Tesla's product line is narrow and aging rapidly.
They want to be valued as a ~~scifi~~ tech company.
Which is fair, given that the market (and by extension we) chose to brutally punish boring car companies that make reliable high volume cars.
I'm arguing that the fair value of boring companies making reliable things should be much higher. We don't do that, you have to promise hot air based growth to prevent your valuation from crashing.
The behavior we incentivize is the one we'll get.
In theory (occasionally in practice) when you purchase a stock you are purchasing a piece of the future cash flow of that company. For a company which operates in a known environment and we can roughly predict how their revenue will grow (i.e. boring companies), the correct fair value of the stock can be easily computed.
So, no, those predictable companies should not be valued much higher, they are already valued correctly because the are no big surprises in their future, the profits and revenue are predictable.
This logic breaks down with companies where the growth can't be predicted to any reasonable accuracy. So in those you're just buying the hype, which sometimes turns out to be real, sometimes not.
Unfortunately this also incentivizes some companies to pump themselves purely on hype so they never get valued on actual revenue and profit. Tesla is a prime example of this. If you value them as a car company we can easily compute a fair value, but that number is very low. So, instead, robots! AI! self-driving! Space! That keeps the fair value an unknown, so it can ride the wave of hype for a long time.
The total market cap of all the Chinese car companies combined is about 300B.
Tesla alone is worth ~5x that, because the market rewards this behavior of chasing new things.
If Tesla suddenly pivoted to 'caring about cars' and tried their best to produce low cost reliable EVs, the market is going to punish them by valuing them at less than 300B. That is, if they succeed at that. If they fail, which would be more plausible, they go bankrupt.
Why would they voluntarily do that?
We could do that by changing public opinion or regulating what public companies must do/report, but that seems somewhat unlikely. It's so much easier to claim that autonomous driving will be solved in six months :)
Market cap is not a useful comparison because it can (as here) be driven by hype.
A better comparison is revenue and profit, that tells us a lot more about the business each is operating.
Last I checked they (still) never release their EV profit alone, always bundling the numbers with plug-in hybrids and high-margin battery sales to other companies. If BYD made money on EVs there'd be no need for shenanigans.
Why for US companies is it okay to be unprofitable while they grow, but for Chinese companies it is shenanigans?
Also, if they actually sell things such as high-margin batteries, is it even shenanigans? Using a profitable division to finance the growth of another division sounds like excellent business strategy to me. Better than promising bullshit FSD to artificially inflate the stock price.
Why so long? Six months? According to God-King Trump who apparently knows everything better than anyone, we're already well past "AI" into Super-Intelligence. Just ask the Machine-God to bestow autonomous driving upon us and we're good to go, yeah? Time to bring on those flying cars in every garage we was all promised decades ago!
Opposite seasons, new wars, at least one new thing to be outraged about.
It’s a shame, because even after all these years Teslas are still state of the art in quite a few aspects (their packaging and drivetrain efficiency, among others). But here in Oz where we have a smorgasbord of cheap and excellent Chinese EVs, there are better options unless you want FSD above all else.
Visually yes, but technology still vastly mogs all but zeekr maybe.
But that doesn’t matter - most people seem to buy cars entirely by how it looks.
[1] https://www.autotrader.co.uk/cars/used/citroen/grand-c4-pica...
Tesla may be getting belted from pillar to post elsewhere in the world by the Chinese but they a) still have a near-monopoly in EVs in the US, and b) have a cost-competitive EV manufacturing operation in China from which they can supply other parts of the world.
That still doesn't help their image problem, which is still very real for many left-leaning affluent consumers around the world, but that's less of a problem for commercial vehicles.
But having an electric car doesn't make salt and potholes magically disappear, unfortunately.
Is that even possible in modern EVs? Without breaking critical functions like maps, etc.
More than a few times my mechanic has found something pending failure (like a leak) during regularly scheduled ICE maintenance and alerted me to keep an eye on it.
do people actually think you buy a tesla and just drive?
I don't think anyone who knows tires wear out thinks Teslas have special tires that don't wear.
> A mechanically illiterate public coupled with effective marketing is a dangerous combo when they're flying around in 2 tonne boxes still filled with wear parts.
Good news: Teslas will tell you when you do need to do the little maintenance that is required, including worn tires.
I believe it's the only, or at least first, car that measures tire wear by comparing GPS distance traveled to wheel rotations, accounting for tire pressure.
I've started taking my Dad's Tesla in to get tires rotated when I'm in town because he flat refuses to do it because of this nonsense.
Unfortunately these people exist by the thousands.
Are you being sarcastic, perhaps?
From direct experience.
Also worth noting that the fuel on a second hand petrol car cost less than the depreciation on the EV for me.
But yes, if you don't drive much at all, an EV might be more expensive for now. Assuming stable fossil fuels prices.
For all the heat they got in the beginning when they were figuring out production (esp. panel alignment), 2019s were already very good performance and maintenance-wise.
Even if it prevents like ten deaths, the LiDAR will have paid for itself.
The statistical value of a human life (for US government purposes) is between 7 to 14 million USD depending on department etc. (Unless there's anything to do with nuclear, then it's pretty much infinity.)
I'm not quite sure how much LiDAR would cost extra?
Of course, in addition to lives saved, you have other benefits. Eg you can conceivably drive more aggressively and faster, when you have more scanners, because you can exploit more situations where a lesser system has to act conservative when it can't be quite sure.
And if Musk cared at all about deaths, he would not have taken a chainsaw to USAID.
- chinese companies are now exporting with 25% discount for similar quality - premium brands occupy the $80'000+ car segment with better comfort and quality - Tesla sells as many as Renault, a local European player, except the later built a strong alliance network to get scale economics.
I won't even mention the failure of the Cybertruck, which cannot even be exported to Europe due to its dangerous design.
In short: they'd rather merge now with a traditional car company while they have a high valuation, much like US West did with QWest at the end of the Internet bubble. Or else...
Tesla should be building something like the Slate pickup. Or like BYD's midrange models. Things that would actually sell.
One of the lessons of the electric car industry is that when gas car companies build electric vehicles, the vehicles suck. They're usually adapted versions of gas cars, which means too much structure and cost in the wrong places. This usually comes out as a $5000 price penalty for the electric model. Tesla was well placed to avoid that.
But they blew it.
If anything makes it more expensive it's the habit of certain manufacturers to nickel and dime buyers over every option.
The fact that he was serious and thinks that Musk is the only tech CEO not in this for his own benefit and enrichment is what makes me believe that this is more of a cult than anything else.
Also, Musk getting into politics and alienating most of its consumer base, of course.
China is actually nearly 3x bigger market for them than Europe and we have clearer numbers on how that's going:
2019: 45,372
2020: 137,459
2021: 320,743
2022: 439,770
2023: 603,664
2024: 657,102
2025: 625,698
Volkswagen had €322 billion in revenue last year and was literally in every way founded by the Nazi party.
The requirement for the air-cooled engine in the Beetle came from none other than Mr. Stubby Mustache himself.
The Cybertruck, or what it should have been, was never meant to be an entry-level truck like the Slate, and the market for trucks clearly shows people are wanting to spent money on big trucks.
In any case, just because the legacy incumbents might also be incompetent, doesn't excuse Tesla.
But Optimus is a fair play. Don't grub for scraps in an efficient competitive market. Make a new market, go big or go home.
We have built professions to work around our own form because that's what we're stuck with. Robots can take many forms, so why make them average at all things instead of making robots perfect for one (or a few).
At some point, the reality of being in a highly competitive market must set in and valuations need to come down to Earth.
Henry Ford was the original Elon Musk. He was obsessed with efficiency, minimalism, and just a smidge of Nazism. They only offered the Model T in one color. Tesla doesn't paint the damn Cybertruck at all. A Ford Motors that goes back to its roots (without all the weird white supremacist stuff), would be a strong auto maker indeed.
Seeing it happen now too with college jobs is funny, because all those same people making fun of your community for complaining about lack of jobs after the factory they built their city around leaves, now are complainjng abiut the same thing. H1B yourself. Love those Indians. Anyway, everyone loses no class solidarity, the poors fighting amongst themselves like animals.
> ...considering their realistically the only American car companies that make their cars in the US
Really good listen:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rivian-rj-scaringe/id1...
"Tesla lines up $30 billion credit lines as capex, AI push accelerate"
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-...
Electrek's full time job is to dunk on anything Elon Musk touches.
Being biased isn't lying, withholding truth isn't lying (maybe). What is your point? You can be biased and not lie.
It was always the other way around, he was okay because he pursued improving road technology doing the things we want but car manufacturers refused. He stopped doing that and was only a Nazi waving, drug addled, idiot and is treated as such.
Is it? Regardless of how revolutionary a company was, they don't get a free pass on criticism.
I had a positive sentiment towards Tesla when the mission was basically "make EVs sexy" and "promote clean electricity." Although they didn't have a perfect record (QC, proprietary charging, RtR), at least they were disrupting a stagnant industry, with a noble enough goal.
Now when I think of Tesla, I think of their deployment of "Full Self Driving (Beta) [keep your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road]", "Robotaxi (with human driver)," "Humanoid robot (why?)," and of course the glorious leader who bought Twitter so he could "protect free speech" by banning people he disagrees with.
Tesla itself made a turn for the worse over the years and there are a lot of things to criticize honestly
If you hold the same opinion forever, even when things obviously changed, you are just a fanatic.
I was a huge fan of Google when "Don't be evil" was still their motto. That opinion changed the moment that motto went the way of the dinosaur.