Articles and Videos of Interest That Don't Merit Their Own Threads

[KevinRS]

Prices are determined by consumer demand, not costs. Therein lies the rub.

The decision to create expensive EVs rather than affordable ones was a costly mistake.

The folks at Re:Build recognized this, and acted upon it.

No, prices are determined by what the consumer is willing to pay balanced by what the seller is willing to sell for. Yes automakers went for expensive EVs, because there is more profit margin in it.
That 7.5k tax incentive that required $75k in income with no other deductions to actually get in full may have discouraged low cost EV development.
This wasn't about just EVs though. Overall the whole vehicle market just keeps going up in price, so now financing is offering longer and longer loans, lower income families find that at the elevated interest rates they still can't afford the vehicles, so companies like GM are ending up taking write offs because they are seeing decreased sales.
This leaves a growing gap Re:Build and the Slate may be able to fill, a market segment that other automakers seem to have abandoned.

 

[AZFox]

No, prices are determined by what the consumer is willing to pay balanced by what the seller is willing to sell for. Yes automakers went for expensive EVs, because there is more profit margin in it.

Sorry, I was trying to be brief and overshot the mark.

Willingness to pay a particular price isn't related to what something cost to produce.

Two identical items have identical market value, even if one of them cost more to produce than the other.

Market equilibrium price may rise, but that happens on the supply side, not the demand side.

 

[AZFox]

The legacy automakers should have developed small affordable EVs instead of electrified expensive models that were designed to appeal to buyers with $7,500 or more in tax liability.

Their excuse is "market conditions", but IMHO the real reason is because they chose to offer the wrong types of vehicles.

This video has a more detailed explanation:

Three years ago, the global auto industry was gripped by a collective hallucination. CEOs promised us that the internal combustion engine would be dead by 2035 and that legacy automakers were just one battery factory away from a trillion-dollar valuation.​

​

That narrative has now collided with economic reality.​

​

In this video, we analyze the collapse of the "inevitability" narrative. We look at why Ford has been forced to take a staggering $19.5 billion write-down, why the European Union is quietly dismantling its own petrol ban, and why—despite billions in subsidies—automakers are still losing $6,000 on every electric vehicle they sell.​

​

We examine how the industry confused a political project with consumer demand, leading to a market where the cars are too expensive for the middle class and too unprofitable for the manufacturers. ​

It was posted in December, before GM announced their second write-down in January.

Eventually car makers will make economical EVs people actually want to buy.

Slate Auto is ahead of the curve.

 

[bloo]

This video has a more detailed explanation:

Three years ago, the global auto industry was gripped by a collective hallucination. CEOs promised us that the internal combustion engine would be dead by 2035 and that legacy automakers were just one battery factory away from a trillion-dollar valuation.​

​

That narrative has now collided with economic reality.​

​

In this video, we analyze the collapse of the "inevitability" narrative. We look at why Ford has been forced to take a staggering $19.5 billion write-down, why the European Union is quietly dismantling its own petrol ban, and why—despite billions in subsidies—automakers are still losing $6,000 on every electric vehicle they sell.​

​

We examine how the industry confused a political project with consumer demand, leading to a market where the cars are too expensive for the middle class and too unprofitable for the manufacturers. ​

It was posted in December, before GM announced their second write-down in January.

Eventually car makers will make economical EVs people actually want to buy.

Slate Auto is ahead of the curve.

Trouble is, these guys believe *nobody* wants an electric car. These are the same people who think global warming is a hoax. A sizable number also believe electrification is a plot to reduce how far individuals can travel as a means to limit mobility and exert control.

 

[KevinRS]

Yeah, at the same time others are showing the graph of EV vs ICEV by year, and comparing it to autos vs horses, people are buying EVs at an accelerating rate. The past year has been an anomaly, with the incentives going away much of the 4th quarter's sales, and probably the first quarter of this year, were pulled into the 3rd quarter, as everyone rushed to beat the cutoff.
so now people like these point to "stalled sales"

Hopefully with the next presidential election or sooner, things will change, and we'll have an administration from whatever side that doesn't seem to be actively anti-EV, anti-renewable, anti-electricity, and pro-coal and oil at any cost.

Yes states dropped the zero emissions by 2035, because they were forced to, but other countries are still on that plan.

 

[AZFox]

Trouble is, these guys believe *nobody* wants an electric car.

Did you watch the video?
Who are "these guys"?

Boyle is a hedge fund manager, a university professor, and a former investment banker who provides financial commentary.

What he says about whether people want (existing) electric cars is supported by the big difference in depreciation between EVs and non-EVs.

He's says EVs that have been produced are not what the mainstream buyer is looking for, and he's right.

Importantly - 84 percent of early adopters had access to home charging, and most owned a second, gas-powered car for long trips. The industry assumed that the next wave of buyers—the mainstream—woulld behave the same way. They were wrong.​

​

The mainstream buyer is not a tech enthusiast looking for a conversation starter; they are a pragmatist looking for a tool. They are cost-conscious, skeptical of “tech for the sake of tech”, and unforgiving of inconvenience. They generally own only one vehicle, park it on the street, and expect it to work seamlessly for 15 years.​

​

When this buyer sees a $50,000 car that takes 40 minutes to "refuel" and might lose 30 percent of its range in the winter, they don't see the future. They see a downgrade.​

Slate Auto is addressing some (but not all) of these concerns. Go Slate go!

The industry has also become dangerously addicted to government handouts to move metal. We have seen repeatedly that demand for EVs is not organic; it is purchased.​

[...]​

You can only "fall behind" in a race if everyone is running towards the same finish line. For the last five years, the EV race was propelled not by consumer demand, but by a government push.​

​

The moment the subsidies were removed in Germany, sales collapsed. The moment the tax credits vanished in the US, inventory started piling up. Rather than falling behind, Western automakers are likely just realigning with reality.​

​

They are pivoting from building the cars regulators wanted them to build, back to building the cars their customers actually want to buy.​

​

Legacy manufacturers have written down monumental amounts of EV losses.

The article I posted was about GM's recent write-downs. But wait, there's more. Ford recorded a $19.5 billion write-down on its electric vehicle (EV) investments in late 2025, and that's on top of their operating losses.

Government-induced artificial demand has been a dismal failure.

The legacy manufacturers created the wrong kind of EVs.

Now Slate Auto has appeared onto the scene with a bright idea to make practical and affordable electric cars their customers actually want to buy.

 

[bartflossom]

I agree. This is just a sophomore slump. The incentives allowed the oems to get lazy and make expensive cars instead of trying to sell something to the masses. Now we've got Ford suddenly switching to a 30K truck and the slate coming, and the new bolts and leafs and who knows what's next. I think it'll be slow but in 5 years things will be very different.

 

[KevinRS]

There are a few hurdles to the general public buying EVs. Big one is charging, best to do it at home, then that "40 minutes to refuel" becomes never worrying about refueling, never stopping at a gas station again unless on a road trip. But that takes an additional investment in home charging. Charging infrastructure is continuously building though. The local Pilot station that I get gas at, I figured out what the project they are working on is, they have been digging up the parking spaces between the pumps and the street, they are putting in chargers.
Fear of charging issues and a perception that a used EV means a shot battery keep probably half or more of the people who don't have an EV from even looking at them, that combined with EVs being generally high priced new is probably a big part of what leads to the high depreciation.
Those high initial prices, supported by the federal incentive also probably keep people out of EVs.

If the incentive had been a fully refundable credit, or at least one you could carry over for multiple years, that might have encouraged more manufacture and purchase of affordable EVs.
A multi-millionaire can declare a business loss and carry over the loss for multiple years so they pay no income taxes at all for 10 or more years.

 

[cadblu]

Here’s a new recipe from Slate… not the 3D cookie cutters

Just in time for the Super Bowl tailgate party.
Or should we call it Frunkgate?

Frunk onion dip

After seeing this, I think I would prefer a frunk filled with ice and beer. And it will clean up a whole lot easier!