u/SapientChaos

I was looking through analyst ratings today.

One thing that got me thinking wasn't whether he's "right" or "wrong," but how sell-side analysts update their models.

Wall Street analysts generally don't change their ratings after every piece of news. Their models are built around assumptions about production, margins, cash flow, and long-term profitability. Usually it takes several quarters of evidence before they make major changes, especially if they're one of the most bullish or bearish analysts covering a stock.

That said, Rivian has changed quite a bit over the past year:

• R2 production has begun.
• The company continues to improve manufacturing efficiency.
• Connect+ now includes the new AI Assistant, adding value to recurring software revenue.
• Rivian remains on track toward its long-term profitability goals.

Ryan Brinkman still has one of the lowest price targets on Wall Street at $9, well below the current consensus.

So I'm curious:

At what point does an analyst have to acknowledge that their original assumptions may no longer reflect reality?

Is one strong quarter enough?

Does it take two or three?

Or do analysts typically wait until management proves a trend over multiple earnings reports before materially changing their models?

I'm genuinely interested in how others think analysts approach this. What milestones would Rivian need to hit before a $9 target no longer seems justified?

Nothing seems fishy about some of the analyst opinions about price. R2 launching a success, fantastic universal reviews, so of course they keep it low.

Volkswagen has already validated Rivian's software and electrical architecture strategy, which got me thinking...

If Rivian's Gen 3 platform, RAP AI chips, and Large Driving Model continue to prove themselves, which traditional automaker would make the most sense as the next partner?

Some thoughts:

• Ford? They have a huge software transition ahead while balancing a dealer network and legacy ICE business.
• GM? They have invested heavily in their own software stack already.
• Toyota? Historically builds much of its technology in-house.
• Stellantis? Could benefit from a modern software-defined vehicle architecture.
• Honda? Already willing to partner when it makes strategic sense.
• Someone else?

Building an in-house AI driving stack isn't just expensive—it also carries execution risk. Even after spending billions, there's no guarantee a Large Driving Model will perform as expected. At some point, licensing proven technology may be cheaper and lower risk than building everything yourself.

Rivian has already demonstrated that at least one global automaker sees value in its platform.

If Rivian were to announce a second major software partnership, who do you think it would be—and why?

Super nerdy topic warning. I posted more generally about this before (https://www.reddit.com/r/RivianR2/s/sSEbgCZbFo) and since then I've been digging into the R2's compute specs for Autonomy+.  I’m curious what folks think of an alternate take on what RAP1/Gen 3 hardware gets you. My tl;dr: RAP1 is a the data gathering platform Rivian needs right now and it’ll take another chip rev to advance self driving capability by much.  

Why? On paper 1,600 TOPS looks like a big self-driving improvement enabler. But the (rarely mentioned) memory bandwidth tells a different story, it doesn’t go up at all, staying lower than Tesla HW4.

Some comparisons for you first:

Launch R2 Autonomy+: Dual (corrected from initial post) Nvidia chip rated around 220 TOPS. Just a guess, couldn’t find it mentioned anywhere, but this is almost certainly a single Nvidia Drive Orin-class chip. Bandwidth: ~2 x 205 GB/s (less depending on cross connectivity, etc)

Future R2 Gen 3 autonomy: Two Rivian-designed RAP1 chips in the ACM3 module, totaling ~1,600 TOPS. Bandwidth: STILL ~2 x 205 GB/s.

Tesla HW4 (now): ~500–720 TOPS. Bandwidth: ~384 GB/s.

Tesla AI5/HW5 (in the works): ~2,000–3,000 TOPS. bandwidth: ~768–1,500+ GB/s (my wild asses guess)

See what happened there? Tesla starts off with more memory bandwidth and just keeps going, Rivian isn’t increasing at all yet. 

Why do I think this memory bandwidth thing is a big deal? TOPS is how much math the chip can do, memory bandwidth is how fast you can feed it the data to do math on. Modern driving models are basically big vision transformers that shuffle huge amounts of image/LiDAR/radar data around. These workloads are usually memory-bound, not compute-bound. Try running even a small LLM with Ollama on your high spec MacBook Pro and note how it heats up like a toaster but doesn’t produce an answer to “hi are you there?” for 2 minutes - welcome to memory bandwidth limits (and other limits, but that’s a big one). 

Rivian increased TOPS by about 7x (220 to 1,600) but left bandwidth flat at ~205 GB/s. That’s really unbalanced scaling that works for collecting more data but gets stuck if you want to run bigger models. 

RAP1 does add LiDAR, more on-chip integration and custom silicon Rivian controls, 5 billion pixels/second processing, richer sensor suite for logging real-world edge cases. Great for data collection. It's exactly what you want if your main problem is "we don't have enough fleet miles and weird scenarios to train on yet."

RAP1 is exactly the right move for where Rivian actually is. Their autonomy stack is newer, their fleet is smaller, and they need real-world miles and wacky edge-case data.  But I wonder if RAP1 is the chip that lets Rivian run a really smooth Tesla-like HW4 end-to-end city-driving model. For that, they'll probably need RAP2 or RAP3 with significantly more memory bandwidth.

Am I missing something? Curious if people think the bandwidth concern is overblown, or if Rivian has some architecture trick that makes 205 GB/s go further than it looks.

How much institutional knowledge can the Washington Office lose before it begins affecting the Forest Service's mission?

Regardless of where people stand on the relocation, one thing that isn't discussed enough is the value of institutional knowledge. The agency has also experienced significant departures in recently through retirements and other workforce reductions.

If a substantial number of Washington Office employees choose not to relocate:

• Which programs or functions would be affected first?
• Which positions would be the hardest to replace?
• What knowledge can be documented and transferred, and what only comes from years or decades of experience?
• How long would it realistically take to rebuild that expertise?
• At what point would the loss of experience begin affecting the Forest Service's ability to carry out its mission of caring for the nation's forests and serving the public?

I'm not looking to debate politics or whether the relocation is right or wrong. I'm genuinely interested in hearing from current and former Forest Service employees about how they think this could affect the agency over the next few years.

Investigators from PF&R and the Portland Police Bureau determined the fire was intentionally set and are investigating it as arson. No injuries have been reported, and officials said there is no ongoing danger to the public.

Federal pay raises don't happen by accident. Congress and the Administration ultimately decide federal compensation policy.

Depending on the methodology used, federal employee organizations estimate that federal salaries are approximately 25% below comparable private-sector positions. While the exact figure is debated, most observers agree that agencies face increasing challenges recruiting and retaining talent in many high-demand occupations.

If you're concerned about federal pay falling behind inflation or private-sector wages, contact your Representative and Senators. Congressional offices track constituent feedback, and hearing directly from federal employees matters.

Consider:

• Calling or writing your Representative and Senators. Request a response.
• Attending local town halls.
• Sharing real examples of recruitment and retention challenges.
• Working with your union or employee association.
• Explaining how staffing shortages affect public services.

The most effective message isn't "I want a raise."

It's:

"We are struggling to recruit and retain qualified employees, and that impacts the services Americans rely on every day."

Whether you work in national security, public safety, healthcare, veterans services, transportation, science, or administration, competitive pay helps agencies attract and keep talented employees.

Members of Congress hear from lobbyists and advocacy groups every day. They hear far less often from the federal employees doing the work.

A single phone call may be forgotten. Thousands of informed employees communicating consistently over time can help shape the conversation about the future of the federal workforce.

Don't just contact Congress when a pay raise is proposed. Build a relationship with your elected representatives so they understand the challenges facing the federal workforce year-round.

What recruitment or retention challenges is your agency experiencing?

RIVN could be in for a wild ride this week. With the Russell reconstitution taking effect on Friday, institutional investors and index funds are busy adjusting their portfolios. Friday is typically one of the highest-volume trading days of the year as billions of dollars are repositioned to match the new index weights. If Rivian's weighting increases, it could see additional mechanical buying from passive funds and ETFs. Either way, it should make for a very interesting week.