Tesla electric car sales plunge again in Australia – Model 3 down more than 81 p
thedriven.io
thedriven.io
Claiming that an executive breached his fiduciary duty requires clearing a pretty high bar, far higher than "his actions hurt the company". Practically speaking the best recourse tesla shareholders have is to either sell their shares, or launch a proxy fight.
I’m struggling to picture a court of law that could hold Musk accountable right now.
^1 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tesla-stock-...
Musk is a de facto head of state (alongside Trump). All but the most independent courts would be under massive political pressure to yield to him. (At least so long as he’s in Trump’s good graces.)
Political promises mean less and less. But mistaking promises for pressure is deadly.
Tariffs can rise arbitrarily, though beyond a certain point it's meaningless as all the trade is smuggled, nobody bothers any more with doing it legitimately.
The Trump administration is currently making threatening noises about annexing land from the EU (and by extension a NATO ally). But it is currently noise, not action, so yes, they may escalate in that way also… or at least they may try to: I have no idea how anyone's military may react to this because the idea of such an act was unthinkable outside of weird dystopian fiction until about January this year.
Sell your shares. Buy a better company, one with less corruption.
A couple of years ago it was a meme to ask why Tesla got poor ESG scores compared with random fossil fuel producers.
Part of the answer was the Governance of Tesla being really bad.
Another part was Musk just refusing to file the paperwork to get a decent score. Which he wouldn't get away with if the governance was better.
If shareholders are serious about dumping Musk they can put in board members to sack him and get a new CEO. If they just want a lot of performative legal actions, yea sure file a lawsuit.
2) if one desired to keep their investments in the company they disagree with performance/ethics wise, there is a board that dictates investor funds, trends. They are elected.
In the event of some perceived strife, or new initiative, a board is petitioned by shareholder groups to a point that if there is enough sway, can force a decision on the company.
I do not agree this is ideal^ as dark forces in the market have far more of an effect on it than the actual investments.
gives you an idea - 27% chance being removed before 2027
Definitely not at the point when they have a car model that is leading in top 5 most purchased new vehicles (not just EVs, we are talking overall) in multiple large markets like EU or US. Which was the case for 2024.
- Are car sales in general down?
- Are other EV makers seeing a corresponding uptick in sales?
- Are ICE vehicles seeing an uptick in sales?
Just knowing that Tesla sales for a specific model have tanked doesn't tell me enough. The article mentions that Polestar and BYD are seeing an increase in sales over the last year, but doesn't say whether the last couple months have seen a higher increase than previously.
Apparently not [1]
> Are other EV makers seeing a corresponding uptick in sales?
Doesn't really look like it [2], but I've not plotted a line chart to see if it's just well distributed. There doesn't appear to be any 1 automaker that is breaking out with Tesla's drop.
> Are ICE vehicles seeing an uptick in sales?
Given the first two, I'd say probably. With sales pretty much the same and no EV brand that appears to have went up my guess is that ICE is where the slack is going.
[1] https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/automoti...
[2] https://thedriven.io/2025/03/04/australian-electric-vehicle-...
>Apparently not [1]
>[1] https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/automoti...
Your source says the opposite?
>Passenger car sales of 12,783 units in January represented a 22.2% decrease from the same period in 2024, SUV sales of 52,748 units represented a 5.9% increase
If you look at the bar graph, the total drop is 89k to 86k. Which represents about a 1% decrease in total sales.
> Figures published towards the end of February by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) showed that Tesla sold just 9,945 units in January, a 45 per cent fall from 18,161 in the same month a year earlier – and despite a 37 per cent growth in overall EV sales.
https://thedriven.io/2025/03/04/tesla-sales-continue-to-plum...
> The plunge in Tesla electric vehicle sales has continued into February, according to the latest official data, with combined sales of the Model Y and Model 3 EVs plunging 71.9 per cent in the month of February, compared to the same month a year earlier.
Meanwhile EV sales appear to be UP globally year-over-year (in this case, January 2024 to January 2025)
https://rhomotion.com/news/global-ev-sales-grow-by-18-in-202...
https://rhomotion.com/news/global-ev-sales-grow-by-18-in-202...
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/03/04/1842209/australia-w...
Right now the high score appears to be:
- Australien: -72% - China: -50% - Denmark: -48% - France: -45% - Norway: -44% [1]
I really really hope my home country Germany can make it to #1.
[1] Press releases have reported a 70% drop, but the numbers do not back this up. Maybe it's 70% drop in market share.
In the last couple of years the German automakers completely missed the trend towards EVs had only had a laughable product palette. This also causes them to close a lot of factories in Europe, and that is still happening right now.
But you have to keep in mind that the market for EVs is growing. So, once Tesla closes their factory, Volkswagen & Co will be more than happy to hire those workers.
And of course, with arson attacks on Tesla stuff becoming common over here, the factory might go up in flames soon, anyway.
I kinda hope not, the Tesla Brandenburg site is surrounded by a lot of woodland, and I'm not that far from it.
The question is if those factories would be in Germany.
To put that into perspective: 1,400 units is the production capacity of their Factory in Germany PER DAY.
[1] https://www.thestar.com/business/tesla-sales-are-down-but-it... [2] https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2024/trends-in...
“ About a third of Tesla’s $35 billion in profits since 2014 has come from selling federal and state regulatory credits to other automakers. The credits are given to automakers that meet certain standards, including selling a certain percentage of zero-emission vehicles. Tesla is the largest seller of these credits to automakers that don’t meet the standards and want to avoid paying a fine.”
(I’d also throw in a ban on domestic content owners providing training material to xAI, but I’ll admit I have a vindictive streak.)
Starlink is providing internet, so any of their users’ traffic could be monitored or access cut/manipulated.
Forget surveillance: refusal to support. (Bricking has no plausible deniability.) If you don’t do X, Y and Z I will be forced to geoblock your country; if that causes cars to stop driving so be it.
Tesla brought EVs to the mainstream.
How exactly are they a threat to the free world?
but in this reality now they are helping and have been for awhile.
articles like those you have linked have always been appearing, but it only highlights how useful starlink has been.
what other company has helped provide internet to ukraine?
They may have. Musk denies it. Kyiv doesn’t, to my knowledge, seem to have pressed it. Can’t quite say it’s not true. But can definitely say it’s not known.
That’s the difference between a threat and an attack.
The reality is they are currently helping, have been, and noone else has in that same regard.
-- edit --
Those articles linked below are about "talks" and proposals.
As of now, noone is deployed in Ukraine other than Starlink.
Those companies highlighted don't even have the capacity.
They are just blowing hot air for publicity. They aren't helping at all, they are just using the situation to advertise.
-- edit 2 --
I see, I must have missed that Eurosat was deployed in Ukraine. Albeit in a much more limited form than Starlink.
That's good at least one other company has helped.
However, you still have to credit SpaceX for enabling the ability to send the satellites up there in the first place :)
Sure you could subsidize the competitors, but they'll be sending a huge portion of that to Starlink anyway to launch them.
Eutelsat’s OneWeb and Geo are currently providing services in Ukraine [1][2].
Their leadership, meanwhile, isn’t trying to undermine Kyiv at home and abroad.
> those articles linked below are about "talks" and proposals
Nope. The proposals are for expansion. Eutelsat currently provides service in Ukraine.
(Out of curiosity, where did you read that Starlink has a monopoly on satellite internet in Ukraine? Always helpful to keep track of bad sources.)
> those companies highlighted don't even have the capacity
Sure, Europe fucked up by relying on Musk. Now they have the opportunity to fix it. In the meantime, it’s insanity to divert any resources to Musk that could go to building a competitor, even if heavily subsidised. (U.S. ignoring WTO rules means dumping and state-support rules no longer apply.)
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/f4cc04f0-5ccf-44d8-b5c1-f3eebc9cd...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/eutelsat-committed-...
The majority of the Starlink terminals are now paid by the countries on public funds (USAID, and the EU countries).
It's not exactly cheap (4'500 USD/month at the beginning of the war, now 1'500 USD/month, for a total of 0.5B/year in revenue for SpaceX).
Based on Musk’s comments, he just kneecapped them in favour of Moscow [1]. Negotiators are currently using Starlink as leverage to Molotov-Ribbentrop Ukraine’s mineral resources [2].
That said, Musk is a liar. So absent a statement from Kyiv absolving him (I honestly haven’t looked for this), the best we can say is we don’t know.
[1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1699917639043404146?s=46
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/us-could-cut-ukraines-acces...
Musk would be correct that private individuals should not have this much power, should not take decisions about what is and isn't legal — which makes it even more hypocritical for him to have had a fight with Brazil or the UK government or offer support for any political party in Germany, let alone to be wielding a chainsaw on-stage at CPAC, being the public face of DOGE, taking his kid into the Oval Office to have a chat with the press, etc.
Tesla's value gives Elon his money which also gives him his power. For obvious reasons Elon is VERY associated with Tesla. People are viewing purchasing a Tesla as giving Elon money, which isn't totally wrong but isn't as direct as people as saying either.
In the case of Tesla the threat is Elon himself and how he chooses to use his power. The cars (in my opinion) are not a threat IRT surveillance etc. I think its easy enough to cover the cameras etc. Of course I can be wrong, as I often am.
In the case of Starlink.... being able to use communication and internet access during an emergency to make money, or use it for influence is pretty powerful. particularly as the US govt (which Elon is a part of) pivots towards an alliance with Russia, starlink is a massive liability that Ukraine cannot count on AT ALL. Nothing is stopping Elon from pulling access to starlink at the behest of Putin. America is already pausing anti-russian activity IRT cyber attacks etc under the guise of "good faith during active negotiations". Why wouldn't starlink be next? Why can't starlink be used to suppress access to things. Remember the stories about ISPs injecting ads into content that they didn't own? Why can't starlink just start serving propaganda and misinformation instead of actual content?
These are a threat because they are not being used for the good of humanity and civilization. Elon has deluded himself into thinking that he knows what is best for the world and is using his power/money/influence/technology to assert those ideas and opinions onto the world.
Until we have literally any evidence to the contrary, Elon, Trump, and Putin can all be named interchangeably
Getting rid of your Tesla would, at least, eliminate a very sensitive flow of personal data about you to Tesla.
First by playing 'free market' and getting bilions in incentives from taxpayer money. And then they will be a threat by the time Tesla will lock you into a subscription model and starlink sell your data to the government the first time it will feel threatened.
Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
The company owned by the dude who wants immediate Ukraine surrender and threatens Ukraine armed forces with disconnecting them?
Oh so helpful.
More details: Why a Chinese Gadget Company Can Make an Electric Car and Apple Can’t https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/business/china-xiaomi-app...
China is the world's largest car market.
Which will result in similar headlines, I'm sure. Chinese EV's are super competitive, and Trump starting a trade war with China is not going to work out well for Tesla.
I'm not sure the new image is going well.
Musk himself seems cheerful says the salute thing was nothing on Joe Rogan a couple of days ago https://youtu.be/sSOxPJD-VNo?t=664
Either way, I certainly won't buy another Tesla while Elon is running the place.
But I think automomy is not enough to draw people to a new vehicle. Tesla has a branding/advertising issue with v13 because people conflate it with Autosteer (which isn't FSD), or they had a bad experience with v11/v12 and write it off completely, or they have a HW3 (majority of people) - which FSD isn't as great on.
I honestly can't believe how good is has gotten. It's not perfect and I maintain full awareness of what it's doing, but it performs incredibly well 95% of the time. It's really nice to feel like you're being driven by a mostly competent driver everywhere you go. Really, it makes about the same number (or less) of mistakes as other people I've driven with, but the mistakes are of a different sort, and after a while you develop an intuition of the situations that are going to challenge it.
This right here is why it's wildly dangerous and irresponsible. The vast majority of drivers are nowhere near this conscientious, and 95% is a horrible level of reliability for a two ton machine that is out on the road driving around other people.
I'm embarrassed for the engineers who contribute to this unethical shitshow. And I'm disgusted at the regulators for allowing this.
(it may not have been v13; we tried it first about a year ago, then again 2-3 months ago)