[HN Gopher] Rivian valued at over $100B after biggest IPO of 2021
___________________________________________________________________
Rivian valued at over $100B after biggest IPO of 2021
Author : neogodless
Score : 118 points
Date : 2021-11-10 19:27 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| cs702 wrote:
| Rivian is investing aggressively to ramp up production to ~1M
| vehicles/year by 2030.
|
| If average selling price per vehicle in 2030 is more or less
| similar to Tesla's today -- call it $50K/vehicle, to keep the
| arithmetic simple -- then a market cap of $100B today is equal to
| ~2x the annual revenue forecast for 1M vehicles in 2030, assuming
| everything goes well and there are no major hiccups along the
| way.
|
| These figures strike me as as _extremely over-optimistic_ , to
| say the least, but at least I can see how smart people might be
| rationalizing the purchase and ownership of Rivian stock at this
| valuation to themselves so they can sleep soundly at night.[a]
|
| --
|
| [a] I mean, _it 's not impossible_: Tesla's run-rate production
| and sales now exceed 1M vehicles/year, and the new Tesla
| gigafactories already built or being developed are supposed to
| bring production to 4-5M Tesla vehicles/year well before the end
| of the decade.
| luckydata wrote:
| Big part of the valuation is the partnership with Amazon for
| commercial vehicles which you don't seem to be considering.
| Those vehicles are in the 100k+ price bracket.
| mdorazio wrote:
| No, they aren't. I unfortunately can't tell you how I know
| due to contracts, but I am 100% sure you are wrong about the
| price and the implied assumption that Amazon will only buy
| from Rivian. Also, commercial van margins are nowhere near as
| good as pickup margins. The van is a cash flow generator, not
| a massive profit center.
| ardit33 wrote:
| They are playing in the 70-80k+ luxury truck/suv market. That
| type of market doesn't have the volume they are aiming.
|
| They will have to build cars that compete with the mid tier
| (40k-50k) to be able to sell on those volumes. At that tier you
| are competing with every other manufactor, from kia, to ford,
| to VW, Audi, GM etc...
|
| Their truck looks nice, but just not sure they can support
| their current evaluation with such a limited production.
| samstave wrote:
| >>70-80k+ luxury truck/suv market.
|
| Have you actually be shopping for a truck lately -- that
| ~70-80K 'luxury' truck makret is lit what every single truck
| manufacturer is playing in...
|
| Its SICK..
|
| Trucks should be FUCKING TRUCKS - machines used to haul shit
| you cant carry as a human - nothing else.
|
| Not only are they extra expensive - they are 90% plastic!
| cs702 wrote:
| I agree: they would have to move downmarket over time,
| following Tesla's playbook. That's why I guesstimated
| $50K/vehicle by 2030. It may be an extremely over-optimistic
| goal... but it's not impossible.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| I don't get the valuation. To me it seems like like Rivian is
| behind on their original product promise. The current models
| listed on the site have a range of only ~300 miles, while a lot
| of the original hype and excitement was around vehicles with ~400
| miles of range. I wonder if this product really makes sense right
| now. If you're hauling people and gear, or going offroad, or
| towing, you will have even less efficiency. In a gas vehicle you
| can carry jerry cans and refill your tank. With an electric truck
| or SUV without a range extender or an option to carry an extra
| battery pack or whatever, you have no way to work around this. As
| such I can't see these really serving as a practical "adventure"
| vehicle even though that's what the marketing is.
| robohoe wrote:
| Folks that buy trucks for utility will keep buying ICE trucks
| until the EVs solve that problem. For now, this EV truck is for
| folks in the city and suburbs - hardly any of them will see
| true off-roading.
| aeharding wrote:
| Pickup trucks are no longer used for their original intended
| purpose. The vast majority of new trucks are simply masculine
| posturing driving an arms race that's literally killing
| people.
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-
| danger...
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-11/the-
| dange...
| Invictus0 wrote:
| I read the S-1--it's one of the worst I've ever seen, to be
| honest. Rivian has no strategy whatsoever. Their FleetOS is 100%
| built to Amazon's spec. If Amazon were to withdraw support for
| any reason, they would have invested billions in the
| truck/software R&D only to have basically no one to sell to.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Why would Amazon crash a company that they own 20% of?
|
| Rivian is basically Amazon's baby, roughly worth $20 Billion at
| this IPO price.
| mym1990 wrote:
| It really wouldn't be the first time that a company shuts
| down a 'baby'. 20% of 20 billion for Amazon is literally
| pocket change.
| louissm_it wrote:
| The 20% is (according to the IPO atleast) worth 20 billion
| dollars, not 20% of 20 billion dollars.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Rivian is right now worth $100+ Billion.
|
| 20% of which is $20 Billion, and is Amazon's stake.
| mym1990 wrote:
| I think 20 billion is still pocket change for a company
| with a 1.8T market cap. And if Amazon did want to divest,
| they would likely just sell instead of taking a full
| loss.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| If this company is still worth that much in 2025, the year
| Amazon is expected to have received all the trucks, I will
| eat my hat.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that Amazon, as a
| company, clearly likes to vertically integrate and build
| its own stuff (be it servers, warehouses, or even its own
| distribution system).
|
| Amazon used to rely upon USPS, FedEx, UPS. But what did it
| do? It built its own. Similarly, Amazon is now looking at
| the cars it bought for its delivery service, and clearly
| wants to vertically integrate, by help creating the Rivian
| company to make those new cars.
|
| The valuation may be stupid, but the business plan is
| solid. Bow down before Amazon, build cars exactly to
| Amazon's specifications in a way other manufactures
| cannot... and get Amazon's money.
|
| I don't think this business plan is worth $100 Billion, but
| it sounds like a fundamentally good business plan at its
| core.
| erpellan wrote:
| So that's about $1B per production vehicle delivered? Not bad!
| Ekaros wrote:
| So you are telling me if I make single production vehicle I can
| sell a company for 1B?
| tw600040 wrote:
| Can someone smarter than me explain how this is happening? If it
| has this market cap, someone is buying at that valuation. Why?
| Greater fool theory?
| asdff wrote:
| Robinhood pushed me a notification that their ipo was
| available, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was fueled by
| meme stock folks who saw that notification, and just bought it
| because fomo. Dangerous imo that robinhood can push these pumps
| on people.
| Swizec wrote:
| "omg I wish I had bought Tesla early"
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Greater fool theory for sure. Once they have dumped the stock
| on retail investors, who cares what happens? Tesla was lucky
| that they had a maniac like Musk who just willed the company to
| success but there are not many people like this.
| missedthecue wrote:
| It's obvious. Nothing is more profitable than a new business in
| an extremely competitive and cutthroat industry with entrenched
| players, that also requires very high levels of annual CapEx
| spend simply to sustain production.
| dragontamer wrote:
| And one of those entrenched players (Ford) owns 13% of
| Rivian.
|
| Oy, this market is going all topsie-turnie right now. Ford's
| singular, biggest asset is its stake in Rivian for crying out
| loud.
|
| And with a Market cap of only 80 Billion or so, Ford is
| smaller than Rivian at these valuations.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| perhaps its crazy - but, the money is flowing towards the
| future, not the past. Ford Motor Company has not been a
| winner in the last 20 years, while Tesla has attracted new
| money.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Ford is up this year more than Tesla is actually. I'm
| betting their partnership with Rivian is a big part of
| that.
|
| EDIT: Year-to-date YTD at least. I thought F was up more
| than Tesla in 52-week but I was mistaken. Still though,
| you can see that the F ticker has skyrocketed with this
| strategy, despite the obvious headwinds of "Ford doesn't
| have enough chips to even make their allotted cars this
| year".
|
| Like, I get it. Its a strategy for Ford / Amazon to be
| "hip" and "cool" by supporting Rivian and participating
| in this hype. Its stupid but it seems like its working,
| for F's stock to go up so much despite all of the
| manufacturing issues they had (idle factories / layoffs),
| is just how stupid this market is right now.
|
| There's so much stupid in the market these days that its
| hard to keep up.
| baq wrote:
| bought ford today, the cheapest way to own rivian.
| pcurve wrote:
| I think you nailed it with the greater fool theory. Everyone
| knows $100billion is nonsense, but this is a pure momentum
| play. This sector is red hot still.
| nowherebeen wrote:
| I like the new Rivian truck, but they only have a few
| factories and sold a few cars. I just can't understand how
| its even 10% market value of Tesla.
| asdff wrote:
| I can't understand how tesla is 10x the market value of
| ford. they build their cars in a tent. ford has
| manufacturing facilities across the globe.
| pcurve wrote:
| agreed, and truck buyers are notoriously loyal to their
| brands especially in higher-priced segment.
|
| I like their SUV https://rivian.com/r1s but it's $75k.
|
| At least Tesla has other side businesses going for it, but
| I even question TSLA long term valuation. I guess investors
| are thinking they will gradually transition into IP and
| software technology company, like Android.
|
| And let car mfrs fight over the hardware space.
| adamnemecek wrote:
| They managed to build an electric truck before anyone else.
| That's pretty neat.
| invalidname wrote:
| Not sure I'm smarter but my take is this. People look at Tesla
| and are looking for a 2nd that can get close to their
| valuation. Traditional companies are encumbered by contracts
| and the need to support existing infrastructure (garages,
| resellers etc.) all of that doesn't work well for electric.
|
| These guys have very deep pockets, big contracts with Amazon
| etc. that can keep them pushing out cars for years and they
| don't have a history to encumber them. They can copy everything
| Tesla does and the market is big enough to support them. I
| think the valuation is wishful thinking and a lot still remains
| to be seen but who knows...
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| So they make a pickup and an SUV. How can they possibly be bigger
| then ford? People are pouring money into them specifically
| because they _don 't_ have any baggage. The only reason that Ford
| is _not_ worth 100B is because they are saddled with management.
| I think another factor is at play here- car manufacturers are
| digging deeper and deeper into their heritage cupboard creating
| new designs that are vaguely reminiscent of 50 yo models. They
| also include unique design elements such as grilles and
| headlights and this has been expanding to every part of the car
| and often gets in the way of functionality. I think drivers are
| fed up of this stupid self promotion and are tired of all this.
| stefan_ wrote:
| The secret is to not actually make anything. Then there is no
| disappointment and bad news.
| ardit33 wrote:
| They will build/sell 1000 cars this year!
|
| They should be doing that every day for this kind of evaluation.
| The truck is nice, but they are playing in the luxury market,
| which is more limited, and the haven't scaled yet to mass
| production, which is the hardest part. Right now, everything is
| build by few batches, and most given to employees.
|
| Soo... I think this is a dicey evaluation (it is assuming things
| can't, wont go wrong). But this market is so crazy, so who knows.
|
| Here are the potential pitfalls:
|
| 1. The company fails to scale, and has production issues
|
| 2. The truck's margin are not good, and operates on a loss for
| too long
|
| 3. The luxury truck market (70k+), which they are currently
| aiming is small and can't support a large evaluation
|
| 4. Competition from current automakers (F-150 Lightening), and GM
| trucks, which start at 45-60k well equipped, squeezes them from
| below).
|
| Again, there are risks with this kind of evaluation, and while
| any one of the above risks it not a company killer by itself, two
| of them will kill this evaluation.
| eigenspace wrote:
| > They will build/sell 1000 cars this year! They should be
| doing that every day for this kind of evaluation.
|
| This sort of statement doesn't really make sense. Investors
| don't invest based on how a company is operating today. At that
| point, it's basically too late. They invest based on how they
| believe the company will be doing in the future.
|
| Personally, I'm agnostic about the future of Rivian, and
| suspect this valuation is probably way too high, but I
| definitely don't think that because of their current production
| numbers.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Don't you need to take into account current conditions to
| forecast into the future? Unless there is some silver bullet
| information or wild speculation, predicting future financial
| states needs some basis to stand on.
| eigenspace wrote:
| Sure it plays a role, but mostly only in mature businesses.
| But that's clearly not a factor in many other investments.
|
| If you truly believe that an immature business like Rivian
| _will_ explosively grow, then you 'd be an idiot to wait
| for that growth to happen before investing. You'd just be
| leaving money on the table.
|
| Of course, we don't know for sure what'll happen with
| Rivian, but clearly some people with money have some strong
| beliefs.
| kgwgk wrote:
| Some people with money are buying cryptographic keys with
| a tenuous connection to digital images of rocks and
| whatnot. What a time to be alive.
| chemeng wrote:
| Valuation is on potential, but I agree with sentiment. They
| will get mass production up and running over the next 2 years.
| Whether there will be demand then or not is unclear to me. I
| think people are underestimating the extent to which the
| electric F-150 will eat up the demand in the market for Rivian
| mass market products. So to me, it feels like the bet is their
| commercial fleet business (Amazon) will grow rapidly and be
| highly valuable, which given Amazon's 20% stake, seems like a
| reasonable bet. I don't personally think that's 100Bn mkt cap,
| but that's why I won't be buying in unless the outlook changes.
| mataug wrote:
| Wasn't Tesla in the same position 10 yrs ago ?
|
| You're correct in your observation that $100B is overvalued,
| but a lot of people are betting big on EVs, no wonder tesla's
| valuation is much higher than other auto makers
| fastball wrote:
| Yes but TSLA's market cap 10 years ago was $3B.
|
| TSLA didn't pass $100B til last year, when they produced
| ~510,000 cars.
| mataug wrote:
| That's a good point, could it be that in the last couple of
| years enthusiasm, and potential of EVs have grown so much
| that the market is okay with the large valuation of EV
| manufacturers ?
|
| Plus we're witnessing more and more of the consequences of
| our carbon emissions that most people believe EVs are the
| future ?
|
| On a side note, I think EVs are merely a small piece of the
| puzzle for solving the climate crisis, wholistic solutions
| must include public transport, walkable neighborhoods,
| mixed use zoning and a whole lot more, but that's neither
| here nor there.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Tesla is still in that position today though, when it comes
| to valuation?
|
| They have a larger valuation than Toyota, even though Toyota
| has 10x higher revenue at similar profit margin. Toyota
| produces almost 3x as many cars as Tesla _per employee_.
|
| Sure, they are still growing, but it's unclear how that
| growth will continue. Especially for Model S and X, there are
| objectively better options on the market today from the
| traditional manufacturers (BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Jaguar,
| Polestar/Volvo, Hyundai) and from new Chinese brands.
|
| Just look at deliveries by model, Model S + Model X peaked at
| 30 k deliveries per quarter way back in 2018, and has been
| dropping since. They were the first mover, but apparently
| have not been able to capitalize on that.
|
| Of course the stock market today has moved wholeheartedly to
| embrace the post-fact meme stocks like Gamestop and Tesla, so
| I'm not stupid enough to bet on the share price dropping.
| asdff wrote:
| Once auto manufacturers spool up EV production and buyers
| start buying more EVs, companies like tesla are just screwed.
| So screwed. They kick started a trend but I don't think they
| are in a position to hold their market share for very long.
|
| A company like Ford has manufacturing facilities around the
| globe. Tesla makes their cars in a tent, and Rivian is
| delaying their first order until 2023 despite securing all
| this funding. Manufacturing is a huge challenge, probably a
| harder problem to solve than actually designing the EV. To
| even get the manufacturing capacity that ford has today would
| cost these companies probably an order of magnitude if not
| more than what Ford paid to build out this capacity decades
| ago, given the increases in costs of land, labor, and
| construction globally over those decades.
|
| Best case would be for Tesla or Rivian to lease manufacturing
| space from an automaker, at which point they always lose out
| in a price war vs a company that owns their own manufacturing
| space and doesn't have to lease it from a competitor.
| poniko wrote:
| It's amazing they are almost at the same market value as the
| makers of Porsche ...
|
| And that company also happens to do millions of VW, Audi,
| Skoda, Cupra, Seat, Lamborghini, Ducati, Bently and now own a
| chunk of the new Bugatti/Rimac
|
| I'm having a hard time grasping the valuation..
| nrb wrote:
| Hard to read it as anything other than epic FOMO on the next
| Tesla.
| bigyellow wrote:
| Yeah! You go and tell that global market what the true
| valuation is! I'm sure they will listen to the reasonable,
| diligent analysis put forth and adjust accordingly!
| newaccount74 wrote:
| The only explanation for this valuation is that Rivian is pretty
| much exactly what people wanted in a Tesla pickup.
|
| Rivian managed to build a car that people actually want. Their
| car is a really great pickup truck with all the stuff that people
| want in a utility vehicle (flexible storage space! air
| compressor! power outlets! easy to build out!)
|
| And the Rivian looks close enough to a normal pickup that people
| aren't going to feel stupid driving them.
|
| Nobody who wants a work / camping / towing truck is going to buy
| a Cybertruck. A cybertuck is a car for programmers who make too
| much money and want to feel like Robocop.
|
| I think Rivians high valuation just shows that they managed to
| nail a market segment that Tesla floundered.
| hourislate wrote:
| "The only explanation for this valuation is that"
|
| There is an abundance of cheap money courtesy of the FED that
| is finding it's way into the market. It isn't Joe6pack buying
| Rivian.
|
| "Rivian managed to build a car that people actually want."
|
| Didn't FORD do this with the F150? I don't know of one
| contractor that is going to buy a Rivian. Most drive beat up
| F250's/RAM 2500/etc.
|
| "I think Rivians high valuation just shows that they managed to
| nail a market segment that Tesla floundered."
|
| >as of Sept. 30, it had roughly 48,390 orders for its truck and
| S.U.V. in the United States and Canada from customers who each
| had paid a refundable deposit of $1,000.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/business/rivian-ipo.html
|
| Here are Fords numbers.
|
| https://fordauthority.com/fmc/ford-motor-company-sales-numbe...
|
| So far this year approx 500k F150's and that's during a chip
| shortage.
|
| Anyway, I hope they're successful but there is a lot of future
| growth and profit priced in and time will tell.
| notatoad wrote:
| >I don't know of one contractor that is going to buy a
| Rivian. Most drive beat up F250's/RAM 2500/etc.
|
| the vast majority of trucks are not owned by people using
| them for work. Rivian seems to have completely ignored the
| pro market, which is exactly how the pro market seems to be
| treating the F150. At the moment, electric trucks are still
| toys for rich people, and Rivian is leaning into that.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| The real explanation for this evaluation is that the investor
| class has decided to offer stock on the public market only in a
| way that there is basically almost no upside potential left for
| the retail investor, only downside. This is basically an
| attempt to make cash while transferring most of the risk to
| retail investors.
|
| I am 100% convinced that this will end like the .COM bubble.
| primitivesuave wrote:
| This is exactly why I canceled my Cybertruck reservation for an
| R1T. Tesla was the only company offering a realistic path
| toward an electric outdoor vehicle, but I immediately canceled
| when I read about the R1T because it is actually seems to be
| designed with outdoor users in mind, while still being
| functional as a daily vehicle.
|
| Their customer service is also pretty stellar - they even gave
| me the dimensions of the truck bed ahead of time, so I can
| build out a camper top in CAD and have it ready before my
| upcoming delivery.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Personally the Cybertruck seems to fit my needs a lot better
| for hauling large objects due to the larger truck bed size.
|
| We'll see how Rivian does once they actually ship something,
| I have nothing to go on with them.
|
| For Tesla I know the software, charging networks, and current
| tech is pretty stellar. No clue about Rivian.
| desmondmonster wrote:
| > A cybertuck is a car for programmers who make too much money
| and want to feel like Robocop.
|
| And Rivian trucks are for folks who want to feel like
| Bomberman.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| Ive run into two people this week with deposits on cyber
| trucks. I don't meet many people!
| jclardy wrote:
| Yeah I agree, I feel the Cybertruck design was primarily to get
| their cost down to $39k (Which with the pricing of the M3 now
| starting at $45k, there is no way the CT will hit that.) But
| what people really want is just a normal truck, but electric.
| That is why Tesla is at the top of the electric car market,
| nobody was making a "normal" looking electric car. Both Ford
| and Rivian took up that segment for pickup trucks, so it'll be
| interesting to see how this affects Tesla.
| ssharp wrote:
| I am pretty certain to replace my 25 year old Chevy 2500 with
| an electric truck over the next few years and am not really
| even considering the Rivian. The small bed is not really
| appealing at all compared to the F150 and it's not that
| interesting compared to the Cybertruck.
|
| I'm pretty skeptical that Tesla can pull off the Cybertruck for
| the prices they initially announced, but if they do, that's
| going to be a big advantage.
|
| Their SUV does look pretty interesting though. The Model Y is
| too small for what a lot of families now expect from an SUV and
| the Model X is very expensive.
| CarVac wrote:
| The Rivian is _not_ a work pickup though, it has a tiny bed.
| el_benhameen wrote:
| I think it's worth keeping in mind that a large number
| (perhaps a majority?) of people buying high-end "work trucks"
| use little to none of the work capacity of those trucks.
| mastazi wrote:
| Doesn't that prove parent's point though? Effectively those
| aren't work trucks. Because of this widespread trend, most
| new models have dual cab and it is now hard to find "real"
| work trucks so the old, 2-seats-only models are highly
| sought after in the used market, at least based on what my
| farmer friends tell me
| asdff wrote:
| They still want it to fit the two by four they buy once
| every four years
| jackorange wrote:
| I've seen smaller trucks at work. The bed size doesnt matter
| as much as towing capacity.
| chaostheory wrote:
| > A cybertuck is a car for programmers who make too much money
| and want to feel like Robocop.
|
| I thought the cartels and war lords were the target market?
| protastus wrote:
| I think the valuation is driven by the delivery vans rather
| than the R1T.
|
| The world desperately needs electric delivery vans. Rivian
| already has Amazon as a customer and as an investor. That's an
| outstanding combination.
|
| The R1T is a super heavy, niche pickup truck for wealthy
| American households (DINK?) who like camping in style. It's not
| a truck for the industry, and it will not come close to the
| F150 in utility.
|
| I totally agree the Cybertruck is a design from a comic book
| and I have no idea how it would pass pedestrian safety
| regulations. But the Cybertruck being a bizarre vehicle doesn't
| imply there's a big market for the R1T.
| gopalv wrote:
| > Rivian looks close enough to a normal pickup that people
| aren't going to feel stupid driving them
|
| Someone said that the R1T looks both 50 years old and from the
| future at the same time & that is emphasized every time I see
| one on the road.
|
| From my close group, the biggest interest in it has come from
| ski-heads for a zero maintenance Aspen/Tahoe car that will be
| ready to run when they head in & the bed is big enough for most
| snow gear (does the gear tunnel fit a short ski?).
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I feel like F150 lightning will be more popular due to name
| recognition. Ford has gotten some pretty solid reviews on their
| electric cars.
| imilk wrote:
| I would get a Lightning if it came in a 2 door option. I know
| they didn't offer one to streamline the build process, but it
| shorter cars have their benefits when you live in/near a
| city.
| asdff wrote:
| They will probably sell a ranger EV in the near future
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I know it will never happen, but I would love an electric
| Ranger _if it were the 2011 size_.
| zrail wrote:
| An EV Maverick would be excellent, despite the short bed.
| alexose wrote:
| It may not have the modern amenities you're looking for
| (nor the range), but:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV
| jsight wrote:
| Also due to the fact that the F150 Lightning is in the most
| popular form factor. America's truck market really likes
| larger trucks.
| bink wrote:
| I have high hopes for the electric F150. But we're still
| talking about a traditional automaker here. They always find
| a way to screw things up when it comes to EVs.
| beervirus wrote:
| Tesla, on the other hand, screws things up in novel and
| exciting ways.
| waiseristy wrote:
| I would buy a car from a traditional automaker every single
| time when given the option between the two.
|
| I'm really excited to see how Rivian, Canoo, Lucid, and the
| like handle thousands of vehicles being reworked from their
| first year or so of shoddy production.
| jsight wrote:
| IDK, the Mach E was their first effort and is actually
| doing really well. I would expect their second product to
| be even better.
| dgudkov wrote:
| At least we know how Ford can screw things. With Rivian we
| don't know even that. Yet, Rivian's valuation is higher
| than Ford's capitalization despite many unknowns and far
| far smaller production rate.
| gibolt wrote:
| The screw up will be scale. Securing enough batteries and
| producing them in volume is not something they have
| (publicly) announced.
|
| Making 50k a year would barely dent their annual truck
| sales of 1mil.
| cptskippy wrote:
| I've always felt like the Cybertruck was just a gimmick and
| never intended to sell massively like the 3 or Y. It's up there
| with the eHummer in my mind.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| I feel like the Cybertruck is for the same folks that drove
| Hummer H2's back in the early-2000s, the "look at me" crowd.
| Elon is going after the "coal rolling" market. LOL
| ricardou wrote:
| It's crazy to me that such a large valuation was obtained by
| Rivian. I suppose having the backing of Amazon signals a certain
| level of success.
|
| Looking forward to seeing more good-looking EVs enter the market,
| yet I'm hesitant due to the challenges they'll face ahead
| (charging, manufacturing, etc.)
| josefresco wrote:
| > backing of Amazon
|
| and Ford
| pengaru wrote:
| > I suppose having the backing of Amazon signals a certain
| level of success.
|
| Blue Origin seems like a bit of a pathetic failure though.
| gremloni wrote:
| Nonsense, in my opinion theatre doing very well for a later
| player on the stage. Compare this to rocketlabs or anyone
| else in the market and blue origin is already providing ARR
| generating services.
| dzader wrote:
| "a later player on the stage" - they were founded before
| SpaceX
| trhway wrote:
| Calling private space company with a working rocket engine a
| failure is great sign of how far we've progressed in the last
| 2 decades.
|
| Jeff just doesn't have the drive and in no rush, to him it is
| just a toy business, not a civilization advancing endeavor,
| so he is fine dealing with bridge-to-nowhere
| Boeing/Lockheed/etc.
| greedo wrote:
| That's literally the opposite of how Bezos has described
| the role of BO. He's said that BO is his most important
| work, more important than Amazon. The only reason he's
| dealing with the incumbents is because he's hired from
| them, and inherited their mgmt structure/methodology.
|
| And how many of these "working rocket engines" has he
| shipped? Bueller?
| trhway wrote:
| why shipped? He flew his engines himself.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Has Amazon actually done anything to back or signal their
| favor towards BO? IIRC, Kuiper is actually planning on using
| other launch providers
| greedo wrote:
| That's because they have no choice if they want to launch
| before Starlink has dominated the market. New Glenn is
| sooooo far behind schedule.
| mataug wrote:
| Blue is run by Jeff directly, and has multiple internal
| cultural problems similar to Amazon, along with the fact that
| they just don't have the rocket tech that SpaceX has
|
| Amazon is just an investor in Rivian, and I think based on
| how well the rivian prototypes held up in the show "long way
| up", they have a great shot at competing with Ford F150
| lightning and the Tesla CyberTruck
| pengaru wrote:
| > based on how well the rivian prototypes held up in the
| show "long way up"
|
| You came away from that with a positive impression of the
| Rivians?
|
| I guess we can say at least they didn't burst into
| flames...
|
| But they did break, and one particular occasion stands out
| in my mind involving some inexplicably vulnerable low-
| hanging hydraulic reservoir striking a rock. For _a_
| _truck_ it seemed like a pretty stupid red-flag design
| choice.
| skrtskrt wrote:
| That sounds like a fixable problem that's not the core
| technology. Major legacy car makers have made mistakes
| thousands of times more stupid and dangerous.
| greedo wrote:
| That show made me swear off any Rivian in the future.
| They had the chance to cement themselves as cool
| pioneers, but looked like a jumbled mess that wasn't
| ready for primetime.
| caseyf7 wrote:
| That was filmed over 2 years ago with prototype vehicles.
| Hard to expect the trucks didn't get incredibly better
| from the experience.
| Animats wrote:
| Meanwhile, first vehicle shipments slipped from summer 2021 to
| spring 2022.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Am I the only one thinking that the Rivian truck
| headlights/front grill is one of the most unappealing things I
| have ever seen on a vehicle?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| It's a matter of taste. Some people like the Tesla frog face,
| some like Rivian. Rivian looks okay.
| caseyf7 wrote:
| No, but they are like the iPhone notch. After you see them a
| few times, it won't look strange.
| imilk wrote:
| The cutout on the screen still looks out of place to me.
| ProAm wrote:
| Telsa's time frames are never accurate either.
| Animats wrote:
| The point is that they went public before shipping a product.
| ProAm wrote:
| I mean does that even matter anymore? We have company go
| public that are still losing billions of dollars a year and
| nowhere near being profitable. I do see your point but I
| think the world is way past caring about foundational
| basics anymore.
| cateye wrote:
| 314 miles range to "experience nature" feels very problematic.
|
| I immediately had to think about the movie "Into the wild".
| mataug wrote:
| Yea ~300 miles isn't that much, especially since the range
| drops while driving uphill.
|
| I believe they are planning a charging network at popular
| trails and remote locations. This seems like its gonna take
| atleast 5yrs if not more to become reliable enough to not have
| range anxiety.
| greedo wrote:
| Range drops while driving uphill, when in cold weather, and
| when using juice for heating. Winter driving is one of the
| unspoken issues with EVs.
| bink wrote:
| By the same token it recharges when going downhill.
| baq wrote:
| TBH my diesel VW bus also has ~25% less range in the winter
| (especially when doing mostly short trips) and burns fuel
| like there's no tomorrow when driving uphill.
| greedo wrote:
| But you can refuel it in minutes, and easily carry extra
| diesel in jerrycans.
| boringg wrote:
| Rivian investors who bought in todays price are going to smoked
| by a truck in the not too distant future. I love what Rivian (&
| Tesla) are doing but these P/E ratios are from another planet and
| are feeding off the hype train.
|
| Unless the world internalizes that P/E ratios have now
| permanently been reset at crazy high valuations it is not
| sustainable price wise.
|
| With this valuation - the amount of execution risk and market
| penetration risk is formidable.
| asdff wrote:
| Robinhood literally pushed me a notification that their ipo was
| available. Never even looked up the company on the app or heard
| of it really before that notification. Smells like a pump,
| waiting for the dump now.
| yaitsyaboi wrote:
| You sure they didn't push the notifications because it's the
| biggest stock news today?
| asdff wrote:
| They never push me other messages just for these meme stock
| IPOs I've never heard of.
| arthur_sav wrote:
| I'd imagine that this is how 1999 felt like.
|
| Blind optimism, gurus promising the future and companies with
| bogus valuations that haven't made a single dime yet.
|
| I'm gonna grab my pop corn.
| DavidKarlas wrote:
| I read "pop corn" as "dot com" :P
| johnebgd wrote:
| The fed wasn't buying junk bonds in 1999 to keep failing
| companies afloat. There wasn't an overvaluation of everything
| from real estate to NFT's. The decade before hadn't seen QE
| used to help bail out the rich. There wasn't stagflation
| happening. The worlds most powerful country wasn't deeply
| divided on every major issue. China wasn't sending fighter jets
| to Taiwan and their leader wasn't giving speeches about
| retaking that land while the USA conducted war games admitting
| it couldn't stop them.
|
| The tech bubble of 1999 is looking pretty good by comparison.
| [deleted]
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Maybe it's just my location (Europe), but I have never heard of
| Rivian. Not even once. The guys I work with are car enthusiasts,
| and I've never even heard them mention that name.
| bkovacev wrote:
| I'm also in Europe, in a small Eastern European country and we
| definitely heard of them. My inner circle also heard of them -
| maybe you guys are just way into V8 or 3.0L V6 :) ?
| m4rtink wrote:
| I'm from Europe and I sure did - its from the same country
| Geralt comes from!
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| They should do a Geralt driving a Rivian to slay some
| monsters ad.
| Slartie wrote:
| I'm from Europe as well, and I've seen them prominently
| featured last year in the documentary series "Long Way Up" on
| Apple TV+. Nice series btw, if you like beautiful scenery.
| beberlei wrote:
| its extremely "new", they only shipped a few cars yet. This
| video here is one of the first external reviews, i watched that
| to get an idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpBMld6U9B0
| Brendinooo wrote:
| I'm in the US and I haven't heard of them.
| ardit33 wrote:
| They are american, and their are playing to the truck/suv
| market, which is more USA thing.
|
| I have seen their truck and SUV in person (NY auto-show), and
| it is indeed very nice inside. Feels like a Luxury Jeep done
| right, appart their front headlights, which are weirdly too
| close to each other (the only detail i really disliked).
|
| Everything else is on point and feels almost Audi like quality.
| asdff wrote:
| Hasn't sold a car yet and worth as much as Ford.
| sesuximo wrote:
| The funny thing is Ford owns a chunk of them. Yet Ford stock
| went down today.
|
| (Also to be fair they've sold a handful of cars...)
| qqtt wrote:
| Lots of talk about balking at this valuation, and that is
| probably a reasonable reaction, but as others have said, I want
| to point out that companies are valued based on their future and
| projected growth, not how much they are worth today.
|
| Much has been made about Tesla being worth more than all other
| automakers combined, but let's look at the growth.
|
| Tesla Q3 Revenue: 13.76B, Year over year growth: 56%
|
| Tesla Q3 Net Income: 1.6B, Year over year growth: 388%
|
| GM Q3 Revenue: 26.78B, Year over year growth: -24%
|
| GM Q3 Net Income: 2.42B, Year over year growth: -40%
|
| Tesla is growing like bonkers, wildly more profitable, and has a
| much brighter future than GM given these trajectories. It's
| almost like either GM is severely overvalued at 90B market cap or
| Tesla is undervalued at 1T.
|
| Tesla has also proven that traditional automakers really struggle
| to keep up with the electric car race - from software to supply
| chain. Rivian, like Tesla, is built top to bottom to play in this
| market, with the added backing of Amazon and products tailor made
| for enterprise scale needs that companies like Amazon need.
|
| Of course Rivian is a risky investment today - their stock is
| priced for perfection. We saw what happened last quarter when
| stocks priced for perfection fall short (take a look at
| Snapchat). But plenty of these arguments "Rivian is only selling
| 1000 cars!" also applied to Tesla about 10 years ago.
|
| A business is valued based on its future prospects. Growth
| companies are risky.
|
| Edit to add Ford numbers:
|
| Ford Q3 Revenue: 35.68B , Year over year growth: -4%
|
| Ford Q3 Net income: 1.8B, Year over year growth: -23%
|
| Also want to point out - all automakers are operating in the same
| pandemic - Ford, GM, and Tesla are all dealing with supply chain
| issues and chip shortages.
| maxerickson wrote:
| What year will Earth be fully converted to a giant ball of
| Tesla vehicles?
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| If Tesla sells this year 800,000 units of 2 tons each, and
| keep up 388% growth every year, then according to my
| calculations they will have depleted earths crust in a little
| over 19 years.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| That's why there's SpaceX to mine asteroids! /s
|
| By year 8, they'd be selling 2 cars per person on the
| planet - so any extrapolating that this growth rate can
| continue for even 4 years - must think we've reached the
| singularity and will soon be living in an alien world.
|
| For context, by year 19, they'd be selling ~39M cars per
| person...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Tesla is growing like bonkers, wildly more profitable, and
| has a much brighter future than GM given these trajectories.
|
| This seems to assume that the pandemic economic situation is
| permanent.
|
| I think also it doesn't really explain Ford vs Tesla.
| tw04 wrote:
| >Tesla has also proven that traditional automakers really
| struggle to keep up with the electric car race - from software
| to supply chain.
|
| Hardly, Tesla has proven that they were right betting on
| electric being the future. SuperCruise by most accounts is
| ahead of "FSD" in real-world driving. GM has pivoted in less
| than 5 years to what it took Tesla 18 years to build.
|
| 5 years from now we can have a conversation about whether
| GM/Ford/Stellantis can compete or not. Saying that Tesla has
| some unsurmountable lead when the big 3 have literally just
| started releasing their first round of EVs is silly. Having
| test driven a Mach-E and a Model-Y, I would wager the non-tesla
| fanboy will choose the Mach-E every time. Nicer interior,
| similar enough performance, and a manufacturer that has a
| history of actually having parts to fix cars when something
| breaks. The horror stories of cars sitting for months waiting
| on basic parts from Tesla is enough to make me think twice
| about ever owning one.
| andreilys wrote:
| _SuperCruise by most accounts is ahead of "FSD" in real-world
| driving._
|
| Source? SuperCruise is geofenced to highways, so it can't
| even drive in areas that FSD can so I'm not sure this is the
| right comparison.
| ajross wrote:
| Yeah, this is a meme that circulates in the $TSLAQ world,
| often appearing alongside shrieks of "Panel Gaps!". There
| really isn't a source, Super Cruise just isn't very
| available in public yet (just a tiny handful of cars have
| it, with probably less than 20k users).
|
| The core of the point is generally that Tesla AP is
| deployed as a hands-on solution, requiring regular steering
| wheel input (just twisting the wheel a bit), where GM ships
| this in cars with cameras pointed at the driver (Tesla has
| them too now, though the wheel nags still exist) that take
| the entire monitoring load. That makes it "hands free", and
| therefore better. This is often combined with a conflation
| of "hands free" with SAE L3 Autonomy (which isn't correct)
| to try to emphasize the point, skipping the fact that the
| hands-free areas are limited just just a few hand-vetted
| highways. All Tesla would need to do to compete with that
| feature would be to implement the same geofencing,
| basically. But that's not where they're aiming.
|
| I mean, in the real world, AP is pretty amazing and SC is
| mostly vaporware. My car took me 429 miles last Thursday
| and the only input required beyond wheel nags was some
| editorial differences I had with it about proper lane
| selection (and even then, I was only right about 60% of the
| time).
| mellavora wrote:
| what areas can FSD drive in?
| beambot wrote:
| Apples don't have orange skin.
| leesec wrote:
| I don't even have the FSD beta but my autopilot can turn
| on anywhere there's lane lines basically.
| psadri wrote:
| Not sure if it will play out the same way but I remember the
| arrival of the iPhone. Lots of people defended Nokia and RIM
| (Blackberry) and a few years later they were completely
| decimated.
|
| I'd be curious why or why not it would play out the same way.
| underwater wrote:
| Apple took a commodity item and built network effects
| (iMessage) and lock in (the app store is both a moat and a
| ball and chain keeping people inside the Apple ecosystem).
| Tesla don't have the equivalent.
| TheSocialAndrew wrote:
| The Tesla Superchargers network is the network effect.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| It's never a single winner in the market. Sure, Tesla may be
| superior in some regards(battery tech, better motors) that
| are critical to an EV, but other car makers bring something
| else to the table while being reasonably close on range. I
| for one don't like the Tesla "All in a single touch screen"
| interface. Neither do I want my car to constantly update its
| firmware automatically(chasing a wild auto driving fantasy
| and SV dreams). I just want my car as an effective tool and
| be open. I'd love to use CarPlay like on other cars... Tesla?
|
| Not to say that other car makers are perfect. Competition is
| always good for the consumer.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > I'd love to use CarPlay like on other cars... Tesla?
|
| Wow, I didn't know Tesla didn't support CarPlay. That +
| Android Auto seems like table stakes in a 2021 luxury (or
| even mid-range) sedan.
| rajup wrote:
| Having driven a Polestar 2 (by Volvo) and a tesla I have to
| agree. The Polestar was miles (heh) ahead in terms of build
| quality, interior and polish. The only reason I did not buy
| the Polestar outright is their still low range. I see that
| gap closing very quick in the next 3-5 years.
| la6471 wrote:
| You should drive Lucid Air
| lrem wrote:
| That's hypothetical though. If I needed to replace my car
| with an electric today, the only game in town is Tesla and
| even that would be a painful slowdown for my semi-regular
| roadtrip (13h according to Google Maps + 2h40m of charging
| according to Tesla's trip planner).
|
| BTW: That trip planner is showing me some serious money
| savings on fuel... Ah, that's because they assume that
| charging costs $0/kWh and fuel costs $4/l ($15 per gallon).
| martythemaniak wrote:
| First, you mean Autopilot vs SuperCruise. FSD is only
| available to a few thousand people in a closed beta and it
| can do things (drive around a city, or parking lot) that SC
| cannot attempt (it is geofenced to highways)
|
| Second, legacy OEMs have been releasing their "first EV" for
| 5 years now. The Bolt beat the Model 3 to market and was
| hailed (as all these were) as Tesla Killer. Sounds funny
| today, but people took it seriously in 2017. After that it
| was supposed to be the eTron, the new Leaf, the EQC, Taycan,
| ID3 etc etc. Ford is physically incapable of making more than
| 50k MachE-s this year, meanwhile Tesla makes 220K 3+Y per
| quarter.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| > meanwhile Tesla makes 220K 3+Y per quarter.
|
| Ford sells and delivers about 900,000 F-150s a year.
| thinkmassive wrote:
| FSD is widely available
|
| "If you have not already purchased FSD capability and your
| vehicle has FSD computer 3.0 or above, you can subscribe to
| FSD capability from the Tesla app or your Tesla Account."
|
| https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-
| subscription...
| varjag wrote:
| Mach-E is a substantially larger car than a Y, you need to
| compare to S.
| tw04 wrote:
| >First, you mean Autopilot vs SuperCruise. FSD is only
| available to a few thousand people in a closed beta and it
| can do things (drive around a city, or parking lot) that SC
| cannot attempt (it is geofenced to highways)
|
| No, I don't mean autopilot, I mean FSD vs. SuperCruise on
| the highway.
|
| >Second, legacy OEMs have been releasing their "first EV"
| for 5 years now. The Bolt beat the Model 3 to market and
| was hailed (as all these were) as Tesla Killer. Sounds
| funny today, but people took it seriously in 2017. After
| that it was supposed to be the eTron, the new Leaf, the
| EQC, Taycan, ID3 etc etc. Ford is physically incapable of
| making more than 50k MachE-s this year, meanwhile Tesla
| makes 220K 3+Y per quarter.
|
| I don't follow your point. Tesla started 18 years ago, the
| major automakers started 5 years ago and are already
| producing comparable vehicles. Your argument is: they
| haven't switched the entirety of their production from ICE
| to Electric and that's somehow going to mean they won't be
| able to eventually surpass Tesla?
|
| I have faith that GM or Ford can ramp up production of EVs
| far, far faster than Tesla can figure out quality control
| and how to build an interior that's something other than
| spartan.
|
| When is the last time GM did something like just remove
| automatic passenger seat adjustment from a car without
| telling anyone? That's just busch league.
| csmeder wrote:
| Bookmarking for Nov 2026 -- my prediction: GM and Ford go the
| same way as Volvo (sold to another manufacture) or have gone
| bankrupt and sold just for the name.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| Have you driven an electric made my GM?
| mikestew wrote:
| Why do you ask? Because your comment sounds like it's
| setting up for an episode of Mr. Gotcha.
| samstave wrote:
| What if instead of looking at company performance or stock
| value - we actually look at the VALUE That top execs in a
| company actually provide?
|
| What dept is that DIRECTOR of a company in charge of and how
| did they actually perform.... etc...
| jsight wrote:
| > Hardly, Tesla has proven that they were right betting on
| electric being the future. SuperCruise by most accounts is
| ahead of "FSD" in real-world driving. GM has pivoted in less
| than 5 years to what it took Tesla 18 years to build.
|
| I let AP with Auto lane change run with confirmationless on
| during a busy time at night going around I-495 and it handled
| it flawlessly.
|
| Supercruise literally doesn't even have the features required
| to do that. This wasn't some beta, this is the thing that's
| been shipping for a few years now.
|
| Supercruise has one little trick of letting you be handsfree,
| but that is its only advantage.
| samstave wrote:
| >>>Tesla has proven that they were right betting on electric
| being the future.
|
| This should be the premise to literally take every single oil
| executive to task.
|
| ---
|
| I have a close family friend who is effectively an oil tycoon
| for shell oil. one of the worst companies on the planet.
|
| They shared over dinner at a really nice restauarant in
| Silicon Valley, pics of them hunting 'big game' in africa and
| the typical pics of 'here is the kill i had while on 'safari'
| in africa'
|
| yeah if you work in big oil, go fuck yourself.
| fourseventy wrote:
| chill out dude
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Since Tesla is now the elephant in the room - it's possible
| Tesla is distorting the entire auto industry.
|
| Tesla was one of the 5 largest companies in the world -
| something an auto manufacturer hasn't been in almost 50 years.
|
| Tesla had BY FAR the highest P/E ratio for any company of that
| market cap (as a percentage of global wealth) in history.
|
| Tesla's revenue growth is not much bigger than Alphabet's or
| Apple's - and these are companies with orders of magnitude more
| revenue and profit.
|
| For the last 50-ish years - outside of a few small companies
| (Ferrari, etc) - auto manufacturing has been a pretty terrible
| business.
|
| Tesla people keep trying to say that Tesla is really an
| infrastructure play or an Internet company or a services
| companies or even a space company - but... currently it's not.
| And even if it became any of those things - even at it's
| current growth rate - its P/E to growth rate is still
| unbelievably high.
|
| I don't really care if GM and Ford and Rivian are now
| overvalued - and compared to them Tesla is undervalued. Auto
| manufacturing is not suddenly going to become the most
| profitable business in the world. People aren't going to
| suddenly start paying more for cars than housing. People aren't
| going to suddenly own 30 cars a piece. Tesla is never going to
| grow enough to be worth it's current market cap. But the market
| can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent - and I
| wouldn't take a bet that Tesla crashes if my life depended on
| it.
| enchiridion wrote:
| Tesla is not saying that it is a space or internet company,
| that is SpaceX.
| runako wrote:
| > Tesla's revenue growth is not much bigger than Alphabet's
| or Apple's - and these are companies with orders of magnitude
| more revenue and profit.
|
| I'm not that big of a Tesla bull, but you have to remember
| that stocks trade on forward expectations. The trillion $+
| market cap companies basically have saturated their primary
| markets. Microsoft is not likely to find another billion
| desktop PCs onto which to sell a US-priced Windows/Office
| suite anytime soon. By contrast, if you buy the Tesla story,
| they are really just getting started.
|
| > Auto manufacturing is not suddenly going to become the most
| profitable business in the world.
|
| I tend to agree with this. However, it's worth noting that
| Tesla's margin profile is significantly different than all
| legacy automakers. Their gross margin is ~30%, which is
| within striking distance of AMD's. And Tesla is still sub-
| scale for the auto industry. EVs are a different beast than
| traditional ICE vehicles, so margins will initially be better
| on EVs for all EV manufacturers.
| danans wrote:
| > EVs are a different beast than traditional ICE vehicles,
| so margins will initially be better on EVs for all EV
| manufacturers.
|
| Please explain. This runs counter to the common
| understanding that unless a manufacturer scales up their
| battery production significantly, their profit margins on
| EVs are lower due to the high cost of the batteries. The
| California compliance EVs were sold at a per-unit loss.
| Tesla shook this up by targeting and marketing to the
| luxury market, where they could charge a premium.
|
| Many smaller scale non-luxury manufacturers have pretty
| lackluster EV offerings (looking at you, Subaru).
| Animats wrote:
| _Margins will initially be better on EVs for all EV
| manufacturers._
|
| Right now, where there's an electric and a gasoline
| powered version of a comparable model, the electric
| version seems to cost about US$10K more. See Ford F-150,
| Chevy Bolt, BMW iX.
|
| That needs to stop.
| runako wrote:
| > the electric version seems to cost about US$10K more
|
| Disagree. F-150 Lightning XLT is ~$5k more than the ICE
| equivalent, which means it costs less after the tax
| credit. (I'm not sure the baseline model is the same as
| the baseline ICE F-150.)
|
| The Bolt and iX are essentially compliance/concept
| vehicles that don't have ICE editions, so you can't say
| they cost more than their comparable models. Once those
| two get real EV strategies, we will be able to make
| direct comparisons between e.g. the Chevy Tahoe and the
| Chevy Tahoe EV.
| nwienert wrote:
| They are consistently 10k more, see the id.4 or Mach E
| for better comparisons.
| runako wrote:
| Neither of those have ICE versions (and did not have ICE
| versions in any recent years), so you can make up any
| number and say the EV versions are $X more expensive.
|
| There may be some premium, but arguably some of that is
| the manufacturers targeting a consumer price net of tax
| subsidy ($7,500+).
| runako wrote:
| EVs have fewer parts overall, and therefore should
| require fewer manufacturing hours, among other
| efficiencies. But more straightforwardly, look at Tesla's
| margins as an object proof. Their gross margin is 50%
| higher than Toyota's, and Tesla is still sub-scale for an
| auto manufacturer. I would expect any EVs shipped in any
| meaningful volume to realize similar margin gains versus
| ICE vehicles.
|
| > The California compliance EVs were sold at a per-unit
| loss.
|
| Those cars were never intended to be a real line of
| business. My measure of when a legacy automaker decides
| to make a "real" EV is when they attach their existing
| brand equity to an EV. The Chevy Bolt fails this test, as
| do the BMW EVs. I think this distinction is important
| because automakers have the capability to sell vehicles
| that they do not intend to be part of their strategy or
| scale to meet demand. The California compliance EVs also
| obviously fail this test.
|
| The Ford F-150 Lightning is a real EV, as is the Mustang
| Mach-E and the Volvo XC40. I don't believe Subaru has
| even announced a real EV yet, as the Solterra does not
| count. We will know Subaru is serious when they deliver
| an Impreza EV; until then, I consider all their EV
| offerings as compliance vehicles.
| manquer wrote:
| MS valuation to some extent is basis their ability to sell
| more Azure. Cloud is still growing very very fast.
|
| It is also noteworthy that MS is getting good growth in
| Windows license revenues too as they have opened up a
| subscription model, lot piracy in the consumer/SMB markets
| have reduced especially in developing economies. They are
| not getting billion new users, but a lot of newly paying
| users with consistent recurring subscription revenue stream
| they are now generating .
| mbesto wrote:
| > Microsoft is not likely to find another billion desktop
| PCs onto which to sell a US-priced Windows/Office suite
| anytime soon.
|
| Microsoft is _already_ heavily diversified. Big difference.
| runako wrote:
| Not material since they have saturated there initial
| markets, per the narrative. But sub in Apple of you
| prefer.
| ahahahahah wrote:
| > but you have to remember that stock trade on forward
| expectations.
|
| Great insight, except that you are just repeating the start
| of the whole discussion, literally from the first line of
| this thread:
|
| > I want to point out that companies are valued based on
| their future and projected growth, not how much they are
| worth today.
| runako wrote:
| What did you hope to add to the discussion with this
| comment?
| baq wrote:
| stocks like tesla trade on dealer gamma. fundamentals don't
| matter at all. if you're an investor, stay away. if you're
| a trader, go with the flow.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| > Microsoft is not likely to find another billion desktop
| PCs onto which to sell a US-priced Windows/Office suite
| anytime soon.
|
| Which is why Microsoft pivoted to additional revenue
| streams years ago. XBox, Azure, GitHub, SQL Server,
| LinkedIn, the Surface line, and more.
| runako wrote:
| What's great about this reply is that the pivot to (in
| particular) Azure is exactly what has changed the
| narrative and thereby driven the most recent growth in
| the stock.
| sithlord wrote:
| I know you touch on it, but what if all the other
| manufacturers start using proprietary tesla things, such as
| batteries or the (arguably vaporware) self-driving
| algorithms?
| jliptzin wrote:
| It's more than just cars though. Just one example (of many) -
| do you pay Ford extra money when you go on a road trip, or
| does that money go to Exxon, etc? In my Tesla when I go on a
| road trip, I am giving them more money to charge on the road.
|
| Also, when we switched from horses and carriages to
| automobiles, I'm sure being an auto manufacturer at that time
| was probably insanely profitable. Maybe not the most valuable
| kind of company in the world at the time (or maybe it was),
| but definitely up there. We're now in another transition from
| ICE to electric vehicles. There's going to be another period
| where EV manufacturing becomes extremely valuable as demand
| for EVs surges over the next couple decades. After that, as
| the EV market matures and the competitive landscape evens
| out, profits will come down again.
| random314 wrote:
| If Tesla can sell 4M cars at 10K profit every year, that's an
| annual profit of 40B dollars. 1T valuation will be justified.
|
| Right now they are projected to sell more than 1M cars in 12
| months.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| No - they'd still need to get their profit margin to be
| ~25% instead of ~10%.
|
| Tesla can definitely sell more vehicles OR increase margin
| - but it will be substantially more challenging to do both
| at the same time over a short horizon (10 years).
| LogonType10 wrote:
| >Right now they are projected to sell more than 1M cars in
| 12 months
|
| So after converting from Musk time to human time, this
| means it'll take 5 years?
| ascar wrote:
| Exactly this. While valueing companies on future growth makes
| sense, Tesla's current evaluation is bigger than the 10
| largest car manufacturers by market cap after combined [1].
| That kind of implies that people think Tesla alone will be as
| profitable as these other ten combined, which just seems like
| a totally crazy bet to take. Tesla would have to take over
| huge parts of their market share while keeping high margins
| on expensive cars. There isn't so much population that is
| able to spend 50k or 100k on a car.
|
| [1] https://companiesmarketcap.com/automakers/largest-
| automakers...
| bitcoinmoney wrote:
| But what if Tesla is the new BTC? It's price solely due to
| stock demand and not fundamentals anymore.
| pbourke wrote:
| > People aren't going to suddenly start paying more for cars
| than housing. People aren't going to suddenly own 30 cars a
| piece. Tesla is never going to grow enough to be worth it's
| current market cap.
|
| There are around 290M cars on the road in the US, of which
| 1.3M are electric. Over the next 20 years, the majority of
| those 290M will get replaced by an electric vehicle. One of
| the major drivers of this will be cost: it will just be
| significantly cheaper from a TCO perspective to drive
| electric.
|
| Electric is such a shift that traditional car purchasing
| forces like brand loyalty are disrupted, and there will be a
| land rush to claim new market share. Electric also presents
| heretofore prohibited avenues for vertical integration: Tesla
| wants to sell you the car, the home battery and the solar
| panels to go with it. Standard Oil was broken up for similar
| types of vertical integration.
|
| Electric will also present opportunities for ongoing service
| revenue (value-added services such as in-car infotainment)
| that automakers have tried for years to break into
| (unsuccessfully)
|
| If you're the early leader with a promising track record, as
| Tesla is, a 1T valuation is not surprising.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > Electric will also present opportunities for ongoing
| service revenue (value-added services such as in-car
| infotainment) that automakers have tried for years to break
| into (unsuccessfully)
|
| And thank God for that! It's bad enough that automakers are
| trying to put third-party repair shops out of business.
| LogonType10 wrote:
| >If you're the early leader with a promising track record
|
| I wouldn't trust Musk to take the Thanksgiving turkey out
| of the oven on time.
| tootie wrote:
| It's kinda shocking how poorly traditional auto manufacturers
| are failing at keeping pace with Tesla, but I think that's not
| going to last forever. Many have already committed to ending
| their production of gasoline vehicles in very short order.
|
| I think a good example to look at is how the hybrid market has
| shifted since the Prius. Toyota blew everyone out of the water
| for years, but sales have plummeted in recent years as
| competition has caught up. Rivian has even less of cushion
| since the electric F-150 is due to hit dealerships next year.
| nikanj wrote:
| Tesla sales process features up to 95% less slimy car
| salespeople. I'd pay a premium to not have to deal with the
| local Ford/GM/etc dealership, who are all about scamming me
| into overpriced financing deals.
|
| Traditional auto manufacturers need to bring the buying
| process to this century, but that would sour their existing
| sales pipeline. I believe this conondrum is called "local
| optimum"
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| >t scamming me into overpriced financing deals.
|
| Um, you are admitting that you can be scammed. If you don't
| understand loans, yes, you can be scammed. Don't admit
| that.
|
| The last new car I bought: I walked into the lot, said I
| want that one, and took the lowest interest loan for 48
| months. I didn't want a 72 month loan. I didn't want an
| extended warranty. I was done with the sales person in 15
| minutes, and done with the finance department in 45
| minutes.
|
| It's all in how you manage the situation. If you waffle and
| flake and can't decide, or don't understand loans or
| pointless "extras", then you're toast.
| thatswrong0 wrote:
| I just bought a car. I wanted to pay cash, and made it
| clear I would come back with the a cashier check the next
| day when my bank open. They said in order to "lock" the
| car in for me overnight, that I'd have to sign up for a
| loan (that I could just pay off immediately). It took a
| bunch of back and forth to make it clear I just wanted to
| pay cash and I'd be back tomorrow with a check. They
| finally relented and said ok we'll put a complimentary
| hold on the car and accepted the fact I was paying cash.
| Then of course after finalizing that they pushed a bunch
| of vastly overpriced maintenance programs and severely
| misrepresented the expected costs of said maintenance if
| I didn't purchase the plan. At least they had the
| courtesy to give me the time to quickly run the numbers
| in order to verify it was a terrible deal for me.
|
| The whole point is that buying a Tesla doesn't involve
| this pointless, anti-consumer, borderline lying, slimey
| process. People shouldn't have to worry about being
| scammed when making one of the largest purchases in their
| life. The traditional dealership model is terrible for
| your average consumer. Why on earth are you defending
| that?
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| You could have just said, have a nice day, and left.
|
| Were you that desperate for a car immediately?
|
| I'm not defending slimy car salespeople, but I'm not
| siding with your wishy-washy behavior.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| It is incredibly alarming to me that your message is
| "Don't let yourself get scammed" rather than "Yeah, car
| dealerships should stop trying to scam people."
| kgwgk wrote:
| Allegedly slimy Tesla has been scamming people into paying
| thousands of dollars for a useless FSD package for years.
|
| The coast-to-coast test drive of a fully self-driving Tesla
| is four years late and counting.
| bink wrote:
| When you go to buy a Tesla the online order form will ask
| if you want FSD. You click "no". That's the extent of it.
| They don't try to push it on you, convince you it's a
| good deal, or call you a sucker for saying "no". It's
| just an option like any other.
| kgwgk wrote:
| You're a sucker if you pass on this opportunity of making
| money!
|
| When true self-driving is approved by regulators, it will
| mean that you will be able to summon your Tesla from
| pretty much anywhere. Once it picks you up, you will be
| able to sleep, read or do anything else enroute to your
| destination. You will also be able to add your car to the
| Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla
| phone app and have it generate income for you while
| you're at work or on vacation, significantly offsetting
| and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or
| lease cost. This dramatically lowers the true cost of
| ownership to the point where almost anyone could own a
| Tesla. Since most cars are only in use by their owner for
| 5% to 10% of the day, the fundamental economic utility of
| a true self-driving car is likely to be several times
| that of a car which is not.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux
| jsight wrote:
| Yep, and most people don't buy it and recommend against
| it for others too.
|
| Base AP is really good on its own anyway.
| Amezarak wrote:
| As a regular consumer, I am not sure what advantage electric
| cars provide that I should be champing at the bit to get one.
| If I had to get a new car today I'd get a gasoline engine. I
| think the automakers see this and aren't worried about
| "keeping pace"; while I guess electric is probably the future
| for political and resource exhaustion reasons, it's not the
| immediate future.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Have you driven an electric car? They're a much better
| driving experience. Silent, instant acceleration, never
| have to waste time at the gas station.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I would go with hybrid, probably not even plugin one. Was
| cheap when I got my current car, which with my current use
| should last decade. I really doubt we will actually hit the
| goals politicians are currently setting.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Traditional automakers move in 10 year cycles largely due to
| safety, support, and the huge volumes they will incur. TSLA
| can't touch the volume of the top 3. Funny how people forget
| that. I believe the top 3 are letting TSLA spend all the
| money and make all mistakes working on the infrastructure
| before they swoop in and make EVs a commodity instead of a
| luxury product.
|
| TSLA absolutely deserves credit for making this happen, but
| like the namesake Nikolai Tesla did the hard work and Edison
| swooped in a took all the credit.
| reportingsjr wrote:
| > TSLA can't touch the volume of the top 3
|
| What an odd thing to say. They are at around 1 million
| cars/year versus Ford's 6 million/year, GM's 6-8
| million/year, and Chrysler's 2 million/year.
|
| So Tesla is in the same ballpark of volume as the US big 3
| already.
|
| Unless you mean the top 3 worldwide auto manufacturers
| Toyota, VW, and Hyundai, which aren't /that/ much higher in
| volume (10.4mio, 10.4mio, and 7.2mio respectively).
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| I think 7.2x-10.4x is the opposite of "not that much
| higher".
|
| That's the difference between making $100,000 a year or
| $720,000 a year (or $1,040,000 a year).
|
| Yeah, that's a big difference.
| jakeinspace wrote:
| The numbers for GM are explained by the chip shortage and other
| supply chain issues, which Tesla is weathering better. Assuming
| these are transitory issues, I don't think the growth gap
| between telsa and GM is quite as large as you're indicating.
| GDC7 wrote:
| > Lots of talk about balking at this valuation, and that is
| probably a reasonable reaction, but as others have said, I want
| to point out that companies are valued based on their future
| and projected growth, not how much they are worth today.
|
| This is something which should be expanded upon:
|
| Yes, people are behaving like that across the board, it is
| becoming a popularity contest...what matters is which company
| has the potential to achieve the biggest size, the biggest
| scope, the biggest footprint and nothing else.
|
| It's fueling valuations.
|
| BUT size, scope and footprint find their financial expression
| in REVENUES, not PROFITS.
|
| So if you are trading be mindful that people are falling in
| love with revenues and not even considering cost of goods sold
| or profits, but historically the profit metric is undefeated.
|
| We might as well be in a new paradigm, but all things
| considered it doesn't feel that bad to miss out on money
| because you missed a paradigm shift happening in the brains of
| millions of people who are not yourself.
| Joeri wrote:
| I don't understand why people think tesla will keep growing at
| this rate. To grow they'll need to sell more cars, and for that
| they will need to sell cars that cost a lot less, something
| they are not geared to do. Tesla is not apple, they're not good
| at making and maintaining products at low cost in massive
| volume, and they don't really seem to be getting better at it.
| So why again is it reasonable to assume they're going to keep
| growing like this for years to come?
| sbierwagen wrote:
| Notoriously, Tesla has raised the price of the Model 3 by 23%
| this year: https://insideevs.com/news/545712/us-tesla-
| model3y-prices-up...
|
| To hit their volume targets, either they'll need to cut
| prices again in the near future, or the price of all other
| cars in the market need to rise in lockstep.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| So, they raised the prices, massively expanded production,
| and still have insane backlog and you think it's a bad
| thing?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Yes. Because rising prices means that it's easier for
| their competitors to eventually overtake them. Having a
| backlog makes that even worse.
| pedalpete wrote:
| I'm sure I don't understand your logic. They raised
| prices which improves their margins. They can use that
| money to build more factories (which they are already
| building) and pay down debt, putting them in a stronger
| position.
|
| The backlog gets cleared by these new factories which can
| try to take up the excess demand.
|
| What competitor is overtaking them? My understanding is
| that you can get any electric car you want, except a
| Tesla. That means people aren't buying the competitors
| vehicles. The competitors don't have demand, Tesla does.
| https://insideevs.com/news/530606/us-ford-mache-sales-
| august...
| skrtskrt wrote:
| Without selling cheaper cars, Tesla could also:
|
| * Overcome their poor reputation for both interior & exterior
| quality. If the luxury car price starts coming with luxury
| car fit & finish they will widen their market
|
| * Overcome people's concerns about electric car range, by
| expanding charging networks, increasing charging speeds, or
| making cars with greater range.
| adventured wrote:
| The primary problem Tesla faces isn't whether they can sell
| a lot of vehicles or sell a lot of nice vehicles (who knows
| if they'll ever get around to improving the quality
| problems).
|
| It's that the global market for vehicles in the $30,000+
| range is not rapidly expanding. It's never going to be
| rapidly expand. Tesla is taking market share from other
| auto makers to do what they're doing right now. They have
| to kill a BMW to become a BMW.
|
| There's nothing particularly special about being an EV
| maker vs an ICE maker, when it comes to margins or total
| addressable market, such that they should be valued so
| differently. Tesla isn't going to magically produce $80
| billion in operating income on $200 billion in sales, that
| margin doesn't exist in the EV market.
|
| Tesla also isn't going to own the global auto market, which
| is what their present valuation suggests (it suggests they
| need to end up as equivalent to four Toyotas). If they're
| lucky they end up the size of one Toyota, that's just about
| the best case scenario. ~$30 billion in profit, if
| everything goes extraordinarily well for the next two
| decades.
|
| Why should anyone pay 30-40 times for future earnings that
| are so far away? Obviously it's nothing more than
| speculation on the part of some investors, betting that
| TSLA will just go higher yet, it has little to do with
| being rational about the long-term. The future best-case
| outcome is already very far over-priced into Tesla's stock.
| GDC7 wrote:
| > I don't understand why people think tesla will keep growing
| at this rate
|
| They are young and blinded by the optimism which the cult
| leader...ehm the CEO feeds them.
|
| If they studied history they'd know that even Microsoft, AKA
| the undefeated company in IT/SaaS (US Govt. defeated them but
| that's another story) had to surrender to the S-curve
| phenomenon.
|
| Most of the really big scope vision that Microsoft outlined
| in the 80s and 90s actually became true in the 2000s.
|
| The problem was that people were really in love with
| Microsoft's stock and everybody and their brother was betting
| that the vision would happen exactly as planned.
|
| The best case scenario at that point was that the stock would
| stay flat . And flat it stayed, and those who bought at the
| peak of the bubble blamed Ballmer.
|
| I can't imagine how would they react when the same happens to
| Tesla and the insults which would fly in Musk direction given
| that he has a history of not delivering , exxagerating and
| also his company is not exactly in IT/SaaS.
|
| He is now in Ballmer's position, but Steve delivered on what
| was promised in the 80s and 90s , nevertheless he was
| insulted and belittled.
|
| For Tesla to have a justified valuation of 1T you'd need it
| to be ubiquitous, literally not being able to turn your head
| without seeing a Tesla logo, as it happens with the legacy
| trillion dollar companies (the FAAMGs/MAAMGs/MAMAAs)
| rchowe wrote:
| The Model S was a significantly higher volume and lower cost
| car than the Roadster that came before it.
|
| The Model 3 was a significantly higher volume and lower cost
| car than the Model S that came before it.
|
| Eventually they hit a wall in terms of the cost of the raw
| materials and labor to build the battery and drive train, but
| I'm not convinced they are there yet.
|
| Also, TSLA could very well find a Tim Cook to Elon Musk's
| Steve Jobs: someone familiar with logistics to take over the
| vision and mass produce it.
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| I bought TSLA stock back when the Model S was announced. At
| that time, people didn't know if TSLA would be able to make
| it.
|
| Their market cap was less than $5 billion. There were less
| than 100 million shares outstanding. Buying some shares was
| a big risk - it was either going to 0 or going to the moon.
| But when you bought shares, you weren't super diluted. It
| seemed like a reasonable bet for a small amount of my
| portfolio.
|
| At >$100B market cap, I am having a hard time making that
| same value judgement on Rivian. Their factory has a
| capacity of 150,000 vehicles; they say it can be increased
| to 200,000 and in less than 10 years they can be running at
| 1 million vehicles per year. If they make it, they will be
| a very valuable company!!! Is it worth taking that bet,
| right now? Wouldn't I be better off waiting for more
| confirmation?
| Ekaros wrote:
| Apple has value addition in brand. I doubt Tesla will
| really compete with all established players outside tech
| bubble... That is BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche... And I
| can't believe Tesla can find someone who really can
| outcompete all the current manufacturers...
| leesec wrote:
| Tesla's margins keep getting better
| bagels wrote:
| Why don't you think they will eventually sell a more
| affordable car? The factories are all maxed out with higher
| margin cars today, but they are building more factories and
| on a path to reduce battery prices.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| The battery is still one of the more expensive components and
| it is only going to get cheaper.
|
| Tesla are also vertically integrated - they are geared to
| catch more revenue than just the car sales. They're in a
| prime position to take the running costs - fuel cost
| (superchargers), insurance (software edge) and eventually
| repairs and finance.
|
| Traditional companies have that too - VW have insurance,
| Volvo have finance and all dealers have repairs. However
| Tesla have a serious information edge in all of those areas,
| they look like a real next generation company there.
| greedo wrote:
| Considering that they can't repair cars now, and often
| deliver cars with defects that shouldn't have left the
| factory floor, I think you're being wildly optimistic.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| > The battery is still one of the more expensive components
| and it is only going to get cheaper.
|
| That's a forward looking statement. To make it even more
| interesting is that CPI just clocked in at the highest rate
| in 30 years. That's not to say that battery prices will
| correlate 1:1 with CPI, but accelerating CPI does not bode
| well for any supplies getting cheaper in the future.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Let's look at who is claiming Tesla will keep growing at this
| crazy rate:
|
| 1. Elon Musk
|
| 2. TSLA apes (people who use the term "Daddy Musk" on
| /r/wallstreebets)
|
| 3. CNBC, MSNBC, and other financial media outlets
|
| Do we see more public, established investment firms parroting
| this? Not AFAIK.
|
| I was investing during the Dot-Com boom. Same thing was
| happening. Some will try to argue that the dot-com boom was
| based on vaporware and Tesla makes cars. Well, to that I say,
| every company was overhyped during that boom, from IBM to
| Lucent to Intel to Pets.com. Just because TSLA sales are
| strong doesn't mean the stock isn't overhyped even looking
| ahead 5-10 years.
| jsight wrote:
| A lot of folks used the same argument against Amazon to
| explain why Wal-Mart was going to blow them away in
| ecommerce.
|
| lol
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| You could be right.
|
| However, in the history of modern corporate America going
| back a century, how many times has an upstart dominated a
| multi-decade established industry?
|
| Give up?
|
| Exactly once: Amazon disrupted publishing.
|
| So TSLA could very well dominate the car industry in 5
| years, but history is has much better odds. If you
| disagree, please provide some examples, I'd like to
| learn.
|
| EDIT: WalMart has higher e-commerce revenues than Amazon
| according to this by almost 30%:
|
| https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/amazon-
| vs.-walmart%3A-which-...
|
| But again, help me out with some facts if I'm so wrong.
| timr wrote:
| Tesla is currently valued at about $1,000,000 per car to be
| delivered in 2021.
| [deleted]
| greedo wrote:
| Comparing YoY quarters especially during a pandemic is not
| really a very good methodology for determining market trends.
| Even when you add a qualifier like "given these trajectories."
|
| Also, I think you're underestimating Tesla's competition by
| focusing on GM. Ford is a much larger threat to Tesla than GM,
| and already has an EV that's roughly comparable in
| price/performance to the Model Y. The Mustang Mach-E should be
| evaluated by any prospective EV buyer, and the F-150 Lightning
| has the potential to leave the Cybertruck stillborn.
|
| Rivian has none of the advantages of Tesla (name recognition,
| Supercharger network) nor none of the advantages of the
| traditional ICE manufacturers (volume, fit and finish, dealer
| network). Other than Amazon's backing, Rivian is one of the
| last companies I'd consider for buying an EV.
| eldaisfish wrote:
| people - especially on tech forums - have a tendency to
| underestimate the value of accumulated business knowledge.
| I'm glad you mentioned Ford and their electric pickup truck.
| Ford make a series of some of the most durable and best-
| selling pickup trucks the world over.
|
| Tesla, on the other hand, have zero experience building
| rugged vehicles and their teething troubles will be immense.
| Ford, meanwhile, have been building rugged vehicles for
| decades. I would argue Rivian's position is similar to
| Tesla's in that they don't have the level of know-how that
| Ford do.
|
| Despite all the justifications, i cannot see how Tesla's
| model will scale beyond developed markets.
| bink wrote:
| I agree with you generally, but take a look at all the tech
| that Rivian has had to invent to get offroading right in an
| EV. The mechanical aspects of the drivetrain and suspension
| are very different than a traditional offroad vehicle. I
| think Ford will have less of an advantage than you think.
| tdrdt wrote:
| Today companies are valued by how much money investers think
| they can make from buying stock.
| pengaru wrote:
| Do they correct for inflation when making comparisons for
| "biggest IPO?"
| dgellow wrote:
| They say "biggest IPO *of 2021*". Not "biggest ever".
| pengaru wrote:
| Sure, and in Q1 of 2021 I was buying ribeye steaks for about
| 25% less than I can today at my local grocer...
| yalogin wrote:
| I don't understand the valuation of these electric car companies.
| They are completely nuts. A good design doesn't make it valuable.
|
| Take Rivian for example, the car is not out and we don't know if
| they can even deliver the vehicles as promised in Jan 2022. That
| means we have no idea how crappy or how good the vehicles will
| be. Even then a 100b valuation is just nuts. For an electric car
| the biggest parameter is the charging network. These guys have
| nothing. So all those adventure trucks are only useful around the
| city and nothing else. Why are people thinking this is 100b
| worth?
| beervirus wrote:
| It's what's trendy to invest in. It makes as much sense as GME
| and NFTs.
| notjustanymike wrote:
| So there's obviously a lot of reasons why this is too much, but
| can anyone opine what the pro reason are?
|
| The main one I see is Ford's involvement looks an awful lot like
| they're considering the future of the F-150.
| princevegeta89 wrote:
| Just ended up getting in line for an R1S. I am hyped about this
| company and believe they will present a true competition to Tesla
| and the likes
| lgleason wrote:
| This smells like a bubble.
| RyanShook wrote:
| A company with almost zero vehicles on the road is worth more
| on paper than Ford and GM. Very concerning.
| nowherebeen wrote:
| I wonder if Evergrande will have a ripple effect and burst this
| bubble.
| Ekaros wrote:
| It won't be pretty when these companies come crashing down in
| valuation. Not that they won't survive, but to anyone it
| should be clear that market is entirely over heated...
|
| Just have to see what is the actual trigger and how much
| bigger will it be pumped...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-10 23:01 UTC)