Arguably, nothing has commanded the attention of professional and everyday investors quite like artificial intelligence (AI). In Sizing the Prize, the analysts at PwC forecast AI would provide a $15.7 trillion boost to the global economy by 2030, with $6.6 trillion tied to productivity improvements, and the remainder coming from consumption-side effects.
Excitement surrounding this technology has sent some of the market’s largest and widely held AI stocks soaring, including AI-data mining specialist Palantir Technologies (PLTR +0.01%) and electric-vehicle (EV) manufacturer Tesla (TSLA 0.01%).
But just because these stocks have been (thus far) unstoppable, it doesn’t mean optimism is universal among analysts. Two Wall Street analysts who are respective longtime bears of Palantir and Tesla stock believe both companies will lose most of their value.
Image source: Getty Images.
1. Palantir Technologies: Implied downside of 72%
There’s a solid argument to be made that Palantir has been the hottest AI stock on the planet since 2023 began. Shares have rallied approximately 2,370%, with Palantir adding more than $360 billion in market value, as of the closing bell on Aug. 22.
Both of the company’s core operating segments, Gotham and Foundry, lean on AI and machine learning. Gotham is Palantir’s breadwinner. It’s used by federal governments to plan and execute military missions, as well as to collect/analyze data. Meanwhile, Foundry is an enterprise subscription service that helps businesses better understand their data and streamline their operations. Neither operating segment has a clear replacement at scale, which means Palantir offers a sustainable moat.
But in spite of Palantir’s competitive edge, RBC Capital Markets’ Rishi Jaluria sees plenty of downsides to come. Even though Jaluria raised his price target on Palantir shares for a second time since 2025 began, his $45 target implies downside of up to 72% over the next year.
If there’s one headwind Jaluria consistently presents when assigning or reiterating a price target on Palantir, it’s the company’s aggressive valuation. Shares closed out the previous week at a price-to-sales (P/S) multiple of roughly 117!
Historically, companies that are leaders of next-big-thing technology trends have peaked at P/S ratios of approximately 30 to 40. No megacap company has ever been able to maintain such an aggressive P/S premium. While Palantir’s sustainable moat has demonstrated it’s worthy of a pricing premium, there’s a limit as to how far this valuation can be stretched.
Jaluria has also previously cautioned that Foundry’s growth isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Specifically, Jaluria has opined that Foundry’s tailored approach to meeting its customers’ needs will make scaling the platform a challenge. Nevertheless, Palantir’s commercial customer count surged 48% to 692 clients in the June-ended quarter from the prior-year period, which appears to be proving RBC Capital’s analyst wrong.
There’s also the possibility of Palantir stock being weighed down if the AI bubble were to burst. History tells us that every next-big-thing trend dating back three decades has undergone a bubble-bursting event early in its expansion. While Palantir’s multiyear government contracts and subscription revenue would protect it from an immediate sales decline, investor sentiment would probably clobber its stock.
Image source: Tesla.
2. Tesla: Implied downside of 94%
Over the trailing-six-year period, shares of Tesla have skyrocketed by more than 2,200%. Though Tesla hasn’t moved in lockstep with other leading AI stocks, its EVs are increasingly reliant on AI to improve safety and/or promote partial self-driving functionality.
Tesla was the first automaker in more than a half-decade to successfully build itself from the ground up to mass production. It’s produced a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) profit in each of the last five years, and it delivered in the neighborhood of 1.8 million EVs in each of the previous two years.
In spite of Tesla’s success and it becoming one of only 11 public companies globally to have ever reached the $1 trillion valuation mark, Gordon Johnson of GLJ Research sees this stock eventually losing most of its value. Earlier this year, Johnson reduced his price target on Tesla to just $19.05 per share, which implies an up to 94% collapse.
Among the many concerns cited by Johnson is Tesla’s operating structure. Whereas other members of the “Magnificent Seven” are powered by high-margin software sales, Tesla is predominantly selling hardware that affords it less in the way of pricing power. Tesla has slashed the price of its EV fleet on more than a half-dozen occasions over the last three years as competition has ramped up.
Johnson has also been critical of Tesla’s numerous side projects, which are providing minimal value to the brand. Although energy generation and storage products have been a solid addition, the company’s Optimus humanoid robots and extremely limited robotaxi service launch have been grossly overhyped.
This builds on a larger point that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has a terrible habit of overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to game-changing innovations at his company. For instance, promises of Level 5 full self-driving have gone nowhere for 11 years, while the launch of the Cybertruck is looking more like a flop than a success.
Furthermore, Tesla’s earnings quality is highly suspect. Though the company has been decisively profitable for five straight years, more than half of its pre-tax income in recent quarters has been traced back to automotive regulatory credits and net interest income earned on its cash. In other words, a majority of Tesla’s pre-tax income derives from unsustainable and non-innovative sources that have nothing to do with its actual operations. Worse yet, President Trump’s flagship tax and spending bill, the “Big, Beautiful Bill” Act, will soon put an end to automotive regulatory credits in the U.S.
What investors are left with is an auto stock valued at north of 200 times trailing-12-month earnings per share (EPS) whose EPS has been declining with consistency for years. While Johnson’s price target appears excessively low, paying over 200 times EPS for a company that consistency underdelivers is a recipe for downside.