More stories

  • in

    Tesla faces an identity crisis: carmaker or tech firm?

    On the night before Elon Musk unveiled Tesla’s first-quarter results on April 23rd, your columnist brought his car to a halt, noticing a futuristic vehicle hooked up to a Tesla charging station in Los Angeles. It was a dark-purple Cybertruck. Twinkling lights glittered behind the tinted windows. It looked so wedgelike, angular and otherworldly that it could have moonlighted as an armoured personnel carrier in “Civil War”, a new apocalyptic film.Its owner, Dennis Wang, is a Tesla devotee. Besides his four-month-old Cybertruck, he has owned Mr Musk’s original (“sexy”) quartet: the Models S, 3, X and Y. He has held shares in the company since 2018. He has full faith in Mr Musk. Despite a 40% plunge in Tesla’s share price this year in the run-up to the earnings report, as well as the announcement in recent weeks of falling vehicle sales and unprecedented lay-offs, he believes the billionaire remains the best person to run the company. Even an embarrassing Cybertruck recall, caused by a stuck accelerator, was quickly fixed, he says, pointing to a new bolt in the pedal.Yet however much Mr Wang loves Teslas, he does not think of Tesla as a car firm. He says it is a tech company. As he puts it, all electric vehicles (EVs) offer a similar driving experience. What differentiates them is the software—the brains beneath the dashboard. In Tesla’s case, that is the latest version of its self-driving technology, which he calls “fantastic”. His view is shared by many Tesla loyalists. It is why the company’s shares trade at a multiple of earnings typical of a zippy software firm, not of a metal-basher.Wall Street takes a different view. Though investors hope Tesla will one day make money from its snazzy artificial intelligence (AI), for now they want it to restore growth by selling more cars—the cheaper the better. Hence the sigh of relief when Tesla outlined plans within an otherwise dismal earnings report (revenues, profit margins and free cashflow all crashed) to start producing affordable vehicles by 2025 that would not rely on big new investments. Tesla’s share price promptly soared more than 10%. Call that a $50bn thumbs up from the unit-economics guys.Mr Musk has a history of trying to have it both ways. When investors were doubtful about demand for Tesla’s EVs at the end of the 2010s, he promised shareholders that its so-called full self-driving (FSD) technology would put 1m robotaxis on the road by 2020. That did not happen, so during the pandemic, as Tesla’s sales rocketed, he changed his tune. He boasted that sales were growing faster than Henry Ford’s Model T, and that Tesla aspired to sell 20m EVs a year by 2030.This year it is touch and go whether Tesla will sell more than the 1.8m cars it shipped in 2023. So Mr Musk has flipped the script again. Once more he is highlighting FSD, though this time with a twist: the latest version is so good, he told analysts this week, that it is impossible to understand the company without trying it. He went so far as to say: “If someone doesn’t believe Tesla will solve autonomy, I think they should not be an investor in the company.” His competing narratives create quite the conundrum among investment types. Can Tesla be a car company as well as a tech company? The answer, broadly, is yes. But it depends on which of its markets you are talking about.From a volume-growth perspective, no country is more important than China. It is the world’s biggest EV market, and though sales are slowing, they are still rising much faster than in America. However, competition is fierce and a price war is shredding Tesla’s business there. Tesla has not said where the cheaper model it is planning will be sold. But if it is made available globally, it could help it fend off competition from BYD, a low-cost Chinese competitor that is not just the biggest EV seller in China but also has a strong presence around the globe (though not in America).Tesla’s American home market is different. Mr Musk’s firm is already the market leader, so its growth prospects are probably constrained, more so because of the rising popularity of hybrids. Yet it needs to sell more cars in order to generate cash to fund the purchase of huge volumes of AI chips that it needs to run its FSD technology. That is where a cheaper car comes in. It could help Tesla cross a bridge to the future while it attempts to overcome the huge engineering and regulatory challenges necessary for cars to drive people, rather than the other way around.There are lots of potential roadblocks ahead. First is the risk of crumbling morale. Besides the sacking of one-tenth of its workforce, Tesla has lost several highly respected executives recently (the latest announced his departure on the quarterly earnings call). Second, trust between Mr Musk and big investors is gossamer-thin. Who knows how he will react if a majority at next month’s shareholder meeting vote against the board’s efforts to reinstate his $56bn payout from 2018 that was voided by a Delaware judge. Third, the difficulty of running many businesses besides Tesla is compounded by Mr Musk’s “demon mode”—irascible outbursts that can leave rubble in their wake.View from the CybertruckLike many Muskophiles, Mr Wang expects him to pull through. As a carmaker, Mr Musk excels. The Cybertruck, says its driver as his corgi scampers on the back seat, is the most comfortable car he has ever owned. As a technologist, Mr Musk continues to improve. Though Mr Wang acknowledges that the latest version of Tesla’s FSD requires driver supervision, he says being able to “sit back and decompress” on his commute is a value equivalent to money. Above all, no one matches Mr Musk when it comes to turning engineering dreams into reality. As he puts it, “If Elon wants to put a chip in your head, you will get a chip in your head.” Just don’t expect it to be implanted until years after it is promised. And be prepared for its Svengali to melt down in the meantime. ■ More

  • in

    Congress tells China: sell TikTok or we’ll ban it

    Joe Biden joined TikTok only two months ago, with a video entitled “lol hey guys”. Now America’s president is poised to sign a bill that could ban the popular app. On April 23rd the Senate approved a measure to crack down on “foreign adversary controlled applications”, including TikTok, as part of a bill approving military aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Mr Biden has already said he will sign the bill into law, whatever the feelings of his 300,000 followers, or TikTok’s 170m American users.The law will give ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese owner, up to nine months to sell to a non-Chinese owner. (A previous version of the bill allowed six months; the new deadline pushes the matter conveniently beyond November’s elections.) A wild selection of possible buyers is touted. Microsoft, Oracle and Walmart have all shown an interest in TikTok in the past. Steven Mnuchin, a former Treasury secretary, says he is putting together a group of investors.They may not get the chance to bid. China’s government, which owns a stake in ByteDance, has indicated that it does not want to part with TikTok. It has classified the app’s recommendation algorithm as a sensitive technology, whose export would need official approval. In March a Chinese government spokesman warned that, in the case of TikTok, “the relevant party should strictly abide by Chinese laws and regulations,” a comment which some read as a warning to ByteDance.That would leave TikTok no choice but to shut down in America, where last year it had revenue of $16bn, according to the Financial Times. So the company is pinning its hopes on an appeal to America’s courts. A memo sent to staff on April 21st described the new bill, then recently passed by the House of Representatives, as a “clear violation of [users’] First Amendment rights”, which enshrine freedom of speech.TikTok has a strong case, believes Evelyn Douek of Stanford Law School. “Decades of precedent hold that the government can’t ban a form of communication because they don’t like the content on it, even when it involves foreign adversaries,” she says. TikTok has won in court before. Last year a judge overturned a ban imposed by the state of Montana, partly on free-speech grounds. An executive order to ban the app by then-president Donald Trump was blocked by judges in 2020.Those in favour of a ban say the problem is not the content on TikTok, but the company’s conduct. It is accused of harvesting users’ data and manipulating what they see, both of which it denies. If courts can be persuaded that TikTok is up to no good, a free-speech defence will not necessarily save it. In 1986 an adult-book shop in New York lost a Supreme Court appeal against its closure, when judges argued that the reason for its shutdown was not the content of its books, but other, illegal activity taking place on the premises.If TikTok wins, it could become an even stronger force in social media. “TikTok has been fighting with one hand tied behind its back against domestic competition,” argues Mark Shmulik of Bernstein, a broker. While Meta, its arch rival, has come up with technical fixes to help its advertisers get around privacy changes Apple introduced for iPhones, TikTok has played it safe. If courts remove the threat of a ban, the company “could feel empowered to step on the gas”, Mr Shmulik notes. It might also stem the exodus of senior staff. Kevin Mayer, a former chief executive hired from Disney, left amid Mr Trump’s efforts to ban the app. Vanessa Pappas, its chief operating officer, departed last year. Now Erich Andersen, the chief counsel, is reportedly preparing to move on.Whatever happens in court, TikTok is already wondering which countries might follow America’s hawkish lead. India, where TikTok had 200m users, banned the app in 2020 (along with several other Chinese apps) following a skirmish at the border with China. Countries including Indonesia and Pakistan have imposed and then lifted short-term bans. The Taliban naturally outlawed TikTok on returning to power in Afghanistan.Juicier markets look safe for now. No big European country is demanding TikTok be sold. But Europe has a record of eventually following America in its approach to China-related security matters, as in the case of its belated clampdown on Huawei, a Chinese maker of telecoms gear. Countries’ willingness to act will depend partly on the closeness of their security relationship with America. America’s fellow members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance—Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand—have already banned TikTok on government devices.Further restrictions on TikTok could disrupt more than the market for social media—if China chooses to retaliate. It fired a warning shot earlier this month, banning app stores from offering apps including WhatsApp and Threads, a pair of Meta products, on national-security grounds. China could make life difficult for plenty of other big American companies. Tesla is suffering because of falling car sales in China. Apple’s iPhone sales in China are ebbing. American chipmakers like AMD are being hurt, too, as China encourages its smartphone-makers to use domestic chips. America may find that banning a short-video app has long-term consequences. ■To stay on top of the biggest stories in business and technology, sign up to the Bottom Line, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More

  • in

    America hits Chinese biotech—and its own drugmakers

    AMERICAN HEALTH-CARE costs are sky-high; as treatments get pricier and the number of patients swells owing to an ageing population, they are getting higher. Chinese biotechnology is increasingly sophisticated and, as its companies gain scale, getting cheaper. A growing number of American drugmakers, from startups to big pharma, rely on firms like WuXi AppTec and WuXi Biologics, which conduct drug research on behalf of clients and manufacture compounds used in drugmaking. MGI Tech, a maker of gene-sequencing machines, is offering American hospitals kit that is cheaper to buy and half as expensive to run as American-made alternatives. A match made in heaven?Not to America’s Congress. A bill currently before the Senate would forbid the federal government from buying health-care products from companies that do business with companies like the WuXi sister firms and MGI Tech. A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House of Representatives is pushing for the BIOSECURE Act, which would do much the same. The politicians worry about American health data falling into the hands of the Chinese authorities. They also fret about American intellectual property (IP), for example in the form of drug recipes that big pharma shares with contract manufacturers, flowing to Chinese rivals. And they are concerned about American money going to Chinese firms that collaborate with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and with the Chinese government’s repression of Uyghurs, an ethnic minority. Should the politicians succeed, America’s patients may be left bearing some of the costs. Chart: The EconomistDespite irreconcilable differences on most other subjects, Democrats and Republicans are united in their dislike of China. Last month the Senate version of the legislation cleared the relevant committee by 11 votes to one. Investors seem to believe it has a good chance of becoming law. The share price of WuXi AppTec, which generates two-thirds of its revenues in America, has fallen by 40% since the BIOSECURE bill was introduced in the House in late January (see chart). WuXi Biologics, half of whose sales come from American customers, has lost more than 50% of its value. MGI Tech has lost more than a third. The three companies, which the House bill name-checks, have shed a combined $22bn in market capitalisation in the past two and a half months.The knock-on effects for the Chinese firms’ American customers are also likely to be profound. Start with the contract manufacturer-researchers. WuXi is to big pharma what Foxconn, the Taiwanese assembler of iPhones, is to Apple—a high-quality supplier entrusted with sensitive IP. It says its clients include the world’s 20 biggest drugmakers. Dozens of American drugmakers have notified investors that, should the BIOSECURE bill pass, they may be unable to meet demand for their products or to complete clinical trials on schedule. WuXi AppTec says that the proposed legislation “relies on misleading allegations and inaccurate assertions”. WuXi Biologics says it “has not, does not and will not pose any national-security risk to the US or any other country”.For the time being Western customers have not severed ties with the WuXi companies, says Lila Hope, a lawyer specialising in biotech partnerships at Cooley. Some drugmakers are reportedly sounding out alternative suppliers from India, another big provider of similar services. But that would require a thumbs-up from American regulators, who have longstanding concerns about Indian companies’ lax quality standards.Jefferies, an investment bank, reckons that replacing Chinese capacity would take big Western drug firms at least five years and almost certainly end up costing more. For biotech startups, which tend to rely on Chinese partners with proven records to save time and money on research and manufacturing, the BIOSECURE bill could be an existential threat. According to a survey conducted in March by BioCentury, a consultancy, biotech bosses and their investors expect a slowdown in drug development in the event of its passage.Cutting commercial ties with the lawmakers’ second target—China’s genomics industry—would have a less immediate impact on American companies. MGI Tech is only just entering the American market for gene-sequencers, having settled a patent dispute with its bigger American rival, Illumina, in 2022. BGI Genomics, which sequences more human genomes than any other company in the world (and is also named in the BIOSECURE bill), makes just 3% of its profits in America. But both Chinese firms bring welcome competition to a highly concentrated industry. Despite being blocked by trustbusters from acquiring a rival in 2019, Illumina has cornered 80% of the global market for high-end gene-sequencers.MGI Tech’s American subsidiary, Complete Genomics, says that it “is not a sequencing-service provider and does not have access to, collect, or maintain genetic data”. Independent investigators brought in by Complete Genomics to inspect its sequencers have confirmed that the company cannot access patient data through the devices. BGI Group says that the allegations made in the BIOSECURE bill that it collects, stores and analyses personal genetic information for the purpose of infringing human rights, that it supports the surveillance of minorities and that it is controlled by the Chinese government or the PLA are all “false”.The law, if passed, would therefore almost certainly face legal challenges from the Chinese firms and, possibly, some of their American clients. It may yet be watered down, especially once big pharma’s lobbyists on Capitol Hill get to work on it in earnest. But the anti-Chinese sentiment guiding its congressional sponsors is not going away—even if that spells trouble for American businesses. ■ More