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

[AZLucidGuy]

I wonder about how different a position we would be in right now if Peter had been allowed to launch an SUV as Lucid's first product, which (as I understand it) he pretty much begged to board and the PIF to approve.

I was not aware of that. Was it the PIF that pushed the sedan first?

 

[AZLucidGuy]

Lucid without Peter is going to have difficulty innovating in my opinion. Look at Tesla. After Peter Rowlinson left Tesla, Tesla has not had any major breakthrough innovations. They are still using the same bulky motors from the Model S developed by Peter. My hope is that the PIF leadership and Lucid Board will recognize this and install Peter as the CTO so that he can directly oversee the future innovations.

 

[Lucken]

After hours trending might have been good, but it’s turned sour on Lucid, down about 7% (Tesla up 1%).

 

[hmp10]

My hope is that the PIF leadership and Lucid Board will recognize this and install Peter as the CTO so that he can directly oversee the future innovations.

Not a chance. First, it would take an extraordinary pairing of personalities for the scenario to work in which a CEO remains in an organization subordinate to his successor, and the chances of landing on such a pairing are extraordinarily remote.

But more importantly, the whole point of removing Rawlinson (if that's the way this actually went down) would be that those calling the shots did not like the way technology decisions were dominating other aspects of the business. Having Rawlinson remain in the organization to push for technology priorities that were unacceptable to the Board when he was making those decisions would be pointless . . . and maddeningly frustrating for Rawlinson himself.

 

[hmp10]

I was not aware of that. Was it the PIF that pushed the sedan first?

Rawlinson sprung that surprise comment in an interview a few months back. However, he didn't say specifically it was the PIF. He said it was "the investors" who, at the time, weren't as dominated by the PIF as now.

 

[Buffalo Bob]

I was not aware of that. Was it the PIF that pushed the sedan first?

I can't say that for sure, but I had the impression that it was a major funding issue, and it's the PIF with the most skin in the game. It may have been a concession in order to get them to go all in.

 

[Electrified]

$LCID is up 12% now (See Thompson Reuters), I think the market loves it. Change is good. And he’s not leaving, the battery tech is still amazing!!

Do I buy the dip today? CFRA put a strong sell on LCID last night, and BOA followed this morning with an underperform.

I think I'm going to take a flyer and make a buy @ $2.36 per, WTF

 

[illopp00]

Do I buy the dip today? CFRA put a strong sell on LCID last night, and BOA followed this morning with an underperform.

I think I'm going to take a flyer and make a buy @ $2.36 per, WTF

I was going to stay disciplined but let a day close and see what happens. I was waiting for more peak hate for Anti-EV and LCID in generally based on some 'disappointment' around Gravity launch numbers, but this CEO change is as good as any buying controversy.

 

[Electrified]

I was going to stay disciplined but let a day close and see what happens. I was waiting for more peak hate for Anti-EV and LCID in generally based on some 'disappointment' around Gravity launch numbers, but this CEO change is as good as any buying controversy.

I was in my portfolio this morning contemplating some sells and buys, I researched LCID and saw the news and then came here to see what the sentiment was. In any event I picked it up at $2.37, will see what it looks like a year from now

 

[Batteryman]

Not a chance. First, it would take an extraordinary pairing of personalities for the scenario to work in which a CEO remains in an organization subordinate to his successor, and the chances of landing on such a pairing are extraordinarily remote.

But more importantly, the whole point of removing Rawlinson (if that's the way this actually went down) would be that those calling the shots did not like the way technology decisions were dominating other aspects of the business. Having Rawlinson remain in the organization to push for technology priorities that were unacceptable to the Board when he was making those decisions would be pointless . . . and maddeningly frustrating for Rawlinson himself.

Agree, trying to create the perfect car causes delays.

 

[MJAir23TheGoat]

Said so, its down 5%. As an investor this is bad

When first announced…. news was reacted positively, but as soon as the dust settled…..
probably gonna get pretty ugly sub two dollars could be coming. Open $2.32 this AM
Some may opt to buy the dip at this entry orice

 

[Haggy]

Please please please - have him put Elon on the next rocket ship to Mars forever and take over as CEO of Tesla. TSLA needs a grown up who is focused on the company - wouldn’t that be quite a turn of events? I know - not gonna happen and the board at Tesla is derelict in their duty to shareholders anyway, but a man can dream.

At minimum, he can serve as an example for Musk, who can also step down and move on. Without getting into the specifics of Musk's technical contributions, any missteps by Rawlinson are nothing compared to ones made by Musk that were unrelated to technology.

 

[Leftlane]

You can introduce the greatest innovations and ground-up engineering excellence every day, right up until you declare bankruptcy. It doesn’t matter what your technology, efficiency, awards, etc are unless you can sell a ton of product to remain a viable concern. At this point the PIF should just take them private.

 

[HC_79]

Rivian launched with motors and other technology components it bought from suppliers. Lucid engineered virtually every technology component of the Air in house, breaking new technology ground with many of them. Rivian brought to the market innovative applications of largely-existing technology in fairly conventional body shells. Lucid brought not only ground-breaking technology, but a ground-up rethinking of what could be achieved with passenger/cargo space in a given volume.

Yes, Rivian launched with Bosch but then pivoted to building its own motors in house. The Enduro motor is present in the R1 Gen 2 and this is the key thing between Rivian and Lucid. They both took different approaches to how they launched their companies but Rivian has been able to pivot and move way more aggressively than what Lucid has done. Lucid building everything in house before launching the Air should have put them at an advantage over Rivian but it seems Rivian leapfrogged them with how aggressive they have been.

As for Rivian having no issues, I held my R1S Launch Edition reservation for over four years before finally giving up after months of being told I would be contacted by a "Rivian Guide" to confirm my order -- a contact that never came -- and having phone calls and emails not returned about the status of my order. I reserved my Air Dream Edition several months after I placed the Rivian reservation, and I took delivery of my Air several months before I finally dropped the Rivian reservation.

Both companies had reservation woes but one has managed to get 120K cars out to market with aggressive pivoting vs the other getting 20K yet spending billions on s plsnt that can produce 90,000 cars annually yet for this fiscal they still only forecasted 20K.

I have met Peter. He IS Lucid. The company NEEDS him. He IS the visionary genius. Sure, others can probably do a better job of ramping up Gravity and Air, but for midsize and future products, Lucid NEEDS Peter to create the "next" innovation. Peter has spoken of the Holy Grail being 5 miles/kWh. Who is going to drive this now? How will they get to 6 miles/kWh in the future before competitors do?

Do you not think this is already going to be the case with Atlas?

 

[digiboxer]

Not a chance. First, it would take an extraordinary pairing of personalities for the scenario to work in which a CEO remains in an organization subordinate to his successor, and the chances of landing on such a pairing are extraordinarily remote.

But more importantly, the whole point of removing Rawlinson (if that's the way this actually went down) would be that those calling the shots did not like the way technology decisions were dominating other aspects of the business. Having Rawlinson remain in the organization to push for technology priorities that were unacceptable to the Board when he was making those decisions would be pointless . . . and maddeningly frustrating for Rawlinson himself.

Right---and notice he becomes a Tech Advisor to the BOARD, not the company at large. They don't want him hanging around (which would be fraught with issues, imo)

 

[Batteryman]

You can introduce the greatest innovations and ground-up engineering excellence every day, right up until you declare bankruptcy. It doesn’t matter what your technology, efficiency, awards, etc are unless you can sell a ton of product to remain a viable concern. At this point the PIF should just take them private.

PIF won’t go private, they would have done it last year. Going private means 3-4 billion to buy out shareholders and then 1-2 billion a year for at least 2 years for further capital, may cost them 8-10 billion. Much cheaper to just support until midsize gets established. They also want to keep this as an American company. They also need to give stock options to hire good talent.

 

[noobzilla]

I randomly saw an article about the CEO stepping down. I still sometimes check Lucid once in a while despite selling my Air because I want to see this company succeed.
I believe a change in CEO is warranted because something more drastic needs to happen. Despite promises of growth in the past several years, it's still too slow and the massive quarterly losses is not sustainable. Same old story each quarter.

Rawlinson is an awesome and passionate technical guy. I would prefer if he stayed as CTO for reasons BofA stated. I'm speculating that he was forced to step down. IMO Lucid announcing that he is staying as "advisor" is mostly PR stunt to lessen the fire. If he had really planned to "retire" after Gravity launch, then the transition would've been smoother and they should've already identified a replacement CEO. But who knows... regardless I continue to hope for the company's success.

 

[Batteryman]

Right---and notice he becomes a Tech Advisor to the BOARD, not the company at large. They don't want him hanging around (which would be fraught with issues, imo)

Right time to say bye to Peter , don’t know what BOA analyst is smoking but Lucid needs a new direction. Peter has achieved what he can and now we need a sales/marketing CEO. So BOA thinks this slow sales when you have 90k capacity is the way to go? Load of rubbish thinking.

 

[hmp10]

Both companies had reservation woes but one has managed to get 120K cars out to market with aggressive pivoting vs the other getting 20K yet spending billions on s plsnt that can produce 90,000 cars annually yet for this fiscal they still only forecasted 20K.

Rivian launched with two products in the two most popular U.S. market segments: pickups and SUVs.

Lucid launched into one of the smallest market segments: full-size luxury sedans. And it has since emerged that that was not Rawlinson's decision but that of key investors.

To compare the sales numbers of a company making only a luxury sedan to one making pickups and SUVs tells us nothing about how well each company was being run. It only sheds light on the efficacy of their initial decisions about market entry points, and that apparently was not in the hands of Rawlinson or his team.

Yes, Rivian launched with Bosch but then pivoted to building its own motors in house. The Enduro motor is present in the R1 Gen 2 and this is the key thing between Rivian and Lucid. They both took different approaches to how they launched their companies but Rivian has been able to pivot and move way more aggressively than what Lucid has done.

Why would Lucid need to pivot? They launched with the smallest, most powerful, most efficient motors and the leading power electronics in the industry.

 

[HC_79]

N

Rivian launched with two products in the two most popular U.S. market segments: pickups and SUVs.

Lucid launched into one of the smallest market segments: full-size luxury sedans. And it has since emerged that that was not Rawlinson's decision but that of key investors.

To compare the sales numbers of a company making only a luxury sedan to one making pickups and SUVs tells us nothing about how well each company was being run. It only sheds light on the efficacy of their initial decisions about market entry points, and that apparently was not in the hands of Rawlinson or his team.



Why would Lucid need to pivot? They launched with the smallest, most powerful, most efficient motors and the leading power electronics in the industry.

You’re missing the point. It’s not about Lucid changing the motors etc. it’s about how each business leader took decisions based on troubles with the company. Rivian seems to see a bottleneck / problem and moves aggressively to change. Lucid just stayed the course. Everything with Lucid is slow, software features / roll outs, Gravity production etc. Rivian had issues with its initial ADAS suite, changed in on Gen 2 and now hand free is coming in weeks. Lucid said in August last year that hands free would be available end of last year and now it’s later this year. They can’t afford to continue moving slow people will just simply abandon them and settle for another product even though it’s not the best one.