We have pulled up to GM's market cap again. This might be worth bearing in mind when the FUD machine starts screeching about Tesla vs. GM,
"IMAGINE two companies in the same business. The sales of Company A are one-nineteenth those of Company B. Company A has never shown a profit and is expected to report on Wednesday even bigger losses than had been forecast, while Company B is enjoying a strong quarter and figures to be solidly profitable for the third consecutive year.
Company B's market capitalization ought to dwarf Company A's, yes? And investors ought to be piling into Company B and watching Company A nervously, right?
Wrong. The market value of A (Amazon.com, the on-line bookseller) has rocketed past that of B (Barnes & Noble, king of brick-and-mortar bookstores) over the last six weeks."
New York Times, July, 1998
INVESTING IT; Does Amazon = 2 Barnes & Nobles?
fwiw, if you read the whole article, it's rather interesting how much more even handedly and deeply they considered the case for Amazon. The analysis is framed with this opening comment "It all may sound like speculative mania. But there may be a more rational explanation for why investors are willing to pay more for little Amazon than for its giant counterpart" and then goes into details of its underlying advantages vs. traditional retailers. Quite different than what we see with Tesla today, often framing Tesla as if it is known to be a bubble stock, and even more frequently referring to it as a "story stock", "cult stock", and/or [having] "no rational way to value it".