Tesla, Inc. stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) is back at the center of a familiar—and increasingly high-stakes—Wall Street argument: is Tesla primarily an electric-vehicle manufacturer facing demand headwinds, or an AI-and-autonomy platform nearing a step-change moment?
On Monday, Dec. 15, Tesla shares jumped about 4.5% to $479.53 in early U.S. trading (as of 14:37 UTC / 9:37 a.m. ET), extending a volatile stretch where the stock’s price action has been tightly linked to new signals—real or perceived—about robotaxis and Full Self-Driving progress.
Today’s catalyst mix is unusually broad: a reported milestone in Austin robotaxi testing, fresh governance scrutiny around director compensation, and a new wave of 2026 “bull case” forecasts from prominent Tesla analysts—all landing as investors weigh recent data pointing to a tougher demand backdrop for Tesla’s core car business. [1]
Why Tesla stock is moving today
1) “No-occupant” robotaxi testing in Austin grabs the spotlight
Tesla’s autonomy narrative got a jolt after a video circulated online appearing to show a Tesla Model Y operating in Austin with no one inside the vehicle. CEO Elon Musk later confirmed on X that testing is underway “with no occupants in the car.” [2]
Business Insider reported that while Tesla’s robotaxi service in Austin has, since its June launch, included a human monitor in the passenger seat, the newly surfaced footage and Musk’s response suggest Tesla is now moving into a more aggressive testing phase—though not yet for paying customers. [3]
A key detail for investors tracking “how real is this?”: an Austin-based tracker cited in the report indicated 31 active vehicles in Austin—up from 29 in November—while Musk has previously talked about scaling the local fleet far higher by year-end. [4]
2) Reuters governance report reframes risk around the Tesla premium
A separate story that landed Monday is less about software and more about the governance structure that shapes Tesla’s risk profile.
A Reuters analysis (with data work by compensation specialist Equilar) reported that Tesla’s board has earned more than $3 billion through stock awards—far outstripping the director pay outcomes of peers in other mega-cap tech companies over comparable periods. [5]
Reuters detailed that Kimbal Musk (Elon Musk’s brother) has earned nearly $1 billion from Tesla board compensation since 2004, director Ira Ehrenpreis $869 million since 2007, and board chair Robyn Denholm $650 million since 2014, based on the appreciated value of options held or sold. [6]
For investors, the practical question isn’t simply whether compensation was “high,” but whether board independence and oversight—especially around autonomy, regulation, and Musk’s role—become part of the valuation story.
3) Fresh 2026 forecasts push the “Tesla = AI platform” thesis
A bullish Wall Street note from Wedbush—widely tracked by Tesla traders—helped keep the 2026 “step-change” narrative in focus.
In an Investing.com report published Monday, Wedbush analyst Daniel Ives called 2026 a pivotal year for Tesla’s autonomy and robotics chapter, reiterating an Outperform rating and a $600 price target. [7]
According to the report, Ives expects an accelerated robotaxi rollout across the U.S. in 2026, talks about robotaxis expanding to more than 30 U.S. cities, and argues the AI/autonomy opportunity alone could be worth at least $1 trillion for Tesla. [8]
The robotaxi milestone: what’s confirmed, what isn’t
The “driverless” headline is powerful—but investors are parsing what this moment does and does not prove.
What’s clear from current reporting:
- Musk publicly confirmed testing without occupants. [9]
- The activity is happening on Austin streets, with at least one widely shared example drawing attention. [10]
- Business Insider noted that users attempting to order a robotaxi after the video still saw vehicles with a safety monitor, implying that the truly unmanned operation is still limited to testing and not general availability. [11]
What remains unclear (and market-relevant):
- Whether Tesla is using shadow support (chase cars), remote oversight, geofencing, or other operational constraints in the “no occupant” tests—details that often define the gap between a milestone demonstration and a scalable commercial service. [12]
This uncertainty matters because Tesla’s valuation premium hinges on the idea that autonomy can become a high-margin network business—potentially changing what “Tesla earnings” even means.
The regulatory overhang: unsupervised ambition meets NHTSA scrutiny
Tesla’s robotaxi momentum is unfolding under a regulatory microscope—especially around Full Self-Driving behavior and traffic-law compliance.
A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ODI opening resume for a preliminary evaluation (PE25012) describes a probe focused on “traffic safety violations while Full Self Driving is engaged,” including allegations of proceeding through red traffic signals and wrong-way driving scenarios. [13]
The document also states that Tesla characterizes FSD as an SAE Level 2 partial automation system that requires a fully attentive driver engaged in the driving task at all times—a key distinction as public discourse increasingly treats “robotaxi” as synonymous with higher-level autonomy. [14]
More recently, TechCrunch reported that NHTSA cited more complaints in a December update related to alleged FSD behavior (including red-light and lane issues), indicating that the agency’s scrutiny is active and evolving. [15]
For TSLA investors, the takeaway is straightforward: any credible move toward “no safety monitor” operations increases both upside and regulatory risk. Progress can re-rate the stock—while setbacks, restrictions, or adverse findings can quickly compress the multiple.
Board compensation becomes a stock narrative again
The Reuters analysis published Monday adds a governance layer that can influence how institutions underwrite Tesla’s long-term story.
Among the notable points Reuters highlighted:
- Tesla directors have not awarded themselves new stock grants since 2020, and the board agreed to suspend director compensation starting in 2021 to settle a shareholder lawsuit alleging excessive pay. [16]
- Tesla’s directors were paid heavily in stock options, a structure governance specialists often criticize because it increases upside with limited downside risk versus direct share ownership. Reuters cited data suggesting only 5% of the largest 200 S&P 500 companies by revenue issue director options. [17]
- Tesla argues its director compensation is performance-linked and that board members provide “substantial time and effort,” including a cited 58 full-board or committee meetings in 2024. [18]
Why it matters to TSLA stock now: Tesla is asking markets to value it like an AI platform, but it also carries governance controversies that can affect investor confidence—especially when the company is simultaneously navigating autonomy regulation and high-profile executive pay dynamics.
Wall Street price targets: a $600 bull case vs. a “fair value” reset
Tesla’s forecast landscape on Dec. 15 looks less like consensus and more like a tug-of-war.
The bull case: Wedbush sees a 2026 acceleration
Wedbush’s thesis (as summarized by Investing.com) is that the next 12 months will determine whether Tesla’s autonomy and robotics efforts translate into a materially different growth and valuation profile. The report reiterates:
- $600 price target (Outperform) [19]
- Robotaxis expanding to 30+ U.S. cities in 2026 [20]
- A “bull case” scenario that could put the stock around $800 over 12–18 months (as framed in the same report) [21]
The cautious case: Morgan Stanley downgrades, warns expectations are high
On the other side, Morgan Stanley recently downgraded Tesla from Overweight to Equal-weight, saying high expectations around Tesla’s AI/innovation narrative had brought the stock closer to fair valuation, even while raising its price target to $425. [22]
Investopedia’s reporting on the note also laid out how Morgan Stanley conceptually values Tesla’s different segments—EVs, “network services” (including self-driving software), energy, robotaxi mobility, and humanoid robots—underscoring that even cautious analysts can still assign meaningful value to autonomy, while warning of near-term volatility tied to the EV business. [23]
Even some bulls are trimming—without changing conviction
Another Dec. 15 talking point: Barron’s reported that Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest sold a relatively small number of Tesla shares from two ARK ETFs, framing it as routine portfolio management rather than an outright thesis change. Barron’s added that Tesla remains the largest holding in both funds, and noted Wood’s long-term bullish view centered on robotaxis. [24]
The EV demand reality check: Tesla’s core business is under pressure
While Monday’s market action centers on autonomy, the car business still pays the bills—and recent data points have complicated the narrative.
U.S. sales reportedly hit a multi-year low in November
In a Reuters report published Dec. 11, Cox Automotive estimates provided to Reuters indicated Tesla’s U.S. sales fell nearly 23% year over year in November to 39,800 vehicles, the lowest level since January 2022. [25]
Reuters said the decline came despite the launch of cheaper “Standard” variants of the Model Y and Model 3 and despite promotional moves such as low-rate financing, with Cox suggesting the cheaper trims may be cannibalizing higher-priced versions rather than expanding total demand. [26]
Tesla’s recent financial snapshot: revenue grew, profitability compressed
Tesla’s Q3 2025 update deck showed total revenue of $28.095B (up 12% YoY), alongside GAAP operating income of $1.624B (down 40% YoY) and GAAP net income of $1.373B (down 37% YoY)—a reminder that profitability can move in the opposite direction of revenue when pricing, mix, and operating expenses shift. [27]
That divergence helps explain why the market can be simultaneously excited about robotaxis and uneasy about near-term earnings quality.
Insider activity: one more data point investors track
Insider sales rarely “explain” a day’s move, but they remain part of the Tesla stock conversation—especially amid governance headlines.
A SEC Form 4 filed for Tesla director Kimbal Musk reported a sale of 56,820 shares on Dec. 9 at a weighted average price of $450.66, and a gift of 15,242 shares (noted as a contribution to a donor-advised fund). [28]
What TSLA investors are watching next
Tesla’s near-term roadmap is likely to be judged on evidence—not slogans. Here are the catalysts most likely to move the stock in the coming weeks:
- Robotaxi scaling and transparency in Austin
If Tesla expands “no-safety-monitor” testing beyond isolated cases—and does so without high-profile incidents—bulls will argue the company is crossing a credibility threshold. If testing appears constrained (or paused), bears will argue the milestone was more symbolic than scalable. [29] - Regulatory developments around FSD and safety compliance
NHTSA’s ongoing focus on traffic-law behavior while FSD is engaged remains a material risk factor as Tesla pushes toward unsupervised operation narratives. [30] - Deliveries, demand, and incentive intensity
Recent third-party estimates and Reuters reporting suggest Tesla’s demand environment—especially in the U.S.—has become more promotion-sensitive, raising questions about margins and the timing of new products. [31] - Governance and oversight headlines
After Reuters’ director-pay deep dive, investors may pay closer attention to board decisions and shareholder dynamics—particularly where autonomy, risk controls, and Musk-related governance issues intersect. [32]
Bottom line
Tesla stock is rising today because the market is treating “no occupant” robotaxi testing in Austin as a meaningful signal that Tesla’s autonomy push is advancing from supervised pilots toward a more ambitious operational model. [33]
But the broader TSLA setup remains a two-front battle:
- The bull case sees 2026 as the year Tesla’s AI and robotics story becomes measurable in deployments, product timelines, and (eventually) margins—supporting aggressive targets like Wedbush’s $600. [34]
- The cautious case argues expectations are already high and near-term fundamentals (demand, incentives, profit volatility) plus regulatory scrutiny could keep the stock “choppy,” as Morgan Stanley’s downgrade suggested. [35]
References
1. www.businessinsider.com, 2. www.businessinsider.com, 3. www.businessinsider.com, 4. www.businessinsider.com, 5. www.reuters.com, 6. www.reuters.com, 7. www.investing.com, 8. www.investing.com, 9. www.businessinsider.com, 10. www.businessinsider.com, 11. www.businessinsider.com, 12. www.investors.com, 13. static.nhtsa.gov, 14. static.nhtsa.gov, 15. techcrunch.com, 16. www.reuters.com, 17. www.reuters.com, 18. www.reuters.com, 19. www.investing.com, 20. www.investing.com, 21. www.investing.com, 22. www.investopedia.com, 23. www.investopedia.com, 24. www.barrons.com, 25. www.reuters.com, 26. www.reuters.com, 27. assets-ir.tesla.com, 28. www.sec.gov, 29. www.businessinsider.com, 30. static.nhtsa.gov, 31. www.reuters.com, 32. www.reuters.com, 33. www.businessinsider.com, 34. www.investing.com, 35. www.investopedia.com
