What do you mean by "losses mounting for every vehicle they sell"? That implies that it cost Lucid more to produce each vehicle than they sell it for. At this point in any manufacturer's life cycle that would be a difficult statement to quantify. On the one hand there are the costs of the components, labor, and other direct costs that would not be incurred if that particular car had not been built. I don't know that we have enough detail to know what those costs are, but I would assume that those costs are less than the sales price of each air. Have you seen something that indicates otherwise?
If on the other hand, you are calculating the "loss" per vehicle by including Lucid's entire capital and operating costs spread across each car sold, I'm not sure that's a relevant yardstick at this point in the company's lifecycle. Lucid is in a build-up mode (building staffing, building show rooms and service centers, building two factories, designing new models, building research facilities etc.), presumably all of those investment costs are planned to be carried by a much higher level of production than the number of vehicles being sold. In other words, the individual vehicles may be profitable in terms of direct incremental cost, even though the business itself is spending more than it is bringing in.
An analogy I've used before: Suppose you are opening a new pizza restaurant, you spend $500K to build it. In the first week of operation you sell 100 pizzas at $50 each. It’s not accurate to say you are losing $4,950 per pizza. That $500K investment was not meant to be recovered over a 1 week period. If however each pizza cost more than $50 in ingredients and labor and cooking energy, then maybe there is a loss per pizza, but it’s not going to be $4,950 per pizza.
I guess this is our “find out” phase.
