Investor's Corner
Tesla Model S, X softer sales in Europe are NOT due to the Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-PACE
In a note to clients on Wednesday, Bernstein senior technology analyst Toni Sacconaghi concluded that increased competition from vehicles such as the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-PACE is responsible for the recent weakness in Tesla’s sales volume in Europe. The analyst further warned that the arrival of other premium electric vehicles like the Mercedes-Benz EQC and the Porsche Taycan could worsen Tesla’s problem.
Explaining further, the Bernstein analyst added that the total market for Europe’s premium electric cars has only grown modestly in 2018 and 2019, and over this time, Tesla’s sales volume has decreased. “Our analysis suggests that the deteriorating sales trajectory of the Model S and X may be primarily due to competition, particularly in Europe, from Jaguar and Audi. In other words, the market isn’t growing much, and Tesla is losing share,” Sacconaghi wrote.
According to TSLA investor @Incentives101, an economist with a background in macro research, Bernstein’s conclusions are inaccurate. In a message to Teslarati, the economist provided a deep dive into the likely causes of the Model S and X’s sales decline in Europe, as well as the reasons why vehicles such as the Jaguar I-PACE and the Audi e-tron are in no way responsible for the reduced market share of Tesla’s flagship sedan and SUV.
Model S and X sales decline
It should be noted that Europe is a region, which means that it is comprised of multiple countries, each with a population of consumers that usually have different preferences in vehicle purchases. Looking at past vehicle sales data, the economist noted that from January-June 2018, Tesla sold 13,426 Model S and X in Europe, while in the first six months of 2019, the figure was 8,037.
“In those months of 2018, Norway and the Netherlands accounted for 52% of sales, while in 2019 it was just 28%. This means that 87% of the drop in sales of Model S and X in Europe is explained by the Norwegian and Dutch market. Furthermore, the Netherlands had Model S and X sales for the first six months of 2018 of 2,833 units and 167 for 2019. This means that the Netherlands by itself explains 50% of the drop in sales for Tesla’s flagship vehicles,” the investor wrote.
The Netherlands and Norway
If one were to look at the sales of the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-PACE in the Netherlands for the first half of 2019, one would find that the two vehicles only sold 362 and 111 units, respectively. This means that in the Netherlands, which was behind 50% of the drop in Tesla’s European sales, the e-tron and I-PACE couldn’t have been responsible since their combined sales are only 16% of the Model S and X’s 2018 sales for the same period. With this in mind, some headwinds were met by the Model S and X in the Netherlands, particularly in the form of a change in BIK incentives at the end of 2018, as well as the arrival of the more affordable Model 3, which has reached sales of over 6,000 units in the country.
As explained by the economist, Norway is a key market for Tesla in the European region, and it is responsible for 37% of the drop in Model S and X sales. For the first six months of 2019, Model S and X sales were 2,079 units, while the Audi e-tron sold 2,273 units and the Jaguar I-PACE sold 2,101. Bernstein’s note claimed that the market for premium electric vehicles didn’t increase, and thus, Tesla’s share of the European market just fell. This, according to the investor, is not correct. “If you take the previous Netherlands sales out of the equation — because it becomes incomparable — you’ll see that the market actually increased in Europe,” he wrote.
The actual reasons
The economist noted that there are a couple of factors that likely played a notable part in the decline of the Model S and X’s sales in Norway. First off, Tesla discontinued the 75 kWh (Standard Range) Model S and X, a variant that accounted for more than 80% of the sales in the country. More importantly, Tesla has entered the Norwegian market with the Model 3, a smaller, more affordable vehicle that boasts the best technologies that the electric car maker has to offer. “Norwegians have proven preferences for smaller and cheaper vehicles. Historically, the share of luxury vehicles in Norway is relatively low. It is then by no surprise that the Model 3 is currently selling at levels not seen in any other market, holding 14% of market share for total vehicles,” the economist explained.
In Norway’s case, at least, Tesla appears to have made a notable trade-off. It entered the market with the Model 3, which allowed the company to command 14% of the country’s total vehicle market. This came at a price in the form of a 50% decline in Model S and X sales. Of course, the removal of the Model S and X’s 75 kWh variant, as well as buyer expectations of an impending refresh of the two flagship vehicles, likely played a notable part in Norway’s sales decline as well.
Debunking Bernstein’s thesis
With these factors in mind, it appears that Bernstein’s findings are, for lack of a better term, inaccurate. The economist summed up his thesis as follows. “Two countries explain the drop in sales for the Model S and X almost entirely, and it’s absolutely clear that competition wasn’t the factor. Regulation and consumer preferences are. It is also important to mention that 28% of sales of the Audi e-tron were in Germany as well, a country where the Model S and X have never been strong, even at their peak.
-
“Consumers in the aggregate always behave rationally. There hasn’t been one example in history where a product(s) that is inferior in every way dominates the market or segment in which they compete. The Audi e-tron, the Jaguar I-PACE, and the Mercedes-Benz EQC are not even in the Model S and X segment specs-wise. Rather, they are closer in specs to the Model 3 and Model Y, both of which undercut them in price. The only reason people mistakenly put them against the Model S and X is their cost,” the investor explained.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship just nailed something it’s never done before
SpaceX’s Starship flew successfully Friday, landing both stages and deploying its first Starlink V3 satellites.
Starship’s thirteenth test flight delivered exactly what SpaceX needed with a clean liftoff, two successful stage recoveries, and the first real payload the vehicle has ever carried to space. Booster 20 and Ship 40 lifted off at 5:51 p.m. CT from Starbase, and by the time the mission wrapped roughly an hour later, both halves of the rocket had done exactly what they were supposed to do.
Booster 20 separated from Ship 40 a few minutes into the flight and stuck a controlled splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico about six minutes after liftoff. That is a meaningful turnaround from Flight 12 in May, when the booster lost several engines during its boostback burn before a hard water landing attempt.
Starship as seen from Starlink satellites pic.twitter.com/e2hvfmnewh
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 25, 2026
Starship 40’s performance was arguably the bigger win. The vehicle deployed the first 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites Starship has ever carried, then flew a suborbital arc to a landing in the Indian Ocean that SpaceX commentator Dan Huot called the company’s softest splashdown yet. “This is a dream scenario for this team that’s trying to get this heat shield data,” Huot said on the live broadcast, according to Space.com’s live coverage. “I’m a little over the moon right now. Wow. Lucky number 13.”
Unlike the mass simulators SpaceX flew on Flight 12, these were production Starlink V3 satellites, meant to extend solar arrays and antennas and attempt to link with the broader constellation before reentering minutes later. Getting real hardware through a full deploy sequence on only the second flight of the V3 generation keeps Starship on schedule for the payload work NASA is counting on for future Artemis lunar landings.
What an awesome launch, really seems like everything went super well and it was all incredibly smooth.
SpaceX is awesome. Very interested to see how the market will respond on Monday pic.twitter.com/KSHmyBfV55
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 25, 2026
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 25, 2026
The flight also arrives at a moment when SpaceX needed a win. SPCX has traded below its $135 IPO price since mid-July, as Teslarati reported when the mission slipped to Friday, and short interest has climbed to roughly a third of the tradable float. A clean flight will not fix a balance sheet, but it does answer the one question SpaceX absolutely needed answered this week: whether the fixes made after the July 16 abort would hold up under real flight conditions. They did, on both stages, on the first try after the redesign.
SpaceX has not set a target date for Flight 14, though the company has said it wants to push toward an orbital attempt on the next mission. After Friday, that goal looks a lot more within reach.
Tesla short sellers won big following the company’s massive fall on Wall Street after it reported subpar Earnings on Wednesday.
Tesla short sellers collected about $4.12 billion in single-day profits on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Shares fell as much as 15 percent during Thursday’s session. It closed as one of the worst days for Tesla on Wall Street in the past three years.
Investors sold off the stock after Tesla said it would aggressively direct its spending toward AI and its Optimus robot project. The company had record revenues, which were driven by one of the strongest quarters in terms of vehicle deliveries in company history.
However, it missed EPS estimates by reporting just $0.33, a far cry from the $0.53 analysts expected.
S3 Partners reported that about 3 percent of Tesla’s outstanding stock is sold short. Managing Director at S3, Ihor Dusaniwsky, provided the short seller’s potential profit, as well as another figure: shorts have likely had paper gains of $8.92 billion this year, as Tesla shares are down 30 percent in 2026.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla has burned short sellers many times in the past, but the company’s latest Earnings Call was a chance for those skeptics to taste some payback. Although the company gave some very transparent information regarding future projects, the rollout of Robotaxi, Optimus, and Semi, many investors took their profits on Thursday.
Notable short sellers like Michael Burry have been transparent about their skepticism around Tesla shares. Burry just revealed three weeks ago that he had opened up a new short on the stock, stating he shorted Tesla shares at $416.22. “Happy it jumped back to this level,” he said in a blog post.
At the time of publication, Tesla shares were down about 3 percent and the stock was trading at $309.92.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.6 review: a rare regression, but some bright spots
Musk’s massive Terafab project will get final location soon
