← Back to context

Comment by andsoitis

21 hours ago

> I really don't understand those investors and how they price a struggling company so highly.

Struggling, not so much: '24/'25 revenue of just under $100B, with Q3'25 record profitability and deliveries yielding $1.5B net income. Strong liquidity and a current ratio of about 2, boosting short-term financial stability. Solid cash reserves and relatively low debt ratio.

High stock price: far exceeds that of traditional auto makers even though Tesla's revenue is significantly lower. High valuation reflects investor expectations of growth and future tech upside. Exuberant? Probably. OTOH, Tesla has delivered better ROI for investors than the other automakers.

Tesla is probably the only EV maker with declining sales for the last two years. Quite a feat in a booming market, and remarkable considering that the stock already has a few orders of magnitude of growth priced in.

  • This is an interesting take, considering several EVs from traditional manufacturers have been canned entirely.

    • EVs are in the Cambrian Explosion state in China right now. There are dozens of companies fiercely competing on price and features.

      The two most popular EVs in China are the Wuling Mini and the Geely Xingyuan. The first one costs $4500 for the base model, and the second one is $9800. And you can get a very decent EV for $15k with plenty of options.

      In 2-3 years, these $5k and $10k cars will only get better, and they'll just slaughter all the competition in markets outside the US and Europe. Especially once used cars start appearing at a fraction of the cost.

      Traditional auto manufacturers are dead. Full stop. They just haven't realized it yet. Tesla had a chance to compete in this market with Model 2 but Musk decided to blow their lead on a completely stillborn and gimmick-filled robotaxi.

      2 replies →

  • Ah, but you missed the pivot, Tesla is no longer an EV maker, it's now a robotics company.

    This fully explains the market valuation, of course! Never mind a swarm of retail investors driven by a news media that covered Musk as if he were Tony Stark for years, this market cap is fully based on solid fundamental analysis of expected future revenue.

  • The declining sales is a concern. Was curious though so I looked it up and Tesla is currently selling more than Volkswagen, Ford, Rivian, Mercedes, and Toyota combined. Interesting.

    The big dog is BYD though. Twice as many as 2nd place Tesla.

    • > Was curious though so I looked it up and Tesla is currently selling more than Volkswagen, Ford, Rivian, Mercedes, and Toyota combined. Interesting.

      Indeed. Global 2024 data shows Tesla selling about 1.8M. EV's only by that group of automakers comes to around 1.5M. Toyota and Ford are hybrid-first, not EV. VW is the only legacy automaker that comes near Tesla's EV scale. Mercedes prioritizes margin over volume. Rivian is capacity-limited.

there was a rush to buy electric cars in the US for as long as the $7500 incentive was in place, so the Q3 2025 number if inflated; it's a pull forward effect.

Sales have been flat for 3 years and the delivery numbers in Europe are catastrophic

on a fully diluted basis, the market cap is above $1.6tn, so at a PE of 20, they'd have to generate something like $80bn in profit per year - hard to do in an industry that is as brutally competitive and low margin as passenger cars.

  • Not to mention China heavily subsidizing BYD.

    • there are around 140 EV companies in china competing very aggressively, they have excess capacity and are flooding the world market with cheap EVs, tough for Tesla to have a healthy margin in that environment

    • BYD's exports are not subsidized, and are, in fact, a massive cash cow for the firm.

      They are also way cheaper and at comparable quality to western cars.

  • It’s also Americans realized how inconvenient electric cars are. I take a fair amount of road trips. I don’t have the time to wait 30 minutes minimum to charge. And if there’s a line it’s even worse. And in the winter the heater reduces the distance a ton. It just isn’t practical

Past performance is meaningless here.

They lost the massive US subsidy making EV’s appealing and are getting outcomes in China. Model E and Cybertruck have anemic and shrinking sales numbers etc.

With many traditional auto makers you at this point have to wonder if they are still going to be around in ten years. Companies like Ford, Toyota, BMW, etc. are not looking so great. They each have the dilemma of a market that's shrinking by double digit percentages year on year (ICE cars) while another market is growing by the same percentage (EVs).

The way Toyota and Ford deal with this is reducing investments in EVs while at the same time meeting increased EV demand by heavily leaning on other companies to make them some EVs. Ford is working with VW and Renault in Europe. Toyota is working with big Chinese manufacturers in China. So is Ford. BMW has some success with their recent EV models but it is taking big hits with demand for their overall products in markets like the US and China.

The US is clearly lagging the EU and China when it comes to electrification. It's not at all clear that Tesla is doing much better. Their market share has tanked in markets where EVs do well (China, EU). However, it does have its own tech and still plenty of money. Where other manufacturers are leaning on outside suppliers, Tesla is pushing their own technology hard for just about everything. Including self driving cars and batteries. It's a different strategy at least and one that isn't dependent on the ICE market doing well or Chinese manufacturers doing all the technical heavy lifting.

Tesla's stock price is based on investor expectations on some of those bets working out eventually. Even if a lot of that stuff seems like it is struggling right now, it's too early to write all of it off as failed. The 4680 is still expected to be a big part of the semi's Tesla is expected to finally start mass producing in 2026. Self driving tests are still continuing and might eventually add up to something that works well enough. And it's also a relavant format for LFP based chemistries.

The problem for all of them have right now (especially Tesla) is that the Chinese are moving full steam ahead and are doing really well on technology and growth currently. Including things like self driving and of course batteries. The 4680 seems like it is old news when solid state is happening and new chemistries other than NMC are starting to dominate. And FSD while impressive has plenty of competition from other vendors at this point. Rivian has its own version. So do several Chinese vendors. And of course Waymo is actually moving lots of passengers autonomously at this point.

> High valuation reflects investor expectations of growth and future tech upside.

Yeah, sure.

I wonder if there are still legacy short positions (from 2018-2020 era) that prop up the stock price by covering during dips.

If revenue or profit was the deciding factor TSLA wouldn't be valued as highly as it is.

That the stock has gone up a lot does not mean it will continue going up.

On the contrary, Teslas remarkably high stock price means it's less likely to go up and a big correction is more likely.

1.5B net on $100B revenue is not great. 1.5%? If that's not struggling, it's uncomfortably close.

  • > 1.5B net on $100B revenue is not great. 1.5%? If that's not struggling, it's uncomfortably close.

    You're misreading. $100B annual revenue. 1.5B quarterly new income.

    Q3 2025 was record revenue of $27B (up 12% YoY). Operating margin was 5.8% (down from 10.8 Q3 2024).

    Why the lower profitability? Higher expenses for AI and R&D costs, lower EV prices (very strong competition), etc.

  • Look at the free cash flow, and the situation looks maybe even worse. They're basically not worth much, if anything, from a free cash flow perspective.

It has delivered a better ROI in the same way a ponzi scheme can deliver higher ROI.

  • > It has delivered a better ROI in the same way a ponzi scheme can deliver higher ROI.

    It sounds like you're arguing that high valuation compared to fundamentals means buyers expect gains from future buyers paying more sounds like a Ponzi, but it isn't, it is speculation.

    The comparison doesn't make sense. Some surface features of speculative markets can look Ponzi-like, but the underlying mechanics are very different.

    A Ponzi-scheme returns to earlier participants directly from money contributed by later participants, with no real underlying business generating value. In a Ponzi-scheme, there is no real product (or it is irrelevant), the operator controls payouts, and investors are promised steady or guaranteed returns. None of that applies to Tesla stock.

    Ponzi-schemes hide losses, smooth returns, collapse suddenly. Tesla stock is volatile, has had large drawdowns, and public reflects bad news, margin compression, demand shifts. Volatility is a sign of a market, not a Ponzi.

    • Mechanics is exactly the same - it's not Tesla revenues driving returns for investors, it's new investors putting their money into the stock at very high price.

      1 reply →

    • > In a Ponzi-scheme, there is no real product (or it is irrelevant)

      This part is the smell.

      "It's not a car company, it's a AI/Robot/whatever company." The valuation is supposedly justified by a future product that perpetually fails to materialize.

      It's obviously not a classical Ponzi scheme in the mechanical sense where payouts are controlled by a central party. It has major Ponzi vibes though, with new money continuing to reward old money even though the fundamentals and products haven't done anything to justify that continued influx - only the hype has.

      3 replies →