I bought BYD stock in 2025 before split in the hope that their market dominance will translate to great returns. The stock has pretty consistently traded down since then. Meanwhile Tesla stock soared purely on the air coming out of Elon’s mouth.
Auto manufacturing is low margin and capital intensive. BYD is valued as an auto manufacturer. Tesla is not.
Even all of that aside, the idea that foreign investors will be allowed to meaningfully participate in the upside of Chinese companies is questionable. Every Chinese company is one recapitalization away from zeroing out the common stock owned by foreigners. What are they gonna do, sue in Chinese court?
For quite some time, Warren Buffett was a BYD investor via Berkshire Hathaway. If you tried to get into EV stocks after the Tesla exuberance started, you were already mostly too late.
> The filing by Berkshire’s energy subsidiary recorded the value of its BYD investment as zero as of the end of March, down from $415 million at the end of 2024.
> Buffett’s company began investing in Shenzhen-based BYD in 2008, when it paid $230 million for about 225 million shares, equivalent to a 10% stake at the time.
> It began selling those shares in 2022 after BYD’s share price had risen more than twentyfold.
This is fascinating, because from what I've heard, Warren Buffett did not favor tech stocks. Does anyone know what gave Buffett the faith that this company was a real deal?
It was Charlie Munger who became enthusiastic about BYD after learning about it from investor Li Lu, leading him to convince Buffett to make Berkshire Hathaway's $230 million investment in 2008.
I think this was mostly a Munger pet investment, he had an extremely high opinion about the CEO and could see he was delivering on his goals one after another.
Berkshire was never tech investor. They looked for solid manufacturing with good price and potential to scale like manufacturing. Not everything is tech and you can still grow without being tech.
> BYD is valued as an auto manufacturer. Tesla is not.
This in no way addresses the accusation that Teslas valuation is built on nothing. BYD also has self driving software. So what exactly does Tesla have that is not cars and batteries?
The ludicrous humanoid robots with dubious use cases? That’s not it either because the stock was absurdly high before that was a thing.
I have never seen a better example of how arbitrary and irrational markets are than Teslas valuation.
Isn't BYD a VIE? Most "internet" (ie tech) companies in China cannot legally be owned by foreigners. And what you get is some proxy based in the Cayman Islands that is circumventing Chinese law. Not something I'd touch with a ten foot pole.
If your hypothetical happens, yes.
China has been working hard to turn domestic investment away from housing. A trustworthy domestic stock market is key.
* The Shanghai and Hong Kong stock market seems to have improved regulatory enforcement. I have no way of measuring this...just stories from others.
* Over the past 10 years the China gov pressed on with building more housing in part to dilute value. Each year they have warned that houses are for living, not speculation. Last year, they dumped a huge amount of cheap lending into the market to provide movement...warning this is the last step...a month ago the 2026 gov priorities list removed protecting the housing market...first time in modern history. Expectation is the next two years will see realized losses in property. It would be a huge mistake if the gov hasn't ensured regulatory enforcement of other segments have not reached maturity for the retail investor. We'll see...
* As for civil courts, over the past 20 years I've run into quite a few stories from friends and business colleagues that needed to go to China court. The stories are similar to what you may hear in the US. No one suggested the court/process itself was dodgy/unfair.
> No one suggested the court/process itself was dodgy/unfair.
for civil disputes, i am sure they are.
For disputes between the gov't and you, i highly doubt it. Is there a single instance of the gov't being sued for a policy that was meant to be political in nature affecting the supplicant?
Even someone like jack ma is unable to use the courts to obtain any justice - his Ant Financials IPO was shut down for political reasons, and he was reeducated. There's no such thing as due process in china.
Name me a single country where a rich person goes against the government and wins? You just don’t see it happen much in the US because the government is run by rich capitalists, but pretty much every country is the same.
It happens all the time here. Wealth isn't even a precondition, but indeed, one needs time and/or money. It helps being organized with other people to share the burden. Over here we have also got the ombudsman.
It is a matter of degrees. The harder it is for a poor individual to be done justice against the government, the weaker the rule of law. On a tangent, parties that play the horn about "law and order" usually mean "rules for thee but not for me".
Not sure where here is for you. But anyway, even if you can win a battle you can’t win a war. If a government wants to do something, it will regardless of how any individual person, rich or not, feels about it.
It just so happens that most western “democracies” are run by rich people, so they can avoid all that unpleasant business by just running the government in the first place.
I would say that’s an extension of the idea that rich people run the US government, which runs global organizations such as the world bank, which runs these ISDS courts.
China is just big enough to be able to ignore these global orgs.
Now try to win a case against the interests or connections of a high ranking official in China.
"Law and order" is not equal to "the rule of law". Both China and the US ascribe to the idea of "might makes right", which is in essence an organized form of lawless state. It is conceptually the same as in criminal gangs, only with vastly better optics. That is why anyone not in power should strive for a rules-based order, for their own best interest at least.
Not sure why you think China is Orwellian and the US isn’t when ICE is literally kidnapping people off the streets. Wake up mate, the Orwellian is coming from inside the house.
European governments regularly lose cases brought by individuals in both domestic and European courts; below are some well-known examples across different countries and legal issues.
E.g.
Broniowski v. Poland (ECtHR, 2004)
Doğan and Others v. Turkey (ECtHR, 2004)
Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2) (ECtHR, 2005)
Scoppola v. Italy (No. 3) (ECtHR, 2012)
KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (ECtHR, 2024)
These judgments show that individuals and civil society groups can hold European states accountable for violations involving property, voting, asylum, climate, and broader rule‑of‑law issues.
They often lead to legislative change, financial compensation, or policy reversal, and many are used as precedent by lawyers and activists in new cases across Europe.
I’m not a lawyer, and many of these cases are not famous enough to be reported on in a format easily understandable to a layperson. I’m also not going to read through case resolutions to respond to a hacker news comment. I did take a cursory look at the examples you wrote though.
I will admit that my original statement lacks nuance, which makes it easy to nitpick.
Having read some of your cases though, a pattern emerged: it’s usually supra national organizations adjudicating these cases, and the nations are not bound by the rulings.
For example, in Hirst vs UK it was ruled that it’s a violation of human rights to deny prisoners the vote, and yet the UK government deliberately ignored that ruling and as a result prisoners still can’t vote in the UK. Not to mention that when this case was brought up in a UK court it was dismissed.
Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) ECHR 681 is a European Court of Human Rights case, where the court ruled that a blanket ban on British prisoners exercising the right to vote is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The court did not state that all prisoners should be given voting rights. Rather, it held that if the franchise was to be removed, then the measure needed to be compatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol, thus putting the onus upon the UK to justify its departure from the principle of universal suffrage.
There are numerous examples of citizens winning court cases against the government.
Take the just the uk, three examples:
Anti‑protest regulations (Liberty v Home Secretary)
Air pollution litigation (ClientEarth v UK Government)
Rwanda asylum plan (AAA & Others v Secretary of State
Windrush - Members of the Windrush have repeatedly challenged the Home Office over wrongful detention, removal, and denial of rights, leading to government admissions of unlawfulness and an official apology in 2018.
Your claim is false. The world is not the same the world over, civil liberties are better in some places than in others.
Prisoners still can’t vote, people are getting arrested for peacefully protesting holding signs, and the Rwanda ruling was overruled by parliament and the only reason the plan was stopped is because the PM changed.
> Each year they have warned that houses are for living, not speculation. Last year, they dumped a huge amount of cheap lending into the market to provide movement...warning this is the last step...a month ago the 2026 gov priorities list removed protecting the housing market...first time in modern history.
Perhaps one of a few genuinely positive policies which only China can do. Meanwhile western countries will rather stab their economies to death than accept even just stagnating real estate prices.
>> No one suggested the court/process itself was dodgy/unfair.
Not sure where this is coming from. The EU recently just won a WTO dispute[1] against China that prohibited patent holders (often EU companies) from pursuing or enforcing patent infringement cases in non-Chinese courts -- it violated several provisions of the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), including Articles 1.1, 28.1, and 28.2.
Foreigners generally view the Chinese court system with significant skepticism, primarily due to a perceived lack of judicial independence from the ruling Communist Party (CCP), opacity, and the use of the judiciary to serve political goals.
1. DS611: China – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
The future of the Chinese economy depends on being able to access the global capital markets, which means that by extension, its future depends on foreign investors being demonstrably "allowed to meaningfully participate in the upside of Chinese companies".
Funnily enough, the future of the Chinese economy depends on being able to access their local market. The chinese people save too much and aren't buying their own products
You are right that getting Chinese households to invest in the domestic (Shenzhen, Shanghai, Hong Kong) stock market is also a key goal that they're rolling out incentives for.
> The chinese people save too much and aren't buying their own products
Nonsense.
Total Retail Sales of Consumer Goods went up 4.6% in the first 11 months of 2025. That is the number with spending on automobiles excluded. A total of 24 million cars were sold in China in 2025 with vast majority being Chinese brands. If 24 million car purchases a year is "aren't buying their own products", then car industry doesn't exist in the US.
In the combination Keynesian Beauty Contest[1] and casino that passes for an equity market in the US, everyone knows that Tesla is ugly as hell, but everyone also knows that everyone knows that it will get votes, so the show goes on.
Anytime China targets an industry we get a situation where basically every major city has their own brand that they're backing. There's a lot more competition in China compared to western markets that tend to be dominated by a few major players. There's over 100 EV brands in China today, e.g. BYD (Shenzhen), NIO (Hefei), GAC Aion (Guangzhou), and SAIC (Shanghai)
There's been a lot written about China's "Fiscal Federalism"
Most of those pronounces have greater than 50 million people. Anhui has 60 million, guangdong has 127 million. Shanghai only has 26 million people as a city. The federalism exists because the numbers China is working with are huge. It’s not some small podunk town in North Carolina deciding to make cars, it’s a province on par with that have a populous country. We can’t judge China based on a much smaller scale of US states and cities.
The Chinese provinces and cities are competing aggressively with each other, both the local governments who provide cheap loans (largely funded by profits from other corporate loans, as China has much lower income taxes than the US) and companies also compete aggressively for dominance both locally and globally.
In the US you usually have 2-3 giant companies who are pets of the federal government and get tax breaks and subsidies if they make 'jobs' in particular states, particularly where useful congressmen live. It's a far more centralized market even though it has little direct government capital investment.
Old legacy companies being propped up in the name of national interests while they slowly become more and more detached from the global market.
On top of that China allowed heavy investment in infrastructure and real estate instead of interfering in it, so everything from property to energy costs are cheaper. Making cost of doing business cheaper.
Those giant companies in China are supported by the cities/provinces. It is just that they are comparable to not even small countries, the central government doesn't need to create champions for consumer goods, more local governments can do that just fine. SOEs are also mostly zombies in China, it should be very telling that BYD is not an SOE; we aren't even talking about any of the SOEs FAW Group, Dongfeng Motor, Changan Automobile, SAIC Motor, BAIC Motor, and GAC, who are still more known for their JVs.
They usually go through a major, government driven consolidation phase to establish a handful of national champions. I would bet we’ll see the same in EVs. This ensures scale by which they can dominate the global industry-an explicit target of the CCP.
Very good point. People often ignore how important monopolies are to high stock prices. A monopoly can extract more wealth from the market than if there's strong competition.
A competitive market destroys revenue potential, essentially forcing companies to constantly reduce margins or innovate. Both of which are very good for the consumer, but these companies need to run harder to stay in the same place.
I've heard that for example, NIO is facing fiscal troubles, since their business model was that they sell somewhat nicer cars for more money, however everything they come out with tends to be quickly incorporated by the competition at a lower price point.
I also want to add that this internal competition is why stories about huge government subsidies is bull - there's a huge amount of domestic competitors at each other's throats, and the Chinese government certainly doesn't want to pick winners, so the only way to subsidize cars is to subsidize demand, which means that all those subsidies are available to foreign companies doing business in China.
Possibly, I'm not very familiar with the US history. But this is a recurring pattern in China as well. It's called the "shakeout phase" and we saw it with bike sharing as well as the solar industry. Every industrial sector backed it own company and after a few clear leaders emerged there was a massive consolidation phase. This is a purposeful effort by China and is driven by specific policies, increased regulation, and reduction in cheap financing options. It's essential for them to minimize subsidization and combat involution or counterproductive competition. It's also why you should always ignore articles critical of china's "overcapacity". Overcapacity is a planned phase of their economic strategy to capture an industry. And, so far, it's been quite effective
I have no doubt the same will happen with EVs. But that's another reason to hold off on investing in any specific Chinese company rn.
How they do financial bailouts by printing their own debt-free money and having fine-grained control of the banking system is also something that the west doesn't do.
Non-performing loans of state-owned entities get bought by asset management companies (AMCs) with AMC liabilities. People's Bank of China liquifies AMC Liabilities so the banks keep lending.[1] AMCs often then can't pay because the state-owned entity isn't able to pay on the loan it bought. They then get bailed out by the Ministry of Finance, but the actual source of funds inside the government is difficult to discern [2].
I am a China perma bull and a panda hugger but most of my money is in the US.
US capital is the completely dominant center of global capital and it will be so for decades to come. Ultimately this will flip too as China becomes the global economic center but I am not quite sure what it will look like and I don't assume the process of capital allocation will be exactly the same as it is today in the US-system (there may be more state directed investment, more bank lending, perhaps less public speculation, or even novel financial structures).
That said - Chinese stocks had a good year in 2025 and are currently on a run - and there is certainly a lot of value there.
> Part of the reason that China’s stock market trends sideways is that everyone’s profits are competed away. Big Tech might enjoy the monopolistic success smiled upon by Peter Thiel, coming almost to genteel agreements not to tread too hard upon each other’s business lines. Chinese firms have to fight it out in a rough-and-tumble environment, expanding all the time into each other’s core businesses, taking Jeff “your margin is my opportunity” Bezos with seriousness.
BYD does not make most of its revenue on BEVs. It is mostly batteries and more plugin hybrids than BEVs and they lose money selling BEVs (less than almost all other electric car makers though). Tesla make only BEVs and make a profit doing so (the only? large maker to consistently do so).
Tesla was only profitable the last few quarters due to selling their carbon credits to other companies. They'd have lost money otherwise. And since Trump basically did away with that, Tesla is no longer a profitable company now.
Can you even own Chinese stock as a foreigner? I thought Chinese 'stock' was essentially 'IOU's held by a foreign third party who holds it on your behalf. I would not trust a significant amount of money to such a scheme.
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
But as another comment pointed out, they have tons of debt, and TFA states that their "revised" target was revised downward, meaning earlier stock valuations were priced for higher sales.
Chinese stock market is very different than US. In US you have like 62% of Americans reporting owning stock (including via mutual funds/retirement accounts) and in China, it's single digits participation.
And China's market is famously retail heavy one, there were some studies showing that Shanghai Stock Exchange retail trading is 80%+ of volume vs ~10% in the US.
There is less hype and they are also not affected as much as US if stock goes down or stays flat.
The Shanghai stock exchange is still too heavy on insider trading, and consumer investors feel it is more like gambling than investing. Like, you could wager some money on a mahjong game, or you could blindly pick a stock and hope you can get some money by riding in the wake of a connected insider trader.
If you just want to invest money, there is real estate or investing in a family member’s business. Pensions and other institutions in need of safe (in aggregate) investments won’t go near the SSE yet.
China is doing more things right but still has a long way to go on other things.
> The Shanghai stock exchange is still too heavy on insider trading, [...]
What does that mean?
Insider trading is good for the function of the market: it makes sure information is reflected in prices sooner, benefiting the general public.
> Like, you could wager some money on a mahjong game, or you could blindly pick a stock and hope you can get some money by riding in the wake of a connected insider trader.
If you are a clueless retail investor, buy a low cost index fund. Why would you be picking stocks?
Prices are not an end to themselves. Prices are useful because they tell you how much something is worth. If you're trading against somebody who has more information than you, than you are probably losing money, since they wouldn't be making the trade otherwise. Yes, insider trading means that prices will converge on a more accurate value faster, but in the interim anyone trading on the stock is getting screwed. Insider trading is not good for anybody but insiders.
> If you're trading against somebody who has more information than you, than you are probably losing money, since they wouldn't be making the trade otherwise.
Trading while having more information than someone else is perfectly legal.
That's a spicy meatball. And also very stupid, but I admire the lack of foresight it takes to advocate for insider trading. What's your next hot take? Can i suggest 'Epstein did nothing wrong'?
the OP isn't wrong about insider trading - it's just that it lacked the crucial bit about being _transparent_ about insider trading.
Current insider trading laws are about _preventing_ it (but it still happens). This makes it so that insiders who do trade and get away with it make bank, but this does little to benefit the over all market information equilibrium.
What needs to make insider trading "good" (instead of bad), is to make the insider's trades 100% transparent and instant (instead of the months of SEC filing currently needed before it becomes public info). Doing this will ensure that insider's trades immediately gets reflected and copied/arbitraged against, and will allow the price of a stock to reflect information not yet released but is acted upon by insiders.
Insider trading is already perfectly legal (by US law), if you do it with consent of your company. So the rules are not about protecting the public at all.
That isn’t true at all. You need to take your insider trading again (every bigcorp makes you do it) and learn what insider trading actually is, and why it is illegal, and why you’ll probably get caught. I’ve heard too many sad stories where immigrants from a country with looser laws came to the USA for very high paying tech jobs, and throw them away for just $100k of insider trading gains.
The company is allowed to trade on their insider information. That's perfectly normal and legal.
When Warren Buffett decides that he wants to buy stock in a company, he knows that if this became public, the target company's stock would go up. Nevertheless, he's allowed to trade on this insider information (about himself!) without informing the general public first.
> You need to take your insider trading again (every bigcorp makes you do it) and learn what insider trading actually is, and why it is illegal, and why you’ll probably get caught. I’ve heard too many sad stories where immigrants from a country with looser laws came to the USA for very high paying tech jobs, and throw them away for just $100k of insider trading gains.
That's true but also entirely irrelevant to my point: in these cases the company does not consent to the employee using the information. And, yes, that's illegal.
Insider trading law in the US is about breaching fiduciary duty. If the company consents, there's no fiduciary duty that was broken. (But the conditions are more complicated. So let's go with the simpler example of a company trading on its own secret, insider information.
It's a fun little legal Gedankenexperiment to craft the conditions that make what would otherwise be insider trading legal in the US. But as you suggest, it's not very relevant in practice, because they all require the company's consent, which you normally don't get. Matt Levine sometimes likes to write about these sorts of things in his 'Money Stuff' newsletter.)
Insider trading consists of an individual who is an insider to a company that is publicly traded, trading stock in that company on information they obtained as an insider.
> When Warren Buffett decides that he wants to buy stock in a company, he knows that if this became public, the target company's stock would go up.
Warren Buffett is not a publicly traded company, and in this hypothetical he is buying stock in another company, which (by assumption) he has no insider information about.
> Insider trading law in the US is about breaching fiduciary duty.
This is false. It's about protecting traders. This is why it applies specifically to publicly traded companies. If it was about protecting shareholders (from what?) then it would apply to all companies.
> Insider trading consists of an individual who is an insider to a company that is publicly traded, trading stock in that company on information they obtained as an insider.
No, that's not true in US law. It doesn't have to be the stock of the company you work for to get you into insider trading trouble.
> Warren Buffett is not a publicly traded company, and in this hypothetical he is buying stock in another company, which (by assumption) he has no insider information about.
Well, that's why your definition is wrong.
> If it was about protecting shareholders (from what?) then it would apply to all companies.
Huh, what? You don't have a fiduciary duty to people you don't work for.
> The rationale for this prohibition of insider trading differs between countries and regions. Some view it as unfair to other investors in the market who do not have access to the information, as the investor with inside information can potentially make larger profits than an investor without such information.[2] However, insider trading is also prohibited to prevent the directors of a company (the insiders) from abusing a company's confidential information for the directors' personal gain.
Clearly not true. In 2020, the SEC fined Andeavor for buying back its own stock while negotiating a potential merger. The duty is to affected shareholders and the integrity of the market, not the company.
Don't know how you got this from Matt Levine. Isn't his catchphrase "Everything is securities fraud"?
> Clearly not true. In 2020, the SEC fined Andeavor for buying back its own stock while negotiating a potential merger. The duty is to affected shareholders and the integrity of the market, not the company.
No, no, you can still construct scenarios where it's legal. But yes, buybacks are especially heavily regulated. And yes, you have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. (But not to the 'integrity of the market'. There might be some duties and vague laws there, but it's not a fiduciary duty.)
In any case, what specifically are you referring to that's "clearly not true" in my comment? I constructed some examples that deliberately avoid a company (or an employee of said company) buying their own stock.
> Don't know how you got this from Matt Levine. Isn't his catchphrase "Everything is securities fraud"?
He has more than one catch phrase. The relevant one here is that insider trading in American law is about misappropriating information and fiduciary duty. Which he contrasts to French law amongst others, which is about fairness and a level playing field.
However, regulators in the US often want to spin the rules to be about fairness, but courts so far mostly disagree.
One example he brought up was: suppose you work for Bank X and you take the train in the morning to work. You overhear an employee of Bank Y talking about some deal on the phone (and that other guy doesn't notice you). You have no fiduciary duty to Bank Y.
By French law, you couldn't trade on the information you gained.
But by American (and UK law, where the example was from) your fiduciary duty to your employer, Bank X, might even compel you to use the information to their advantage. Especially if you were on company time when you overheard the conversation.
The company ultimately being the shareholders. Hard to imagine a scenario where allowing an employee to trade on insider information would benefit the shareholders.
Any dollar you get paid as salary is a dollar less for the shareholders. Yet, paying people dollars is still a common practice.
Paying people in secrets isn't different in principle, only in degree.
However I agree that the scenarios where this would be useful to shareholders would be a bit weird, but it's just a Gedankenexperiment where we assume that for some reason the shareholders already think this is a good idea.
It's a made up rule to try and make things fair, which life famously is not. The Middle East financial system has no laws against it, making it a cultural difference.
Epstein is good for the economy because it ensures politicians get goods before they would be considered market ready allowing for policy to be created proactively. /s
“The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
Also, their market position has already been factored in by market participants with multiple orders of magnitude greater capital and access to information about the company than you do. Thats not to say the market valuation is accurate, but it does mean that you guessing which way the market has mis-valued the stock is a coin flip.
The explanation that I'm finding more and more compelling is that this is because there's actual competition in China, whereas in the west conglomerates have been able to carve up the market into fiefdoms and feast, with increasing amounts of cash that they can funnel into dividends and buybacks.
From the NA vehicle POV it doesn't look healthy. Stocks of the major auto makers have done well this year, while product gets more and more expensive and limited. Barely seems possible to buy anything but a F150like anymore.
Western corporations optimise for share price. The way to do that is by pulling strings at the government level to block your competitors and by getting nice tax breaks; not by having the best product for the consumer.
China and Chinese companies still want to shake off the "China means bad quality" image, so they actually want to make a great product at a good price for the consumer. To-the-moon share price growth doesn't happen by giving your customers a good deal.
Also the CCP doesn't want corporations forgetting who calls the shots, so there is some internal pressure keeping things less "frothy" than Western markets (where most governments are running scared of the big global corps).
It's not so much that the broader market is rigged. It's that every major industrial hub funds its own player: BYD (Shenzhen), NIO (Hefei), GAC Aion (Guangzhou), SAIC (Shanghai), etc. It might seem "rigged" to a westerner because it's so subsidized but China has a LOT of industrial hubs and therefore a lot of competition.
The US also heavily subsidizes EVs but the subsidies mostly only go to one company. Just take a look at the mind-boggling amount of subsidies we've given to Tesla both federally and on a state-by-state basis. Nevada's almost 2$ billion being the most blatant https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/tesla-inc
> Twelve are the factors related to four key aspects of the economic environment that are graded from 0 to 100 and averaged to determine a country’s score: rule of law (and related sub-categories: property rights, government integrity, judicial effectiveness); government size (government spending, tax burden, fiscal health); regulatory efficiency (business, labor and monetary freedom); open markets (trade, investment and financial freedom).
The US allows much more tax dodging than Singapore, for example. Try not paying your taxes or violating any other law in Singapore any time, if you want to find out.
I know little about stocks, but I've heard China doesn't allow shorting stocks and many other "advanced" stock products/instruments. You can buy, sell and trade stocks, and nothing else. They also audit to ensure stocks are not oversold/traded (e.g.: selling stock you don’t own in the hopes you’ll obtain some in time to fulfil an order).
You could say that about the Chinese stock market in general. Neither the SSE Composite nor the Hang Seng correlate all that well with Chinese GDP growth.
BYD's self-driving is free and much more widely available. Not to mention it uses LiDAR. I'm not gonna get into whether or not their God's Eye is better or worse than Tesla's FSD but it's at least widely acknowledged that they are at least comparable.
Tesla is also not very transparent so it's hard to cite statistics but a recent study found that Tesla had the highest rate of fatal accidents of any brand in the US
For the major part BYD sales performance is dependent on government subsidies in the country where they sell three quarters of all the cars they produce. That is a high risk factor investors don't like.
My guess is that Tesla is doing better because FSD has improved significantly over the past few months. Even with that, most of the recent increase has been them regaining the valuation they lost earlier this year.
There is still the law suite about FSD and the old hardware.
There is still Elon the hitler Musk Oligarch who wielded a chainsaw.
There were plenty of FSD videos last year and the year before showing that FSD is working. The question is still, is it working good enough, and what will be the business of a robotaxi.
The Taxi market overall is not that big, competition is hard and the most critical thing is peak demand.
In parallel random people believe tesla will wipe out the whole taxi industry + private cars tomorrow. Ignoring competition and everything else.
Aaand as an edit: When it finally works, people will tell you "told you so look at it, FSD works" yeah really? Of course it works but it was promised from Musk that 2020 all these Teslas will drive autonomsly. Its 2026
The performance of V3 and V4 have improved significantly. I use them daily, more V3 than V4.
It's partially about fully automated cars, but that's barely started. IMO, it's more about them as ADAS now.
And it's not just about whether anyone else will catch up in terms of automation/ADAS, it's about whether anyone else will catch up in terms of manufacturing+automation/ADAS.
Edit- And yes, Elon acting like that doesn't help, but Tesla isn't Elon.
Elon is Tesla. He owns 10-15% of it and the last vote for his trillion payout thing shows what this means.
And there has never been a person like Elon, interfering in german election, USA election etc. and being the posterchild for companies.
In what timeframe did V3 and V4 improved for you? At least for me, even FSD 2023 videos were quite impressive.
Nvidia has its own platform with ML based training. Im pretty sure car companies can and will just use them if necessary. Besides that, left and right other companies are working on it, i saw an xpeng driving autonoms through the city and it worked very well.
I think his decisions have been helpful in the past, especially compared to half-hearted attempts at EVs by most of most other large manufacturers, but only time will tell if his current positions will pay off. At least the new compensation is performance based. If he can't deliver, he doesn't get paid.
V3/V4 have significantly improved in the past few months. I use one, the other, or both, daily, more V3 than V4. They are well ahead of where they were in 2023.
I'm sure Nvidia and others will eventually catch up, but they have to catch up in terms of auto manufacturing/use, inference/training/sensor hardware manufacturing/use, fleet training data, etc... simulataneously.
Xpeng driving autonomously is great, and shows they are catching up at least in a specific situation. They may be catching up in the aggregate, they may not be. I agree that a Chinese manufacturer has the best chance to catch up overall.
In general, I think it's about whether a distributed, lower-compute/sensor with higher-data/training approach like Tesla/etc have will beat a more singular, higher-compute/sensor with lower-data/training like Waymo/etc have.
Distributed has been able to offer better ADAS at a lower cost, but singular is winning at fully autonomous driving. If distributed can catch up in terms of autonomous diving while continuing to improve ADAS, distributed is done. I have a hunch that's a part of why there's so much demand for DRAM/etc...
you take Elon out of Tesla and you will end up with Ford, $13-16/share
> At least the new compensation is performance based. If he can't deliver, he doesn't get paid.
Unfortunately, with Elon and TSLA, this is not the case. He just has to promise he will deliver in some imaginary future (as he’s been doing for more than a decade) and he’ll be handsomely rewarded
Market cap he’ll hit by President’s Day after few tweets about some amazing thing that is coming “by June” (year won’t be specified) and operational goals he’ll fudge with some “orders” from his buddies which will never materialize
I could give you many reasons. I see where you went wrong, here are some to think about:
- next time don't just look at stock value and volume. Look at cashflow
- Consider that most investment volume comes from institutional investors in Wall Street, not in China. Even Chinese investment is routed through NY, Singapore, UK, etc, with the slight exception of Hong Kong.
- Consider geopolitics before investing too. Trump really went all-in in tariffs that basically geofence EV business to american brands.
- The hope for BYD is in EU and UK markets. EU has also been extremely harsh to welcoming BYD and protectionist of their (German) auto makers. This hasn't avoided BYD entering the market, but also has stopped them from shipping en masse. Might change.
- BYD is not a competitor to Tesla. BYD market is the low end market mostly. For example, what today in EU is Dacia (1st or 2nd best seller by number of units). Tesla on the other hand is purposely set up as a mid-high seller. It is too expensive for the cheap segment of the market (10-20k) and is well below luxury vehicles. Different market segment, also better margins in that segment.
- Auto industry is cyclical not defensive. In times of economic uncertainty like today, if you want a solid investment you should look at defensive not cyclical.
- Generally it is a bad idea for retailers to invest in Chinese HQed companies due to the complex geopolitics that surrounding the stock. For example, you have severe limitations in stock market products and they have tight regulation, unlike the US where you have a free-market.
- Consider the market of derivatives. Very different market of futures in China vs the US.
- Tesla is also a self-driving company and robotics company. It would be better compared to XPENG than to BYD.
- Tesla owns the EV market in North America. Period. This is the reality today.
- On top of all that yes the stock is hyped up. But you should know that and invest with that in mind. Being full blown rational in an irrational market will not work.
> - The hope for BYD is in EU and UK markets. EU has also been extremely harsh to welcoming BYD and protectionist of their (German) auto makers. This hasn't avoided BYD entering the market, but also has stopped them from shipping en masse. Might change.
The way this will change is Chinese companies opening factories in the EU. BYD is opening one in Szeged, Hungary soon.
The Chinese economy isn't set up to endlessly create value for the capital-owning class, so you are never going to profit off of Chinese companies and stocks in the way we are used to in the west.
it make sense with geo politics, governments started slowly using same playbook, banning chinese cars anywere possible because of real risks of espionage etc.
> I bought BYD stock in 2025 before split in the hope that their market dominance will translate to great returns. The stock has pretty consistently traded down since then. Meanwhile Tesla stock soared purely on the air coming out of Elon’s mouth.
Interesting take there. Tesla Model Y is the #1 best-selling car globally in 2025 for the third year.
Meanwhile, your BYD is bleeding from real price wars and demand slumps. Tesla's valuation? Still baked in autonomy, energy, and AI upside not just car volume. Calling it "air" while hyping your own wishful dominance is nothing but peak projection.
Toyota RAV4 seems to be the best selling car globally in 2025, not model y.
Overall tesla models looks dated, quality is not great, ongoing safety issue with underwhelming responses, competition on the ev segment is just better on many points now.
> Toyota RAV4 seems to be the best selling car globally in 2025, not model y.
The data you're referring to is from Oct 2025 we're talking about the entire 2025 CY here.
> Overall tesla models looks dated, quality is not great, ongoing safety issue with underwhelming responses, competition on the ev segment is just better on many points now.
That's your uninformed biased opinion. If it were even remotely true, the Model Y will not be the world's best selling car for 3 years in a row. Math and sales numbers don't lie.
You cannot deny that Tesla has not been selling as well as other EV manufacturers. You also cannot deny that Tesla has took a heavy beating internationally.
Tesla valuation is not baked in anything, it's entirely hype about potential, and has absolutely nothing to do with automation, robotics, AI, energy. It is largely betting that Elon Musk will do well, not that Tesla will do well. It might as well just be called EM.
> You cannot deny that Tesla has not been selling as well as other EV manufacturers. You also cannot deny that Tesla has took a heavy beating internationally.
What other EV manufacturers are you even referring here? Do you even know the top 5 EV manufacturers in terms of global sales?
You are clearly clueless about the current state of EVs. I'm willing to bet you haven't even driven or owned a Tesla or BYD. So you're uninformed at best.
All I know is I'd never buy a Tesla. Having seen them up close, the quality control is clearly not priority one. Unacceptable for a vehicle at that price.
> All I know is I'd never buy a Tesla. Having seen them up close, the quality control is clearly not priority one. Unacceptable for a vehicle at that price
You must be trolling. 'Having seen them up close' isn't a serious basis for an opinion on an any vehicle. Take a proper 24-hour test drive and then talk about build quality.
Purely on the air coming out of Elon’s mouth as well as the 1 million cars sold world wide, 165 successful Falcon 9 launches and 9 million Starlink subscriptions
SpaceX’s success have no bearing on Tesla. And Tesla’s sales for the year are down for the second year in a row. Hardly a logical reason for the stock to go up.
> And Tesla’s sales for the year are down for the second year in a row. Hardly a logical reason for the stock to go up.
If the market originally expected and priced in an even bigger decline, the stock would logically go up. Because of all the possible anticipations stock price movements are hard to understand, even in retrospect.
I think he's implying that SpaceX's success is evidence that Musk can possibly deliver on the robotaxis and Optimus forecasts, thus justifying TSLA's multiple. I for one am skeptical.
> "Hardly a logical reason for the stock to go up"
Surely this can't be a serious nor a logical statement so I'll have to assume it's a joke or engagement bait. Here are 3 that I can think off the top of my head.
1. Robotaxi TAM: Tesla's already running unsupervised Robotaxis (no safety driver) in Austin tests as of late 2025, with plans to expand cities in 2026 — that's not vaporware, it's early scaling of high-margin autonomy.
2. Cross-country FSD milestone? Legit: A Tesla owner just nailed 10,000+ intervention-free miles on FSD v14.2 coast-to-coast in Dec 2025, including parking and Supercharging — verified via telemetry.
3. Model Y #1 for 3rd year? Tesla proudly claimed it in their 2025 recap as of the latest DEC 2025 data.
Stock still up ~11-25% in 2025 despite EV headwinds and ending of EV credits because the market prices in future upside: autonomy software margins, energy storage boom, Optimus, and robotaxi fleets. That's logical valuation, not "no reason."
Dismissing all that while cherry picking doubts is at best nothing but drivel.
Nice. Now take the car sales out of the vacuum and let’s see how great sales look year over across the world. Now let’s factor in how Elon’s government ended subsidies for electric cars. Should I go on?
If you want to understand how Tesla bulls pump the stock, check out any of the numerous videos of Dan Ives you will find on YouTube. He is regularly invited on CNBC and other financial new media as well as on financial blogs/vlogs. Here is one recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLsZ4bkW6Q
I think somehow the goofiness and untrustworthiness of the pumpers is a way to select their audience, just like how spammers intentionally misspell to not waste their time on people with discernment
"Why" is redundant. If the article is stating premise "X" and it's on the front page (assuming it's not newsworthy enough that "X" is novel and worth discussion), it's obviously going to explain "Why X" and "X" is sufficient.
Is that actually the rationale, or are you guessing? It seems weak, if true, since:
- An article reporting X does not or can not necessarily always explain why X.
- Removing "Why" can (and does) destroy some titles, and submitters aren't always going to notice it was changed under their nose and fix it before submitting (or they will consciously trust the bad change, if they are not themselves an experienced reader of the language).
- Removing "why" doesn't seem to have any impact aside from saving a tiny bit of space and a tiny bit of annoyance for the small subset of people who are opinionated writers and dislike seeing the "why" trope in the cases when it is truly unnecessary.
It's not like we're talking about the "You won't believe why..." trope. Then I could understand.
it's the norm that article talks about why and how.
- If article "I have to give Fortnite my passport to use Bluesky" does not explain why and how then it's a bad article not worth sharing on HN anyway
- "Why", "how" is clickbait. It's the "You won't believe how" intensificator but for thinking geeks. The real topic is always what happens after. unless it's an actual question quoted in title, in that 1% of cases it can be edited in.
But why does HN feel it's necessary to editorialize titles like that? My browsing experience isn't any better because HN decided to strip out the "why", and I've seen multiple situations in the past where the auto editing of titles here actually resulted in a title that made zero sense.
Lots of posts on HN state the fact "X" is happening and are searching for help to find the reason or just conveying a story. "Why" in the title tells people the author knows the reason and is going to explain it in the post.
There was tons of research happening in the space of online misinformation after Cambridge Analytica scandal. But NSF cancelled all the existing grants for misinformation research based on Trump's January 2025 EO. They will not fund anything related to this going forward: https://www.nsf.gov/updates-on-priorities#misinformation
I pasted two paragraphs in GPTZero and got the following results: 19% AI, 65% mix of human and AI and remaining 16% human. As I wasn't logged in, I did not get other details.
reply