Raphael Stevens

More stories

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Business

    Tesla delivered 241,300 vehicles in the third quarter, topping expectations

    Tesla delivered 241,300 electric vehicles during the third quarter of 2021, the company said Saturday.
    Analysts predicted that Tesla would deliver around 220,900 electric cars during this period, according to estimates compiled by StreetAccount as of September 30.
    The company produced 237,823 cars in the period ending September 30, 2021, Tesla said in its report.

    The logo of Tesla seen at one of its showroom. Tesla announced its Q1 2021 earnings today.
    Toby Scott | LightRocket | Getty Images

    Tesla delivered 241,300 electric vehicles during the third quarter of 2021, the company reported Saturday.
    The quarter’s deliveries topped expectations. Analysts predicted that Tesla would deliver around 220,900 electric cars during this period, according to estimates compiled by StreetAccount as of September 30.

    The company produced 237,823 cars in the period ending September 30, 2021, Tesla said in its report. Of that, 228,882 were its Model 3 and Y vehicles, its more affordable mid-range offerings.
    The remainder produced amounted to 8,941 of its Model S and X vehicles.
    Last quarter, Tesla delivered 201,250 vehicles and produced 206,421 cars, even as production of its Model S and X vehicles fell below 2,500.
    “Our delivery count should be viewed as slightly conservative, as we only count a car as delivered if it is transferred to the customer and all paperwork is correct. Final numbers could vary by up to 0.5% or more,” the company said in a statement.
    Tesla does not break out delivery numbers by model, nor does it report sales or production numbers from China versus the U.S. (Deliveries are the company’s closest approximation of vehicle sales.)

    Tesla put customers through repeated, unexpected delivery delays during the quarter. In their release on Saturday, the company acknowledged the delays, blaming them on “global supply chain and logistics challenges,” then thanked customers for their patience.
    The press release announcing the production and deliveries report was dated Austin, Texas. Tesla’s web site still lists its headquarters as being in Palo Alto, Calif., but Elon Musk moved to Texas last year and the company is building a new factory in the Austin area.
    Tesla is also planning to host its annual shareholder meeting at its plant, now under construction, near Austin on October 7. Musk previously threatened to move Tesla’s headquarters out of California in the spring of 2020 when the state’s Covid-related health orders required Tesla’s Fremont factory to temporarily suspend operations for a few weeks.
    At the time, California Gov. Gavin Newsom told CNBC he was “not worried about Elon leaving any time soon,” and voiced support for Tesla.

    Elon Musk’s electric vehicle maker now produces cars at its Shanghai plant, and U.S. factory in Fremont, California, while continuing to produce batteries domestically with Panasonic at their sprawling facility outside of Reno, Nevada.
    During the period ending September 30, 2021, Tesla began to ship some lithium iron phosphate batteries from China to be used in Model 3 vehicles made for customers in the U.S.
    Tesla also temporarily suspended some operations at its vehicle assembly plant in Shanghai, where it makes cars for customers in China and Europe. The halts were attributed to a global semiconductor shortage, which has posed a challenge to Tesla all year, and plagued the entire auto industry.
    New battery electric models, notably Rivian’s R1T and Lucid Motors’ long-delayed luxury Lucid Air sedan, are now in production and selling to customers in the U.S., an indication that competition is heating up in key markets for Tesla.
    At the same time, interest in electric vehicles is rising too, even in the U.S. a laggard in adoption compared to China and Europe.
    According to a June 2021 survey from Pew Research, 39% of Americans say that “the next time they purchase a vehicle, they are at least somewhat likely to seriously consider electric.” About 7% of Americans said they have already purchased a pure battery electric or hybrid-electric vehicle.
    That demand is only encouraged by rising fuel costs and environmental regulations.
    For example, in China, government programs make it far quicker and cheaper to get license plates for electric vehicles than internal combustion engine vehicles. The Chinese government has also offered subsidies, tax breaks and invested in charging infrastructure to encourage EV production and adoption.
    Meanwhile, President Joe Biden set a voluntary target for half of all new vehicle sales in the US to be electric models by 2030– including battery electrics, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The move is part of the Biden administration’s pledge to reduce U.S. emissions by in half by 2030.
    Piper Sandler senior research analyst Alexander Potter, a bull with a $1,200 price target for shares of Tesla, wrote in a note on September 27:
    “Tesla’s share of the battery electric vehicle (BEV) market will almost certainly fall – because many peers haven’t started selling BEVs yet. But we fully expect Tesla’s share of the overall market to continue rising, and we stress that declining BEV market share should not be considered a bearish signal… After all, Tesla is competing against vehicles of all types – not just against other electric vehicles.”
    Auto Forecast Solutions Vice President Sam Fiorani agreed. He said, “Tesla has such a head start on the competition in the EV market that it is unlikely for anyone to pass them anytime soon. The Cult of Tesla will keep buyers attached to the brand for years to come. Even Audi and Mercedes are finding it difficult to tap into the same type of aura. While their market share will decrease, Tesla will keep the leadership position for years to come without a major misstep from within the company.”

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 225 Shares159 Views

    in Business

    James Bond is one of the highest grossing film franchises in history. Here's how the 007s stack up

    The James Bond franchise has generated more than $6.89 billion globally and starred seven different actors — Sean Connery, David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.
    With Craig as the star, the James Bond franchise has seen its best theatrical run in history, garnering nearly $3.2 billion globally between 2006’s “Casino Royale” and 2015’s “Spectre.”
    2012’s “Skyfall” was the first James Bond film to top $1 billion worldwide.

    Daniel Craig stars as James Bond in “No Time To Die.”
    Source: MGM

    In 1962, when the first James Bond film “Dr. No” was released in cinemas, a ticket cost just 70 cents.
    Nearly 60 years later, the average ticket price is around $9 and the dashing 007 is making his 25th appearance on the big screen.

    Based on the works of Ian Fleming, James Bond has been a fixture at the movie theater for decades and is one of the highest-grossing film franchises in cinematic history.
    On Friday, the 25th Bond film “No Time to Die” arrived in cinemas in the U.K. ahead of its Oct. 8 domestic release.
    The previous 24 films have collectively generated more than $6.89 billion globally and starred seven different actors — Sean Connery, David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.

    “No Time to Die” marks Craig’s fifth and final turn as the iconic British spy. With Craig as the star, the James Bond franchise has seen its best theatrical run in history, garnering nearly $3.2 billion globally between 2006’s “Casino Royale” and 2015’s “Spectre,” according to data from Comscore.
    In fact, the 2012 “Skyfall” was the first James Bond film to top $1 billion worldwide.

    Of course, these days, ticket prices are much higher and there are far more entertainment options for consumers to spend their money on, so the box office receipts from the 1960s look quite different than today’s numbers. But box office experts don’t adjust for inflation because there are many
    During Connery’s time as Bond, the franchise averaged around $100 million at the global box office. At that time, tickets to the cinema were less than $2 and a James Bond film was released annually.
    After Lazenby’s solo run as 007 and Connery’s reprisal, Roger Moore took over the role for seven films, generating an average of $120 million at the box office between 1973 and 1985. At that time, tickets cost around $2.50 each.
    Dalton took over for two films, generating similar results at a time when tickets sold for just under $4.
    It wasn’t until audiences had an eight year gap between Dalton’s “License to Kill” and the debut of Brosnan in “Goldeneye” that the James Bond franchise saw a massive boost in box office receipts.
    1997’s “Goldeneye” became the highest-grossing James Bond film with $356 million tickets sold worldwide. Over the course of four films, Brosnan’s Bond averaged $372 million per picture at the box office and helped reinvigorate the brand.
    Then came Craig. “Casino Royale” updated the 007 character and was a more fleshed out and grittier incarnation of the iconic hero. The film tallied nearly $600 million during its theatrical run in 2006.
    It’s unclear how 2021’s “No Time to Die” will ultimately perform at the global box office compared to its predecessors. The film is being released at a tumultuous time in the movie theater business. The coronavirus pandemic shutdown the industry for months and ticket sales have yet to recover.
    However, advanced ticket sales internationally and domestically have given box office analysts hope for a solid theatrical run. Especially, because “No Time to Die” will have an exclusive theatrical run.
    Disclosure: Comcast owns NBCUniversal and CNBC. Universal is releasing “No Time To Die” internationally while MGM handles the domestic release

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 188 Shares189 Views

    in Finance

    How Biden’s $3.5 trillion economic plan compares to LBJ’s Great Society and FDR’s New Deal

    President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion economic plan has few parallels in modern U.S. history.
    The Great Society of the 1960s and New Deal policies of the 1930s, marshalled by Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, are the closest comparisons, according to economists and historians.
    Biden’s Build Back Better plan both shares similar qualities and is dissimilar in key ways, experts said.

    Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion economic agenda — and the social spending it would usher in — has few parallels in modern U.S. history.
    The New Deal era of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s are its closest comparisons, according to economists and historians.

    Those periods of vast social expansions — marshalled by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively — saw the creation of some of our nation’s most popular programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance.
    Biden’s Build Back Better reforms — which would expand spending in areas like childcare, health care, paid leave and education — shares traits with these past eras but diverges in significant ways, experts said.
    “They’re all important,” Stephen Marglin, an economist at Harvard University, said of the prongs of Biden’s agenda. “They’re all part of what we should be regarding as necessary infrastructure, social infrastructure, that’s important to a 21st century economy.”

    The birth of social spending

    The national government was small when the Great Depression hit in 1929. At the time, most social welfare programs were funded and administered by local government, according to John Joseph Wallis, an economic historian and professor at the University of Maryland.
    But FDR’s series of New Deal programs in the 1930s fundamentally changed the public’s expectation from Washington and the government’s role in their lives.

    Social Security retirement benefits and unemployment insurance were the most consequential and lasting reforms of that period, according to economists. Some modern-day programs — like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (also known as welfare) — have their roots in New Deal reforms.  
    Later, in 1965, President Johnson’s War on Poverty led to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, public health plans for seniors and the poor.

    The federal government also roughly doubled the value of Social Security benefits between 1965 and 1972, and began pegging them to increases in the cost of living, according to Irwin Garfinkel, a professor and co-founding director of the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University. (Some of those reforms occurred during President Richard Nixon’s tenure.)
    “What we did in the 60s, what was most remarkable, was we nearly wiped out poverty among the aged,” Garfinkel said.
    Biden’s proposals come at a time of similar U.S. economic and social upheaval.
    The pandemic downturn was the worst recession since the Great Depression, hurtling millions into unemployment overnight. The country’s concurrent reckoning with racial inequality following the murder of George Floyd harked back to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and put a spotlight on the recession’s unequal impact on minorities and the poor.
    While U.S. social programs had largely tilted toward the elderly, Biden’s agenda would somewhat shift that focus to children and families, according to experts.
    By one estimate, his proposed expansion of the child tax credit would cut child poverty by half. (Child poverty is the share of kids living in poor households.)
    “It’s not quite as we did for the aged, but it’s not bad,” Garfinkel said.
    Biden’s proposal would expand programs for seniors, too, by adding vision, dental and hearing benefits for Medicare, for example.

    Program cost

    Comparing the overall cost and spending of Build Back Better versus the New Deal and Great Society eras is challenging.
    For one, the budgeting tools the federal government uses today to gauge cost weren’t around then. But examining cost as a share of the U.S. economy is among the best ways to judge programs’ relative scope, economists said.
    The $3.5 trillion plan Biden proposed would be spent over 10 years. That amounts to roughly $350 billion per year, or about 1.5% of the country’s current $22.7 trillion gross domestic product, a measure of economic output.
    That 1.5-point increase is a big jump from the last several decades but is smaller than those during the Roosevelt and Johnson eras.
    More from Personal Finance:Here are the changes that could be coming to your Social Security benefitsClimate change can impact your financesHouse Democrats’ tax proposal may affect life insurance for the rich
    By 1939, the share of federal social-welfare spending hit a New Deal-era peak of 3.6% of GDP, according to an analysis by Price Fishback, a professor at the University of Arizona who studies New Deal political economy. That’s a 2.7-percentage-point increase relative to 1933.
    In 1963, social spending was 4.1% of GDP; by 1973, it had jumped to 7.4%, an increase of 3.3 points, Fishback said.
    “This is a pretty hefty slug of money,” Fishback said of Build Back Better. “[But] it doesn’t look like a big budget buster,” he added.
    The picture is somewhat different when considering spending per capita, to account for U.S. population growth over the last century.
    Social spending would increase about $1,060 per person per year under Biden’s plan, Fishback said. By comparison, New Deal policies had swelled spending about $400 per person by the end of the 1930s; spending grew $2,571 per person over 1963-73.

    We are redefining the safety net to a higher level. It will shift the public resources to more people.

    William Hoagland
    senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center

    One caveat: The Biden’s proposed outlays would be on top of the existing social welfare system, Fishback said. And it’s unclear how or whether the programs may grow over time or become permanent fixtures.
    Social Security, for example, paid few benefits in its early years but accounted for about $1 trillion, or 23%, of the federal budget in 2019.
    And the overall price tag may change during congressional negotiations. One key Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said Thursday that he wouldn’t support legislation exceeding $1.5 trillion — less than half the amount of Biden’s proposal.

    Investment vs. spending

    Of course, some economist consider these federal outlays to be “investments” in the country’s future rather than outright spending.
    “I almost think the [$3.5 trillion] plan is a bit more comparable to LBJ’s War On Poverty [than to the New Deal], because it’s trying to address long-term strategic issues,” said Krishna Kumar, director of international research and a senior economist at the RAND Corporation.
    Investing in children (the beginning of the lifecycle) as opposed to seniors (toward the end of their lives) distinguishes Biden’s plan, he explained.
    In addition to an expanded child tax credit, the plan calls for lower childcare costs, two years of universal preschool, 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, and two years of free community college.

    The U.S. lags behind other developed rich nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in many of these categories, Kumar said.
    Such “investments” can yield economic benefits in the future. For example, healthier, more educated kids tend to live longer, earn more as adults, pay more taxes and lean less on the safety net, Garfinkel said.
    Investment in early childhood programs returns $2 to $4 for every dollar invested, according to a RAND analysis.

    Beyond the New Deal and Great Society

    Biden’s plan diverges from its predecessors in some ways, according to economists.
    Perhaps most importantly, its benefits are spread across a broad swath of the American population — not just the neediest.
    That shifts the U.S. closer to a social model adopted by Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden, perhaps reflecting that childcare issues also affect middle-class families, economists said.
    For example, poor families get the largest gains from the expanded child tax credit, but extra funds also reach higher-income households (individuals with up to $200,000 of income and married couples with up to $400,000.)
    Overall, the expansion doubles the average family’s benefit to almost $5,100, according to the Congressional Research Service.
    “We are redefining the safety net to a higher level,” said William Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “It will shift the public resources to more people.”
    This strategy may help garner political support for Biden’s initiatives. A narrower focus — just on the poorest individuals, for example — is a “recipe for political disaster” because it erodes the base of supporters, according to Marglin, the economist at Harvard.
    “This is just the way our political system works,” he said. “The great innovators understood that.”
    “It was something Franklin Roosevelt knew in 1935, and I’m sure Lyndon Johnson knew it in 1965, and I’m sure Joe Biden knows it, as well,” he added.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 200 Shares159 Views

    in Finance

    Google’s pivot away from bank accounts shows why finance is a tough industry for tech giants

    Google is shuttering its bank account product nearly two years after announcing ambitious plans to take on the retail finance industry.
    One key factor: The new head of the business, Bill Ready, decided that he’d rather develop a digital banking and payments ecosystem instead of competing with banks, according to a person with knowledge of the decision.
    Google may have ultimately decided it wasn’t worth antagonizing current and prospective customers for its various businesses, including cloud computing, according to a Friday research note from Wells Fargo banking analyst Mike Mayo.

    The logo for Google Pay displayed on a phone screen.
    Jakub Porzycki | NurPhoto via Getty Images

    At least one tech giant has decided it’s better to serve banks rather than taking them head on.
    Google is shuttering its bank account product nearly two years after announcing ambitious plans to take on the retail finance industry. One key factor: The new head of the business, Bill Ready, decided that he’d rather develop a digital banking and payments ecosystem instead of competing with banks, according to a person with knowledge of the decision.

    For the past few years, bank executives and investors have shuddered whenever a tech giant disclosed plans to break into finance. With good reason: Tech giants have access to hundreds of millions of users and their data and a track record for transforming industries like media and advertising.
    But the reality has proven less disruptive so far. While Amazon was reportedly exploring bank accounts in 2018, the project has yet to materialize. Uber reined in its fintech ambitions last year. Facebook was forced to rebrand its crypto project amid a series of setbacks.
    “We’re updating our approach to focus primarily on delivering digital enablement for banks and other financial services providers rather than us serving as the provider of these services,” a Google spokeswoman said in a statement.
    Google, which is owned by parent company Alphabet, could help banks provide more secure ways for consumers to make online purchases like via virtual cards or single-use tokens. That’s according to the person with knowledge of the company who declined to be identified speaking about business strategy. Those methods cut down on fraud by protecting users’ credit-card numbers.
    Google may have ultimately decided it wasn’t worth antagonizing current and prospective customers for its various businesses, including cloud computing, according to a Friday research note from Wells Fargo banking analyst Mike Mayo.

    In recent years, Google has funneled more resources to its cloud business, which still lags behind Amazon and Microsoft in market share. However, it has made steady gains under cloud boss Thomas Kurian, who, along with Google CEO Sundar Pichai, has repeatedly touted financial services as a target in terms of customers they hope to attract.
    “Banks are worried about disintermediation, and I think it’s likely that Google executives were getting signals that banks weren’t on board with what Google was going to do,” said Peter Wannemacher, a Forrester Research analyst who advises banks on digital efforts. “They made the bet that there was a greater gain in selling to banks rather than selling to customers.”
    Being the customer-facing entity for banks may have risked inviting greater regulatory and Congressional scrutiny, he said. As it is, the public has already become suspicious of technology firms’ reach, he added.
    “Financial services is a difficult space to get into,” Wannemacher said. “Everyone knows that, but it’s often more vexing and knotty than people expect.”

    Become a smarter investor with CNBC Pro. Get stock picks, analyst calls, exclusive interviews and access to CNBC TV. Sign up to start a free trial today.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 188 Shares159 Views

    in Business

    Fauci says FDA will review Merck's new Covid treatment 'as quickly as they possibly can'

    Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday the FDA will review data on Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics’ new Covid oral antiviral quickly in hopes of issuing an emergency use authorization.
    The companies said their treatment, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death for unvaccinated patients with mild or moderate Covid by about 50%.
    In the phase three clinical trial, which had 775 participants who took either molnupiravir or a placebo, eight people who took the placebo died within 29 days. None of the participants who took molnupiravir died.

    White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said Friday that the Food and Drug Administration will review data on Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics’ new Covid oral antiviral “as quickly as they possibly can” in hopes of issuing an emergency use authorization.
    The companies said their antiviral treatment, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death for unvaccinated patients with mild or moderate Covid by about 50%. In the phase three clinical trial, which enrolled 775 trial participants who took either molnupiravir or a placebo, eight people who received the placebo died within 29 days. None of the participants who took molnupiravir died, according to the data released Friday.

    “You’ve got to make sure you give the FDA time to very carefully go over the data and make the kind of determinations for emergency use authorization,” Fauci told CNBC’s “Closing Bell.” “So I don’t want to get ahead of them. I can’t predict when it will be, but I can tell you one thing: They will do it as quickly as they possibly can.”
    Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics also said that 7.3% of molnupiravir recipients in their phase three study were hospitalized within 29 days, while 14.1% of placebo recipients were hospitalized or died. All participants had at least one health condition that elevated their chances for more severe Covid symptoms.

    CNBC Health & Science

    An emergency use authorization from the FDA would make molnupiravir the first oral antiviral to combat Covid. The U.S. has agreed to purchase 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir. White House coronavirus response coordinator Jeff Zients told reporters at a briefing Friday that the government has the option of buying even more doses if the drug gets approved.

    Merck projects that it will have 10 million courses of molnupiravir available by the end of 2021.
    When asked whether molnupiravir would eventually be reserved exclusively for unvaccinated people, Fauci said he wanted to avoid speculating before the FDA made its final decision. Fully vaccinated people can still contract Covid, particularly as vaccine effectiveness wanes, but they retain a high degree of protection against severe illness and death.
    “I shouldn’t get ahead of what the FDA will be authorizing it for,” Fauci said. “But I would assume that if you’re infected, you’re infected. Doesn’t really matter whether you’ve been vaccinated or not.”

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 200 Shares199 Views

    in Business

    California will require Covid vaccination for K-12 students attending school in person after full FDA approval

    California will require students attending school in person to get vaccinated for Covid after the FDA grants full approval for children, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday.
    The mandate will first take effect for students ages 12 and over following full approval by the FDA for that age group, then in a second phase for students ages 5-12 after FDA approval for that age group.
    Newsom said California will apply the mandate for ages 12 and up as early as Jan. 1 but possibly as late as July 1 depending on when FDA authorization takes place.

    California will require students attending school in person to get vaccinated for Covid-19 after the Food and Drug Administration grants full approval for their age group, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Friday.
    Newsom’s latest order, the first of its kind nationwide, will roll out in two phases for students learning in person. The mandate will first take effect for students ages 12 and over after the FDA grants full approval to that entire age group.

    Pfizer’s Covid vaccine is currently authorized only on an emergency use basis for children ages 12 to 15. The FDA approved the vaccine for kids ages 16 and 17 in August.
    Newsom said California will apply the mandate for students ages 12 and up as early as Jan. 1 but possibly as late as July 1 depending on when FDA authorization takes place.

    Anti-vaccine protesters stage a protest outside of the San Diego Unified School District office to protest a forced vaccination mandate for students on September 28, 2021 in San Diego, California.
    Sandy Huffaker | Getty Images

    California will then apply the vaccine mandate for students under 12 in a second phase after full FDA authorization takes place for that age group. Pfizer submitted initial trial data to the FDA on children ages 5 to 11 last month and said it would request emergency use authorization in the coming weeks.
    The FDA has scheduled a meeting on Oct. 26 to review Pfizer’s application to give shots to that age group, making it possible to start administering Covid vaccines to 5- to 11-year-olds by Halloween or shortly thereafter.
    “Currently, we have in the state of California administered at least one dose to 63.5% of all of our young cohort ages 12 to 17,” Newsom said at a press conference. “But we have to do more — 84% of all eligible received one dose, but for 12 to 17, we’re not where we need to be.”

    California reported more than 6 million public school students as of April, according to its Department of Education.
    Newsom issued a weekly testing mandate for all unvaccinated school staff on Aug. 11. The governor added that he was awaiting further guidance from the Biden administration before enacting a vaccine mandate for all school staff to correspond with the upcoming rollout for students.
    Similar testing mandates for California’s employees and health-care workers who refuse to immunize also took effect in early August.

    CNBC Health & Science

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Business

    Rivian, electric vehicle maker backed by Amazon and Ford, files to go public

    Rivian Automotive, electric vehicle maker backed by Amazon and Ford, filed for an initial public offering on the Nasdaq.
    Its paperwork shows Rivian had a $994 million net loss on zero revenue in the first six months of 2021.
    In September 2021, Rivian beat Tesla, GM and Ford to the market with an electric pickup, the R1-T, which has received glowing early reviews.

    Rivian Automotive, a company developing electric vehicles, including commercial delivery vans for Amazon, filed for an initial public offering on Friday. The company aims to trade on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol “RIVN.”
    Its paperwork shows a $994 million net loss on zero revenue in the first six months of 2021. In 2020 the company’s net loss came to $1.02 billion.

    The company wrote in its filing, “We are a development stage company and have not generated material revenue to date. Vehicle production and deliveries began in September 2021.” Rivian beat Tesla, GM and Ford to the market with an electric pickup, the R1T, which has received glowing early reviews. The company plans to launch a seven-passenger SUV called the R1S in December, it said in the filing.
    CEO RJ Scaringe, who has a Ph.D. from the Sloan Automotive Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founded Rivian in 2009. The company is based in Irvine, Calif., with 6,274 employees as of the end of June. It operates a vehicle assembly plant in Normal, Illinois.
    Amazon and Ford each own more than 5% of the company. Peter Krawiec, Amazon’s senior vice president of worldwide corporate and business development, sits on Rivian’s board.

    Amazon’s new delivery van

    Rivian’s commercial vehicle business will be highly dependent on Amazon for the foreseeable future. The company said Amazon has some exclusive rights to purchase electric delivery vehicles from Rivian for at least four years, and the right of first refusal after that. However, either company may withdraw from the deal under certain conditions. In particular, if Amazon does not order at least 10,000 vehicles over the course of two consecutive calendar years, Rivian may withdraw and force Amazon to reimburse certain costs.
    The electric vehicles that Rivian is building for Amazon include 3 different sizes, 500, 700 and 900 cubic feet. The smaller two are planned for launch in December this year, and early 2022. The larger one will follow at an unspecified date.

    Like Tesla, Rivian remains a non-unionized automaker for now. The company’s filing acknowledged that this status could change and impact labor costs.
    Rivian is also following in Tesla’s vertically integrated footsteps. This means it sells its electric vehicles directly to customers rather than through franchised dealerships, provides its own vehicle service and repairs, and is investing in a network of charging stations for Rivian owners to use.
    The company’s filing on Friday noted that Rivian currently operates six service centers in California, Illinois, Washington, and New York, and runs 11 mobile service vehicles that can drive to a customer’s home and do some repairs. Rivian has established 20 locations for additional service centers.
    Rivian targets fans of outdoor sports and recreation and has been investing in charging stations at remote, off-road destinations. Its filing said that the company has secured 24 Rivian Adventure Network direct current fast charging sites in seven states, and 145 Rivian Waypoints charging sites in 30 states.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • 188 Shares149 Views

    in Business

    Doodles used to create Gary Vaynerchuk NFT collection sell for $1.2 million in Christie's auction

    Christie’s on Friday auctioned five art works that were created by entrepreneur Gary Vaynerchuk for his VeeFriends NFT collection.
    The sale was a part of Christie’s Post-War to Present live auction that took place in New York City, and it furthered the auction house’s foray into digital art sales.
    The VeeFriends collection is comprised of 10,255 character nonfungible tokens.

    Gary Vaynerchuk holds a “VeeFriends” token, which is part of his part of his first NFT collection.
    Source: VeeFriends | Gary Vaynerchuk

    Christie’s on Friday auctioned five art works that were created by entrepreneur Gary Vaynerchuk for his VeeFriends NFT collection.
    The price tag? Just over $1.2 million.

    “It feels like an out-of-body-experience,” Vaynerchuk told CNBC. “I view myself as a very creative and artistic person, but this is way bigger than me. … It represents a paradigm shift and the consumer is intrigued.”
    Whereas most NFTs auctioned by Christie’s are NFT minted, or blockchain verified, these particular works are the original characters that were hand-drawn by Vaynerchuk himself.
    The VeeFriends collection is comprised of 10,255 character nonfungible tokens available for purchase via the cryptocurrency ethereum. Each token includes a “smart contract” with metadata that Vaynerchuk can use to interact with its buyer. Token holders also will be given exclusive access to an annual business event called VeeCon for three years after the NFT’s purchase. The first VeeCon will take place in Minneapolis in May.
    Since launching the series earlier this year, the lowest listed price for one such token remains $50,000.
    Vaynerchuk’s NFT doodle called “Empathetic Elephant” fetched the highest price at Friday’s auction, selling for $412,500. The lowest was called “Diamond Hands,” and went for $162,500.

    NFTs are a type of digital asset created to track ownership of a virtual item using blockchain technology. Such unique items could be artwork or sports trading cards — a market that Vaynerchuk became familiar with as a teenager, peddling baseball cards for thousands of dollars every week.
    “I grew up with collectibles, antiques and sports cards,” Vaynerchuk said. “My mom and dad were into that stuff too, and they would have been intimidated even walking into Christie’s two decades ago and now their son is selling stuff in it. … It’s the American dream.”
    The original VeeFriends artwork was featured along with the full set of Curio Cards and Sets 1-3 of Art Blocks Curated in Christie’s Post-War to Present live auction in New York. The auction furthers Christie’s foray into digital art sales, which have boomed in popularity this year along with a rise in the value of digital currencies like ether and bitcoin. Curio Cards, which is commonly viewed as the first digital art collectible on ethereum blockchain, fetched $1.2 million.
    The market is growing rapidly, with some digital collectibles being sold for millions of dollars. In March, Christie’s sold a NFT by the artist Beeple for more than $69.3 million.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More