Connect with us

Investor's Corner

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

Published

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.

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

Investor's Corner

Tesla welcomes Chipotle President Jack Hartung to its Board of Directors

Tesla announced the addition of its new director in a post on social media platform X.

Published

on

Credit: @ArthurFromX/X

Tesla has welcomed Chipotle president Jack Hartung to its Board of Directors. Hartung will officially start his tenure at the electric vehicle maker on June 1, 2025.

Tesla announced the addition of its new director in a post on social media platform X.

Jack Hartung’s Role

With Hartung’s addition, the Tesla Board will now have nine members. It’s been a while since the company added a new director. Prior to Hartung, the last addition to the Tesla Board was Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia back in 2022. As noted in a Reuters report, Hartung will serve on the Tesla Board’s audit committee. He will also retire from his position as president and chief strategy officer at Chipotle, and transition into a senior advisor’s role at the restaurant chain, next month.

Hartung has had a long career in the Mexican grill, joining Chipotle in 2002. He held several positions in the company, most recently serving as Chipotle’s President and Chief Strategy Officer. Tesla highlighted Hartung’s accomplishments in a post on its official account on X.

“Over the past 20+ years under Jack’s financial leadership, Chipotle has seen significant growth with over 3,700 restaurants today across the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Jack was named ‘CFO of the Year’ by Orange County Business Journal and Best CFO in the restaurant category by Institutional Investor,” Tesla wrote in its post on X.

Advertisement

Tesla Board and Musk

Tesla is a controversial company with a controversial CEO, so it is no surprise that the Board of Directors tend to get flak as well. Two weeks ago, for example, Tesla Board Chair Robyn Denholm slammed The Wall Street Journal for publishing an article alleging that company directors had considered a search for a potential successor to Elon Musk. Denholm herself has also been criticized for offloading her TSLA shares.

More recently, news emerged suggesting that the Tesla Board of Directors had formed a special committee aimed at exploring a new pay package for CEO Elon Musk. The committee is reportedly comprised of Tesla board Chair Robyn Denholm and independent director Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, and they would be exploring alternative compensation methods for Musk’s contributions to the company.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Rivian stock rises as analysts boost price targets post Q1 earnings

Rivian impressed with smaller-than-expected losses & strong revenue, pushing analysts to raise price targets.

Published

on

(Credit: Rivian)

Rivian stock is gaining traction as Wall Street analysts raise price targets following the electric vehicle (EV) maker’s first-quarter earnings report. Despite a dip after the announcement, optimism surrounds Rivian’s cost control and upcoming lower-priced cars.

Last week, Rivian reported a better-than-expected Q1 gross profit, surpassing Wall Street’s forecasts with adjusted losses of $0.48 per share against expectations of $0.92 per share. The company also reported a revenue of $1.24 billion compared to the $1.01 billion anticipated.

However, the EV automaker cut its 2025 delivery forecast and capital spending due to President Donald Trump’s tariffs. It explained that it is “not immune to the impacts of the global trade and economic environment.” RIVN stock dropped nearly 6% post-earnings, closing at $12.72 per share.

Wall Street remains upbeat about Rivian, citing progress toward launching lower-priced vehicles in 2026 and effective cost management. On Monday, Stifel analyst Stephen Gengaro raised his RIVN price target to $18 from $16, maintaining a “Buy” rating. He highlighted Rivian’s “solid progress” toward key milestones.

Advertisement

Conversely, Bernstein’s Daniel Roeska gave RIVN a “Sell” rating. However, Roeska also lifted his Rivian price target to $7.05 from $6.10, acknowledging “better” Q1 results. He warned that profitability remains distant and hinges on multiple product launches by the decade’s end.

Overall, Wall Street’s average price target for RIVN climbed from $14.18 to $14.31, a modest 13-cent increase reflecting positive sentiment. About one-third of analysts covering Rivian rate it a Buy, compared to the S&P 500’s average Buy-rating ratio of 55%.

On Monday, Rivian stock rose 2.7% to $14.64, slightly trailing the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average, which gained 3.3% and 2.8%, respectively. The uptick may also stem from broader market gains tied to news of a temporary U.S.-China tariff suspension.

As Rivian navigates trade challenges and scales production at its Illinois factory, its Q1 performance and analyst support signal resilience. With lower-priced EVs on the horizon, Rivian’s strategic moves could bolster its position in the competitive EV market, offering investors cautious optimism for long-term growth.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla (TSLA) poised to hit $1 trillion valuation again amid reports of Trump China deal

TSLA stock was up about 8% at $322.56 per share on Monday’s premarket.

Published

on

tesla-model-y-giga-texas-logo
(Credit: Tesla)

Tesla shares (NASDAQ:TSLA) are on a tear on Monday’s premarket amidst reports that the United States and China have agreed to significantly roll back tariffs on each other’s goods for an initial 90-day period.

As of writing, the premarket price of TSLA shares suggests that the electric vehicle maker might end Monday with a $1 trillion valuation once more.

Tesla and China

TSLA stock was up about 8% at $322.56 per share on Monday’s premarket. As noted in a report from Barron’s, these prices suggest that the company could achieve a trillion-dollar valuation again, a level not seen since late February. Similar to Tesla, the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average were also up 2.8% and 2.1%, respectively, on Monday’s premarket.

The United States and China’s decision to roll back its tariffs would likely be appreciated by CEO Elon Musk. Despite working for the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and despite Tesla being least affected by the Trump administration’s tariffs due to its strong domestic supply chains in the United States, China, and Europe, Musk has noted that he is a supporter of non-predatory tariffs.

The United States and China’s Agreement

In a joint statement from the United States and China posted on the White House’s official website, the two countries agreed to lower reciprocal tariffs on each other by 115% for 90 days. This means that the United States will temporarily lower its overall tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, as noted in an ABC 12 report. China, on the other hand, will also lower its tariffs on American goods from 125% to 10%.

Advertisement

The talks were led by Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, as per the joint statement. Bessent shared his thoughts about the matter in a comment in Geneva. “The consensus from both delegations is neither side wants to be decoupled, and what have occurred with these very high tariffs … was an equivalent of an embargo, and neither side wants that. We do want trade. We want more balance in trade. And I think both sides are committed to achieving that,” he said. 

A spokesperson from China’s Commerce Ministry also shared a statement about the matter. As per the spokesperson, the deal was an “important step by both sides to resolve differences through equal-footing dialogue and consultation, laying the groundwork and creating conditions for further bridging gaps and deepening cooperation.”

Continue Reading

Trending