Porsche isn’t doing so hot right now. The performance-luxury brand was, up until recently, a money-printing, high-margin machine for VW Group, but tanking China sales, U.S. tariffs, and a weakening demand for electric cars have put the brand in a tough spot.
In Porsche’s quarterly report, the company said the above challenges have led to a “significant impact on earnings” for the year so far. Specifically, it means a 99% drop in operating profit, from $4.68 billion in the first nine months of the year to just $46 million. That is an incredible swing in just one year.
That disappearing profit has a lot to do with Porsche’s “realignment” of its product portfolio. The company planned an onslaught of EVs to replace its current lineup, but with the demand for such vehicles weakening worldwide, it has had to backtrack and rethink its offerings, which will now include more gas-powered cars and hybrids.
Despite record deliveries in the U.S., tariffs have meant increased costs “within mid three-digit million” euro range. This has, in part, led to operating return on sales—the number that measures how efficiently a company can turn sales into profit—to drop from 14% to just 0.2% (or, as close to zero as possible).
Those record deliveries in America weren’t enough to bolster global sales. Deliveries worldwide are down 6% versus the same period last year, to 212,059 units. That’s mainly thanks to China, where sales have tanked as cheaper, more appealing options from domestic automakers become more widely available.
All of these things, combined, have led to a perfect storm of badness for Porsche. The company declared an operating loss of 966 million euros ($1.1 billion) for the quarter, far higher than what analysts expected, according to Reuters.
Fixing the profitability issue will come down to how Porsche executes that realignment. The company’s Q3 results presentation puts a great deal of emphasis on exclusive, low-production models, customization options, and tech features launched in 2025, using stuff like the Cayenne Electric’s wireless charging as an example.
Porsche also mentions something called the “Future Package,” a plan it describes as a “rescaling” of its employee numbers within the company. The plan, according to the company’s presentation, will take “socially responsible measures to optimize corporate structure and strengthen future resilience.” CFO Dr. Jochen Breckner laid things out plainly:
In October, Porsche initiated talks between management and employee representatives on a Future Package, as announced. “We have to assume that the general market conditions will not improve in the foreseeable future. That is why we need to discuss large-scale solutions in all areas – including in the context of the Future Package,” emphasizes Breckner.
All of these words are, if you’ve followed the chaotic world of the German automotive sector closely, just fancy terms for layoff negotiations, whether that be through voluntary buyouts, early retirement packages, or simple job eliminations. Porsche went as far as to show off how much it’s downsized in China this year, and suggested there’s more to come:
Breckner also didn’t shy away from pointing out what virtually everyone in the industry knows already: Things ain’t getting any rosier. Tariffs are seemingly here to stay, at least for the next three years. Likewise, the sales of EVs are expected to remain flat, or even decrease, over that same period, at least in the United States. And China’s influence on the industry is only going to get larger over time. So Porsche is making some tough decisions to stay relevant.
A lot of that pressure to turn the ship around rests on the shoulders of Michael Leiters, former CEO of McLaren. Leiters steered the British supercar company out of the pandemic years and oversaw launches of the Artura and the 750S before leaving the company in May of 2025. Previously, he served as CTO of Ferrari, where he oversaw development of the all-important Purosangue SUV, and helped develop the brand’s first two hybrids, the SF90 and the 296. Before that, he worked at Porsche as the company’s product line director.
Whether Porsche will see a “noticeable improvement” in financials from 2026 onwards, as Breckner says in this latest summary of results, isn’t clear. So long as it keeps building 911s, Caymans, and Boxsters with manual transmissions, I’ll be happy.
Top photo: Porsche
porsche cars used to be attainable for many people, but not anymore.
On top of that, the beloved H6 got ditched and replaced by turbo 4 cyl for their entry models.
Why would I want to dump 80K to drive a turbo 4 cyl?
If you want something more special (ex. GT4, GT3) you are asked to pay over 100k and 200k.
If you have the money, doesn’t mean you get the purchase those.
I think people who genuinely wanted this car had enough and now the majority of people chasing these cars are attention whores and speculators who are only in to resell for profit.
Look at what happened to the luxury watch market. Eventually the company will have to realize they are screwed at some point after losing their fanbase.
Porsche, you are not Patek tier. You are Rolex tier at best
“weakening demand for electric cars“.
That is a very nice, grade A, political BS term right there.
The demand for electric cars is increasing every year, but the increase is a little lower than it used to be. Keep in mind that when market saturation for EVs reaches 100%, the increase in market share will fall!!!
The only reason, Porsche and other performance brands are suffering, is simply caused by everyone now being aware that they no longer offer anything useful you can not get in an electric sedan for a third the price.
As childish as 0-100(60) figures are, they are actually the only performance figure you can legally use in your daily life and still keep your license.
You’re missing the conveniently unspoken “demand among consumers willing to pay our absurd prices”, which yeah, is probably weakening.
Pretty sure that’s not actually the case. Every time I look at global sales data, I see an increase year over year. Might not be the same in ’26, but I’d guess that’s because sales will decrease in the US and stay the same/increase elsewhere. Perhaps if it was framed as the demand for Porsche’s EVs worldwide…
The move would have been to create a small, ID.4 based Porsche EV priced so cheap (under 40k) that a wave of poseurs would rush to buy them just to say they had a Porsche. Base the design on the 356 and it will sell like green tea in China.
I feel like it’s the same issue as Dodge and the Charger, except with Porsche it’s at the brand level. They go from being the last holdout for air/oil cooled engines and precision handling, to saying they’ll replace the Boxster with an EV. Like…read the room.
Also don’t they share the EV platforms with greater Audi/VW? The Taycan is the E-Tron GT, how do they take the full hit for that?
It’d be cool to get a job in sales where you can get paid a lot to just pull numbers out of your ass without any repercussions for being extremely wrong.
“In October, Porsche initiated talks between management and employee representatives on a Future Package”
Future package. As in, you have none. Pack your things and go.
“To just 0.2% (or, as close to zero as possible).”
Porche, the search for more special editions.
I. Told. You. So.
It’s like putting all of the eggs in one basket and hope the people would get all “green” and snap up every EV and PHEV. The green and leftist political parties and non-governmental organisations are the worst: they don’t give a fuck about being realistic. They’re also tyrannic, too, attacking anyone who opposes their green ideologies.
If it wasn’t for the “tax credits” and “rebates”, EV and PHEV would NEVER “take off” and replace the ICE. Mat Watson is correct about the PHEV being scam and doing nothing benefically for the environment. When the batteries are empty, the fuel consumption worsens so much due to the excessive weight of the batteries.
Time to go back to ICE and invest more in the synthetic fuel (if the industry can come up with the synthetic oil in the first place, why not for the fuel, too?).
Wasn’t the left forcing Porsche to make bad forecasts. Also, China is the one popping their profit, both for stopping purchasing on their home market, and now stealing their (Porsche) lunch in other markets, with better and cheaper EVs for those who want one.
This was entirely poor management. As someone who’s not a CEO, I could tell these EV freak outs were BS that was going to fizzle when they hit the wall of reality and that people buying sports cars are highly unlikely to want EVs. It’s especially nuts that they’re doing so poorly considering how laughably overpriced they are and how many even more insanely priced special editions they pout out that the cult lines up to pay for.
I think the problem isn’t EV vs ICE, it’s that soccer moms are driving around <5000lb monstrosities and dudes are driving trucks for no reason.
The next push should be into composites and weight reduction.
No, just downsize the monster trucks that skirt around emissions regulations.
Emissions regulations are exactly why they’re massive. Every law and regulation has unintended consequences. Significantly increasing footprints was the least expensive way to meet emissions regs to the letter of the law.
That’s all quite backwards and regressive.
Resilience you say? Must be a new corporate buzzword. Resilience is the same word my company picked to describe laying off two thousand blue collar workers and buying out 10% of the white collars.
Don’t worry bro, the executives making all the decisions received bonuses.
Porsche, rebuild my faith in you…
MAKE A PLUG IN MANUAL TRANSMISSION HYBRID!!!
I like it, would it be electric assist or would it operate electric only below a certain speed? That would be great for stop and go traffic.
Porsche has PDK flappy paddle hybrids, but the only way a Porsche is getting a true manual hybrid is if someone puts a CR-Z drivetrain in a Boxster with IMS failure.
Vonnen has a kit for some older 911s to add a pancake motor in place of the flywheel.
Scuttlebutt is Weissach has also dusted off the old V10 after they killed the Mission X.
Could I afford it? No, but I’d love to see if they can top something like the Valkyrie.
Though given their financial situation I’m sure they’d consider potential wackiness like another batmobile exhaust, deviated stitching on the valve covers, a considerably higher redline, paint-to-sample brake calipers, and an extended leather toolkit cover.
Electric is going to make this tricky. I have a mid-engine, RWD car from Volkswagen Group. It is a VW, not a Porsche. The Trump tariffs and electric roll back have not been totally predictable, but I think there was a widespread consensus that the most aggressive ICE bans in populated, economically diverse countries (i.e., not Norway) were not going to stick. Totally killing ICE SUVs (not even hybrids) and planning to kill the ICE 718 were big mistakes.
Interesting failed direction they were heading in. As an ICE car they had what the 911, Boxster and that ugly SUV. They did well but decided to stop the profit cars and start selling EVs and more models than they ever had for ICE? THAT was a recognizable red flag dumb ass decision.
It was a perfectly reasonable direction until the current shitshow of US and worldwide politics unfolded. Managers don’t have a crystal ball to see into the future, best they can do is predict. If you don’t have a stable and consistent political and regulatory environment, everyone will suffer, especially automotive companies where such development plannings are decided for decades into the future.
Don’t need a crystal ball to know its a bad idea to force people to buy something they don’t want, I sold all my auto stocks every time they announced their “ev future” its too soon for ev and without govt subsidies most brands will crash
There’s that mandate nonsense again. No one forced anyone to buy anything.
Advance clean cars act to require by 2035 zero emission cars
– https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/drive-forward-light-duty-vehicle-program/advanced-clean-cars
EU mandate to have all cars be zero emissions by 2035- https://earth.org/eu-ban-cars/
No one forced anyone to do any thing. Utter Bull shite
EU mandate to have all cars be zero emissions by 2035- https://earth.org/eu-ban-cars/
Advance clean cars act to require by 2035 zero emission cars
– https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/drive-forward-light-duty-vehicle-program/advanced-clean-cars
If anyone else is a racing fan, it was also frustrating to hear that Porsche is abandoning WEC hypercar next year (though will still do IMSA..
for now). I had to wonder if that would be necessary if it hadn’t dropped so much into Formula E.
I have to say your headline seems misleading. Porsche’s issue is China sales not EV investment. China was where it sold the most cars as recently as 2022. More than North America or Europe. It now sells about 1/2 the cars in China than it did in 2022. The problem is not the investment in EVs, its that they didn’t make EVs that the Chinese would be willing to buy.
Reading the article I was thinking it’s a bit ironic that they are doing badly for “too much investment in EVs” and “losing lots of sales in China” when China is all about EVs these days. Seems the EV investment wasn’t good enough for China, and too good for the rest of the world?
I suspect the average chinese consumer is more into those $10k EVs than a $125k whatever porsche sells there.
Chinese car buyers used to be obsessed with any western car brand.
Buick did great in China simply because it was western and the word “Buick” sounded upmarket.
The best selling car in China up until 2020 was an ICE Volkswagen sedan.
These days, that’s not the case anymore. Families are not going into collective debt just to buy their son a 320Li. They’re buying from Chinese brands.
Also worth to note the dynamic of Chinese Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities. Each of them have 5-20 million residents in an area smaller than Los Angeles. So there’s no good reason to buy an ICE. That means Porsche is in direct competition with Chinese cars that are much cheaper.
Yes, exactly this.
Every time you a headline that shouts: “No one wants EVs,” it’s worthwhile to reread it with the word “our” in it.
Another day, another negative ev headline at Autopian.. I guess if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail
Porsche’s non sportscars are way too expensive for what they are and I don’t think that helps. They’ll always be able to sell boutique, infinitely customizable coupes to dentists but Porsche was more or less saved by the Cayenne and actually having a volume selling product for once. I believe the Macan is the best selling Porsche as well.
It does seem like they’ve said “lmao line go up”’ and raised prices on them as far as they can go. I’m an unapologetic Porsche fanboy and even I can’t imagine spending $70,000 on a 4 cylinder Macan or $100,000 on a base Cayenne when I could get something 90% as good for 10-20% less money from BMW. Porsche’s leases and in house financing are god fucking awful as well.
There comes a point when the mystique can only take you so far and I think we’re there. I think Porsche is either going to have to improve its volume sellers or try to ascend to exotic status with Ferrari, McLaren, etc. They’re very clearly going to do the second one, and we’ll see if it works. Porsches have never been attainable cars and yes, I know, inflation…but for me it almost feels like they’re the most unattainable they’ve ever been right now, and they’re going to ride that gravy train until they can ride it no further.
I don’t get why Porsches SUV/CUV things have any mystique to start with. They are literally mildly worked over, uglier versions of a VW and an Audi. There is very little Porsche about them other than the price tags and the dealer arrogance.
But fools and their money I guess.
This exactly. Outside of the 911, it is a tuned VW/Audi at a huge markup. And the Porsche Cayenne isn’t the top, because you have the Urus. Leave Porsche to build proper enthusiast vehicles rather than dilute the brand with minivans. What is the point of different brands when they all offer the same product?
The Urus? What is that some kind of automotive venereal wart?
Yes. Though I’d rather have that than the R-R Cunnilingus.
Parting badge whores from their money, of course. Realistically, why buy the VW version of an Audi in those cases where both make versions of the same car? Never made any sense to me.
The fact that the Cayenne really was the savior of Porsche is a sad commentary of the state of the auto-buying public. And the fact that ALL of the luxury brands are now building bad minivans.
As I keep saying, we live in the worst timeline, and humans suck.
Had a bunch of issues with my Mk8 GTI so I got rid of it for a Tiguan SE R Line, which I actually really like. I’ve always wanted a Macan S or SQ5 but after owning the Tiguan, I cant imagine why I’d spend anywhere from $20K to double the MSRP for one. The power? maybe, but I don’t think I’d ever use it enough to justify everything else.
A 90% drop.
Not 99%
From 468 to 46 means a reduction of 422
422/468 = 90.17%
4.68 billion is 4680 million not 468.
99% is correct.
That looks like a cut and paste quote. Did Brian edit a correction?
I wondered that too
I copied the figure of $468 million directly from the article as written.
It has since been edited, and changed to say $4.68 billion.
When I posted my comment (before the correction), I was correct.
When you posted your comment (after the correction), you were correct.
They have multimillionaires running these companies who should be taking responsibility for their terrible planning. Instead they’ll lay off a bunch of factory workers and fire middle managers. Funny how the little guy is always the one who pays for these fuck ups by the top brass.
Yeah, and the middle managers are the ones who will have to deliver the bad news directly to the affected employees, and then absorb the backlash as though they had anything to do with the decisions or can do anything to change them
You can’t fire the guys at the top. I mean who will run this thing into the ground if they’re gone?
AI! The one job that probably should be taken over by computers.
AI might just feed the surplus workers I to a woodchipper.
So conditions would improve compared to now!
As long as you and yours don’t end up in the chipper, sure!
If they can’t be fired, can we at least have public floggings or something?
Hey make me CEO, if I fail I will man up admit my mistakes and politely leave with my $500 million golden parachute. I have my integrity.
Yes it is the little guy that pays for mistakes up top. That is because the vast majority of labor cost are for the rank and file. You can fire all the C-suite at an automaker, redistribute those salaries to the rank and file and you wouldn’t increase their pay by a buck per hour.
I would in the biz, I agree that executives make to much and shouldn’t have golden parachutes but at the end of the day their pay is a rounding error on the balance sheet.
You clearly don’t understand the optics of this situation.
I understand the optics. Optics are not the same as the economic reality.
I completely get why people are upset about CEO’s make 500 times a general employee. I also get why investors don’t really care that much.
Generally, speaking, the VW group as a whole was in trouble, and still is in trouble. Don’t pin this on any one segment.
Correct and most of that trouble is centered in China.
China used to be a huge market for companies like VW and GM with millions of sales and you could sell your last generation car there and make a few more bucks on that old design. Then we taught the Chinese how to make a modern car, then they started innovating and making good cars so people started asking why not buy a domestic brand.
Then the Chinese government launched its “Made China” campaign which included dominating the EV and battery segments. They mandated a rapid switch from ICE to PHEVs and EVs which now make up 50% +/- of the Chinese market.
This has absolutely tanked sales of foreign brand in China because they lag behind the Chinese brands in BEV and battery tech and have nothing competitive to offer the Chinese customer. Many of which have never owned a car before and have no decades long experience with gas cars to bias their purchase decisions. (Not to mention China has built out a public charging network larger than the rest of the world combined)
“…As Company Pays For Overinvesting In Electric Cars”
Um – you do realize that if Elon, of “very smart with software” and “knows computers better than anybody” (according to 45/47) renown, hadn’t altered the US election outcome, this would not have been an “overinvestment” – but just an “investment”?
I agree to a certain degree, but the blowback from pushing EVs too hard was building long before that pedophile “won” reelection. The huge rebates that many countries were giving EV buyers were running out. Not just in the US, but Europe and Canada and elsewhere. And enthusiasts were really getting sick of being pushed soulless electric appliances. If the industry as a whole extended the transition from a short 15 years to a more realistic 25 to 30 years, I think there would have been less blowback. But all these companies wanted to switch sooner rather than later so they didn’t have to keep on developing 2 forms of propulsion. Plus, VW had a totally hearted effort, which made things worse since if you as a consumer are going electric, you at least want a good electric car, not the garbage VW was peddling. Fuck ’em.
“The huge rebates that many countries were giving EV buyers were running out.”
Because in countries such as Norway, the goal of general EV adoption was achieved – or for countries such as Canada, the programs were incredibly popular.
So these are indications of success – not failure.
But cars aren’t something that last forever. There were quite a few people who were switching back to gas after owning electric because their newest purchase now didn’t include the rebate which made the electric too spendy. EVs even right now haven’t quite reached price-parity and the entire industry is selling at price levels that many consumers think is too high. It’s a topsy-turvy market.
The planned transition from ICE to EV was already 40 – 50 years.
In the US only CARB has a formal plan. Advanced Clean Cars kicked off in 2012 and slowly increased the amount of ZEVs to 100% by 2035. Even then in 2035 20% of sales could still be hybrids. Then you have another 20 years to turn over the existing fleet of more than 100 million cars already on the road in those CARB states.
In the EU they have a much simpler, more straightforward and better system of simply reducing the average fleet CO2 average in steps every 5 years. That started in the 90’s and was scheduled to reach 0 in 2035. And then like with CARB you have decades to turn over the fleet. (Time will tell if the EU rolls back that 2035 target to 10 g/km CO2)
It is also important to know the above are not mandates. In either case you could simply pay a fine and ignore the regulation – which several companies have done.
The general public – especially those fed certain types of media – did in fact see them as mandates. No better way to piss off a whole bunch of illogical people than by “forcing” them to comply with rules they don’t understand nor have any interest in understanding.
The whole process was quite honestly a marketing disaster. There’s a right and a wrong way to do certain things, and this is a textbook example of what NOT to do.
Hell, I’m in one of my truck forums debating old timers that a 300+ HP/400+ lb-ft of torque turbo 4 is a perfectly acceptable truck engine, and these old timers can’t get it through their thick skulls that the number of cylinders means very little and instead look at the power/torque curves. So these folks are still stuck in thinking the only kind of truck engine is a V8, and bureaucrats think they can convince them to switch to a new fangled EV that costs $100k?!?
No doubt CARB’s Advanced Clear Car rules are a PR disaster (and I would say simply poor policy as well)
For the US Federal government CAFE is really confusing to people for two main reasons:
Combine these two together and the public hears CAFE targets that sound impossible to meet like 50 mpg when the reality is more like 28 to 29 mpg.
It’s a total disaster. It’s a bandaid on top of a bandaid on top of artificial benchmarks on top of credits on top of requirements that can be directly traced to why we have such massive trucks on our roads today. The rules that were trying to push for more efficiency and cleaner engines, directly resulted in larger trucks that skirt around those rules. It’s all very frustrating and trying to explain it to non-car people from either side is downright pointless.
Where can I get some of what you are smoking?
It’s widely available in Colorado.
It’s almost as if this could’ve been easily avoided by not putting all their Eier in einem Korb…
inEVitable, am I right?
Well, just maybe by companies most of the world isn’t familiar with… yet.
Technically the Supreme Court hasn’t yet weighed in on the (pretty obviously illegal) authority Trump has used to impose his tariffs….yeah I’m not holding my breath either.
Or Congress can take the power back in 2027, it actually belongs to them, they just delegated it to the presidency many years ago because laziness
No because there was a Democrat in the White House. Can’t give it out to select people based on ideology. You start a precidence you are stuck with it.
Constitutionally, tarrif power belongs with Congress, that’s really where it should stay, there’s been a trend over the decades to offload a lot of Congressional responsibility to executive branch departments by giving them very wide rule making authority with the force of law, its always been a mistake, this isn’t because a Republican is president, its about putting powers back where they belong. See also declarations of war