Connect with us

Investor's Corner

Concerns about Tesla’s (TSLA) alleged ‘demand problem’ are likely overblown

Published

6 years ago

on

The past few months have not been kind to Tesla stock (NASDAQ:TSLA). Following the company’s lower-than-expected production and delivery figures from the first quarter, the negative narrative surrounding Tesla has gone on overdrive. At the forefront of this is a thesis that the electric car maker’s critics have been pushing: Tesla has a demand problem.

This particular point has spread like wildfire, particularly over the past few weeks. Analysts that recently downgraded TSLA stock would reference weak demand for the Model 3, and bears would echo the same assumption during segments in mainstream media. While this narrative is compelling in the way that it appears to be a foreshadowing of Tesla’s eventual demise, the demand problem thesis is at best inaccurate and at worst flat-out wrong, simply because one can’t base a thesis in one data point.

TSLA investor @Incentives101, an economist with a background in macro research, notes that there is a considerable misconception surrounding Tesla’s Q1 results and how it relates to the demand for the company’s electric cars. In a conversation with Teslarati, the investor explained that while it is easy to make assumptions based on Tesla’s Q1 2019 figures, there is simply not enough data to accurately and responsibly forecast Model 3 (and in extension, Model S and X) demand. Tesla’s Q1 2019 data is nevertheless useful, as it reveals a series of factors that could shed light on what is happening to the electric car maker.

Tesla Gigafactory 1, where Model 3 battery cells are produced. (Photo: Tesla)

Shocks, Backlogs, and Demand

The economist notes that demand shocks could be transitory or permanent. Taxes, for example, normally have a permanent effect and natural disasters have a transitory one. But these shocks have different effects over time depending on whether a shock is sudden or expected. Understanding how demand normally reacts to these shocks is very important, as it provides clues at what could be expected to make informed assumptions about Q1. When a shock such as a federal tax credit reduction comes, for example, its effect happens in three stages — given that consumers knew it was coming. Before the shock hits, demand generally increases (pulling demand), followed by a period where demand decreases by more than what could be considered a new equilibrium. Following these is another period where demand increases to reach a new equilibrium. Q1 most likely was the worst part of the second stage.

The backlog of Model 3 reservations was primarily used as a point against Tesla by critics, with an assumption suggesting that there will be no demand for the vehicle after the company clears out its initial batch of reservations. The economist argued that while Tesla’s backlog is widely believed to be a factor impacting demand, such a factor would likely not be relevant in the bigger picture. “Given the characteristics of auto demand (it recycles constantly, consumers preferences are well understood, and trends are clear) a ‘backlog’ has the same effect as a natural disaster if you really want to compare it to something. If the backlog happens at the same time as a tax shock or other shocks, it just exacerbates the move. The duration of the shock could be discussed, but in the end, the effect of the backlog is just irrelevant,” the investor said.

Tesla faced a number of shocks in the US auto market in recent months, and these could be translated into inaccurate assumptions. Among these are negative shocks such as the reduced federal tax credit, the “end” of the Model 3 reservation backlog, seasonality, and supply; as well as positive shocks like price reductions on the company’s vehicle lineup.

Advertisement

“There are some main conclusions that one can infer from the data: 1) There isn’t information available to know what the initial equilibrium was. The exponential shape of the curve gives no reference whatsoever to know this. Comparing Model S/X vs. Model 3, is easy to see that S/X had a stable path which would make it easier to measure the impact of these type of shocks; 2) Over time, the shock will be (almost) totally explained by the reduction in supply; 3) Shocks were expected, and price adjustments should more than cancel any negative permanent shock that taxes would have; and 4) Tesla had really bad luck with all these things happening at the same time,” the economist remarked.

The Tesla Model 3 production line. (Photo: Tesla)

Consumer Preferences

Based on these data, one can infer that the primary constraint that Tesla is facing is not demand, but supply. Demand for the company’s vehicles is not exclusive to the United States auto market. It is global, and in this sense, there is simply no indication that global supply for Tesla’s electric cars is already meeting global demand. The investor noted that the effect of the “backlog” argument in global markets would likely be marginal and transitory, and just as demand is not static, supply and prices have not been either.

Ultimately, the most significant factor that would affect the demand for Tesla’s vehicles is consumer preferences. In recent years, consumer preferences are changing in favor of smart devices, and this cascades into the auto industry. Tesla’s electric cars, which are arguably the most tech-focused consumer vehicles on the road today, are a perfect fit for this changing landscape.

According to the economist, “Consumer preferences and regulation actually affect demand. Prices technically don’t affect demand — just the quantity demanded — and the trend shows that it will have a multiplier effect. It’s always important to ask the correct questions, and the question today is not what are they doing to ‘fix’ a transitory shock? Or where’s demand? The question is, how will you increase supply?”

Alleged ‘Cannibalization’ of the Model S and X by the Model 3

In terms of the alleged cannibalization of Model S and X sales by the Model 3, the investor notes that there is no reason, at least at present, to believe that cannibalization is actually happening. Tesla Model 3 sales increased while Model S and X remained in their path, and as sales of the flagship sedan and SUV decreased, Model 3 sales in the US decreased as well.

“Even if you disaggregate data to try to find signs of cannibalization, there’s still no proof. There’s only one market — Norway — that is big enough, that has reliable data and didn’t face any distortions (tax or subsidy), that could give us any insight about cannibalization. Without further information, it would seem that there was significant cannibalization. The only problem is that Tesla distorted the market by eliminating the most popular Model S and X variant (75kWh), which was, on average 70%+ of sales. It is simply impossible to know which effect (the Model 3’s introduction or the 75kWh variant’s elimination) had the biggest impact, or even measure them in any way. And even then, one market may not be enough to prove it,” the investor stated.

Advertisement

Ultimately, the continuing phase-out period of the federal tax credit in the US would likely affect Model S and X sales in the country. But similar to the Model 3, these effects will likely be transitory and not permanent, especially given that prices have changed accordingly, given that the vehicles have better value per dollar. As with the Model 3, the sharp decrease in Model S and X sales in Q1 2019 could be explained by supply changes in its totality. Thus, demand should return to its previous path after a short period of time.

Disclosure: I have no ownership in shares of TSLA and have no plans to initiate any positions within 72 hours.

Related Topics:

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey endorses Elon Musk Tesla pay package

Dorsey framed the pay package as an engineering and governance crossroads for Tesla.

Published

2 days ago

on

November 6, 2025

By

Twitter co-founder and Square CEO Jack Dorsey has publicly backed Elon Musk’s leadership ahead of Tesla’s pivotal shareholder vote, which is expected to be decided later today at the company’s 2025 annual meeting. 

Dorsey framed the pay package as an engineering and governance crossroads for Tesla.

Dorsey’s public nod framed as an engineering defense of Musk

In a post on X, Dorsey weighed in on Tesla’s post about being in a “critical inflection point.” As per the Twitter-co-founder, the vote on Musk’s 2025 performance award is not about compensation. Instead, it’s about ensuring the path for the company’s engineering in the coming years. 

“This is not about compensation. it’s about ensuring a principled (and exciting!) engineering approach to the company’s future,” Dorsey wrote on his post, later stating that users of Cash app with TSLA shares would be able to vote for the CEO’s proposed 2025 performance award. 

Elon Musk appreciated Dorsey’s endorsement, responding to the Twitter co-founder’s post with a heart emoji. Musk has been pretty thankful for the support for is fellow tech executives, also thanking Michael Dell recently, who also advocated for its proposed 2025 performance award.

Advertisement

Musk’s support

While Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award has received opposition from proxy advisors such as Glass Lewis and ISS, it has received quite a lot of support from longtime bulls such as ARK Invest, and, more recently, Schwab Asset Management following calls from TSLA retail shareholders. 

“Schwab Asset Management’s approach to voting on proxy matters is thorough and deliberate. We utilize a structured process that focuses on protecting and promoting shareholder value. We apply our own internal guidelines and do not rely on recommendations from Glass Lewis or ISS. In accordance with this process, Schwab Asset Management intends to vote in favor of the 2025 CEO performance award proposal. We firmly believe that supporting this proposal aligns both management and shareholder interests, ensuring the best outcome for all parties involved,” Charles Schwab told Teslarati.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla Robotaxi and autonomy dreams lean on shareholders: Wedbush

Published

3 days ago

on

November 5, 2025

By

Credit: Tesla Europe & Middle East/X

Tesla’s dreams of developing a Robotaxi suite that utilizes a fully autonomous platform developed by the company’s top-tier talent now lean on shareholders and perhaps the most crucial vote in its history.

That’s what Dan Ives of Wedbush said in a new note to investors on Wednesday. As the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting is now just one day away, investors are down to their final chance to vote for or against Elon Musk’s new compensation plan.

Ives wrote that, while the company has made its intentions clear, wanting to maintain Musk, pay him accordingly, and give him the voting power he has long wanted, ultimately, the responsibility falls on investors.

As many retail shareholders have pushed for people to vote for Musk’s compensation package, there are a handful of large-scale funds and firms that have decided to go in another direction. Bullish Wall Street firms, Wedbush being one of them, believe it is crucial for Tesla to maintain Musk.

The vote could have major implications on whether Tesla launches an autonomous Robotaxi suite in the near future, Ives says:

“Getting Musk’s pay package approved tomorrow at the highly anticipated meeting will be a big step towards advancing Tesla’s future goals with the autonomous and Robotaxi roadmap ahead.”

While some investors are convinced the company is ready to go in a different direction simply based on Musk’s political involvement over the past year, many investors are under the impression that the development of Tesla’s autonomy suite, as well as its prowess in the EV sector, would fall if Elon were not at the helm.

Tesla’s Board of Directors has already stated that they have received confirmation that Musk’s political involvement would wind down in a timely manner. Moving forward, his focus will not veer from the mission of any of his companies; at least that’s what can be gathered from some of the Board’s communications over the past month.

Musk’s new compensation package is incentivized by performance metrics and will require him to achieve a handful of lofty tranches. He will not get paid unless he drives shareholder value, which is something many skeptics tend to leave out.

Ives continues:

“This new incentive-driven pay package for Musk would also provide an additional 423 million shares of common stock (~12% of shares), which would increase his ownership of Tesla up to ~25% voting power, which we believe was critical to keep Musk at the helm to lead Tesla through the most critical time in the company’s history. We believe this was the smart move by the Board to lay out these incentives/pay package at this key time as the biggest asset for Tesla is Musk…and with the AI Revolution, this is a crucial time for Tesla ahead with autonomous and robotics front and center.”

Wedbush maintained its Outperform rating and $600 price target on shares.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

UPDATE: Tesla investors push Charles Schwab for Musk comp plan clarification

Published

4 days ago

on

November 4, 2025

By

tesla cybertruck elon musk
Tesla CEO Elon Musk unveils futuristic Cybertruck in Los Angeles, Nov. 21, 2019 (Photo: Teslarati)

Update: 4:00 p.m. EDT – Charles Schwab has reached out to TESLARATI with the following statement, clarifying that it plans to vote FOR Musk’s compensation package:

“Schwab Asset Management’s approach to voting on proxy matters is thorough and deliberate. We utilize a structured process that focuses on protecting and promoting shareholder value. We apply our own internal guidelines and do not rely on recommendations from Glass Lewis or ISS. In accordance with this process, Schwab Asset Management intends to vote in favor of the 2025 CEO performance award proposal. We firmly believe that supporting this proposal aligns both management and shareholder interests, ensuring the best outcome for all parties involved.”
There have also been updates to the headline and various paragraphs to reflect this as well as accuracy.

Tesla investors are pushing Charles Schwab for clarification after it was expected to vote against CEO Elon Musk’s pay package.

Several high-profile Tesla influencers are speaking out against Charles Schwab, saying its decision to vote against the plan that would retain Musk as CEO and give him potentially more voting power if he can achieve the tranches set by the company’s Board of Directors.

The Tesla community appeared to see that Schwab is one firm that tends to vote against Musk’s compensation plans, as they also voted against the CEO’s 2018 pay package, which was passed by shareholders but then denied by a Delaware Chancery Court.

Schwab’s move was recognized by investors within the Tesla community and now they are speaking out about it:

At least six of Charles Schwab’s ETFs were expected to vote against Tesla’s Board recommendation to support the compensation plan for Musk. The six ETFs represent around 7 million Tesla $TSLA shares.

Jason DeBolt, an all-in Tesla shareholder, summarized the firm’s decision really well:

“As a custodian of ETF shares, your fiduciary duty is to vote in shareholders’ best interests. For a board that has delivered extraordinary returns, voting against their recommendations doesn’t align with retail investors, Tesla employees, or the leadership we invested to support. If Schwab’s proxy voting policies don’t reflect shareholder interests, my followers and I will move our collective tens of millions in $TSLA shares (or possibly hundreds of millions) to a broker that does, via account transfer as soon as this week.”
Tesla shareholders will vote on Musk’s pay package on Thursday at the Annual Shareholders Meeting in Austin, Texas.

It seems more likely than not that it will pass, but investors have made it clear they want a decisive victory, as it could clear the path for any issues with shareholder lawsuits in the future, as it did with Musk’s past pay package.

Continue Reading

Trending