Business
A Decade-Long Search for a Battery That Can End the Gasoline Era
On a frigid day in early January, as she worked in her office in the Boston suburb of Billerica, Mass., Siyu Huang received a two-word text message.
“Spinning wheels,” it said. Attached was a short video clip showing a car on rollers in an indoor testing center.
To the untrained eye there was nothing remarkable in the video. The car could have been getting its emissions tested at a Connecticut auto repair shop (except it had no tailpipe). But to Ms. Huang, the chief executive of Factorial Energy, the video was a milestone in a quest that had already occupied a decade of her life.
Ms. Huang, her husband, Alex Yu, and their employees at Factorial had been working on a new kind of electric vehicle battery, known as solid state, that could turn the auto industry on its head in a few years — if a daunting number of technical challenges could be overcome.
For Ms. Huang and her company, the battery had the potential to change the way consumers think about electric vehicles, give the United States and Europe a leg up on China, and help save the planet.
Factorial is one of dozens of companies trying to invent batteries that can charge faster, go farther, and make electric cars cheaper and more convenient than gasoline vehicles. Transportation is the biggest source of man-made greenhouse gases, and electric vehicles could be a potent weapon against climate change and urban air pollution.
The video that landed in Ms. Huang’s phone was from Uwe Keller, the head of battery development at Mercedes-Benz, which had been supporting Factorial’s research with money and expertise.
The short clip, of a Mercedes sedan at a research lab near Stuttgart, Germany, signaled that the company had installed Factorial’s battery in a car — and that it could actually make the wheels move.
The test was an important step forward in a journey that had begun while Ms. Huang and Mr. Yu were still graduate students at Cornell University. Until then, all their work had been in laboratories. Ms. Huang was excited that their invention was venturing into the world.
But there was still a long way to go. The Mercedes with a Factorial battery hadn’t yet been taken out on the road. That was the only place the technology really mattered.
Many start-ups have produced solid-state battery prototypes. But no American or European carmaker has put one into a production vehicle and proved that the technology could survive the bumps, vibrations and moisture of the streets. Or if any have, they have kept it a secret.
In late 2023, Mr. Keller, a veteran Mercedes engineer, proposed to Ms. Huang that they try.
“We’re car guys,” Mr. Keller said later. “We believe in things really moving.”
Roots in China
Ms. Huang stands out in a niche dominated by men from Silicon Valley. Some brag about their 100-hour workweeks; she believes in a good night’s sleep. “Having a clear mind to make the right decision is more important than how many hours you work,” she said.
She is approachable and laughs easily, but also projects determination. She works from a sparsely decorated office in Billerica that looks out on a patch of forest crossed by power lines. The furnishings include a plain black bookcase, stocked with a few technical volumes, that she inherited from a previous tenant. Her diplomas from Cornell — a Ph.D. in chemistry and a master’s in business administration — hang on the wall.
Ms. Huang grew up in Nanjing, China, where she was in an elementary school program that had her gather environmental data. The program instilled an interest in chemistry and an awareness of the vehicle exhaust and industrial pollution choking Nanjing’s air. She realized, she recalled, that “we need to grow a planet that’s healthier for human beings.”
In a dormitory at Xiamen University on China’s southern coast, where she studied chemistry, she saw an advertisement for a Swedish exchange program. After spending two years there, she and Alex, whom she had known since they were students in China, were both accepted to doctoral programs in Cornell’s chemistry department. She arrived in Ithaca, N.Y., in 2009 with $3,000, which she had managed to save from her Swedish scholarship. They have both since become U.S. citizens.
They were star students, said Héctor Abruña, a professor at Cornell known for his research in electrochemistry. He still has a picture on his office bookshelf of himself with Mr. Yu and Ms. Huang in their commencement robes.
With an idea that grew out of Dr. Abruña’s lab and some seed money from the State of New York, Mr. Yu and Ms. Huang founded the company that later became Factorial while she was still completing her business degree.
“They are extremely dedicated and extremely bright,” said Dr. Abruña, who continues to advise Factorial. “Straight shooters — zero BS.”
Mr. Yu is now Factorial’s chief technology officer. The company is, in that sense, a family operation. Ms. Huang is reticent about their private life, declining to say even how many children they have.
Initially the company focused on improving the materials that allow batteries to store energy. That changed after Mercedes invested in Factorial in 2021. Mercedes was looking for a bigger technological leap and encouraged Factorial to pursue solid state.
The technology has that name because it eliminates the liquid chemical mixture, known as an electrolyte, that helps transport energy-laden ions inside a battery. Liquid electrolytes are highly flammable. Replacing them with a solid or gelatinlike electrolyte makes batteries safer.
A battery that doesn’t overheat can be charged faster, perhaps in as little time as it takes to fill a car with gasoline. And solid-state batteries pack more energy into a smaller space, reducing weight and increasing range.
But solid-state batteries have one big drawback that explains why you can’t buy a car with one today. Such battery cells are more prone to grow spiky irregularities that cause short circuits. Vast riches await any company that can overcome this problem and develop a battery that is durable, safe and reasonably easy to manufacture.
Despite obvious differences between Factorial and Mercedes — the start-up has a little more than 100 employees, compared with 175,000 — Ms. Huang’s working style meshed with the culture at Mercedes and its roots in Swabia, the region around Stuttgart where people are known for their no-nonsense approach and restraint.
Mr. Keller found Ms. Huang’s low-key, factual manner to be a welcome contrast to the hype and unfulfilled promises that are pervasive in the battery and technology industries. Factorial, he said, “has not been announcing, announcing, announcing and not delivering.”
‘Production hell’
It’s an axiom in the battery business that producing a cool prototype is the easy part. The challenge is figuring out how to make millions of solid-state batteries at a reasonable price.
Factorial confronted that problem in 2022, setting up a small pilot factory in Cheonan, South Korea, a city near Seoul known for its tech industry. The project became, in Ms. Huang’s words, “production hell” — the same phrase Elon Musk used when Tesla was struggling to mass-produce a sedan and nearly went bankrupt.
To make money, a battery factory can’t produce too many defective cells. Ideally the yield, the percentage of usable cells, should be at least 95 percent. Hitting that target is devilishly difficult, involving volatile chemicals and fragile separators layered and packaged into cells with zero margin for error. The machinery doing all this is encased in Plexiglas chambers and overseen by workers dressed in head-to-toe protective gear to prevent contamination.
Dozens of companies are trying to mass-produce solid-state cells, including big carmakers like Toyota and smaller ones like QuantumScape, a Silicon Valley start-up backed by Volkswagen. Mercedes, hedging its bets, is also working with ProLogium, a Taiwanese company.
Nio, a Chinese carmaker, sells a vehicle with what it advertises as a solid-state battery. Analysts say the technology is less advanced than what Factorial is developing, offering fewer advantages in weight and performance. But there is little doubt that Chinese companies are investing heavily in solid state. Nio did not respond to a request for comment.
Every company has its own closely guarded recipes and manufacturing processes. “It’s difficult to say which technology will win,” said Xiaoxi He, a technology analyst at IDTechEx, a research firm.
Partly because solid-state batteries are so difficult to manufacture, many auto executives are skeptical that they will make commercial sense anytime soon. Shares in many solid-state battery start-ups have plunged, and management turmoil is common.
Factorial has insulated itself from the harsh judgments of Wall Street by never selling stock. Its funding comes from private investors including WAVE Equity Partners, a Boston firm, and partners that include the South Korean automaker Hyundai Motor; and Stellantis, which next year plans to test Factorial batteries in Dodge Charger muscle cars. It also has a partnership with LG Chem, a South Korean company that makes battery materials.
Projections of how soon solid-state batteries would be available have proved overly optimistic. Toyota displayed a futuristic prototype in 2020, but the company is still years away from selling a car with a solid-state battery.
Kurt Kelty, a vice president at General Motors in charge of batteries, is among those who will believe it when they see it. “We’re not banking on solid state,” Mr. Kelty said.
‘I don’t even know if we can make it’
In the beginning, Factorial’s prototype assembly line in South Korea had a yield of just 10 percent, meaning 90 percent of its batteries were faulty. Despite her preference for a good night’s sleep, Ms. Huang often had to wake up at 4 a.m. to deal with problems at the factory, which was operating around the clock. She was in South Korea at least once a month.
“There were always issues,” she said. “There was a point, I was like, I don’t even know if we can make it.”
By 2023, Factorial had produced enough cells suitable for an automobile that Mr. Keller, a soft-spoken, amiable man who has worked at Mercedes for 25 years, began thinking about installing them in a car. The cost and the risk of failure were high enough that he sought approval from his bosses. Armed with PowerPoint slides, Mr. Keller went to Ola Källenius, an imposing Swede who is chief executive at Mercedes.
Mr. Källenius’s office is at the top of a glass and steel high-rise in the middle of a sprawling manufacturing and development complex beside the Neckar River in Stuttgart.
Mr. Keller argued that road testing would help determine, among other things, whether the batteries would work with air cooling alone. If so, that would eliminate the need for a heavier, more costly liquid-cooled system.
Mr. Källenius signed off on the project, reasoning that a tangible goal would motivate the team and hasten development. He drew an analogy to Formula 1 racing. “If you’re chasing the leader, and suddenly you can see him, you get faster,” Mr. Källenius recalled.
Ms. Huang was a bit surprised when, in late 2023, Mr. Keller told her that Mercedes wanted to put the cells in a working vehicle. “We didn’t realize it was coming so soon, honestly speaking,” she said with a laugh.
But by June 2024, Factorial had managed to produce enough high-quality cells to announce that it had begun delivering them to Mercedes. In November, the factory in South Korea hit 85 percent yield, the best result yet. Ms. Huang and the Korean team celebrated by going out to a barbecue joint.
Mercedes still had to figure out how to package the cells in a way that would protect them from highway dirt and moisture. And it had to integrate the battery pack into a vehicle, connecting it to the car’s control systems.
The Factorial cells had one big drawback that made them hard to install in a car. They expanded when charged and shrank when discharged. In Mr. Keller’s words, they “breathed.”
Mr. Keller turned to engineers on the Mercedes Formula 1 racing team, who are accustomed to quickly solving technical problems. They devised a mechanism that expanded and shrank with the cells, maintaining constant pressure.
By Christmas 2024, a team working at Mercedes’s main research center in Sindelfingen, outside Stuttgart, texted Mr. Keller those two words: “spinning wheels.”
‘Finally I see you’
Mr. Keller confessed that he got a little emotional when his team sent him the video of the car. He waited until after Christmas to forward it to Ms. Huang with the same two words.
Several weeks later, the Mercedes engineers took the car with Factorial’s battery, an otherwise standard EQS electric sedan, to a company track for its first road test.
The engineers drove the car slowly at first. They carefully monitored technical data displayed on the dashboard screen.
They drove faster and faster until, by the fourth day, they reached autobahn speeds of 100 miles per hour. The battery didn’t blow up. In theory, it can power the car for 600 miles, more than most conventional cars can travel on a tank of gasoline.
Mr. Keller had been keeping Ms. Huang apprised of the progress, but she was still surprised when, during a meeting on marketing strategy in February, people from the Mercedes communications department mentioned that they had written a news release announcing the achievement.
“Do you want to take a look?” they asked.
She certainly did. The first successful road test with a Factorial battery was an enormously important moment, one they had been anticipating for years. Yet the teams at Mercedes and Factorial did not throw parties to celebrate. They still had work to do.
The next step is to equip a fleet of Mercedes vehicles with batteries, perfect the manufacturing process and do the testing required to begin selling them. That will probably take until 2028, at least. Many experts don’t expect cars with solid-state batteries to be widely available until 2030, at the earliest.
In April, Ms. Huang finally found time to travel to Stuttgart and ride in the car herself.
It was a clear spring day, with greenery sprouting in the German countryside and flowers beginning to bloom. Mercedes employees escorted her to a garage in Sindelfingen, where the automaker also has a large factory complex.
Ms. Huang had seen many photos of the car, but she still felt a thrill when the garage doors opened. It felt “like a long-lost friend,” she said. “Like, ‘Finally I see you!’”
A Mercedes driver took her for a spin on the test track, zooming down an asphalt straightaway then around a banked curve that, Ms. Huang said, felt like a roller coaster.
Inside the car, there was no way to perceive the difference with the Factorial battery compared with a conventional one. “But it’s just so special because it’s with our battery.”
Business
Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk
new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey
February 27, 2026
Business
Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office
Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.
If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.
All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.
But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.
That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.
The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.
— Katie Martin, Financial Times
Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.
Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.
Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.
But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.
Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.
That hasn’t been the case for months.
”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”
Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.
Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.
It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.
Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”
Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”
Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.
Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.
“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”
I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.
To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.
Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.
The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.
It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.
That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.
Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.
Business
How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.
Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.
What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.
But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.
The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.
How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments
To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.
The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.
In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.
In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.
Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.
Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.
Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.
How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies
With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.
The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.
The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.
The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.
One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.
Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.
And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.
Methodology
Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.
-
World2 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Montana1 week ago2026 MHSA Montana Wrestling State Championship Brackets And Results – FloWrestling
-
Louisiana5 days agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Oklahoma1 week agoWildfires rage in Oklahoma as thousands urged to evacuate a small city
-
Denver, CO2 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Technology7 days agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Technology6 days agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making