Rivian Q2 2025 Earnings Results

[mkhuffman]

I hoped you went there...and you walked right into it.

There's been a 2nd and 3rd and 4th and 1000th opinion that the science is indeed there. You're just choosing to ignore it and find "alt facts."

You'll find plenty of studies that show oil isn't an issue with our climate...but when you find out who funded those studies, it all makes sense. Oh, an "oil and gas industry think tank"...wonder if they have something to lose here.

I can get into this if you want, but we should take it to direct messages instead of here. We can share our data sources and discuss the problems with the analysis they has been done, on both sides. There are many, many data issues.

And there are significant bias impacts from the green lobby as well. It is hard to understand criticism of the bias on one side if the green lobby bias is ignored.

If you want, I am open do doing that. Just DM me.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

It's great to get all those opinions. The question is what do you do with that information when you have it? Are you just searching for that single opinion that says what you want to hear even if ALL the other opinions contradict it? Or can you accept the facts as they are?

There are two facts that need scientific proof: 1) the planet is warming, and if so, 2) the warming is mostly caused by human activity. If both can be proven factually, then you have to determine is warming is bad or good. IMO warming is much better than cooling.

But if we determine warming is worse than cooling, how do we reverse it? Or can we? What are the economic consequences of trying to reverse it? Are more people hurt or helped if we try to reverse it? What if we try but we fail? What if we try and succeed, and cause the next ice age? How many people will die if North America is a glacier?

Do we have enough data to answer all of those questions? We certainly have opinions.

 

[COdogman]

There are two facts that need scientific proof: 1) the planet is warming, and if so, 2) the warming is mostly caused by human activity. If both can be proven factually, then you have to determine is warming is bad or good. IMO warming is much better than cooling.

But if we determine warming is worse than cooling, how do we reverse it? Or can we? What are the economic consequences of trying to reverse it? Are more people hurt or helped if we try to reverse it? What if we try but we fail? What if we try and succeed, and cause the next ice age? How many people will die if North America is a glacier?

Do we have enough data to answer all of those questions? We certainly have opinions.

The fact that you are posing those questions this way, as inconclusive, only shows that your search for "second opinions" is not genuine.

And since we ALREADY know that fossil fuel production and the burning of fossil fuels hurts and kills humans and the planet, your concern for trying to reverse it falls into the same category...

The answers to your questions are out there. All you have to do is open your eyes and accept it.

 

[PVguy]

Is it true that orange man plans to subsidize coal to make it competitive with renewables and nat gas?

Let us all choke on that one.

Is it true that orange man plans to subsidize coal to make it competitive with renewables and nat gas?

Of course. We all want to go back to the 19th century, don’t we? With coal, it is not only the CO2 but also other nice stuff like mercury. But then again, we can always rely on “clean coal” to get us through.

 

[beaker]

There are two facts that need scientific proof: 1) the planet is warming, and if so, 2) the warming is mostly caused by human activity. If both can be proven factually...

Do we have enough data to answer all of those questions?

Yes, actually. These have been known facts for close to 40 years now.

It can be true that oil played a role in advancing the quality of life over the last 100 years and yet also be true that - given what we now know and have known for multiple decades - that it is long past time to reduce our reliance on it.

 

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

It's great to get all those opinions. The question is what do you do with that information when you have it? Are you just searching for that single opinion that says what you want to hear even if ALL the other opinions contradict it? Or can you accept the facts as they are?

Dude's down in the 7th page of Google search results looking for the *one opinion* that agrees with him. No wonder I put him on "ignore". Literally a walking meme at this point.

 

[mkhuffman]

The fact that you are posing those questions this way, as inconclusive, only shows that your search for "second opinions" is not genuine.

And since we ALREADY know that fossil fuel production and the burning of fossil fuels hurts and kills humans and the planet, your concern for trying to reverse it falls into the same category...

The answers to your questions are out there. All you have to do is open your eyes and accept it.

Sorry I can't see it your way. I wish we could agree. Maybe one day I can buy you a beer and we can talk about something else, like how great the R2 is. Or if you want to take this discussion to DM where we can get into the details, that works also.

Yes, actually. These have been known facts for close to 40 years now.

It can be true that oil played a role in advancing the quality of life over the last 100 years and yet also be true that - given what we now know and have known for multiple decades - that it is long past time to reduce our reliance on it.

Reduce <> eliminate.

Dude's down in the 7th page of Google search results looking for the *one opinion* that agrees with him. No wonder I put him on "ignore". Literally a walking meme at this point.

I think one of the problems we have in our society is so many people refuse to have discussions with people they disagree with.

I hope you can reconsider, as I would love to have other discussions with you about things we actually agree on. And maybe, one day, we will agree about this also. Who knows? Maybe you will change my mind? It is unlikely to happen if you just give up, though. Or if you just insult me. That won't convince me of anything.

Have a great afternoon!

 

[COdogman]

Sorry I can't see it your way. I wish we could agree. Maybe one day I can buy you a beer and we can talk about something else, like how great the R2 is. Or if you want to take this discussion to DM where we can get into the details, that works also.

I would be happy to buy you that beer and talk about whatever.

Parting thought: Earlier you were the one to say that you believe in our ability to "do great things". So do I, so there is no reason we can't lead the world in sustainable, clean industry and also have a thriving economy.

I don't agree with that assessment at all. With lower taxes and lower regulations, our industries would thrive. And dominate the world.

Maybe I am unrealistically optimistic, but I believe in our ability to do great things.

 

[savethemanual]

 

[waitingonanr1s]

It really is amazing that Rivian made this far without all of our help (myself included).

 

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

 

[Hillbilly]

There has never been and never will be a “free market”. It’s never existed anywhere on the planet at any point in civilized history. For decades the government subsidized railroads, oil, coal, natural gas, farming, and only recently EV production. Point being, we succeed as a country when we help our critical industries compete against the rest of the world.

I’m sure you are aware, but Ayn Rand was a fiction writer…..

That doesn't mean we shouldn't support policy that is most likely to remove barriers to trade.

 

[RivRyan]

100% wrong. Credits and rebates will sway the decision. Just because a 100k car is within budget, does not mean we are spendthrifts!!

I assumed he meant nobody was swayed because $100k cars didn't qualify for the tax credits. Very few Rivians received those.

I wonder whether pricing the way they did was a mistake, at least if there were any economies of scale. Pushing the entry-level price $1,500 lower on R1Ts could have pushed the consumer price down by $5,000. Was demand that inelastic?

 

[waitingonanr1s]

I assumed he meant nobody was swayed because $100k cars didn't qualify for the tax credits. Very few Rivians received those.

I wonder whether pricing the way they did was a mistake, at least if there were any economies of scale. Pushing the entry-level price $1,500 lower on R1Ts could have pushed the consumer price down by $5,000. Was demand that inelastic?

They do when you lease them! Plus some states have lucrative credits as well (was $5,000 in CO, but down to 3500 this year). The credits definitely drove my Gen2 upgrade - I wouldn't have even been able to pretend the math made sense without 7,500 in cap cost reduction and 3,500 in state tax credits (even then it was a stretch). My Gen 1 was the most expensive car I'd every bought with the early pricing (6,500 in fed/state credits on that one), and Gen 2 set that record again (although just leasing, and likely turning it in at the end of the lease).

I'd be happily cruising along in my Gen 1 right now without the tax credits. I would've bought the Gen 1 with or without the credits though - it was my first EV.

 

[JeepEVer]

This may not be a popular idea in this forum, but Tesla has the cash reserves and stock market cap to acquire Rivian. And now that the Cybertruck is officially a flop, Tesla needs real vehicles in the truck and SUV category. Note that the Model Y is a "crossover" not an SUV!

In the next two years while Musk is vesting his $30B in new stock grants, Rivian can roll out the R2. RJ can prepare Rivian for production at scale and building out the infrastructure gaps. And then who knows what lies ahead for the two CEOs.

As an owner of a Performance Model 3, solar panels, and a Powerwall I can attest that Tesla technology is top notch! Musk has always been an ass, but getting Rivian up to the Tesla standards of quality and scalability would be a good thing.

Sponsored