I haven't checked up on EV sales recently, and I was reminded of it by a New York Times piece about Tesla's recent woes. So I decided to kill two birds with one stone and take a look at both:
EV sales are rising again since flattening for a while in 2023. But Tesla sales are in the tank. US sales have declined over the past couple of years and they've only barely made up for this with sales overseas. Despite this, Tesla stock has surged since the election:
Elon Musk may be the world's richest man, but only because Tesla stock is wildly overvalued. A company with stagnant sales and obvious problems in its biggest market (China) should be selling for a quarter of Tesla's current price—at most.
If that were the case Musk might no longer be the wealthiest person on the planet, but he'd still be worth north of $100 billion. That's not bad no matter how you slice it.
Between Tesla stock and DJT, it's obvious that oligarchs have learned that seeking power is better for business than doing business. Musk's cars suck. The Cybertruck is headed for landfills. He's personally toxic.
But his political power is at its zenith, so his stock is up as people try to bribe him.
I owned a Tesla M3 for five years and it was an amazing car. I totaled it in an accident this past summer and now that Musk has become a neo Nazi i refuse to buy another one while he is CEO.
I replaced it with a Volvo EV which I’m really happy with. It’s a “nicer” car than my Tesla because it is more of a European luxury car than Teslas are. That said, it falls short of the Tesla in range and general high tech gadgetry. But I’m very happy to not be driving a car from a company with CEO who’d a right wing asshole.
That was my impression with the cybertruck but I keep seeing more and more of them on the roads. Just on my very short commute and running a couple errands I probably see at least 15 of them a day.
Do you drive past a storage lot? There are only about forty thousand on the road of the 283.4 million passenger vehicles in the US.
I know three people in my immediate neighborhood that have one. They just seem to be more and more prevalent.
Move.
Cybertrucks are certainly easier to notice than other vehicles, but meanwhile Tesla is sanding off the “Foundation” labeling on surplus initial production units so they can sell them at reduced prices, while also shipping excess production to Canada. The marketplace will tell, but my own prediction is that once the novelty wears off the Cybertruck will be a flop. Too much a case of function being sacrificed to achieve form.
What functions were sacrificed?
I hear people say that, but then they handwave at nonsense.
Any old truck with the same top clearance you also can't reach into the back of, no matter your height;
It carries as much or more than the other mass-built trucks;
It has a smaller footprint and turning radius for more passenger and bed space.
Unfortunately, saying his cars suck doesn't make them suck. They are very good at what they do, with total cost of ownership lower than much cheaper ICE and hybrid cars.
But the asshole is attached to the brand so it's certainly hurting in the US. They still have the largest profit margin per vehicle and the potential to put out the most battery packs the cheapest, so... that's why the stock is high.
Given that everybody in the world pays attention to who is President of the US I think Musk's negative influence on Tesla sales is probably almost worldwide though maybe less intense in some places than here.
"total cost of ownership lower than much cheaper ICE and hybrid cars."
I'm calling bullshit. My 2013 Honda Fit cost me ca. $15K new. It gets >30 mpg. Please tell me where one can purchase a new Tesla for $15-20K. Take all the time you need.
As for the environment, >85% of electricity in Rhode Island (where I live) is generated by natural gas. So all those Teslas and Cybertrucks I see here are running on carbon.
"As for the environment, >85% of electricity in Rhode Island (where I live) is generated by natural gas. So all those Teslas and Cybertrucks I see here are running on carbon."
I am very, very far from a Tesla fanboy, but this is not a good argument at all. Power plants are much, much more efficient at turning the energy from combusting fossil fuels into electricity than ICE engines are at turning combusting gasoline into powering cars. And EVs are much, much better at turning the energy stored in their batteries into propulsion than ICE vehicles are at turning gasoline into propulsion. So, even if the grid burned coal for power, it's still better to drive an EV powered by that grid than it is for one to drive an ICE vehicle.
And, fwiw, the US grid is a lot cleaner overall than that of Rhode Island; about 40% of US electricity is from non-emitting sources.
"My 2013 Honda Fit cost me ca. $15K new. It gets >30 mpg. Please tell me where one can purchase a new Tesla for $15-20K."
Well, since you can't buy a new Honda Fit (discontinued in 2021), at all, this is a completely nonsensical comparison. But you might as well complain that an EV is more expensive than a bike or gocart or surfboard. Yes, they are, but they are cheaper overall than equivalent ICE vehicles, becuase the cost-per-mile for the "fuel" is cheaper, and they have way fewer moving parts, and thus are a hell of a lot easier to maintain.
Cost in 2013 is irrelevant. What is the price today of the nearest equivalent new vehicle to your Honda Fit? It looks like Honda's cheapest new car is the Civic Hatchback, which lists for $27,450.
It isn't just because liberals hate Elon. There are a bunch of interesting new EVs out with more to offer.
Absolutely. I'm in the market for one in the next year or two and have been doing some research. VW, Polestar, Hyundai, BMW, Rivian etc. all have interesting vehicles.
As I mentioned above I’m very happy with my Volvo EV I recently purchased. It’s a couple year old XC-40 and tho I wish it had a bit more range it’s a really great car.
Junior needs to sell those Trump Media shares to Twitter ASAP, before Musk has cash flow problems.
The thing about Tesla is that they (still) have the best batteries, and were first to mass market.
But the truth is there were always plenty of things to dislike about these cars. Personally, long before Elon revealed his politics, I never was going to buy a Tesla because (having tried driving Telsas several times) I can't stand what feels to me like driving an iPad. One huge distracting screen, for controls as fundamental as shifting gears, let alone radio or AC, is not for me. I want physical controls. They're more expensive to make!
Some EVs have copied Tesla on the "Driving an iPad" thing, notably Ford's otherwise excellent Mustang Mach-E. But plenty of other EVs have gone with a more normal set of physical controls, and I will be buying one of those.
And that was before Elon revealed that he is such an utterly malign force that I would pay a lot to avoid doing business with him.
I never was going to buy a Tesla because (having tried driving Telsas several times) I can't stand what feels to me like driving an iPad.
I've never driven one, but I've always found Teslas as ugly as sin. Yes, these things are purely subjective.
You don't shift gears in a Tesla.
Reverse is a “gear”.
It's a direction, and it's not multiple menus deep?
Odd. My M3 has a lever for the "gears", on the other side of the steering wheel from the headlights and wiper controls.
What model requires you to use "the iPad"?
Kevin, you might think it's not bad to be as wealthy as Musk, but it hasn't made him a better person.
Was he ever a good person?
Wealth will only amplify what's already there. Leon was an asshole, now he's an even bigger asshole.
Elon's idea of the perfect car interior is an open laptop sitting on an Ikea table. Going several levels deep in the menu on the touch screen to adjust the air vents or open the glove box? Computer programmers may love their Tesla's, but mechanical gearheads like me find them soulless, kind of like Elon himself.
Neither of those things are true, though.
Most people want soulless cars...
"Most people want soulless cars"
Interesting. Do you have a poll you can cite, or did you come up with that by anal extraction?
Just declaring things aren't true is so much easier though.
A company with stagnant sales and obvious problems in its biggest market (China) should be selling for a quarter of Tesla's current price—at most
I'm as happy as the next liberal to see Musk brought down a peg or two*. But I'd like to know what analysis Kevin bases this on. The case that Tesla is overpriced doesn't seem crazy, mind you, but the case that Tesla is overvalued by four times needs to be backed up. That's a pretty specific claim. Kevin's "argument" here is pretty handwaivey!
*Though I gotta say, in the wake of the Musk-immigration imbroglio, i have to conclude he's a voice of reason within the new administration, taken in proper context. I mean, we're stuck with MAGA for the next four years, so, I'll look for rays of sunlight where I can.
Tesla is overvalued by maybe a factor of ten. The PE is up around 120 (depending on the day) while other car companies have a PE of 12 or less. Tesla is a business with increasing competition and flat or declining sales. Competition is likely to increase quite a bit in the near term. There is a phenomenal amount of battery research going on that will provide us with reasonable range and charging rate at reasonable prices.
Only if you use a PE based ignoring future returns, factory capacity, profit per unit, growth...
And what are the actual arguments based on "future returns", etc?
This claim was (perhaps, barely) credible in previous years, when one could argue that Tesla sales were skyrocketing and that justified valuations based on "future growth". (Even at the time, the claim was weak, given that such skyrocketing increases simply could not continue indefinitely. But now, when Tesla sales are flat and market share is declining, it has no credibility whatsoever.
Market share (of all cars) isn't falling.
And Market share of (of EVs) literally could not stay the same. That's a nonsense argument.
Growth, if they could make the batteries - which their new 4680 basically solves but was more difficult to implement - could continue for many years.
"Growth, if they could make the batteries - which their new 4680 basically solves but was more difficult to implement - could continue for many years."
The word "could" is doing all the work in that sentence.
Saw an analysis a few years ago (unfortunately I don’t remember where) that Tesla would have to eventually be selling every car in the world to support its stock price. The question is how much does the stock price represent a potential for real growth vs an a meme stock bubble driven by greed and zealotry.
Many analysis are stupid. Like that one.
LOL! Now you're just projecting.
Smarter trolls, please.
There’s some really fun stuff going on between Musk and Trump’s MAGA base:
The "contemptible fools" I'm referring to are those in the Republican Party who are hateful,unrepentant racists. They will absolutely be the downfall of the
Republican Party if they are not removed.
And those contemptible fools must be removed from the Republican Party, root and stem.
(Recent Musk tweets)
Night of Long Knives redux?
Try driving a Chinese EV...
https://www.wired.com/story/phone-maker-xiaomi-made-the-car-that-apple-couldnt/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/01/electric-cars-cheaper-china-than-america/677290/
The problem Tesla has is that right wingers wouldn't be caught dead in an EV, in fact they sabotage chargers to slow down adoption. The primary buyer for Tesla has always been lefties with money and people who want to impress their friends.
With Musk having now alienated lefties and other cool products on the market competing for the status seeker dollar, Tesla is not poised for a lot of growth.
Ultimately, it's a cautionary tale of why businesses should stay out of politics.
This, totally.
Yup, (nonexistent here) thumbs up.
This is true in the US. I doubt if either the Chinese or the Europeans pay much attention to US politics.
Stocks went up due to expected graft and logrolling.
As a current Tesla owner, I understand why one might select a different car. Further, Musk is not my cup of tea. With all that said, Musk is brilliant.
Separately, I think the EV projections for the US are too optimistic.
By 2040, electric vehicles (EVs) are expected to make up a significant portion of new car sales in the United States, with estimates ranging from 50% to 83%:
Goldman Sachs: Predicts that 83% of all vehicle sales will be EVs by 2040.
Conference Board: Expects EVs to account for 100% of new vehicles by 2040.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF): Predicts that EVs will make up 57% of all passenger car sales worldwide by 2040.
there were mandates, but Trump may kill them, and kill off our auto companies in the process.
Personal adoration of Musk, the cult of Musk, has always been key to the success of Tesla in terms of stock price and even sales figures.
Very similar to the political success of Trump being dependant on the Trump cult.
In both cases, the blind assertions to their genius are mind boggling. Both have done a great job selling themselves as a mythological hero instead of selling their brand. Because so many view them as superheros, their brand benefits.
Those are probably too pessimistic. EVs have such a low total cost of ownership, as battery prices come down, it'll be a fool's errand to buy gas cars.
You obviously don't know anything about the ICE market. And your ignorance does not inspire confidence in your prophecies.
Smarter trolls, please.
Rolls eyes. No, Musk is not 'brilliant'.He's not even particularly smart. I'll grant maybe a standard deviation above normal. But he's no more than two. He can't even get his stories straight about how and when he got his degrees.
Have any of these analysts looked into whether we could have anywhere close to the electricity generating capacity to achieve these numbers?
Yes. It's doable, especially if EVs are charged during off-peak times.
Basically, the grid is built to handle a very hot afternoon in July or August. But it's almost never a very hot afternoon in July or August, so if you add in EV charging at non-peak times, you are (largely) just making use of idle existing infrastructure. More generation will be needed, but it's not insane or infeasible, and if smart policies are in place, it can actually solve a lot of problems.
For example: if EVs are charged during, say, noon until 3, they can help draw off and store solar electricity when solar is generating the most, but electricity demand is relatively low. Similarly, if EVs charge at night, they can be charged at
That's what is sort of transformative about EVs: unlike nearly every other use of electricity, there's a disconnect between when you use the electricity, and when you use the device. That disconnect can be taken advantage of in really cool ways. For example: with bidirectional charging, EVs can soak up power when electricity is cheap, and then put it back on the grid when demand is high.
Last time I looked - a week ago - the largest automobile manufacturer in the world, Toyota, had a market cap of $280 billion.
Tesla's market cap is $1.4 trillion.
About 5x Toyotas valuation. And that's today, when just about every automobile manufacturers is on the EV train. Tesla is not the only EV game in town. It won't be 10 years before competing EVs will be on the market. The stock's price is detached from reality.
There was a year recently that Tesla had the same total profit as Toyota.
Tesla's margins remain much higher than Toyota.
These profits come in large part from the government's fuel efficiency standards. Tesla has been (still is at this point) the only manufacturer who sells exclusively zero emissions cars. This gives them a bunch of rights to pollute the air. They sell those rights to Ford/Stellantis/GM and it's like free money for Tesla.
Except the "zero emissions" is a joke. Here in Rhode Island, ca. 85% of electricity is generated by natural gas, so Teslas here run on carbon. In Missouri, where I used to live, 60% of electricity was generated from coal, so Teslas there run mostly on coal.
One rather hopes that there are near future plans to replace that fossil fuel generating capacity in both Rhode Island and Missouri with cleaner power.
Tesla has definitely stagnated while the other EV car makers have caught up or surpassed what Tesla has to offer. The near term future appears to be more of the same, Tesla cars stagnate while other companies continue to improve their cars.
This isn't true. They get new features all the time. What feature are they falling behind in?
It is true there are more competition - but Tesla is still half the total EVs sold.
Tesla fanbois are still devoted, but the cars have stagnated.
Lost market share..
Lack of new models, significant upgrades, design updates...
The cybertruck, lol!
Tesla is slashing prices ....
The range advantage has evaporated....
The hi-tech interior feel is no longer unique and is easily outdone by other EV makers...
It's been many, many years since Tesla talked about innovative things coming in the future. Their investor days and press releases have the air of water circling the drain.
You may be impervious to these things and desperately waive them away....but they are all right there in front of you. The starstruck fanbois are easily impressed with everything Musk rolls out.....but Tesla has given up the advantage they had 10+ years ago. 10 years of basically standing still while everyone else raced by them.
BYD is cleaning their clock in Asia and soon Europe. In the US, non-Tesla EV sales are up around 30% this year while Tesla sales are down 6%. Massive loss of market share combines with literally nothing on the horizon.....ain't good.
The fanbois love is resolute, but this company has struggled for many years now.
As I've heard and read from many sources, the build quality is, um, not good.
Musk's shiny new toy now is apparently self-driving cars, which he is convinced are the wave of the future, so he doesn't really give a shit about EVs and batteries as such any more and so we shouldn't expect much more attention or innovation put into Tesla in the foreseeable future, unless it's related to driverless technology. Or driving on Mars, or whatever the fuck goes through that guy's addled brain in a given week. In the meantime, BYD is going to be eating Tesla's lunch in China and other car manufacturers will continue to refine and update their models with more innovative technologies, interfaces, and battery ranges. Tesla's going to be left behind and the short sellers will finally have their day.
If they changed out the CEO for a full time manager, preferably someone who is not a narcissist, I don't think they would be badly placed. Except the stock price will have to fall to a realistic level at some point. Not sure how any manager would manage that transition.
I wouldn't give that MAGA Nazi scumbag a dime, especially after he gave that Orange Shit Stain almost $300 million so he could be the Co-President.
There are other EV options available and more coming, and that Cybertruck is an abomination.
We bought a used 2018 Model 3 in 2020. It's been a pretty great car, generally. It's fun to drive. It's really nice having that acceleration in a pinch. Having to charge frequently on long trips is annoying, but it's an opportunity to stretch one legs, pee, and get a snack, and it generally doesn't take long. The touch screen controls are annoying. Ice is a problem: it can stick the windows in place, which means it's dangerous to open the doors lest the windows break; the door handles get frozen shut. I imagine these things are of little concern in California. Somehow they sell plenty of them in Norway. I find it neither beautiful nor hideous. I wanted to drive the most efficient non-ICE car I could get that could carry five people and a reasonable amount of cargo. This is the car.
That being said, I won't buy another Tesla so long as Elon is at the helm. It sucks being reminded of someone you loathe every time you drive anywhere. We're getting one of those anti-Elon stickers to put on the back window to reduce the dissonance a tiny bit. Part of reducing one's carbon footprint is using things until they stop working, so we're stuck with this durable car for many years to come.
Tesla may survive because other parts of the world are less aware of his antics. He's doing his best to turn the brand to shit in the US, though. Has any CEO ever before attacked their core consumer demographic so openly with such vigor for so long? Being an indifferent monopolist is one thing. Musk has no monopoly, and his attitude is not indifference but contempt.
This, definitely...
Except.... No, ice is no more a risk than other cars. Not having a handle is a benefit there, not a risk. Also, they can defrost the car without you ever going outside. The newer cars have servos to pop the ice.
How did you get those numbers?
Tesla sold 1.8 million cars last year - not 150,000
And Tesla sold more EVs in the USA than all of the other manufacturers put together - not about a third as many
Kevin tends to be awful about labeling his charts. But note that the chart includes multiple data points for each year and that if we assume that the left axis indicates monthly sales, the 12-month total would match Tesla 2023 sales of ~1.8mn vehicles.
Seems to me that we've got a lot of evidence that Elon is good at starting businesses but whether he's got the skills to keep them going is an open question.
What he seems to have recognized at Tesla, rather brilliantly, is that EVs could be sold to "car enthusiasts" (which includes a lot of "conservatives") for their performance aspects. It's down to Elon that we think of EVs as fast, not just efficient. That had a lot to do with getting Tesla off the ground quickly, as it meant Teslas appealed to much broader constituency than the Birkenstock/Food Co-op types EVs had appealed to previously. And that constituency had money to burn and loves owning the libs by proving they are the "real environmentalists" etc. Note how often Elon says he's saving the world, like he's some kind of liberal.
The other key thing he did, it seems to me, is convince a lot of buyers that "range" is an important factor. That's part of why EVs are so expensive. If you "need" a car that can go 300 or more miles on a charge, then 1) you have to carry around some very heavy batteries, whether they are charged or not and 2) your car is very expensive. This aspect of Elon's sense of marketing may come back to bite him, as most people drive 30-50 miles a day and don't need the 300 mile range except for the rare road trip. As the car industry discovers that what people really need is electric power to go 30-50 miles or so, Tesla may suffer, being stuck with high-range cars with big, heavy, expensive batteries.
Of course if you really want to stick it to the Saudis, ride a bike. 😉