How does the first exclude the second? That’s like saying: how can I trust train travel if F1 cars drive 300km/h. They’re different things.

Value investing is basically dead, isn’t it?

You’re looking at a too short time frame. The famous tulip bubble lasted for a decade, too.

I guess the issues arise if Tesla just pockets the subsidy without passing on the savings to savings to people buying EVs

This report shows that they do just that: without the emissions credit system they would operate at a loss. In other words: they sell cars for cheaper than the cost of manufacturing. Coincidentally the same thing the US and EU claims China is doing, as motivation for mercantillist tarrifs.

Which means the system isn’t working. Surplus credits should come from improved efficiencies, not excessive allotment.

Total number of credit goes down over time. That mechanism ensures an adapt, die or emigrate pressure for large polluters, and a financial stimulus for small-polluters.

Bill Gates is famously shorting TSLA (1)

Net profits $2.3B. “Poor financial results”. How does one reconcile these two things?

That’s 2.3B USD on a 1.29T USD valuation, or 0.17%.

Valuations should be reflective of expected future profits. Multiples of ×20 yearly profit are possible for risky (tech or biotech usually) companies, with large potential profit. But the ratio is ridiculously off the charts for tesla. If it does not improve, it will have turned out to have been a very wastefull use of capital.