Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, speaks at the Atreju political convention organized by Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy), in Rome, Italy, on Dec. 15, 2023.
Antonio Masiello | Getty Images
Tesla could “go bust” while its stock could fall to $14, Per Lekander, a hedge fund manager who has been shorting Elon Musk‘s electric car maker since 2020, told CNBC on Wednesday.
“This was really the beginning of the end of the Tesla bubble, which probably, arguably was the biggest stock market bubble in modern history,” Lekander, managing partner at investment management firmClean Energy Transition, said on “Squawk Box Europe.”
“I actually think the company could go bust.”
Tesla was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.
Lekander was a former portfolio manager at investment firm Lansdowne Partners who successfully called a 2018 rally in carbon prices. Since 2020, Clean Energy Transition has been short Tesla’s stock, meaning Lekander’s firm will profit if the automaker’s shares fall.
In a March 2021 interview with CNBC, Lekander called for Tesla’s stock to go down. At the time of the interview, Tesla’s shares closed at $233.94. On Tuesday, the stock closed at $166.63. But Lekander also called for a comeback of the traditional automakers, singling out Volkswagen. Shares of Volkswagen have fallen around 53% since that call, though they rallied at the start of this year.
Lekander has taken his bearish Tesla call further, suggesting the stock could fall to $14 per share. He said his call is based on an estimate that the company’s full-year earnings per share this year would be $1.40. Lekander contends that Tesla is a “no growth” stock and should be valued on 10 times forward earnings, versus around 58 times forward earnings currently. Forward earnings are an important metric used by traders to gauge the value of a stock.
If Tesla’s stock hit $14, that would represent around 91% downside from Tuesday’s close. Tesla’s shares have already fallen more than 30% this year.
“I think however Tesla cannot be at $14. If it falls under a certain level because of everything that’s been going on, it’s going to go bust.”
Lekander gave a number of reasons for his negative outlook. He said Tesla’s business model has been based on strong revenue growth, vertical integration and direct-to-consumer sales. Vertical integration broadly refers to when one company internally handles many parts of a process from the manufacturing of the car to the software. This model is “brilliant” when a company grows, but goes in “reverse” when sales fall, Lekander said.
The hedge fund boss said Tesla’s first-quarter problems were not to do with some of the reasons the company cited such as supply chain disruption. Instead, it is a “demand problem,” according to Lekander, who said two cars — the Model 3 and Model Y — make up the bulk of the U.S. automaker’s sales. And the company does not see another new vehicle being released until 2025.
“I don’t see any reason whatsoever to see any recovery over the next two years given that these models are stale and given the economy is not rocketing,” Lekander said.
Tesla said in its statement Tuesday it had faced numerous challenges during the quarter.
More CNBC reporting on Tesla
Negative Tesla voices growing
Lekander is among a chorus of negative voices on Tesla after disappointing delivery numbers.
“While the long-term proposition of electrical vehicles remains unchanged, the realities of delivering on that proposition are really starting to tell as Tesla (and the others) have run out of well-heeled consumers willing to pay big money to be beta testers,” Richard Windsor, founder of Radio Free Mobile, said in a research note Wednesday.
Windsor questioned Tesla’s roughly $500 billion valuation calling it “ludicrous” at a time when the company is facing rising competition.
“There is still plenty of downside in Tesla’s shares,” Windsor said.
Dan Ives, a noted Tesla bull at Wedbush Securities, who has a $300 price target on the electric vehicle maker, has become concerned.
“Let’s call this as it is: While we were anticipating a bad 1Q, this was an unmitigated disaster 1Q that is hard to explain away. We view this as a seminal moment in the Tesla story for Musk to either turn this around and reverse the black eye 1Q performance,” Ives said in a note Tuesday.
“Otherwise, some darker days could clearly be ahead that could disrupt the long-term Tesla narrative,” he added.
Analysts at HSBC and TD Cowen cut their price targets on Tesla’s stock on Wednesday.
Cathie Wood buys Tesla stock
Tesla is arguably one of the most divisive stocks on Wall Street and there are many that are still bullish on the company.
Meanwhile, some analysts are talking up the longer-term potential of Tesla.
Tom Narayan, analyst at RBC Capital Markets, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Wednesday that most of the reasons behind the fall in first-quarter deliveries were “one-time in nature.”
But he said one near-term catalyst could be a recent directive from Tesla’s CEO to employees to install and show customers how to use the latest version of the company’s driver assist system, marketed as FSD or Full Self-Driving. Tesla also launched a free trial of the service for compatible cars which usually costs $199 per month.
“Maybe that gets people in the showrooms, maybe it gets people to subscribe to it, maybe it gets people to buy cars. So there is that near-term catalyst,” Narayan said.
The RBC analyst, who has an outperform rating on Tesla’s stock with a $298 price target, said his valuation is based on Tesla’s energy storage business, which is a “huge opportunity” for the company. And he added that “autonomy” is also a big part of his rating on Tesla.
“If FSD works, now it’s [Tesla] a software business with a software multiples,” Narayan said. Tesla’s FSD system does not make a car autonomous. It still requires a driver to take control of the car.
Amazon Web Services Inc. signage at the Nvidia GPU Technology Conference in San Jose, California, on March 20, 2025.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Amazon Web Services, a leader in the cloud infrastructure market, reported a major outage on Monday, taking down numerous big-name websites.
AWS cited an “operational issue” affecting “multiple services” and said it was “working on multiple parallel paths to accelerate recovery,” in an update at 2:01 a.m. PDT. More than 70 of its own services were affected.
Shortly afterward, AWS said it was seeing “significant signs of recovery.”
By 3:35 a.m. PDT, the issue had been “fully mitigated,” AWS said in an update, adding that most AWS service operations “are succeeding normally now.”
“Some requests may be throttled while we work toward full resolution,” it said, noting some services were continuing to work through a backlog.
British government websites Gov.uk and HM Revenue and Customs were also experiencing issues, per Downdetector.
A government spokesperson told CNBC: “We are aware of an incident affecting Amazon Web Services, and several online services which rely on their infrastructure. Through our established incident response arrangements, we are in contact with the company, who are working to restore services as quickly as possible.”
Lloyds Banking Group confirmed some of its services were affected and asked customers “to bear with us” while it works to restore them. Some 20 minutes later, it added that services were coming back online.
Some United and Delta customers reported on social media that they couldn’t find their reservations online, check in or drop bags.
Other social media users cited disruption across cloud-based games, including Roblox and Fortnite, while crypto exchange Coinbase said many users were unable to access the service due to the outage.
Graphic design tool Canva said it was “experiencing significantly increased error rates which are impacting functionality on Canva. There is a major issue with our underlying cloud provider.”
Generate AI search tool Perplexity is also affected. “The root cause is an AWS issue. We’re working on resolving it,” CEO Aravind Srinivas said in a post on X.
It’s not the first time major companies have been affected by a technical issue; in July 2024, a faulty software upgrade by cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike revealed just how fragile global technology infrastructure is when it caused Microsoft Windows systems to go dark, creating millions of dollars worth of chaos and grounding thousands of flights in the process. It also affected hospitals and banks.
“There’s no sign that this AWS outage was caused by a cyber attack – it looks like a technical fault affecting one of Amazon’s main data centres,” Rob Jardin, chief digital officer at cybersecurity company NymVPN said in a statement. “These issues can happen when systems become overloaded or a key part of the network goes down, and because so many websites and apps rely on AWS, the impact spreads quickly.”
“This incident is a reminder that cybersecurity isn’t only about defending against threats – it’s also about resilience. Businesses should plan for technical failures as seriously as they do for cyber attacks, ensuring they have redundancy, backup systems, and multi-cloud strategies to keep services running when the unexpected happens,” he added.
— CNBC’s Leslie Josephs contributed to this report.
Thomas Fuller | SOPA Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images
A judge ordered that X and xAI’s lawsuit accusing Apple and OpenAI of trying to maintain monopolies in artificial intelligence markets must remain in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, despite “at best minimal connections” to that geographic area by any of the companies.
Judge Mark Pittman, in a sharply ironic four-page order on Thursday, encouraged the companies to relocate their headquarters to Fort Worth, given their preference for the antitrust lawsuit to be heard there.
Pittman’s order implicitly aims at the tendency of some plaintiffs of a conservative bent to file lawsuits in the Fort Worth division of the U.S. Northern District of Texas courts to increase their chances of winning favorable rulings from the two active judges there, both of whom were appointed by Republicans.
Those plaintiffs have included X and Tesla, both controlled by mega-billionaire Elon Musk, who, until earlier this year, was a top advisor to President Donald Trump.
Pittman was appointed by Trump, but has been critical of the practice of targeting lawsuits to specific judicial districts, known as forum-shopping.
In his order on Thursday, Pittman said that the Fort Worth division’s docket is two to three times busier than the docket of the Dallas division, which has more judges.
Pittman’s order noted that neither Apple nor OpenAI has a strong connection to Fort Worth, other than several Apple stores.
“And, of course, under that logic, there is not a district and division in the entire United States that would not be an appropriate venue for this lawsuit,” Pittman wrote.
X Corp. is headquartered in Bastrop, Texas — roughly 200 miles south of Fort Worth — while both Apple and OpenAI are headquartered in California. Musk’s xAI acquired his social media company X in March in an all-stock transaction.
“Given the present desire to have venue in Fort Worth, the numerous high-stakes lawsuits previously adjudicated in the Fort Worth Division, and the vitality of Fort Worth, the Court highly encourages the Parties to consider moving their headquarters to Fort Worth,” the judge wrote.
“Fort Worth has much more going for it than just the unique artwork on the fourth floor of its historic federal courthouse,” Pittman said.
The judge had asked the three companies to explain why the case belonged in the Fort Worth court.
But neither Apple nor OpenAI requested that the case be moved before the judge’s Oct. 9 deadline, Pittman noted in the order.
Read more CNBC politics coverage
Still, Pittman opted to keep the case in the Fort Worth division.
“The fact that neither Defendant filed a motion to transfer venue serves as a consideration for the Court,” the judge wrote. “And the Court ‘respect[s]’ Plaintiffs’ choice of venue.”
“But the Court does not make its decision lightly or without reservations. This case contains at best minimal connections to the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas,” Pittman wrote. “Possibly one of the strongest points made by Plaintiffs is the mere fact that ‘Apple sell[s] iPhones [in this Division] (and many other products) and OpenAI offer[s] ChatGPT nationwide.'”
“After more than a decade of service presiding over thousands of cases in three different courts, the undersigned continues to feel strongly that ‘[v]enue is not a continental breakfast; you cannot pick and choose on a Plaintiffs’ whim where and how a lawsuit is filed,'” the judge sniped.
But Pittman noted that he had little, if any, choice in the decision to keep the suit in his courthouse.
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes federal courts in Texas, has raised “the standard for transferring venue to new heights,” Pittman wrote.
Last year, the 5th Circuit twice slapped down orders by Pittman to transfer to Washington, D.C., a lawsuit by trade groups representing large banks challenging a rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which capped credit card late fees at $8 per month.
The 5th Circuit said Pittman’s court “clearly abused its discretion” in trying to move the case.
OpenAI declined to comment to CNBC, referring a reporter to its public filings in the lawsuit. X and Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Musk’s X and xAI sued Apple and OpenAI in August, alleging the companies of an “anticompetitive scheme” to maintain monopolies in artificial intelligence markets.
The lawsuit accused Apple of favoring OpenAI’s ChatGPT on its App Store rankings and deprioritizing other competitors, such as xAI’s Grok.
Earlier this month, a judge in Washington, D.C., blocked Musk’s request to move the Securities and Exchange Commission’s lawsuit over his alleged improper disclosure of his stake in Twitter to Texas. Musk renamed Twitter to X after purchasing the company.
More companies are announcing AI-driven layoffs from Salesforce to Accenture.
Twenty20
From tech to airlines, large global companies have been slashing staff as the real-world impact of artificial intelligence plays out, spooking employees. But critics say AI has become an easy excuse for firms looking to downsize.
Last month, tech consultancy firm Accenture announced a restructuring plan that includes quick exits for workers that aren’t first able to reskill on AI. Days later, Lufthansa said it was going to eliminate 4,000 jobs by 2030 as it leans on AI to increase efficiency.
The headlines are grim, but Fabian Stephany, assistant professor of AI and work at the Oxford Internet Institute, said there might be more to job cuts than meets the eye.
Previously there may have been some stigma attached to using AI, but now companies are “scapegoating” the technology to take the fall for challenging business moves such as layoffs.
“I’m really skeptical whether the layoffs that we see currently are really due to true efficiency gains. It’s rather really a projection into AI in the sense of ‘We can use AI to make good excuses,'” Stephany said in an interview with CNBC.
Companies can essentially position themselves at the frontier of AI technology to appear innovative and competitive, and simultaneously conceal the real reasons for layoffs, according to Stephany.
“There might be various other reasons why companies are having to get rid of part of their workforce … Duolingo or Klarna are really prime candidates for this because there has been overhiring during Corona [Covid-19 pandemic] as well,” the professor said.
Some companies that flourished during the pandemic “significantly overhired” and the recent layoffs might just be a “market clearance.”
“It’s to some extent firing people that for whom there had not been a sustainable long term perspective and instead of saying “we miscalculated this two, three years ago, they can now come to the scapegoating, and that is saying ‘it’s because of AI though,'” he added.
This pattern has sparked conversation online. One founder, Jean-Christophe Bouglé even said in a popular LinkedIn post that AI adoption is at a “much slower pace” than is being claimed and in large corporations “there’s not much happening” with AI projects even being rolled back due to cost or security concerns.
“At the same time there are announcements of big layoff plans ‘because of AI.’ It looks like a big excuse, in a context where the economy in many countries is slowing down, despite what the incredible performance of stock exchanges suggest,” said Bouglé, who co-founded Authentic.ly.
Feeding the fear of AI
Jasmine Escalera, a careers expert, said this concealment is “feeding the fear of AI” with employees globally concerned about their jobs being replaced as a result of AI.
“So we already know that employees are scared because companies are not being honest, open and communicative about how they’re implementing AI,” Escalera told CNBC Make It. “Now companies are openly stating ‘We’re doing this [layoffs] because of AI’ so it’s feeding the frenzy.”
Escalera said big companies need to be more responsible as they set the tone for what’s the norm in business decision making and avoid greenlighting “bad behavior.”
A Salesforce spokesperson clarified to CNBC that the company deployed its own AI agent, Agentforce, which reduced the number of customer support cases and eliminated the need to “backfill support engineer roles,” they said.
“We’ve successfully redeployed hundreds of employees into other areas like professional services, sales, and customer success,” the Salesforce spokesperson added.
Klarna directed CNBC to its co-founder and CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski’s comments on X where he explained that the company shrank its workforce from 5,500 to 3,000 people in two years but “AI is only part of that story.”
Siemiatkowski linked the workforce reduction to slimming down its analytics team to one “success team,” with many then leaving by natural attrition as well as the reduction of the company’s customer success team.
Lufthansa and Accenturedeclined to comment on the matter and did not share any further details on their AI restructuring strategy. Duolingo did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.
Mass AI layoffs are not here
The Budget Lab, a non-partisan policy research center at Yale University, released a report on Wednesday which showed that U.S. labor has actually been little disrupted by AI automation since the release of ChatGPT in 2022.
The lab examined U.S. labor market data from November 2022 to July 2025 using a “dissimilarity index” which measured how much the occupational mix—the share of workers in different jobs—has shifted since AI’s debut and compared it to other technological shifts such as the introduction of computers and the internet.It found that AI hasn’t yet caused widespread job losses.
Additionally, New York Fed economists released research in early September which showed that AI use amongst firms “do not point to significant reductions in employment” across the services and manufacturing industry in the New York–Northern New Jersey region.
It found that 40% of service firms said they were using AI this year, up from 25% last year, while manufacturing firms saw a similar jump from 16% last year to 26% this year, but very few were using AI to layoff workers.
Only 1% of the services firm reported AI as the reason for laying off workers in the past six months, down from 10% that had laid off workers using AI in 2024. Meanwhile, 12% of services firms said AI made them hire less workers in 2025.
By contrast, 35% of services firms have used AI to retrain employees and 11% have hired more as a result.
Stephany said there isn’t much evidence from his research that shows large levels of technological unemployment due to AI.
“Economists call this structural unemployment, so the pie of work is not big enough for everybody anymore and so people will lose jobs definitely because of of AI, I don’t think that this is happening on a mass scale,” he said.
He added that concerns about technology putting an end to human work can be seen throughout history.
“It reoccurred this century alone a dozen times, you can go back to ancient times where Roman emperors put hold to certain machines because they were worried about this and always the contrary happened. The machine made companies, industries more productive.
“It allowed for the emergence of entirely new jobs. If you think about the internet 20 years ago, nobody would have known what a social media influencer is, what an app developer is because it didn’t exist.”
Read more about companies conducting AI layoffs below: