Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
China Transportation The Almighty Buck

China's EV Price War Was Built On Cars Sold At a Loss (autoblog.com) 231

Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from Autoblog: For years, the Chinese auto industry has employed a hostile price war to kneecap global competitors. Armed with massive state subsidies, cheap raw materials, and an aggressive "scale-first" business model, Chinese automakers flooded the market with electric vehicles priced so low that legacy manufacturers stood no chance to compete. How did they do it? Simple, they couldn't. They did it anyway. Reports from CarNewsChina show that Chinese automakers have been selling vehicles at a loss until a recent law passed by the Chinese government banned below-cost sales of new vehicles. During the ongoing sales slump in China caused by rolled-back subsidies and direct government intervention banning below-cost sales, the truth behind the rapid expansion of the Chinese auto industry has been exposed. "By the first quarter of 2026, China captured 32 percent of the global auto market, with its New Energy Vehicles (NEVs) controlling an incredible 61 percent of global share," the report notes. Yet that dominance has come at a steep cost: throughout 2025, "the profit margin for China's auto industry plunged to 4.4 percent and dropped further to a historic low of 3.2 percent in early 2026."

"Gross profit, not net profit, per vehicle, plummeted to a mere $2,000. We can expect the net figure to be loss-making." Autoblog adds: "Data shows over 70 percent of Chinese car sales were loss-making. This left more than half of the country's auto industry in the red. Great Wall Motor (GWM) even saw net profits drop 17 percent despite steady revenue growth."

China's EV price war has now hit a wall. New regulations are discouraging below-cost sales, rising material costs are forcing automakers to cut discounts and raise prices, and reduced tax incentives are weakening domestic demand. To sustain growth, manufacturers are increasingly turning to exports.

China's EV Price War Was Built On Cars Sold At a Loss

Comments Filter:
  • by shilly ( 142940 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @03:08AM (#66198070)

    Amazon took nine years to reach profitability. OpenAI posted an operating loss of 20bn. And most pertinently, Tesla took 17 years to reach profitablity. They all got significant state support to the tune of many billions, as well, as have all of the big three US car OEMs over the decades.

    Treating this as some kind of gotcha is just idiotic double standards.

    The difference between the Chinese and US automakers is what they did with the state support and the time afforded to them by being able to operate at a loss. The Chinese automakers used it to build innovation systems capable of launching new models in 18 months vs the 5 to 7 years it takes the US OEMs. The US OEMs, bar Tesla, used it to finance BAU, and more fool them, and they’re paying the price now. Tesla used it to do some weird mix of innovation and making Musk grotesquely rich.

      • by shilly ( 142940 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @04:03AM (#66198098)

        The visible components like agile development are quite readily copyable in principle*, but not the underlying systems that make them feasible. I don’t just mean things like the reuglatory system; BYD has 110k R&D engineers!

        * Things like decision-making culture are really hard to shift in practice.

        • BYD has 110k R&D engineers

          BYD isn't a car company. In fact they existed a decade before entering the car industry. Most of those engineers have nothing to do with developing cars. In fact you can thank BYD for your Apple Magic Keyboard, and the touch sensor in your iPhone.

          If you're going to compare R&D engineers you'll need to lump together Ford with Micron with Pansonic's battery division, with Crown Equipment (yeah BYD is a forklift company) with Siemens mobility (yep they make trains too).

    • by Bacila ( 860302 )

      The Chinese automakers used it to build innovation systems capable of launching new models in 18 months vs the 5 to 7 years it takes the US OEMs. The US OEMs, bar Tesla, used it to finance BAU, and more fool them, and they’re paying the price now. Tesla used it to do some weird mix of innovation and making Musk grotesquely rich.

      Not sure if making a new car model every 18 months is a good thing. ;) Even for phone models this seems to be too aggressive from the environment perspective. And EV's are supposed to be environment friendly and not make EV Waste

      • by mccalli ( 323026 )
        Similar to phones though, you don't have to buy every 18 months. The one thing it might do though is affect second hand prices more, which is likely a good thing for affordability.
        • by shilly ( 142940 )

          Exactly, no significant group of consumers is buying a new car every 18 months. This is about OEMs competing for new customers, not existing ones

        • It's not about buying them every 18 months. It's about long term parts support, change for the sake of change and more waste caused by that.
          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            It’s clearly not change for the sake of change, it’s rapid tech advancements, eg new battery chemistries, more advanced drivetrains etc.

            You are going to have to set out the specifics of how you believe this creates more waste, bearing in mind that many of these improvements lead to greater efficiencies, less intensive materials usage, greater degrees of recyclability, etc.

          • I think this is the most forgotten thing about fast changing products. One of my cars is a 2011, or now 15 years old. Runs great. Parts if something fails though are now getting into the iffy stage. Fortunately a fairly common model, so they may keep making parts for awhile longer. But if they stop making the ECM or some other module, and it fails, I'm screwed. Imagine having to toss your car in the scrap heap after say 6 years because the dash display is no longer available.
      • Not sure if making a new car model every 18 months is a good thing.

        Unless there is a lot of carryover between models it sounds like an absolute disaster for stocking of spare/replacement parts.

        • by shilly ( 142940 )

          If only the Chinese OEMs had been able to think of that, they might have been able to redesign their autos to reduce the spare part challenge. You know, like being able to rapidly manufacture spare parts on demand if the need arises thanks to flexible lines, using zonal electrical architecture, replacing parts with upgraded replacement components, not strictly like-for-like, and a dozen other things.

          • You know, like being able to rapidly manufacture spare parts on demand if the need arises thanks to flexible lines, using zonal electrical architecture, replacing parts with upgraded replacement components, not strictly like-for-like, and a dozen other things.

            I'm sure they will manufacture you parts on demand and FedEx overnight them for your old out of warranty Chinese EV LOL.

    • by Quantum gravity ( 2576857 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @04:27AM (#66198116)
      The Chinese government funds innovation in China, while in the west it is private enterprise driven by the profits.
      In China the government lead the development of technology with Government Guidance Funds and a somewhat bureaucratic process but with national long-term goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] A significant difference.
      • by Alarash ( 746254 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @05:38AM (#66198160)

        Remember that the West also used direct government money to finance R&D. It's just that it happened decades ago (following WW2 mostly). China is just a few decades late in that game, due to its own history, but is maybe pushing it further instead of letting the market handling it (and we all know the market isn't self-regulating as much as its defenders claim).

        • by Quantum gravity ( 2576857 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @06:11AM (#66198174)
          Western public funding is supportive, like for basic research, while GGFs pursue specific technological goals defined by the government.
          • by Phact ( 4649149 )

            Don't we have DARPA for at least some of that?

          • The whole thing is so much more complex and incomparable. Some of the best research in the US was done in private company research departments, like Xerox PARC or Bell labs. However, they had a whole bunch of government integration and not just with the DoD. They also had huge links with the US national laboratories which also used to do a whole load of important work. The US government used to understand the value and, for example, made sure that the people funding Bell labs could continue to do so.

            Now we

        • We still do. We do quite a lot of it. The US Federal government spends about $200 billion/year on R&D internally and externally.

          As far as market regulation goes, I've always maintained that under a Democratic-Capitalist political economy where everyone is both a market actor and a political actor, government is just another medium for market regulation. That said, it is a blunt and inaccurate tool for market regulation, so actions must neither be taken lightly nor quickly.

      • by quenda ( 644621 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @05:40AM (#66198162)

        while in the west it is private enterprise driven by the profits.

        Thats what the cold-war era propaganda said. In reality, public-private partnerships werte essential to the post-war economic boom.
        DARPA, public infrastructure, aerospace , ... Everybody subsidises.

        • Yet venture capital is primarily a private enterprise pursuit of profit and the government mostly pays a secondary role.
          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            Private capital has most definitely been a significant funding sources for Chinese auto OEMs. Buffet is famously invested in BYD!

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Most of the R&D in China is done with private money. The government does contribute, but it's more long term guarantees than it is cash.

        In a democracy, policy can change ever 4-5 years. Look at the US, it's been alternating between pushing renewables to banning them to pushing them to banning them again, over the last 4 administrations. If you were a company developing renewable technology, would you have faith that your investment in R&D wouldn't be banned by the time it reaches market? Doesn't eve

        • Government Guidance Funds (GGFs) are the dominant investors in frontline technology companies like chip manufacturing. But this is about more than just economics. This is about long-term strategy.
        • That's not how Parliamentary systems are designed, it's just a likely (but not necessary) consequence. And an imperfect one, as the parties still boil down to left and right. American parties have caucuses that reflect the multiple parties in Europe, but without the overhead of having separate parties with effectively indistinguishable ideologies. For example, the UK's Reform, Restore, and Torry parties would, in the US, just be movements in the GOP. Somewhat mirroring the Freedom Caucus, the Trump Popu
      • I think everyone understands that fundamentally, dictatorships HAVE ALWAYS been potentially more nimble, more efficient, and more consistent.

        At a longer view, the question is if the costs are worth those improvements.

        • by shilly ( 142940 )

          The argument against has always been that freedoms and general welfare are better preserved in democracies. But the US is doing its damndest to follow the Russian model of faux-democracy-but-actually-incompetent-autocracy, ie the worst of all worlds

        • Potentially, but they run into the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" problem pretty quickly. Which is why they tend not to be nimble or efficient. China may be able to throw a lot of resources at a problem fairly quickly, but they are brutally inefficient and corrupt. They have generals draining fuel from missiles to sell on the black market! It's crazy.
      • by unrtst ( 777550 )

        The Chinese government funds innovation in China, while in the west it is private enterprise driven by the profits.

        DRIVEN BY PROFITS?!?!? Can you say that with a straight face amid this AI bubble?

        From this story yesterday: https://slashdot.org/story/26/... [slashdot.org]

        "OpenAI lost around $38.5 billion in 2025 ..."
        "... measured as a percentage of revenues, the company's operating losses slightly improved year to year, from 237 percent in 2024 to 160 percent in 2025."

        Compared to China's EV situation - "the profit margin for China's auto industry plunged to 4.4 percent and dropped further to a historic low of 3.2 percent in early 2026.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @04:37AM (#66198124) Homepage Journal

      Many of the big Western car manufacturers sold EVs at a loss initially too. I had an original Nissan Leaf that was heavily discounted and came with a 0% loan.

    • by rsmith-mac ( 639075 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @05:25AM (#66198154)

      Amazon took nine years to reach profitability.

      I'm not sure Amazon is a good example here. The company famously opted to reinvest its free cash flow into growing the business, rather than saving them and booking them as net income. They likely could have been profitable sooner otherwise.

      Also, I am not aware of Amazon receiving billions in government support in the 1994-2001 timeframe.

      • by shilly ( 142940 )

        1. Multiple Chinese OEMs could have made the same choice to take profits as Amazon, but invested in growing the market instead by offering products at below cost
        2. Remind me how much sales tax Amazon paid in that period? Post 2001, they started directly obtaining explicit subsidies for their warehouses and HQs, but the massive unfair competitive advantage they’ve always had has been avoiding tax on a gargantuan scale in a way other retailers could not.

        • You mean, "how much sales tax did they pay before there were rules in place to collect taxes from online sales"? Which wasn't a subsidy, it was a loophole. Subsidies are funds provided to businesses by government, not loopholes in State tax laws, tax breaks, or market externalities. What you're talking about was a loophole in State tax laws that went back to the Founding - States could only collect sales taxes on sales that happened in that State, so if you didn't live in the same State as an online reta
          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            Of course not having to pay the same tax as others is a subsidy. The economic effects are the same, which is why in public finance economics they are called tax expenditures. Subsidies are practically never targeted at single companies, so I don’t know why you think that’s some sort of gotcha.

      • They pay so little that many of their employees qualify for government food assistance: https://thecounter.org/amazon-... [thecounter.org] - a pretty much direct government subsidy and something that Amazon should be embarrassed about. So we are, indirectly, subsidizing Bezos space ambitions by allowing him to underpay workers.

        They also do get subsidies in terms of things like tax-break to build warehouses, etc.
        • Your data is 8 years old. Amazon's internal minimum wage is $15/hour, with warehouse workers making an average of $19/hour with day-one benefits.

          I think you're actually citing one of the reports that drove Amazon to increase wages and benefits.

    • by Targon ( 17348 )

      Amazon is both an e-tailer as well as a logistics company that distributes products for other companies. Amazon for the most part does not MAKE products, though they have a number of Amazon branded products and a few like the Amazon Fire Stick that are their own products. Overall, that is a VERY different type of company that is there to create and sell products. With that said, you have the next piece of the puzzle, companies that sell products, and the cost of research and development will be the re

      • by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
        Notb to mentionn a cloud provider, I suspect AWS contributes rather heavily to Amazons revenue
    • I knew who the submitter was before even seeing the name.

    • Openai will never be profitable
    • Treating this as some kind of gotcha is just idiotic double standards.

      Indeed, this isn't related to cares or even recent history. Subsidies is a lever government has to enact policy, and every emerging industry has benefitted from it the world over. And selling at a loss to build consumer confidence is a well known and well understood business strategy.

      The USA (and to a far lesser extent, but still significantly enough Europe) ignored the EV industry despite literally the world calling them out on it, and now the west is having a temper tantrum because China didn't.

  • And it gets worse! (Score:5, Informative)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @03:41AM (#66198090)
    And when people tell you it's fine and other car manufacturers "can't compete" just remember that while this is outlawed in China itself, the Chinese Yuan is deliberately undervalued so it's even cheaper as an export and so is even more undercut! [economist.com]
    • by jhoegl ( 638955 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @04:36AM (#66198120)
      So what? This is literally capitalism and because it comes from China, everyone is all baby about it?
      Is this a problem? yes... but its also capitalism. you cant wave away "capitalism" when it benefits you, but not others and then be upset when others are benefiting and you are not.
      This is more a problem for the companies to fix, but they wont, because US taxpayers will pay for the bail out, yet again while the correction of "capitalism" never happens due to it.
      We are backwards on a lot of our policies and governance here, and the point of capitalism is looking a lot more like communism and Oligarch rule.
      • by Entrope ( 68843 )

        Government intervention in international currency markets is "capitalism"? Since when, and by what definition? Wikipedia says "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and its use for the purpose of obtaining profit", which on the surface neither implies nor aligns with the Chinese government controlling the CNY-USD exchange rate.

        • Capitalism doesn't care where the money comes from, government or not

        • It is standard practice for those private owners of the means of production to use some of the profits to bribe / lobby the government to revise policy in ways that support their businesses.

          In other words, corruption is no less a feature of capitalism than it is of communism.

      • While I'm sure we all appreciate the ä宣éf's opinion, lying about gross economic statistics and manipulating currency is fundamentally non-capitalist.

        I'm not going to disagree with you that Western governments have done so themselves sometimes (for example, the US unstated policy for at least 50 years after WW2 was to keep the USD overly strong as an 'invisible subsidy' to our western economic partners, making their manufactured goods more price competitive; US consumers got cheap

        • by jhoegl ( 638955 )
          There are many ways to manipulate markets, hence the large amount of laws and rules regulating it.

          One is not better or worse than others, so nitpicking isnt exactly a solid argument to make.
      • Nope, that's not Capitalism, that's literally Mercantilism - "an economic system in which governments regulate trade and commerce to increase national wealth and power, emphasizing exports over imports and the accumulation of precious metals." Note that when Mercantilism flourished in the Colonial era, precious metals were the primary currency. A more modern definition would include foreign currency along with precious metals.

        The West discarded that system as democracy flourished. They are not compati

    • by FunOne ( 45947 )

      Wait till you hear what Glorious Leader in the US is trying to do with the USD.

  • And Open AI ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @04:16AM (#66198108)
    OpenAI is running ChatGPT at a loss.

    That's how the world works.
    • Congressional Insider Trading, is now a fucking job perk. Instead of Common F. Sense realizing how horrifically harmful that can be to the key market in US Capitalism and condemning it immediately it was defended, and is now unofficially known as Pelosis Law.

      Gambling, a known and recognized concept that can easily create horrific addiction, got re-branded into "speculative markets". Which grew into a massive industry now in business with professional sports. Instead of Common F. Sense remembering why bo

  • by IWantMoreSpamPlease ( 571972 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @06:50AM (#66198198) Homepage Journal

    is how reliable these Chinese EVs have been over say...5 years? The stories that reach the US shores are a mix of "China bad!" and "China even more bad!" sprinkled with a bit of "We can't let China (who is bad!) sell cars here."
    So, for the sane Europeans that come here, and own a Chinese EV...how's it been? What's service and support like?

    • by Sique ( 173459 )
      Differently than common belief, the EV market in Europe is dominated by domestic companies like Volkswagen, Stellantis and Renault, with Tesla and Hyundai/Kia thrown in. Chinese manufactures recently reached a new high with 4.5 percent EV market share. And EV itself is about 25% of total market share. There is not much experience with Chinese EVs so far.
    • You still can't believe China is capable of making quality goods?

      • For me it's not so much about China but about how long these manufacturers have been making cars. I don't really want a Tesla because it's to new a brand. I'd prefer a traditional auto maker get into EVs and do a good job. I feel they know how to make a car where as most EV brands seem to know how to make a computer on wheels.

        I'm fortunate that I'm in a good position to wait things out until I make the EV plunge. I want one but my hybrid only has 83k miles, so I have a long time to go before I need to decid

        • This does go against what I originally posted, but I really like the Slate truck that's coming out.

          It might not come out, since the whole value proposition hinged on the $7,500 tax credit that the Trump administration killed. It doesn't even have an infotainment system, and Slate's answer of "put your phone in a vent holder and use that" is something you do in a beater from Craigslist, not a nearly $30k brand new EV.

    • is how reliable these Chinese EVs have been over say...5 years?

      If you're only going to keep a car for 5 years, reliability probably isn't going to be an issue regardless of the manufacturer.

      On the other hand, if you're the type to keep a car and drive it until the wheels fall off, with a Chinese vehicle, that time might come sooner than you'd expect.

  • It looks like these manufacturers are dumping, while the legacy auto+oil industries require military interventions to be supported by the taxpayers.
    That being the case, I'd say the Chinese are getting a better deal and lower exhaust emissions as well.

  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BytePusher ( 209961 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @07:54AM (#66198246) Homepage
    Tesla also didn't make money on its cars. That's how new businesses oftentimes work.
    • For how long? Right now, their profit per car beats BYD by a mile.

      Tesla and BYD were both founded around the same time (2003). I think BYD had a car on the market before Tesla did. Tesla was profitable in 2009, though that fluctuated until about 2020. In 2008, BYD was profitable, though by only about $10 per car. In 2013, Tesla's net profit per car was $45-46,000. In 2013, BYD had a net profit per car of... $0.02-0.03. Yup, two or three shiny little pennies per car.

      It's normal for a new company

  • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @09:03AM (#66198304)
    We lose money on every sale, but make up for it in volume.
    • If it were *only* sales, yeah, this would be illogical. But if you factor in service and repairs, they could actually, in fact, make money, while losing money on initial sales.
      • I thought a selling point of an EV was that they are less complex and therefore require less overall maintenance. Is that not correct?

  • China is routinely accused of this subsidize and sell below cost strategy and I'll accept that it is really happening. But, where does the money for the subsidies come from? What profitable export is generating their wealth if "everything" is subsidized?

    There has to be profit or free resources(inputs) or they would not have the money for all these subsidies.

    • Currency manipulation and massive reserves of foreign currency built up over decades of mercantilist trade policies.
  • The Chinese government in part changed the incentives because the domestic Chinese market was flooded with a lot of ridiculous vanity brands of NEVs, somewhat similar to companies in the US temporarily pumping their stock price up by starting a blockchain or AI initiative.
  • Direct TV sold their equipment at a slight loss for years. Its how they dominated TV. Its a sound long range plan to take over any industry and one the US quit utilizing.
    • They sold hardware at a loss because it was tied to profitable monthly service fees. It's not quite the same. I think Nintendo does it too.
  • after they had worked on it for decades and had $1 trillion in the bank, just what happened the day they canceled it: https://www.genolve.com/design... [genolve.com]
  • The headline says "sold at a loss", but the summary doesn't:

    "the profit margin for China's auto industry plunged to 4.4 percent and dropped further to a historic low of 3.2 percent in early 2026."

    Profit dropping is not the same as "sold at a loss."

  • by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Thursday June 18, 2026 @10:00AM (#66198436)
    Tesla did not take 9 years to sell a car profitably. Tesla was founded in 2003 and could sell a roadster at a profit in 2009. Tesla's first profitable quarter was first quarter 2013. The difference is Tesla was sinking all their money into expanding and designing new products. Now if Chinese auto makers are still selling the physical cars at a loss then that is a big problem for them. For us, the consumers, it's like someone giving you free money.
  • Public and private debt in China is 300% of GDP. The USA this is 122% with government debt being 105% of GDP. The US debt has accumulated over decades while, due to the massive in crease in Chinese GDP in the last 5 decades most of the debt is recent. The Chinese economy still makes the wrong things. The biggest example is how many dwellings they build that can't be sold profitably. The workforce is f#@ked with Chinese women able to retire at 50. Their birth rate dropped below replacement in 1990. Cu

"Joy is wealth and love is the legal tender of the soul." -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Working...