Elon Musk
Score trajectory · 8 quarters
Rolling specificity-weighted score
By category
Coverage window only
Next earnings preview
Late July 2026
promises kept
own guidance
Track record · promise-anchored
Every time he made
commitments, what followed.
Each row anchored at the date the CEO made the commitments. “Track record going in” uses only commitments verified at calls strictly before this one — walk-forward, no look-ahead. Forward stock returns measured from the first close strictly after the call, with no SPY or beta adjustment. We do not issue buy or sell recommendations.
Receipts
The strongest delivery and the cleanest miss.
Full record
11 tracked commitments.
Assessment
The pattern, in one paragraph.
Two patterns coexist. Hardware-and-capital programs with committed factories tend to execute (Shanghai Gigafactory, Texas, Berlin). Autonomy and AI timeline commitments are off by years, sometimes by half a decade. FSD, Cybercab, Roadster 2.0, $25K Tesla, and Coast-to-Coast Autonomy are all explicit commitments missed by multiple years or never delivered. The score of 38 reflects this asymmetry: financial and capacity execution score in the 70s-80s, but product timeline credibility is materially below the median CEO. The most recent quarters show some stabilization (FSD China approval, EU approval pending) but the cumulative track record over a decade weighs heavily.
Source data: company earnings call transcripts and SEC filings. Every commitment links to a verifiable quote with deadline, outcome, and source. Methodology: specificity-weighted average of outcomes over verifiable promises. Verification: kept = delivered against stated metric; partial = honest hedge with material walk-back; missed = specific commitment unmet; silent_drop = no follow-up for 2+ subsequent calls; unverifiable = insufficient evidence.
Data analytics, not investment advice. Track-record metrics derived from publicly available executive statements. To dispute a finding, email info@b3quant.com.