Green European funds may deal a blow to Tesla

[paxmao]

A significant part of the European Recovery Funds will be channelled towards reducing the carbon emissions. This will include solar energy investments, other renewables but also public investments in car maker´s factories to prepare the massive introduction of the electric cars. One of the key selling points of Tesla stocks is the fact that it was born electric and does not have to spend money transitioning as opposed to all major car maker´s. The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

Hi Elon: "Say Dooooge"

[NeuroticFish]

The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

This was far from unexpected. It was always something like "when", not "if".
Tesla is losing by increasing too slow the production. And if they continue like this, at some point their production will become too big and no longer much demand.
For now, however, they're still on safe side. There's plenty of market yet for Tesla. If they'll have a breakthrough in the research/development in batteries, they'll keep an edge for longer. But the competition is getting near.

[Hydrogen]

The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

One of tesla's announced future strategies is licensing its EV technology to other automakers.

Similar to how nintendo earned extra revenue by licensing its cartridge technology to game developers.

Which could mean tesla is positioned to license and supply components to EV automakers in europe.

My guess is tesla and china will emerge as two main suppliers for EV tech in 2022 and beyond.

China has advantages in owning a stake in a high percentage of rare earth mineral rights. Tesla has an advantage in developing tabless batteries and other claimed improvements over existing EV tech.

I think there is a chance Elon Musk could step down as tesla CEO. The way that Jeff Bezos recently stepped down as amazon CEO. Elon Musk recently stated on twitter he hates being the CEO boss.

[avikz]

A significant part of the European Recovery Funds will be channelled towards reducing the carbon emissions. This will include solar energy investments, other renewables but also public investments in car maker´s factories to prepare the massive introduction of the electric cars. One of the key selling points of Tesla stocks is the fact that it was born electric and does not have to spend money transitioning as opposed to all major car maker´s. The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

Hi Elon: "Say Dooooge"

I am sure Tesla sensed and factored in such challenges in their future plans. Usually a company as big as Tesla, have their next 20 years plan ready with many contingency avenues available. Also Tesla is born electric but other car markers will have to spend a ton of money and time to transition from fossil fuel to fully electric. Possibly these other car markers will prefer to license technologies from Tesla instead of reinventing the wheel. That will be easier and cost effective for them. So I can only see advantages for Tesla as a whole.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

This was far from unexpected. It was always something like "when", not "if".
Tesla is losing by increasing too slow the production. And if they continue like this, at some point their production will become too big and no longer much demand.

I don't fully understand the implications of this thing, but nevertheless even if Tesla loses its "moat" (or one of them), I'm expecting that in the not-so-distant future they won't be the only car manufacturer cranking out electric vehicles--but that's assuming the world is moving toward that, which I think it is.

Once Honda, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, and the other car makers and their subsidiaries start producing e-vehicles, Tesla will have lost any edge it had, and it'll be just one car maker among many, making variations on a theme.  They were one of the most innovative companies for quite a while, but that doesn't mean they're going to remain on top forever.  They're not going to, IMO.

I think there is a chance Elon Musk could step down as tesla CEO. The way that Jeff Bezos recently stepped down as amazon CEO. Elon Musk recently stated on twitter he hates being the CEO boss.

That could very well be the case, especially if Musk keeps pursuing things other than the success of Tesla.  Stockholders and the company's board of directors might not appreciate a CEO that doesn't have his eye on the ball.

[bitmover]

A significant part of the European Recovery Funds will be channelled towards reducing the carbon emissions. This will include solar energy investments, other renewables but also public investments in car maker´s factories to prepare the massive introduction of the electric cars. One of the key selling points of Tesla stocks is the fact that it was born electric and does not have to spend money transitioning as opposed to all major car maker´s. The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

Subsidies always create distortions in the economy.
How come it is better to give subsidies to a company which is transitioning to electric, but does not give to a company that was born electric? How can this be more efficient in the goal to reduce carbon emissions than to give the same subsidy to both?

So if I am going to create a new car company in Europe, I have an economic incentive to make a company which will transition to electric rather than create an electric company straight away.

[teosanru]

A significant part of the European Recovery Funds will be channelled towards reducing the carbon emissions. This will include solar energy investments, other renewables but also public investments in car maker´s factories to prepare the massive introduction of the electric cars. One of the key selling points of Tesla stocks is the fact that it was born electric and does not have to spend money transitioning as opposed to all major car maker´s. The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

Hi Elon: "Say Dooooge"

You see TESLA has now more or less become the Apple of the Vehicles Segment. They are bringing in the technology which was never in the thought of by any other automobile company. They have the edge of technology and an existing loyal customer segment by their side. Also, They obviously would have known from a lot of years, that competition into their space would eventually come today or tomorrow. So I don't think this is going to be a big blow to them. It's just a usual free-market phenomenon, whenever there is a supernormal profit scenario in a business, new businesses kick in to bring down the prices to the equilibrium.

[just_Alice]

IMO it has already been pretty long since EV was no longer a moat, and things are getting worse for Tesla each year, as the competition grows. GM is already making more profit, and considering that prices for Tesla are skyrocketing, people will likely (if not already) consider switching.

The EV market also expands quickly with such companies as Ford, Renault, Volkswagen offering EVs. But the decision by the EU will most likely make things even worse for Tesla.

I don't know what should we expect from Musk, but leaving the company at difficult times like this would literally be the worst and cowardly move from the CEO, I rather hope he'll work on some new implementations that would give his company an advantage against the competing companies.

Also, let's not forget that Musk owns a large chunk of Tesla's shares, so, at least, it is in his pragmatic interest to keep the company alive.

[arallmuus]

Subsidies always create distortions in the economy.
How come it is better to give subsidies to a company which is transitioning to electric, but does not give to a company that was born electric? How can this be more efficient in the goal to reduce carbon emissions than to give the same subsidy to both?

So if I am going to create a new car company in Europe, I have an economic incentive to make a company which will transition to electric rather than create an electric company straight away.

We are talking about top automakers companies such as Honda, Toyota, Ford and some other companies which has been established for years. These companies have customers that will always go for their brands so instead of choosing EV from some newly founded automakers companies, people will most likely choose to go for these top companies

The long term goal is probably to convert all the current vehicle into EV so giving subsidies to all these top companies is fair enough to reduce carbon emissions

[stompix]

You see TESLA has now more or less become the Apple of the Vehicles Segment. They are bringing in the technology which was never in the thought of by any other automobile company. They have the edge of technology and an existing loyal customer segment by their side.

Just like Apple?
Yup, they have actually not invented anything and they have just taken existing designs and made them cool.

Also, They obviously would have known from a lot of years, that competition into their space would eventually come today or tomorrow. So I don't think this is going to be a big blow to them.

Times are changing
Tesla's market share of the global electric-car market fell to 11% in April.

The other car manufactures have learned that you simply need to make electric cars look like normal gas cars, not some idiotic futuristic design, and now VW is simply trashing Tesla in Europe and wat till the Audi starts delivering all their models.

The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

Tesla has benefited from them too both in the US and EU with all the discounts they've got, just their factory in Germany got 1.2 billion. All those cars sales to date have benefited from "credits" to consumers which were just government subsidies but spent indirectly, so it's not like the others are gaining an advantage but more like that match is equal now, traditional carmakers and their buyers were taxed before while Tesla was subsidized, now it's a more equal game

[paxmao]

This was far from unexpected. It was always something like "when", not "if".
Tesla is losing by increasing too slow the production. And if they continue like this, at some point their production will become too big and no longer much demand.

I don't fully understand the implications of this thing, but nevertheless even if Tesla loses its "moat" (or one of them), I'm expecting that in the not-so-distant future they won't be the only car manufacturer cranking out electric vehicles--but that's assuming the world is moving toward that, which I think it is.

Once Honda, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, and the other car makers and their subsidiaries start producing e-vehicles, Tesla will have lost any edge it had, and it'll be just one car maker among many, making variations on a theme.  They were one of the most innovative companies for quite a while, but that doesn't mean they're going to remain on top forever.  They're not going to, IMO.

I think there is a chance Elon Musk could step down as tesla CEO. The way that Jeff Bezos recently stepped down as amazon CEO. Elon Musk recently stated on twitter he hates being the CEO boss.

That could very well be the case, especially if Musk keeps pursuing things other than the success of Tesla.  Stockholders and the company's board of directors might not appreciate a CEO that doesn't have his eye on the ball.

A "moat" is the slang for an unique competitive advantage (perhaps I should have just said so). Tesla has some "moats" such as the driverless technology, the technical advantage in batteries and performance and, on the financial side, they do not have to pay for pre-existing factories designed for combustion engines nor have to loose any patents or IP on these, thus it is "born electric".

If other car markers have what is basically a subsidy to refurb, then the later one is lost. In terms of IP, car makers are quite good at research. They will have to change the direction of such research which is also significantly difficult. Lastly, the driverless technology confers a limited advantage - just until waymo, uber or others get enough "miles".

The full analysis of the competitive landscape for the vehicles in the future would require at least a few hours and good knowledge, so all I am saying is that Tesla is not worth its current marketcap, IMO, and I may lack some technical expertise required, but the assets burden moat will be weakened strongly in the next years.

Subsidies always create distortions in the economy.
How come it is better to give subsidies to a company which is transitioning to electric, but does not give to a company that was born electric? How can this be more efficient in the goal to reduce carbon emissions than to give the same subsidy to both?

So if I am going to create a new car company in Europe, I have an economic incentive to make a company which will transition to electric rather than create an electric company straight away.

We are talking about top automakers companies such as Honda, Toyota, Ford and some other companies which has been established for years. These companies have customers that will always go for their brands so instead of choosing EV from some newly founded automakers companies, people will most likely choose to go for these top companies

The long term goal is probably to convert all the current vehicle into EV so giving subsidies to all these top companies is fair enough to reduce carbon emissions

This is not just a redesign or swapping and engine for another. All those companies have gigantic factories, supply chains and IP that are specific to combustion engines which are going to be maid obsolete by the electric car. Be certain that not all will survive that or will be re-shaped into something completely different. Design is not a "wide moat", that is, is not a strong competitive advantage. Reputation and loyalty are also narrow moats for most companies.

The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

...
 But the competition is getting near.
...

That is the point yes, competition is near and that erodes Tesla´s advantage.

...
 Possibly these other car markers will prefer to license technologies from Tesla instead of reinventing the wheel.
...

Then Tesla changes from a car maket to an Research and Development company, which would not require building all those factories. Seems that the strategy is not licencing.

...
Subsidies always create distortions in the economy.
How come it is better to give subsidies to a company which is transitioning to electric, but does not give to a company that was born electric? How can this be more efficient in the goal to reduce carbon emissions than to give the same subsidy to both?
..

Tesla has received huge subsidies for being "green".

[Kittygalore]

How is this connected to Doge or cryptocurrency though? Just because it's Tesla that's getting the greens means that it will have an effect to the cryptocurrency market? I think that it will somewhat affect but I don't think that it's going to be a big time effect. I am happy that they are subsidizing green energy in the continent because we need this right now or it will be too late.

[cabron]

How is this connected to Doge or cryptocurrency though? Just because it's Tesla that's getting the greens means that it will have an effect to the cryptocurrency market? I think that it will somewhat affect but I don't think that it's going to be a big time effect. I am happy that they are subsidizing green energy in the continent because we need this right now or it will be too late.

I'm not getting how it's related to Doooge as well. But this is really not going to be massive in the end. The fact that people today are not making enough money to buy EV. Unless they make it like the cars are less than $2,000.  They'd have to put charging stations everywhere or else they will have to buy Honda Tesla Charger which still needs gasoline.

I really doubt Tesla cars can climb steep roads. The countries today will still be dependent on the middle eastern countries to import oil. Sadly those countries are not getting richer and they may not be able to invade this time.

[Betwrong]

How is this connected to Doge or cryptocurrency though? ~

Long story short, Elon was saying on multiple occasions that DOGE is more environmentally friendly than Bitcoin. He always misses one important thing, imo: there is more food in places where people produce more, not where they eat less. Same rule can be applied to creating cleaner environment: we can be reducing the carbon emissions not by the means of consuming less energy, but by sponsoring renewable energy sources.

At least that's how I see it.

[Kittygalore]

~

I'm not getting how it's related to Doooge as well. But this is really not going to be massive in the end. The fact that people today are not making enough money to buy EV. Unless they make it like the cars are less than $2,000.  They'd have to put charging stations everywhere or else they will have to buy Honda Tesla Charger which still needs gasoline.

I really doubt Tesla cars can climb steep roads. The countries today will still be dependent on the middle eastern countries to import oil. Sadly those countries are not getting richer and they may not be able to invade this time.

Right? That's what I was pointing out. Maybe a big paradigm shift is really needed for this to happen and you are right that we should make EVs more cheap if we want the adoption of green technology to be more successful. Installation of charging stations is probably on their mind already.

[michellee]

When renewables energy is used globally, the transformation from the current energy will follow to use renewable energy. That means the competition will become tough, and if Tesla is not modified or created new things than the other company, it will not have a chance to compete with them. Maybe Tesla can offer a relationship with all car companies and make a new company that will supply the market. But if all companies join together to blow Tesla, it will not be easy to compete with them since they will have big funds to beat Tesla. But that still more than a year and I think Tesla will figure out how to have a solution.

[jaberwock]

How is this connected to Doge or cryptocurrency though? ~

Long story short, Elon was saying on multiple occasions that DOGE is more environmentally friendly than Bitcoin. He always misses one important thing, imo: there is more food in places where people produce more, not where they eat less. Same rule can be applied to creating cleaner environment: we can be reducing the carbon emissions not by the means of consuming less energy, but by sponsoring renewable energy sources.

At least that's how I see it.

You are both right and wrong at the same time. You are right that we should be promoting the renewable energy that is for sure, because the other side like oil and such causes devastating results of climate change which is at a level where it is irreversible and by the looks of it we will reach to a level where it will be 100% doom for all humanity if we keep this up for another 10 years (we won't be all gone in 10 years, we will just be on the path of it without any way back) which is why renewable energy is a must and there is no other option.

However dropping the energy levels is not a bad idea neither, not you and me, we are just regular humans, but there are factories that kill the world a ton, even just the highest grossing 70 companies end up spending 10% less energy it would solve half of the whole problem, yes that is right 70 companies spending 10% less would solve half of worlds energy problem, that's it, that is all we need, nothing else needs to change. Which is why there is a "drop the energy consumption" method too.

[arallmuus]

-snip

This is not just a redesign or swapping and engine for another. All those companies have gigantic factories, supply chains and IP that are specific to combustion engines which are going to be maid obsolete by the electric car. Be certain that not all will survive that or will be re-shaped into something completely different. Design is not a "wide moat", that is, is not a strong competitive advantage. Reputation and loyalty are also narrow moats for most companies.

Even without subsidies, those top automakers will start to produce EV if there is a large market share for it. As we currently know the market share for EV is quite small worldwide which is why those companies doesnt bother about it. IMO, its more like an 'incentives' rather than 'subsidies' for them because once few top automakers started to produce EV when the market share increase, the rest will be forced to follow those steps as well or else they will be left in

However dropping the energy levels is not a bad idea neither, not you and me, we are just regular humans, but there are factories that kill the world a ton, even just the highest grossing 70 companies end up spending 10% less energy it would solve half of the whole problem

Its always start with a small steps to reduce those carbon emissions  and one of those small steps would be to start using EV

[teosanru]

You see TESLA has now more or less become the Apple of the Vehicles Segment. They are bringing in the technology which was never in the thought of by any other automobile company. They have the edge of technology and an existing loyal customer segment by their side.

Just like Apple?
Yup, they have actually not invented anything and they have just taken existing designs and made them cool.

I am sorry if you don't know but this is what inventing means in the 20th century. You can Invent anything but the one who makes it worthy for selling is the one who gets the credit. No one needs Inventions, people need products.

Also, They obviously would have known from a lot of years, that competition into their space would eventually come today or tomorrow. So I don't think this is going to be a big blow to them.

Times are changing
Tesla's market share of the global electric-car market fell to 11% in April.

The other car manufactures have learned that you simply need to make electric cars look like normal gas cars, not some idiotic futuristic design, and now VW is simply trashing Tesla in Europe and wat till the Audi starts delivering all their models.

The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

Tesla has benefited from them too both in the US and EU with all the discounts they've got, just their factory in Germany got 1.2 billion. All those cars sales to date have benefited from "credits" to consumers which were just government subsidies but spent indirectly, so it's not like the others are gaining an advantage but more like that match is equal now, traditional carmakers and their buyers were taxed before while Tesla was subsidized, now it's a more equal game

I think anyone can understand this basic concept of Business, it was obvious that other companies would sooner or later enter into the market, Tesla has its own USP and therefore also has its own customer as well as a fan base who likes the futuristic design, for you, it might be idiotic, for someone your design might be idiotic. Tesla has focused more on gaining a Competitive advantage based on product differentiation.

Bottom line is that they have been able to sell cars at a constant CAGR: https://www.statista.com/statistics/502208/tesla-quarterly-vehicle-deliveries/ despite being a very new company when compared to others some of whom even have experience of 100+ years.

Talking about subsidies, which company leaves the chance of getting subsidies while opening a new Manufacturing Facility Abroad? Lobbying and Diplomacy have always been part of every business around the globe. These traditional car makers too would have taken a hell of lot of assistance at the time of their openings in almost every country.

[Fortify]

A significant part of the European Recovery Funds will be channelled towards reducing the carbon emissions. This will include solar energy investments, other renewables but also public investments in car maker´s factories to prepare the massive introduction of the electric cars. One of the key selling points of Tesla stocks is the fact that it was born electric and does not have to spend money transitioning as opposed to all major car maker´s. The fact that Europe will publicly subsidize these changes means that Tesla will no longer have that competitive advantage and that one of it´s moats will be gone in 5 years.

Hi Elon: "Say Dooooge"

Tesla has made many innovations, but at the end of the day the car manufacturing business is one of the most highly competitive and cutthroat industries in existence. It was inevitable that the other major players, upon seeing Tesla's success and the way many governments were leaning towards a greener future, that they would eventually all go for the electric vehicle market. It seems like every other week a new car manufacturer is claiming that their latest vehicle is the last combustion engine they will be producing - even more so since many countries are pledging to ban new models completely by 2030/2050. Tesla got away with selling "carbon credits" to other manufacturers so they could offset their emissions and this was their most profitable part for a long time, but many big players will stop buying those credits in future so Tesla cars better get profitable real quick.