henry

Investor

[henry @henry65174722]

@elonmusk @Shopify @bot How about Apple Music

[henry @henry65174722]

Uber current market cap at approximately $150B, with free cash flow of $10B from last 12 months; that is 6.6% yield. It now compete with USA treasury of 5.35% yield with FREE RISK, if you are an investor, where do you put your capital? Also Uber’s free cash flow generating capability can only go down from here due to it need to invest more, and reduce price per ride due to competition from av…

[henry @henry65174722]

@Jason @Nike You shall also work on uber. Nike is dying as well, check out Costco, there are similar clothing at 1/5 of the price, some even at 1/10 of price. The mind of ppl changed, no body care about what brand of your clothing, as long as look good on you.

[SMX 🇺🇸 @iam_smx]

Ashley St. Clair was denied the spotlight and went straight to attacking Elon, just like the woke legacy media does. she portrayed him as a completely different, evil person, nothing like the Elon that ordinary people who actually follow him know him to be.

The Alex Gibney Musk documentary is also a total flop. Its a hit piece designed to farm attention and fuel hatred toward Elon. Ignore it

[henry @henry65174722]

I have actually own a small position of uber short, and I plan to hold it for 10 years until its stock become worthless. Actually it is very good investment knowing that it will be zero when time is long enough. I don’t believe any one will spend $300 Billion for a dying biz model. Plus if any one has $300B, he would have spent that money for 1/6 of SpaceX who the future of humanity or 30 years treasury for zero risk and even more free cash flow.

[henry @henry65174722]

@Jason @amitisinvesting Sad to see Jason destroy his brand as well as All In Pod by the way.

[henry @henry65174722]

@amitisinvesting Uber has zero value can be added to Tesla. Elon has already repeated many times that demand is not an issue… uber has zero value in the future of AV world, period.

[Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa @teslaeurope]

An update on FSD Supervised in Europe

FSD is currently approved in five EU countries (NL, DK, BE, EE, LT), used by >70k customers for over 1 million km per day, and is 4.1x less likely to get into a crash compared to manual driving, measured across 100 million km on public EU roads.

Leading up to a potential EU-wide approval vote for FSD Supervised on October 6th, 2026, we have decided to open-source one of the key pieces of evidence used to support the Netherlands approval.

As a reminder, we adjusted the FSD design to be compliant with existing regulation (UN-R-171 DCAS) but requested an exemption for certain behaviors via the EU Article 39 procedure. The following dashboard is evidence of safety for those exemptions.

This exact dashboard was shared with all EU Member States in April 2026, shortly after RDW’s approval, and all data presented is from before that date.

https://t.co/hh2dAKi8oP

European countries recorded 19,400 road deaths in 2025. That's around 53 deaths/day, with the vast majority of these crashes attributed to human error. These deaths are largely preventable with technology we have today.

FSD Supervised is already saving lives where it’s approved – yet in much of Europe, that safety benefit remains locked behind bureaucracy.

[henry @henry65174722]

@Jason @bot Clean up thousands of thousands of promotional emails, adv email, old useless emails, check any unknown subscriptions payment….

[henry @henry65174722]

@SPCX100T Same thought

[henry @henry65174722]

@TeslaBoomerMama Let them cook, please. Right now neither companies’ shareholders don’t know what ratio of swap is going to be approved by sharesholders. If management force it, it only backfire and create distraction for the management to execute the biz. Not worth it!

[henry @henry65174722]

@TeslaBoomerMama @elonmusk Stop, your action is driving both companies stock lower … you shall have taken a break.

[henry @henry65174722]

Well, it is not by $, SpaceX does not have such cash; the only way it can do is by stock swap, which is measure by ratio. You vote has no meaning at all. I don’t think there is will be any merger within this year, may second half of next year. Due to both companies are valued at future growth, there are execution risk for both companies and hence can’t value them properly, hence can’t make any sensible proposal of swap ratio. After all, any proposal has to go through vote. Let’s stop this kind of noise, can only drive both stock lower. I don’t think it is any shareholders’ interest.

[henry @henry65174722]

@Rustallintsla Kind of same thought

[henry @henry65174722]

@piloly @PaulManser20 How about South Korea? Australia?

[henry @henry65174722]

@TeslaBoomerMama @Benny44864744 SpaceX does not has this kind of cash for Tesla, the merge will done in stock swap they want to merged. So shall be done in terms of ratios

[henry @henry65174722]

There are two competing arguments:

Argument for “do it now” (political window):

A Republican administration might be perceived as more favorable toward large mergers or less aggressive on antitrust than a Democratic administration.
If a future Democratic administration were expected to apply stricter merger review, some believe completing a deal sooner could reduce regulatory risk.
If the companies become even larger in the future, regulators might also view a merger differently.

Argument for “wait” (business readiness):

A merger has to be approved not only by regulators but also by the relevant corporate decision-makers and, depending on the structure, potentially shareholders.
If Tesla’s Robotaxi business and SpaceX’s Starship program are still in relatively early stages, valuing both companies is more difficult.
A clearer financial case and more mature businesses could make shareholders and boards more comfortable with the transaction.

Regarding your point that “if he does it now, shareholders won’t approve it,” that’s a possibility, but we can’t know that in advance. Some shareholders might oppose it because they see execution risk or dislike the combination. Others might support it if they believe SpaceX would significantly increase Tesla’s long-term value. Without an actual proposal, valuation, proxy materials, and shareholder votes, it’s not possible to say what the majority would do.

Another factor is that timing is only one piece of the puzzle. A transaction involving Tesla and SpaceX would likely face scrutiny regardless of which party controls the White House because of:

its size,
Elon Musk’s leadership role in both companies,
potential conflicts of interest,
and the strategic importance of SpaceX.

So, if you separate the issues:

Political timing may affect the regulatory environment.
Business timing affects whether the deal makes economic sense and whether investors are willing to support it.

A merger generally needs both to line up. Even if the regulatory environment is favorable, a weak strategic or financial case could still prevent it from happening. Conversely, even a compelling business case would still need to satisfy regulators.

[Phil Duan @pduan]

The world’s largest physical AI data engine is cranking up even more

[henry @henry65174722]

@Tsla99T Kind of agreed.