The term “Tesla money” once referred to the electric automaker’s rapid rise from niche brand to household name. Its ascent made some folks (like CEO Elon Musk) insanely wealthy from sky-high stock prices—and every new EV brand craved a mere taste of that success. But with some recently flagged accounting discrepancies, “Tesla money” could mean something completely different.

Welcome back to Critical Materials, your daily roundup for all things electric and tech in the automotive space. Accounting experts are questioning $1.4 billion in unaccounted funds in Tesla’s books. Hyundai is shrugging off Trump’s EV policies. And Fisker Ocean owners get a surprising lifeline from Rivian. Let’s jump in.

30%: Accountants Say $1.4 Billion Is Missing From Tesla’s Books

Photo by: InsideEVs

Something funky is going on with Tesla’s books, at least according to a new report released by the Financial Times on Wednesday. That’s never a phrase you want to hear about a publicly traded company, especially one with a tanking stock price and a board whose members are dumping shares at an alarming rate.

According to the report, Tesla spent $6.3 billion in capital expenditures in the last six months of 2024. However, the gross value of its assets only increased by $4.9 billion—that leaves $1.4 billion unaccounted for with no public explanation from Tesla about where that money went. All said and done, accounting and finance experts agree: something isn’t adding up.

Tesla is flush with cash. In fact, the automaker said it was sitting on $37 billion in reserves at the end of 2024. Normally, a company with that much money on hand wouldn’t need to take on any additional debt, yet Tesla still raised another $6 billion in debt last year.

Before we get into it any further, here’s what Financial Times has to say:

As Tesla’s car sales and share price plummet in response to Elon Musk’s political and physical stances, we would like to draw readers’ attention to something puzzling in the group’s accounts.

Compare Tesla’s capital expenditure in the last six months of 2024 to its valuation of the assets that money was spent on, and $1.4bn appears to have gone astray.

The sum is big enough to matter even at Tesla, and comes at a moment when attention is returning to the group’s underlying numbers, now that its fully diluted stock market valuation has crashed from $1.7tn to below $800bn.

Now, maybe that money isn’t actually missing. But when the numbers don’t line up in a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars, people start asking questions.

For example, Tesla spent a bunch of money on new buildings, equipment, and other large investments that added up to around $6.3 billion in just over six months. Normally, when a company spends money on things like factories and machines (investments), asset values rise by about the same amount. Tesla’s balance sheet only reported an asset increase of $4.9 billion, leading to that $1.4 billion gap.

“[A]llegedly healthy (but in reality inflated) operating cash flows tend to be matched by significantly positive financing cash flows,” said Jacek Welc, a professor of corporate finance at SRH University of Applied Sciences in a statement to the Financial Times. “And a seeming ‘cash cow’ appears to require large amounts of new debt and/or new equity financing.”

These types of gaps can happen. Normally it’s an asset sell-off, depreciation, or admission of a bad deal (akin to admitting that a factory or equipment just isn’t worth as much as anticipated). But in Tesla’s case, the automaker didn’t report any major sales or losses that explain the missing money. And just in case you thought Tesla’s position as a global company could explain it—this isn’t a case of foreign exchange fluctuation either.

The concern here is that if Tesla is intentionally categorizing expenses in a misleading way, it could make its profits look better than they actually are. That’s the kind of thing that gets investors nervous and regulators up in arms.

Tesla isn’t in any financial trouble. And maybe this mismatch in the bottom line can be explained as an accounting lag. But it’s also the kind of anomaly that has folks actively asking uncomfortable questions like whether or not Tesla’s internal financial controls are as tight as they should be. And with Tesla’s stock in a bit of a freefall right now, the last thing that the automaker needs are more investors with paper hands.

60%: Hyundai Isn’t Phased By Trump’s EV Plans

Photo by: Hyundai

Many automakers are sweating bullets over Trump’s shifting EV policies. His pushback against the uptick of greener battery-powered cars is no surprise, but the so-called “bipolar tariff regime” has led to even more uncertainty and lack of predictability in the industry. Hyundai, however, isn’t worried.

It turns out that Hyundai’s leadership planned for the unexpected. The brand’s new CEO, Jose Munoz, confidently shrugged off concern during the company’s annual shareholder meeting on Thursday, noting that the brand’s “localization strategy that was made during the first Trump presidency is doing all of the heavy lifting to keep the brand safe in a time where tumultuous change is the new norm.

In the months (and years, if we’re being honest) leading up to Trump’s second run in office, Hyundai has been dumping money into the U.S. market. By the time of his second inauguration, the brand pledged a total of $12.6 billion into domestic manufacturing, a move which is now shielding it from most major policy swings.

This alone has put Hyundai in a far better position than many other automakers—even the Detroit Three—since it isn’t reliant on the bulk of its EV manufacturing to cross any North American borders. That means no scrambling to relocate production and no need to play fast and loose with loopholes. Its giant new Metaplant in Georgia will be its secret to EV success with the Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 9.

Of course, not all of Hyundai’s cars are built domestically. The same goes for its sister brand, Kia, which does have production in Mexico that could be subject to Trump’s 25% tariffs in the future. This could trickle down to create some supply chain disruption for the brand, but that’s a far cry from paying duty fees on fully assembled vehicle imports.

Hyundai’s game here is akin to automotive chess. While the U.S. represents a large area of its focus, the brand hasn’t forgotten to look at the larger picture: its global efforts. Europe is still getting new EVs to stay ahead of environmental regulations. China is getting market-specific models (despite Hyundai’s share being less than 1%). And the Middle East is getting an all-new production HQ.

It’s easy to see Hyundai’s confidence. Company executives feel like they’re two steps ahead of the game. Planning has allowed some flexibility while other manufacturers are adapting to “a lot of chaos.” So, sure, there might be more political-related curveballs in the near future. But Hyundai isn’t scared.

90%: Rivian Throws Fisker Owners A Bone

Fisker Ocean owners have been on one hell of a rollercoaster ride. After the startup went belly-up following allegations of mismanagement (which included ripping parts off of pre-production cars just to complete repairs), owners felt abandoned. And with many still facing $50,000 or higher car notes, lawyers turned to auto financers to seek relief.

Last week, pleas were answered. According to a letter from a law firm posted to Reddit and reported by CarScoops, the owners’ saving grace comes from Chase (the bank that backed Fisker’s financing department) and another EV startup: Rivian.

The unlikely partnership has offered Fisker Ocean owners a life preserver in the form of a structured buyback. Under the agreement, Rivian will buy back running and driving Fisker Oceans or allow for a trade-in towards a Rivian-branded vehicle. If the car is bricked—which isn’t uncommon—Chase will offer to purchase it.

 

To be clear, owners aren’t getting back their full purchase price. According to the letter, the value being offered is a “fixed price,” less actual usage of the vehicle. A number of the Fisker Ocean One owners seem to be getting an offer of around $36,000, regardless of how much they owe on their vehicles. Fisker Ocean Extreme owners seemingly have a higher amount, around $54,000. For reference, the vehicles were purchased for around $69,000 and $62,000, respectively—naturally leading to a significant amount of confusion on just how the values were calculated. Still, that’s more than the current market value.

Reactions from those who received an offer seem to be a mixed bag.

Some are frustrated that the offers were lowballs, especially given the lack of support and potential safety issues with their cars. Others view it as pragmatic—the best-case scenario in a situation where they were screwed over by being an early adopter. Many who fit into this category are champing at the bit to be rid of their battery-powered Henrik Hoaxmobiles. And the rest? Well, those folks believe that collective bargaining and arbitration could net them higher settlements.

In any case, many owners who choose to take advantage of this offer will still be left with five figures of negative equity on their car note.

It’s not clear why Rivian of all brands is involved here. Is it altruism? A calculated strategy to sell more cars? Who knows. But it’s worth calling out that Fisker owners may be skeptical of another startup brand like Rivian courting their ownership, especially after being taken to the cleaners once already. For those who can’t wait to get rid of their Fisker, at least now there’s an easy out.

100%: Would You Buy An EV From A Startup After Fisker?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice? Well, it happened to some Fisker owners who still had a sour taste in their mouths after Henrik Fisker’s first attempt at a failed startup over a decade ago.

After seeing all of the failed startups in recent years, I want to know if you would place your faith in a brand-new automaker, even one experiencing limited success like Rivian. Is a new startup something you’d trust enough to spend $50,000 (or more) for a unique EV? Or do recent events with Fisker and other brands have you thinking a bit more mindful with your money? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.