RBC floats a radical Tesla takeover: SpaceX merger at $480 per share and a $3.74 trillion valuation

A report circulating in market-linked commentary suggests SpaceX could buy Tesla in a merger that would value Tesla at $480 per share, according to an outlook attributed to RBC Capital Markets.

The concept, as described in the Benzinga-linked piece, frames the combined enterprise at about $3.74 trillion. That figure would be substantially larger than the individual companies' standalone market narratives in recent years, underscoring the scope of the hypothetical deal rather than a near-term transaction plan.

Under the described terms, the valuation mechanics imply that Tesla shareholders would receive about 48% of the merged company. The remainder would go to SpaceX, according to the same characterization, leaving the balance of ownership and control heavily weighted toward SpaceX in this scenario.

The post also references SpaceX using a symbol associated with its public listing narrative, citing “NASDAQ:SPCX” in the same context as Tesla’s “NASDAQ:TSLA.” However, beyond the pricing and ownership split described, the piece does not lay out deal structure details such as the form of consideration, financing sources, or timing.

For Tesla, any takeover discussion inevitably centers on the company's core businesses, including electric vehicle production and related energy and software offerings. In merger scenarios, buyers typically assess vehicle demand, manufacturing capacity, margins, regulatory exposure, and the extent to which software and autonomy-related initiatives can be scaled across products. The circulating idea does not provide new information on those fundamentals, but it puts a price point and ownership split around the debate.

For SpaceX, the interest in Tesla would imply a strategy of pairing mass-market transportation and software distribution with SpaceX’s scale in aerospace manufacturing and launch capabilities. Even without additional specifics, such a combination would raise questions about cross-subsidization, shared technology development, and how corporate governance would work across very different operating models.

Still, the most notable caveat is what is not disclosed. The piece does not provide access to RBC’s underlying model inputs, assumptions, or valuation methodology, and it does not identify whether the figures come from a formal proposal, a proprietary scenario analysis, or a trading-linked scenario discussion. There is also no indication of regulatory filings, merger negotiations, or board deliberations by either company.

Investors and market watchers will likely focus next on whether the numbers are treated as scenario modeling rather than an actionable bid. If the idea gains traction, the key question will be whether any parties, including RBC or the companies themselves, offer clarification on whether this reflects realistic deal prospects or a purely hypothetical exercise.