Rivian Stock (RIVN) Falls after Reporting a Steep Drop in Vehicle Deliveries
Don't Miss TipRanks' Half-Year Sale
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week.
Tariffs introduced by President Trump's administration have also added to Rivian's troubles by increasing manufacturing costs across the industry and forcing many automakers to rethink their supply chains. At the same time, Rivian's production fell short of expectations. In fact, only 5,979 vehicles were built in Q2 compared to analyst estimates of 11,330, as the company prepares to launch updated versions of its R1T truck and R1S SUV for 2026. Despite these issues, Rivian maintained its 2025 delivery forecast of 40,000 to 46,000 vehicles.
Separately, on the financial front, Rivian received a $1 billion equity investment from Volkswagen Group (VWAGY) at an effective price of $19.42, which represents a 33% premium to the $14.56 30-day volume-weighted average stock price. The investment is part of the $5.8B agreement associated with the Rivian and Volkswagen Group technology joint venture.
Is RIVN Stock a Buy or Sell?
Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on RIVN stock based on seven Buys, 13 Holds, and three Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average RIVN price target of $14.64 per share implies 10.8% upside potential.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
28 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Senate's version of Trump tax bill is a fiscal disaster Republicans created
The Senate on July 1 passed its version of President Trump's ironically named One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill is anything but beautiful. After weeks of negotiating, the Senate finally got the votes to send its version back to the House. Any hope of the Senate being the more responsible legislative body, which is generally the case, vanished as it became clear it would pass a spending monstrosity even worse than the version the House put together. The Senate has passed a completely irresponsible budget that endangers America's fiscal health. This entire piece of legislation is oriented around extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which is good policy. In fact, it's just about the only good part of the bill. If not extended, the expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would have been devastating to Americans. If allowed to expire, 62% of Americans would see a tax increase, according to the Tax Foundation. Extending the TCJA would result in a gross domestic product growth of 1.1% in the long run. The issue is that the extension of these tax cuts will result in a revenue loss of $4.5 trillion for the federal government. The economic growth spurred by the act will cover just $710 billion of that shortfall, leaving nearly $3.8 trillion that needs to be paid for somehow. Jacob Stewart: Defunding Planned Parenthood won't stop virtual abortions in Indiana The tax cuts themselves aren't the only significant source of spending in the bill. A sticking point for swing district Republicans has been the state and local tax (the SALT deduction), or the amount of state tax burden taxpayers can deduct from their federal income tax. Certain House Republicans have demanded that the annual limit of $10,000 be raised to $40,000, and the Senate has begrudgingly given them their increase for the next five years. I've written elsewhere about why the SALT deduction is bad policy, but combined with other changes to the alternative minimum tax would result in a $325 billion revenue loss on net. The Senate's version is even more generous on these policies than the House's version was. Additionally, the big ugly mess includes no tax on tips, social security and overtime pay. Neither Trump nor Republicans more generally have made a case for why these types of income are deserving of exempt status, and they amount to nothing more than a populist bribe of voters. These policies add hundreds of billions more to the revenue decreases from the tax cut extension. Other defense and immigration enforcement provisions bring the grand cost of the legislation up to $4 trillion once the long-term economic growth is accounted for. Work requirements for Medicaid benefits and food stamps are the chief sources of new funding to offset these costs, as well as the elimination of certain clean energy tax credits. As written, the Senate version of the bill adds even more to the budget deficit than the version the House put together. The House version was a fiscally irresponsible mess, which was estimated to add about $1.7 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, even after considering the economic growth that the bill is projected to create. The Senate version is estimated to add $2.9 trillion under the same metrics. Some House Republicans have already expressed frustrations with the Senate version of the bill, which House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to pass before Friday, Independence Day. The budget hawks in the House must hold the line against the careless spending the Senate has engaged in. The House bill that passed in the first go-around was a mess, and the Senate made it even worse. More from Dace Potas: Trump's refusal to enforce TikTok ban is his most lawless presidential act The Senate version also exaggerates its benefits and underestimates its costs by making many of its programs temporary. This allows them to gloss over this fact when discussing the benefits while claiming a lower cost. All of these games are played in order to avoid tough political conversations about slashing entitlements, the chief cause of our escalating budget crisis. I have little faith in the House's ability to stop this mess of a bill. Our legislators (with one notable exception) are so terrified of the prospect of a Trump primary challenge that they will vote for just about anything to avoid being the one to hold up the president's desired budget. America's takeaway from this should be to laugh hysterically the next time Republicans claim to be the party of responsible spending. For all the talk of slashing government spending, the GOP has put together one of the most counterproductive efforts in modern history.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump: Fed's Powell 'should resign immediately'
President Trump said Jerome Powell 'should resign immediately' in a Truth Social post Wednesday night, increasing a White House pressure campaign on the Federal Reserve chairman that is intensifying this week. Trump started the week with public criticisms of the Fed and Powell for not lowering rates, posting a note he sent to Powell telling the Fed chair "Jerome—You are, as usual, 'Too Late'" and arguing that he has "cost the USA a fortune." His press secretary held up the note at the White House on Monday so reporters could see it. His Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent then in separate TV interviews compared the Fed to an old person who is afraid of falling after having stumbled once and — referring to concerns Powell and other Fed officials have voiced about inflation from Trump's tariffs — said "I guess this tariff derangement syndrome happens even over at the Fed." When Trump used Truth Social Wednesday night to urge Powell's resignation, referring to him again with the nickname 'Too Late,' he linked to a news story that detailed calls made by yet another member of his administration — Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte — for Congress to investigate Powell over statements made to Senate lawmakers about renovations to the Fed's headquarters. Pulte has also called on Powell to resign. 'I am asking Congress to investigate Chairman Jerome Powell, his political bias, and his deceptive Senate testimony, which is enough to be removed 'for cause,'' Pulte said Wednesday in a post on X. When Powell testified before Senate lawmakers last month, Republican senators asked him about media reports that described the expenses and features of the Fed renovation project in Washington, D.C., and Powell said the reports were 'misleading and inaccurate in many, many respects.' Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis said in a statement to Yahoo Finance that 'This is the Federal Reserve, not a modern-day Palace of Versailles, and it's clear his inability to set aside his own biases in favor of sound policies proves it's time for new leadership at the Fed,' echoing a statement she also posted on X. 'I am happy President Trump is considering new leadership at the Fed.' There is now a short list of people who could succeed Powell as the next Federal Reserve chair when his term is up next May, according to people close to the administration. They include former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, former World Bank president David Malpass, and current Fed governor Christopher Waller. Trump told reporters Tuesday that "I have two or three top choices," roughly a week after saying "I know within three or four people who I'm going to pick." Powell has said that his removal from the job before his term is up next May is not permitted by law, and that he intends to serve out the full time. Trump has delivered mixed messages about whether he would try to remove him, saying in an April 17 post that 'Powell's termination cannot come fast enough!' before saying April 22 that he had 'no intention of firing him.' When asked Tuesday during a monetary policy conference in Portugal if Trump's attacks made it more difficult for Powell to do his job, the Fed chairman said, "I'm very focused on just doing my job." He added that "the things that matter are using our tools to achieve the goals that Congress has given us — maximum employment, price stability, financial stability — and that's what we focus on 100%." Powell's response was met with applause from other participants on the panel and the audience in the room. He also said on Tuesday, 'I want to hand over to my successor an economy in good shape. That's what keeps me awake at night.' When asked if he would serve out his term as a Fed governor until 2028, he declined to say: 'I have nothing for you on that today." On Tuesday, Powell didn't rule out an interest rate reduction at the Fed's next meeting on July 28-29, but he noted the central bank would have cut rates by now if not for the tariffs introduced by the Trump administration. "We went on hold when we saw the size of the tariffs and essentially all inflation forecasts for the United States went up materially as a consequence of the tariffs," he said. The Fed lowered rates by a full percentage point in 2024 but has held rates steady so far in 2025 as it waits to see if inflation will pick up this summer due to the tariffs. "I wouldn't take any meeting off the table or put it directly on the table," Powell said when asked about the possibility of a cut in July. "It's going to depend on how the data evolved." Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California schools reel from Trump's sudden cutoff of $1 billion in federal funds
For months, the leaders of Bay Area schools already dealing with budget deficits and declining enrollment have been pinching pennies, trimming staff and wringing their hands, hoping the federal funding allocated to them months ago would land in their bank accounts as promised in early July. On June 30, at the 11th hour, the Trump administration announced that $7 billion in grants for after-school programs, literacy instructions and other support services, would remain in Washington, D.C., with the funds 'under review' to ensure they aligned with presidential priorities. There was no indication whether California schools would see their $1 billion share before classes start in the fall — or if the check will ever be in the mail. In Oakland, where budget officials had cobbled together just enough money to stay in the black this upcoming school year, the estimated $9.3 million in frozen federal funds was a gut punch. The district was counting on that money to pay salaries and ensure it had the cash flow to pay bills, said Lisa Grant-Dawson, chief budget officer. Some staff have already been hired and, based on contractual requirements, cannot now be let go, she added. 'Without those funds, or delay of those funds, we still have to make good on our obligations,' she said. 'Our federal dollars are significant. The uncertainty is very bad.' The frozen funds included several specific grant programs for teacher training, after-school services, academic enrichment (college counseling, accelerated learning, technology, mental health services), English language learning, migrant education and adult education. The biggest chunks of federal funding for schools — money for disadvantaged students, special education programs and school meals — have continued to flow to districts across the country. In San Francisco, officials said they were expecting at least $7 million from that federal funding to pay for staff and extra services for the neediest students. Like many Bay Area districts, the city has been stretching every dollar it has to pay for basics, such as salaries and electricity, and to keep up with leaking roofs and broken boilers — while at the same time making cuts to close a $114 million deficit. The federal grants specifically pay for the extras, officials said. 'These funds are intended to supplement, not replace, the core services we provide — and they are especially critical in supporting our most vulnerable and at-risk students,' said district spokeswoman Laura Dudnick. 'While we remain hopeful for a positive resolution at the federal level, we are also exploring the use of reserve funds to help mitigate potential shortfalls and ensure continued support for those who need it most.' Public officials as well as education organizations criticized the decision to withhold the money, questioning the legality of holding back monies approved and allocated by Congress as well as the morality of pulling funds from schools with one day's notice. 'These funds were passed by Congress and promised to communities months ago. They are not optional. They are not political bargaining chips,' said the California Afterschool Advocacy Alliance in a statement. 'In cities like Fresno, Bakersfield, Oakland, and Los Angeles, administrators are already being forced to consider if they will have to cancel youth activities mid-summer, lay off trained staff, and abandon fall hiring plans — all because this administration failed to release funds that are legally required and universally relied upon.' School officials, however, had been braced for such a scenario. They watched as the Trump administration terminated or reneged on congressionally approved funding across several federal agencies, gutting spending on research or programs related to health, education, criminal justice and the environment, as well as funding for foreign aid and disaster relief. It was unclear whether the freeze in funding was related to President Trump's threats to withhold federal funding based on state or local education policies related to transgender rights or diversity, equity and inclusion. All states appeared among those waiting for the funds meant to arrive in July. State officials and private law firms have already sued the administration over the president's unilateral decisions to block or discontinue various federal funds already appropriated by Congress, including a multi-state coalition that includes California. 'This hack job has been done under the flimsy premise of 'changed agency priorities' — even when this funding has been previously appropriated by Congress and awarded to the states,' said state Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement regarding the lawsuit in late June. 'For federal funding to work, the states that receive that funding need to be able to plan ahead, make investments, and be confident that this funding will not be terminated on a whim.' It was unclear whether another lawsuit would follow related to the education funding, which so far was only on hold and under review, to ensure 'taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President's priorities.' 'California and other states have already filed suit against the Trump Administration based on prior acts to unlawfully withhold funding because we refuse to conform with the President's political ideology,' said state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond in a statement. 'Courts have already taken action in our favor in these cases. California will continue to pursue all available legal remedies to the Trump Administration's unlawful withholding of federal funds appropriated by Congress.' Yet the last-minute withholding of the grant money left local school leaders scrambling to stop what would be a domino effect across entire communities. Local nonprofits, including literacy organizations and after-school providers, were counting on the $9.3 million and what it would mean for Oakland. 'There are people relying on that income,' Grant-Dawson said. 'It will impact our entire community.'
