Rivian Automotive Inc. is expected to price its initial public offering (IPO) later today, November 9, 2021. Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and J.P. Morgan currently stand as Rivian’s underwriters for the company’s debut. And based on filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Rivian is looking to enter the public markets in a big way — and it is setting its ambitions very high.
Target Valuation
Rivian has disclosed that it is targeting a valuation above $65 billion in its IPO, with shares priced between $72 and $74. Such a valuation is ambitious, as it would make Rivian’s market cap just a bit lower than veterans such as General Motors ($84.82 billion) and Ford Motor Company ($79.65 billion), the latter being a key investor in the truck maker. Similar to fellow electric vehicle maker Tesla, which currently reached a market cap above of over $1 trillion, Rivian’s valuation target is founded on the idea that the company may see a meteoric rise in the coming years.
If Rivian’s shares end up selling at the top of their marketed range, the company could make history as the seventh-biggest US IPO on record, according to Bloomberg. It would also overtake longtime players in the auto segment, such as Japanese carmakers Honda Motor Co., which has a market cap of $53 billion, and French automaker Renault SA, which is valued at a conservative $11 billion.
The Finances So Far
Rivian’s S-1 filing with the SEC has provided a glimpse of the company’s finances so far. Just as expected, and similar to fellow electric vehicle makers that are just starting out, Rivian is currently burning cash, with heavy investments in R&D and high operating costs. This is likely due to the fact that the company is still learning the ropes when it comes to mass-producing its three vehicle offerings, one of which has an order for 100,000 units from Amazon, the world’s premier e-commerce site.
Rivian currently employs over 8,000 people across multiple facilities in Arizona, California, Michigan, Illinois, Vancouver, Canada, and the UK. And as the company approached the production of the R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV, its losses grew. Rivian posted a net loss of $994 million from January to June 2021, more than double the $377 million net loss it posted for the first half of 2020. Rivian’s R&D expenses are also on the rise, with the company spending $683 million in Q1 and Q2 2021. In comparison, its R&D cost for 2020 stood at $766 million. Despite this, Rivian still has about $3.6 billion in cash on its balance sheet.
What Analysts are Saying
Rivian is quite unique among EV startups today because its already has a sure customer in Amazon, which has ordered 100,000 units of an all-electric delivery van. That being said, New Street Research analyst Pierre Ferragu stated in a note on Monday that Rivian may end up facing a “natural ceiling” of 300,000 to 400,000 units per year, partly due to the price range of its consumer vehicles, the R1T pickup truck and the R1S SUV. The R1T currently starts at $67,500 for its base model, while the R1S starts at $70,000.
“Above $70,000, the global addressable market for Rivian’s SUV and pickup is less than 1.5 million units, and it will be a crowded space,” Ferragu wrote.
Ivan Drury, a senior analyst at Edmunds, highlighted that Rivian may face an uphill climb when ramping its first vehicles, especially considering that the chip crisis is still ongoing. “It’s difficult enough for established automakers, let alone a new one. Couple that with this new issue the entire industry is dealing with, the chip crisis, that just adds another layer of complexity,” Drury noted.
Rivian’s Production Plans
Recent reports have noted that Rivian is currently focusing its resources on delivering the first batch of its Amazon delivery vans. This makes sense considering the volume of orders it has received from the e-commerce giant, but this strategy could also result in the R1T and R1S being ramped at a more deliberate pace. So far, Rivian has noted that it has received just over 55,000 pre-orders for the R1T and R1S. And since starting deliveries of the R1T, the company has only delivered 156 units of the all-electric pickup truck, “nearly all” of them to Rivian employees.
Rivian’s SEC filing has provided a bit more detail about the R1T and R1S’ rather deliberate ramp. According to the document, the company expects to fill its pre-order backlog of approximately 55,400 R1 vehicles by the end of 2023. Previous reports also note that Rivian is expected to deliver the first 10,000 units of its Amazon delivery vans by the end of 2022, with the entire 100,000-unit order being completed by the end of the decade.
Legal Challenges to Date
Similar to other automakers, Rivian is also involved in some legal challenges. Among the more notable ones involve fellow EV maker Tesla, which has filed a suit against Rivian last year over the alleged theft of intellectual property related to recruitment, bonus and compensation plans for sales personnel, and manufacturing project management systems. A later lawsuit from Tesla also alleged that the truck maker was acquiring core technology related to its upcoming 4680 cells, which was deemed by the Silicon Valley-based company as the “most essential element for any electric vehicle.”
More recently, Laura Schwab, who was the first female President in luxury automaker Aston Martin’s history, also filed a suit against Rivian over alleged gender discrimination. Schwab served as Rivian’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing during her tenure with the company. But according to the former Rivian executive, she was routinely excluded from meetings despite her experience in the auto industry, and her warnings about the R1T and R1S’ pricing and public targets were largely ignored. Finally, Schwab noted that she was terminated by Rivian just before it went public, which effectively made her lose “millions of dollars in unvested equity on the eve of the company’s IPO.”
Conclusion
With electric vehicle maker Tesla joining the trillion-dollar club, numerous investors are now looking towards the “next Tesla.” And while not all EV startups have succeeded — hydrogen truck company Nikola is a good cautionary tale — companies like Rivian and Lucid Motors do seem to have the makings of a legitimate, and potentially profitable long-term business. This was something highlighted by Pitchbook senior mobility analyst Asad Hussain, who noted that “Rivian’s premium market valuation reflects its ownership of the entire value chain and freedom to innovate without dealing with stranded assets. Between Rivian and Lucid, the market finally has credible candidates for ‘the next Tesla.”
Would you consider investing in Rivian? Sound off in the comments below.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk said today on X that Teslas will start to learn your individual preferences. This is something that he seemed to hint toward earlier this month when he said parking was by far the biggest reason drivers intervene with Full Self-Driving.
Musk made the comment in response to notable Tesla influencer Whole Mars, who said that his vehicle will sometimes disobey the settings he has enabled for his car. He responded to the post, stating that “The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences.”
The car will start to remember your specific interventions and match each person’s individual preferences
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 18, 2026
This is something that could be perhaps one of the biggest ways Tesla could minimize or even work closer toward eliminating interventions altogether. While FSD does a lot of things really well, many people intervene a vast majority of the time not due to major or critical safety errors.
Instead, many take over because the car is doing something that they do not like as a preference; it might park in a parking spot that is not preferred by the driver, it might linger too long in the left lane on the highway (a personal favorite), or it could even take a route that the driver does not like.
These all lead to interventions, but they are not triggered by a major safety issue. Instead, it’s just preference.
READ OUR REVIEW OF TESLA’S LATEST FSD VERSION:
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.5 Early Impressions: new features and early performance
If Teslas could start to learn the personal preferences of the person who owns them, interventions will truly begin to be less frequent. Some of this is already pretty evident, in my opinion. Teslas use a neural network to learn behaviors and accumulate data to improve performance.
For months now, we’ve tracked FSD’s performance at “Except Right Turn” stop signs, something that is very common in Pennsylvania, but many of our readers located in other parts of the U.S. have never heard of. FSD handles one Except Right Turn stop sign very well, one that I travel past frequently. Others that I do not navigate through as often do not have as confident a performance. It seems like the cars might already be doing this to an extent.
🚨 Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3 proceeds through an Except Right Turn Stop Sign pic.twitter.com/YemRSlens7
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 8, 2026
That example is also for something that is a street sign and not necessarily a driver preference; however, I still feel it is worth mentioning because it only handles that commonly passed Except Right Turn stop sign with true confidence. Others it still seems to struggle with.
This could be one of Tesla’s big moves toward full autonomy, and it could be a pathway to truly unsupervised driving. Every day, millions of cars on the road travel at a human driver’s personal preferences with no incident. Why can’t autonomous vehicles still cater to a passenger’s preferences while being autonomous? Tesla seems to have the idea that it would be possible.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has sharply criticized legacy media outlets for what he describes as selective and biased reporting on vehicle accidents involving Tesla. In a recent X post, DeSantis questioned why headlines routinely spotlight the Tesla brand in crash stories, even when human error is the clear cause, while similar incidents with other automakers often receive generic treatment.
A prime example is the June 19, 2026, fatal crash in Katy, Texas. A Tesla Model 3 driven by Michael Butler struck a brick home at high speed, killing 76-year-old Martha Avila inside. Initial reports and headlines prominently featured “Tesla crash” and referenced the driver’s claim that an automated driving-assistance system was engaged.
Many outlets quickly speculated that Full Self-Driving or Autopilot were the cause of the crash, immediately blaming the suites for the accident shortly after it happened.
However, Tesla responded shortly after the accident with vehicle data that showed Butler manually overrode the system by pressing the accelerator to 100 percent, reaching 73 MPH in a residential area, more than double the speed limit. The accelerator remained floored after impact.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) later confirmed these findings, and Butler now faces manslaughter charges. His phone searches also included queries like “Tesla FSD too timid,” suggesting he may have intervened aggressively. Despite this, many headlines continued to center Tesla’s technology rather than the driver’s actions.
DeSantis highlighted a Washington Post headline, which was labeled, “Newly released photo shows wreckage of Tesla crash that killed grandmother.”
Do legacy media outlets typically use headlines involving the make of a car in a crash or is that only for Tesla?
It would be one thing if the self-driving malfunctioned but the crash was purely human-induced.
Seems like these outlets want to associate Tesla with crashes as… pic.twitter.com/EmfyeYiuv6
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) July 17, 2026
The subheadline noted the driver overrode assistance and floored the accelerator, yet the brand name dominated the framing. He asked whether legacy outlets typically name the make of a car in routine crashes or reserve that treatment for Tesla to push a narrative.
This pattern appears widespread. Crashes involving Ford, Chevrolet, or Toyota vehicles frequently appear as “pickup truck slams into home” or “fatal car crash kills pedestrian” without brand specifics, especially absent new technology angles.
High-profile Ford F-150 or Chevy Silverado incidents tied to large sales volumes often escape brand-callout scrutiny. In contrast, Tesla stories consistently lead with the manufacturer, amplifying perceptions of risk despite data showing strong overall safety performance:
🚨 Why do Tesla Owners get so defensive over the narrative of crashes involving Teslas? https://t.co/aX7ogtjTCR pic.twitter.com/KO4QWaLOKl
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 24, 2026
Tesla’s own 2025 Impact Report indicates vehicles using FSD logged 0.19 major incidents per million miles, roughly eight times fewer than the U.S. average. Models like the Model Y also rank among the safest in IIHS and NHTSA testing for occupant protection. Critics argue disproportionate coverage ignores these statistics and driver behavior factors, such as younger or more aggressive Tesla owners in some studies.
DeSantis frames this as part of a broader political agenda against innovative American companies like Tesla. By consistently naming Tesla while downplaying others, media outlets risk eroding public trust and shaping perceptions detached from the evidence of human error in most cases.
As autonomous technology evolves across the industry, consistent and factual reporting will be essential to separate real safety concerns from narrative-driven coverage.
Tesla entered two new markets this week by advancing its presence in Latvia (Europe) and officially launching operations in Uruguay (South America), marking a rapid dual-continent expansion.
These moves underscore the company’s strategy to tap into emerging EV markets with supportive policies, renewable energy grids, and growing demand for sustainable transport.
Latvia: Strengthening the Baltic Footprint
In Latvia, Tesla has built on its earlier registration of Tesla Latvia SIA in late 2025 with recent steps toward full operations, including job postings for a service center and representation in Riga. This aligns with broader Baltic expansion following Lithuania’s model of pop-up stores and service centers.
Coming to Latvia https://t.co/XNkQQJ2O6a pic.twitter.com/yS9kpcNky1
— Tesla Europe, Middle East & Africa (@teslaeurope) July 17, 2026
EV penetration in Latvia stands at around 7 percent for BEVs in new passenger car registrations. 2025 data showed 1,602 BEVs out of about 22,500 total, or 7.1 percent, with combined plug-ins nearing 19 percent. Growth has been steady but below the European average, supported by government subsidies and infrastructure development. Tesla models like the Model 3 lead local EV registrations.
Vehicles for the Latvian market will likely be sourced from Gigafactory Berlin or Gigafactory Shanghai. Charging infrastructure is robust for the region as well, with over 400- 2,000 public points, with Tesla Superchargers in Riga, Jūrmala, and along Via Baltica routes offering up to 250 kW.
Uruguay: Third South American Country
Tesla teased its Uruguay arrival with “Estamos llegando,” or, “We are arriving,” on social media, followed by an official presentation scheduled for mid-July.
Hola Uruguay 🇺🇾
Nuestros Model 3 y Model Y están cada vez mas cerca! pic.twitter.com/FR41fsA7um
— Tesla Latinoamérica (@Tesla_LatAm) June 30, 2026
The company established Tesla Uruguay SAS, homologated Model 3 and Model Y (three versions each), and appointed local leadership. This makes Uruguay Tesla’s third official South American market after Chile and Colombia.
Uruguay boasts one of Latin America’s highest EV penetrations, with battery-electric vehicles exceeding 20 percent market share recently, driven by tax incentives, high fuel prices, and a nearly 95-100 percent renewable electricity grid. Hundreds of Teslas already operate via grey imports, but official sales bring warranties, service, and support.
Vehicles will be imported from Gigafactory Shanghai, enabling competitive pricing for Model 3 and Model Y. Charging plans include Supercharger development alongside existing infrastructure, leveraging the country’s green energy advantage for affordable operation.
Tesla Superchargers follow Model 3 and Model Y to South American country
Tesla’s Dual Continent Expansion
Tesla’s simultaneous push into Latvia and Uruguay demonstrates efficient scaling: prioritizing service and infrastructure first, then direct sales in high-potential niches. In Europe, it fills Baltic gaps; in Latin America, it counters Chinese dominance while leveraging renewables.
This dual move signals Tesla’s ambition to accelerate global EV adoption amid varying regional paces. By addressing local needs, like subsidies in Latvia or incentives and green grids in Uruguay, Tesla not only boosts volumes but advances its mission of sustainable energy.
For investors and consumers, it highlights resilience and opportunity in diverse markets, potentially paving the way for further growth in underserved regions. With strong fundamentals in both, these entries could yield long-term gains as EV transitions mature worldwide.
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
Ron DeSantis calls out media bias in Tesla crash coverage
