Mad Hedge Technology Alerts!
With the US 10-year Treasury yield sitting today at around 4%, there simply isn’t a rapacious appetite to invest in unproven EV stocks.
This is how the cookie crumbles when lending terms are tight.
The 4% yield today is about 8X higher than it was in July 2020 when the 10-year yielded half of a percentage point.
Funding and borrowing billions for tech startups is part and parcel of developing a new tech company.
However, the incremental interest payments from the extra 8X yield are exorbitant enough for investors to refrain from pulling out their wallets.
A lot of investor roadshow presentations are now getting shelved permanently.
It has to be a slam dunk otherwise venture capitalists are pouring their capital down a black hole which is essentially why the venture capitalist movement is frozen.
So we must turn a suspicious eye when unproven EV company Rivian announces a plan to sell $1.3 billion in bonds to shore up capital.
It couldn’t have come at a worse time as debt markets are expensive to tap with rates surging.
I suspect the yield on this debt to be anywhere from 11-15%.
Even more laughable, they labeled this return to the capital markets as the “green” debt offering.
Rivian says it intends to sell $1.3 billion worth of “green” convertible senior notes due in 2029, with the option to grant an additional $200 million worth of convertible notes to the original purchasers.
Rivian explained to us that it intends to use the capital it raises for “green” or environmental purposes. I believe these statements are a sign that upper management is becoming too woke.
RIVN just needs to stay in their lane and make damn good EVs, and by that, I mean better than Tesla, and not tell everyone how “green” they are. Nobody cares about their greenwashing.
EV makers are also big polluters and many studies show that they accrue a bigger carbon footprint than the production of combustible engine cars.
Of course, the EV makers sponsored research that says the complete opposite and I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Lithium mining is a source of pollution and can have negative environmental impacts. Used of damaged Lithium Ion batteries pollute as well.
Rivian said these projects could include activities tied to clean transportation, renewable energy, circular economy (i.e., recycling batteries/metals), energy efficiency, and pollution prevention.
Is this just a ruse to mask investors from its adjusted EBITDA loss of $5.22 billion in 2022?
Hard to say, yet I do know it is convenient to leverage its “green” image to wash the losses from their backs to get more time to figure out how to make the numbers work.
The company is forecasting another adjusted EBITDA loss of $4.3 billion for 2023 and that’s the real reason they need to tap the debt markets.
This EV maker is a cash-burn machine, and looking for someone to be the sugar daddy.
This is all happening while Rivian is developing its next factory in Georgia, where its next-generation R2 vehicles will be built. Rivian says production of that vehicle will start in 2026.
Ultimately, this company does make a good product, and reviews of the EV have been positive, but the management is doing a poor job with the financials.
They might run out of money before the Georgian factory is finished and I believe desperately seeking funding at the worst time in history has to do more with shoddy management and botched accounting.
In short, the stock has gone from $130 to $15 today and much of the negative news has been discounted into the price.
It’s been a constant sell-the-rally stock for quite some time, but I think that will finally reverse itself when RIVN gets into single digits and from that point, it has a good chance to bounce to $20 per share.
Long term, I would stay away for now until we get some confirmation of their balance sheet improving. Tech companies with woefully mismanaged balance sheets aren’t the place to hide right now because tech stocks are too volatile.
Mad Hedge Technology Letter
March 6, 2023
Fiat Lux
Featured Trade:
(DEALING WITH A BLACK BOX)
(TSLA), (UBER), (LYFT)
Who is responsible when artificial intelligence harms someone?
The California jury may soon have to make a decision. In December 2019, a man driving a Tesla (TSLA) with an AI navigation system killed two people in an accident. The driver faces up to 12 years in prison.
These events were bound to happen as teething pains are quite common with new technology especially one that is ambitious enough to transport machines in a human world.
Multiple federal agencies are investigating Tesla crashes, and The California Department of Motor Vehicles is investigating the use of AI-controlled driving functions.
Our current liability system, used to determine liability and compensation for injuries, is not AI-friendly.
Liability rules were designed for a time when humans caused most injuries.
But with AI, errors can occur without direct human intervention. The liability system must be adjusted accordingly. Poor accountability won't just stifle AI innovation. It will also harm patients and consumers.
It's time to start thinking about accountability as AI becomes ubiquitous but remains under-regulated. AI-based systems have already contributed to injuries.
The right accountability approach is critical to unlocking the potential of AI. Uncertain regulations and the prospect of costly litigation will deter investment, development, and deployment of AI in industries ranging from healthcare to autonomous vehicles.
Currently, liability claims typically begin and end with the person using the algorithm. Of course, if someone abuses the AI system or ignores its warnings, that person should be held accountable.
But AI errors are often not the user's fault. Who can blame an emergency doctor for letting an AI algorithm miss papilledema — a swelling of part of the retina?
AI's failure to detect the disease could delay care and potentially cause the patient to lose their eyesight. Papilledema is difficult to diagnose without an ophthalmologist.
AI is constantly self-learning, which means it takes in information and looks for patterns in it. This is a "black box" that makes it difficult to understand which variables affect the outcome.
The key is to ensure that everyone involved - users, developers, and everyone else in the chain - has been vetted to keep AI safe and effective.
First, insurers should protect policyholders from AI injury litigation costs by testing and validating new AI algorithms before deploying them.
Car insurers have also been comparing and testing cars for years. An independent security system can provide AI stakeholders with a predictable system of accountability that adapts to new technologies and practices.
Second, some AI errors should be challenged in courts that specialize in uncommon cases. These tribunals may specialize in particular technologies or topics.
Third, proper regulatory standards from federal agencies can offset the excessive liability of developers and users. For example, some forms of medical device liability have been superseded by federal regulations and laws. Regulators should focus on standard AI development processes early on.
Regulation can make or break AI in the upcoming years and I definitely lean towards the laissez faire attitude of deregulation.
Too many regulations will stifle the development and bring about undue costs.
No company will continue with loss-making operations unless they see a light at the end of the tunnel.
If allowed to develop with light regulation, AI will be that supercharger to tech stocks that investors dreamed of.
Transportation-based tech stocks such as Uber and Lyft will be one of the largest winners from the widespread implementation of driverless technology.
Also, throw in there the food delivery companies like DoorDash (DASH).
Another group with immense expense-saving possibilities is all the airlines around the world because theoretically, self-driving technology will become good enough to deploy in short and long-haul flights.
Getting to the point of consumers and regulators fully trusting self-driving technology is still a long and windy path, but I do believe we will arrive there.
When we do get there, the tech companies exposed to these great benefits will feel a 10X boost to their share price.
