To the Rivian Board: Get your priorities straight

[TDWRT1]

Pretty sure delorean and the rest of the graveyard of failed auto startups prioritized their survival too. The chasm between “prioritization” and actual mass manufacturing and delivery is large at this point. Really wishing them the best but so much yet to demonstrate and prove

Welcome to the board. I see you've been here a whole 15 days. Oddly congruent with the recent IPO. Thanks for sharing your stunning analysis.

Sponsored

 

[TheManInTheSea]

I don't think the board needs any prompting and this includes Amazon. It is quite clear if Rivian doesn't start shipping consumer products in volume soon and very soon the stock is going to see a dramatic pullback. It is coming!!

As of yesterday, the share prices are starting to normalize to more of what a realistic valuation of the company truly is. I see Rivian playing the long-game here: get your product and production right from the start so that when they are producing at capacity they're also ensuring they are meeting quality standards. I'm also certain the board was fully anticipating a drop in share price shortly after IPO. The upshot of this board is one that all of us can agree on though: we want our trucks and we want them yesterday.

 

[kanundrum]

Rivian:

 

[moosehead]

20% stake != 20% control

20% stake is a minority interest with no control.

Influence, sure. Important base business support, yes.

Potential future buyer of the whole enterprise, maybe.

 

[Chris S]

20% stake != 20% control

Sorry, it doesn't work that way at all.

Voting rights, not stake, are what establishes control. RJ's shares have 10 votes each vs 1 for everyone else's shares.

You could collectively amass 49% of voting rights, and you'd have influence but no control.

 

[TheManInTheSea]

I have a hell of a lot more confidence in Rivian's ability to prioritize their survival than I do in a bunch of armchair forum strategists, even if it means my truck is later.

Agreed. I’d also rather have a truck that is well tested, debugged, and whose quality has been assured than something that is rushed as a panic to keep up short term appearances.

 

[StarTrekNerd]

The recent IPO filings revealed that Amazon have not only ordered 100,000 vans for delivery over the next 10 years, but that Amazon also controls ~20% of Rivian. Amazon is now flexing its muscle to prioritize their custom delivery van over the R1T.

The board needs to wake up and view the Amazon influence for what it is in the long run -- a lucrative sideline, not the main business. Rivian is poised to capture a large part of their target market, but only if they can deliver in a timely manner. While Rivian’s customers have a certain amount of brand loyalty, as soon as a Ford F150 is available it will be extremely enticing. Rivian has a very limited window in which they can capture market share. After that, their innovation edge will have a lot of competitors, and potential customers will have a lot of options. Availability is a huge motivator. 10,000 vans this year is nothing compared to 40,000 or more trucks, and in the long run, hundreds of thousands more trucks. Yes, the vans are an important part of the business, but they are only a sideline, not the main event.

Prioritizing the vans at the expense of the R1T is not good business for Amazon either. If the truck fizzles, “their” company will become an also-ran. Rivian’s customer base will migrate elsewhere, leaving Amazon with an investment in a failing company. It is in Amazon’s best interest, as well as Rivian’s, to prioritize the R1T to capture market share to insure the company is a powerhouse in the long run.

The SEC filing explicitly states only 10 vans but 1000 split between R1T and R1S by years end. So no, not prioritizing vans....

 

[mgc0216]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way at all.

Voting rights, not stake, are what establishes control. RJ's shares have 10 votes each vs 1 for everyone else's shares.

You could collectively amass 49% of voting rights, and you'd have influence but no control.

!= means “does not equal” so it works exactly like that.

 

[Autolycus]

!= means “does not equal” so it works exactly like that.

Oh no! We've run into the common trap of a programmer using symbols in a way that non-programmers don't understand! I've started using "<>" instead of "!=" because it seems more people figure it out.

 

[Craigins]

Oh no! We've run into the common trap of a programmer using symbols in a way that non-programmers don't understand! I've started using "<>" instead of "!=" because it seems more people figure it out.

Ugh the vb and sql not equals. I always get looks when i call ! Bang.

 

[mgc0216]

Oh no! We've run into the common trap of a programmer using symbols in a way that non-programmers don't understand! I've started using "<>" instead of "!=" because it seems more people figure it out.

“programmer” ?

 

[Chris S]

Sorry, I don't speak or write in programming language.

 

[mwexler2]

Sorry, I don't speak or write in programming language.

There are only 10 kinds of people. Those that understand binary and those that don’t.
;-)

 

[doozenberg]

Welcome to the board. I see you've been here a whole 15 days. Oddly congruent with the recent IPO. Thanks for sharing your stunning analysis.

Not sure what you’re implying with the IPO but thanks for the welcome, I can really feel the good vibes and warmth emanating from you. I’m a preorder holder from 11/26/2018. You’ll probably imply next my screenshot is fake ?
I’m done drinking the yellow koolaid

 

[StarTrekNerd]

Oh no! We've run into the common trap of a programmer using symbols in a way that non-programmers don't understand! I've started using "<>" instead of "!=" because it seems more people figure it out.

≠

Sponsored