Global Big 3 on their profitability vs EVs through 2030

TLDR: Global Big 3 auto makes have announced they can't be profitable if EVs make up more than about 10% of sales by 2030. - 10% is a rough estimate and they don't come out and straight say this but they are dropping lots of hint that they think is the case and this is driving their strategy. Gleaned from recent press announcements and presentations from these firms.

-----
The global Big 3 comprised of (Toyota, VW & GM) are in essence saying if they have to sell more than about 10% electric cars even by the year 2030 they can't be profitable. Toyota has said that by 2030 electrics will be less than 12% of its car sales even hedging this with the hydrogen fraud. This 12% figure also includes PHEVs. It doesn't seem to include hybrids which seems to make Toyota part of a propaganda campaign to conflate electrification with hybrids. Echoing the same sentiment VW has said to its dealers that by 2025 10-15% its sales will be electric at most, in essence the same thing Toyota was saying. GM was saying that by 2030 it would be about 60% higher on a cost per mile basis on sharing electric autonomy than Tesla is saying it will be at in 2018 or 2019 with shared electric autonomy- that is 12 years later they will still be 60% higher on a per mile basis- fully consistent with their long practice of fail convincingly EVs in order to get the subsidy transfer payment- it is their history all about the subsides of every kind including bail outs. If you plot what GM is saying against what Tony Seba says on likely curves, you see GM is saying the same thing as Toyota and VW, its cartel behavior.

If you want to be charitable you would say they are pitching the best case for their profit but also claiming to be serious about their insurance policy. So to clarify these people think they are going to keep electrics under 10% by 2030 when they should have been genuinely divesting petrol 3 decades ago when GM started with its "fail convincingly" on EVs practice. So this is their fault to a large degree, but again what they are basically saying is that if electric are more than 10% in 2030 that they can't be profitable. But again their profit has clearly not been in line with social profit. Not sure what is giving them the boldness to announce this stuff even if coyly or somewhat veiled. VW could be lying to its dealer network. It could be assurance from their petrol masters i.e., T. admin assuring it will sabotage Tesla and Lithium and grid free systems and pushing climate pessimism etc., or that in tandem with their practice of failing convincingly and telling citizens that citizens just didn't want electrics will som-how hold up against actual consumer preference and political will.

They are signaling they intend to plow ahead with what their customers don't want or alternatively they are saying they plan to do this because they can't spook their share prices and their tax category doesn't allow them to run like a non profit- but their profit was always a transfer payment ruse anyway despite the prevalent market religionism.

This seems to mean that Tesla has, if not for the Chinese makers, a good shot at capturing more than half the global market share through 2030- kind of the way GM once had it.
This will destroy the global Big 3s share price, market cap and market share and it will mean their executives are non-credible. I don't think the American Big 3 survive and in this environment of exposed massive and egregious corporate welfare and this form of bad socialism. I think the Big three in Germany and Japan could experience what the American Big 3 did in 2007-2009, but with less kindness because they should have known better. Has Germany arrested enough VW execs after Diesel Gate- doesn't seem like it especially after that wink and nod to American dealers on profitability. If they've started diesels again maybe they better check them again to see that the same exact emissions scam software hasn't been reinstated. So in essence the global big 3 face becoming the biggest corporate failures in history (joining Enron/Worldcom...) but in response they claim to they have in insurance plan if someone makes them do it like Ferrari in its talk about building electric Ferrari's "we do it because we have to do it..." why didn't you do it on your own? How is that for leadership? All these firms are completely dependent on subsidies (albeit more indirect through petrol echo system,) but a few still focused on quality like the Japanese makes instead of imaginary subsidy derived profits. So again they continue to bet on the subsidy based petrol echo system but project to high heaven about green which really doesn't need subsidies (where subsidies were used correctly) and is actually self-sustaining and not a welfare case- just based on physics and resultant economic efficiency. Continued in next post

 

Think about what they are saying here, what they are going to build in the way of product, namely hybrids, its so ironic and its such utter trash and it's an attempt at global market manipulation (like the revelation of an OPEC for cars) by petrol again, because even though they have massive sunk costs to build these petrol cars more cheaply (again because of massive ill-gotten subsidies both direct and indirect to the petrol echo system over over a very long span) every hybrid is a full electric car, its just the size of the battery and then with battery prices dropping precipitously through the floor already sub threshold (guess they will try to say parity keeps moving lower) so it's like they insist on selling full electric cars that also must consume gasoline or solely gasoline. Why is that- on paper it doesn't look like petrol owns big auto, but interlocking boards and conflicts of interest and trickle down subsidies glue them together.

Their plan for profitability is to force consumers to carry around in their cars about 1500lbs of ICE based dead weight that consumes a bunch of space and is failure prone and expensive to fix and forces people to go to gas stations and forces people to buy an extra car every 15 years (Japanese are better on that point) and forego the real benefits of electric autonomy and pay a lot more for maintenance and energy and down time- if not this then they can't be profitable or states must double their subsidies to these loser managements and the loser shareholders that invested intentionally in these firms or didn't sell long ago. Even in a PHEV they will never put the proper electric range in the car without hobbling it further, but again they are not talking about building these they are talking about building hybrids or even worse, worse than legacy gas cars are petrol based hydrogen cars- so hydrogen lower economic efficiency than petro and hybrid which is just petrol again. And it is not even clear that they get that they won't be able to continue to just foist straight legacy gas vehicles on the public- certainly not clear in what VW said to its dealers.

So they basically want to sell electric cars (hybrids) that can't use solar off the roof and solar battery but instead have to continue to use dirty petrol and they have to be totally compromised or very substantially compromised in design and even if they could plug in presumably they are pushing useless natural gas. So for even more clarity, they will sell electric cars but part of that is they can't write off their sunk cost. Surprise, they have the same exact sunk cost situation as the petrol industry itself where 75% of its subsidy acquired assets are not only political stranded but economically stranded and the books are fake as a result- these companies are essentially already bankrupt. So they are in the same position as an obsolete industry fundamentally financially defunct so it will be interesting to watch and it should be time to start shorting VW, Toyota and GM and quite possibly investing in companies like Tesla. After all, Tesla doesn't have to cannibalize existing car sales and write off sunk costs to go sharing electric autonomy (18x reduction in cars on the road,) its still a positive sale even into the electronic autonomy space and if it runs factories as automated or more so as Intel it doesn't have to lay people off and its also full of the best people as the Musk family of companies are at the very top because they are mission driven, and not dictated to by the whims of money based co-optation- in short they are not corrupt or furthering corruption. It's funny to watch Tesla clean up even when it doesn't invest in being dirty through democracy killing sponsorship. Petrol firms can sponsor and publically perjure themselves all they want, they have inferior obsolete products that no amount of science, marketing and political manipulation will bridge the gap on, petrol is dead and they aren't getting it because they are paid not to get it. See what the market religionists make of this.

There is another irony here though. If they succeed in their fraud they will be claiming all the way its because customers don't want electrics and the same governments that subsidize them to pieces shouldn't dictate terms to them, but what customers want is really going to matter this time. These are the same people who took a long time to come accept focus groups because prior to things like focus groups they used to say the customer doesn't know what they want you have to show them.
They are also betting that the transfer payment nature of the petrol industry will somehow remain a secret that that the public won't become aware of it.

Also think about their projections on margins. Given the subsidy nature of petrol it has never been profitable and by extension neither has the auto industry and certainly not after the two were wed, but look at all the projecting people like Lutz do on this issue. You could cut the green subsidies and Tesla can still hit 25% margin on a car even when its below petrol auto's subsidized supposed parity price. If you pulled the subsidies out from under petrol and petrol auto it would go under over-night as in close up shop. Green can run without a subsidy. Ultimately why they pulled back on nixing green subsidies under the T. admin is they didn't want to call attention to the fact that petrol subsidies are orders of magnitude beyond the claimed 5 billion a year or so in the US and always have been and petrol actually can't survive without them. Even worse calling attention to the problem/solution with moving off petrol in that doing so requires cutting welfare to the rich, cutting a toll road system where hereditary wealth taxes everyone else. Guess they think people should go vegan first to make up the Paris accord difference? People can do both.

 

Sorry,



Meant to say 40% higher for GM in 2030 vice:

and it would be a 2018 but not update on Tesla network yet.

 

Well lets hope you're right, but if the other's don't Tesla may be able to approach that because it will be all that's left but of course Tesla knows it go it alone fast enough.

 

[QUOTE/]He would do just as well selling the same Tesla with a gas motor, maybe even better.[/QUOTE]
That is the nonsense and it shows where you're coming from. The reason he has a following is because he is working to get rid of ICE
not because he is some sort of good sales man, that notion is a stupid as the idea that cheap (but still totally subsidized as it is or otherwise) gas matters. People want the power and money behind petrol dead more than anything else there are huge numbers of people in the world to day that take a second mortgage to bring this criminal contingent to justice. That is what is about, its about justice for genocides and endless lies and a scam that been bankrupting the US for more than 50 years- its about the bill coming due and transparency descending.