- First Name
- Rob
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2020
- Threads
- 58
- Messages
- 1,413
- Reaction score
- 3,163
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Vehicles
- Jeep & R1T
- Thread starter
- #1
Hey Guys -
Please don't shoot the messenger, but I believe it's highly likely there will be an SEC investigation or investor lawsuit that accompanies these massive price increases. Here is why:
I can easily see some law firm filing with the argument that investors were significantly misled by Rivian purposefully keeping pricing unrealistically low in order to ensure they had a significant backlog of buyers. These buyers, should they have known the 'true' pricing, would have cancelled their orders en mass which would have affected IPO pricing or the public offering in general.
Don't get me wrong, I am not making the assertion this is the case. but I do think it's a plausible scenario. Sort of a, "let's just get the IPO done and we'll figure it out afterward." situation.
One thing for certain as well, I would love to be Laura's attorney now. These fundamental pricing changes SIGNIFICANTLY bolster her assertions. She seems to have seen it, whereas everyone else missed it, or she was purposefully sidelined as it jeopardized the real goal of an IPO.
Anyway, I'm just some monkey on the internet who both bought into the hype about a vehicle with a 'too good to be true' price and a company with a 'too good to be true' backlog of orders. Feelsbadman.
Please don't shoot the messenger, but I believe it's highly likely there will be an SEC investigation or investor lawsuit that accompanies these massive price increases. Here is why:
- According to details available in the lawsuit that was filed by Laura Schwab one of the many items she advocated for was a price increase. Rivian had internal discussions about the pricing of the vehicle last year and decided at that time not increase pricing. This is prior to the IPO.
- In the materials for the IPO, one of the primary motivators was the significant book of business that Rivian had. Much of that book of business, it turns out, was likely due to the low pricing of the models that were preordereable.
- Associated with the IPO were bonuses that were paid out to the key individuals associated with it. I believe this includes both stock options and monetary awards.
- After completing their employee rollout, they chose to increase pricing, including on those who are multi-year and multi-vehicle preorders. This likely indicates that the entire pricing model was unworkable and seemingly validates the argument put forth in by Laura Schwab.
I can easily see some law firm filing with the argument that investors were significantly misled by Rivian purposefully keeping pricing unrealistically low in order to ensure they had a significant backlog of buyers. These buyers, should they have known the 'true' pricing, would have cancelled their orders en mass which would have affected IPO pricing or the public offering in general.
Don't get me wrong, I am not making the assertion this is the case. but I do think it's a plausible scenario. Sort of a, "let's just get the IPO done and we'll figure it out afterward." situation.
One thing for certain as well, I would love to be Laura's attorney now. These fundamental pricing changes SIGNIFICANTLY bolster her assertions. She seems to have seen it, whereas everyone else missed it, or she was purposefully sidelined as it jeopardized the real goal of an IPO.
Anyway, I'm just some monkey on the internet who both bought into the hype about a vehicle with a 'too good to be true' price and a company with a 'too good to be true' backlog of orders. Feelsbadman.
Sponsored
