I think we're saying the same thing. Yes he has a huge package compared to the company's performance and this is not a good signal (though I'd be surprised if Musk said something positive about one of his competitors).

But on the other hand, he is incentivized by being paid with stock and not the main reason Lucid is losing money. I'm also not sure he can sell such a huge amount of shares every year without upsetting the market somewhat. I'm not a trader but you'd have to compare what he has with how much value is being traded every day / week / month.

Likely the main issue is massive investment to bring their SUV to the market, combined with surprisingly dropping production numbers: https://insideevs.com/news/676539/lu...veries-2023q2/

Beyond the corporate compensation, Lucid to me appears to have either a production, transport or sales problem as pointed in the InsideEVs article.

As a company they are not sustainable at their current level of sales. Tesla, even in its early days, had other financial resources besides car sales (SMOG credits sales, etc) and they ramped up volume on a reasonable scale to become profitable.

Lucid, as far as I can tell isn't doing any of that and is burning cash. 10,000 vehicles is nothing if it is your primary product line. Cadillac has produced @ least 13,047 LYRIQs in the 2024 model year and they are thought to be doing nothing. (That's the VIN on mine, built on 11/15)

Why are you mentioning Rivian? :dunno:

These are new shares, not old shares. They had a value at the time they were awarded of hundreds of millions of dollars. He could cash them out or continue to invest and develop the company.

Again, not really. It has real dollar value like everything in life. They could have paid him in Bitcoin, property, loafs of bread, cash, etc. It all has value. If they gave him stock options and cash, and he bought hundreds of millions in stock then it would still be the same outcome that he owns those stocks and is now invested in the company, but the point is the company is young and still fairly modest in their scale, yet they are paying huge wages/packages to their CEO disproportionate to their profit.

I'm going off this, and I am assuming their losses are tied to all expenses relative to revenue:

The EV makers’ net loss grew to $630.9 million in Q3. Lucid’s losses reached $2.17 billion through the first nine months of the year. Link

https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploa...duction-1.jpeg



This graph starts with the Model S and not the Roadster, so that is what was sold from June of 2012 to December of 2012, which is like two quarters of 1300 cars, which is about what Lucid is doing now. More like one quarter of 900 and the second quarter of 1700, or something, but yeah, about what Lucid is doing now per quarter.

Compare that to what Musk received. Stock awards and stock options are two different things. Musk was given the right to buy 5.3 million shares of the company, which at $31 would be about $150 million, so he was investing his own money into the company, meaning if he cashed them out and ran then he would be right where he started, so he was incentivized to see the company grow. Read about his ability to cash them out too. The stocks didn't vest until later, and he needed to hit milestones. Completely different scenario.

Unless I am mistaken about Lucid's CEO's stock awards, he could cash out tomorrow, and he would be hundreds of millions of dollars, if not almost a billion dollars, richer. This doesn't mean he will, but if things get too hard, or if he just loses motivation, there is little skin off his back unless the stock rapidly tanks overnight, but in general, this is poor management, IMO. You don't give a CEO $500 million in stock/cash when the company is only bringing in $150 million in revenue per quarter, stock is crashing 90%, and net loses are in the billions.Link


Tesla’s Elon Musk paid $70,000 in 2013
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/25/tesl...0-in-2013.html

Tesla’s Elon Musk May Have Boldest Pay Plan in Corporate History
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/b...-musk-pay.html

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/...rmal/8547.jpeg

The price chart says the company is on its way out. It might need a bankruptcy to continue but institutions generally don't buy penny stocks, which is where this is heading. Btw I've learned this the hard way.

@Irace86.2.0 yes, Musk accepted less in salary during those "lean" years. At that point Musk was already a billionaire so he could well afford to do that for what were, for him, passion projects. I respect him for putting his money where his passion is, but I'm not sure it's as magnanimous as you are seemingly making it out to be.

Sorry meant Lucid June 21,2021. I was having a side conversation in my office at the same time with a guy thinking of purchasing a Rivian. Just more proof I can't multitask!

I mean, Lucid's CEO could afford to do the same too. He is a millionaire with a large salary.

Yes, at the point where Tesla was selling the volume Lucid is selling at Elon was a billionaire, but also had grown his wealth from the value of stocks tied to Tesla and SpaceX. It wasn't from wages and stock awards. For reference, in 2010 his share of Tesla stock was worth $219 million, of which, he had put in over $30 million of his own money at its founding. He also put $100 million of his $175 million payout when selling PayPal into starting SpaceX, so basically he invested almost all of his money into two companies, both of which were hemorrhaging money and struggling for years before becoming stable. While his wealth had grown, his wealth was directly tied to the performance of the companies, and his stock options, which gave him the right to buy more stock in Tesla, still weren't vested, so it wasn't like he could cash out and bail without taking a huge loss or walking away from millions if not billions in the process. Again, this is a stark contrast to what Lucid is doing to with their CEO.

I think Lucid is trying to follow in the footsteps of Tesla, and they may do fine, but there are a few things I see that make them different. For one thing, the payout to the CEO is disproportionately large and is not tied to the future value and growth of the company, even if it can be, and that is concerning. Two, the company seems to be trying to make the pinnacle of EV technology to best Tesla and Rivian and legacy manufactures, so they can make a name for themselves, but they seem to be doing so without making sure it is feasible. There is no reason to over-engineer parts by doubling the cost in order for something that is 5% better, but that seems to be their mantra: how can we make the best car, irregardless of whether the value for the cost translates for the customer. Tesla seems to be doing the opposite by making a compelling product where costs and value are maximized, but where it won't impede manufacturing speed, overhead, material acquisition, etc, so the car will be feasible and profitable.

Tesla was in the red for years. Amazon was in the red for years. It is fine to be in the red if that is from investing in the company, but apparently, Lucid is investing a lot into one man. The company is giving this guy around 10% of its liquidable assets in the form of stocks that could otherwise be used to grow the company or retain as assets in the event the company needs to liquidate those assets to stay afloat. Hopefully they are making the right decision. I'm also wondering what the future holds for this CEO's salary given the current pattern of awards.

Elon Musk is currently working for Tesla for free. That could change
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/20/inves...pay/index.html

https://invezz.com/net-worth/elon-musk-net-worth/

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/...mal/26705.jpeg

Well, not really. He is working for stock options and improving the value of those options, which he has exercised as described in the article...

I agree Lucid's Board is running an odd compensation package that makes no real sense in their situation, but hey, I can't blame a guy for taking it if it's offered.

Seems like revenue and net income are mismatched for Lucid and doesn't justify such a huge payout for the CEO. Again, they should have given him stock options to invest his own money into the company than giving him stock awards, and those options should vest as the company grows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo48KX2IRuc

I mean it is an attempt, if ultimately doomed from the start because Biden would veto it. They will have to wait for more control of the senate and see if Trump or DeSantis get into office before making a realistic effort.

I also don't know if California's "mandate" and those of other states would be enough on their own. It has in the past considering the size of the market.

When Trump was trying to roll back standards, manufactures were scrambling to make alliances to agree to stick to the standards set forth by California et. al., and they went from lobbying pre-POTUS Trump and POTUS Trump to roll back standards to basically freaking out and lobbying the opposite after it became clear that it might turn into a "states rights" argument, fearing that there might be a California alliance standard and a federal standard, or worse, an even more fractured system. The manufactures then decided to be unified and agreed to the alliance of states that had sued the Trump administration to meet Obama-era standards (California et. al), which saved them for having to design cars for two or more emission standards--a more detrimental and expensive proposition.

Major automakers buck Trump’s emissions rollback by signing deal with California
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/25/2...alifornia-deal

First photo I've seen of the GM/Flying J charging stations.

Nice pull-through lanes so you can charge if towing, or if your plug isn't in a Tesla standard location. Odd part, it looks like both cars were charging with the other's cable.

https://www.cadillacforums.com/attac...09-jpg.650508/

they're just sharing a romantic moment, much like when a couple would intertwine their arms to drink from each other's beverage.

Apparently the guy in the LYRIQ (he posted the pic on a different forum) said the Bolt on the other side was already charging with the "wrong" cable so he just followed suit.

The good thing is the cables are long enough to do what you need to do.

Awww.... :wub:

I think these articles are a little misleading personally. Sales are not decreasing, they are increasing. It's just the OEMs were a bit optimistic on how many they could bill/sale at the price they are currently charging for them. There are only so many folks that can afford a $100,000 (+/-) vehicle and that market is near saturated.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford...s%20per%20week.

I have a feeling EVs like the lightning aren't growing as fast as they hoped because the price is so high like Motortrend mentions above, but it goes worse than that. BEVs are more expensive at POS than ICEVs, so that, on top of high interest rates, are probably pushing buyers out of the market. Even if the BEVs will save some money over time over a similar ICEVs of the same spec, a person has to be able to qualify for the car at POS.

Only a very small percentage of buyers come close to considering long-term costs. It's all about the monthly payment with zero money down.

Most persons don't even understand the concept of paying cash for a vehicle.

Agreed, it's dishonest. Like when the government says they're cutting spending. When in actuality, they're just reducing the rate of INCREASED spending, lol. If sales increase, but at a slower rate, they're still increasing. It's almost like nobody in charge ever took a few mathematic courses :sigh:

I think the two biggest things people look at is monthly cost and reliability. The problem is the POS price is a guaranteed cost. The projected price is not guaranteed, so if the POS price jumps up, not only does it deter people, but it flat out prices them out from qualifying. It doesn’t matter if they will save a few hundred in gas and maintenance per month; the POS price makes it prohibitive. It doesn’t help that manufacturers are selling EVs at a premium, making them up market based on performance, tech, features, etc. like Motortrend said.

Companies like Lexus built a reputation for reliability. That took time. Electric powertrains may be low maintenance and more reliable, but most people likely have the false perception that they are unreliable and unproven, will likely explode in a fire, may require more maintenance, and so on. Plus, with reliability comes dependability, and the charging networks aren’t as dependable, as people would like, nor as plentiful, so I’m sure there are reliability/dependability fears and fears of the unknown, including range anxiety.

Nio reduced the price of entry by detaching the price of the car from the battery and basically turned the battery into a gas payment, effectively making the loan for the car and for qualifying on par with cars in the $20k’s range.

Most people dont have a big chunk of cash laying in the bank or under a mattress to even complete a transaction of this magnitude like that.

Oh I agree and while I recommend it, I know it isn't a path for everyone.

You have to plan and save for it, and be willing to compromise on the path, maybe buying cheap, saving for an upgrade, flipping along the way.

I could get a loan for just about any car I want short of a supercar. I choose not to. We haven't had an auto payment in 20 years, except to ourselves.

Mostly my response was to @Irace86.2.0 with my $0.02 as to why running costs don't figure into most car purchases, except may when they look at the MPG calculations and it's about this deep "this car has a higher MPG rating than that car, but that car is close enough and it's the color I want".

Previous user experience with re-chargeable batteries isn't overwhelmingly positive.
My laptop was sort of OK for a year or two. Now it doesn't go for more than 10 minutes unplugged.
Having to pitch out a phone with a dead un-replaceable battery is a burden even now.

Interesting take on EV reliability. Counterintuitive, but the data says they are less reliable.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars...s-a1047214174/

https://consumerreports.org/cro/inte...ins-mobile.png

if you are referring to the drive battery in EVs, they are all warranted for 8 years/100,000 miles to at 75% or higher of their initial capacity.

In practice, they lose a little bit over 2% of capacity each year. Here's a chart where you can put in a vehicle/year and it will show you the degradation based on actual data. Some vehicles don't have enough history to show yet. It varies by model because battery chemistry varies.

Well, the data isn't in this article, and it doesn't say EV powertrains are less reliable. It says the overall reliability is lower for EVs, which is not a surprise because Tesla build quality is still poor for a premium brand, and it makes up the vast number of people being surveyed, if this truly was a random survey. It says some of the most common issues was powertrain issues, but then says Tesla's powertrains are pretty solid. "Most common" is the same as saying, 'it came up the most' in statistics, or rather, in the mean, median and mode, it is the median thing. Depending how they broke up the car, anything having to do with the powertrain including needing a new 12v battery to having a loose coolant connection to having a software issue could potentially be lumped together, but having a window motor issue, a handle issue, a brake light issue, etc could all be separate issues, so even if trivial things are braking more than major things, the "most common" problems could be powertrain. They also said the PHEV Rav-4 was one of the most reliable cars, even though PHEVs are the least reliable. They don't say the cost of these reliability repairs, if these problems are fundamental to the performance and safety or if they are aesthetic and livable. There is not much here except for percentages. But I do agree that we would expect new technology and new brands like Rivian or Ford's F150 Lightning to be going through early growing pains. Based on their volume, they are just getting started with these vehicles/systems. I don't think these things are a reflection of what will be the case in five, ten, twenty or more years, and I think anyone buying a 100k mileage used car in the future will feel more comfortable with the potential reliability of buying a used Tesla over a comparable high-mileage 3-series BMW, for instance.

https://cleantechnica.com/wp-content...anTechnica.png

Stop calling Tesla a premium brand. They're not! :happyanim:

If you want some more up to date number, you can look at this PDF report.

Through the third quarter EV sales are up 48% from 2022. A lot of that has to do with companies other than Tesla finally delivering the goods.

I would agree that they are not luxury, but they are definitely premium. I don’t know of anyone who matters who considers them an economy brand. Most refer to them as a luxury brand, but that is mostly for price and because media, evaluators, reviewers, etc often use premium and luxury interchangeably.

Looks like Tesla had roughly 50% of the sales across the board, regardless of year or quarter. Looks like total sales is up, but Tesla kept its market share, which means the report is going to be dominated by a single brand.

Yea, we've already beaten this horse to death on a couple of occasions. I consider them mid-tier with an upscale price. Even the upscale price has sort of faded recently.

The drop between YTD (56.5%) to 50.0% precent Q3 for Tesla could show the beginning of a trend, but I think it's mainly that others have grown sales, not that Tesla decreased.

Yeah, it's a point I don't think is worth debating. Buyers who pay premium prices are the ones that decide. It is subjective, even if there are objective reasons why something is more complex, more refined, more whatever.

Yeah, Tesla added 100k more vehicle sales. Others are just increasing their sales.

Again, cool, but my point remains that Tesla was dominating the cars being surveyed in that Consumer Reports, which shows that it is a little bogus. Half the cars have Tesla build quality, and the other half are brand new, but that doesn't mean drivetrains are less reliable. No real details or comparisons. No repair costs, critical vs aesthetic vs quick fixes, etc. They say contradictory things; EVs have common motor issues, but Teslas have solid drivetrains. I mean, way to say a lot without really saying anything.

I had a battery in a phone die once

I upgraded my prior MacBook Pro (mid-2010 edition) with a Samsung SSD, and I upped the ram from 4g to 16g, which extended it's life for several more years before I passed it onto my wife when I bought a new model. Apparently that year had battery swelling issues, which began in 2019 unbeknownst to me, and it became obvious this year, when it couldn't charge and began lifting the trackpad. It made it thirteen years, as a high-use item--not bad.

Most of my iPhones have started throttling around two years, but never did they entirely bite the dust or refused to last a good chunk of the day, but these batteries see heavy use (several hours in the day) and fast charging at least once a day, plus night charging. This would be like driving a car more than just hours because car batteries are proportionally so big. This would be like driving 350 miles and fast charging all the time. Most people don't do that.

The average person will trickle charge the battery at home to top off the 35 miles they drove, or they will wait ten days between charges, and in that case they will charge 35 times in a year, which is much different than 365 phones charges. If a phone battery lasts over a thousand charge cycles in several years before its performance and "range" suffers then a car battery could last 28 years. Really rough math because it would depend on the battery chemistry, discharge and recharge rate, usage, weather, etc, but phones are a heavy use item, so their batteries see a lot of abuse.

For reference, lithium iron phosphate batteries have near zero fire risk, are cheap, are plentiful, are good for most driver's basic needs, are good at charging, not the best battery range, but will last 2000-3000 cycles, with the best case scenarios lasting 10,000 cycles. Those best case scenarios are grandma drivers who recharge at home using 120-220v low amp charge rates, who live in LA, California climates, who only charges from 20% to 80%. For that example, if 20%-80% represented 150 miles of range with 30 miles per day, that would be 5 days per cycle, so 73 cycles in a year, so that would be 136 years worth of cycles. It would be 27 years if the battery only lasted 2000 cycles.

Not sure where to put this, so here it is lol. Just some thoughts...

So I actually visited a Lucid dealership today. First time sitting in the Air [midrange whatever it's called]. Super nice interior and looks great in the lighter colors, even white. Didn't have time to go for a drive but got to play around with the controls a bit. Not really a fan of things like lights and wipers being on a touchscreen, but otherwise everything was in just the right place to reach. Cabin is large with plenty of leg and headroom, but there isn't a ton of trunk/frunk space. Rear seats do fold flat for more cargo room though. I didn't like the glass roof thing on the Model X I checked out once, but it's implementation on the Air is pretty cool. Seats were excellent and had all the adjustability I could want, including extended thigh support which I've used before in another car and are nice to have on long drives.

Zero pressure salesman, though it might have helped that I was the only non-employee there. We just chatted about the car and such.