greyboundary
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I’m aware of the language in earnings reports. They say “loss per vehicle” as a way to normalize expenditure against some unit so you can think about it in meaningful, relative terms.No sir, I'm (and others) are directly quoting Rivian (or RJ) on loss per vehicle, not just saying lost. Read their earnings statement.
Of course it's based on R&D spend before delivering vehicles, but in the end it's all about profit/loss per vehicle just like any other manufacturer.
It’s that people take that out of context as meaning that you can’t build one R1T/S at the cost it sells for, and it was brought up here as reason for an endless cost cutting exercise.
It’s desirable to reduce costs when it makes sense to in any industry, but it won’t literally be because of that metric being negative. They could hit the ceiling of ideal/target cost reductions and it will still be at a per vehicle “loss” since they’re in a strong growth phase. They could also simply cut growth, not cut costs at all, and maybe even generate a terminally ill profit.
Sponsored