>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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”).
I don't think that this is so much an outsourcing issue, as it is an incestuous relationship between JLR and a different part of the Tata empire.
JLR mgmt could've decided to outsource to Tata IT had they not been sister divisions of the same holding company, but arguments against doing so would've been easier to make.
Really, "operating a vehicle factory, and associated software and logistics systems" strikes me as a core competency of "being an automaker", and not one that should be handed off to separate entity not quite as committed to the enterprise.
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).
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.
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.
reply