Tech
Tesla cybertrucks in Boston
Cybertrucks parked outside a Tesla location in Boston (Lindsey Nicholson/Getty Images)

Those consensus estimates for Tesla sales are based on a whole lot of out-of-date information

You should take analysts’ consensus estimates for Q1 deliveries with a grain of salt.

When Tesla reports its first-quarter delivery estimates later this morning, how much that beats or misses analyst consensus estimates will likely play a part in what happens to the stock. But those estimates themselves should be taken with a grain of salt — many of the numbers that make up the consensus are stale.

FactSet shows a consensus estimate for first-quarter Tesla deliveries — based on the average guess of 13 analysts — of 408,000, which would imply Tesla deliveries will rise 5% compared to the 387,000 Tesla delivered last year. Bloomberg, which cites 18 analysts, has that number at 390,000, or up about a percentage point year on year. Tesla itself has compiled a list of 27 analyst estimates, which pegs the consensus number at 378,000, or a 2% decrease.

What should you, a normal person, make of all this? First off, pay some mind to how the sausage is made. Even the best analysts can’t actually predict the future. Assuming they’re doing everything in their power to make an educated guess — calling sources, looking at leading indicators, modeling in macro considerations — their estimates were always made at a given point in time. What’s included in consensus estimates might no longer be up to date when real numbers come out.

Importantly, many of the estimates listed on FactSet and Bloomberg are from January and early February, when analysts knew about the Model Y refresh but didn’t yet have reports on how dismal January, February, and now March sales were around the world. Nor did they know the extent to which CEO Elon Musk’s work at the Department of Government Efficiency would tank public opinion of his company.

And even when analysts have updated their estimates to reflect this new information, sometimes it doesn’t end up on FactSet and Bloomberg. That appears to be the case here.

A quick look at both Bloomberg and FactSet shows an estimate from Wedbush analyst Dan Ives from the end of January. Last week, Ives put out a new, lower estimate of 355,000 to 360,000 deliveries, which hasn’t shown up in the consensus yet. A lower GLJ estimate of 353,000 hasn’t materialized yet on FactSet, nor has Piper Sandler’s new, lower estimate shown up on Bloomberg.

On FactSet, analysts can update their estimates either through a manual or an automatic process. On Bloomberg, the research firms are responsible for doing so through the Terminal. Obviously that doesn’t always happen.

What’s perhaps more helpful is looking at how those consensus estimates directionally change over time. This year, the mean estimate on FactSet has fallen from about 450,000 to a still likely high 408,000. Investors can also choose to consider only the newest estimates.

That doesn’t mean consensus estimates are unimportant.

“At the end of the day, the market will tend to react to what the consensus number is, even if that number includes older data that might not be as relevant or updated anymore,” Seth Goldstein, a strategist at Morningstar, which releases annual Tesla estimates rather than quarterly, told Sherwood News. (Morningstar has recently switched its full-year Tesla delivery estimates from growth to a decline.)

How ultimately useful, then, is a consensus estimate to an investor?

“It depends on your time horizon. If you’re a very short-term investor, you might be looking to see, is the market gonna go up or down based on deliveries?” Goldstein said. “But for very long-term investors, I don’t think it matters as much. I think what’s more important is hearing from management on the earnings calls.”

More Tech

See all Tech
Megazord

If having multiple CEOs is better for stock market returns, Oracle is quadrupling down

But buyer beware: the last time Oracle had co-CEOs, shares underperformed.

tech

Ives raises Apple price target to Wall Street high of $310, citing a “real upgrade cycle” for iPhones

Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives raised his Apple price target to $310 from $270 thanks to “early strong demand signs” for the iPhone 17, which he says is tracking 10% to 15% ahead of the iPhone 16 at this point.

That $310 price target is the highest among Wall Street analysts polled by Bloomberg.

Ives said the Street’s estimate of about 230 million iPhone unit sales for Apple’s upcoming fiscal year is conservative and instead thinks the company is on track to sell 240 million to 250 million units in FY26. Ives wrote:

“The combination of a pent-up consumer upgrade cycle with our estimates of 315 million of 1.5 billion iPhones globally not upgrading their iPhones in the last 4 years, coupled with some design changes/enhancements have been the magical formula out of the gates.”

Sherwood News reported last week that redesigned iPhone models, which went on sale Friday, are seeing more interest than they have in three years — a phenomenon we speculate might have less to do with the iPhone itself and more to do with a natural upgrade cycle, as the rush of phones purchased in 2020 and 2021 become obsolete.

tech

Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are among the US tech companies most affected by Trump’s $100,000 H-1B fee

President Trump’s proclamation on Friday charging a new $100,000 fee for high-skilled tech visas has sent the countrys biggest tech companies scrambling. Firms warned their H-1B workers not to travel outside the US and are weighing what the steep cost could mean for future hiring, given their heavy reliance on the program to bring in top talent.

Data from the US Citizenship and Immigration Services shows the top beneficiaries of H-1B visas this year include Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, and Google.

So far, the leaders of these tech companies, many of whom recently attended a White House dinner praising the president, have been mum on the new fee, except for Netflix’s Reed Hastings. He wrote on X that he considers it a “great solution.”

“It will mean H1-B is used just for very high-value jobs, which will mean no lottery needed, and more certainty for those jobs,” he said. Netflix is not among the top 100 beneficiaries of H-1B visas this year.

tech
Jon Keegan

OpenAI reportedly poaching key Apple designers, using Apple manufacturing partners for AI gadgets

New details are emerging about the mysterious AI gadgets being designed by former Apple design chief Jony Ive since OpenAI purchased his startup “io” in May.

According to a report by The Information, Ive’s team has recruited several key Apple design and hardware employees to work on the gadgets. The Information reported some details of the devices:

“One of the products OpenAI has talked to suppliers about making resembles a smart speaker without a display, the people said. OpenAI has also considered building glasses, a digital voice recorder and a wearable pin, and is targeting late 2026 or early 2027 for the release of its first devices, one of the people said.”

OpenAI is also turning to Apple’s Chinese manufacturing partners to build the products, having signed contracts with Luxshare, and has been in talks with Goertek, per the report.

“One of the products OpenAI has talked to suppliers about making resembles a smart speaker without a display, the people said. OpenAI has also considered building glasses, a digital voice recorder and a wearable pin, and is targeting late 2026 or early 2027 for the release of its first devices, one of the people said.”

OpenAI is also turning to Apple’s Chinese manufacturing partners to build the products, having signed contracts with Luxshare, and has been in talks with Goertek, per the report.

Mark Zuckerberg at Meta Connect 2025

Are Ray-Ban Meta glasses really a hit?

We checked how it stacks up to iconic gadgets, and the results are mixed.

Latest Stories

Sherwood Media, LLC produces fresh and unique perspectives on topical financial news and is a fully owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., and any views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of any other Robinhood affiliate, including Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Crypto, LLC, or Robinhood Money, LLC.