One can hope that reality intrudes before the bubble gets even more dangerously inflated, but how many years has Tesla had a ridiculous P/E ratio. Even after growth stagnated and market leadership was lost in Asia and Europe. Number still goes up.
Outside of China, Tesla's probably the only company that can compete on battery prices. I don't know how accurate it was, but a news report was comparing the cost the manufacturer's pay to build the battery. Chinese companies were around $6000. Tesla was at $7000. Everyone else was around $12-15K. This is why a number of companies have exited the EV market - they just can't compete. This is why Ford lost money on every EV, despite the high MSRP. This is why the Ford CEO says "We're f####d" when he saw Chinese cars.
The only hope regular Japanese/American/European auto manufacturers have is if EVs do not gain substantial market share.
If the future is EVs, Tesla is the only non-Chinese company that has a chance.
It's depressing.
What other company is developing self-driving at a level of sophistication as Tesla that you can actually buy in a consumer vehicle?
But people like buying new cars, new models, new designs. Not just features - those are just options.
Once Elon’s air cover is blown, the government is going the dissect Tesla. Once someone gets the injunction to stop deletion of crash data and allow for inspection, they are cooked.
Waymo, of course, is everywhere here in the Bay Area. The tech works at scale today.
Driving data is cultural data.
This is one of the many blind spots from commenters, when they think about their own experience and generalize it to the larger global market.
BMW and Mercedes are not in the same class. They can afford to get away by charging a premium.
VW: I'd love to know how much it costs them to make/buy a battery, and their profit margins on EVs. Ditto Hyundai and Kia.
(Edit: See https://carbuzz.com/ev-profit-margins/ for VW).
Look at all the companies scaling back on EVs or exiting them altogether (e.g. Honda). It's not that Honda can't make EVs. It's that they can't compete on profit with Tesla + Chinese EVs. It's likely why Hyundai is dropping the Kona and the Ioniq 6.
Nissan dropped the Ariya, I believe. The Bolt is also out. The general shift is for more luxury EVs (BMW/Mercedes), and not EVs for the average Joe.
See also https://www.bain.com/insights/electric-vehicles-profit-puzzl...
That sounds less likely than the bull case Tesla is trying to make on "we're a robotics company now" or "one day all cars will be autonomous taxis controlled by us".
> This assumes it is literally impossible for anyone else to reduce their battery costs to a level which makes them competitive with Tesla in an environment when battery prices are falling rapidly and the tech continues to evolve
No - it just means they can't do it as fast as the Chinese. The Chinese have been investing in battery technology for 10-15 years longer than most auto manufacturers. (And their labor is cheaper).
How can they produce the extraordinary growth and excess profits that would justify their valuation?
Fundamentals will reassert themselves sooner or later, but as we see it can take a long time.
[1] https://electrek.co/2026/05/07/tesla-4680-battery-cell-perfo...
How long that lasts remains to be seen. American consumers living close to either border are going to be able to see Chinese EVs themselves.
I don't believe that's true, anymore.
TSLA is a pure meme stock. No one is investing in it because they believe in the numerous, actionable lies Musk tells. No one is investing because they think the P/E makes sense. They're doing it because they think the memes are fun, or because they think the people who think the memes are fun are bag-holders, or because they think the memes are fun AND Musk is actually still smart and adding value, etc.
It's the clearest, most obvious case for "the markets are not the economy".
My response is this: Over time (say 20 years later) you will have gotten certain dividends, and the firm will be in a new position in terms of price and earnings. If I'm right, and the firm will not have been able to produce large profits and pay them out, then the people who bought today at today's valuation and P/E ratio will have massively overpaid for the dividends they will have gotten, and the only way they could have made capital gains to make up for it is if either the P/E ratio has increased even more, or earnings have really shot up at the end of those 20 years.
Either way, it's not sustainable. Unless, of course, people are willing to push up the P/E ratio up and up without limit. And I submit that's not going to happen indefinitely.
TL;DR: 20 years later you can see what share holders got for the price they paid 20 years ago (namely 20 yrs of dividends, plus they still have the share). If you thought the shares were cheap and you were right, you got a lot for what you paid. If the shares were overpriced, that'll have come out by then.
(I agree though that it seems to take longer than it used to take for the fundamentals to reassert themselves.)
This just means short sellers might have a hard time sinking a hype-category stock with reasoned research because the irrationality keeps it afloat.