Currently I don't have TSLA, so free to speak. Here's my 2 cents:
There's lots going on.
Zeroth of all (ok, I added this point after I added first), there's a recovery of what seems to be the 'XIV-induced fake crash' of two weeks ago, after which some people had to sell lots of shares because they needed money to pay the lost bets on VIX they made. And if you're an 'investor' and need cash for your failed bets, what better way to raise money than sell TSLA?
First of all, TSLA stock is going up ad down anyway. It's an 'emotion stock', owned by lot's of non-profi enthusiast, who don't use formula's to calculate it's value. Same for AMD I'd guess.
Second, nobody cares about loss as long as it's an investment. AMZN P/E has been astronomical, as has ARMH's been in the past (or even Soitec!!!). And for all three rightfully so, I'd say.
However, here's the beef: In contrary to businesses like search engines or ride hailing services, where there is not such a high threshold to start a competitor if customers are able to walk away (Altavista --> Google, Uber and Lyft???, Whatsapp --> Telegram & co), Tesla operates in a market where the threshold to enter is really, really high. Tesla's failure to ramp up production of Model 3 is the very best example of how hard it actually is to build a car in mass production. If Tesla has troubles, then why would a new entrant succeed?
Tesla has both giga-factory and knowhow how to produce a car which adheres to the rules, which is hard to copy. I read somewhere that of new car manufacturers 'in the West' in the last few decades, only two survived. Now anybody can try to make an autonomous or electrical vehicle, but the road is paved with failures. George Hotz didn't succeed for example, big mouth but didn't last one minute after authorities started asking simple basic questions. So unrealistic hopes of a new 'garage-entrant' who builds the next autonomous car-AI for two dollars are gone now. And succeeding to enter AFAIK neither did Faraday Future, Uber, Google and not even Apple(!!). To make a car, it seems having wild ideas, hiring smart people, putting them in a hotspot like Berlin, throwing billions at it and being founded in Silicon Valley is not enough to start a company, disrupt the entire automotive market and become the new leader. Contrary to what some semicon-people (and Apple managers?) may think, computer chips are not the only element of a car which are actually hard to make, design and produce by the millions. Tesla is really the only one to successfully have done so the last few decades, apart from BYD of course.
Uber lost 1 billion dollar AFAIK, and still people want to invest. There's probably not enough network-effects / vendor lock-in (in contrary to Google / MSFT / AAPL) to keep taxi drivers and clients tied to Uber to make it impossible to walk away; Uber is quite easy to copy I think. So Tesla seems like the wiser investment than the so-manieth internet-combine-demand-and-supply website (Uber, Lyft, AirBNB and what-have-you these days). Fords market cap may be lower than Tesla's. But Uber's valuation may be around 70B, then it's really OK for Tesla to have a valuation for 56B, as long as the FED/ECB and friends enables cheap money to gamble in the online casino mentioned!
OK, so Tesla has showed it's capable of mass production with Model S. It showed it's capable of - together with Panasonic - building the biggest battery factory in the world, even in the middle of a freaking dessert. It showed it's able to mass produce car batteries. It showed it's able to build a good ADAS. It also has a service department, and fixes problems if the care have any. It showed it produced millions of cars of which most don't crash; something Apple, Faraday Future and Google can't claim - despite their capability to invest by the billions.
Now tell me, why is an original painting more expensive than the fake one, even when the two look just alike and are just as beautiful? Here's the simple answer: The value is based on reputation. Van Gogh, Picasso, Da Vinci: Even if the fakes would look better and had better durability (coating which lasts 10 centuries?), people still want the original ones. This also goes for Tesla: The valuation is based on reputation.
Besides, investors / gamblers at 'the biggest online-casino in the world called NASDAQ' (count me with the latter group, I'm afraid) don't like to be unsure about things. Better have public knowledge how much loss a company made, than have fear it lost the very same a mount. That's the whole idea about option pricing as well: Options have intrinsic value (difference between strike price and current price), but also an 'insurance' part. So there was the fear model 3 didn't work in mass production, now it's for sure. And model 3 failure was probably also already priced in?
That's why TSLA didn't crash yet I guess, which doesn't necessarily mean I agree to it's current valuation above Ford or BMW. Once cheap gamble money is halted by the 'banks' (issuers of monopoly money some might say???), the monopoly-money needs to be returned, demand for 'real' money rises and 'proven stocks' will be rebalanced with 'mad money' stocks like SNAP, FB and other firms which, apart from network effects / lock in don't have any real product that can't be copied easily. Somewhere in between the 'proven' and boring stocks, the kind Warren Buffet would invest in, and the mad money stocks, lie the 'half proven / half mad money' stocks, such as AMZN and TSLA. Just as good companies like Intel, ASML, AMD and lots of others survived the dotcom-boom and their stocks eventually rose back to the dotcom-heights, I think stocks such as AMZN and TSLA may as well survive any 'mad money implosion' which may follow; because they have a real, hard to copy product; and brick and mortar (or metal?) distribution buildings and soon groceries in case of Amazon.
Sorry for the jab, would have debated the facts if you'd presented any.