First a message from our friends at The Oxford Club (sponsor) |
Dear reader, |
For decades, the biggest banks in America have been keeping a secret. |
BlackRock. Wells Fargo. JPMorgan. |
They've all been using a special type of account to collect an average of 29% returns per year. |
It's never been advertised to the general public. Your local bank branch doesn't offer it. Your financial advisor probably never mentioned it. |
Why? |
Because it's 72X more profitable than anything they offer the general public. |
Think about that for a second. |
While you've been earning 0.4%... maybe less... these financial giants have been quietly parking billions into something called "The 29% Account." |
And here's the kicker – it's been available to everyday Americans this whole time. |
You just didn't know about it. |
Until now. |
Our Chief Income Strategist, Marc Lichtenfeld, has put together a short presentation showing exactly how "The 29% Account" works... and how you can open one yourself. |
Don't let inflation eat away at your hard-earned savings while the big banks get richer. |
Click here to watch Marc's presentation now. |
Sincerely, |
Rachel Gearhart
Publisher, The Oxford Club |
P.S. Since 2000, this single account has turned $1,000 into over $556,454. Click here to see how. |
|
FEATURED ARTICLE |
Waymo vs. Tesla: Who Wins the Driverless Future — and What the Market Will Price Next |
Cheap Investor edition |
Hey there, bargain hunter — |
Autonomy is no longer a sci-fi debate where everyone argues about "who has the coolest demo." |
It's now a deployment debate. |
And when something becomes deployment, it stops being a tech story and becomes a business story: |
Can you scale it without blowing up costs? Can you earn permission (from regulators, cities, insurers, and the public)? Can you hit unit economics that actually produce profit per mile?
|
That's why Waymo vs. Tesla is the most important split-screen in transportation right now. |
Same destination: driverless at scale.
Wildly different maps. |
Waymo's bet: Build redundancy, validate in the real world, and scale city by city with tight control. Tesla's bet: This is a software scaling problem—solve perception with vision + massive data, then unlock global distribution.
|
If you're an investor, the question isn't "Who's smarter?"
It's: |
Who can turn autonomy into a repeatable business with defensible economics—before regulation, safety narratives, or competitors rewrite the timeline? |
|
|
Let's run the tape. |
|
1) What's actually live today (no fantasy, no vibes) |
Waymo: Driverless rides are already happening |
Waymo's most underappreciated advantage is simple: it's not pitching autonomy as a PowerPoint slide. |
It's running a commercial service in real cities. |
That matters because the leap from "it works in a demo" to "it works for paying customers" is where most autonomy projects die. |
Deployment forces reality: |
how often the vehicle needs intervention how quickly it can recover from edge cases downtime, cleaning, repairs fleet ops and utilization customer experience and (crucially) city/regulatory cooperation
|
Waymo's approach also signals maturity: when a company starts optimizing sensor cost and manufacturing readiness, it's telling you the bottleneck is shifting from "Can it drive?" to "Can it drive profitably at scale?" |
|
Tesla's current Full Self-Driving product is widely used, but it remains supervised—the human is responsible. |
That distinction is not semantic. It's the entire ballgame. |
Supervised autonomy is a feature.
Unsupervised autonomy is a business model. |
And the transition from supervised to unsupervised isn't a gentle slope. It's a cliff. |
This is why Tesla autonomy headlines can swing the stock:
the upside is convex, but so is the credibility risk. |
Scoreboard today: |
Waymo: smaller footprint, real driverless rides, controlled scaling Tesla: huge footprint, supervised autonomy, "solve once, deploy everywhere" ambition
|
Markets don't pay for ideology. They pay for timelines. |
|
2) The central difference: geofenced certainty vs. general-purpose scale |
Waymo's model: "Solve it locally, then replicate" |
Waymo is built around an operating design domain—specific cities, mapped environments, validated routes, tight constraints. |
Pros: |
redundancy across sensors (more ways to "see" the world) controlled rollout reduces tail risk easier to demonstrate safety in a defined environment service quality can be tuned city-by-city
|
Cons: |
|
Waymo's "local solve" approach is the autonomy equivalent of building a high-end restaurant chain: you can't open 500 locations overnight, but every location can become very profitable if you standardize execution. |
Tesla's model: "Solve it once, deploy everywhere" |
Tesla is chasing a generalizable system designed to work broadly with consumer vehicles. |
If it works, the upside is enormous: |
|
Pros: |
unmatched distribution scale low marginal cost to deploy (if autonomy is achieved) the "software flywheel" is real in theory
|
Cons: |
edge cases are endless safety failures are reputationally catastrophic regulation is tougher when your ODD is "everywhere" the supervised → unsupervised jump is not incremental
|
Here's the Cheap Investor truth:
Tesla's approach is the bigger prize, but it carries more "cliff risk." One major backlash can shift the timeline fast. |
|
3) Autonomy's most underrated moat: permission |
Autonomy isn't only a tech race. It's a permission race. |
Permission comes from: |
regulators cities insurers and the public
|
Waymo is building a trust moat the boring way: the institutional way. |
That includes: |
|
Tesla's trust moat is different:
brand gravity, customer evangelism, distribution. |
But autonomy trust is measured differently than consumer loyalty. |
It's measured in: |
|
Waymo knows this—so it plays the long game. Tesla often plays the scale game. |
Both can win. But the market will reward the one that wins permission first. |
|
4) The Uber angle changes the chessboard |
One of the smartest moves in this entire space isn't a sensor upgrade. |
It's distribution. |
Waymo's partnerships with large ride-hailing platforms are a direct attack on Waymo's biggest economic weakness: utilization. |
Robotaxis don't print money because they exist.
They print money when they're busy. |
A vehicle that sits idle is a depreciating asset. |
If Waymo can plug into existing demand aggregation—rides already happening—then utilization improves, which changes unit economics dramatically. |
This reframes the battle: |
Waymo becomes the trusted autonomous driver Uber becomes the distribution tollbooth (in many cities) Tesla remains the "direct-to-consumer autonomy" wild card
|
Investors often think "Waymo vs. Tesla."
A more realistic frame is: |
Waymo + distribution partners vs. Tesla's self-contained ecosystem |
|
|
And if you're a Cheap Investor, you should always ask:
Who owns the tollbooth? |
|
5) The unromantic truth: robotaxis are not a pure software business |
Everyone talks about autonomy like it's an app. |
It's not. |
Robotaxis are transportation businesses with software at the core. |
Profit depends on: |
vehicle cost sensor cost maintenance and downtime fleet operations cleaning and safety protocols insurance and incident rate utilization (rides per day) pricing power (and competition)
|
Waymo is fighting this war explicitly by moving toward cheaper, simpler sensor stacks and "manufacturing readiness." |
Tesla's theoretical advantage is consumer-grade hardware at scale. |
But here's the catch (and it's a big one): |
If your stack is cheaper but less robust, it isn't cheaper.
It's existentially expensive. |
Because in autonomy, failure costs aren't just warranty costs. They're timeline costs. |
And timeline costs can be worth more than the entire product margin. |
So "who wins" may come down to this: |
Who can deliver safety at a cost that supports profit per mile. |
|
|
Waymo might win trust faster.
Tesla might win economics faster—if it clears the safety/regulatory bar. |
|
6) The dark horses investors ignore at their own risk |
Autonomy rarely ends as a clean duopoly. |
Three "quiet threats" matter: |
Zoox (Amazon): logistics-first autonomy is a cheat code |
Amazon doesn't need robotaxis to win first.
It can win autonomous delivery, logistics routing, and fulfillment integration—then expand outward. |
If autonomy becomes a supply-chain advantage before it becomes a consumer product, Zoox becomes far more than a science project. |
Mobileye: the picks-and-shovels autonomy strategy |
Mobileye's advantage is relationships and distribution across OEMs. |
If full autonomy arrives slower than hype expects—but advanced driver assistance becomes universal—Mobileye becomes a tollbooth on the "assist-first" world. |
Baidu's Apollo Go: the global wildcard |
The U.S. is not the entire autonomy world. |
Different regulatory regimes can create different scaling curves. |
A global autonomy market could splinter into regional winners—and investors who assume "U.S. leader = global leader" get surprised. |
|
7) Probability-based verdict (the only honest kind) |
Hey there, bargain hunter — let's avoid the "one winner" trap. |
Waymo's likely win condition |
expands city-by-city lowers cost per mile increases utilization through partnerships builds an institutional trust moat becomes the default autonomous driver in major U.S. metros
|
Waymo could win the "first real robotaxi business" category. |
The investing wrinkle: Waymo is inside Alphabet—so the market often treats it as buried optionality rather than a stand-alone valuation story. |
Tesla's likely win condition |
makes the supervised → unsupervised leap credibly demonstrates safety convincingly enough for regulators leverages fleet scale into a robotaxi network or licensing model keeps unit economics attractive
|
If Tesla clears that bar, the upside is enormous. |
But Tesla's probability distribution has more "cliff" outcomes: |
regulatory backlash safety narrative shifts timeline slippage credibility compression
|
So the clean conclusion is: |
Waymo can win the deployment race first.
Tesla can win the scale/margin race if it truly cracks unsupervised autonomy. |
These can both be true. |
|
8) The Cheap Investor "Autonomy Scorecard" (what to watch next) |
Forget who tweets louder. Watch what changes the probabilities. |
The Waymo scorecard |
new city approvals utilization metrics (rides per vehicle per day) sensor cost reductions / manufacturing scale signals safety and regulatory posture improvements distribution expansion via partnerships
|
The Tesla scorecard |
credible evidence of unsupervised autonomy progress regulatory reception (not just fan hype) incident rate narrative trajectory whether the product feels like a feature… or a platform margin implications (software attach, autonomy subscription economics)
|
The "market-pricing" signal |
The market tends to reprice autonomy on: |
|
Not on demos. |
|
Bottom line: what a Cheap Investor should believe (and what to avoid) |
The biggest mistake investors make is treating autonomy like a binary. |
It isn't. |
It's a probability distribution that shifts over time. |
So the winning approach isn't worship or cynicism. |
It's this: |
Assume progress continues Assume timelines slip Assume volatility stays high Track the scorecard metrics that actually change probability Position around re-rating moments instead of trying to predict a final "winner" today
|
Because in autonomy, the biggest risk isn't being wrong. |
It's being early, overconfident, and forced out before the timeline arrives. |
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Investing involves risk, including the potential loss of principal. Always do your own research before making investment decisions. |
|
|
|
|
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق