Please critique my piece in Barron's

[jcook3s]

I also have no respect or admiration for the fact he posted this here. He did it after it was published. That tells me he was looking for the negative response and not honestly requesting feedback. Sounds a bit narcissistic if you ask me…What is the real motive behind asking for feedback on a piece already released to the public?

Barton’s has been put in the “do not renew” list for me and my various companies.

yes, just twisting the tail of the majority

 

[thecodingart]

This article definitely doesn’t reflect my personal experience and I believe others above have already covered that the article is quite misleading and unbalanced. As is stands, I definitely wouldn’t approve of this.

Major respect for posting here first.

 

[babwine]

Bill
Why did you bother to solicit opinions/feedback after you had published the article? Apparently, your statement … ”Good journalists care about quality control in their work” was an attempt to legitimize your writing while all the while ignoring your own marching orders. What's worse, you ignored Joe Friday's rule for proper investigation: "Just the facts, please!"

 

[hydbob]

This article definitely doesn’t reflect my personal experience and I believe others above have already covered that the article is quite misleading and unbalanced. As is stands, I definitely wouldn’t approve of this.

Major respect for posting here first.

Except, he asked for feedback AFTER publishing his article.

 

[thecodingart]

Except, he asked for feedback AFTER publishing his article.

And that’s the part I missed which immediately backs the respect comment with the head scratching…. Why would you do that?

 

[LCIDdreams]

Standard approach to journalism these days of deciding on conclusions then searching out the facts that support those conclusion while ignoring everything else. There may be nothing false in there (maybe) but the cherry picking of facts journalists go through means essentially everything is an opinion piece now.

Also as a shareholder & future owner I’m personally a little pissed Lucid seems to be taking the Tesla approach of not getting in front of the press to address issues. If they responded to the author with facts (ie “actually this has only affected x% of cars, the issue has been isolated and solved”) that would have to be printed. Letting the press run rampant cherry picking negatives to craft bad stories for clicks is a disservice to the company (Lucid or Tesla) and to EV adoption.

 

[jcook3s]

Bill
Why did you bother to solicit opinions/feedback after you had published the article? Apparently, your statement … ”Good journalists care about quality control in their work” was an attempt to legitimize your writing while all the while ignoring your own marching orders. What's worse, you ignored Joe Friday's rule for proper investigation: "Just the facts, please!"

Passive/aggressive bait…very possibly morbid pleasure in seeing the reactions…..a bonus to being paid also

 

[Drendino]

Major respect for posting here first.

Too late, he published it and then posted it here.

 

[GEWC]

I have a theory that headlines and thin content like this exist to get readers to open up the article so that stats improve and ad revenue increases for the website.

Exactly. I hope no one here actually clicks on (or searches for) his article. As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls!

 

[EVCar]

Exactly. I hope no one here actually clicks on (or searches for) his article. As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls!

For me, this article is pretty insignificant because it's essentially a report of anecdotes which weren't verified or corroborated by the author.
Hence, as the iconoclasts at my work would say, the impact factor for this is not too high.

 

[MSH2]

I agree with many of the positive comments above. I have had my GT for a month and in the 60 years I have been driving and for the last 50 mostly BMW's, Mercedes and Porsche's, it is my favorite car. The performance is fantastic, it is beautiful and extremely well built. I have had a few minor software issues with the sound system, but nothing that affects the performance of the car. I worry about anyone drawing conclusions from an open web site. I bought the stock and will buy more.

 

[JayZee#293]

You absolutely make the issues sound widespread and ignored by the company without confirmation. Your “article” sounds like you thumbed through the forum and took notes on issues reported and copied those here. “Car experts say complaints are credible?” Did the owners get back to the experts and Then call you annd say they anre credible. That’s a confusing line. All car companies have issues ongoing. Look at the the recent massive Dodge truck recall, did you write a “article” reporting how quality control has gone downhill?
Lucid is actively working on issues and fixing them as shown in the forum and in my experience with my interactions with service. I’m a Barron’s subscriber as well as a Lucid owner for 10 months and have driven 5000 miles. No car issues to report, however it sounds like we need to cancel Barron’s - reporting sounds like it’s going downhill because of the lack of true unbiased reporting, that would require actual research and time.

 

[JayZee#293]

I guess I thought journalists always "fact checked" their information??

He used the politician’s fact checkers.

 

[PAbuilt]

Critique; It appears to be a poorly sourced piece without significant thoughtful analysis or balance.

 

[victoryroad]

LCID looks like it had some short covering at the open and now has traded down.

What possible purpose did the Barrons writer have for soliciting views on his article after it had been published? To exercise his control of a narrative or the power of his publisher? Any journalism 101 class would fail him on his lack of facts and his complete dependence on a few unsubstantiated posts of problems and the conjecture of former auto safety people. Not sure what our recourse could be if any but suggest that we contact Jonny Lieberman at Motor Trend and ask his view. He led the COTY analysis last year and his perspective would be at least based on facts, not conjecture and unnamed sources. Over the years Lieberman's reviews of cars have been well-researched and very informative, as has been the case with the Air. My gut is that Lucid has already contacted knowledgeable auto journalists and maybe YouTubers about this article. Although I spent many years as an institutional investor, I never subscribed to Barrons because when it wrote about subjects about which I knew a great deal, its version of reality was not useful or insightful, if often quite misleading, as is the case with the current article. Nevertheless, Monday mornings would reflect Barron's agenda in stock trading, as it probably has today. I usually learned about a Barrons article from friends at the gym on Sundays who are retail investors susceptible to the latest rumor.

 

[Crazybrit]

That made me laugh as well. I found that approach to be somewhat patronizing.

I would laugh, except it cost me serious money.

 

[joec]

What possible purpose did the Barrons writer have for soliciting views on his article after it had been published?

Exactly this. More clicks. More views. More money. Doesn't matter that the vast majority of us thought the article was crap.

 

[Crazybrit]

Exactly this. More clicks. More views. More money. Doesn't matter that the vast majority of us thought the article was crap.

Yes. A failed attempt at getting ahead of the inevitable criticism

 

[Grnr92663]

As bad as this article sounds, I also think it also helps to put pressure on the company management regarding estimations or to be more transparent about problems/solutions.

In regard to the quote from Adam Jones, he is also one who went from flipping his original target for Tesla from ...ZERO to $800. And he also flipped his recent estimate for Carvana from $400 to ...ZERO (and just 10 months ago updated his CVNA target from $20 to.....$220 !!!) . Talking about quality work. https://www.barrons.com/articles/buy-carmax-stock-used-cars-are-hot-morgan-stanley-51601652583

Lucid clearly has a problem with early production and its pain. That said, I think people are too much into the story of them being out of funds & going belly up in a year or two. Perhaps you haven't checked, but the Saudis have one of the deepest pockets in the world, and they wouldn't mind spending more $B on Lucid to help with the transition from oil to green. Look at Qatar to spend $220B on the WorldCup, with an estimated rev of $15B, the rest is to lay the foundation for tourism & finance, to help them be less dependent on oil & energy in the long run.

 

[Babyrocko1908]

Exactly this. More clicks. More views. More money. Doesn't matter that the vast majority of us thought the article was crap.

Reason why I didn't and won't read the article. I've seen folks on FB quoting this article as the reason why $LCID is down today. I took it as an opportunity to BUY MORE and average down.