Samsung / Rivian Battery Partership challenges

[E.S.]

Think I'll wait to see if a more reputable news source than notebookcheck.net confirms the story.

Even if this was the case. With Rivian posting job openings for Solid State battery R&D, I fail to see what relevance Samsung will have all due to the concerns Rivian has with them.

Sponsored

 

[Rivian_Hugh_III]

Perhaps the COO was pushed out after he botched these negotiations?

Presumably Rivian could have agreed to massive quantities of batteries. Not on a certain timeline though.

I hope Rivian has/had other deals as backup in case this fell through.

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

I'd love to get their management in a room and ask why they (supposedly) wouldn't agree to a guaranteed purchase order if they are supposedly constrained by batteries.

I think it's probably that Samsung wanted a specific volume over a specific period of time to justify the partnership that Rivian wasn't willing to agree to (think Tesla and Panasonic). Rivian wants to go in house with battery development and production, so they aren't going to agree to a very long term high volume deal when they would be looking to phase it out after 3-5 years.

 

[Trandall]

I'd love to get their management in a room and ask why they (supposedly) wouldn't agree to a guaranteed purchase order if they are supposedly constrained by batteries.

RJ noted battery production constraints specifically that assembling individual modules and modules into packs was a bottleneck and Rivian was going to open a second production line at the Normal plant to alleviate this in early 2022. I think many people heard "batteries" and "constraints" and their minds instantly associated it with supply constraints.
That's what I remember but would be interested if anyone has good info to the contrary. For what it's worth my interpretation tends to align well with this story.

 

[COdogman]

I have no idea if that “article” is correct or not, but I will say it does seem suspiciously biased against Rivian. Maybe they did screw up a battery deal with Samsung, but the way the article is written, it includes a bunch of otherwise unsupported editorial opinions. It only vaguely refers to “reports from Korean media”.

Since Rivian would be making trucks, SUVs and vans for Amazon, it seems like they would have or should have been able to make at least some sort of purchase guarantee IF that is the only thing holding them back from producing more vehicles. And it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request for a production “partner” to want to inspect the lines that will produce such an important part of their vehicles.

Who the hell knows. I just wouldn’t take that particular article at face value…yet.

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

I have no idea if that “article” is correct or not, but I will say it does seem suspiciously biased against Rivian. Maybe they did screw up a battery deal with Samsung, but the way the article is written, it includes a bunch of otherwise unsupported editorial opinions. It only vaguely refers to “reports from Korean media”.

Since Rivian would be making trucks, SUVs and vans for Amazon, it seems like they would have or should have been able to make at least some sort of purchase guarantee IF that is the only thing holding them back from producing more vehicles. And it doesn’t seem like an unreasonable request for a production “partner” to want to inspect the lines that will produce such an important part of their vehicles.

Who the hell knows. I just wouldn’t take that particular article at face value…yet.

That was my first thought when I read the article last night as well. As with other articles we have seen, this smacks of intent to affect the stock price, which is not unexpected.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who want to manipulate RIVN for their own purposes, so they can take a kernel of truth and use it as an opportunity to write a hit piece. Then aggregation tools take over and does their dirty work for them.

 

[MountainBikeDude]

The article, or articles, are from the point of view of Samsung with no comment from Rivian. While it's not the news we want to hear, I'm sure each party had their reasons for their stance on the agreement or lack there of, and it just wasn't the right fit for both parties.

Fingers crossed it doesn't further delay my precious Maxy Pack

 

[moosehead]

Skepticism about this “article” coming from a seemingly unrelated and unknown notebookcheck.net is certainly warranted.

However, note that @ironpig correctly linked to the source article at thelec.net, and an article regarding reported Rivian/Samsung battery plant pursuit in Normal.

Further, Samsung SDI/CATL/LG/Panasonic battery enterprises have three dominant divisions: consumer/home (laptops), EV, and ESS.

Lastly, despite this article not coming from the first column of the WSJ, it does correlate with the Rivian earnings call Q&A and RJ’s battery response early Dec. Going down the rabbit hole of Samsung SDI, one can see plenty of Korean tech news articles suggesting Samsung’s battery $ per KWh is high relative to LG and other Top 5 producers. Costs alone plus RIVN’s desire to have hands on involvement, if not ownership, of their own battery tech, could be enough of a hurdle.

I honestly do not believe there is some untoward stock manipulation here. A high growth startup company with large NOL’s, high valuations, and a more hawkish Fed are enough, let alone RIVN’s own production hurdles and any inside baseball. I also don’t believe RIVN has practiced subterfuge about battery challenges either despite their shitty communications across all fronts.

IMO, this appears to be what it is, which is likely the most critical component and supply chain challenge facing all EV’s.

Sorry for the rant, but wanted this conversation to continue from more knowledgeable folks here on the board, vs get squashed due to skepticism even if latter is warranted.

 

[ironpig]

Skepticism about this “article” coming from a seemingly unrelated and unknown notebookcheck.net is certainly warranted.

However, note that @ironpig correctly linked to the source article at thelec.net, and an article regarding reported Rivian/Samsung battery plant pursuit in Normal.

Further, Samsung SDI/CATL/LG/Panasonic battery enterprises have three dominant divisions: consumer/home (laptops), EV, and ESS.

Lastly, despite this article not coming from the first column of the WSJ, it does correlate with the Rivian earnings call Q&A and RJ’s battery response early Dec. Going down the rabbit hole of Samsung SDI, one can see plenty of Korean tech news articles suggesting Samsung’s battery $ per KWh is high relative to LG and other Top 5 producers. Costs alone plus RIVN’s desire to have hands on involvement, if not ownership, of their own battery tech, could be enough of a hurdle.

I honestly do not believe there is some untoward stock manipulation here. A high growth startup company with large NOL’s, high valuations, and a more hawkish Fed are enough, let alone RIVN’s own production hurdles and any inside baseball. I also don’t believe RIVN has practiced subterfuge about battery challenges either despite their shitty communications across all fronts.

IMO, this appears to be what it is, which is likely the most critical component and supply chain challenge facing all EV’s.

Sorry for the rant, but wanted this conversation to continue from more knowledgeable folks here on the board, vs get squashed due to skepticism even if latter is warranted.

agreed 100% I don’t think this has anything to do with stock manipulation or what knowledge they had near the IPO etc etc.

It’s just (possibly) more information about the current state of Rivians battery plans and warrants consideration when speculating about the overall delay getting trucks to customers.

 

[moosehead]

Here’s one of the Korean articles referencing Samsung’s high priced battery per kWh vs. competitors. Reportedly Samsung SDI is at $180 per kWh vs others ranging from $140-$155.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220123000109

Note the Korea Herald emanates from South Korea and no, I am not a communist.

Sponsored