| ▲ | mullingitover 16 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> But the expansion stalled, maybe because the state bureaucracy or maybe because Tesla shifted priority to other things. If the math was mathing, it would be malpractice not to expand it. I'm betting that their scheme simply wasn't workable, given the extremely high costs of claims (Tesla repairs aren't cheap) relative to the low rates that they were collecting on premiums. The cheap premiums are probably a form of market dumping to get people to buy their FSD product, the sales of which boosts their share price. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Veserv 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It was not workable. They have a loss ratio of >100% [1], as in they paid out more in claims than received in premiums before even accounting for literally any other costs. Industry average is ~60-80% to stay profitable when including other costs. They released the Tesla Insurance product because their cars were excessively expensive to insure, increasing ownership costs, which was impacting sales. By releasing the unprofitable Tesla Insurance product, they could subsidize ownership costs making the cars more attractive to buy right now which pumped revenues immediately in return for a "accidental" write-down in the future. [1] https://peakd.com/tesla/@newageinv/teslas-push-into-insuranc... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | redanddead 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The math should've mathed. Better data === lower losses right? They probably weren't able to get it to work quite right on the tech side and were eating fat losses during an already bad time in the market. It'll come back. Lemonade or Tesla if you find this, let's pilot, i'm a founder in sunnyvale, insurtech vertical at pnp | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||