"Announced CEO transition..." Rawlinson out as CEO

[borski]

I wonder how low it will have to go and how long until it is delisted… I hope it continues; and goes up. Also I hope the saudis don’t pull the plug;

View attachment 26863

Saudis won’t pull the plug. This is likely driven by the PIF wanting to see some scale, and Lucid is still a huge piece of their strategy. The sunk cost fallacy doesn’t apply very much here, since it’s more than just a sunk cost; they’ve invested in the preeminent technology winner in EVs, and they have a Lucid factory now, turning the Saudis into a vehicle manufacturing country for the first time, etc.

The Saudis very much want to see Lucid succeed; that’s why, in my estimation, they pushed Peter out. The only question that remains to be answered is whether that turns out to be a good or a bad thing in the long run.

Essentially, the question is: did the board and PIF get antsy too early, and scaling now will be a mistake, or is Lucid truly *ready* to scale and Peter was holding them back unnecessarily?

I don’t know the answer to that. My suspicion is it’s too early and they should’ve waited with a bit more patience until midsize. But again: I lack context, so I have no idea.

 

[californiaboy935]

Should be more than 50% returns on the lease. I intend to return my lease two months before its expiration in Mid October. Good riddance!

@californiaboy935

Your reaction is totally fair. I’ve had this car for 11 months now - deep into an 18-month lease - and trust me, I have really tried to like it. I wanted to love it. I wanted to be that person who says, “Oh, you just don’t get it!” But after five plus trips to the shop, a few mobile appointments and constant battles with things as basic as door locks and CarPlay, I’ve accepted my fate. It’s like being in a toxic relationship: the highs are amazing, but the daily nonsense slowly drains your soul. Like many on this forum, I love the way it drives—but I hate the way it drives me insane over the simplest things.

That’s a good way to explain it. And through that explanation I understand your need to leave. I hope you do find something that works consistently for you.

 

[HC_79]

I wonder how low it will have to go and how long until it is delisted… I hope it continues; and goes up. Also I hope the saudis don’t pull the plug;

View attachment 26863

Needs to sit under $1 for more than 30 days I believe.

 

[borski]

@FA14's comments are right on!

No one is disputing Rawlinson's engineering brilliance. But, Lucid is a business. not a religion. It needs to serve its customers vis-a-vis, launching products on time, deliver what they promised, communicate schedules and issues, respond to customer's issues. If the company cannot succeed financially, it is all for not! As I noted in a separate post, Nikolai Tesla was also a brilliant engineer, perhaps technically much better than his boss Thomas Edison. But Tesla never succeeded in business even though his technical ideas were right-on (e.g., AC power, wireless, etc.).

It is not a cake-walk for Lucid even with Rawlinson out. Doubling the car shipment in 2025 and launching Gravity are monumental tasks!

You’re missing the point. Of course a for-profit company needs to make a profit to be successful; that’s just a basic fact. Nobody is questioning that, and stating that as if that’s the issue at hand is a strawman.

The question isn’t about if, but about when. Plenty of companies make no profit for a long time, and then they make tons of profit at scale. This worked better in the ZIRP days, but is still true today. Many companies are nowhere near financial success, because investment is a long-term thing when you’re talking about spaceships, vehicles, planes, or anything at that scale.

Long-term investment is generally private, because public investors generally want quicker returns and get antsy. I’m unconvinced taking Lucid public was a good idea. I think they did it in the heyday of the SPAC creation explosion during the pandemic, but I have always thought it was a mistake, as public investors don’t have the same appetite for risk that private investors do.

That said, I don’t have context; for all I know, at the time, it was the only thing they could do. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[HC_79]

The Saudis very much want to see Lucid succeed; that’s why, in my estimation, they pushed Peter out. The only question that remains to be answered is whether that turns out to be a good or a bad thing in the long run.

Essentially, the question is: did the board and PIF get antsy too early, and scaling now will be a mistake, or is Lucid truly *ready* to scale and Peter was holding them back unnecessarily?

The next few months are going to be very interesting. If Peter was holding them back then there was possible frustration within the Exec team then it was in the companies best interests to move him on.

If however, the Exec team like Eric etc. had Peters back and don’t agree with him being ousted then Lucid could lose some critical people and that’s a much bigger risk than just Peter.

 

[borski]

The next few months are going to be very interesting. If Peter was holding them back then there was possible frustration within the Exec team and if was in the companies best interests to move him on.

If however, the Exec team like Eric etc. had Peters back and don’t agree with him being ousted then Lucid could lose some critical people and that’s a much bigger risk than just Peter.

Yup. I agree that the next few months will be very interesting, and likely elucidating. (No pun intended)

 

[BS8899]

You’re missing the point. Of course a for-profit company needs to make a profit to be successful; that’s just a basic fact. Nobody is questioning that, and stating that as if that’s the issue at hand is a strawman.

The question isn’t about if, but about when. Plenty of companies make no profit for a long time, and then they make tons of profit at scale. This worked better in the ZIRP days, but is still true today. Many companies are nowhere near financial success, because investment is a long-term thing when you’re talking about spaceships, vehicles, planes, or anything at that scale.

Long-term investment is generally private, because public investors generally want quicker returns and get antsy. I’m unconvinced taking Lucid public was a good idea. I think they did it in the heyday of the SPAC creation explosion during the pandemic, but I have always thought it was a mistake, as public investors don’t have the same appetite for risk that private investors do.

That said, I don’t have context; for all I know, at the time, it was the only thing they could do. Hindsight is 20/20.

Rawlinson has been with Lucid for 12 years. He is a great engineer.

But, for Lucid to succeed, they must become profitable. And for companies like Lucid to become profitable, they must delight the customers.

Product roll-out glitches, delays, missed deadlines, no-communications, blame suppliers and partners, ......no one will keep buying these excuses.

Reality, what a concept!

 

[knewman]

Wild prediction - Rawlinson is brought back in four years later to heroically pull the company out of a nosedive triggered by this decision

 

[californiaboy935]

Wild prediction - Rawlinson is brought back in four years later to heroically pull the company out of a nosedive triggered by this decision

Hey! I predicted this first! lol.

 

[tuffode]

@californiaboy935

Your reaction is totally fair. I’ve had this car for 11 months now - deep into an 18-month lease - and trust me, I have really tried to like it. I wanted to love it. I wanted to be that person who says, “Oh, you just don’t get it!” But after five plus trips to the shop, a few mobile appointments and constant battles with things as basic as door locks and CarPlay, I’ve accepted my fate. It’s like being in a toxic relationship: the highs are amazing, but the daily nonsense slowly drains your soul. Like many on this forum, I love the way it drives—but I hate the way it drives me insane over the simplest things.

As a car guy who's only owned BMWs in the past (pre 2007 before they started to suck from a drivers car perspective), I love my Pure RWD so much even with it having some problems (frunk latch needed replacement, car randomly shut off and wouldn't drive until I did a full reset, random parking sensor malfunctions). Would I recommend it to my non car friends, no. But if you love driving, there isn't a better EV on the market. Less then 2 months of ownership and only 4k miles and my rear tires are totally bald from all the drifting I have been doing. Honestly the only thing I am worried about is that new CEO won't care about the way the car drives the way Peter did. He used to work at Lotus.

 

[JerseyStrong]

Wall Street’s celebrations are often short-lived. I admire Rawlinson and bought my Air because of him, but I don’t argue with replacing him as CEO - I am not sure his gifts were strongly suited for the role as it expanded. The question i believe is whether a new CEO can maintain the focus on excellence and expand Luci’s visibility and sales without losing key staff and momentum. Look at the established auto companies globally and the havoc created by CEO’s brought in to turn things around. Does Nissan ring a bell? I doubt having Rawlinson named as CTO would have worked. He has too much ownership of the whole process to be content with a limited staff role. It seldom works out. I have been thinking of a second Lucid purchase, but now I am very much wait and see. I wonder how many others will also sit out a decision to purchase with Rawlinson no longer the visionary for excellence? I wish him well.

 

[hmp10]

I just hope that as the dust settles around Peter Rawlinson's departure what will most be remembered is that he's the only person in the EV universe who oversaw the engineering and production of two ground-breaking cars that won "Car of the Year" immediately upon their launch (and with a third award quite possibly in the works for the Gravity).

I hope his mania for innovative engineering and design and his love of driving will not get lost at Lucid the way the Big Three lost their way when engineers vacated their C-suites and bean counters moved in behind them.

Mr. Rawlinson, I salute you, sir, and hope your vision remains a permanent fixture at Lucid. The world needs this kind of car company more, perhaps, than it realizes.

 

[tonybot]

Wall Street’s celebrations are often short-lived. I admire Rawlinson and bought my Air because of him, but I don’t argue with replacing him as CEO - I am not sure his gifts were strongly suited for the role as it expanded. The question i believe is whether a new CEO can maintain the focus on excellence and expand Luci’s visibility and sales without losing key staff and momentum. Look at the established auto companies globally and the havoc created by CEO’s brought in to turn things around. Does Nissan ring a bell? I doubt having Rawlinson named as CTO would have worked. He has too much ownership of the whole process to be content with a limited staff role. It seldom works out. I have been thinking of a second Lucid purchase, but now I am very much wait and see. I wonder how many others will also sit out a decision to purchase with Rawlinson no longer the visionary for excellence? I wish him well.

I am in the same boat. I have a Gravity on order. At this point, my immediate urge is to cancel the order and wait for the dust settle. But I am going to let that sit for a couple of days before making a decision. I am not sure if Lucid will be the same company I fell in love without Peter. In my mind, he was the greatest of them all and I am not quite sure if Lucid is ready for a non founder mode CEO.

 

[Joe]

 

[Batteryman]

Doubling from 5k to 10k is not the same path to 20k….especially 1st quarter is almost 2/3rds gone and no sign of gravity anywhere for even a test drive. Let’s revisit this topic end of 2nd quarter with the sales numbers.

Do the math, and Gravity ramp and lower priced Gravity Touring wont come till the later half of the year. They sold 10k airs , and with present Tesla hate and more cars on the road, they can very easily double. You forget the Middle East- I'm very bullsih on sales there. Its not Trump world, he cant do anything about Middle East and European sales.

 

[DreamTour]

You’re missing the point. Of course a for-profit company needs to make a profit to be successful; that’s just a basic fact. Nobody is questioning that, and stating that as if that’s the issue at hand is a strawman.

The question isn’t about if, but about when. Plenty of companies make no profit for a long time, and then they make tons of profit at scale. This worked better in the ZIRP days, but is still true today. Many companies are nowhere near financial success, because investment is a long-term thing when you’re talking about spaceships, vehicles, planes, or anything at that scale.

Long-term investment is generally private, because public investors generally want quicker returns and get antsy. I’m unconvinced taking Lucid public was a good idea. I think they did it in the heyday of the SPAC creation explosion during the pandemic, but I have always thought it was a mistake, as public investors don’t have the same appetite for risk that private investors do.

That said, I don’t have context; for all I know, at the time, it was the only thing they could do. Hindsight is 20/20.

I am totally bummed today because Peter + PIF backing implied there was the runway to "do things right". Well obviously that is not true anymore because they are looking for a change in direction. Perhaps it was wishful thinking as reality is setting in. I am a big fan of Peter's vision and while Peter wasn't technically a founder I agree he ran Lucid in founder mode.

The loss for me is less about technical prowess (Lucid's engineering depth is much more than just Peter (Emad + Eric ++). It's more a spiritual loss in the Lucid movement. I've been long Lucid as a stockholder because i believed in the long term vision (less worried about quarter to quarter) and was willing to ride out the bumps. I guess we will have to see who fills Peter's shoes to see if the vision is still something i subscribe to.

Per your comment, perhaps a change is what's needed for the business to get it in gear. As others have noted, while the engineering is great, many other facets left things to be desired. Time will tell. I'm still super bummed today.

I have to imagine they have some people lined up as part of their new CEO search and that breaking the news is cover for whoever is gainfully employed somewhere else to take a serious look at the job whereas before it wouldn't have been possible with Peter in the seat. The Auto world is a small place and taking a call for a job while the CEO is still in the seat isn't a good look.

I just wonder where they will draw from. The legacy auto world? Or an outsider? Neither are clear standard bearers for a pioneering company.

 

[msaunders9430]

I suppose some of what played out with Peter is why founders sometimes end up agreeing to a buyout by a group/corporation with deep pockets and then move on to consider founding something else. Those that can do so, perhaps value the "founders mode" that the article posted earlier was about. Birthing babies and raising them to a certain age; the privately -owned stage. Then at some point others will enter their lives to influence them; the publicly traded stage.

Atieva grew into Lucid. Lucid is growing up. All founders gone. Publicly traded.
As a car company, perhaps this was inevitable.
Porsche started privately owned.
Time will tell with Lucid.

By the end of the year, the founders concerns of Peter will be forgotten if Gravity customers and investors are happy.
The level of quality that Peter was possibly seeking to attain may still not be a reality, but as long as customers are appeased with OTAs in reasonable intervals and investors are happy with sales, Lucid will be fine. Time will tell how the "Compromise Nothing" message plays out in real life.

By the end of the year, I hope to have my order for a Touring submitted.
However, I'm watching until that time.
What is the impact on a company when Founders mode exits? Hopefully for Lucid the impact is minimal.
Will Lucid remain the leader in ev tech and innovation? Hmmm.
Investors want profits. Your average customer wants a product, especially if they've put down a deposit. As long as most bugs are fixed, customers will be happy.

Customer/Investor mode is nowhere near Founders mode.
As Spock would say "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

 

[DreamTour]

View attachment 26865

Written by a lawyer to head off lawsuits

 

[hmp10]

Product roll-out glitches, delays, missed deadlines, no-communications, blame suppliers and partners . . . .

Oops, sorry. Read your post too fast the first time and thought you were describing Tesla here.

 

[Batteryman]

Probably the right move for Lucid. Doesn't look good for Rawlinson. A necessary move nevertheless!

Agree, at this point probably the right thing for the company. Many aknowledge Peter is an amazing engineer but not what Lucid needs at present. Time for a reshuffle. Saudi want more rapid movement...its been 4 years and stock is in the doldrums.....nothing wrong in getting a new CEO to get a new direction. But Peter will always be known as the founder of Lucid, very unlike Musk ( self proclaimed founder).

I salute you Mr.Rawlinson! Thank you for bringing to this world these amazing vehicles!