Looks like Fisker is About to go Under

Karma...soon to be replaced by the Artificial Reef......

 

IIRC if a company is working to find financing to continue operations they don't necessarily have to file a 60 day WARN act notice. I bet this gets thrown out.

 

They were "awarded" the $529 million.

But they were cut off after receiving less than $200m.

Fisker DID NOT receive the full $529 million.

http://nation.foxnews.com/fisker-automotive/2012/06/05/200-million-later-fisker-yet-build-car-us


Kai

 

Did you actually read the entire article before posting this?

"The Obama administration approved Fisker in 2009 for loans of $169 million for engineering of the Karma and $359 million for production of the lower-priced Atlantic, to be built at a U.S. factory. Karma was designed in the U.S. and built under contract by Valmet Automotive Oy in Finland, an arrangement set before it got the loans.

Fisker said it had drawn down $193 million from its low- interest loans when access to the remaining portion was blocked."

I suppose to answer your question, I believe you are.

 

It's really too bad as the Karma is probably one of the most beautiful 4 doors i have ever seen. I hope someone buys the design rights and put a Maserati engine in it or the BMW V8 TT.

 

+1 It's one of very few cars that I can't NOT look at.

 

I have a Karma and its a great car. Remember it does have a gas motor so you can drive in anywhere. I take mine on a 200 mile round trip commute to one of my offices most weeks. I'm more concerned about potential parts and warranty issues. I know my local dealer had to put up $1M in cash to get his franchise.

 

Interesting that Tesla described the DOE loans as follows:

on January 20, 2010, Tesla became the recipient of one of three initial DOE loans announced by Secretary Chu, along with Ford and Nissan – good company for a start-up automaker. Tesla’s loan of $465 million was to be paid back over ten years following the start of production of the Model S. Months later in a separate announcement, an ATVM loan was announced for Fisker.

It is worth noting that in comparison with these three other recipients, Tesla had the smallest loan. Ford’s loan was for $5.9 billion, Nissan’s was for $1.4 billion, and Fisker’s was for $529 million.


See:

Early Re-Payment of Tesla?s ATVM Loan | Blog | Tesla Motors.

So did Tesla draw down the full $465 million?

 

The fisher sounded good on paper. The technology in practice did not add up. Electric range was too low and gas performance not great. Plus running on gas it is not a super low consumption car. It looks nice but the layout is not that practical. It was and is a boutique product in looks execution and build.

The Tesla is a real car, faster accelerating than a m5 roomy, innovative yet practical. The tesla has a classy look, but most importantly it has a range that males it truly useable. In reality driven as we drive with ac heat and stereo going a tesla will still go roughly 200 miles. That is more than pretty much anybody drives in an average day. If you want to do a road trip you probably own another car for that.

The issue with tesla is that they have huge loans and capital beyond the government. At 20k cars per year given the overall debt it's hard to see how the company is economically viable. Yes more models will add sales, but those models will also cost to develop. The tesla is a car for someone who can afford a big Mercedes BMW etc, how big is that market?

As to supercharging stations. They may have solar panels on the roof, but there're is no way those panels collect enough power in a day to supercharge more than 1 car. So the electricity and facility must be paid for, yet they are giving it away for free, how is that going to work.

The concept is brilliant, the product great, but the economics suspect.

Fisher just looks pretty. It would make a great American Maserati with ls7 power.

 

http://cars.chicagotribune.com/fuel-efficient/news/chi-fisker-automotive-assets-20130408

Also the Fed has filed a suit stating Fisker did not give the Kali-mandated 60-day notice for mass terminations. Sad.

 

well, sad to see the experiment fail, too bad fisker hadn't hired tesla for the chassis, what a car that would be then!?
perhaps bob lutz can buy the karma design rights, he already has a connection there with the V8 powered variation

 

Funny ^^ Are you not aware that Fisker designed the Model S for a handsome fee and then continued on with the final iteration imo and musk's, to debut the "fisker". Basically the fisker was an underhanded exercise from the word go (IMO) and karma bit back.


"Very BAD Karma" LOL
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/technology/15tesla.html?_r=0

 

I read the prospectus when I got in on the IPO but do not recall right now any large loans outstanding other than the FED loan which Musk says he will pay back ahead of time. They are profitable now and should continue to be so if sales continue. They had investors/owners including some in the ME and Toyota but not large loans.

And I am wondering how you know the specs of the new charging stations.

from tesla website;

"The electricity used by the Supercharger comes from a solar carport system provided by SolarCity, which results in almost zero marginal energy cost after installation. Combining these two factors, Tesla is able to provide Model S owners1 free long distance travel indefinitely.

Each solar power system is designed to generate more energy from the sun over the course of a year than is consumed by Tesla vehicles using the Supercharger. This results in a slight net positive transfer of sunlight generated power back to the electricity grid. In addition to lowering the cost of electricity, this addresses a commonly held misunderstanding that charging an electric car simply pushes carbon emissions to the power plant. "

 

Yeah in Arizona with a huge solar farm out back it may work. Solar city is a subsidized solar power plant. Neither of these things exist between ny and Washington or elsewhere.

One thing I know from accounting 101 there are no free lunches, so if you believe that there is free electricity to give away, and the infrastructure for the free electricity has no cost, then I am sure tesla is viable, to me it sets alarm bells ringing.

They may well survive, because the product is great, but so where there will be a restructuring. I had read they have something like 5 billion in loans and capital, somewhere that has to give a return.

 

no, hadn't read that ....interesting, fisker seems to be into some slight of hand in his dealings!?

 

Well I was an accounting major and I have read everything available including the prospectus over the years, I said it would succeed when so-called journalists were saying electric cars were a joke and so-called industry insiders on other car forums were over-confidently proclaiming Tesla could never produce a vehicle from scratch with the money they had.

ALL WRONG

Market cap is quite different from loans, are you walking back what you said or do you still claim they have billions in loans?


Solar City is Musk's solar venture (not a power company), they don't produce panels just finance them and install them and just like electric cars we are all better for it. As far as the northeast, it is a dying section of the country, that will tax and spend its way into the poor house.

Thanks to talented people like Elon the future is looking bright despite Washington, "get tired of being wrong"

Tesla Goes Public - CNBC

 

I have a cousin that owns one, should I advise him to keep it as a future collectible ? Will it become this generation's Tucker ?

 

I am no accounting major, just a business person.

How is the share price doing these days?
Whether you call it market cap, loans or whatever a large amount of money has gone into the venture and the money needs to earn a return, which is going to be very hard on 20k cars and giving away electricity, which is not free.

I agree the car is great, the question is about the financial viability of the company.
As to the NE taxing and spending its way into the poorhouse, true, but even more so for California, home of solar energy and Musk. It's also those taxes and government loans and incentives that make tesla possible.

I think Musk is a visionary and a great entrepreneur, I don't see how the numbers add up, using logic other than the logic by which the current federal budget is planned, ie 1+1=3.

Maybe tesla gets more capital, rolls out more models, drives the price down and succeeds. But giving away free electricity, which must be paid for, sounds more like pr than solid business logic. This is a company that lives because of gov backing not only in loans but also through legislative incentive.

That's ok but no less socialist than tax and spend. The good part here is we got a great innovative product that works, ultimately the numbers will have to add up, or the shareholders bond holders etc will have to take a hit as debt is restructured.

Musk has been brilliant, he is the darling of the administration, he has made the first electric car that practically works. The design is classy and innovative striking the right balance perfectly. The product is aimed at the market segment that can afford it and the technology. It's a fully useable car on a daily basis. It's only shortcoming is how to recharge on a trip. So the solution offered is free energy at a fast charge station. This is brilliant pr, may expand the electric car market but is poor business. Wherever the electricity comes from its not free. That tesla holds it out as so makes me highly suspicious of pretty much everything they say as regards economics.

Tesla is a great car and a great product, it just may not be a great business in its current 1.0 form, and I think someone somewhere is going to take a hit before it is. Unless of course you think they can grow so fast and so large that the current capital structure and debt won't matter, maybe.

 

The company just reported a profit for the 1st quarter, so that is good, on sales of 4750 units of Model S. So they can be profitable on 20K/year run rate, BUT they do have the SUV model X next to launch which is similar enough in platform to the model S that those units will bring in much more profit because there will be little in the form of capital cost to produce them. The big deal is the design and cost of the mass market "compact" that will compete with the camry's and Ford's.

The program that resulted in the $500 million loan to Tesla was a Bush program signed into law by GWB. The money was awarded by Oblunder's sec chu. I am a conservative and I am all for Tesla, it is NOT a democratic idea. It's a smart idea, one of the few to happen in this time period.

It is in every americans best interest that Tesla survive and thrive, it is the future, it is necessary for many reasons and WE should do everything we can to see it grow. That includes tax credits or grants to develop a nationwide charging network so that range anxiety disappears. The IS one of the purpose's of govt. and has been since our founding.

Musk and Tesla have done their part -- created and delivered a first class product that has exceeded all their claims, that won car of the year, and out-performs most of Europe's luxury brands.

As far as stock price I was in at the ipo of $17 sold at $25, did a couple more round trips, and just recently bought in at $36 and sold at $45.10. Now have no money in it. It has rewarded all those who invested at the beginning.

The great thing is we are approaching a time, not quite there, when energy will almost be free, electric energy, when panels like Semprius and hopefully others get mass produced at a reasonable cost, then we can export all our carbon based stuff for profit.

 

oh wait....they also picked gm and ing. they worked out ok for you yes?

 

i agree. i would appeciate a vette 427 or zr1 prime mover too!