[notahacker]

This assumes it is literally impossible for anyone else to reduce their battery costs to a level which makes them competitive with Tesla in an environment when battery prices are falling rapidly and the tech continues to evolve (and Tesla's EVs are not even unusually cheap or experimental in their battery supply chains)

That sounds less likely than the bull case Tesla is trying to make on "we're a robotics company now" or "one day all cars will be autonomous taxis controlled by us".

[FabHK]

Exactly. Looking at competition from China, but also the West, I don't see Tesla having a moat in EVs, in robots, or even in batteries in the medium term (compare e.g. [1]).

How can they produce the extraordinary growth and excess profits that would justify their valuation?

Fundamentals will reassert themselves sooner or later, but as we see it can take a long time.

[1] https://electrek.co/2026/05/07/tesla-4680-battery-cell-perfo...

[jmye]

> Fundamentals will reassert themselves sooner or later

I don't believe that's true, anymore.

TSLA is a pure meme stock. No one is investing in it because they believe in the numerous, actionable lies Musk tells. No one is investing because they think the P/E makes sense. They're doing it because they think the memes are fun, or because they think the people who think the memes are fun are bag-holders, or because they think the memes are fun AND Musk is actually still smart and adding value, etc.

It's the clearest, most obvious case for "the markets are not the economy".

[FabHK]

That's a thought-provoking and somewhat resigned point.

My response is this: Over time (say 20 years later) you will have gotten certain dividends, and the firm will be in a new position in terms of price and earnings. If I'm right, and the firm will not have been able to produce large profits and pay them out, then the people who bought today at today's valuation and P/E ratio will have massively overpaid for the dividends they will have gotten, and the only way they could have made capital gains to make up for it is if either the P/E ratio has increased even more, or earnings have really shot up at the end of those 20 years.

Either way, it's not sustainable. Unless, of course, people are willing to push up the P/E ratio up and up without limit. And I submit that's not going to happen indefinitely.

TL;DR: 20 years later you can see what share holders got for the price they paid 20 years ago (namely 20 yrs of dividends, plus they still have the share). If you thought the shares were cheap and you were right, you got a lot for what you paid. If the shares were overpriced, that'll have come out by then.

(I agree though that it seems to take longer than it used to take for the fundamentals to reassert themselves.)

[fragmede]

Only if you're terminally online and believe everyone else must be as well. If you don't know what a meme stock is and think the humanoid robot is going to sell like hotcakes, TSLA seems like a great investment.

[BeetleB]

Their per-car profit margin is the moat. Which non-Chinese company can compete?

[QGQBGdeZREunxLe]

Tesla's moat is bipartisan support for 100%+ tariffs on Chinese EVs in the United States.

How long that lasts remains to be seen. American consumers living close to either border are going to be able to see Chinese EVs themselves.

[BeetleB]

Tesla has vertical integration with their batteries, which is why they can make them cheaply.

> This assumes it is literally impossible for anyone else to reduce their battery costs to a level which makes them competitive with Tesla in an environment when battery prices are falling rapidly and the tech continues to evolve

No - it just means they can't do it as fast as the Chinese. The Chinese have been investing in battery technology for 10-15 years longer than most auto manufacturers. (And their labor is cheaper).