What's new
By:

Q1 deliveries much worse than expected

borski said:
I’m aware. Part of why Fisker went out of business rather than being acquired by someone, though, is the lack of novel technology worth acquiring. That’s my point.
Click to expand...
Now, the Fisker Karma - what a gorgeous car! Even today!

🧦
 
borski said:
I’m aware. Part of why Fisker went out of business rather than being acquired by someone, though, is the lack of novel technology worth acquiring. That’s my point.
Click to expand...
I totally agree that Lucid has tech and engineering worth acquiring, which is what I predict long term. My forecast is that when the PIF tires of supporting Lucid that they will be acquired by a legacy OEM specifically for their advanced engineering, packaging and efficiency. Maybe Apple decides to get back in the car game, or Uber wants to own the vehicle supplier. Obviously no one wanted what Fisker was selling or any of their “innovations”, which Lucid clearly has in spades. It’s the “running a car business” part that they struggle with, which isn’t that unlike Fisker - they were just 100% design dependent and that is too fickle.
 
borski said:
That sure was a feature that literally any engineer who thought about it for 30 seconds could tell you was bound to be too inefficient to make an iota of difference.
Click to expand...
Well, if you live in AZ and park your car outside all day long, and drives less than 12 miles a day, that might work :cool:!
 
Leftlane said:
I totally agree that Lucid has tech and engineering worth acquiring, which is what I predict long term. My forecast is that when the PIF tires of supporting Lucid that they will be acquired by a legacy OEM specifically for their advanced engineering, packaging and efficiency. Maybe Apple decides to get back in the car game, or Uber wants to own the vehicle supplier. Obviously no one wanted what Fisker was selling or any of their “innovations”, which Lucid clearly has in spades. It’s the “running a car business” part that they struggle with, which isn’t that unlike Fisker - they were just 100% design dependent and that is too fickle.
Click to expand...
Their tech is valuable, their company is literally worthless
 
I wonder if an unauthorized change allows Lucid any financial recourse. The change had serious impact on their business
 
NoseyReporter said:
I wonder if an unauthorized change allows Lucid any financial recourse. The change had serious impact on their business
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if Lucid pursues legal action / compensation against the financial damage from the manufacturer. If there's a clause in the contract indicating that changes to the manufacturing process in the seat will require Lucid approval first, then Lucid's got a slam dunk and an easy payday ahead
 
NoseyReporter said:
I wonder if an unauthorized change allows Lucid any financial recourse. The change had serious impact on their business
Click to expand...
For a part that affects safety and recall, one would have thought that the integrator (Lucid) would have established quantification process, incoming quality control, and change-control requirements with its suppliers. If the supplier knowingly circumvented these checks/processes that led to the problem, the integrator might have a claim. If the integrator did not have established in-coming quality inspection, and change-control processes and ended up building/shipping unsafe products, the integrator still bears a large part of the burden.

My concern is that, in recent time, Lucid, the integrator, have blamed several incidences of defects/delays/missing shipment goals on suppliers. This sounds like a cop-out.

Being in the role of an integrator for a good part of my technical career, I look at the integrator role as the Master Chef vis-a-vis, I own the in integrity of the integrated product going out my door. It is incumbent on me to put the processes in place to spec and assure the ingredients in order to avoid these kinds of problems. Sure, mistakes can happen, but it would have been my fault to let it happen.

As an analogy, if you go to a top French restaurant (e.g., French Laundry) and ordered Coq au vin, but the chicken came out chewy and has a funny taste, does blaming the butcher solved the problem?
 
BS8899 said:
concern is that, in recent time, Lucid, the integrator, have blamed several incidences of defects/delays/missing shipment goals on suppliers. This sounds like a cop-out.
Click to expand...
Or, pretended they were ready to roll out the 2027 Gravity. When really it was a national stop sale for parts failure.
 
TahoeMichael said:
Well, not worthless. $3.26B as of close of the market on Thursday. :p
Click to expand...
Market cap is not what it is worth. That’s just the outstanding shares times the current price - you’d have to deduct debt, which is about $3.2 bil, and add in cash on hand.
 
Leftlane said:
Market cap is not what it is worth. That’s just the outstanding shares times the current price - you’d have to deduct debt, which is about $3.2 bil, and add in cash on hand.
Click to expand...
Correct....Google says debt is ~$2.7B and cash-on-hand is ~$1.6B.
 
Leftlane said:
Market cap is not what it is worth. That’s just the outstanding shares times the current price - you’d have to deduct debt, which is about $3.2 bil, and add in cash on hand.
Click to expand...
There isn't any agreed upon measure of a company's value beyond what people pay for it. So sure, you can look at market cap, enterprise value, revenue, debt, cash on hand, margins, etc. But none of that accurately predicts what a company is sold for if the whole thing is purchased. In my view, Lucid's market cap is actually quite reasonable. The market cap is well under what it would cost to duplicate their engineering and manufacturing. But that reflects the still quite substantial chance that all their investment proves worthless. Idiosyncratic risk is very high for individual company stocks (not just Lucid), and even higher for companies that are not yet self-sustaining enterprises.

I'm not a direct investor in Lucid (I own some all-market ETFs), as I've seen no evidence that anyone has ever figured out a good way to pick individual stocks.
 
TahoeMichael said:
There isn't any agreed upon measure of a company's value beyond what people pay for it. So sure, you can look at market cap, enterprise value, revenue, debt, cash on hand, margins, etc. But none of that accurately predicts what a company is sold for if the whole thing is purchased. In my view, Lucid's market cap is actually quite reasonable. The market cap is well under what it would cost to duplicate their engineering and manufacturing. But that reflects the still quite substantial chance that all their investment proves worthless. Idiosyncratic risk is very high for individual company stocks (not just Lucid), and even higher for companies that are not yet self-sustaining enterprises.

I'm not a direct investor in Lucid (I own some all-market ETFs), as I've seen no evidence that anyone has ever figured out a good way to pick individual stocks.
Click to expand...
Same here, broader global ETFs and a collection of bonds make up 95%-99% of my portfolio. The final percentages are for individual stocks that I pick for fun and for the very long run.

... basically Rivian and Lucid 🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top