Rivian Raises Target IPO Price (RIVN)

[moosehead]

I just want the damn vehicle. Shut up and take my money.

Envision yesterday's boileroom debate. On the heels of delayed production, small battery fire, communication problems, and executive complaint - let's raise the IPO stock price!

Sponsored

 

[Tim-in-CA]

Don’t invest what you can’t afford to lose. The stock market is not too different from Vegas. I’m still in for the max DSP 175 shares.

 

[guernsej]

So obviously you should wait a few years to buy it. We will know in a few weeks who was right. However right now the stock is over sold. So someone thinks it’s going up.

Oversold? It's pre-IPO, valuation is set by the underwriters. Underwriters think it can be priced higher.

 

[St Bernard]

Oversold? It's pre-IPO, valuation is set by the underwriters. Underwriters think it can be priced higher.

The increased price is based on demand for shares. Most likely there is more demand for pre IPO shares then shares available. So by raising them it helps to fix this imbalance. I have purchased many IPO’s and I’m having difficulty getting, from my Morgan Stanley Broker, many additional pre IPO shares. He said there are very few shares available. Interpret as you wish.

 

[guernsej]

The increased price is based on demand for shares. Most likely there is more demand for pre IPO shares then shares available. So by raising them it helps to fix this imbalance. I have purchased many IPO’s and I’m having difficulty getting, from my Morgan Stanley Broker, many additional pre IPO shares. He said there are very few shares available. Interpret as you wish.

I'm being pedantic, but I think it's important to be precise: stocks that aren't traded on a public exchange yet can't be oversold because they're not being traded. You're not getting pre-IPO shares, you're getting IPO shares. Difficulty accessing retail allocated IPO shares through your broker can indicate high demand amongst retail investors at that brokerage, but can't necessarily be extrapolated to represent demand across all retail/institutional/DSP shares for the offering (or, more importantly in the long run, market demand on the public exchange).

Your point still stands that underwriters wouldn't be raising valuation targets if clients hadn't expressed a willingness to pay those prices.

 

[RivianHockeyGuy]

That’s a small part of it for me, it bothers me, but I also met RJ in person and he didn’t give me that impression that he would tolerate that kind of behavior. I’m sure the person that terminated her employment will be soon be following her out the door. The larger part of me for me is the delays happening for customers that we’re supposed to be receiving their trucks now, and this month.

Why would they build 1000 vehicles by the end of this year only to deliver them to employees? I understand the quality control, and ramp up, but the third-party customers being told that they’re not going to receive theirs until March or April in some cases really makes me wonder if they’re manufacturing is much further behind than what they’re disclosing. Also the fact that they still have on their website all launch edition holders will be contacted by Thanksgiving, which is highly unlikely.

Things just aren’t adding up for me

I'm curious why you side with this woman's lawsuit claim meanwhile Rivian is prohibited from commenting on it to due the IPO?

She has been with Rivian 1 year and 1 month according to LinkenIn. Rivian has been working on this lauch for what, 8 years? She cites disagreements with her management, concerns not being taken seriously and uses her "20 years sales and marketing experience" as the reason she needs to be listened to.

I'm sorry, but there are disagreements all the time at the corporate workplace. I get into them weekly at my work, but conduct myself in a professional manner and have never asked for special treatment based on my gender. Ultimately the hierarchy of decision making leaves the final say to the top executive, in this case RJ. I read the articles about this lawsuit, and this woman makes zero claims of direct sexist comments towards her, only that she was excluded from meetings. She cites the reason as being a woman and continues to use this convenient "Bro Culture" . But could the reason she's excluded from meetings just mean that's she's been identified as dissident to the corporate Sales and Marketing plans, already in place prior to her joining?!

I'm sorry, I'm not here to say I know any more than anyone else. I'm just here to point out the timing of this lawsuit and publicity it will get are very obviously suspicious and that it's shortsighted to use this very speculative information base investment decisions on a very promising company.

 

[Canthoney]

I'm curious why you side with this woman's lawsuit claim meanwhile Rivian is prohibited from commenting on it to due the IPO?

She has been with Rivian 1 year and 1 month according to LinkenIn. Rivian has been working on this lauch for what, 8 years? She cites disagreements with her management, concerns not being taken seriously and uses her "20 years sales and marketing experience" as the reason she needs to be listened to.

I'm sorry, but there are disagreements all the time at the corporate workplace. I get into them weekly at my work, but conduct myself in a professional manner and have never asked for special treatment based on my gender. Ultimately the hierarchy of decision making leaves the final say to the top executive, in this case RJ. I read the articles about this lawsuit, and this woman makes zero claims of direct sexist comments towards her, only that she was excluded from meetings. She cites the reason as being a woman and continues to use this convenient "Bro Culture" . But could the reason she's excluded from meetings just mean that's she's been identified as dissident to the corporate Sales and Marketing plans, already in place prior to her joining?!

I'm sorry, I'm not here to say I know any more than anyone else. I'm just here to point out the timing of this lawsuit and publicity it will get are very obviously suspicious and that it's shortsighted to use this very speculative information base investment decisions on a very promising company.

I didn’t say I sided with her, nor do I know the truth of the matter, but the fact that they fired her two days after the complaint makes them look bad. I’m sure it will be a litigated out, but it makes them look unprofessional at one of the most important times for them.

 

[RivianHockeyGuy]

I'm being pedantic, but I think it's important to be precise: stocks that aren't traded on a public exchange yet can't be oversold because they're not being traded. You're not getting pre-IPO shares, you're getting IPO shares. Difficulty accessing retail allocated IPO shares through your broker can indicate high demand amongst retail investors at that brokerage, but can't necessarily be extrapolated to represent demand across all retail/institutional/DSP shares for the offering (or, more importantly in the long run, market demand on the public exchange).

Your point still stands that underwriters wouldn't be raising valuation targets if clients hadn't expressed a willingness to pay those prices.

I didn’t say I sided with her, nor do I know the truth of the matter, but the fact that they fired her two days after the complaint makes them look bad. I’m sure it will be a litigated out, but it makes them look unprofessional at one of the most important times for them.

So they should retain the employment of a disgruntled employee out of fear of "looking bad"? Are you serious? The stock will continue to trade based on the broader stock market sentiment for RIVN long long after the IPO. I would suggest it's the disgruntled employee's prerogative to go public with this "story" at this exact timing before the IPO purely for her own perceived leverage purposes.

You think their handling of this firing is going to come back to haunt them a year from now? 5 years from now?

I guess the directed share purchased pre-IPO should really only be considered for serious, long term investors. If this story is bothering you, then you probably shouldn't invest if you can't see the forest through the trees.

 

[FullNelsonAZ]

I’m in for the max 175 shares even at the new price. Nothing logical to post beyond that there is either incredible demand or they have more announcements coming to back it up, maybe UPS or FedEx vans? I have been involved in two IPO’s and they price it as logically as they can so that it still has upside. Execs on grants and options want that as well.

 

[Canthoney]

So they should retain the employment of a disgruntled employee out of fear of "looking bad"? Are you serious? The stock will continue to trade based on the broader stock market sentiment for RIVN long long after the IPO. I would suggest it's the disgruntled employee's prerogative to go public with this "story" at this exact timing before the IPO purely for her own perceived leverage purposes.

You think their handling of this firing is going to come back to haunt them a year from now? 5 years from now?

I guess the directed share purchased pre-IPO should really only be considered for serious, long term investors. If this story is bothering you, then you probably shouldn't invest if you can't see the forest through the trees.

Yeah, you are twisting my words because of blind brand loyalty, so I’m not going to belabor the point I literally just made. I’m also not going to take investment advice from a forum and will invest what I am comfortable with.

 

[cc84]

... the fact that they fired her two days after the complaint makes them look bad.....

........"20 years sales and marketing experience"...... But could the reason she's excluded from meetings just mean that's she's been identified as dissident to the corporate Sales and Marketing plans, already in place prior to her joining?

I agree with you both. I find it strange for Rivian to fire someone that important, just a short time before their IPO. Why did they not wait until after the IPO? Surely she couldn't have done much damage in that short period of time

However, to me, it makes Ms. Schwab less credible by filing her lawsuit during Rivian's quiet period, where they can't defend themselves and prior to their IPO. It appears, to me, that she is looking for revenge, especially if she's unsuccessful in her lawsuit. At least she will have the satisfaction of possibly causing harm to Rivian's IPO, that has, or think they have, caused her harm.

Being head of Sales & Marketing, her philosophy definitely wasn't "customer first", as she wanted the employees to have their vehicles first, but never gave a reason why. Originally, it appears "customer first" was the theme of the other executives, until they caved into her way of thinking. Perhaps some of the backlash, seen in this forum, had them rethinking their position.

Since she wasn't in Quality Control, maybe her reasons were:....to not increase the price on employees vehicles, make sure some deliveries were made prior to the IPO (which were employees without a price increase), then immediately after the IPO, announce a price increase for current and future reservationist. This is all pure speculation and I hope it doesn't come to fruition.

There are too many unknowns at this time. I'm counting on Rivian to get their priorities straight and do well on their IPO.

 

[André]

I'm being pedantic, but I think it's important to be precise: stocks that aren't traded on a public exchange yet can't be oversold because they're not being traded. You're not getting pre-IPO shares, you're getting IPO shares. Difficulty accessing retail allocated IPO shares through your broker can indicate high demand amongst retail investors at that brokerage, but can't necessarily be extrapolated to represent demand across all retail/institutional/DSP shares for the offering (or, more importantly in the long run, market demand on the public exchange).

Your point still stands that underwriters wouldn't be raising valuation targets if clients hadn't expressed a willingness to pay those prices.

Actually, the underwriters are updating in real time a detailed book of the indications of interest from all institutions which will buy the bulk of the shares with the number of shares they want for various price levels. That’s how they know if the offering is oversubscribed or not and how they can fix the price range very closely to the final price on the pricing day. It‘s not unusual to have a book of orders for 2-3x the maximum offering size for a good Company. That’s also how they can pull out an IPO before pricing if the book is so weak that pricing will go below the shareholders threshold. Retail allocation is not driving pricing on such a large offering.

 

[jjswan33]

I agree with you both. I find it strange for Rivian to fire someone that important, just a short time before their IPO. Why did they not wait until after the IPO? Surely she couldn't have done much damage in that short period of time

She would have got some stock compensation that would likely vest after the IPO. I think that is the bulk of why she filed this lawsuit. She left a good job to come work at a startup and then got chopped right before the IPO (that would have likely made the move worthwhile). That is quite vindictive by Rivian and her manager.

However, to me, it makes Ms. Schwab less credible by filing her lawsuit during Rivian's quiet period, where they can't defend themselves and prior to their IPO. It appears, to me, that she is looking for revenge, especially if she's unsuccessful in her lawsuit. At least she will have the satisfaction of possibly causing harm to Rivian's IPO, that has, or think they have, caused her harm.

This is vindictive on her part but see above, she is acting in kind in my point of view. I am willing to bet money even without the quiet period they would have not commented citing ‘pending litigation‘ but would add a statement about inclusion and diversity. Either way they would choose to defend themselves in court rather than in the press.

Being head of Sales & Marketing, her philosophy definitely wasn't "customer first", as she wanted the employees to have their vehicles first, but never gave a reason why. Originally, it appears "customer first" was the theme of the other executives, until they caved into her way of thinking. Perhaps some of the backlash, seen in this forum, had them rethinking their position.

Since she wasn't in Quality Control, maybe her reasons were:....to not increase the price on employees vehicles, make sure some deliveries were made prior to the IPO (which were employees without a price increase), then immediately after the IPO, announce a price increase for current and future reservationist. This is all pure speculation and I hope it doesn't come to fruition.

There are too many unknowns at this time. I'm counting on Rivian to get their priorities straight and do well on their IPO.

I guess this is all speculation I guess but strange she would get positive performance reviews and then be part of a re-org right after an HR complaint (retaliation by definition if the manager was made aware of the complaint).

My guess we will never know what really happened but I am sure it will have no long term impact on Rivians financial performance unless it becomes systematic within their organization.

 

[Coast2Coast]

My guess is Ms. Schwab was not the right hire in the first place. She looked good on paper, had a lot of industry experience with established firms, and maybe breezed through the interviews. But Rivian is still a startup from a production point of view, and it's very much focused on getting the engineering right. Experience at Land Rover and Maserati doesn't really help in this respect, and it's very unlikely Ms. Schwab had anything worthwhile to say about QC and manufacturing strategy. (She says Rivian ignored her advice in these areas.)

So, the wrong hire to begin with, someone with industry experience but in very different segments of the industry, and someone who, for whatever reasons, wasn't getting along with her peers at Rivian. We'll never know the whole story - heck, we'll never know more than parts of the story - but I'm think that for Ms. Schwab as well as for Rivian, it's better than their relationship has ended.

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

I just can’t see any advantage to buying IPO shares. The valuation has too much hype and optimistic emotion in it. RIVN certainly has long term value potential, but if that’s your play why buy at IPO? A more prudent strategy seems to be wait, watch, and buy at the inevitable dips…then hold.
….just my perspective. YMMV.

I subscribe to the “buy/hold” and “time in market” or “don’t time the market” philosophy.

That means that “buy the dip” is actually wrong. Just buy when you have the money to invest. Then hold for the long-term. Trying to micro-optimize and “buy dips” is timing the market and even “experts” that dedicate their careers to it seem to be unable to ”beat the index” most of the time. Amateurs have no hope of consistently doing it. When it happens, it’s dumb luck.

If you believe in Rivian and have a long-term outlook, then buy when you’re ready and hold the position. I wouldn’t be concerned with short-term movement in the price. And trying to buy a “dip” just another form of gambling.

Sponsored