As Gasoline Prices Skyrocket, Will VinFast’s Electric Vehicles Profit?

Amid soaring fuel prices and Hà Nội’s planned inner-city motorbike ban, Vingroup has seemingly emerged as a major “beneficiary.” 

While avoiding speculation about direct links, placing these developments side by side helps assess what Việt Nam’s so-called “chaebol” has gained from the government’s recent “green” policies. [1] 

This alignment of events raises an important question: Have government policies inadvertently—or deliberately—caused harm while benefiting certain businesses?

Too Big to Fail

The state and media frequently describe Vingroup with glowing terms such as “Việt Nam’s leading multi-sector private economic group” and “the largest private conglomerate in Việt Nam.” It has been “awarded the First-Class Labor Order” and held up as a model of the policy where “the State dares to assign—private sector dares to take on.” [2] [3] [4] [5]

However, the reality of Vingroup’s prosperity is not as complete as it appears. In the article “A Debt-Driven Empire: Vingroup Operates with 86% of Assets on Loan” by Thiên Lương, public financial data up to June 2025 revealed that the group faced considerable growth pressure. [6]

Total debt had reached approximately $31 billion. Furthermore, its electric vehicle arm, VinFast, continued to post annual losses of tens of trillions of đồng (equivalent to billions of USD), accounting for a significant share of total assets. 

A substantial portion of this debt consisted of short-term liabilities with heavy daily interest burdens, forcing the electric vehicle segment—a key future driver—to rely on real estate revenues to offset its losses.

Addressing this debt, Vingroup told the press that a significant portion comprised advance payments from buyers and partners, particularly in real estate. [7] 

This amount was recorded at about 134.1 trillion đồng (approximately $5.3 billion USD) and was described as unrecognized revenue to be booked in future periods by Vinhomes.

Hà Nội Bans Motorbikes Within Ring Road 1

In July 2025, then Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính issued Directive 20, mandating that Hà Nội ban fossil-fuel motorbikes from entering the Ring Road 1 area beginning July 1, 2026, with plans for future expansion. [8]

The rationale for this ban is clear given the city’s demographics. Hà Nội’s population in 2025 reached 8,855,946. [9] The urban core within Ring Road 1 covers roughly 31.5 square kilometers and houses nearly one million residents. 

This creates an average population density exceeding 19,000 people per square kilometer—roughly seven times the citywide average.

This extreme density places a severe strain on transport infrastructure. Daily, an estimated 450,000 motorbikes travel through Ring Road 1, a figure that does not even account for the influx of vehicles from outside areas that further intensifies congestion.

Following the announcement of the roadmap to restrict gasoline-powered vehicles, the electric vehicle market experienced an immediate surge in demand as residents rushed to purchase electric motorbikes and cars. [10]

While many EV companies reported significant sales growth, detailed figures remained scarce during this period. 

It was not until early 2026 that VinFast disclosed its figures, revealing it had sold 406,453 electric motorbikes in Việt Nam throughout 2025. This represented a staggering 473% increase from 2024, firmly establishing the company as the market leader. [11]

Furthermore, the factors driving VinFast’s revenue upward have not stopped there.

Fuel Prices Surge, Government Urges Shift to Electric Vehicles

In January, domestic gasoline prices surged to a record high, at one point reaching 33,840 đồng per liter (approximately $1.33 USD). [12]

Unsurprisingly, this increase in fuel costs prompted immediate state action. On March 11, then Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính issued Official Dispatch No. 22, encouraging citizens and businesses to use fuel efficiently while prioritizing public transport, electric vehicles, and biofuels to reduce fossil fuel reliance. [14]

This was quickly followed by another directive on March 19, which called on citizens to conserve energy, accelerate the broader energy transition, and further promote electric transport. [13]

Driven by both soaring fuel prices and repeated government encouragement to make the switch, electric vehicle showrooms were once again crowded with prospective buyers. [15]

Is Electricity Really Free?

While fuel prices continue to rise, VinFast’s electricity remains free—for now.

At first glance, VinFast’s free charging policy appears to be a direct benefit to customers. [16] However, this strategy must be evaluated against the broader structure of value and the actual long-term costs borne by consumers. 

The company’s commitment to free car charging until 2029 and free motorbike battery swaps until 2028 is not a permanent guarantee but a calculated demand-stimulation strategy.

Over this extended period, users are likely to become dependent on VinFast’s network. Once the free period expires, the company will have the discretion to introduce fees. 

At that point, consumers may find it difficult to switch providers due to the proprietary nature of VinFast’s battery and charging systems. [17]

Furthermore, maintaining free services until 2029 creates significant barriers to entry for independent charging providers. 

When a dominant firm leverages its financial strength to absorb losses for years, the market risks devolving into an infrastructure monopoly, ultimately depriving consumers of competitively priced alternatives.

VinFast is likely employing a “freemium” business model—offering free services initially to attract and retain a loyal customer base. [18] 

While this bold marketing strategy provides immediate benefits by reducing early operating costs and encouraging EV adoption, it simultaneously builds user habits that cement attachment to the VinFast ecosystem.

The clearly defined timelines confirm these incentives are temporary. Once they conclude, compatibility constraints will limit users’ ability to switch to alternative infrastructure, leaving the infrastructure provider free to dictate future service costs. [19]

***

From a policy perspective, tightening vehicle regulations to curb congestion and pollution in major cities like Hà Nội is an entirely reasonable approach. 

Furthermore, it is neither unusual nor inherently wrong for a large conglomerate like Vingroup to leverage such favorable conditions for its growth.

However, the rapid execution of these policies raises significant concerns. When regulators implement regulations so swiftly across a wide population, they place middle- and low-income citizens, along with small businesses, at a distinct disadvantage.

Transitioning personal vehicles or fundamentally adjusting business models cannot happen overnight; such shifts require a clear roadmap and robust support policies. Instead, the rapid rollout of these mandates feels almost like a sudden ambush. 

This abruptness leaves everyday citizens struggling to adapt, perfectly positioning large corporations to swoop in, seize the resulting market opportunities, and dominate the alternative solutions.

---

Hoàng Lam wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on April 2, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.