Cathie Wood is doubling down. Again.
As Tesla shares have shed roughly 40% of their value since peaking in mid-December, the ARK Invest founder has been steadily accumulating more stock — purchasing shares through multiple funds even as Wall Street’s confidence in the electric vehicle maker has cratered. Her firm’s flagship ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) added Tesla shares on multiple occasions during the recent selloff, a move that’s either visionary contrarianism or a spectacular exercise in catching a falling knife.
The numbers tell a stark story. Tesla closed at around $222 on Friday, down from its December high near $480. That’s a loss of more than $700 billion in market capitalization in roughly five months. Investors who bought at the peak have watched nearly half their money evaporate. And yet Wood, whose firm manages roughly $6.8 billion in assets, sees this as an opportunity — not a warning, according to Yahoo Finance.
Her price target remains $2,600 per share by 2029. That would imply a market capitalization north of $8 trillion — larger than any company in history, larger than the entire GDP of Japan. The bull case rests almost entirely on autonomous driving. Not the cars Tesla sells today. Not the energy storage business. Not even the Optimus humanoid robot that Elon Musk has been promoting with increasing fervor. It’s robotaxis. Specifically, Wood’s models assume Tesla will dominate a future autonomous ride-hailing market that she believes will generate trillions in revenue.
That’s a breathtaking bet.
To understand why Wood keeps buying, you have to understand how she thinks about valuation. Traditional automotive metrics — price-to-earnings ratios, unit sales growth, manufacturing margins — are almost irrelevant to her thesis. ARK’s research treats Tesla as a technology platform company that happens to make cars right now but will eventually derive the majority of its value from software and services. In ARK’s base case, autonomous ride-hailing accounts for roughly 90% of Tesla’s expected value by 2029. The cars themselves are essentially a rounding error.
This framing explains the apparent disconnect between Tesla’s deteriorating fundamentals and Wood’s enthusiasm. First-quarter deliveries came in at approximately 336,681 vehicles, below analyst expectations and marking a year-over-year decline. The company’s automotive gross margins have been under pressure from aggressive price cuts implemented throughout 2023 and 2024. In China, Tesla faces brutal competition from BYD and a constellation of domestic EV makers that are gaining market share rapidly. In Europe, brand sentiment has weakened measurably, with some analysts attributing the decline to Musk’s polarizing political activities as head of the Department of Government Efficiency under the Trump administration.
None of that matters to Wood’s model. Or rather, it matters only insofar as it creates cheaper entry points for a stock she believes is destined for a twelve-fold increase.
But the skeptics have plenty of ammunition. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, despite years of development and billions in investment, remains a Level 2 driver-assistance system — meaning the human behind the wheel is still legally and functionally responsible at all times. Waymo, Alphabet’s autonomous driving subsidiary, already operates fully driverless robotaxis in San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Austin. Waymo’s vehicles carry no safety driver. Tesla’s do. That’s not a trivial distinction. It’s the entire distinction.
Musk has promised fully autonomous driving repeatedly. In 2016, he said all Tesla vehicles being produced had the hardware necessary for full self-driving. In 2019, he predicted there would be a million robotaxis on the road by 2020. In 2024, he unveiled the Cybercab concept and promised an autonomous ride-hailing service would launch in Austin by June 2025. That deadline is approaching fast, and while Tesla has begun limited testing in Austin, a commercial launch with paying customers and no safety drivers remains unconfirmed at the scale Musk described.
Wood’s conviction hasn’t wavered despite these missed timelines. ARK published updated research earlier this year reaffirming the $2,600 target and arguing that Tesla’s data advantage — billions of miles of real-world driving data collected from its fleet — will ultimately prove decisive. The firm’s analysts contend that Tesla’s approach to autonomy, which relies on cameras and neural networks rather than the lidar sensors used by Waymo, will scale more efficiently and at dramatically lower cost per vehicle.
There’s a logic to that argument. There’s also a significant gap between logic and execution.
The broader market context adds another layer of complexity. Tesla has become one of the most politically charged stocks in America. Musk’s role in the Trump administration, his inflammatory posts on X (the social media platform he owns), and his increasingly vocal involvement in European politics have transformed Tesla from a clean-energy darling into a culture-war lightning rod. Vandalism of Tesla vehicles and charging stations has been reported across multiple states. Some former Tesla owners have publicly traded in their vehicles. Whether this sentiment translates into sustained demand destruction is debatable, but the anecdotal evidence is hard to ignore.
Sales data from Europe has been particularly troubling. Registrations in Germany, France, and several Nordic countries have dropped sharply. In Norway — historically one of Tesla’s strongest markets per capita — the brand has lost significant ground to competitors. Chinese exports have partially offset domestic softness, but margins on those vehicles tend to be thinner.
So why does Wood keep buying?
Part of the answer is structural. ARK’s investment process is model-driven, and the models point to massive upside if autonomy materializes on anything close to the projected timeline. Part of it is philosophical — Wood has built her brand on high-conviction, concentrated bets in disruptive technologies, and reversing course on her largest position would undermine the very thesis that attracts capital to her funds. And part of it may simply be that she genuinely believes, with the fervor of a convert, that autonomous driving will reshape transportation as profoundly as the smartphone reshaped communication.
Her track record is mixed. ARK’s flagship fund delivered staggering returns during the pandemic-era tech boom, surging more than 150% in 2020 alone. But ARKK has never recovered its February 2021 highs, and investors who bought at the peak are still sitting on substantial losses. Tesla has been the fund’s largest holding through most of this period — both the primary driver of gains and the primary source of pain.
Wood isn’t alone in her optimism, though the ranks of Tesla ultra-bulls have thinned. Dan Ives at Wedbush Securities has maintained a bullish stance, arguing that Tesla’s AI and autonomy potential justifies a premium valuation even as near-term fundamentals wobble. But the consensus Wall Street price target sits well below $300, and several major banks have trimmed their estimates in recent months citing weaker demand trends and margin compression.
The short interest in Tesla, meanwhile, has ticked higher. Not to the extreme levels seen during the 2020-2021 short squeeze, but enough to signal that a meaningful cohort of institutional investors is actively betting against the stock. The options market reflects heightened uncertainty too, with implied volatility remaining elevated relative to mega-cap peers.
One thing is clear: Tesla at $222 is a fundamentally different proposition than Tesla at $480. At current levels, the stock trades at roughly 60 times forward earnings — expensive by any traditional measure, but far more digestible than the 100-plus multiple it carried at its peak. If you believe, as Wood does, that the earnings power of an autonomous Tesla is orders of magnitude greater than the earnings power of a car company, then the current price represents a discount to a future that may or may not arrive.
That’s the crux of it. Every Tesla investment thesis ultimately reduces to a single question: Will the company achieve full autonomy at scale, and if so, when? If the answer is yes and soon, Wood’s $2,600 target might actually prove conservative. If the answer is no, or not for a decade, then Tesla is a richly valued automaker with declining market share in its core business and a CEO whose attention is split across at least five major enterprises — Tesla, SpaceX, X, xAI, and his government role.
Musk himself has acknowledged the challenge. During Tesla’s most recent earnings call, he described 2024 as a “transitional year” and pointed to upcoming product launches — including a more affordable model expected in the first half of 2025 and the Cybercab — as catalysts for reacceleration. He also reiterated that Tesla’s long-term value lies in autonomy and AI, essentially endorsing Wood’s framework while admitting that the near-term picture is messy.
For ARK’s investors, the question isn’t just whether Wood is right about Tesla’s future. It’s whether they can stomach the volatility required to find out. The fund’s concentrated approach means that Tesla’s performance disproportionately drives returns. When Tesla surges, ARKK soars. When Tesla falls, ARKK bleeds. There’s no hedging, no diversification buffer large enough to offset the gravitational pull of a position that routinely accounts for 10% or more of the portfolio.
Wood has said she welcomes the pullback as a buying opportunity. She’s said this before — in 2022, when Tesla fell more than 65%, and in early 2023 before the stock’s dramatic recovery. She was right that time. The stock more than doubled off its January 2023 lows.
But past recoveries don’t guarantee future ones. The competitive environment is materially different today than it was two years ago. BYD’s global ambitions have accelerated. Legacy automakers like Hyundai, BMW, and Volkswagen have improved their EV offerings substantially. And the regulatory environment for autonomous vehicles remains fragmented and uncertain, with different rules across states and countries creating a patchwork that could slow any robotaxi rollout.
Then there’s the Musk factor — impossible to quantify, impossible to ignore. His involvement with the Trump administration has energized some buyers and repelled others. The net effect on demand is genuinely unclear, and Tesla’s management has offered limited transparency on the subject. What’s undeniable is that the CEO of the world’s most valuable automaker is spending a significant portion of his time on activities unrelated to building and selling cars. Whether that’s a feature or a bug depends entirely on your view of Musk’s ability to multitask at superhuman levels.
Wood clearly believes it’s a feature. Her public comments suggest she views Musk’s government work as temporary and his AI ventures — particularly xAI and Tesla’s Dojo supercomputer — as complementary to the autonomy mission. She’s argued that Musk’s proximity to the White House could actually accelerate favorable regulatory treatment for autonomous vehicles, though she hasn’t provided specific evidence for that claim.
The next few months will be telling. Tesla’s Austin robotaxi pilot, the launch of the refreshed Model Y in additional markets, and second-quarter delivery numbers will all provide data points that either validate or undermine the bull case. If Tesla can demonstrate meaningful progress toward unsupervised autonomous driving — not just incremental improvements to its current driver-assistance system, but genuine Level 4 capability — the stock could rerate dramatically higher. If the Austin launch underwhelms or gets delayed again, the patience of even the most committed bulls will be tested.
Cathie Wood has staked her reputation, her fund’s performance, and billions of dollars of her investors’ money on a specific vision of the future. A future where Tesla isn’t a car company at all, but the dominant platform for autonomous transportation. It’s a future that would make her $2,600 price target look prescient and her current purchases look like the smartest trades of the decade.
It’s also a future that doesn’t exist yet. And in markets, the distance between a compelling narrative and a realized outcome can be enormous — measured not just in years, but in the capital destroyed along the way.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication