Tesla: $570 Billion Market Cap Should Shrink As Expectations Are Unmet
For ETF investors, the key issue here is not whether Tesla can still surprise the market, but how much single-name risk an ETF is allowed to carry when a stockโs story changes faster than its fundamentals. In broad index funds, position sizing is usually capped by market capitalization and then rebalanced mechanically. That can leave a portfolio heavily exposed to one companyโs narrative even after the underlying assumptions become less reliable.
That matters most in sector, disruptive-technology, and thematic ETFs. These funds often concentrate capital in a handful of winners, so the difference between โinnovative leaderโ and โexpensive legacy exposureโ can become meaningful very quickly. Investors should check whether the fund follows pure cap weighting, a rules-based tilt, or a discretionary active process, because each handles a deteriorating mega-cap differently.
Another practical point is that valuation risk can persist inside an ETF long after the thesis weakens. If a stock remains a large index constituent, the fund may keep owning it until the next rebalance, even if investors would personally prefer to reduce exposure sooner. That is not a flaw so much as a design feature: ETFs trade judgment for transparency, liquidity, and low cost.
For long-term allocation, the lesson is to look through the headline holding and ask what role it plays in the portfolio. A fund with a large stake in one automaker or one platform company may still look diversified on paper, yet behave like a concentrated bet in practice. Rebalancing across styles, sectors, and regions can help reduce the risk that one stockโs valuation reset dominates the outcome.
TSLA stock price (stockcharts.com)
This article consists of 3 parts:
Part 1 discusses the deterioration in Tesla’s financial performance amidst significant long-term challenges
Part 2 discusses the recent FSD and Robotaxi announcements by Tesla in the context of the challenges it faces.
And Part 3 discusses the recent news around Superchargers, which I believe overshadows any positivity from the FSD announcement, as they mark the start of Tesla becoming just another auto company and becoming priced like one as well.
Part 1: Significant long-term challenges for Tesla as competition catches up
Though Tesla’s stock price has fallen over half from its peak in 2021, Tesla’s market cap of $572 billion is still significantly higher than any other major auto company. While I would hesitate to use the word “overvalued” given all the impressive results that Tesla has achieved, I would posit that Tesla is facing significant long-term challenges.
Automaker comparison (Seeking Alpha, online sources)
By comparing and contrasting analyst opinions on Tesla in 2021 and present day April 2024, it is quite evident what type of expectations Tesla’s stock price was baking in (many of which are being reappraised now):
Tesla research report comparisons (Online)
Note:
(i) This adjusts for the 3:1 split announced on August 25, 2022, by dividing by 3 any per share amounts, including price targets before 2022. In other words, if you look at the original price targets in the research reports, they were 3 times that of the amount shown in the above table.
(ii) “Base case” projections underlying their price target in each analyst report are shown, given that many show a wide range of scenarios.
Three common narratives stand out in these research reports, and expectations in these three areas are all being ratcheted down:
1. Expectations of huge volume growth in vehicle sales:
In 2021, analysts were expecting significant growth in Tesla vehicles sales by 2030. In 2024, these have been massively reduced (e.g., Morgan Stanley now expects 6.1 million by 2030 compared to previously 8.1 million, while a more pessimistic forecast from BNP expects only 3.5 million in 2030 which is less than double that of 2023 volumes), as electric vehicle (EV) market segment performed much worse than expected and competition increased.
Tesla’s own publications previously stated a goal of selling 20 million vehicles a year by 2030 (which has recently been removed).
2. Sustained higher profitability from “cost advantage”:
In 2021, analysts were extrapolating off Tesla’s lead in profitability into perpetuity.
In 2024, this much vaunted cost advantage turned out to be transitory. EBIT Margins are way lower than in 2021 and 2022 from a peak of 20% to just 5%.
Tesla EBIT margins (BNP research report on Apr 24 2024)
It is increasingly evident that the assumption Tesla would forever massively lead determined competitors that were pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into electric vehicles is not reflective of actual industry dynamics. BYD (and a dozen other Chinese companies) can figure out how to make EVs competitively, and so can BMW and Ford and Toyota and other major automakers. Tesla may have had a significant lead over the competition in 2021, but by 2024 this has evaporated and even if there are still any significant leads, it is not showing up in the financials.
To delve a bit deeper on why superb profitability for Tesla is probably not realistic, we can take a step back and consider the significance of the auto industry. The auto industry is not just about making cars, it is a key to industrial competitiveness and other considerations:
- Without a strong auto industry, a country would lose important industrial capacity and know-how. For example, while the auto industry is only 5% of German GDP, this probably understates its economic significance. German industrial associations estimate 24% of German total manufacturing value add is generated by the auto industry. So the auto industry is about more than just profits: whether Ford or Volkswagen or Toyota make a few billion dollars a year or not (though obviously, it’s preferable they can stand on their own feet) is only one piece of the puzzle.
- For China, EVs have the additional strategic impact of reducing oil imports (which China imports around Original Postrofile/country/chn" rel="nofollow" shape="rect">$300 billion annually) so the standalone profit/loss of the EV industry is only part of the holistic consideration.
Conclusion:
I think Tesla is a sell because: Tesla’s profitability has suffered in the past few years and key assumptions that were used to justify its high market cap during its heydays are falling apart, namely (i) high vehicle sales growth, (ii) sustained high profitability and (iii) new products and services. Its financial results are unlikely to ever recover to any level that justify its current market cap, as major nations worldwide maintain excess capacity in autos for strategic reasons beyond the profit motive. FSD and Robotaxi are unlikely to save Tesla’s market cap. In addition, the confusion over its Supercharger business with the downsizing and rehiring will make Tesla untrusted by other auto companies, which will reduce their reliance on Tesla infrastructure such as charging etc. and push towards internal solutions or an external third-party vendor (e.g., Waymo). Tesla likely will not be able to collect “rents” from the EV industry in general but will eventually become just another automaker and should be priced like one (i.e., market cap of $50-100bn).Enjoyed this article? Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular insights and stay connected.
