>Jaguar just posted a 97.5% sales collapse in Europe for April 2025. That’s 49 cars sold. Not 49,000. Forty-nine. Down from nearly 2,000 in the same month last year. Year-to-date sales across Europe are off more than 75%. Globally, Jaguar is selling fewer than 27,000 cars a year, an 85% drop from where they were in 2018.
From the comments below. Regardless of Cyber Attack which claims to have its manufacturing shut down, they weren't producing much anyway.
And they got 1.5B loan out of it. With the current UK political and economic climates.
Agree - the Land Rover brand has such significant demand that there's zero risk they won't bounce back.
The "bailout" says more about Tata's approach to supplier relations than it does about brand risk. Not that Tata is much different than any other abusive conglomerate.
This is akin to being "forced" to do the right thing by the UK government. Do we really believe that Tata Group couldn't afford this?
I'm divided, a lot of people internally and from suppliers depend on them for work. Equally they are majority owned by an indian company (Tata) now that also mandated they use their useless in-group IT outsourcer whose secrity appears to be pretty lax. In the end I'd say the govt should make the condition for a loan that they dilute out much of the equity holders / share out the loss - in order for them to step in and prevent a total loss, and so the taxpayer gets some longer term contingent benefit.
The Landrover side is clearly doing work, even if the Jaguar part was doing poorly before this. There are a lot of suppliers also that end up having to furlough if their main client shuts down. And there are second order effects on local economies when that happens, and therefore on HMRC. And you also don't want to lose engineering skills that might be needed for e.g. military crossgrades/upscales. Ultimately its better to have that continue than not, but I also believe the consequences should be significant on the mismanaging equity holders, esp. Tata, and potentially beneficial for taxpayers longer term, which reduces the moral hazard aspect for a better overall solution.
Attacking - or even appearing to attack - national brands is totally counterproductive. They’re all but guaranteed government bailouts. And it’s very hard to argue against.
Saying that JLR should’ve had better cybersecurity misses the point of being attacked by a hostile state. If a cruise missile were used it’d be silly to say JLR should’ve had underground factories or other protective measures.
Tata’s IT outsourcing decisions (to improve profits) are what led to the UK government having to step in to prevent job losses at scale in the supply chain. They didn’t procure cyber insurance due to internal failures. This is a partial cost of nationalization without any of the benefit, while Tata continues to own and control the enterprise.
China has many faults, but they do not make these mistakes more capitalistic and profit driven countries like the UK and the US do (“financialization until failure”).
exactly. Bailouts needs to have an equivalent equity loss for the investors (aka, gov't takes the equity equivalent to the bailout amount, in addition to any loan conditions like interest etc).
I wouldn't be surprised if Jaguar hired someone to attack them to distract from their implosion... They did a weird re-brand that alienated their entire consumer base and then didn't actually produce any cars? And now they're getting bailed out?
This seems too suspicious, now that they had a 95% drop in sales after their absurd and completely detached from reality rebrand, from about 1 year ago.
This excuse that they were attacked by an external player and then the government (i.e. the unwilling taxpayers of the UK) coming in to save them from their own ubris, just looks too much like a scam.
They had incredibly fractured internal systems, multiple owners who refused to invest for the long term and then Tata - who outsourced it all to teams who aren't doing anything with any urgency.
JLs cars were becoming more and more difficult to insure because of high theft rates and poor manufacturer deterrents. 10k car insurance quotes were not unheard of in London.
It caused a massive sale event and the second hand market spiked causing massive devaluation, at one point JL were even offering their own car insurance.
Jaguar just posted a 97.5% sales collapse in Europe for April 2025. That’s 49 cars sold. Not 49,000. Forty-nine. Down from nearly 2,000 in the same month last year. Year-to-date sales across Europe are off more than 75%. Globally, Jaguar is selling fewer than 27,000 cars a year, an 85% drop from where they were in 2018.
Jaguar is only part of the company, the Land Rover side is where it is at and they are selling plenty of cars.
I expect you know this already, so why are Jaguar not selling any cars?
I am loathed to beat up on EVs, but Jaguar were early to market with a model that didn't sell well, except to Google for their self driving cars. It was a good car, as SUVs go, but they did not update it, and, in the home market, PHEVs from other brands hit the sweet spot of price, tax benefits, resale value and range.
Furthermore, Jaguar didn't actually make the iPace, it was outsourced to Magna Steyr in Austria.
There is also a demographic problem. The customer base is elderly. They want their brrm brrm noises from lots of cylinders in a V configuration. Selling cars to them would not be a problem, however, there are penalties for manufacturers that can't achieve low emissions across the fleet. Had there been lots of EV sales then this would have worked out. But it didn't, making their sports cars and big luxury sedans economically unviable.
The likes of Ferrari, McLaren, Aston Martin and others that only sell a small amount of cars get exemptions, but Jaguar was a different business model to that, with an expectation to sell hundreds of thousands of cars a year, ideally, so no exemption possible.
They also had a problem sourcing engines from the Ford plant in Bridgend, South Wales. Due to Brexit and other factors, Ford quit manufacturing in the UK, so that plant closed in 2020.
So they have had to cut free from their customer base to start over with something new for a new type of customer. They have pivoted. The plan now is to make EVs in the UK and to chase just the luxury market with a lower expectation of sales volume.
+1 on the demographic base - it's a shrinking market and was geared towards something "quintessentially British"... which only really sells well in the UK. Close your eyes and picture a Jag driver and you see Nigel Farage. Not a fashionable sell.
Pretty proud of their first pitch - it was a brave move. Looking forward to seeing how they get on.
>Jaguar just posted a 97.5% sales collapse in Europe for April 2025. That’s 49 cars sold. Not 49,000. Forty-nine. Down from nearly 2,000 in the same month last year. Year-to-date sales across Europe are off more than 75%. Globally, Jaguar is selling fewer than 27,000 cars a year, an 85% drop from where they were in 2018.
From the comments below. Regardless of Cyber Attack which claims to have its manufacturing shut down, they weren't producing much anyway.
And they got 1.5B loan out of it. With the current UK political and economic climates.
Not that I agree with the bailout but the Land Rover part has been booming.
https://media.jaguarlandrover.com/news/2024/04/jlr-full-year...
Agree - the Land Rover brand has such significant demand that there's zero risk they won't bounce back.
The "bailout" says more about Tata's approach to supplier relations than it does about brand risk. Not that Tata is much different than any other abusive conglomerate.
This is akin to being "forced" to do the right thing by the UK government. Do we really believe that Tata Group couldn't afford this?
Moral hazard.
Ok so we're big national brand, so if we fail to take enough cyber security precautions, the gov will bail us out.
Typical democratic genius.
> Typical democratic genius.
What does that even mean?
If we do the thing that makes us look least bad now that'll mean best long term outcome.
I absolutely despise this "too big to fail" bullshit from banks and car manufacturers.
LET THEM FAIL.
Adam Smith rolling over in his grave.
> Adrian Mardell, received approximately $4.5 million for the year ending March 2024.
Oh look I found some expenses to cut.
I'm divided, a lot of people internally and from suppliers depend on them for work. Equally they are majority owned by an indian company (Tata) now that also mandated they use their useless in-group IT outsourcer whose secrity appears to be pretty lax. In the end I'd say the govt should make the condition for a loan that they dilute out much of the equity holders / share out the loss - in order for them to step in and prevent a total loss, and so the taxpayer gets some longer term contingent benefit.
What work? From what I’m seeing, they’re not producing any cars, not selling any cars, and not keeping any of their shit secure.
The Landrover side is clearly doing work, even if the Jaguar part was doing poorly before this. There are a lot of suppliers also that end up having to furlough if their main client shuts down. And there are second order effects on local economies when that happens, and therefore on HMRC. And you also don't want to lose engineering skills that might be needed for e.g. military crossgrades/upscales. Ultimately its better to have that continue than not, but I also believe the consequences should be significant on the mismanaging equity holders, esp. Tata, and potentially beneficial for taxpayers longer term, which reduces the moral hazard aspect for a better overall solution.
If nanny state keep bailing comapnies out, how will they learn to stand on their own two feet? /s
Is it a British company still?
Attacking - or even appearing to attack - national brands is totally counterproductive. They’re all but guaranteed government bailouts. And it’s very hard to argue against.
Saying that JLR should’ve had better cybersecurity misses the point of being attacked by a hostile state. If a cruise missile were used it’d be silly to say JLR should’ve had underground factories or other protective measures.
> national brands
Sort of. JLR is owned by Tata Group.
The money, and a tiny fraction of the management, are Tata.
(Unfortunately, so is the outsourced IT contract...)
The jobs, and the factories, are still in the West Midlands where they've always been.
Tata’s IT outsourcing decisions (to improve profits) are what led to the UK government having to step in to prevent job losses at scale in the supply chain. They didn’t procure cyber insurance due to internal failures. This is a partial cost of nationalization without any of the benefit, while Tata continues to own and control the enterprise.
China has many faults, but they do not make these mistakes more capitalistic and profit driven countries like the UK and the US do (“financialization until failure”).
> This is a partial cost of nationalization without any of the benefit
As the phrase goes (something like): "privatise the profits, publicize the losses"
exactly. Bailouts needs to have an equivalent equity loss for the investors (aka, gov't takes the equity equivalent to the bailout amount, in addition to any loan conditions like interest etc).
UK's national cuisine is curry is it not? So still national.
> JLR should’ve had better cybersecurity misses the point of being attacked by a hostile state.
JLR is Tata. So by hostile state you mean US ? /s
Who needs cybersecurity ? /s
I wouldn't be surprised if Jaguar hired someone to attack them to distract from their implosion... They did a weird re-brand that alienated their entire consumer base and then didn't actually produce any cars? And now they're getting bailed out?
This seems too suspicious, now that they had a 95% drop in sales after their absurd and completely detached from reality rebrand, from about 1 year ago.
This excuse that they were attacked by an external player and then the government (i.e. the unwilling taxpayers of the UK) coming in to save them from their own ubris, just looks too much like a scam.
This is incompetence, pure and simple.
They had incredibly fractured internal systems, multiple owners who refused to invest for the long term and then Tata - who outsourced it all to teams who aren't doing anything with any urgency.
Ticking bomb waiting to happen.
Its very suspicious.. + artificial scarcity.
JLs cars were becoming more and more difficult to insure because of high theft rates and poor manufacturer deterrents. 10k car insurance quotes were not unheard of in London.
It caused a massive sale event and the second hand market spiked causing massive devaluation, at one point JL were even offering their own car insurance.
https://avenuez.com/blog/jaguars-sales-collapse-the-cost-of-...
From this article:
Jaguar just posted a 97.5% sales collapse in Europe for April 2025. That’s 49 cars sold. Not 49,000. Forty-nine. Down from nearly 2,000 in the same month last year. Year-to-date sales across Europe are off more than 75%. Globally, Jaguar is selling fewer than 27,000 cars a year, an 85% drop from where they were in 2018.
Sounds like they had a lot of problems already.
Jaguar is only part of the company, the Land Rover side is where it is at and they are selling plenty of cars.
I expect you know this already, so why are Jaguar not selling any cars?
I am loathed to beat up on EVs, but Jaguar were early to market with a model that didn't sell well, except to Google for their self driving cars. It was a good car, as SUVs go, but they did not update it, and, in the home market, PHEVs from other brands hit the sweet spot of price, tax benefits, resale value and range.
Furthermore, Jaguar didn't actually make the iPace, it was outsourced to Magna Steyr in Austria.
There is also a demographic problem. The customer base is elderly. They want their brrm brrm noises from lots of cylinders in a V configuration. Selling cars to them would not be a problem, however, there are penalties for manufacturers that can't achieve low emissions across the fleet. Had there been lots of EV sales then this would have worked out. But it didn't, making their sports cars and big luxury sedans economically unviable.
The likes of Ferrari, McLaren, Aston Martin and others that only sell a small amount of cars get exemptions, but Jaguar was a different business model to that, with an expectation to sell hundreds of thousands of cars a year, ideally, so no exemption possible.
They also had a problem sourcing engines from the Ford plant in Bridgend, South Wales. Due to Brexit and other factors, Ford quit manufacturing in the UK, so that plant closed in 2020.
So they have had to cut free from their customer base to start over with something new for a new type of customer. They have pivoted. The plan now is to make EVs in the UK and to chase just the luxury market with a lower expectation of sales volume.
+1 on the demographic base - it's a shrinking market and was geared towards something "quintessentially British"... which only really sells well in the UK. Close your eyes and picture a Jag driver and you see Nigel Farage. Not a fashionable sell.
Pretty proud of their first pitch - it was a brave move. Looking forward to seeing how they get on.
[dead]
[dead]