R1T & R1S Updated Pricing, Configuration, Specs. Dual Motor Now Available

[Otisbrick]

How can a 8/2019 pre-order be built for pre-orders from Jan and Feb 2019?
From what (little) I know, only 2018 pre-orders are being built in '22 Q1.

I’m an 11/19 preorder. Rivian told me My delivery window was April/May 2022. Though, take that with a grain of salt, you can’t trust anything this company promises.

Sponsored

 

[the long way downunder]

You also have to remember those early pricings included a ton of features that were later removed when the prices were adjusted down. i.e. electrochromic roof, powered tailgate, etc..

well, there's a removable sunroof coming, I don't recall a "sunglasses" sunroof and the tailgate is strange that it's not power-up, only a soft open … what other features were removed?

 

[dpc166]

Down 13.29%...

Still not an all time low. That's $50 and it hasn't seen that today. @TXR1S

 

[Dark-Fx]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Rivian is protected against a suit by an individual consumer seeking to force them to honor the old price based on that clause. But it does not protect them against a shareholder suit or an SEC investigation based on the impact on share price from the announcement. And indemnification is about who pays, it's not a defense to a claim - your misuse of basic terminology shows you are way out of your depth.

Securities matters can be based on actual false statements or on lies by omission. Here, it seems pretty clear Rivian was lying by omission. The claim would go like this:

• Rivian knew it couldn't sell vehicles at the advertised price. It even fired the executive that forced the issue.
• But it collected orders and touted their numbers in the runup to the IPO. Investors bought shares based on the reasonable expectation that these orders would convert to purchases.
• Rivian knew it couldn't honor its pricing, but didn't tell the market. Instead, it touted how many orders it had.
• It even pretended to start deliveries, in reality limiting distribution to employees and other insiders. It didn't care about the price they paid, because this was in reality a beta test (also undisclosed to the market, and potentially the basis for a related claim).
• When it came time to start actual deliveries, Rivian jacked up the price for everyone. Orders went down, way down, as you'd expect for such a ham-handed move.
• The price increase is so drastic that it must have been planned for a long time, probably pre-IPO. But it was never disclosed to the market.
• They should have disclosed these plans because of the material impact on orders and - as today's stock drop reveals - share price.
• Therefore, us shareholders are entitled to reimbursement for the amount of the stock drop caused by the price increase.

Take it from someone who knows this area of the law: this is a strong claim and would support a 9-figure settlement.

The SEC won't do anything unless someone big realized a loss over this. Anyone big already knew about the details of the lawsuit and acted appropriately. As long as Rivian survives, I'd expect they will end up being valued above the IPO price at some point in the future.

 

[NY_Rob]

Let's say that a $10 per share stock drop is caused by the nondisclosure (You measure this, very roughly, by looking at how much the stock fell when the truth came out). You multiply the per-share drop by the number of shares you held at the relevant time and get your payout. Minus the lawyers' cut, of course.

Thank you for the explanation!

Rob

 

[Revelation]

well, there's a removable sunroof coming, I don't recall a "sunglasses" sunroof and the tailgate is strange that it's not power-up, only a soft open … what other features were removed?

I am not wasting my time digging up old stories to show what features were stripped. You are more than welcome to do that if you wish. This bridge can no longer be crossed...

At least when Tesla announces new pricing it will come with new features, i.e. four-wheel-steering.

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

Let's say that a $10 per share stock drop is caused by the nondisclosure (You measure this, very roughly, by looking at how much the stock fell when the truth came out). You multiply the per-share drop by the number of shares you held at the relevant time and get your payout. Minus the lawyers' cut, of course.

My experience with class actions:

 

[rhuber]

I am not wasting my time digging up old stories to show what features were stripped. You are more than welcome to do that if you wish. This bridge can no longer be crossed...

At least when Tesla announces new pricing it will come with new features, i.e. four-wheel-steering.

As a Plaid owner, I'm so sick of this take. Tesla absolutely stripped features from the announced Plaid and then did a bait and switch that was arguably worse than this, and they got away with it...

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

well, there's a removable sunroof coming, I don't recall a "sunglasses" sunroof and the tailgate is strange that it's not power-up, only a soft open … what other features were removed?

Off the top of my head, I recall:

electrochromic roof
180 degree tailgate
Power-up tailgate
Lidar
Tank turn
Level 3 autonomous driving via OTA

 

[TXR1S]

I feel particularly bad for the hardcore fans who took up 175 DSP shares and are still holding them based on the long term potential.

I only bought 1 DSP share just for the fun of being a part of the IPO since it didn’t meet my investing plan, but I was definitely tempted.

But this disaster, coupled with a $4,000 stock loss…. Wow. Hard not to feel almost totally scammed at that point.

 

[Gshenderson]

The problem with that statement is that 'need' is subjective. The SEC has to be able to prove that Rivian deliberately mislead investors and that's not an easy thing to do, especially given that, as I've pointed out, Rivian never promised anyone anything at any price.

Whether they “needed” to is irrelevant. So the definition is also irrelevant. They did it. That’s a fact. The outstanding relevant questions are:

• Did they know, or reasonably should have known, they were going to do it prior to IPO?
• If so, should have they have reasonably expected it would result in a material number of cancellations?

If those two things can be proven true, then other facts come into play such as did the number of preorders materially affect the IPO price and did the stock go down and stay down based on the news (relevant mostly for civil suits vs criminal). And the fact they didn’t disclose it is the crux of the matter.

 

[the long way downunder]

I am not wasting my time digging up old stories to show what features were stripped. You are more than welcome to do that if you wish. This bridge can no longer be crossed...

At least when Tesla announces new pricing it will come with new features, i.e. four-wheel-steering.

I'm not asking for "digging" … you wrote "a ton of features that were later removed when the prices were adjusted down" but now you say you don't have an specific memory …

As for Tesla, I'll get to them later – people either choose to forget or never knew what Tesla has done with its product promises, pricing and policies that have harmed owners and new buyers – but if you think the Cybertruck pricing is reliable or feature-rich … you could thank GM and Ford for compelling Tesla to do more with the Cybertruck.

It's a disgusting to see Musk trying to knife Rivian in the back with nonsense comments about "negative gross margin" (from someone who admitted to keeping quiet for years while Tesla was on the brink of collapse) and "nearly impossible for other car makers to be profitable selling EVs." What we hear from Tesla day by day is patent nonsense. Long forgotten (by him) are his soaring words of being the only US car maker, the importance to the planet that we all move to EVs … all marketing rhetoric.

 

[Jay]

I had a chat with CS this morning asking about dual motor deliveries and if there is any guarantee that rivian will not increase prices. Here is their response which made me decide to cancel my reservation.

Goodbye Rivian

 

[dpc166]

I feel particularly bad for the hardcore fans who took up 175 DSP shares and are still holding them based on the long term potential.

I only bought 1 DSP share just for the fun of being a part of the IPO since it didn’t meet my investing plan, but I was definitely tempted.

But this disaster, coupled with a $4,000 stock loss…. Wow. Hard not to feel almost totally scammed at that point.

I simply waited for the stock to reach my target price (around $60) and I'm set. My reservation is in stock, not a physical vehicle. I'll wait 6-8 years when they're able to have trucks sit on lots ready for the pickin'.

 

[BoisVert]

I think you missed my last paragraph, timing is not good but as I mentioned when I placed my order, prices had not been released. Based on how Tesla started rolling out each of their models I was assuming at least the initial models would be north of 100k, I budgeted for 110k.

It is a drag to go from November 2020 thinking they might let them go at such a low price only to have the price jump now.

It is everyone’s personal decision if they are now priced out of the market or simply want to stand on principle and decide not to move forward with their purchase.

I will say if everyone steps back and takes the emotion and disappoint out of the analysis evaluating the new prices, they will agree they make sense. That does not mean we have to give Rivian a pass at how this was handled and how their general lack of communication is horrible. I will write a letter to Rivian to let them know my thoughts on this but not today, I will let it all sink in first so I can write it from a calm place….

I see what you mean but for $100-$110K there is Cayenne, BMW X5M, RRS, and array of other options that forces people to prove themselves into another bucket.

The uncertainty is also the issue where by 2024 who knows what else could happen.

This is not only about $1,000 this is also about people not purchasing anything else while they wait which has other implications.

Sponsored