Rivian Q2 2025 Earnings Results

[emoore]

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.

I agree with less involvement with mature industries. New technology needs to be subsidized by governments or it will never go anywhere. So need to subsidize electric and defund oil and gas.

Sponsored

 

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

With lower taxes and lower regulations, our industries would thrive. And dominate the world.

You've just written what is the cause of literally every piece of dystopian science fiction in, forever. You really want to live in a world controlled by the iron fist of Megacorp? Ah, f it. We're headed that way, already.

 

[mkhuffman]

You've just written what is the cause of literally every piece of dystopian science fiction in, forever. You really want to live in a world controlled by the iron fist of Megacorp? Ah, f it. We're headed that way, already.

Such a depressing outlook. And as long as competition exists, it will never happen.

I guess you can envision a world with no competition, but the only way that happens is if the government makes it too hard for competitors to emerge. That is where low taxes and low regulations matter.

Startup businesses need low barriers for market entry. In too many situations the regulatory and tax burdens are so great a new business can't afford to start up and compete with the established companies. And this is by design.

The established companies lobby their governments to make regulations that benefit them and hurt the new innovators. Get rid of all that. If government stays out of the way, the little guys can succeed. And your depressing vision cannot occur. It only occurs if government enables it.

 

[sacramentoelectric]

This is false. A true statement would be "the current government doesn't want to take hard working taxpayer money to subsidize car companies like previous ones subsidized Tesla."

The free market should decide. I decided and I didn't need a subsidy to help me decide. I wanted the most awesome truck available in the market so that's what I bought. I don't need someone who has less resources than I do to subsidize my $100k truck. And the current government agrees with me.

It's obviously true. When you provide direct subsidies totaling $10s of billion a year to oil and gas companies along with tax breaks for drilling costs and depletion allowance you are picking a winner and distorting the market. If we don't want to invest in domestic EV production, I guess reasonable people can disagree on the wisdom but let's not pretend getting rid of EV subsidies leveled the playing field. The current government doesn't agree with you; they just chose different $100k vehicles to subsidize.

 

[solaskaze]

In related news , Lucid:

"The electric vehicle maker now anticipates producing between 18,000 and 20,000 vehicles for the year after previously projecting a goal of 20,000.

Loss per share: 24 cents adjusted vs. a loss of 21 cents expected
Revenue: $259 million vs. $280 million expected"

tanking -8% currently after hours.

LCID book value: $1.05 per share
RVIN book value: $5.43 per share

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I think this is best accomplished with lower costs of manufacturing here in our country, while imposing costs on China to make them uncompetitive.

We can reduce costs for our companies by lowering taxes and eliminating regulations. We can impose costs on China with tarriffs. So in effect we are subsidizing all companies who produce things here using American labor.

There is no need to pick winners and losers when every company who produces here can win. The only winners our government should choose are US based companies. And they should all compete on a fair playing field without our government picking sides. Like has been done so often in the past. It needs to stop. IMO.

You aren't thinking about this on a global scale. The USA is only so big, and tariffs only control what comes into our borders. If China's government is subsidizing their EV production while our government does not, they will surpass us on technology and do it for a cheaper price. So while we might be able to keep those EVs out of our borders, that won't do any good if the rest of the world starts buying them.

Then the investment that China put into its industry would pay off, as the USA would be unable to compete with China's tech on a global scale. Then, our international auto sales would plummet. Who would buy an American car when they could get better for cheaper?

The end result is the US falls further behind in technology each year until our stuff is so far below our competition that we can never catch up. EVs and battery tech are the future, software defined vehicles are the future and we are falling behind.

 

[BigSkies]

Looking out 5 years, Rivian's future is bright as long as the R2 and R3 sell well. That's a bigger "if" than some people think, but it's not hard to see that path.

Also looking 5 years out, the US auto industry is going to be increasingly irrelevant. The auto industry is a global industry. Sales in the US are important, but global sales are more important. The companies with the power to innovate and drive down prices are the ones with scale. Those that sell the most vehicles will win, full stop.

The global market for EV's is about 17 million cars. Of those, ~11 million are sold in China, ~2M are sold in the EU, and ~1.7M are sold in the US (and likely declining next year). The balance is from the rest of the world.

Most importantly, the sales of China-made cars to the rest of the world are skyrocketing. ~$15k USD EV's are now being sold in places like Mexico and Brazil. These are important markets for the US automakers.

A car company needs to be selling about 500k EV's/yr just to break even, much less turn a profit. US made cars of any drive train aren't going to be competitive when steel is ~$100/ton more expensive and aluminum is ~$900/ton more expensive than the rest of the world (thanks tariffs!). Not to mention copper and graphite tariffs.

US automakers EV businesses will be mostly toast unless the US market rapidly scales in the next few years. Keeping those Chinese cars out of the US won't protect US automakers from competition in every other market on the planet.

But I guess we'd rather double down on the oil & gas business.

 

[renderpaz]

I have a significant number of shares, didn't even know earnings release was today, because it's irrelevant. All that matters is R2. If they can achieve positive gross margins on R2 company future is bright. Stock might not reflect that until current pessimism on EVs wanes, which it will as batteries ride the price curve.

By 2030 boring city cars will be replaced my Waymo rides, the only markets that will matter are adventure family vehicles, trucks, and high end sports cars.

 

[waitingonanr1s]

Bingo. Tesla was the only real player in the market when it was ramping up M3 production. Now there are insane levels of competition.

I've been saying this for many moons now: Rivian needs strategic partnerships to survive (as does everyone in the industry). As a shareholder, I want to see them do more with VW. A joint venture EREV utilizing shared expertise that will add additional options for consumers who don't want range anxiety but still want the benefits of a fully electric drivetrain (EREVs are fully electric and only use small, efficient ICE as a battery generator to extend range).

They need revenue and the million dollar question will be how much demand will there be for the R2 when it is ready. Rivian needs there to be steady demand.

They are facing a hostile EV environment from a government subsidy and regulation side, and they are facing economic headwinds in terms of warning signs in the economy and consumer spending. When the sh*t hits the fan, luxury purchases are the first ones to go.

Rivian is on the path to becoming a VW brand IMO. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in some respects.

 

[Golfer04]

This is false. A true statement would be "the current government doesn't want to take hard working taxpayer money to subsidize car companies like previous ones subsidized Tesla."

The free market should decide. I decided and I didn't need a subsidy to help me decide. I wanted the most awesome truck available in the market so that's what I bought. I don't need someone who has less resources than I do to subsidize my $100k truck. And the current government agrees with me.

It isn't about subsidies. It is about sourcing rare earth minerals that are not produced domestically. Tariff policies change daily. Impossible to plan.

 

[emoore]

Such a depressing outlook. And as long as competition exists, it will never happen.

I guess you can envision a world with no competition, but the only way that happens is if the government makes it too hard for competitors to emerge. That is where low taxes and low regulations matter.

Startup businesses need low barriers for market entry. In too many situations the regulatory and tax burdens are so great a new business can't afford to start up and compete with the established companies. And this is by design.

The established companies lobby their governments to make regulations that benefit them and hurt the new innovators. Get rid of all that. If government stays out of the way, the little guys can succeed. And your depressing vision cannot occur. It only occurs if government enables it.

Well if you have unregulated capitalism then companies can become a monopoly. Look at standard oil. Take a loss to put your competitor out of business and then jack up prices. That’s what will happen I’m a true free market without regulations.

 

[SASSquatch]

This is false. A true statement would be "the current government doesn't want to take hard working taxpayer money to subsidize car companies like previous ones subsidized Tesla."

The free market should decide. I decided and I didn't need a subsidy to help me decide. I wanted the most awesome truck available in the market so that's what I bought. I don't need someone who has less resources than I do to subsidize my $100k truck. And the current government agrees with me.

The "Free Market" where we subsidize Oil and Gas to the tune of $50B in direct subsidies and nearly 1T in indirect subsidies every year even though they historically rake in record profits every year?

Subsidies are critical to support mass adoption of new technologies that require heavy investments in infrastructure and manufacturing. If an EV and an ICE vehicle cost the same, and EV charging density was on par with Gas filling density, would people continue to buy ICE vehicles?

Until the playing field is leveled, you need subsidies. That's why the US government and your tax dollars subsidized the buildout of a nationwide gas station infrastructure before it existed. The "Free Market" wasn't about to go and invest in infrastructure at that scale without subsidies.

 

[Rade]

Tesla didn't have a governmental environment that is actively hostile to EVs (and really, material imports in general) while on it's drive to the Model 3. Rivian does.

Additionally, It's hard to have a consistent outlook (and to make decisions based on that outlook) when major economic policies are being made, altered, and ignored on what can be best described as the random whims of the current administration.

This is something that is going to affect the entire automotive industry, not just Rivian.

Well stated.

 

[beaker]

This is false.

This is false.

 

[wski441]

Startup businesses need low barriers for market entry. In too many situations the regulatory and tax burdens are so great a new business can't afford to start up and compete with the established companies. And this is by design.

The established companies lobby their governments to make regulations that benefit them and hurt the new innovators. Get rid of all that. If government stays out of the way, the little guys can succeed. And your depressing vision cannot occur. It only occurs if government enables it.

...you just proved why subsidies exist by the way.... it reduces the barrier to entry, reduces startup tax cost, etc.

Thank you for arguing with yourself.

Sponsored