Tesla Shortens Supplier Payment Terms to 90 Days Through Cost-Saving Innovations

00:00

00:00/00:00

Listen to this article 1x

Tesla’s Shanghai factory.

Tesla has shortened its supplier payment cycle to about 90 days in 2024, continuing to outpace rivals in financial efficiency and supplier relations. Tesla’s Shanghai factory, where 95% of parts are sourced locally, reflects the company’s deep integration with China’s supply chain.

The move highlights Tesla’s unique approach to balancing cost-cutting and supplier support in an industry under strain from intense competition, price wars and shifting dynamics between automakers and parts providers.

You've accessed an article available only to subscribers

Subscribe today for just $.99.

VIEW OPTIONS

Unlock exclusive discounts with a Caixin group subscription — ideal for teams and organizations.

Subscribe to both Caixin Global and The Wall Street Journal — for the price of one.

Share this article

Open WeChat and scan the QR code

DIGEST HUB

Digest Hub

Back

Explore the story in 30 seconds

Tesla has shortened its supplier payment cycle to about 90 days, surpassing rivals like NIO, BYD, XPeng, and Li Auto, which take 150-300 days, showcasing financial efficiency.
The company's integrated supply chain practices, particularly in China's Shanghai factory, emphasize local sourcing and technological efficiency, reducing assembly complexity.
Tesla's transparent and standardized supply chain management, combined with in-house development and stable demand, aids in cost optimization and supports collaborative relationships with suppliers.

AI generated, for reference only

Who’s Who

Tesla: Tesla has shortened its supplier payment cycle to 90 days and sources 95% of parts locally at its Shanghai factory. The company excels in cost-cutting and supplier relations by leveraging technological innovations, transparent supply chain practices, and integrated systems. Tesla’s strategies include in-house component design and outsourcing production, allowing for cost optimization and stable demand, which attracts suppliers to its practices.

NIO Inc.: According to the article, NIO Inc. is a Chinese new energy vehicle manufacturer that, unlike Tesla, takes between 150 and 300 days to pay its suppliers. This long payment cycle contrasts with Tesla's shorter, more efficient 90-day cycle. The article suggests that such extended payment terms are common as automakers cope with competitive pressures, but they often impose financial burdens on suppliers, potentially affecting supplier relationships and product quality.

BYD Co. Ltd.: BYD Co. Ltd. is a Chinese new energy vehicle manufacturer that is involved in a controversy for demanding a 10% price reduction from suppliers. It has longer supplier payment cycles, taking between 150 and 300 days. This demand has sparked debates about the balance of power in automaker-supplier relationships and concerns that price competition may force parts suppliers to compromise on quality to remain competitive.

XPeng Inc.: XPeng Inc. is one of the major Chinese new energy vehicle (NEV) manufacturers mentioned in the article, with a supplier payment cycle ranging between 150 and 300 days. This positions XPeng's payment terms as significantly longer compared to Tesla's 90-day cycle, reflecting different approaches to supply chain management and financial operations within the automotive industry. However, the article does not provide more specific details about XPeng's strategies or practices beyond this payment cycle comparison.

Li Auto Inc.: Li Auto Inc. takes between 150 and 300 days to pay suppliers, similar to other Chinese NEV manufacturers. Their supply chain executive, Meng Qingpeng, highlighted Tesla’s success in reducing total component counts to 70-80% of the industry average, attributing it to Tesla's standardization and system integration. The company faces challenges common in the industry, such as pricing pressures and contentious dynamics with suppliers.

AI generated, for reference only