Tesla Vehicle Deliveries Tumble After China Factory Shutdown
A string of record quarterly deliveries came to an end in the second quarter, when Tesla handed over 254,695 vehicles to customers.
4 min
Tesla Inc. vehicle deliveries fell quarter-over-quarter for the first time in more than two years, reflecting an extended shutdown in China, supply-chain disruptions and challenges associated with opening two new factories.
Elon Musk’s electric-vehicle maker said Saturday that it had delivered 254,695 vehicles to customers in the three months ended in June, down from 310,048 in the prior quarter. Deliveries were up roughly 27% from last year’s second quarter, when Tesla handed over 201,304 vehicles.
Analysts surveyed by FactSet forecast that Tesla would deliver around 264,000 vehicles in the second quarter. Many analysts in recent weeks had lowered their expectations after the company had to temporarily shut down its largest factory, in Shanghai, because of local Covid-19 restrictions. Tesla also has had trouble getting its new factories in Germany and Texas up to speed, Mr. Musk has said, calling the plants “gigantic money furnaces.”
The company produced 258,580 vehicles in the second quarter, down from 305,407 in the first quarter and up from 206,421 in last year’s second quarter. “June 2022 was the highest vehicle-production month in Tesla’s history,” the company said.
As recently as April, Mr. Musk had been sanguine about Tesla’s outlook, saying the company likely would produce more than 1.5 million vehicles in 2022, up some 60% over last year. Wall Street now believes Tesla could struggle to hit 1.4 million.
The decline in deliveries, which include cars that Tesla has sold or leased out, is poised to weigh on the company’s second-quarter earnings, scheduled for July 20. Analysts expect Tesla in a few weeks to report roughly $2 billion in quarterly profit, up from around $1.1 billion during the year-earlier period but down from its US$3.3 billion record in the first quarter.
The auto maker’s bottom line is likely to be dented by a roughly $475 million bitcoin-related impairment, according to Credit Suisse. Tesla bought $1.5 billion worth of bitcoin in early 2021, when the cryptocurrency was trading above $28,000. The price of bitcoin fell below $17,700 in mid-June, according to CoinDesk. The company’s disclosed accounting methodology factors in the lowest market price of bitcoin since the asset was acquired.
Tesla shares lost more than a third of their value in the first six months of 2022. On April 26, the stock dropped more than 12%, its biggest one-day retreat in more than a year after Twitter Inc. accepted Mr. Musk’s $44 billion bid to take over the social-media company. Mr. Musk initially said he would rely on a bank loan backed by some of his Tesla shares to finance the deal. The following month, he adjusted his financing plan to include more equity instead.
Mr. Musk himself recently took a notedly multiday pause from posting on Twitter, where he often opines on Tesla and other matters. He returned to posting on the platform Friday.
Tesla delivered roughly 238,533 Model 3 sedans and Model Y compact sport-utility vehicles combined during the second quarter, up from 199,409 of those models a year earlier. It delivered 16,162 of its higher-end models—Model S sedans and Model X sport-utility vehicles—up from 1,895 during last year’s second quarter.
The company, like many rivals, has been increasing prices for its cars as it faces higher supply costs. U.S. customers who ordered the long-range version of Tesla’s Model Y compact sport-utility vehicle in late June could expect to pay roughly $68,000, or around $14,000 more than they would have if they ordered the model a year earlier, according to Bernstein Research.
Though consumer demand has held strong—buyers often face monthslong waits for new Teslas—Mr. Musk has expressed growing concern about the global economy. Tesla has let go hundreds of employees in recent weeks, part of cuts that Mr. Musk has indicated could touch 10% of the company’s salaried workforce.
The company, he said in an email to employees last month, had “become overstaffed in many areas.” He has since delivered mixed messages about how those cuts would affect Tesla’s overall staffing level. Tesla is also dealing with other labor issues, including a new lawsuit filed Thursday in California state court by current and former employees alleging racial harassment and discrimination. The company didn’t respond to a request for comment about the case.
Supply-chain disruptions and their ripple effects have caused many auto makers to operate less efficiently, according to consulting firm AlixPartners LLP. As of the fourth quarter, auto makers in the U.S. employed 29 people for every thousand vehicles they produced in 2021, up around 31% from a year earlier, the firm said.
For all of its recent disruptions, Tesla is likely to be the only major auto maker to increase U.S. sales in the first half of the year, from a year earlier, according to research firm Cox Automotive. Overall, sales of new vehicles in the U.S. during the first six months of 2022 were expected to have fallen about 17% from a year earlier, the firm said.
General Motors Co. said Friday that it built about 95,000 vehicles without certain parts and had to set the cars aside instead of shipping them to dealers. Its U.S. sales for the first half of the year were down nearly 18%.
Tesla’s in-house software engineering expertise made it more adept than many rivals at adjusting to a global shortfall of semiconductors. That know-how, paired with battery expertise, is likely to benefit the company as a global shift toward electric vehicles strains supply chains, UBS analysts said in a recent note.
“Tesla’s supply chain is structurally superior vs. peers in the mission-critical areas of semiconductors, battery cells and battery raw materials,” the analysts wrote last month. “Tesla is likely to keep all competitors at a stable or even growing distance in terms of absolute growth and profitability.”
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
Government spending, including Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, has helped drive a gap between clean-energy spending and fossil-fuel investments
3 min
Investments in solar power are on course to overtake spending on oil production for the first time, the foremost example of a widening gap between renewable-energy funding and stagnating fossil-fuel industries, according to the head of the International Energy Agency.
More than $1 billion a day is expected to be invested in solar power this year, which is higher than total spending expected for new upstream oil projects, the IEA said in its annual World Energy Investment report.
Spending on so-called clean-energy projects—which includes renewable energy, electric vehicles, low-carbon hydrogen and battery storage, among other things—is rising at a “striking” rate and vastly outpacing spending on traditional fossil fuels, Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director said in an interview. The figures should raise hopes that worldwide efforts to keep global warming within manageable levels are heading in the right direction, he said.
Birol pointed to a “powerful alignment of major factors,” driving clean-energy spending higher, while spending on oil and other fossil fuels remains subdued. This includes mushrooming government spending aimed at driving adherence to global climate targets such as President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.
“A new clean global energy economy is emerging,” Birol told The Wall Street Journal. “There has been a substantial increase in a short period of time—I would consider this to be a dramatic shift.”
A total of $2.8 trillion will be invested in global energy supplies this year, of which $1.7 trillion, or more than 60% will go toward clean-energy projects. The figure marks a sharp increase from previous years and highlights the growing divergence between clean-energy spending and traditional fossil-fuel industries such as oil, gas and coal. For every $1 spent on fossil-fuel energy this year, $1.70 will be invested into clean-energy technologies compared with five years ago when the spending between the two was broadly equal, the IEA said.
While investments in clean energy have been strong, they haven’t been evenly split. Ninety percent of the growth in clean-energy spending occurs in the developed world and China, the IEA said. Developing nations have been slower to embrace renewable-energy sources, put off by the high upfront price tag of emerging technologies and a shortage of affordable financing. They are often financially unable to dole out large sums on subsidies and state backing, as the U.S., European Union and China have done.
The Covid-19 pandemic appears to have marked a turning point for global energy spending, the IEA’s data shows. The powerful economic rebound that followed the end of lockdown measures across most of the globe helped prompt the divergence between spending on clean energy and fossil fuels.
The energy crisis that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year has further driven the trend. Soaring oil and gas prices after the war began made emerging green-energy technologies comparatively more affordable. While clean-energy technologies have recently been hit by some inflation, their costs remain sharply below their historic levels. The war also heightened attention on energy security, with many Western nations, particularly in Europe, seeking to remove Russian fossil fuels from their economies altogether, often replacing them with renewables.
While clean-energy spending has boomed, spending on fossil fuels has been tepid. Despite earning record profits from soaring oil and gas prices, energy companies have shown a reluctance to invest in new fossil-fuel projects when demand for them appears to be approaching its zenith.
Energy forecasters are split on when demand for fossil fuels will peak, but most have set out a timeline within the first half of the century. The IEA has said peak fossil-fuel demand could come as soon as this decade. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, a cartel of the world’s largest oil-producing nations, has said demand for crude oil could peak in developed nations in the mid-2020s, but that demand in the developing world will continue to grow until at least 2045.
Investments in clean energy and fossil fuels were largely neck-and-neck in the years leading up to the pandemic, but have diverged sharply since. While spending on fossil fuels has edged higher over the last three years, it remains lower than pre pandemic levels, the IEA said.
Only large state-owned national oil companies in the Middle East are expected to spend more on oil production this year than in 2022. Almost half of the extra spending will be absorbed by cost inflation, the IEA said. Last year marked the first one where oil-and-gas companies spent more on debt repayments, dividends and share buybacks than they did on capital expenditure.
The lack of spending on fossil fuels raises a question mark around rising prices. Oil markets are already tight and are expected to tighten further as demand grows following the pandemic, with seemingly few sources of new supply to compensate. Higher oil prices could further encourage the shift toward clean-energy sources.
“If there is not enough investment globally to reduce the oil demand growth and there is no investment at the same time [in] upstream oil we may see further volatility in global oil prices,” Birol said.
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
