News
No more “Tesla Killers:” It’s becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish the “EV market” from the mainstream auto segment
Those who have followed the Tesla story for years would remember a time when practically every single concept car and production EV was dubbed as a “Tesla Killer.” The idea then was that while Tesla held the lead in electric cars due to its first-mover advantage, the company’s share in the EV segment would shrink once other companies like the Detroit Big Three decided to step into the electric car market.
Yet with Tesla completing over 930,000 vehicle deliveries in a year rife with chip shortages and supply chain issues, it is becoming more and more difficult to justify the idea of several companies competing in a limited “EV market.” Considering the ongoing rise in electric vehicle sales worldwide and the general decline in sales of vehicles equipped with the internal combustion engine, it is starting to become evident that today, there is no longer an “EV market.” Today, there is just a “car market,” and EVs are winning.
One does not even have to look at Tesla’s 87% growth in 2021 vehicle sales to prove this point. A look at how veteran automakers Ford and General Motors fared in 2021 would show how a notable degree of focus and seriousness in electric vehicles may positively or negatively affect an automaker’s numbers in the current auto environment. Both Ford and GM were hit, just like Tesla, with the supply chain crisis, but one could argue that General Motors ended up with the shorter end of the stick.
In Q4 2021, GM’s US sales tanked by 42.9%, Buick fell by 34.8%, Cadillac fell by 47.8%, Chevrolet dropped by 44.7%, and GMC fell by 37.7%. For the entire year, GM’s overall sales dropped by 12.9%. This ultimately allowed Japanese carmaker Toyota to overtake the Detroit veteran for the first time in nearly a century. It should be noted that GM’s electric vehicle push was practically nonexistent in Q4 2021, with the company selling all but 25 Chevy Bolts and one GMC Hummer EV before the end of the year.
Ford did not have an easy 2021 either. The company sold 1.9 million vehicles in 2021, down 6.8% from 2020. Yet despite this, there were notable points of strength in Ford’s results. The most evident of these could be found in the sales of the Mustang Mach-E, the company’s premium all-electric crossover that, at times, has been favorably compared to the Tesla Model Y, one of the market’s best-selling EVs today. Mach-E sales totaled 27,140 vehicles in 2021, making it the second best-selling electric SUV in the US. Interest in the F-150 Lightning also remained strong over the year, to the point where the company had to double its production goals twice to meet the vehicle’s existing demand.
Perhaps it was just chance, or simply bad luck on GM’s part, but one could notice that between the two Detroit veterans, Ford seems to be far more willing to walk the walk with the EV transition in 2021. General Motors might have announced various lofty targets, and US President Joe Biden might have dubbed GM CEO Mary Barra as the person who electrified the auto sector, but numbers don’t lie. In 2022, GM lost in the EV race by a wide margin, and its sales seem to have taken a hit by extension.
The coming year would be one for the record books. Various electric cars from both veterans and newcomers are expected to be released. Tesla has the Cybertruck and the Semi coming, and rumors are high that work on the company’s $25,000 electric car is underway. Rivian has the R1S ramp to look forward to, and Lucid has its work cut out with the ramp of the Air sedan. Ford has the F-150 Lightning coming this year, and GM has recently just announced the Silverado EV. Volkswagen is also expanding its ID lineup, with the highly anticipated Buzz, the successor to the iconic Microbus, launching this year.
-
Needless to say, 2022, and likely the years following it, would be one that’s characterized by the rise of electric cars. With veteran carmakers now playing catch up to companies like Tesla, the next years would likely see EVs take a more prominent section of the auto sector’s pie. With several countries and regions across the world poised to ban the internal combustion engine within the coming years, buying all-electric cars is starting to become common sense for the mainstream buyer. And that, ultimately, suggests that the “EV segment” has now transitioned into simply the “auto market.”
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
