CEO RJ Scaringe gets $403M Pay Package

[GANTZ]

I don’t get why everyone gets upset with this. I mean when you buy a Rivian or any other vehicle that is in the $80k and above your contributing to someone’s wealth. I mean if someone wanted to really be against billionaires and millionaires than don’t purchase their products. Stop ordering from Amazon, stop buying Rivian or Tesla, don’t buy apple, samsung, google, products the choice is yours. Meanwhile if you can buy one or two Rivian’s then your wealth is probably above someone else’s. Maybe someone who can’t afford a vehicle that is in a lower income bracket than yours and to boot they’re thinking the same thing about you their goes another rich Rivian owner probably owns a home maybe two. I can see the frustration and forums are a great place to vent and discuss but maybe some of it should come with solutions. My solution ”keep on keeping on” to make my life a better day that I feel good about.

Sponsored

 

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Got this in my email earlier. Was reminded of this thread. Like many of you, I hold stock in Rivian. Here's your chance to complain if it means that much to you, LOL.

...there's about 50 pages of this. I'm not reading -- or screenshotting -- all of it. Enjoy.

 

[portdirect]

Urg - I'm gonna reply, even though I kinda dont want to but you know:

I think a lot of folks here are more right than wrong, but we’re mixing a few different arguments.

Yes, Rivian would not exist without RJ. That is obviously true. He founded it, built it, raised the money, got real vehicles into production, and kept it alive when a lot of EV companies turned into vaporware.

But Rivian is not private anymore. That matters. Once a company goes public, public shareholders own the company economically. RJ is still founder, CEO, chairman, and clearly very important to Rivian. But he does not unilaterally own the company.

The “he got $403M” framing is also incomplete. It is not a cash check. Most of this is equity/options, and much of it only becomes valuable if Rivian performs against stock price, profitability, and cash flow targets.

That said, “performance based” does not end the discussion.

The real question is whether this amount, structure, and timing are necessary. Would Rivian perform worse if the package were half the size? Should more of it be tied to R2 execution, margins, service quality, profitability, and cash generation rather than stock price? Is resetting the option economics fair to public shareholders who bought higher and do not get the same reset unless they put in more capital?

Those are not wealth redistribution questions. They are governance and dilution questions.

I understand why institutions may support it. If they believe RJ is the highest-leverage path to a much larger Rivian, then giving up some future upside may look rational. Golden handcuffs.

But rational for institutions does not automatically mean healthy as a broader market trend. I am uncomfortable with these mega founder-CEO packages becoming normalized, especially after Tesla opened the door.

So my view is simple:

RJ deserves significant upside if Rivian executes.

The package is not simply “he got $403M.”

Founder status matters, but it is not a blank check once the company is public.

Shareholders can reasonably care about dilution, timing, structure, and whether the incentives are tied to the right outcomes.

For what it is worth, I will be voting against it again, in the very powerful and deeply consequential non-binding form, lol.

I do not expect that to matter. But as a shareholder, even a small one, that is the mechanism available.

 

[DuoRivians]

Urg - I'm gonna reply, even though I kinda dont want to but you know:

I think a lot of folks here are more right than wrong, but we’re mixing a few different arguments.

Yes, Rivian would not exist without RJ. That is obviously true. He founded it, built it, raised the money, got real vehicles into production, and kept it alive when a lot of EV companies turned into vaporware.

But Rivian is not private anymore. That matters. Once a company goes public, public shareholders own the company economically. RJ is still founder, CEO, chairman, and clearly very important to Rivian. But he does not unilaterally own the company.

The “he got $403M” framing is also incomplete. It is not a cash check. Most of this is equity/options, and much of it only becomes valuable if Rivian performs against stock price, profitability, and cash flow targets.

That said, “performance based” does not end the discussion.

The real question is whether this amount, structure, and timing are necessary. Would Rivian perform worse if the package were half the size? Should more of it be tied to R2 execution, margins, service quality, profitability, and cash generation rather than stock price? Is resetting the option economics fair to public shareholders who bought higher and do not get the same reset unless they put in more capital?

Those are not wealth redistribution questions. They are governance and dilution questions.

I understand why institutions may support it. If they believe RJ is the highest-leverage path to a much larger Rivian, then giving up some future upside may look rational. Golden handcuffs.

But rational for institutions does not automatically mean healthy as a broader market trend. I am uncomfortable with these mega founder-CEO packages becoming normalized, especially after Tesla opened the door.

So my view is simple:

RJ deserves significant upside if Rivian executes.

The package is not simply “he got $403M.”

Founder status matters, but it is not a blank check once the company is public.

Shareholders can reasonably care about dilution, timing, structure, and whether the incentives are tied to the right outcomes.

For what it is worth, I will be voting against it again, in the very powerful and deeply consequential non-binding form, lol.

I do not expect that to matter. But as a shareholder, even a small one, that is the mechanism available.

Well said, I’m also voting against. Non-binding of course haha

 

[Hereforthesnacks]

Yeah, for the better.

Glad to see you are a DOGE fan and do not like EV incentives. Thanks, Musk!

 

[Hillbilly]

Glad to see you are a DOGE fan and do not like EV incentives. Thanks, Musk!

I do love my Rivians, Amazon deliveries, and starlink. All of them significantly improve my quality of life and none of which I would have without Musk and Bezos. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd admit it too.

 

[Hillbilly]

Urg - I'm gonna reply, even though I kinda dont want to but you know:

I think a lot of folks here are more right than wrong, but we’re mixing a few different arguments.

Yes, Rivian would not exist without RJ. That is obviously true. He founded it, built it, raised the money, got real vehicles into production, and kept it alive when a lot of EV companies turned into vaporware.

But Rivian is not private anymore. That matters. Once a company goes public, public shareholders own the company economically. RJ is still founder, CEO, chairman, and clearly very important to Rivian. But he does not unilaterally own the company.

The “he got $403M” framing is also incomplete. It is not a cash check. Most of this is equity/options, and much of it only becomes valuable if Rivian performs against stock price, profitability, and cash flow targets.

That said, “performance based” does not end the discussion.

The real question is whether this amount, structure, and timing are necessary. Would Rivian perform worse if the package were half the size? Should more of it be tied to R2 execution, margins, service quality, profitability, and cash generation rather than stock price? Is resetting the option economics fair to public shareholders who bought higher and do not get the same reset unless they put in more capital?

Those are not wealth redistribution questions. They are governance and dilution questions.

I understand why institutions may support it. If they believe RJ is the highest-leverage path to a much larger Rivian, then giving up some future upside may look rational. Golden handcuffs.

But rational for institutions does not automatically mean healthy as a broader market trend. I am uncomfortable with these mega founder-CEO packages becoming normalized, especially after Tesla opened the door.

So my view is simple:

RJ deserves significant upside if Rivian executes.

The package is not simply “he got $403M.”

Founder status matters, but it is not a blank check once the company is public.

Shareholders can reasonably care about dilution, timing, structure, and whether the incentives are tied to the right outcomes.

For what it is worth, I will be voting against it again, in the very powerful and deeply consequential non-binding form, lol.

I do not expect that to matter. But as a shareholder, even a small one, that is the mechanism available.

Your question of what's "necessary" is strictly a matter of what he's legally entitled to receive.

 

[portdirect]

Your question of what's "necessary" is strictly a matter of what he's legally entitled to receive.

I don’t think that follows.

Legal entitlement is the floor. Governance judgment is the question.

RJ is legally entitled to receive whatever the approved package provides. I’m not arguing otherwise.

“Is he legally entitled to it?” is a contract question.

“Was it necessary, well structured, and in the best interests of shareholders?” is a governance question.

 

[Hillbilly]

I don’t think that follows.

Legal entitlement is the floor. Governance judgment is the question.

The package is validly approved, then yes, RJ is legally entitled to receive whatever the package provides. I’m not arguing otherwise.

“Is he legally entitled to it?” is a contract question.

“Was it necessary, well structured, and in the best interests of shareholders?” is a governance question.

You're ignoring whether RJ would have stayed on different terms. The terms are what each side bargained for as to what they felt was in the best interests of Rivian AND RJ.

 

[mkhuffman]

This started off as an interesting thread, and then it became stupid. Jealousy is not a good emotion.

 

[mkennedy009]

I think it is just 'en vogue' to go after the rich, people want to be poor because it is easy. I was poor growing up (did not know it), Army college fund and still was poor in college (knew it). All very simple life, go to school, go to work, repeat. Summers, work 12 hour nights at the cannery. Learned lots of Spanish.

Then I started adulting. Anyone who has tried that knows how complicated it can be. My escape are my dogs and the outdoors.

I know a few people running there own companies, small and large. They stress out about payroll, taxes, income and increasing on politics. I could not do that, just give me a check for my work and I will spend it my way. Mostly on my dogs. If my neighborhood or state goes to shit, I can move (with permission of my wife ).

 

[mkhuffman]

I think it is just 'en vogue' to go after the rich, people want to be poor because it is easy. I was poor growing up (did not know it), Army college fund and still was poor in college (knew it). All very simple life, go to school, go to work, repeat. Summers, work 12 hour nights at the cannery. Learned lots of Spanish.

Then I started adulting. Anyone who has tried that knows how complicated it can be. My escape are my dogs and the outdoors.

I know a few people running there own companies, small and large. They stress out about payroll, taxes, income and increasing on politics. I could not do that, just give me a check for my work and I will spend it my way. Mostly on my dogs. If my neighborhood or state goes to shit, I can move (with permission of my wife ).

This is the way.

 

[richguess]

Hyperbole aside, feel free to start a pain management practice or go back for a neurosurgery residency. The ones I know in those areas are highly compensated. Ultimately it's on you that you chose to be a public defender in the field of medicine.

And am better for it. I loved my career. I don’t disagree that individuals should be able to get large pay packages. I do think the amounts are unnecessary and really out of hand. And, I could finish that neurosurgery residency at age 86! I’ll be happy to do some stereotactic stuff, maybe a fee GBMs, if I’m not drooling into the wound.

 

[Hillbilly]

And am better for it. I loved my career. I don’t disagree that individuals should be able to get large pay packages. I do think the amounts are unnecessary and really out of hand. And, I could finish that neurosurgery residency at age 86! I’ll be happy to do some stereotactic stuff, maybe a fee GBMs, if I’m not drooling into the wound.

ER work I imagine is fairly thankless but it's so vital. Honestly thank you for the dedicated work in an area of need.

 

[Hereforthesnacks]

I do love my Rivians, Amazon deliveries, and starlink. All of them significantly improve my quality of life and none of which I would have without Musk and Bezos. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd admit it too.

I would hand in Rivian, Starlink, and Amazon if it meant more people had a say in the future.

And if you were being honest with yourself, you’d admit that you aren’t willing to do the same.

Sponsored