I’ve watched Rivian’s story shift from market darling to cautionary tale in just a few years, and the scale of the reversal is hard to ignore. The company’s stock has fallen more than 90% from its early highs as losses pile up and investors question whether its rich executive pay, especially for the CEO, matches the company’s performance. That disconnect between promise and reality now sits at the center of a broader debate about how much patience Wall Street still has for ambitious electric-vehicle startups.
The long slide from hype to a 90% collapse
When Rivian first hit public markets, I saw it framed as the next great EV success story, with a premium brand, high-profile backers, and a head start in electric pickups and SUVs. That narrative has been steadily dismantled as the share price has tumbled more than 90% from its early peak, wiping out tens of billions of dollars in paper value and leaving late-arriving retail investors nursing heavy losses. The plunge reflects not just a souring on one company, but a broader reset in expectations for capital-intensive EV manufacturers that must spend heavily long before they can prove sustainable profits.
What stands out to me is how quickly sentiment flipped from exuberance to skepticism once Rivian’s financial reality became impossible to gloss over. As production ramped more slowly than hoped and costs stayed stubbornly high, the market began to treat earlier projections as overly optimistic, if not outright unrealistic. The stock’s collapse has turned Rivian into a case study in how fast investor enthusiasm can evaporate when a young automaker’s execution fails to keep pace with the lofty valuations it commanded at the start.
Mounting losses and the strain of scaling an EV startup
Behind the share-price damage is a simple, unforgiving math problem: Rivian is still losing large sums of money on every vehicle it sells while trying to build out factories, supply chains, and service networks from scratch. I see those mounting losses as the clearest signal that the company is still deep in the “pay now, maybe profit later” phase that defined the early years of many EV players, but investors are no longer willing to give the same benefit of the doubt. The cost of batteries, raw materials, and labor has remained high, and the company’s fixed expenses are spread across a production base that is still ramping, amplifying the red ink.
That financial pressure is compounded by the brutal economics of the auto industry, where even established giants struggle to earn consistent margins. Rivian’s need to keep investing heavily in new models, software, and charging infrastructure while absorbing losses makes its path to profitability look longer and riskier than early backers expected. As those losses mount, the market has started to question whether the company can reach the scale it needs before investor patience and available capital run thin.
CEO compensation under the microscope
As Rivian’s stock has cratered and losses have grown, I’ve noticed investor frustration increasingly focused on the pay package awarded to the company’s chief executive. Generous equity grants and performance-based awards that once looked like a bold bet on long-term success now appear misaligned with a business that has seen its market value collapse by more than 90%. That tension has fueled scrutiny of how the board structured incentives and whether the CEO’s compensation truly reflects shareholder outcomes.
The criticism isn’t just about the headline numbers; it’s about timing and optics. Awarding large stock-based packages when the share price was far higher means the CEO’s potential upside was enormous, even as ordinary investors who bought in at those levels have been left with steep losses. As the company’s financial results have disappointed, that gap between executive reward and investor experience has become a flashpoint, prompting calls for tighter alignment between pay and performance and raising questions about how seriously the board is responding to the stock’s collapse.
From IPO euphoria to a 95% peak-to-trough slide
Rivian’s trajectory since going public underscores just how extreme the swing in expectations has been. At the time of its IPO, the company was briefly valued in the same league as legacy automakers that sell millions of vehicles a year, despite having only a modest number of trucks and SUVs on the road. According to reporting from earlier this month, the prolonged slide eventually left Rivian shares down 95% from that 2021 peak, a staggering reversal that erased nearly all of the early IPO euphoria.
What I find striking is how that 95% peak-to-trough decline has reshaped the conversation around Rivian’s future. Instead of debating how quickly it might catch up to established EV leaders, investors are now focused on survival, capital needs, and the pace of cash burn. The company’s early valuation assumed a near-flawless execution path and a rapid march to mass-market scale; the reality has been slower production ramps, persistent losses, and a much tougher competitive landscape. That gap between early expectations and current performance is at the heart of why the stock has been punished so severely.
Short-lived rallies and the search for a turning point
Even in the middle of this long slide, Rivian has occasionally delivered flashes of good news that briefly lifted the stock. I watched one such moment when a stronger-than-expected earnings report and a revised approach to executive pay sparked an 18% jump in the share price, as some investors bet that the worst might be over. That rally, reported on Nov 12, 2025, briefly reversed part of the prolonged slide that had left the stock down 95% from its 2021 peak, suggesting there is still a base of shareholders willing to give the company another chance if it can show consistent operational progress.
But those bursts of optimism have so far been short-lived, overwhelmed by the broader concerns about losses, competition, and governance. Each time the stock bounces on better news, it runs into the reality that Rivian still has to prove it can scale production efficiently, manage costs, and deliver on its promises without constantly returning to markets for fresh capital. Until the company can string together several quarters of steady improvement, I expect these rallies to remain fragile, more a reflection of traders betting on a turnaround than a durable vote of confidence in the long-term story.
Investor trust, governance, and the role of the board
For me, the scrutiny of Rivian’s CEO compensation is ultimately a referendum on the company’s governance and the board’s judgment. When a stock has fallen more than 90% while executive pay remains generous, shareholders naturally ask whether the directors are adequately representing their interests. The phrase “Losses Mount and CEO Compensation Draws Scrutiny” captures the core tension: a company burning cash while its top leader enjoys a package that many investors now see as out of step with results.
Rebuilding trust will require more than cosmetic tweaks to pay structures; it will demand clear evidence that the board is willing to tie rewards tightly to measurable milestones such as profitability, cash flow, and sustained share-price recovery. I see this as a pivotal moment for Rivian’s leadership: either they demonstrate that they understand the depth of investor frustration and adjust accordingly, or they risk further alienating the very shareholders they need to support future capital raises. In a market that has grown far less forgiving of unprofitable growth stories, governance missteps can be just as damaging as operational ones.
What Rivian’s plunge signals for the EV sector
Rivian’s stock collapse is not happening in isolation; it’s part of a broader reckoning for the electric-vehicle sector after years of easy money and lofty promises. I see its trajectory as a warning to other EV startups that relied on sky-high valuations to fund long and expensive growth plans without a clear line of sight to profitability. Investors who once treated every new EV listing as a potential “next big thing” are now far more selective, demanding disciplined spending, realistic targets, and credible paths to positive cash flow.
At the same time, Rivian’s struggles don’t erase the underlying demand for compelling electric trucks and SUVs, nor do they negate the company’s achievements in design and early product reception. The lesson I draw is that building a successful EV brand requires not just innovative vehicles, but also rigorous financial management and governance that keeps executive incentives aligned with shareholder outcomes. Whether Rivian can adapt quickly enough to that new reality will determine if its current 90%-plus plunge becomes a permanent verdict or a painful chapter in a longer, more resilient story.
More from MorningOverview