This morning, many friends shared a message: Tesla has requested its suppliers to stop using components made by us for models produced in the beautiful country and plans to achieve a “complete de-Chinafication” of the supply chain for each model within the next 1-2 years.
The news continues to ferment, even raising concerns about whether Tesla’s robots will adopt the same strategy.
Let’s state the conclusion first:It is indeed true, but the concept has been confused.
What Musk wants to reduce in the production system of the beautiful country is “Made in China”, not “Chinese suppliers.” More importantly, this is old news—related consensus was formed two years ago.
Since the bidding for the Cybertruck in 2023, Tesla has no longer considered Chinese suppliers without production capacity outside North America and China.
The reason is that starting in 2024, related tariff policies have led to a rise of about 15% in the comprehensive costs of Tesla’s production in the U.S., coupled with this year’s further escalation of tariffs and geopolitical supply chain issues, Musk’s continued push for localization and nearshore procurement is an inevitable choice.
Currently, many domestic automotive parts companies, especially Tesla suppliers, have actively laid out overseas production capacity in Mexico and other places to comply with the USMCA agreement, achieving low or even zero tariffs on supplies. Tesla is also very satisfied with its cooperation with Chinese-funded manufacturers in Mexico.
Therefore, this adjustmentonly affects Tesla’s supply chain in the beautiful country, and based on its sales structure (North America, Europe, and China each account for about 1/3), more than 60% of the remaining market is not affected by this policy.
For the future supply chain of Tesla robots, the most competitive will still be those Chinese companies, although some production bases may shift to places like Mexico.
Using an “old news” as a sudden negative to hype is a typical case of being misled by market sentiment.However, we must also point out that the recent pullback in the robotics sector cannot simply be attributed to a miscalculation.
The current trend in the robotics sector is largely driven by various “small essays”: rising on news and falling on news.
From “the chairman of a certain company visiting a factory in Mexico” to “a certain enterprise obtaining blueprints/fixed points,” the authenticity of the information is difficult to discern, and even institutions find it hard to obtain first-hand data, let alone ordinary investors.
This has also led to incidents like the previous “Xpeng robot’s debut being forced to be disassembled on the spot to prove itself,” which reflects, to some extent, the trust crisis in the market caused by long-term influence from “small essays.”
So, what other so-called “negative news” is there recently?
First, Musk is rumored to have postponed the cumulative delivery target of 1 million robots from 2029 to 2035. In fact, this is just one of the ten assessment targets in his compensation plan, reflecting the board’s recognition of long-term goals rather than a strategic delay.
Second, Goldman Sachs released a neutral to bearish research report, pointing out that domestic supply chain companies have not yet received large orders but are already planning annual production capacity of 100 thousand to 1 million units, betting on global total demand in 2035. This actually ignores our industrialization capability from “1 to 100“—as long as the product is mature enough and costs are controllable, with our market size and scene promotion capability, a demand of a million units may not be the ceiling.
However, the real risk does not lie in these surface messages, but in the local bubbles and trust deficits that have formed within the sector.
Some companies, in order to ride the wave, are even willing to spend hundreds of thousands to sign “cooperation agreements” that do not generate actual income, just to boost stock prices. Some enterprises rely on hype concepts, with profits from share reductions far exceeding the profits brought by current robotics component orders.
Due to the high opacity of information, “good news being realized immediately” has become the norm, and investors often face the dilemma of “buying in on the same day, only to see the sector collectively pull back the next day due to a statement from a certain chairman.” In this environment, both institutions and retail investors face increasing difficulty and volatility risk in participation.
The robotics sector needs to transition from “thematic investment” to “prosperity investment,” with the key signal being achieving breakthroughs in replicable industrial scenarios from 0 to 1.
Whether it is Tesla building a million-unit production line in California, planning a ten-million-unit factory in Texas, or domestic companies like Yushu launching the G1-D model of wheeled robots, only when robots are truly scaled in industrial and service scenarios, solving real pain points, and bringing demand growth and improved profitability for enterprises, can we effectively dispel funding concerns.
Looking back at the development history of new energy vehicles:Concept hype began in 2017, but real volume production occurred in 2020. Currently, the robotics sector has entered the verification phase from “theme” to “prosperity” after its valuation and expectations were rapidly inflated mid-year. Investors need to remain patient and focus on companies and products that can achieve breakthroughs in real scenarios and possess generalization capabilities.