2024, highest among automakers. However, brand erosion is occurring due to CEO controversies and aggressive price cuts. Resale values dropped 29% for used Model 3s in 2023.
Evidence:
E7. Earnings Predictability (3/5)
Revenue is concentrated in automotive (79%), which showed -6.5% decline in 2024. Energy storage (+67%) provides diversification but is only 10% of revenue. No recurring revenue model like subscription software.
Section F: Financial Strength & Capital Efficiency (Score: 24/35)
F1. Conservative Debt Levels (5/5)
Tesla maintains conservative leverage with total debt of $7.9B against cash/investments of $41.6B. Debt-to-equity is just 9.2%, down from 70.4% five years ago.
Evidence:
- Net cash position: $36.5B cash vs $7.9B debt (MacroTrends, 2024)
- Debt-to-equity 9.2% (Stock Analysis, 2024)
F2. Strong Credit Rating (4/5)
Investment-grade ratings from two of three agencies: S&P BBB (stable), Moody’s Baa3 (investment grade), Fitch BB+ (below investment grade).
Evidence:
- S&P affirmed BBB rating (S&P Global, 2024)
F3. Adequate Cash Reserves (5/5)
$36.5B cash, $42B total liquidity. Cash covers 5+ years of debt maturities. Operating cash flow of $14.9B provides additional cushion.
F4. No Aggressive Accounting (2/5)
Accounting concerns emerged in 2024:
- $1.4B gap between capex and asset growth unexplained
- $5.9B tax valuation allowance release boosted Q4 2023 profits
- $6B debt raised despite strong cash position raised questions
Evidence:
- $1.4B accounting discrepancy flagged by Financial Times (Electrek, 2025)
F5. Return on Invested Capital (2/5)
ROIC has collapsed from 30% peak (2022) to ~5-8% (2024). Five-year average is 16-20%, but current trajectory is concerning as ROIC approaches cost of capital.
Evidence:
- ROIC declined from 30% (2022) to 8% (2024) (GuruFocus, 2024)
- Current ROIC 4.89% per GuruFocus TTM data
F6. Free Cash Flow Generation (3/5)
FCF declined 48% from 2022 to 2023, and another 18% in 2024 to $3.58B. Recent quarters showing improvement ($6.8B TTM as of Q3 2025), but trend over 2022-2024 was negative.
Evidence:
- FCF: $8.5B (2022) → $4.4B (2023) → $3.6B (2024) (MacroTrends, 2024)
F7. Capital Allocation Track Record (3/5)
Mixed record. Gigafactory investments have scaled production successfully. SolarCity acquisition remains controversial. No dividends or buybacks to return capital to shareholders.
Section G: Country & Geopolitical Risk (Score: 9/15)
G1. Rule-of-Law Jurisdictions (4/5)
~79% of revenue from US (49%) and “Other” (30%, primarily Europe). China represents 21% risk exposure in a jurisdiction with different rule of law.
G2. Limited Geopolitical Exposure (2/5)
Significant China exposure:
- 21% of revenue from China
- Shanghai Gigafactory produced 657,000+ vehicles in 2024
- 90%+ of Shanghai factory components sourced locally
- US-China trade tensions directly impact Tesla
Evidence:
- Tesla asking suppliers to move production out of China/Taiwan by 2025 (TrendForce, 2024)
G3. Supply Chain Diversification (3/5)
Tesla is actively diversifying but remains heavily dependent on Chinese suppliers:
- 30%+ of semiconductors from China
- Battery cells from CATL (China)
- Rare earth materials (90% global supply from China)
Tesla is pushing for “OOC, OOT” (out of China, out of Taiwan) but transition will take years.
Section H: Valuation & Margin of Safety (Score: 9/35)
“Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” — Warren Buffett
H1. P/E vs Historical Average (1/5)
Current P/E of ~297x is:
- 165% above 5-year average of 201x
- 166% above 3-year average of 112x
- At the extreme high end of historical range
Evidence:
- P/E 297x as of January 2026 (MacroTrends, 2026)
H2. P/FCF (1/5)
P/FCF of ~226x is extremely elevated:
- Industry median: 15.8x
- Tesla is worse than 95% of Vehicles & Parts industry
- Negative FCF trend over 2022-2024 period
Evidence:
- P/FCF 226x, industry median 15.8x (GuruFocus, 2025)
H3. EV/EBITDA vs Sector (1/5)
EV/EBITDA of ~86-115x is extremely elevated:
- Industry median: 10x
- Sector average: 6.4x
- Tesla at 10-15x sector median
- Worse than 97% of Vehicles & Parts industry
Evidence:
- EV/EBITDA 86-115x vs industry median 10x (Stock Analysis On, 2024)
H4. PEG Ratio (1/5)
With negative EPS growth (-53% in 2024) and elevated P/E, PEG ratio is essentially meaningless or extremely unfavorable. EPS declined from $4.30 (2023) to $2.04 (2024).
H5. P/B Ratio (1/5)
P/B of ~17.8x far exceeds Graham’s ceiling of 1.5x:
- 12x above Graham’s threshold
- Book value per share: $22.89
- Current price: ~$443
Evidence:
- P/B 17.85x (MacroTrends, 2026)
H6. Graham Number vs Current Price (1/5)
Graham Number Calculation:
- EPS (TTM): ~$1.45
- Book Value per Share: $22.89
- Graham Number = √(22.5 × 1.45 × 22.89) = $27.34
- Current Price: ~$443
- Price/Graham = 16.2x (1,521% premium)
Tesla trades at more than 16x its Graham Number, indicating extreme overvaluation by Benjamin Graham’s standards.
H7. Margin of Safety (2/5)
No margin of safety exists at current prices.
With declining deliveries, eroding market share, collapsing margins, and a P/E near 300x, Tesla would need to see extraordinary execution on robotaxis, robotics (Optimus), and energy storage to justify current valuation. The market is pricing in multiple speculative future revenue streams.
Section J: Benjamin Graham Defensive Investor Screen
| # | Criterion | Threshold | TSLA Value | Pass/Fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Adequate Size | Market Cap > $2B | $1.48T | ✅ |
| 2 | Strong Financial Condition | Current Ratio ≥ 2.0 | 2.02 | ❌ (Barely) |
| 3 | Earnings Stability | Positive EPS 10 consecutive years | ~8 years | ❌ |
| 4 | Dividend Record | Uninterrupted 20+ years | 0 years | ❌ |
| 5 | Earnings Growth | EPS +33% over 10 years (3yr avg) | -53% (2024) | ❌ |
| 6 | Moderate P/E | P/E ≤ 15 | 297 | ❌ |
| 7 | Moderate P/B | P/B ≤ 1.5 OR P/E × P/B ≤ 22.5 | 17.8 | ❌ |
| TOTAL | 7 to pass | 1/7 | ❌ FAIL |
Graham Number Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| EPS (TTM) | $1.45 |
| Book Value per Share | $22.89 |
| Graham Number | √(22.5 × 1.45 × 22.89) = $27.34 |
| Current Price | ~$443 |
| Price / Graham Number | 16.2x |
| Verdict | Significantly Overvalued |
NCAV Analysis
| Component | Value |
|---|---|
| Current Assets | ~$53B |
| Total Liabilities | ~$53B |
| NCAV | ~$0 |
| NCAV per Share | ~$0 |
| Verdict | Not a Net-Net |
Red Flag Analysis
Governance Red Flags
| Red Flag | Present? | Deduction | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unrealistic promises to investors | Y | -5 | Repeated robotaxi delays, FSD timeline misses |
| Excessive CEO compensation | Y | -5 | $1T pay package largest in history |
| Related-party transactions | N | 0 | SolarCity was historical concern |
| Accounting restatements | N | 0 | No formal restatements, but $1.4B gap questions |
| High CFO/auditor turnover | N | 0 | CFO stable |
| Reluctance on tough questions | N | 0 | |
| Corruption/bribery | N | 0 | |
| Governance Subtotal | -10 |
Financial Red Flags
| Red Flag | Present? | Deduction | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| High leverage (Debt/EBITDA > 4x) | N | 0 | Debt/EBITDA < 1x |
| ROIC below cost of capital | Y | -5 | ROIC ~5% near WACC |
| Declining FCF (3 consecutive years) | Y | -5 | FCF declined 2022→2023→2024 |
| Net share dilution >2% | N | 0 | |
| Gross margin declining >500bps | Y | -3 | Auto margin fell from ~29% to 14.6% |
| Financial Subtotal | -13 |
Business Risk Red Flags
| Red Flag | Present? | Deduction | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Customer concentration >25% | N | 0 | Diversified customers |
| Single-country exposure >50% | N | 0 | US 49%, diversified |
| Revenue decline 3+ of last 10 years | N | 0 | 2024 first decline |
| Unstable government subsidy dependence | N | 0 | Credits ended but not critical |
| Business Risk Subtotal | 0 |
Valuation Red Flags
| Red Flag | Present? | Deduction | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stock at >2x 5-year average P/E | Y | -5 | 297x vs 201x average |
| P/FCF > 40 | Y | -3 | P/FCF 226x |
| Trading >30% above fair value | Y | -5 | 16x Graham Number |
| Valuation Subtotal | -13 |
Red Flag Summary
| Category | Deduction | Max |
|---|---|---|
| Governance Red Flags | -10 | -35 |
| Financial Red Flags | -13 | -21 |
| Business Risk Red Flags | 0 | -14 |
| Valuation Red Flags | -13 | -13 |
| TOTAL DEDUCTION | -36 | -83 |
| Red Flag Count | 6 of 19 |
Note: For this evaluation, red flag deductions are used to highlight concerns but the raw score of 101/210 already results in a FAIL verdict. The red flags would further reduce the score to 65/210 if applied, reinforcing the FAIL outcome.
Final Verdict: Is TSLA a Quality Buy per Munger's Rubric?
Investment Thesis Summary
The Bull Case: Tesla remains a technology leader in EVs with significant optionality in energy storage, autonomous driving (robotaxis), and humanoid robotics (Optimus). The company has a fortress balance sheet with $36B net cash, an iconic brand, and first-mover advantages in the Supercharger network. If robotaxis or Optimus achieve commercial success, the upside could be substantial.
The Bear Case: The valuation is divorced from current fundamentals. At ~300x earnings, Tesla would need to grow profits ~15x just to reach a 20x P/E, requiring perfect execution for a decade. Meanwhile, the competitive moat is eroding as BYD overtakes Tesla globally, margins are collapsing, and the CEO is distracted across multiple companies and a government role. Governance is rated in the bottom 10% of the S&P 500, and multiple regulatory investigations create headline risk.
Bottom Line: Tesla scores 101/210 (48.1%), earning a FAIL rating under the Munger Quality Rubric. The company fails on nearly every dimension except financial strength. This is not a judgment on Tesla’s long-term potential—it’s an assessment that at current prices, there is no margin of safety. Munger’s philosophy prioritizes “a great business at a fair price,” and Tesla at 300x earnings with declining deliveries and eroding market share does not qualify.
“All I want to know is where I’m going to die, so I’ll never go there.” — Charlie Munger
Who Should Consider TSLA?
- Value Investors: ❌ No — No margin of safety at 300x P/E and 16x Graham Number
- Growth Investors: ⚠️ Caution — Growth thesis requires speculative robotaxi/robotics success
- Dividend Investors: ❌ No — No dividend, none expected
- Long-term Holders: ⚠️ Caution — High conviction in FSD/Optimus required to justify entry
Price Considerations
| Scenario | Entry Point | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Aggressive | Not recommended | Valuation provides no safety margin |
| Moderate | ~$150 (65% decline) | ~100x P/E, still growth premium |
| Conservative | ~$75 (83% decline) | ~50x P/E, comparable to tech peers |
| Graham Value | ~$27 (94% decline) | At Graham Number |
“The margin of safety is always dependent on the price paid.” — Benjamin Graham
Frequently Asked Questions About TSLA
Is Tesla a good stock to buy in 2026?
Based on the Munger Quality Rubric evaluation, TSLA scores 101/210 (48.1%), earning a FAIL rating. The company fails primarily due to extreme valuation (P/E ~300x, 16x Graham Number), governance concerns (bottom 10% of S&P 500 for board independence), and eroding competitive position (BYD now sells more EVs globally). Key strengths include financial strength ($36B cash) and brand value. Main concerns are valuation, CEO distraction, and declining margins. Investment is not recommended at current prices.
What is Tesla's competitive moat?
Tesla’s competitive advantage historically came from first-mover status in premium EVs, the Supercharger network, and brand recognition. However, this moat scored only 18/35 (51%) in our Business Quality analysis, indicating weak and eroding durability. BYD has overtaken Tesla in global EV sales, Tesla’s US market share dropped from 75% to under 50%, and Chinese competitors now offer superior charging technology and free driver-assistance features.
Is TSLA stock overvalued or undervalued?
At current prices, TSLA trades at ~297x earnings and ~226x free cash flow. Compared to its 5-year average P/E of 201x, the stock is significantly overvalued even by its own historical standards. The Graham Number analysis indicates Tesla trades at 16x fair value ($443 vs $27 Graham Number). Our Valuation score of 9/35 (26%) reflects extreme overvaluation with no margin of safety.
Does Tesla pay dividends?
No, Tesla does not pay dividends and has never paid one since going public in 2010. The company reinvests all earnings into growth initiatives including new factories, R&D for autonomous driving, and energy storage products. There are no announced plans to initiate a dividend.
What are the main risks of investing in TSLA?
The primary risks identified include: (1) Extreme valuation requiring flawless execution for years to justify current price, (2) CEO distraction with Musk’s attention split across Tesla, SpaceX, X, xAI, Neuralink, and government role, (3) Eroding competitive moat as BYD and others gain share, (4) Regulatory risk with multiple NHTSA investigations into FSD, and (5) Governance concerns with board independence issues. Our Red Flag analysis identified 6 concerns.
How does Tesla compare to competitors?
In the EV sector, Tesla competes primarily with BYD (now the global leader), legacy automakers (Toyota, VW, GM, Ford), and EV startups (Rivian, Lucid). Key differentiators include the Supercharger network and brand recognition, but Tesla’s ~300x P/E compares unfavorably to BYD’s ~20x P/E and traditional automakers’ 5-10x P/E. Tesla’s market share is approximately 8.8% globally, now second to BYD’s 12.1%.
Related Munger Quality Rubric Evaluations
Same Sector (Consumer Cyclical / Auto)
- No other auto evaluations currently available
Recently Evaluated
- Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) Evaluation — Score: 166/210 (79%) 🟢 PASS
- Netflix (NFLX) Evaluation — Score: 157/210 (75%) 🟢 PASS
- Microsoft (MSFT) Evaluation — Score: 173/210 (82%) 🟢 PASS
- Uber (UBER) Evaluation — Score: 157/210 (75%) 🟢 PASS
Similar Verdict (FAIL)
- Robinhood (HOOD) Evaluation — Score: 102/210 (49%) 🔴 FAIL
- IREN Limited (IREN) Evaluation — Score: 110/210 (52%) 🔴 FAIL
Source Reliability & Citations
Source Summary
- Total Sources Used: 45+
- HIGH Reliability: 35+ (78%) — SEC filings, company IR, major financial news (CNBC, Reuters, WSJ)
- MEDIUM Reliability: 10 (22%) — Analyst reports, industry publications
- Sources Removed: 0
Primary Sources
Key Citations
- MacroTrends Tesla Financials
- GuruFocus Tesla Valuation
- Stock Analysis TSLA
- Statista Tesla Revenue
- NHTSA Investigation PE25012
- Delaware Court Tornetta v. Musk
Critic Review Notes
Source Reliability Summary
- Total Sources Used: 45+
- HIGH Reliability: 35+ (78%)
- MEDIUM Reliability (corroborated): 10 (22%)
- Sources Removed (LOW): 0
Hyperlink Validation
- Total hyperlinks: 50+
- Executive names: Linked to Wikipedia
- Competitor names: Linked to Yahoo Finance
- Key data points: Linked to primary sources
Score Validation
All scores justified by documented evidence. Conservative approach taken given governance and valuation concerns.
Gaps & Limitations
- Robotaxi and Optimus potential not quantified (speculative)
- FSD revenue recognition accounting not fully transparent
- Some insider ownership data required SEC Form 4 filings not accessed directly
Leave a Reply