“数据换权益”之路难走通，特斯拉的汽车保险面临多重挑战？

Core Viewpoint - Tesla's UBI (Usage-Based Insurance) model for electric vehicles has not met expectations, with a high loss ratio and ongoing operational losses despite the company's ambitions to leverage driving data for lower premiums [3][5][10]. Group 1: Insurance Performance - Tesla's insurance division has a payout ratio significantly higher than the industry average, with 2022-2024 ratios showing 116.6%, 114.7%, and 103.3% respectively, compared to industry averages of 80.1%, 75.4%, and 66.1% [7]. - The reliance on a safety scoring system to adjust premiums has faced criticism, with users reporting that cautious driving can lead to lower scores, raising concerns about the transparency of the algorithm [4][7]. - The insurance business has been operating at a loss, with payouts exceeding premium income, indicating a need for Tesla to reassess its insurance strategy [4][10]. Group 2: Customer Sentiment and Challenges - Customer dissatisfaction is evident, with complaints about long repair times, poor communication, and lengthy claims processes, leading to only 28% of Tesla owners opting for the company's insurance [9][10]. - The lack of global standards for electric vehicle insurance, particularly regarding liability for autonomous driving, adds complexity and risk to Tesla's insurance operations [8]. - Experts suggest that Tesla must balance insurance rates, claims expenses, and associated risks to avoid continued losses, indicating a critical juncture for the company's insurance business [10]. Group 3: Competitive Landscape - Traditional insurance companies are increasingly adopting UBI products, which may threaten Tesla's competitive edge in the insurance market as they leverage established data advantages [9]. - The ongoing high payout ratios could impact Tesla's credit rating, as noted by S&P Global, highlighting the financial implications of the current insurance model [10]. - The challenges faced by Tesla's insurance business reflect a broader tension between technological aspirations and commercial realities, suggesting a need for a dual focus on technology and operational efficiency [10].