By on May 9, 2022

The fortunes of many are won and lost on America’s stock markets – or even on reports of share sales. Markets reacted this morning to a news report alleging Ford Motor Company is divesting itself of 8 million shares in Rivian, the latter being an EV startup with designs on producing the R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV.

In premarket trading, Rivian’s stock fell over 10 percent to just $25 per share, well off its 52-week high of nearly 180 bucks. Yeesh.

It was reported over the weekend that the Blue Oval is eager to shed 8 million shares of Rivian, representing less than a tenth of its 102 million share stake in the EV company. Something called a ‘stock lockup period’ for early investors such as Ford apparently expired on Sunday, leaving the Glass House free to do with its ownership as it sees fit. It’d seem they want out – or at least partially.

For those of you who slept through economics class, an IPO lock-up is a period of days, typically 90 to 180 days, after an initial public offering during which time shares cannot be sold by company insiders and typically apply to entities like company founders and owners but may also include early investors such as venture capitalists. Ford counts itself in the latter group as far as Rivian is concerned.

One can be forgiven for thinking a tie-up between Ford and Rivian is confusing since both companies are producing all-electric pickup trucks and are essentially in competition with one another. Originally, the two entities spoke at length about a partnership with a three-pronged approach to EVs, at least one of which would have seen Ford use Rivian’s so-called ‘skateboard’ chassis in its own vehicles. As we now know, Ford has made like Fleetwood Mac and gone its own way and started producing the F-150 Lightning, a vehicle on which we will have extensive coverage later this week.

As of this writing, $RIVN is trading at $23.95 per share. Its IPO listing price was $78 in November, making it the sixth biggest in U.S. history and the largest of 2021. It more than doubled in value within seven days before settling in around the $100 mark for the rest of the year. It fell below its IPO price about three weeks later and hasn’t come close to it since. Ford’s own stock is currently worth $13.62 per share.

[Image: Rivian]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

42 Comments on “A Lesson in Stonks: Rivian Nosedives as Ford Unloads Shares...”


  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    I don’t see myself purchasing stock in any car company in the present environment.

    The industry is in disarray, over-regulated, and generally out of favor with the elites who would rather see us riding bicycles or taking public transportation.

  • avatar
    eng_alvarado90

    “Ford’s own stock is currently worth $13.62 per share.”
    Since current market is $23.95 per share, does it mean Ford would still get a 75% gain if it sells it shares now? Not too shabby

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      He means the stock price of Ford the company is 13.62 per share.
      Ford reported a $5.4B loss in Q1 on its Rivian investment.

      • 0 avatar
        eng_alvarado90

        thanks for the feedback. It sounded like Ford would still get a deal if it unloads the Rivian shares right now.

      • 0 avatar
        Garrett

        Really, Ford’s share price is irrelevant as it’s a meaningless number in isolation.

        It’s like saying that pizza is $5. Whether $5 is a good price depends on if you’re talking about a slice, an individual sized pizza, or a large pie.

  • avatar
    ajla

    The focus on gimmicky outdoor kitchens was a red flag.
    The prototype vehicles provided during the press release were nice but starting a vehicle manufacturer during good times is hard enough, during a supply chain crisis (I don’t know what else to call it) it’s nearly impossible. I’m guessing their late hope was that Ford (or someone else established) would take majority ownership and they wouldn’t have to worry about running an independent factory. Rivian might still pull through but they are on increasingly shaky ground.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      The Rivian truck itself is pretty appealing. Seeing the R1T in person at a Rivian event upped my opinion of that thing about three notches.

      It’s like if a Toyota Tacoma TRD and a Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland had a baby. Rivian did a nice job of justifying the higher price with luxury features.

      It’s a bit of a niche vehicle – but so are the JGC and the Tacoma, and they both support themselves with sales.

      The problem is that they haven’t managed to scale up their production to match demand. That’s a business problem; I quite like the product.

      I’d buy my wife an R1S, but a three row Tesla Model Y we ordered is a better value for our use-case – and the waiting list is shorter. If Rivian can make them faster and knock a few percent off the price, they will be *very* competitive.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    Given the state of the stock market over the last couple of days, is it the Ford seloff prompting the drop, or are they just down because the market as a whole has been circling the toilet over the last week or so?

  • avatar
    kcflyer

    I’m sure it’s just transitory

  • avatar
    la834

    > As we now know, Ford has made like Fleetwood Mac and gone its own way and started producing the F-150 Lightning

    It wouldn’t be like Fleetwood Mac unless Ford completely overhauled their management every few years. And hooked up with each other in various combinations, and did lots of drugs…

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    I sure hope Rivian took that $78 per share they received in the IPO and put it to good use, as it doesn’t look like they’ll have much success raising equity capital anytime soon. I’m pulling for them largely because I think the truck itself is pretty nifty and I’d love to be able to buy one once they’ve worked off their backlog. Even besides the EV-ICE debate, the size is right and they absolutely nailed the design, while modern full-sizes from Ford, Chevy and Dodge just look like they’re compensating for something.

    • 0 avatar
      indi500fan

      It’s difficult to know the true demand for the consumer Rivian as they are so constrained on build volume. 25,000 this calendar year is the current story. But that’s 25,000 more than Elio did….

      • 0 avatar
        Astigmatism

        I know my wife, who’s never once wanted a pickup truck in all her days, went completely googly-eyed over it and talked about it for a solid month until I told her how long the wait would be. It’s expensive, but not notably more expensive than the hi-zoot pickups from the Big 3, and it seems vastly more day-to-day drivable around the city and suburbs than any of those.

  • avatar
    johnny ringo

    A couple of weeks ago I saw one running about in the city where I live, it’s a very attractive vehicle and not like the bloated pickups from Ford, GM and Stilantis. A week ago I was in Blue Springs, Mo walking past a dealer that apparently deals with pre-owned vehicles and on a truck was a Rivian pickup apparently waiting to be unloaded.

  • avatar
    GrayOne

    If this were normal times, i.e. China not being locked down and eff-ing up everything, I’m sure Rivian would be doing great, but it’s not.

    Who is going to wait 1.5 years or more for a truck if you can buy the electric Lightning or other EV now?

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    It is hard to manufacture automobiles. Tesla struggled for years. Rivian can’t make vehicles and raised prices as supply chain issues are catching up. GM and Ford are now getting into electric truck market. It takes more lithium battery to move larger vehicles.

    Add to that that nonsense bill Branden and his cronies were trying to push, build back better, which went nowhere, that was going to give large credit for electric vehicle purchases. So now, the stock is crashing worse than rest of market. Actually much worse as it can’t make product.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    This is, yet again, more proof that people don’t want EVs.

    The R1T is decent enough, but it suffers from the same major issues all EVs suffer from. They are just not viable in their current form.

    • 0 avatar
      Syke

      I’d say it’s more proof that you don’t want electric vehicles. And EV’s are certainly viable in their current form for some people. I’m one of them, have transitioned from ICE (Civic Si to EV (Bolt EV) without having to compromise my daily needs in the slightest. And have very little desire (essentially, none) to transition back.

      So go on driving what you want. Nobody’s stopping you. Just don’t take it for granted that whatever works for you is the only right path.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        I have nothing against EVs.

        But it doesn’t take much to see that they are very inferior to even the most basic of ICE vehicles. And that’s where the problem lies.

        Governments are pushing these vehicles through legislation and they just are not ready for prime time. Watch any video of this “truck” towing and you’ll see how laughably bad they are. Add to that a complete absence of infrastructure to support these things. In 10-20 years yes they may have the range/recharge times/ and infrastructure to make them competitive with ICE powered vehicles but we don’t right now.

        And on top of all that, they are incredibly damaging to the planet. EVs are nothing more than compliance products. Look at the EVs we have seen so far, they are half baked like the F150 Mach E and make it abundantly clear that manufacturers are not interested in participating in the EV boondoggle.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          Actually, they are superior in every way to even the best ICE vehicles. Quicker, better torque, quieter, and vastly better for the environment. Cleaner materials like lithium from the Salton Sea and the new cobalt and lithium free Sodium-Ion batteries. No damage to the environment from fracking and oil extraction. No particulate pollution from GDI. You also have the convenience of unattended at-home fueling without have to go out of your way to find a gas station and deal with the mess of pumping gas. Standing outside freezing while the gas pumps in. It’s no wonder all of the EV manufacturers are selling out of product because of public demand.

          • 0 avatar
            Garrett

            Meanwhile, the power plants producing the electricity are powered using coal.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “EVs are inferior.”
            “EVs are superior in every way.”

            Both are silly, extremist viewpoints, if you ask me.

            EVs work for some people, and don’t work for others. That’s perfectly OK. The same is true of just about any other kind of consumer good you can think of. That’s why the vehicle marketplace has all kinds of choices.

            Given what’s going on in the world, would a move to electrified vehicles be a good one? God, yes. If nothing else, the experience of the last few months shows that the fuel-delivery system for our current vehicles is little more than a f**king cabal that raises prices whenever it feels like it, and screws us all over in the process. Competition would be the best possible thing to happen to this fuel-delivery system, and that’s where electrification comes in.

            But no one says you can’t have a conventionally powered vehicle if you want one, and that’s not changing for quite some time. So, chill out, folks…it doesn’t have to be some kind of “EV versus everything else” zero sum game knife fight like every other f**king thing in the world right now.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Man, I wonder how the TVA gets coal to run in those fission reactors up the road from me.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Garrett:
            Natural gas is actually the most common fuel for electrical generation. Renewables are almost on par with coal now. The state with the highest amount of wind generated energy is now Texas.

            The times, they are a-changin’.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ Both are silly, extremist viewpoints, if you ask me.”

            Oddly enough nobody asked you. Never the less, you are completely wrong in your assessment of my viewpoint.

            There is nothing extreme about what I said. It’s an accurate look at all facets of EVs. Just because EVs do 0-60 faster than an ICE vehicle doesn’t mean they are superior (as that was the only advantage Ford could figure out when introducing the F150 Mach E).

            People don’t care about 0-60. They care about having a far lower range than a comparable vehicle, they care about having to to drive out of their way to recharge in a reasonable amount of time, they care about the environment, etc. As a toy car or a 2nd-3rd vehicle sure EVs are fine. Because you have a proper back up that you can just get in and use and not have to worry about anything.

            ICE vehicles, as a tool that you have to live with are superior. There’s no denying that. ICE vehicles have an infrastructure network that supports them, they have a longer range, they don’t suffer a severe loss in range when loaded, etc.

            That’s not silly or unreasonable. That’s reality. It’s also reality that people don’t really want them. Demand is quite low.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Another EB whopper:
            “It’s also reality that people don’t really want them (EVs). Demand is quite low.”

            Yeah, demand is so low that Tesla outsold Honda in 1Q 2022.
            https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2022-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-brand/

            At this point, I’d just refer things back to philosopher Harry Frankfurt, and his book “On Bulls**t”.

            From the wikipedia entry:
            “On Bulls**t is a 2005 book (originally a 1986 essay) by American philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt which presents a theory of bulls**t that defines the concept and analyzes the applications of bulls**t in the context of communication.”

            Here’s the fun part:”Frankfurt determines that bulls**t is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; *****the bullshi**er doesn’t care if what they say is true or false, but cares only whether the listener is persuaded.***”

            Clearly EB has persuaded himself.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “ Another EB whopper:
            “It’s also reality that people don’t really want them (EVs). Demand is quite low.”

            Yeah, demand is so low that Tesla outsold Honda in 1Q 2022.
            https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2022-us-vehicle-sales-figures-by-brand/”

            I mean sure, when you compare a brands global sales to another brands US sales it’s easy to say that toy car brand outsold Honda.

            Tesla is not moving 100k vehicles in the US a month. That’s absurd and you knew that when you posted your link and had your little tantrum.

            Further, you are implying that people have completely lost interest in Honda vehicles. Again, that’s absurd.

            Why don’t you compare global Honda sales for the quarter vs Teslas 310k global sales. Then get back to me on how much in demand the toy cars from Tesla are.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Whatever you say…LOL

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            There’s no point in expecting anything factual from EBF. What a bore.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “Whatever you say…LOL”

            “There’s no point in expecting anything factual from EBF. What a bore.”

            Why don’t either one of you produce Tesla’s Q1 US sales numbers.

            Conversely, you could also post Honda’s Q1 GLOBAL sales numbers.

            Once you can product some actual facts, then we can talk. An apples to apples comparison would be nice rather than cherry picked data.

            Until then, your claim of me making non factual posts is just projection.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Of course EVs don’t make perfect sense for the masses. Yet the base Corolla makes more sense that anything on earth, 4-speed auto if possible.

          That’s part of why EV pickups are a great move, as if suddenly most tow, and heavy. Yes The EV movement should start with vehicles that don’t “make sense” in the first place. Luxury cars for instance.

          There should be more EV sports cars. Insane acceleration, the battery mass can centered and low, easy AWD, and they’re already impractical for long trips and towing.

          All vehicles have huge disadvantages for some, one way or another.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            The EV movement should start with vehicles that don’t “make sense” in the first place. Luxury cars for instance.”

            Bingo. I’m all for higher margins here.

            Basically, electrification is evolving along the same lines as other new technologies that we’ve seen over the last 40-50 years – like PCs, smartphones, big screen TVs, etc. They’re expensive, so the folks with money buy them first, and then the manufacturers use the margins to build cheaper products that more people buy.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            a ton of mass down low is still a ton of mass. Just because the mass is low doesn’t change the fact that you are muscling something around a track that is heavier than an F150. Your tires will let you know a few laps in.

            I would sacrifice range for weight in something like a mini or FIAT 500 EV, but I am in a minority most likely so they arent likely to cater to me (though the mini is pretty good if I could find one).

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Tell that to the heavier than an F-150, GT500. But add a 1,000 lbs of battle àery packs to a Miata, minus the engine and trans (plus the electric motor) and you’re still a couple hundred lbs under a Fox 5.0, but with much better weight distribution and of course power output.

  • avatar
    ltcmgm78

    I’m in favor of letting EVs naturally evolve without government money. Capitalism will pick the winners. It appears that Rivian will collapse under its own weight if they can only produce 25,000 trucks a year.

  • avatar
    Shockrave Flash Has Crashed

    Compelling product, but they aren’t really that special. They may have something really special in the pipeline or some super cool technology that I’m unaware of, but it looks like they are just trying to beat Ford at making small pickup trucks. Maybe if they had a three year head start or something it would be viable, maybe there is enough margin and room in that space for a profit. I so hope I’m wrong, but ramping up to compete head to head against a $39K F150 seems crazy.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      What’s crazy about it? They produce a luxury product. It’s an entirely different kind of purchase than a $39k F150, made by an entirely different kind of buyer.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        Much like the $19,999 Escape Pickup, the $39k F150 Mach E is pretty much vaporware and only designed to get people in the door. Nobody wants the $39k version and it won’t be $39k when people take delivery.

        They have, by design, made the $39k version so bad (with a comically short range, etc) that people will essentially be forced into the higher end models.

        It’s also interesting that Ford doesn’t have enough chips to make a proper ICE F150 (about 200 chips per vehicle) or Explorers but they are having no issue making F150 Mach Es (about 1200 chips per vehicle).

        Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Base pickups have always been a bummer, at least on the retail end. It’s all about shaming, block-off plates everywhere, tiny wheels/tires, and I’m sure they lose money just to offer crank windows, manual locks, etc. Embarrassing.

          The numbers are just for comparison, except “base” is fine for fleets if not preferred.

        • 0 avatar
          RHD

          If they could figure out how to make each chip do the work of two, or five, this problem would be solved.
          You are welcome, Ford. I don’t know why you didn’t think of this already.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “If they could figure out how to make each chip do the work of two, or five, this problem would be solved.”

            Yes, I’ve said for the longest time that Ford engineers are astoundingly inept.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: Here’s a current production vehicle with two engines: https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/...
  • DenverMike: If they’re big fans of Rush, geeze Styx will blow their minds. Bring a big mop. They just don’t know...
  • DedBull: I would be curious to know what the average days in inventory is for new vehicles. Are sales down because...
  • Kendahl: Three major brands are up significantly from last year – Tesla, Genesis and Chrysler.
  • TheEndlessEnigma: These advertisements cloaked as articles are simply amazing.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber