Rivian Files IPO, reports 48,390 Pre Orders

[Ogre]

It's strange, but nobody has mentioned the Jeep Gladiator pick-up. I would think the Rivan would be a direct competitor to the Gladiator. And the R1S is competing against all the luxury SUV's, Land Rover being one of them.

The Jeep Gladiator is one of the ugliest trucks on the road. I think you have to first be a serious, hard core Jeep fan before you even consider that seriously. There is also a pretty huge price gap between that and the Rivian so I don't see the two as competitors.

Price puts both the Rivian R1T and R1S up against mostly luxury SUVs and soon, the Hummer EV. That puts the R1T in a bit of a weird place since none of the "luxury pickups" has lasted more than a few years.

People who will buy the R1T are people who really want an electric pickup and are willing to pay a big premium for that privilege. Once the Cybertruck and the F150 are more widely available, I think they are going to struggle maintain momentum against much more affordable & practical competitors.

Unless they can create a "Luxury Pickup" market where Lincoln and Cadillac both failed.

Sponsored

 

[jerhenderson]

They will if they can't manage the current price tag.

-Crissa

if they can't go where they want to go because of the Dual, they won't buy it at all.

 

[Deleted member 12457]

The Jeep Gladiator is one of the ugliest trucks on the road. I think you have to first be a serious, hard core Jeep fan before you even consider that seriously. There is also a pretty huge price gap between that and the Rivian so I don't see the two as competitors.

Price puts both the Rivian R1T and R1S up against mostly luxury SUVs and soon, the Hummer EV. That puts the R1T in a bit of a weird place since none of the "luxury pickups" has lasted more than a few years.

People who will buy the R1T are people who really want an electric pickup and are willing to pay a big premium for that privilege. Once the Cybertruck and the F150 are more widely available, I think they are going to struggle maintain momentum against much more affordable & practical competitors.

Unless they can create a "Luxury Pickup" market where Lincoln and Cadillac both failed.

One of the things many Jeep owners might not know is that the Jeep name is no longer owned by an American company, which I suggest is why they bought them in the first place after WWII. Now that "Jeep is owned by Stellantis, a global automotive company formed by the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) and PSA Group merger. The company owns 14 popular car brands including Chrysler, Fiat, Dodge, Ram, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati." I have to wonder whether the glitter has worn off. Jeep owners no longer own an American car. Of course, I bet most Ford and GM owners aren't aware or don't care where their "American" car/truck is actually built either. Do I care? Only when it comes to the EV credit and who should get it or not.

 

[Ogre]

One of the things many Jeep owners might not know is that the Jeep name is no longer owned by an American company, which I suggest is why they bought them in the first place after WWII. Now that "Jeep is owned by Stellantis, a global automotive company formed by the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) and PSA Group merger. The company owns 14 popular car brands including Chrysler, Fiat, Dodge, Ram, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati." I have to wonder whether the glitter has worn off. Jeep owners no longer own an American car. Of course, I bet most Ford and GM owners aren't aware or don't care where their "American" car/truck is actually built either. Do I care? Only when it comes to the EV credit and who should get it or not.

Indeed, which is what makes this super-ironic:

https://www.motor1.com/news/515717/jeep-most-patriotic-brand-america/

Of course people who are motivated by this sort of brand based advertising aren't interested in truth which is more than skin-deep.

 

[Deleted member 12457]

Indeed, which is what makes this super-ironic:

https://www.motor1.com/news/515717/jeep-most-patriotic-brand-america/

Of course people who are motivated by this sort of brand based advertising aren't interested in truth which is more than skin-deep.

I'm not one of those backwards patriotic, flag abuser type of person. Not to get this forum too political but the world is in that state of mind where it's tough to trust whatever anyone says about anything. I would much rather have more things manufactured in the US so Americans can be employed by well-paying companies, which isn't happening. I also would like to live in a world where everyone loves each other, we can honestly purchase things made anywhere by decently paying companies and where we can trust what people and companies say. I thought we were going there during the 60's and 70's with Star Trek and it's multi-galaxy acceptance but that never worked even in our own country(s). The ironic thing is that Tesla is the most American-made car in the country (counting just the USA plants). I've said it before that it's embarrassing that Toyota and Honda (Lexus and Acura) are two of the largest car manufacturers in the US and they're not even American companies. Jeep is one of those MIA cars that's owned by a non US company although many places still think it's an American owned manufacturer. How can Toyota and Honda sell so many cars built in America while Ford, GM and the others have to go to Canada, Mexico and other countries to actually be competitive?

 

[Jstoltz54]

They want a valuation of 80 BILLION for 48 000 SUV's ??? What's the math on that? Each Rivian is ' worth' 1.7 MILLION

Maybe after their new Tesla lawsuit is applied, with or without a win the legal costs could be substantial, maybe even get a cease and desist order to stop sales until it is settled. Tsk Tsk. Cheaters (allegedly) never win.

 

[bill.french]

I'm not sure a dual motor appeals to that off road camping trails bushwhacking market.

Not without som bias (because CyberLandr™ is technically a "camper") our internal anecdotal data shows that Cybertruck reservation holders who intend to use the truck for camping are vastly tri-motor buyers.

 

[firsttruck]

......
The ironic thing is that Tesla is the most American-made car in the country (counting just the USA plants). I've said it before that it's embarrassing that Toyota and Honda (Lexus and Acura) are two of the largest car manufacturers in the US and they're not even American companies. Jeep is one of those MIA cars that's owned by a non US company although many places still think it's an American owned manufacturer. How can Toyota and Honda sell so many cars built in America while Ford, GM and the others have to go to Canada, Mexico and other countries to actually be competitive?

Why must Ford, GM and the others have to go to Canada, Mexico and other countries to build vehicles for sale is USA?

Because the executives must make more and more
Several 10s of millions $ in annual salary, 100s of millions $ stock options, and golden parachutes (for failure).

Government bailouts go to pad the pay of the executives NOT to retain workers.


CEO compensation with options realized
1965 20-to-1 ratio CEO-to-typical-worker compensation
2018 278-to-1 or 221-to-1 ratio CEO-to-typical-worker compensation


----------

Ford CEO Jim Hackett received total compensation of nearly $17.4 million in 2019, slightly down from nearly $17.8 million in 2018


Does the Ford family still own Ford?
The company is controlled by the Ford family; they have minority ownership but the majority of the voting power. ... The company went public in 1956 but the Ford family, through special Class B shares, still retain 40 percent voting rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ford_Motor_Company


----------

GM CEO Barra's salary of $1.75 million and a performance-based bonus of $3.06 million are paid in cash. GM met three of four targets in the bonus plan, leading to $12 million in stock awards for Barra as well as a special one-time grant of $11.2 million in options.

GM CEO Barra's 1-Time Option Grant Boosts Pay to $29 Million
https://www.industryweek.com › leadership › article › gm...

How much does the CEO of GM make per year?
Compensation by Company
CEO Name CEO Pay
Mary T. Barra CEO Pay $23,657,987

General Motors Co Executive Salaries & Other Compensation
https://www1.salary.com › GENERAL-MOTORS-CO-Exe...


How much do GM employees get paid?
How Much Do GM Jobs Pay per Hour?
Annual Salary Weekly Pay
75th Percentile $65,000 $1,250
Average $60,870 $1,170
25th Percentile $48,000 $923
Q: How Much Do GM Jobs Pay per Hour in 2021? - ZipRecruiter
https://www.ziprecruiter.com › Salaries › How-Much-Do


----------

How much did CEOs make in the 1950s?
In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker.

----------

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978
Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time
By Lawrence Mishel and Julia Wolfe of Economic Policy Institute
August 14, 2019
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/


Summary

What this report finds: The increased focus on growing inequality has led to an increased focus on CEO pay. Corporate boards running America’s largest public firms are giving top executives outsize compensation packages. Average pay of CEOs at the top 350 firms in 2018 was $17.2 million—or $14.0 million using a more conservative measure. (Stock options make up a big part of CEO pay packages, and the conservative measure values the options when granted, versus when cashed in, or “realized.”) CEO compensation is very high relative to typical worker compensation (by a ratio of 278-to-1 or 221-to-1). In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio (options realized) was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989. CEOs are even making a lot more—about five times as much—as other earners in the top 0.1%. From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

Why it matters: Exorbitant CEO pay is a major contributor to rising inequality that we could safely do away with. CEOs are getting more because of their power to set pay, not because they are increasing productivity or possess specific, high-demand skills. This escalation of CEO compensation, and of executive compensation more generally, has fueled the growth of top 1.0% and top 0.1% incomes, leaving less of the fruits of economic growth for ordinary workers and widening the gap between very high earners and the bottom 90%. The economy would suffer no harm if CEOs were paid less (or taxed more).

How we can solve the problem: We need to enact policy solutions that would both reduce incentives for CEOs to extract economic concessions and limit their ability to do so. Such policies could include reinstating higher marginal income tax rates at the very top; setting corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation; establishing a luxury tax on compensation such that for every dollar in compensation over a set cap, a firm must pay a dollar in taxes; reforming corporate governance to give other stakeholders better tools to exercise countervailing power against CEOs’ pay demands; and allowing greater use of “say on pay,” which allows a firm’s shareholders to vote on top executives’ compensation.

To get full report, download from https://files.epi.org/pdf/171191.pdf


----------


HARVARD JOHN M. OLIN CENTER FOR LAW, ECONOMICS, AND BUSINESS
Discussion Paper No. 510
04/2005
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA 02138

The Growth of Executive Pay
Lucian Bebchuk∗ and Yaniv Grinstein**

Abstract
This paper examines both empirically and theoretically the growth of U.S. executive
pay during the period 1993-2003. During this period, pay has grown much beyond the increase that could be explained by changes in firm size, performance and industry classification. Had the relationship of compensation to size, performance and industry classification remained the same in 2003 as it was in 1993, mean compensation in 2003 would have been only about half of its actual size. During the 1993-2003 period, equity-based compensation has increased considerably in both new economy and old economy firms, but this growth has not been accompanied by a substitution effect, i.e., a reduction in non-equity compensation. The aggregate compensation paid by public companies to their top-five executives during the considered period has added up to about $290 billion, and the ratio of the aggregate top-five compensation paid by public firms to the aggregate earnings of these firms increased from 4.8% in 1993-1995 to 10.3% in 2001-2003. After presenting evidence about the growth of pay, we discuss alternative explanations for it. We examine how this growth could be explained under either the arm’s length bargaining model of executive compensation or the managerial power model. Among other things, we discuss the relevance of the parallel rise in market capitalizations and in the use of equity-based compensation.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Bebchuk_et al_510.pdf

 

[Deleted member 12457]

Why must Ford, GM and the others have to go to Canada, Mexico and other countries to build vehicles for sale is USA?

Because the executives must make more and more
Several 10s of millions $ in annual salary, 100s of millions $ stock options, and golden parachutes (for failure).

Government bailouts go to pad the pay of the executives NOT to retain workers.


CEO compensation with options realized
1965 20-to-1 ratio CEO-to-typical-worker compensation
2018 278-to-1 or 221-to-1 ratio CEO-to-typical-worker compensation


----------

Ford CEO Jim Hackett received total compensation of nearly $17.4 million in 2019, slightly down from nearly $17.8 million in 2018


Does the Ford family still own Ford?
The company is controlled by the Ford family; they have minority ownership but the majority of the voting power. ... The company went public in 1956 but the Ford family, through special Class B shares, still retain 40 percent voting rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ford_Motor_Company


----------

GM CEO Barra's salary of $1.75 million and a performance-based bonus of $3.06 million are paid in cash. GM met three of four targets in the bonus plan, leading to $12 million in stock awards for Barra as well as a special one-time grant of $11.2 million in options.

GM CEO Barra's 1-Time Option Grant Boosts Pay to $29 Million
https://www.industryweek.com › leadership › article › gm...

How much does the CEO of GM make per year?
Compensation by Company
CEO Name CEO Pay
Mary T. Barra CEO Pay $23,657,987

General Motors Co Executive Salaries & Other Compensation
https://www1.salary.com › GENERAL-MOTORS-CO-Exe...


How much do GM employees get paid?
How Much Do GM Jobs Pay per Hour?
Annual Salary Weekly Pay
75th Percentile $65,000 $1,250
Average $60,870 $1,170
25th Percentile $48,000 $923
Q: How Much Do GM Jobs Pay per Hour in 2021? - ZipRecruiter
https://www.ziprecruiter.com › Salaries › How-Much-Do


----------

How much did CEOs make in the 1950s?
In the 1950s, a typical CEO made 20 times the salary of his or her average worker.

----------

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978
Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time
By Lawrence Mishel and Julia Wolfe of Economic Policy Institute
August 14, 2019
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/


Summary

What this report finds: The increased focus on growing inequality has led to an increased focus on CEO pay. Corporate boards running America’s largest public firms are giving top executives outsize compensation packages. Average pay of CEOs at the top 350 firms in 2018 was $17.2 million—or $14.0 million using a more conservative measure. (Stock options make up a big part of CEO pay packages, and the conservative measure values the options when granted, versus when cashed in, or “realized.”) CEO compensation is very high relative to typical worker compensation (by a ratio of 278-to-1 or 221-to-1). In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio (options realized) was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989. CEOs are even making a lot more—about five times as much—as other earners in the top 0.1%. From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

Why it matters: Exorbitant CEO pay is a major contributor to rising inequality that we could safely do away with. CEOs are getting more because of their power to set pay, not because they are increasing productivity or possess specific, high-demand skills. This escalation of CEO compensation, and of executive compensation more generally, has fueled the growth of top 1.0% and top 0.1% incomes, leaving less of the fruits of economic growth for ordinary workers and widening the gap between very high earners and the bottom 90%. The economy would suffer no harm if CEOs were paid less (or taxed more).

How we can solve the problem: We need to enact policy solutions that would both reduce incentives for CEOs to extract economic concessions and limit their ability to do so. Such policies could include reinstating higher marginal income tax rates at the very top; setting corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation; establishing a luxury tax on compensation such that for every dollar in compensation over a set cap, a firm must pay a dollar in taxes; reforming corporate governance to give other stakeholders better tools to exercise countervailing power against CEOs’ pay demands; and allowing greater use of “say on pay,” which allows a firm’s shareholders to vote on top executives’ compensation.

To get full report, download from https://files.epi.org/pdf/171191.pdf


----------


HARVARD JOHN M. OLIN CENTER FOR LAW, ECONOMICS, AND BUSINESS
Discussion Paper No. 510
04/2005
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA 02138

The Growth of Executive Pay
Lucian Bebchuk∗ and Yaniv Grinstein**

Abstract
This paper examines both empirically and theoretically the growth of U.S. executive
pay during the period 1993-2003. During this period, pay has grown much beyond the increase that could be explained by changes in firm size, performance and industry classification. Had the relationship of compensation to size, performance and industry classification remained the same in 2003 as it was in 1993, mean compensation in 2003 would have been only about half of its actual size. During the 1993-2003 period, equity-based compensation has increased considerably in both new economy and old economy firms, but this growth has not been accompanied by a substitution effect, i.e., a reduction in non-equity compensation. The aggregate compensation paid by public companies to their top-five executives during the considered period has added up to about $290 billion, and the ratio of the aggregate top-five compensation paid by public firms to the aggregate earnings of these firms increased from 4.8% in 1993-1995 to 10.3% in 2001-2003. After presenting evidence about the growth of pay, we discuss alternative explanations for it. We examine how this growth could be explained under either the arm’s length bargaining model of executive compensation or the managerial power model. Among other things, we discuss the relevance of the parallel rise in market capitalizations and in the use of equity-based compensation.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Bebchuk_et al_510.pdf

Of course Elon is now the richest person in the world but I have to wonder how much of his salary actually goes back into funding special projects including SpaceX. I think everyone in the US knows CEOs get paid way more than they should but stock holders demand high dividends and growing stocks regardless of whether they should be growing.

You forgot about needing all that money to legally bribe members of Congress. It's called lobbying and donating to PACs.

 

[Dusty]

You say that as if Jeep Wrangler or Bronco sales are in the toilet. The Wrangler 4xe is outselling the Prius this year.

 

[jerhenderson]

Of course Elon is now the richest person in the world but I have to wonder how much of his salary actually goes back into funding special projects including SpaceX. I think everyone in the US knows CEOs get paid way more than they should but stock holders demand high dividends and growing stocks regardless of whether they should be growing.

You forgot about needing all that money to legally bribe members of Congress. It's called lobbying and donating to PACs.

his wealth is stock, not cash.

 

[Quicksilver]

How can Toyota and Honda sell so many cars built in America while Ford, GM and the others have to go to Canada, Mexico and other countries to actually be competitive?

Because for the most part most of their factories are located in the southeast or other states with right to work laws. Very few of them are union shops.
The cost of doing business is also a lot lower in these areas.
There are Honda, Mercedes, Toyota and Kia plants located within 200 miles of me.
Profit is based on the cost of doing business.

 

[Ogre]

You say that as if Jeep Wrangler or Bronco sales are in the toilet. The Wrangler 4xe is outselling the Prius this year.

Not sure about how well the Wrangler 4xe is doing, but the Jeep brand isn't doing very well over the past few years. A 33% drop over 3 years is kind of what a lot of people would call "in the toilet".

Jeep makes a lot of non-Wrangler vehicles. I wonder if this is in part due to Model Y eating up the compact SUV market. Timing certainly lines up.

I know COVID, chip shortage... etc. But Tesla increase US sales by hundreds of thousands of cars during this same period. Flagging demand, incompetent supply chain management, it's all lost sales in the end.

 

[Crissa]

Of course Elon is now the richest person in the world but I have to wonder how much of his salary actually goes back into funding special projects including SpaceX. I think everyone in the US knows CEOs get paid way more than they should but stock holders demand high dividends and growing stocks regardless of whether they should be growing.

You forgot about needing all that money to legally bribe members of Congress. It's called lobbying and donating to PACs.

He gets very little actual salary. So when they trot out the 40,000x number, it's by the fact that he got all the stock options in a single year once he qualified, and pulled nothing the other fifteen years.

-Crissa

Sponsored