Opinion: With SpaceX now public, one columnist argues investors should not abandon Tesla

A new wave of market thinking has arrived with the idea that SpaceX is now a public company, prompting fresh comparisons between the two space-and-transport businesses. In a June 24 Yahoo Finance column, the author asks a provocative question: if SpaceX is publicly traded, should investors “ditch” Tesla stock?

The column’s central claim is not grounded in new Tesla disclosures, earnings data, or operating guidance. Instead, it is an argument about relative business quality and investor appeal. The writer maintains that Tesla has the stronger investment case and suggests that the market may be over-focusing on the novelty of SpaceX’s public listing rather than on the fundamentals of Tesla’s established operations.

The piece also turns speculative, contending that once SpaceX’s public-market reality fully sets in, it may conclude that Tesla’s business is the better match for value creation. From there, the column goes further, floating the idea that SpaceX could choose to buy Tesla, effectively reversing the usual story investors tell when two headline-grabbing innovators appear in the same portfolio conversation.

For Tesla shareholders, the important detail is what the article does not provide. It does not cite a Tesla-specific catalyst, a disclosed acquisition mandate, or any official statement from Tesla, SpaceX, or their management teams. The thrust is editorial, driven by the author’s view of how investors should compare the companies rather than by reported corporate actions.

That distinction matters because Tesla’s stock moves on a mix of factors, including deliveries, pricing, margins, capital spending, regulatory credits, and the pace of product and manufacturing execution. In the column, the SpaceX framing functions more as a comparative narrative hook than as a direct line to measurable Tesla fundamentals.

The author’s choice to center SpaceX’s “now that it is public” moment reflects a broader pattern in markets: when a high-profile private growth story becomes a public one, investors tend to re-rank companies with similar cultural status or thematic overlap. But public listings do not automatically change the operating drivers of other companies, and a comparison built on investor sentiment can diverge sharply from comparisons built on cash flow, unit economics, and execution timelines.

Still, the speculation embedded in the column is not entirely meaningless. Large acquisitions, if they ever occur, would likely require clear strategic logic, board-level approval, and financing structure that aligns with both companies’ priorities. The Yahoo Finance piece, however, presents that scenario as a thought experiment rather than as a report of negotiations or preparatory steps.