What's new
By:

Target $0

gaskiller said:
Such vetting shouldn’t take 7 hours….chop chop….
Click to expand...
Okay. 🤷‍♂️
gaskiller said:
Once it got out that they hired Alix partners, they should have announced why they were hired. That came out a week ago in CarBuzz
Click to expand...
Hiring a consulting firm is fine. Companies do this all the time. It is generally a bad idea to respond to rumors, as you can accidentally substantiate them. This is very basic corporate communications. 🤷‍♂️
 
gaskiller said:
Such vetting shouldn’t take 7 hours….chop chop….

Once it got out that they hired Alix partners, they should have announced why they were hired. That came out a week ago in CarBuzz
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this. But perhaps SEC or blackout periods, as @borski mentioned, may have been hampering them. But after the wild steep crash they had to respond.
 
Looks like carbuzz website is getting in on the act spreading fear against the company. Lucid needs to own the story and not let these FUD spreaders take over the narrative. We need better communication to investors.
 
gaskiller said:
Looks like carbuzz website is getting in on the act spreading fear against the company. Lucid needs to own the story and not let these FUD spreaders take over the narrative. We need better communication to investors.
Click to expand...
that's what the quarterly investor calls are for. And events like Investor Day
 
DeaneG said:
He had to wait for vetted language from legal. This isn't something you just wing.
Click to expand...
He also had to comply with SEC rules and Reg FD. There are a myriad of things that a company can and cannot do when it comes to disclosures and responding to rumors particularly in the weeks leading up to earnings release. Retail investors often have no idea what these rules are. It’s one of the many reasons I don’t hold individual stocks beyond equity in my employer.
 
I don't understand this whole rationale of "dollar cost averaging" an extremely volatile stock like LCID, so I asked Gemini why some people insist on dollar-cost-averaging their investments in risky stocks rather than zero-basing their investment decisions.

Gemini said: It is the ultimate battle between behavioral psychology and pure financial rationality.
In a perfectly rational world, every investor would "zero-base" their portfolio daily. They would look at their holdings, ask, "If I were starting from scratch with 100% cash today, would I buy this risky stock at its current price?" and sell immediately if the answer was "no."
Yet, millions of investors do the exact opposite. They dollar-cost average (DCA) further into plunging, high-risk stocks. Here is a look at the psychological traps and practical friction that drive this behavior.

1. The Psychological Trap of "DCA-ing Down"​

When applied to broad market index funds, DCA is a brilliant strategy. When applied to individual high-risk stocks, it often becomes a vehicle for cognitive biases.
  • The Sunk Cost Fallacy & Ego: Selling a losing stock forces an investor to turn a "paper loss" into a "realized loss." Psychologically, selling is an admission of being wrong. Buying more (DCA-ing) allows them to tell themselves, "I'm not losing; I'm just buying the dip!"
  • The Illusion of the "Lower Cost Basis": Investors love watching their average purchase price drop. If they bought a speculative tech stock at $100 and it crashes to $20, buying more at $20 lowers their average cost to, say, $40. They convince themselves it only has to recover a little bit for them to break even, ignoring the fact that they are throwing good money after bad.
  • Anchoring Bias: The human brain naturally anchors to the highest price an asset once had. If a risky stock was once $150 and is now $15, the investor perceives it as a "90% off sale," rather than recognizing that the company’s fundamentals may have permanently deteriorated.

2. Why Zero-Basing is Brutally Hard​

Zero-basing is mathematically superior for active investing, but it requires a level of emotional discipline that goes against basic human nature.
  • High Cognitive Friction: Zero-basing requires active, continuous decision-making. You have to constantly research, re-evaluate, and execute trades. DCA, on the other hand, can be completely automated. Inertia is a powerful force.
  • Tax Loss & Gain Complexities: In taxable accounts, zero-basing triggers real-world tax consequences. Selling a winner to reallocate triggers capital gains taxes, while selling a loser might trigger wash-sale rules if you want to get back in later.
  • Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) on the Rebound: If you zero-base, sell a risky stock, and it suddenly rockets 200% the next week, the regret is paralyzing. Psychologically, people prefer the passive pain of holding a loser to the active pain of selling a stock right before it recovers.

Summary: DCA vs. Zero-Basing​

FeatureDollar-Cost Averaging (Risky Assets)Zero-Base Investing
Primary DriverEmotion, automation, and hope.Logic, opportunity cost, and utility.
Core Question"How can I get back to even on this?""Where is the absolute best place for my next dollar today?"
Mental EffortLow (passive/autopilot).High (requires constant objective analysis).
Risk ProfileHigh risk of "catching a falling knife."Optimizes capital allocation, but can trigger emotional regret if a sold stock rebounds.

The Bottom Line: DCA-ing into risky stocks is often used as an emotional coping mechanism to avoid the pain of a bad decision. Zero-basing is the intellectually honest approach, but it requires treating your money like a cold, calculating hedge fund manager would—and most humans just aren't wired that way.
Click to expand...
 
Northpointe said:
He also had to comply with SEC rules and Reg FD. There are a myriad of things that a company can and cannot do when it comes to disclosures and responding to rumors particularly in the weeks leading up to earnings release. Retail investors often have no idea what these rules are. It’s one of the many reasons I don’t hold individual stocks beyond equity in my employer.
Click to expand...
There’s a reason an 8-K was filed with the SEC today. Without it, they wouldn’t have been able to comment without getting in trouble with the SEC

 
gaskiller said:
It’s was a rumor initiated by EV website. If going bankrupt they wouldn’t take 800 million debt. They won’t go private, they lose autonomy vehicle advantage due to being purely Saudi company. They wouldn’t have hired new team if that’s the plan.

Alix partners actually suggested they stop Europe expansion and concentrate on quality.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if today was good timing or not, but I have been looking for peak hate (not sure what else it could look like). It seems to be here on the company, all media narratives are negative, posts are negative....The weakest in the industry are falling starting with Fisker, Vinfast down to token sales, Polestar out. Seems to be active negative hate that is manufactured well beyond reality...

Either way missed the 2 buck share price dip while watching the World Cup...
 
L-Dude said:
I don't understand this whole rationale of "dollar cost averaging" an extremely volatile stock like LCID, so I asked Gemini why some people insist on dollar-cost-averaging their investments in risky stocks rather than zero-basing their investment decisions.
Click to expand...
These two strategies aren't mutually exclusive.
 
L-Dude said:
In a perfectly rational world, every investor would "zero-base" their portfolio daily.
Click to expand...
In a perfectly rational world casinos wouldn't exist. Considering that the odds of a startup surviving and outperforming the S&P 500 over a 5 year period are about 2%, DCA on speculative stocks starts to look a lot more like gambling than investing. They call these 2% of startups unicorns for a reason.
 
HC_79 said:
Lucid may not want to deal with Discovery though which would almost certainly be a given if they sued him. Its probably why these trash outlets get away with it because they know companies won't go after them for fear the slightest little thing discovered in the discovery process could make it worse for them.
Click to expand...
Apparently after the SEC got doge'd, they no longer have resources to spend on any company under a couple billion in market cap to validate compliance. Which is actually the majority of publically listed companies.
AZLucidGuy said:
Gravity is the second-best-selling three-row EV in America. It beats the Cadillac Escalade IQ and Cadillac Vistiq, and loses only to the Rivian R1S. For a nameplate in its first real year, in a segment where Cadillac has spent a century building the default, that is not a failure.
Click to expand...
Right the only 'failure' right now is it not selling in the numbers to meet the original guidance. It is the 2nd best selling EV premium 3-row SUV in the market, and there are many vehicles that don't reach some stated guided selling numbers. Now for GM it doesn't really matter if they don't sell enough Vistiqs...but they are also selling nowhere near the amount EV Sliverados and Sierras either...
 
Northpointe said:
In a perfectly rational world casinos wouldn't exist. Considering that the odds of a startup surviving and outperforming the S&P 500 over a 5 year period are about 2%, DCA on speculative stocks starts to look a lot more like gambling than investing. They call these 2% of startups unicorns for a reason.
Click to expand...
We could be friends
 
AZLucidGuy said:
I agree with you on this. But perhaps SEC or blackout periods, as @borski mentioned, may have been hampering them. But after the wild steep crash they had to respond.
Click to expand...
When I was with GE, some short sellers said it was going to zero thanks to massive accounting fraud, it does take a long time to issue a statement. Although CEO Larry Culp got in CNBC that morning and said he bought a whole bunch of shares....We should be able to expect the new Lucid CEO to say something publicly...
 
The_Don said:
These two strategies aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Well you either believe in gambling or believe in hard nosed investment analysis. That sounds mutually exclusive to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top