Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) heads into the Dec. 20, 2025 weekend parked near rarefied air—yet surrounded by the kind of headline turbulence that only Tesla can manufacture at scale. Shares last traded around $481 after Friday’s session, with investors digesting a major legal win for CEO Elon Musk, fresh regulatory pressure on Tesla’s self-driving branding, and a widening gap between delivery expectations and “robotaxi/AI” valuation narratives. [1]
Because Dec. 20, 2025 is a Saturday (U.S. markets are closed), the focus shifts from intraday price action to what matters next: the catalysts, the analyst resets, and whether Tesla’s stock is being priced like a carmaker—or like a future mobility-and-AI platform with a car business attached.
Where Tesla stock stands heading into the weekend
Tesla shares finished Friday’s trading session around $481.20, after a volatile stretch that kept TSLA close to its recent highs and on heavy volume. [2]
That price level matters for more than bragging rights: several banks’ and research shops’ latest price targets cluster below current levels, while the most bullish forecasts lean heavily on robotaxi expansion and AI/robotics optionality rather than near-term vehicle unit growth. [3]
The biggest Tesla stock-moving headlines as of Dec. 20, 2025
1) Musk’s 2018 Tesla pay package is back—worth about $139 billion now
Late Friday into early Saturday (UTC), a Delaware Supreme Court ruling restored Elon Musk’s 2018 Tesla compensation package, overturning a lower-court decision that had previously struck it down. Reuters reports the package is now worth about $139 billion based on Tesla’s stock price, and the court described full rescission as “improper and inequitable,” noting it would leave Musk uncompensated for six years of work. [4]
Why TSLA investors care (beyond the internet drama):
- Control and dilution: If Musk exercises the options tied to that plan, Reuters says his stake could rise from about 12.4% to 18.1% on an expanded share base. The 2018 plan involves options for roughly 304 million shares, around 9% of Tesla’s outstanding stock. [5]
- Financial statement pressure avoided (potentially): Reuters notes Tesla had warned that losing the appeal could have forced a $26 billion profit hit over two years related to a replacement compensation promise (because the stock price was much higher). [6]
- Market reaction was muted: Tesla shares were up less than 1% after-hours after the ruling—suggesting investors had partially priced in the outcome or were more focused on upcoming execution catalysts (deliveries, autonomy rollout). [7]
AP frames the bigger picture: the ruling revives a long-running dispute around Musk’s compensation and corporate governance, while Tesla shareholders had also approved a newer performance-based pay plan that could become enormous if Tesla’s valuation compounds dramatically over the next decade. [8]
2) California’s Autopilot/FSD marketing fight remains a live regulatory risk
Tesla’s autonomy story isn’t only about software breakthroughs—it’s also about what regulators will allow Tesla to claim (and how quickly Tesla can scale services without triggering a legal pile-up).
Reuters reports California’s DMV adopted a judge’s proposal for a 30-day suspension of Tesla’s manufacturing and sales licenses over allegations that Tesla’s marketing overstated self-driving capability. The DMV then immediately stayed the action—90 days for sales, and indefinitely for manufacturing—to give Tesla time to remedy the issue. [9]
The DMV’s condition is blunt: Tesla must either stop using the “Autopilot” name or confirm its cars can operate without active human monitoring—a standard Tesla itself does not claim for consumer vehicles. Tesla says its systems require supervision and that “sales in California will continue uninterrupted,” per Reuters. [10]
Why this matters for TSLA valuation: Reuters explicitly links Tesla’s market value to investor belief in robotaxis and humanoid robots, even though EV sales still drive the bulk of current revenue and profit. California—Tesla’s biggest U.S. market—is not a place you want to roll the dice with licensing. [11]
3) Robotaxi progress: Musk says testing is underway with no occupants
On Dec. 15, Reuters reported Tesla shares jumped as Musk said Tesla was testing robotaxis without safety monitors in the front passenger seat, and even said testing was underway with no occupants in the car. [12]
This is exactly the kind of update that moves Tesla stock because it feeds the “Tesla as autonomy platform” narrative.
But Reuters also stresses the competitive reality: Waymo (Alphabet) is operating at commercial scale with 2,500+ robotaxis and about 450,000 paid rides per week (as reported by CNBC, per Reuters). In other words, Tesla is chasing a moving target—and regulators will likely judge Tesla on safety outcomes, not vibes. [13]
4) Demand signals: U.S. sales fell sharply in November, even after cheaper trims
The autonomy narrative is loud. The car business is still the cash engine. And the car business has been sending mixed-to-rough signals.
In an exclusive report, Reuters cited Cox Automotive estimates showing Tesla’s U.S. sales fell nearly 23% in November to 39,800 vehicles, the lowest since January 2022, despite Tesla rolling out cheaper “Standard” variants of the Model 3 and Model Y. [14]
Key context from Reuters:
- The federal $7,500 EV tax credit ended Sept. 30, and EV demand dropped across the market afterward. [15]
- Tesla introduced lower-priced Standard variants about $5,000 below prior base models—but Cox suggests Standard sales may be cannibalizing higher-priced trims. [16]
- Overall U.S. EV sales fell more than 41% in November, yet Tesla’s U.S. EV market share rose to 56.7% (from 43.1%), implying the whole pie shrank even as Tesla took a bigger slice. [17]
- Reuters notes Tesla was even offering 0% financing on certain Standard variants—often read as a demand lever, not a victory lap. [18]
5) Europe and China: competition is intensifying, and Tesla’s lineup looks “stale”
In a broader November analysis, Reuters described Tesla’s sales pressure across Europe, China, and the U.S., pointing to sharp regional competition and a product lineup that hasn’t expanded quickly enough beyond a few mass-market models. [19]
Selected data points Reuters highlighted:
- Tesla’s European sales fell 48.5% in October, while industrywide EV sales rose 26%. [20]
- Reuters cites Visible Alpha: Tesla’s global deliveries are expected to decline 7% in 2025, after a 1% drop in 2024. [21]
- In October across Europe, Reuters reports BYD sold 17,470 cars, more than double Tesla’s sales; and Volkswagen’s EV sales through September rose 78.2% to 522,600 units, triple Tesla’s sales. [22]
- In China, Reuters reports Tesla deliveries fell to a three-year low in October, dropping 35.8%, with sales down 8.4% through October. [23]
For TSLA stock, this matters because a “robotaxi multiple” is easier to justify when the core business is stable or growing. It’s harder when the auto segment looks like it’s fighting both macro headwinds and a fast-improving competitive set.
6) Battery strategy: Tesla plans more cell production in Germany (starting 2027)
Tesla’s longer-horizon manufacturing story also got an update.
Reuters reports Tesla is investing additional hundreds of millions of euros to expand battery cell production at its Grünheide (Germany) gigafactory, aiming for up to 8 GWh per year starting in 2027, bringing total investment in the local cell facility to nearly €1 billion. Tesla also emphasized vertical integration—cells to vehicles in one location—while acknowledging it’s “hardly possible” to produce cells economically in Europe versus China and the U.S. [24]
This is not a near-term earnings catalyst, but it does reinforce Tesla’s long-run push to control key supply chain inputs—especially relevant if EV pricing stays competitive and margins remain under pressure.
Q4 deliveries: the next near-term catalyst (and why the stock may “not care”)
Tesla’s next widely watched datapoint is its Q4 2025 delivery report (typically released in early January). Expectations are notably split:
- A Nasdaq/Zacks commentary cites FactSet consensus around ~450,000 deliveries and Bloomberg consensus around ~455,000 for Q4. [25]
- Deutsche Bank’s Edison Yu is far more cautious, forecasting about 405,000 deliveries, implying a 14% year-over-year decline and a 19% quarter-over-quarter drop, with the shortfall concentrated in Europe and North America. [26]
That spread is unusually meaningful because it sets up a scenario where Tesla could “miss” consensus but still argue the market is valuing TSLA primarily on autonomy milestones rather than units shipped.
Barclays and others have explicitly been making versions of that argument in recent weeks: as Tesla leans into robotaxis and AI, deliveries may be losing explanatory power for TSLA’s day-to-day moves—at least until the auto business meaningfully surprises in either direction. (This “deliveries matter less” framing is increasingly common in the recent analyst commentary ecosystem.) [27]
Tesla stock forecast and analyst outlook: wide targets, split narratives
Analyst targets on Tesla are… a polite word would be “non-consensus.”
StockAnalysis, which aggregates analyst ratings and targets, shows:
- Consensus rating: “Buy” (aggregated)
- Average price target: about $399.83
- Median target:$471
- High target:$600
- Low target:$19.05 [28]
That alone tells you the market isn’t debating a quarter; it’s debating an identity.
The bullish camp: robotaxi scale + “physical AI” optionality
The most optimistic forecasts assume Tesla can translate its Austin testing into rapid expansion—while navigating regulators, edge-case safety, and competition.
- Wedbush’s Dan Ives has been one of the loudest autonomy bulls. In a Dec. 19 Business Insider summary of his 2026 predictions, Ives expects Tesla to launch robotaxis in over 30 cities in 2026 and scale Cybercab production, with Tesla stock rising meaningfully in his bull case. [29]
- Reuters’ reporting on Tesla’s driverless testing momentum helps explain why this narrative has traction: “testing with no occupants” is a psychologically powerful phrase for markets that prize “proof of progress.” [30]
The constructive-but-cautious camp: raised targets, but not always upside
Several firms have lifted targets recently while keeping neutral stances—often a sign that they’re marking up the optionality but staying wary of execution and valuation.
- Truist: raised its TSLA price target to $444 from $406 while maintaining a Hold rating, linking much of Tesla’s value to bringing AI products/services to market—especially robotaxi enabled by FSD—while warning that imperfect outcomes and competitive moves could keep the stock volatile. [31]
- Morgan Stanley: downgraded Tesla to equal-weight earlier in December, with a $425 target, arguing that non-auto catalysts looked priced in and warning of a “choppy” trading environment. [32]
The “valuation first” camp: sum-of-the-parts, but don’t ignore the car business
Investopedia’s write-up of Morgan Stanley’s downgrade is especially revealing because it shows how some analysts are explicitly modeling Tesla as a portfolio of businesses:
- EV business: $55/share
- Network services (FSD, charging, service): $145/share
- Energy: $40/share
- Mobility (robotaxi): $125/share
- Humanoids: $60/share [33]
This framework helps explain why Tesla stock can rally on autonomy headlines even when deliveries or sales data looks soft: the market is paying for the “Mobility + Humanoids + Network services” story—if it believes the story is becoming real on a regulator-approved timeline.
Governance and dilution: the stock’s “quiet” risk factor
Two governance threads are converging in late 2025:
- Musk’s compensation and control. The Delaware Supreme Court decision restores the 2018 plan and, potentially, Musk’s voting power—something he has repeatedly framed as core to staying committed to Tesla long-term. [34]
- Board independence questions. A Reuters analysis published days earlier found Tesla directors earned more than $3 billion via stock awards (per Equilar’s analysis), far outstripping compensation at peer mega-cap tech boards at the time those awards were granted—raising concerns among some governance experts about independence. [35]
For TSLA shareholders, this isn’t abstract ethics talk—it’s capital structure. Stock-based comp, option exercises, and governance rulings can all affect dilution, voting power, and the market’s willingness to assign Tesla a premium multiple.
What to watch next for TSLA stock
Looking forward from Dec. 20, 2025, the next major “stock-moving” checkpoints are fairly clear:
- Q4 2025 deliveries (early Jan 2026): will Tesla land closer to ~450k consensus—or something like Deutsche Bank’s ~405k? [36]
- Regulatory path in California (deadline Feb. 14): whether Tesla changes terminology (especially “Autopilot”) or appeals could influence sentiment around U.S. expansion of autonomy services. [37]
- Robotaxi scaling signals: new city announcements, widening geofences, and any formal regulator-facing milestones will matter more than hype. Tesla’s “testing with no occupants” claim is a step, but Waymo’s scale sets a high bar for real-world deployment credibility. [38]
- Demand indicators: U.S. and international sales trends—especially post-tax-credit dynamics and price/financing actions—will keep shaping expectations for margins and the auto segment’s ability to fund the autonomy buildout. [39]
Bottom line: Tesla stock is priced like a bet on the next business model
As of Dec. 20, 2025, Tesla stock is not trading on a single narrative—it’s trading on a collision of narratives:
- A core EV business facing demand and competition pressure in key regions, backed by aggressive pricing/financing tactics and a product lineup many critics call overdue for expansion. [40]
- A high-stakes autonomy and robotics thesis that can add enormous valuation if Tesla proves safety, gains regulatory acceptance, and scales faster than rivals. [41]
- A governance backdrop where Musk’s restored pay package and board-compensation scrutiny keep dilution and oversight in the conversation—whether investors like it or not. [42]
In other words: TSLA is being valued less like a traditional automaker and more like a “physical AI” platform with real factories—and real regulatory friction. The next few data points (deliveries, regulatory responses, and tangible robotaxi expansion) will determine whether that premium narrative keeps compounding… or snaps back to earth like a dropped wrench in a Gigafactory.
References
1. www.reuters.com, 2. www.investing.com, 3. stockanalysis.com, 4. www.reuters.com, 5. www.reuters.com, 6. www.reuters.com, 7. www.reuters.com, 8. apnews.com, 9. www.reuters.com, 10. www.reuters.com, 11. www.reuters.com, 12. www.reuters.com, 13. www.reuters.com, 14. www.reuters.com, 15. www.reuters.com, 16. www.reuters.com, 17. www.reuters.com, 18. www.reuters.com, 19. www.reuters.com, 20. www.reuters.com, 21. www.reuters.com, 22. www.reuters.com, 23. www.reuters.com, 24. www.reuters.com, 25. www.nasdaq.com, 26. ca.investing.com, 27. www.reuters.com, 28. stockanalysis.com, 29. www.businessinsider.com, 30. www.reuters.com, 31. www.investing.com, 32. www.businessinsider.com, 33. www.investopedia.com, 34. www.reuters.com, 35. www.reuters.com, 36. www.nasdaq.com, 37. www.reuters.com, 38. www.reuters.com, 39. www.reuters.com, 40. www.reuters.com, 41. www.reuters.com, 42. www.reuters.com
