What do you want Silvio to address at Lucid's Q3'26 earning Call

[Northpointe]

I disagree about board being responsible for Gravity release farce. Board set a deadline, Rawlinson said it was achieved, but it wasn’t. What he should have done is let the board know vehicle wasn’t ready and forego the 6 million bonus. You are saying Lucid board knows everything about building cars. They take guidance from CEO.

No. The board and leadership set the strategy. Some voices are louder than others particularly when they represent nearly 60% of the company ownership. Leadership is responsible for the implementation of the strategy. But if that strategy is flawed or unattainable that’s a shared responsibility of the board and CEO.

Simply blaming the company’s failure(s) on a single individual is denying the reality of what happens inside of companies. I say this having spent my career in leadership roles in multiple Fortune 250 organizations. The patterns are easily recognizable when you see a company go through this many executive leadership changes, at multiple levels, in a short period of time.

 

[BS8899]

No. The board and leadership set the strategy. Some voices are louder than others particularly when they represent nearly 60% of the company ownership. Leadership is responsible for the implementation of the strategy. But if that strategy is flawed or unattainable that’s a shared responsibility of the board and CEO.

Simply blaming the company’s failure(s) on a single individual is denying the reality of what happens inside of companies. I say this having spent my career in leadership roles in multiple Fortune 250 organizations. The patterns are easily recognizable when you see a company go through this many executive leadership changes, at multiple levels, in a short period of time.

I don't necessary disagree with your thesis. That being so, should:
> Silvio presents a clear strategy, deliverables, and timeline to the board
>if the board disagrees and insists on carrying on with the prior strategic path that hasn't worked, Silvio should just resign?

 

[gaskiller]

No. The board and leadership set the strategy. Some voices are louder than others particularly when they represent nearly 60% of the company ownership. Leadership is responsible for the implementation of the strategy. But if that strategy is flawed or unattainable that’s a shared responsibility of the board and CEO.

Simply blaming the company’s failure(s) on a single individual is denying the reality of what happens inside of companies. I say this having spent my career in leadership roles in multiple Fortune 250 organizations. The patterns are easily recognizable when you see a company go through this many executive leadership changes, at multiple levels, in a short period of time.

Overall strategy, yes, but more specific things like releasing a vehicle when ready is on the CEO. Rawlinson did it to meet that deadline and get his bonus. He should also advise the board. It’s interesting that he was fired soon after he released the Gravity. I suspect board wasn’t aware vehicle wasn’t ready.

Overall strategy, yes agree, board is complicit. But this specific instance, Gravity premature release, and software issues, CEO eats the cake.

 

[tmichael]

Rawlinson did it to meet that deadline and get his bonus. He should also advise the board. It’s interesting that he was fired soon after he released the Gravity. I suspect board wasn’t aware vehicle wasn’t ready.

Or, did Rawlinson not want to release the Gravity as early as it was and he was let go as a result?

 

[Northpointe]

I don't necessary disagree with your thesis. That being so, should:
> Silvio presents a clear strategy, deliverables, and timeline to the board
>if the board disagrees and insists on carrying on with the prior strategic path that hasn't worked, Silvio should just resign?

It’s a collaborative process. We have to assume that leadership and the board are aligned with the strategy. If it fails there was a flaw in the strategy or its execution.

 

[socktucker]

Or, did Rawlinson not want to release the Gravity as early as it was and he was let go as a result?

a lot of people were let go as a result of that launch, not just the CEO.

 

[Northpointe]

Overall strategy, yes, but more specific things like releasing a vehicle when ready is on the CEO. Rawlinson did it to meet that deadline and get his bonus. He should also advise the board. It’s interesting that he was fired soon after he released the Gravity. I suspect board wasn’t aware vehicle wasn’t ready.

Overall strategy, yes agree, board is complicit. But this specific instance, Gravity premature release, and software issues, CEO eats the cake.

I’ll give you a personal illustration of how I’ve seen this play out. I was at a large publicly traded company where the board wanted to see a more aggressive acquisition strategy. So they tasked a divisional President with acquiring three bolt on acquisitions in a three year time span. Escalating bonuses were tied to each completed deal. None of the acquisitions performed and after several years of subpar performance the President was axed. A new President came in and was incentivized to divest the failed entities. He to was provided a bonus for each divestiture. And the board remained unchanged through the whole process. Millions spent on failed acquisitions and bonuses on both ends of the transactions. Just as importantly a huge distraction for the operation of the division they sat inside of.

 

[tmichael]

a lot of people were let go as a result of that launch, not just the CEO.

I'm not saying Rawlinson was let go because of the launch - I'm suggesting that perhaps he was let go because he DID NOT WANT to launch, but the board and other management didn't agree.

His departure was effective 2/21/2025 (who knows when they stopped listening to him), but the hell storm would not have presented itself by then. If it had, they would have stopped production - they just thought they could fix it on the run.

TOTAL CONJECTURE ON MY PART!!! Disclaimer! Don't shoot the messenger! YMMV!

 

[socktucker]

I'm not saying Rawlinson was let go because of the launch - I'm suggesting that perhaps he was let go because he DID NOT WANT to launch, but the board and other management didn't agree.

His departure was effective 2/21/2025 (who knows when they stopped listening to him), but the hell storm would not have presented itself by then. If it had, they would have stopped production - they just thought they could fix it on the run.

TOTAL CONJECTURE ON MY PART!!! Disclaimer! Don't shoot the messenger! YMMV!

I’m agreeing with you, too much being pinned on this guy. We don’t know.

 

[Need4Sleep]

By the November earnings call, Silvio and his C-suite would have been at their jobs for 4-6 months. I hope they have a clear game plan!

I've been holding on to the opinion that it'd take at least 6 months to see even a brief glimpse of Silvio and his new team's execution, and that we could roughly start seeing more meaningful and bigger changes from 2027 onwards.

On my end, I'm hoping for at least an update on Cosmos and service centre rollout