Musk in the White House

[hmp10]

It’s almost as if some here think that politics is a clean game. I mean the idea of ‘one hand washes the other’ is not a new concept in politics, the corporate world or private life. I absolutely agree with some here that Musk’s motivation has little or nothing to do with squashing Lucid. He’s a bigger thinker than that.

Big thinking and petty hangups are not mutually exclusive. Winston Churchill, for example, was notorious for personal spats.

 

[Genghis]

Is there a laughing and crying at the same time emoji?

No but this exists

 

[Lucken]

Big thinking and petty hangups are not mutually exclusive. Winston Churchill, for example, was notorious for personal spats.

Yes, but I don’t subscribe to the idea that his move has anything to do with petty hangups. I know it’s impossible for some here to believe the possibility that he actually wants to do some good.

 

[MJAir23TheGoat]

Yes, but I don’t subscribe to the idea that his move has anything to do with petty hangups. I know it’s impossible for some here to believe the possibility that he actually wants to do some good.

EM = Smartest guy in the room. They never should’ve kept him out of the summit

 

[DBV]

You do realize the Lucid Air stopped getting a $7500 credit anyway as of Jan 1, 2023, right?

Not for leasing.

 

[hmp10]

Yes, but I don’t subscribe to the idea that his move has anything to do with petty hangups. I know it’s impossible for some here to believe the possibility that he actually wants to do some good.

I'm sure his motives are very far-reaching. However, that doesn't preclude a side game here and there along the way for sport or spite. Don't forget that Musk wanted the money to take Tesla private that instead went to Lucid to build its factory and get Lucid to market. And the whole episode reflected very unflatteringly on Musk in the press, something an ego such as his takes very seriously.

I have worked directly for one of the most powerful Wall Street players, for a 13-Emmy-winning entertainment executive, and for the Chairman and CEO of what was once the world's most valuable conglomerate. Great professional accomplishments are often -- almost invariably, in fact -- accompanied by ego-driven petty strife and the occasional urge for a well-planted smack down that have a lot more to do with character traits and being human than with anything an analysis of objective factors would suggest. And Musk's history is littered with such petty strife in things as bizarre as going after a cave rescuer who was getting a lot of favorable press for heroics. It's just part of the picture.

 

[tonybot]

Not for leasing.

Yes, still passed on if you lease.

 

[momo3605]

Getting rid of the $7500 rebate affects other EV manufacturers way more than Tesla. Tesla actually has decent profit margins. The cheapest Model 3 they sell doesn't even qualify for the federal rebate, and it still sells well at $38k.

Other EV manufacturers in the sub $60k market i.e. Kia, Ford, Honda, GM, etc... rely on the $7500 to compete with Tesla since they are all losing lots of money on EVs.

Lucid and Rivian are on the more expensive side of the spectrum and are already priced out of the rebates anyway. I don't expect them to be affected significantly. (Yes they do qualify with leasing, but that's not a big deal imo), you can always raise the residual to reduce the lease cost.

 

[Samo23]

I'm sure his motives are very far-reaching. However, that doesn't preclude a side game here and there along the way for sport or spite. Don't forget that Musk wanted the money to take Tesla private that instead went to Lucid to build its factory and get Lucid to market. And the whole episode reflected very unflatteringly on Musk in the press, something an ego such as his takes very seriously.

I have worked directly for one of the most powerful Wall Street players, for a 13-Emmy-winning entertainment executive, and for the Chairman and CEO of what was once the world's most valuable conglomerate. Great professional accomplishments are often -- almost invariably, in fact -- accompanied by ego-driven petty strife and the occasional urge for a well-planted smack down that have a lot more to do with character traits and being human than with anything an analysis of objective factors would suggest. And Musk's history is littered with such petty strife in things as bizarre as going after a cave rescuer who was getting a lot of favorable press for heroics. It's just part of the picture.

.....nailed it. Would go after a cave diver but..... not Lucid? Lol.

 

[par11768]

I don't believe the EV tax credit affects Tesla as much as other car manufacturers. Telsa's biggest revenue generator is selling carbon tax credits. My assumption will be a repeal of the EV Tax credit while leaving the Carbon Credit intact. Ultimately it could slow Tesla's sales of EVs, but it doesn't hurt them nearly as bad as everyone else. Tesla got everyone onto NACS so whether we like it or not, we're going to use the Tesla eco-system.

Please read the Tesla annual report. Their revenues were close to $100 billion last year with just $1.8 billion in carbon tax credits - so less than 2% on a revenue basis . This year it will be slightly higher, so 3% of revenues? On a revenue basis, its minimal. Owning both cars, the Tesla ecosystem is great. The chargers work, are plentiful and plug and play. Moving to this ecosystem will accelerate the deployment of EVs.

 

[Leftlane]

I have a Tesla and own Tesla stock. Can’t stand Elon. Am getting my popcorn ready for when Trump turns on him just like he eventually does to EVERY.SINGLE.PERSON in his orbit. Two massive narcissists can’t really coexist for long, and the battle royale will be quite the spectacle.

 

[borski]

No, not due to Trump victory. I have heard his sentiment from other investors on various forums. I didn’t think much of it back then but then started wondering if at this stage in Lucid’s growth, could they benefit from separate CTO and CEO roles versus combined role. Curious how folks familiar with startups such as yourself see the combined role and when companies typically move away from that model?

Paul Graham says it better than I could: https://paulgraham.com/foundermode.html

(And yes, I know Peter isn't technically the founder of Lucid. I don't care; you don't have to be the founder to operate in founder mode. It's a mechanism of action, not a job description)

 

[Babyrocko1908]

It’s almost as if some here think that politics is a clean game. I mean the idea of ‘one hand washes the other’ is not a new concept in politics, the corporate world or private life. I absolutely agree with some here that Musk’s motivation has little or nothing to do with squashing Lucid. He’s a bigger thinker than that.

Word has it he received a DOJ target letter and lost it. Apartheid Klyde is out for self preservation and a hefty tax cut. That's it!

 

[TGO]

IMO, the Gravity is going to help Lucid with sales, but it will not save Lucid. There are not a lot of people that can afford a 90k SUV. To make the sales to save Lucid they need to be in the middle of the market and have a 50k model to sell that still has the Lucid philosophy and stable software. That is the only way to get everyone to know what Lucid is.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

IMO, the Gravity is going to help Lucid with sales, but it will not save Lucid. There are not a lot of people that can afford a 90k SUV. To make the sales to save Lucid they need to be in the middle of the market and have a 50k model to sell that still has the Lucid philosophy and stable software. That is the only way to get everyone to know what Lucid is.

Lucid "Earth" crossover in 2026. Starting price $50k.

 

[Pragmatic]

So two years away.

 

[Haggy]

You do realize the Lucid Air stopped getting a $7500 credit anyway as of Jan 1, 2023, right?

Yes, the original Bush era EV tax credit had no income limits. The Democratic version came with income limits, provisions for material sources, and proposals were for differing amounts based on union worker status of people who made the cars. They didn't help Lucid or Tesla in particular, although Tesla retained the credit for some models. The original Republican model favored Lucid over Tesla since Tesla hit the volume allowed a long time ago.

The ongoing issue is what happens when Lucid makes more affordable models. Tesla has the advantage of high volume, allowing for thin margins. Most of the competition, including Lucid, does not have that advantage. It won't hurt Lucid for the Air.

Tax credits could affect the Gravity. Tesla managed to keep the tax credit for the Model X by playing games. They put the base price right under the threshold. Then they allowed for "free" hardware upgrades if you bought FSD, since software add-ons don't affect eligibility for the credit. So if you want a six seat Model X, you can select the base model, add the seats for $6500, then add FSD for $8000, causing the $6500 to drop off and making the vehicle eligible for the tax credit. So if you want a Model X with six seats, it's $5000 cheaper if you add FSD, assuming you qualify for the tax credit. If you wanted FSD anyway, you get the seat upgrade for "free" as long as you don't want to admit that FSD is effectively a $1500 option disguised as an $8000 option.

The Model X is becoming an increasingly small part of Tesla's business though, while the Gravity will be the sales leader for Lucid. The question is whether down the line, if Lucid has something that competes against the Model Y in terms of price, with specs, features and reviews that blow the Model Y away, people would buy it in higher numbers than they would for the Model Y. If they did, then Lucid would be able to afford thinner margins, and could pull it off without a tax credit.

The problem is that it took Tesla years to get to where it is now, and it's not just manufacturing ability. It's having a presence in enough locations. People who live in an area where there's no Lucid showroom are far less likely to buy one, especially if it's a mid priced vehicle.

It's hard to predict demand though. One thing that's holding back Lucid sales is latent demand among people who won't buy a car with CSS. That won't be an issue for future models, but could be hurting Lucid currently more than people realize. The sales staff might be able to explain things, but those who don't go to the showroom in the first place aren't factored in.

 

[Haggy]

Please read the Tesla annual report. Their revenues were close to $100 billion last year with just $1.8 billion in carbon tax credits - so less than 2% on a revenue basis . This year it will be slightly higher, so 3% of revenues? On a revenue basis, its minimal. Owning both cars, the Tesla ecosystem is great. The chargers work, are plentiful and plug and play. Moving to this ecosystem will accelerate the deployment of EVs.

A lot of people were under the mistaken impression that Tesla was profitable only because of carbon credits, when it was never really the case. If you ignore the fungibility of money, you could single out any source of profit bigger than the profit margin and make that claim, but the reality is that when Tesla was at the point where people were making that claim, their goal was to be profitable. So they had to budget spending on things like future development to keep costs down below a certain level. If not for carbon credits, Tesla would have been spending less at that point. People just as easily could have looked at some other source such as solar or supercharging or some combination and say that if not for those revenue sources, Tesla would not be profitable and therefore the automotive part of their business wasn't profitable. So it's a shell game. If company X gets 2% of its revenue from any given product, but the overall profit of the company amounts to less than 2% of its total revenue, people could make the absurd claim that that one small product is the source of all profits.

 

[RM-S8]

I think Lucid looms larger in Musk's mind than objective numbers would suggest because he, at least on his side, is in a personal grudge match with Peter Rawlinson and resents both Rawlinson's receiving so much credit for the original Model S engineering and for the growing accolades Lucid is getting from Sandy Munro and others about Lucid's having taken over the lead in EV powertrain technology.

Why else would Musk have lied so brazenly when he said that Rawlinson was nothing more than a mid-tier chassis engineer on the Model S? At the time he said it, "InsideEVs" dug up the 2010 press release Tesla issued when it hired Rawlinson, billing him as the Chief Engineer responsible for bringing the Model S project to market. It was also Rawlinson who was on the podium when the Model S was unveiled at the 2011 L.A. Auto Show, where he was interviewed by "Car & Driver" and "Motor Trend" and identified as the Chief Engineer.

https://insideevs.com/news/505126/elon-musk-tweet-rawlinson-not-chief-engineer/

You might be correct with your post.
Why he did it? I'm not sure.
Is he vengeful in this case? I don't think so. I know for sure, a one case that he really is vengeful big time. One on his kids transitioned (man to woman) without his knowing, to boot they lied to him (easy google search).
But, that's another matter.

I adore Rawlinson and his accomplishments. That's why I have two Lucids in my posession.
I adore Musk for much more.

 

[hmp10]

Boy, somebody's got a bee in his bonnet.