No reason to fret over sensationalized legalese. He's acting as a consultant for the next year to transition the role. Business as usual. He will be missed I'm sure, but this is no reason to panic, life (and business) goes on.
Right, sorry, misread the date.
Still not a good look when he spoke about his excitement joining Lucid etc. and is now leaving
Everyone's situation changes year to year. Life comes at us all hard and fast and what was 2 years ago has already changed so much.
..You know those figures are including development costs such as R&D, design, and planning, right (which I view as unfair)? That figure has been Edmunded (yes, I made up that word), and I wouldn't suggest relying on it. What I want to see is the difference between the average selling price of the car and the factors that are being paid for with the building of the car, such as materials for the car, tooling (assuming it isn't paid off), etc. That would be far more accurate to me.
Sorry, but the loss per car sold is literally the dumbest metric anyone can use to analyze a new car company. It made no sence in year 1 of production when a few people were claiming that it was costing Lucid a billion dollars per car sold and it makes no sense in year 3, when its still a start up. Maybe in year 7-10 of production will that stat have any relevance whatsoever.
Yes, let me trust a website called ****************.com (a course in spelling could do wonders for them)!
I would tend to agree but I think the point they are addressing could cause some scare tactics within the media and some hesitancy for investors. Thus the downward slope of the ticker today.
Yup, I can't argue with that. I'm saying that in case somebody here brings up bankruptcy, which they probably will. The "stock media" will almost always be negative towards Lucid for the foreseeable future, as was the case with Tesla, etc.
Loss is expected in a new company.
