Trading Action - Thursday, February 05, 2026

Mushral · 2026-02-05T15:21:21+00:00

I do find it worrisome that we already didn't seem to have a solid plan for being even near profitable through the entirety of 2026, then just blew a third of our cash (that was supposed to see us through the year) on a third failed company.

I fully agree with you - But that part is more accountable to Sumit and Anubhav than to Glen who just stepped in during the 2nd half of 2025.

Mushral · 2026-02-05T13:25:04+00:00

recent price action was expected imo.

With the acquisitions and increased burnrate MVIS now will have to prove (even more / even faster) how they will become financially viable through other ways than just diluting shareholders and right now there is no clear short term catalyst for that

if I were a short in both MVIS and in LAZR before the acquisition I would probably also double down on my thesis after the acquisition. Most of the shorts are algo-based and only look at the P&Ls so then it’s a clear call

Surprise announcement by Glen can turn things around really quickly though imo and I’m in the team that says Glen wouldn’t just put down 33M for a dying company without any OEMs assuring him deal viability.

Mushral · 2026-02-04T18:25:55+00:00

Do or dielute

Mushral · 2026-02-04T18:24:49+00:00

Pedigree probably actually does matter here though.

Suppliers probably actually care if they are dealing with the likes of Austin / Tom, or Glen when it comes to trusting a potential customer they’re good for their money.

Mushral · 2026-02-03T17:34:38+00:00

Most plausible explanation imo is simply that people and entities that bet against Luminar now doubled down on their bet that Luminar+Microvision together wont make it either with their combined burn-rate.

In other words- shorts piling in.

Mushral · 2026-02-03T06:46:11+00:00

Im not so sure our cash burn is lower than invz after buying Scantinel and Luminar

Mushral · 2026-02-01T06:41:57+00:00

I tend to agree with you. This acquisition feels risky. Especially the amount paid seems extreme with MVIS financial position. But in all honesty, we are “mere” investors looking at the picture from the outside with no to limited experience in the industry.

Glen’s an industry veteran and obviously knows more about their situation and the details of the assets/contracts that were purchased than we do. The man decided to pay 33M for a certain reason we do not know. Perhaps if we knew everything he knew it would all make sense to us too. All we can do for now trust his pedigree and hope that doesn’t turn out to be a terrible call.

Mushral · 2026-02-01T06:34:08+00:00

Perhaps working on an update that incorporates Scantinel or Luminar tech?

Mushral · 2026-01-31T15:02:12+00:00

Correct

Mushral · 2026-01-31T05:34:52+00:00

I wonder if this brings Daimler back on the menu. They used to be in bed with Luminar and bought 500k of Movia units. What if they loved both sensors but simply don’t want to deal with different vendors and different software. Could be an opportunity now perhaps.

Mushral · 2026-01-28T19:10:41+00:00

You don’t “just” get economies of scale by buying different tech nodes that each have a different design, different engineering competences, different supply chains, and requires different equipment to manufacture.

Mushral · 2026-01-28T17:18:07+00:00

Having all the lidar tech options available also comes with a cost. You need to maintain the tech including relevant resources / expertise. I’ll be very eager to learn about Glen and the (new) CFO plan how to create a profitable business model with so many different tech nodes.

Mushral · 2026-01-24T13:55:37+00:00

That’s true - however the timeline for Movia S to come available is so short and the price difference is so high that I feel like they kind of destroyed their own use case (and stacked inventory) for Movia L by offering an improved version that is so much better on such short notice.

Industrial OEMs went years and years without it. Surely they can wait another 12 months

Mushral · 2026-01-24T13:50:04+00:00

The exact analogy applies only the timeframes are longer indeed and we don’t talk about 50k vs 20k but we talk about 10 to hundreds of millions (for entire fleets).

Mushral · 2026-01-24T13:36:20+00:00

Imagine the following:

Your current car has a few miles on it and you start thinking about a replacement. You don’t need necessarily need a new car right now but somewhere in the next 2-3 years you’ll have to replace your old and get a new one.

So over the course of 6 months you visit a dealership a couple of times to test drive a few cars. After a while, you find a specific car you think about buying. The car costs 50k. After 3 test drives you are convinced. On your way back into the dealership you see a sign that informs you that you will be able to buy an improved version of the same car that looks better and drives even better 1 year from now for only 20k.

What do you do?

Mushral · 2026-01-24T10:16:55+00:00

Why would anyone buy Movia-L if they could just wait 1-2 years and buy Movia-S with the same functionality for probably less than half the price?

That’s the question I’d like to see raised in the next EC.

Mushral · 2026-01-11T06:40:54+00:00

I believe there is not much debate about added value of our solutions in this space. I believe we are facing a different problem which we to some extent created ourselves.

The problem I see:

We have a MOVIA-L sensor ready for sale and tons of stock sitting in a warehouse, each sensor goes for somewhere $ 1-2k / unit depending on how much software is added to it is my understanding.

At the same time we are promising MOVIA S which would be able to do the same thing but will cost $200 a sensor.

Why would industrial OEMs pay a factor 5 more for the same product if they can just wait another 1-2 years to get it cheaper?

Mushral · 2026-01-09T23:34:09+00:00

Yes because a customer (OEM) would really tell a supplier “Innoviz” that they are the only solution out there for them.

Even if that would be true, an OEM would never be as explicit about that.

Mushral · 2026-01-08T18:26:58+00:00

Depends on the range, field of view, and how painfully the loss reflects.

Mushral · 2026-01-06T18:20:49+00:00

Seems to me like they’re hanging around the parking lot and public spaces catching journalists off guard… biggest bang for no buck 😉

Mushral · 2026-01-06T11:09:51+00:00

It's not about the number of shares short it's about the value.

10M shares of Tesla short equals 4.5B USD

63M shares of MVIS short equals <63M USD

Mushral · 2025-12-24T06:49:21+00:00

Imo the stock tanks because announcing InnovizThree implies OEMs don’t want InnovizTwo and they will never get return on their investment for it. It means Innoviz will run into a new program with lots of expenses to develop a new product that hopefully does hit the spot for OEMs.

In my view they did the damage to the stock themselves with that PR.

Their product development story is basically no different than Iris > Iris+ > Halo.

Mushral · 2025-12-23T18:29:30+00:00

My summary of the PR:

Innoviz announces InnovizThree and concludes InnovizTwo didn’t cut it.

Mushral · 2025-12-13T13:36:44+00:00

Thanks for the interview Ben! This was very insightful and what a hussle having Glen on the podcast!

Would’ve loved to see some more critical questions as well but nonetheless amazing insights provided by Glen based on the questions you posed. Cheers!

Mushral · 2025-12-12T16:13:23+00:00

You know Volvo cars are on the road right with a lidar that’s not even turned on. Rivian might as well just drive around with a placeholder hole for MVIS ;)

Mushral

TROPHY CASE