Why https://t.co/mpajAKcIsI?
I switched to an EV about 12 years ago in an attempt to increase my savings rate. I can say now with the benefit of hindsight that it worked, but back then - and still today - I think there is a lot of misinformation as to what switching can be worth to most people. So I built https://t.co/mpajAKcIsI.
It has over 250 vehicles pre-loaded, so with a couple clicks it considers any car's mpg, insurance, and maintenance costs, along with your specific state's gas and electricity prices, as well as available incentives, and spits out the cost of ownership delta vs popular EVs.
The savings from “going EV” are substantial for most like-priced vehicles/classes - and in the majority of cases the EV represents an upgrade in safety, performance, and cargo storage. EV-Math quantifies it in 10 seconds.
And when you correct for ZEV credits being worth 1/6th of what they used to be, and TSLA’s aggressive PPE out-of-service depreciation policy early in their life - RIVN today is more profitable than TSLA was at a similar point in their history. But the truth doesn’t make a good tweet.
You’re way off base on this, Josh. R1 has the highest customer satisfaction of any vehicle, and R2 production starts soon. R2 checks so many boxes - affordable, quality EV in SUV form factor (doesn’t exist in market), non-Tesla (matters for increasingly large portion of industry). It’s not riskless (if it was RIVN would trade north of 1/80th or TSLA market cap), but RIVN has the capital runway to ramp R2. Also, they lost $5k GM per vehicle in Q4, at small scale this isn’t bad (and the software revenue that exists already slips this positive).
$RIVN is at the infection point. It’s having its “Model 3 moment” with R2 and attracting name-brand mega investment (VW and Uber), while geopolitics make the financial reward for switching to EV bigger than ever. Throw in half the customer base potentially turned off by Musk’s political turn and seems a nice risk reward 🤷♂️
@GerberKawasaki To your point @GerberKawasaki, it's usually $3-5k saved per year. I built a site that compares cost of ownership in detail, by-state, for 25 EVs vs 200+ gas vehicles. https://t.co/fG2S34a9Ly - just takes a few clicks, any thoughts appreciated 🙏
@wholemars RJ received a new $4.6b comp plan just a few months ago - he can quadruple his ownership stake by meeting stock price and margin and cash flow targets. He also was granted a 10% interest in Mind Robotics, which is Rivian's industrial automation sub (recently valued at $2b).
Tesla is a great company - no one is saying otherwise. But to put a finer point on that achievement, it is again downstream from some useful accounting events - they made $10MM net income in Q1 2013 on the back of $68MM in ZEV credits (back when those had value - another tough comparison for Rivian today) and $17MM in GHG credits, and $11MM gain from the writeoff of the warrants associated with the DoE loan. So that's $95MM in non-operational accounting producing a $10MM gain, and notably they then failed to post a quarterly net profit for the following 20 quarters (until 2018). But the surprise profit produced a hell of short squeeze (the stock tripled), which was fun to watch.
@OracleofMusk @wholemars We agree that all of those products/companies were low-effort, uninspired, and/or poorly conceived. I'll take the other side on Rivian, though. Not everyone needs to agree - that's what makes a market!
In fact, every company in America classifies R&D outside COGS, because it is required by GAAP. The nuance is WHAT is classified as R&D. Assembly line needs $5MM repair as you're ramping production? You can dump this in COGS (conservative) or you can put it in R&D (aggressive) - as long as your auditor is OK with it.
Time will tell - if it was a certainty that Rivian was going to 'make it', they probably wouldn't be trading at 1/90th of Tesla's market cap, would they? Also, the difference you cite is largely accounting - worth looking at the nuances between the two. You're focused on gross margin (for good reason), but Tesla has been very aggressive in classifying expenses as R&D (outside COGS) and liberally bucketing service as "Goodwill" (again, outside COGS). Further, early on a huge portion of COGS is PPE depreciation - the production facility. Tesla acquired their NUMMI plant during the financial crisis and again took an aggressive accounting tact, keeping large portions of the facility from being classified "in service", which meant they only paid depreciation on a small portion of the plant, equivalent to production at that moment. Rivian instead took their entire plant and just straight-line depreciates it (the more conservative method), so if they make 1,000 or 100,000 cars, the total depreciation is the same. Lastly, because Tesla avoided negative gross margin with these tactics, they largely avoided LCNRV (which is an accelerated and mandatory write down of inventory to reflect the loss before the car is even sold); Rivian has to include this in their accounting. Nobody did anything untoward here, but Tesla's accounting policies were tailor-made to optimize apparent gross margin early-on - kudos to them for making that happen, but it's important to grasp aggressive (smart?) accounting vs execution.
@wholemars Of course - but one is valued at $20b and the other at $1.3 trillion. Both great companies in very, very different growth stages. It’s a bad comparison straight up, but through the lens of “at 1/80th the valuation”, Rivian is more than interesting.
@JJ_Zarathustra@itskyleconner Think maybe you've spent a bit too much time looking at the CT - the proportions are very 'normal' and it allows for a real, useful frunk.
Rivian knocked it out of the park with R2 pricing! We have our full video below showcasing new interior colors, exterior colors, pricing, specs, and options.
Knowing mostly everything about the car now, would you go for this or choose something else?
I’m heading to Austin to go see it in person and meet up with @OOSScot and @MurrayxLogan who are filming it in person as we speak.