Fisker Lays Off Most Workers, Plans To Shop Around Remaining Assets 276
After being saddled with a half-billion dollars in loans from the U.S. Department of Energy, electric car manufacturer Fisker just can't catch a break. It's not just the cars; it's the company itself. From a Reuters report: "In a statement, Fisker confirmed that it let go about 75 percent of its workforce. The automaker said it was 'a necessary strategic step in our efforts to maximize the value of Fisker's core assets.' A Fisker representative could not immediately answer questions on the company's financial position. In the past, the automaker has declined to comment on the possibility of bankruptcy. ... About 160 employees were terminated at a Friday morning meeting at Fisker's Anaheim, California, headquarters, according to a second source who attended the meeting. They were told that the company could not afford to give them severance payments."
And no one will learn yet again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, either treat it like NASA if it's so damned important and plow uncounted tens of billions into it, or get out. Trying to be like venture capitalists, but idiot ones, unlike the real ones who won't go near this unlikely technology, just breeds people who will dance the way government wants to attach themselves to the government tit until it runs dry.
Re: And no one will learn yet again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to be like venture capitalists, but idiot ones, unlike the real ones who won't go near this unlikely technology
It's not so unlikely: "The company [Tesla Motors] announced in early August 2009 that it had achieved overall corporate profitability for the month of July 2009.[51] The company said it earned approximately US$1 million on revenue of US$20 million. Profitability arose primarily from improved gross margin on the 2010 Roadster, the second iteration of Teslaâ(TM)s award-winning sports car. Tesla, which like all automakers records revenue when products are delivered, shipped a record 109 vehicles in July and reported a surge in new Roadster purchases."
Wikipedia lists their 2012 revenue as -251m, presumably because Tesla Motors is making heavy capital investment in production. They've been profitable before, and their investors apparently think they will be again.
It's worth noting that the already established and highly profitable oil companies take billions of incentives from your government every year. Evidently, they just love giving money to industrialists of every stripe. And banks, of course.
Advancing new basic technology with great strategic potential for reducing US dependency and therefore entanglement in the middle east is an excellent idea. Perhaps Fiskers was a poor choice - but doing nothing until after oil hits $500 a barrel would be far worse.
Re: And no one will learn yet again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't Tesla one of about 6 or so companies that were part of this stimulus, and all of the rest of them went kaput? That's not very smart investing at all.
Notice something here though - Tesla actually has the backing of known venture capitalists already, including its founder. You can't justify the government being a good venture capitalist when almost everything it touches falls apart.
And ffs, I don't know why people always throw around that the government already subsidizes oil, banks, and . I don't think any libertarian or conservative (the ones who would be opposed to all of the above) approve of that either, so stop throwing that around as if it justifies other bad investments that the government makes.
Re: And no one will learn yet again. (Score:4, Informative)
The loan was part of a $25 billion DOE program towards greater fuel efficiency of which $8 billion was dispensed before any was allocated to Fisker.
Other recipients were Toyota, Ford, Nissan and Tesla, who collectively nabbed most of that $8 billion.
The loan guarantee was supposed to be towards a planned $40k hybrid, not the luxury Karma. Although the guarantee was for up to $529 million, the loan was frozen back in late 2011, at which point Fisker had borrowed $193 million.
Re: And no one will learn yet again. (Score:4, Insightful)
he company said it earned approximately US$1 million on revenue of US$20 million.
Who here thinks they would have made anything resembling a profit without the substantial help from government? First, they secured a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy. Second, they picked up $10 million from the California Energy Commission for machinery purchases. Finally, purchasers of the vehicle get $7,500 in tax credits from the Federal government.
That's not the sign of a company that would have gone somewhere without ample and continued government subsidies.
It's worth noting that the already established and highly profitable oil companies take billions of incentives from your government every year. Evidently, they just love giving money to industrialists of every stripe. And banks, of course.
Everyone gets access to most of those subsidies. There are very few oil subsidies. While all of the Tesla subsidies I just mentioned are unique to "green" technologies.
Advancing new basic technology with great strategic potential for reducing US dependency and therefore entanglement in the middle east is an excellent idea.
Why do you think that? Entanglement with the Middle East just isn't that big a deal, nor does it magically go away just because you're dumping a lot of money into deadend, excuse me, "basic" technologies.
but doing nothing until after oil hits $500 a barrel would be far worse.
The thing you don't get is that no, waiting till oil hits a ridiculous price is not "far worse". First, there's the concept of "time value". Something now is more valuable than something in fifty years. Similarly, a cost now is more costly than a cost down the road.
By holding off on currently uneconomic transitions, we get more money from oil production and the infrastructure. That's money now.
We also put off the cost of transitioning, which I might add is not going to get more expensive merely because we delay. We can't get any more dependent on oil than we've been for the last fifty years. Nor as we now see do we make the transition any easier or cheaper just by throwing money at it. End result of the current generation of green technology initiatives has been that we squander wealth and revert to the old way of doing things once the subsidies go away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla is making a subsidized and fashionable luxury product for Silicon Valley types. They aren't going to make a dent in mass market transport or US dependence on foreign oil.
If people anticipate that oil goes up that high, they'll invest in companies that address the issue in an effective way. No s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And no one will learn yet again. (Score:5, Insightful)
established and highly profitable oil companies take billions of incentives from your government every year
I would like to see some evidence of this often repeated claim. Yes there are some relatively small subsidies for drilling but while those make a difference for small companies, they are a drop in the ocean for the big ones. Btw, while oil companies tend to be very profitable, it's worth keeping in mind that, on average, an oil company makes 7c profit on a gallon of gas at the pump, while the government makes about 40c in taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There are other reasons behind the invasions aside from the theory of one-off subsidies to the oil companies.
There's lots of reasons, and a lot of them look much like subsidies to the oil companies. For example, Halliburton was selected as the sole manager to rebuild Iraq on specious grounds. And every time we go to war we use up a lot of other stuff too, not just fuel; we expend a lot of ammo including a lot we don't need to expend, on excess training exercises designed to keep the troops too busy to commit suicide or what have you. We eat up a bunch of MREs and ship out a bunch of shitty American beer. Any war f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really like trains very much - but you're right. People rarely die on trains. One person's mishap on or near a train seldom brings fellow travelers to a screeching halt, to wait for cops, ambulances, and wreckers to arrive. I really think trains kinda suck - but they suck a lot less than our current system.
Biggest problem with trains, as I see it, is that they never go where a guy needs to go. The city and state decide where the train is going, they build it, then it's up to everyone else to liv
Re:And no one will learn yet again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We liberals always talk about building trains, so that it forces people to live and work closer to public transportation.
The idea isn't to bring transportation to you, it is to force you to move to where transportation is.
That's the problem.
I also find it funny how hypocritical slashdot is about public transportation. Slashdot group think says it's not ok to charge for access to articles and court documents because they were paid with tax payer money. But with public transportation, tax payers pay for he trains, roads, railroads, buses, etc... then you still need to pay a fare to then ride them.
Re: (Score:2)
I also find it funny how hypocritical slashdot is about public transportation. Slashdot group think says it's not ok to charge for access to articles and court documents because they were paid with tax payer money. But with public transportation, tax payers pay for he trains, roads, railroads, buses, etc...
Taxpayers pay for building/enabling them, to get other drivers off the road network. How selfish of them!!!111
Then, the people who actually use them pay for upkeep/maintenance, so they don't have to subject themselves to the road network. How selfish of them!!!111
The only Slashdot group think there is is inside "shallow as a pane of glass" intellects such as yours.
Re:And no one will learn yet again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because even though roads don't directly pay for themselves, and neither do airports (if the airlines had to really bear the cost of the airports and air traffic control system, tickets would be several times as much, or they'd go bankrupt), we somehow expect buses and trains to pay for themselves. We Americans are staggeringly bad at deciding that something is just what a civilized society should do - public transportation, funding the arts or libraries, public transportation, etc. And somehow, even though most of the American public has been begging at the table for scraps for the past 30 years as an ever-growing portion of national wealth goes to the already-wealthy, we somehow think that making things better for everyone will take away from each of us individually, even though most of us are only a single serious illness away from a major financial disaster.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We Americans are staggeringly bad at deciding that something is just what a civilized society should do - public transportation, funding the arts or libraries, public transportation, etc.
And liberals are staggeringly bad at understanding that your opinion on what a "civilized society" should do may be radically different from my opinion. If don't think that forcing people uninterested in art, not to mention new and struggling artists to pay money to those supposedly superior artists chosen by a gov
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't that just mean the bus network sucks? Why isn't there a stop right next to the stadium/shopping center?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who says the network wasn't designed that way on purpose?
I know of malls that have actively resisted efforts to extend public transportation (buses) to their premises. Seems that the management there didn't think that their target demographic (upper-middle class suburbanites with money to burn) have any use for public transportation, or want to shop in an establishment alongside those who do.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the transportation ministries/departments focus on getting people around and not cars around, nothing will change.
Re: (Score:3)
One person's mishap on or near a train seldom brings fellow travelers to a screeching halt
Indeed, trains generally mass far too much for that... :p
Re: (Score:2)
The road system is more than paid for through taxes on fuel, user fees, cars, and other user-related taxes.
And as someone who has commuted by rail in Europe and Asia, let me tell you: rail systems are not "efficient" transportation. They are expensive and almost always slower than a car even when everything goes right. When there are accidents or delays, it's a n
Re: (Score:2)
How many times do we have to go through this? (Score:5, Informative)
A loan guarantee is not the same as a loan. Fisker was "saddled" with over half a billion in loan guarantees but not with actual loans. You know, dollars? The government froze their credit line under 200 million. Saying Fisker is "saddled" with every dollar from a loan guarantee is like saying I'm "saddled" with every dollar of my $30,000 credit card credit line even though I owe $0. Does that make sense at all to anyone?
And this company failed due to the current trend in American economics. Mr. Fisker wanted to invest and build to create a product to sell. The board wanted to do nothing in an effort to save cash. So Fisker left and the board said, "great! now fire everyone, don't produce anything, and will save loads of cash! Surely success will come!" For the exact opposite line of thinking, see Elon Musk who innovated, invested, and built a product that people would want. But the captains of industry, who we are told deserve the most reward because they take the most risk, don't take shit for risks. They want to sit back and squeeze dollars out of what they have instead of actually producing more. So we have Hostess, that didn't want to compete but just rely on brand-name recognition, and the RIAA/MPAA that wants to copyright everything to infinity so no one has to produce anything of value ever again. Thanks, guys!
Re:How many times do we have to go through this? (Score:5, Informative)
And this company failed due to the current trend in American economics. Mr. Fisker wanted to invest and build to create a product to sell.
This company failed becuase it had a poorly engineered product, with outsourced drivetrain, and outsourced production. That product was one of the most unreliable cars produced in the 21st century so far in an era when cars are getting more reliable.
Mr. Fisker most likely departed because he wanted out of a sinking ship. There was no investing to save this turkey.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The impression that I have from Fisker is that their product was not well engineered compared to competitors like Tesla. The Fisker Karma looked nice but they did have quality problems. Using lithium-ion batteries from A123 was one of their mistakes (even before bankruptacy, A123 had problems).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're called B456 now after bankruptcy. I kid you not.
Re: (Score:2)
Also hurt by A123 (Score:2)
Re:How many times do we have to go through this? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Fisker was "saddled" with over half a billion in loan guarantees "
"saddled" is an interesting choice of words for another reason: it's as if though getting those loan guarantees were a bad thing for Fisker. It would be more accurate to say that taxpayers were saddled with it.
Re: (Score:2)
This. "Saddled" makes it sound like they did nothing to acquire the debt. It implies they didn't need the money in the first place, and the debt was forced upon them - as if they'd co-signed a huge loan for some other, ne'er-do-well company that spent it all on hookers and booze.
load guarantee is not a loan, so what! (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, someone lent Fisker money. It may not have been the US governement but so what. At the end of the day, Fisker took 200 million up in smoke, the lender got paid back by the US government, and the US government spent $200 million that it got from the taxpayers. Yeah, a loan guarantee is not the same as giving Fisker the money directly, but at the end it amounts to the US government (and taxpayers) being out $200 million while Fisker pissed the money away.
Re: (Score:2)
A loan guarantee is not the same as a loan.
[...]
The government froze their credit line under 200 million.
So the loan was a bit under $200 million most which didn't get paid back. That's still a lot of money that the US government is now on the hook for. And incidentally, why did the US government bother to freeze the money? Because they are now under scrutiny for these programs.
And this company failed due to the current trend in American economics. Mr. Fisker wanted to invest and build to create a product to sell. The board wanted to do nothing in an effort to save cash. So Fisker left and the board said, "great! now fire everyone, don't produce anything, and will save loads of cash! Surely success will come!"
Well, the board probably was correct here. The company probably is more successful than if it had "invested" the money down that particular rathole.
While it is true that taking risks can have great benefits, it's worth noting th
Re: (Score:3)
What I see happening time and again is a company is built by engineers and visionaries, but then leadership is replaced with MBAs who understand the value of money while not fundamentally understanding the value of work. Yet they often have the arrogance (they politely call them leadership skills) to believe they understand the organizations they're leading.
Unless they have a professional background in the area they're leading, such as a former life as an engineer being in charge of IT or manufacturing, or
Re: (Score:2)
"What I see happening time and again ..."
How many of these situations have you actually seen - first hand - say to the extent of getting to know the engineers and those "toxic" MBAs?
Or are you just regurgitating stuff you've read?
Another one bites the dust (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what it is supposed to do. Private investors don't want to take risks on new technology or research that may or nay not make money one day. Universities, partly government funded, do the research. The government then invests in companies that develop it into new products, and a lot of them fail. In this case though clearly the technology itself was worth investing in, as Tesla has demonstrated.
In the UK we invented graphene at a government funded university but failed to capitalize on it. Now most of
Re: (Score:2)
That's what it is supposed to do.
I had to laugh at this. Sure, someone needs to make all those bad decisions to cover for the slackers in private industry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the projects the DOE funded are doing quite well, and they've exhausted less than 10% of the money set aside for losses in the program. But don't let facts stop you.
Maybe because everyone talks about Tesla (Score:2)
Which is a sexy car but kinda sad as it's not one I consider ecological or sustainable for the world at large. Idk Fisker, but I was a fan of Aptera which also failed for various reasons but seemed to me more of a sustainable car nearly every family could afford.
Instead, we're going for car that's electric not because of the environment, but because it's wicked fast and great 0-60 times and looks cool. Nevermind the strip mining needed for all those battery packs and such or that it's a traditional car an
" maximize the value of Fisker's core assets" (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if they are laying off 75% of their workers, I guess they don't consider them part of the "core assets."
Whatever happened to companies that loudly proclaimed, "The most important assets we have . . . are our employees!" . . . ?
. . . and actually meant what they said . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they are laying off 75% of their workers, I guess they don't consider them part of the "core assets."
Indeed -- my first question is: "Who's getting a huge bonus for successful maximizing of 'core assets'?"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they are laying off 75% of their workers, I guess they don't consider them part of the "core assets."
Their "core assets" are probably things they can sell off to get money. You cant sell off employees.
Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Automation and population growth. The value of labor is being driven down by simple supply and demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Sir/Madam, if I had mod points, you'd get 'em all
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to companies that loudly proclaimed, "The most important assets we have . . . are our employees!" . . . ? . . . and actually meant what they said . . .
They mean what they say, but the mistake you're making is the implicit assumption that all employees are equally valuable* (to the company in terms of economic value, not as human beings in general).
For technology companies in particular, the key employees with true, industry-leading expertise in their field comprise the crown jewels of the company's "assets". In these cases, while it is true to say "The most important assets we have are our employees", the truth is that those 5% of employees who are criti
not the scissors (Score:2, Offtopic)
Saddled? (Score:5, Insightful)
After being saddled with a half-billion dollars in loans from the U.S. Department of Energy...
From the OED:
saddle
v.
1. Put a saddle on a horse
2. (Saddle someone with) give someone an unpleasant responsibility or task.
1. If you somehow meant this car company was reducing fossil fuel consumption by strapping saddles to horses and calling them cars, they should have been out of business a long time ago.
2. If you somehow meant that the DOE forced a half billion dollar loan guarantee on them, and they were unhappy about this... I think you misunderstand the function of the DOE, and possibly the function of a loan guarantee.... And possible the function of a half billion dollars. Are you, perchance, a Fisker executive? They seem to have this same difficulty in understanding the functions of these things.
DOE should take control of the company, oust its top executives and either turn it around or sell off its useful assets to other companies who will use them to achieve the goals of the loan and recoup the taxpayers' costs. Otherwise Fisker will probably sell its assets off for less than they are worth and the executives will get kickbacks or positions at those companies in exchange for doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the DOE should ask for personal guarantees from the officers. Most banks do this for small business loans, and the SBA loans are substantially less than $500m USD.
Re: (Score:2)
DOE should take control of the company, oust its top executives and either turn it around or sell off its useful assets to other companies who will use them to achieve the goals of the loan and recoup the taxpayers' costs. Otherwise Fisker will probably sell its assets off for less than they are worth and the executives will get kickbacks or positions at those companies in exchange for doing so.
But of course. Bankruptcy court provides standard ways to do this. I believe firesales have been contested before in bankruptcy court for this sort of reason though I'd probably have to google a bit to find an example.
As expected. (Score:4, Interesting)
This was to be expected.
There are people on /. who wouldn't understand such a thing for example. [slashdot.org] There are people here who do not understand that a company must turn up profit and if it doesn't it has no reason to exist, it's employing land, capital and labour inefficiently.
There are also people here [slashdot.org] who think that having government dictate how an economy should run is the preferred way, not allowing the private ownership and operation of property (capitalism) and free market (equality before the law, rule of law that does not discriminate against people and thus create inequality of treatment and inefficiencies of economy) to do what it does best - savings, investment, production.
There are is the answer and that "borrowing" from yourself to "pay" your debts is actually a [slashdot.org]meaningful act [slashdot.org].
So this is yet another failed example of government "investing". You can't invest somebody else's money if they are forced to give it to you under the threat of violence, so that money is not coming out of your pocket, you are forcing it out of other people's pockets to run your own technocrat goals, and mostly really those are corrupt goals.
Note that this was one of the ways that Al Gore's profited [slashdot.org] from his gov't ties.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so when we've got the government pumping trillions into "war" to extract oil, why shouldn't a tiny fraction of that be spent to try to create new technologies and a new infrastructure?
What "war" to extract oil?
Before Bush invaded Iraq they were preventing Saddam Hussein from selling oil. If they wanted the oil they just had to say 'actually, we'll buy it from you' instead. It's not as though he was going to refuse to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
loan/grant vs tax break: (Score:2)
I saw this one coming (Score:5, Informative)
I am quite familiar with the whole Fisker saga since one of my relatives bought a Karma last year. I tried to talk him out of it. When I test drove the car the software was extremely buggy, not even alpha quality IMO. The entire drive the car kept going "bong bong bong" because it was stuck in some self parking mode that the dealership couldn't get it out of. The car was sexy looking IMO, but it had a lot of serious issues going for it too.
The car is big yet the interior is quite cramped with the huge battery occupying the entire center of the car. Acceleration was nice, up to around 30-40MPh. The software on the center touch screen looked cool, when you could see it, but was quite buggy and not easy to use, especially while driving. For such an eco-friendly car it also only got 20MPG on gasoline and got a combined EPA rating of only 50MPG. The car is quite heavy, over 5300LBS.
Fisker's problem is that they outsourced their engineering. The drive train was done by Quantum Technologies and the battery by A123 systems, both heavy investors in Fisker. Fisker promised to sell 15-20K Karmas which A123 bet the farm on.
Then there were the fires, for one of which the cause was never explained. While the battery wasn't the cause the perception was there. Next was the Consumer Reports debacle. The car completely died early in their testing and it was determined that the battery was defective. This resulted in a battery recall which was the final nail in A123's coffin leading to their bankruptcy. A123 was already in big trouble since Fisker sold far fewer cars than they had promised. In fact, even though Fisker hasn't made a single new car since July of last year you can still find plenty of unsold Karmas at most of the dealerships.
My relative loves his Karma, but the car has been in the shop way too many times in the last year, sometimes being towed in and some of the issues have been rather serious. Other issues are just unexplained.
Fisker was all about image and styling using outsourced technology. When some Chinese investors looked into the company they realized that they didn't have all that much in terms of technology, and in fact their technology was rather mediocre in many ways and needed some serious refining. There were issues between the engine and generator, plus they used two synchronous motors in order to get enough power to move the car and to help overcome torque ripple issues (from what I gather from their patents).
For a first car from a new car company the car was overly ambitious and was far more complicated than I think they realized. Because it was so late the car was rushed to market with a lot of serious issues and inadequate testing. The car underperformed in almost every way. The federal government cut off their loan before they could draw it down all the way.
Their next car, the Atlantic, was to be built in a shuttered Delaware factory but that car also suffered from a cramped interior.
Fisker also burned through a lot of cash without a lot to show for it. They never did anything with the factory they purchased other than stick it to Delaware.
A lot of people compare Fisker to Tesla which is an apt comparison. I am even more familiar with Tesla, having bought a model S myself. Unlike Fisker, Tesla developed their own technology for their Roadster. They developed the battery and drive train and perfected it, once they moved away from the problematic 2-speed transmission.
Tesla's battery solution was to use inexpensive off-the-shelf batteries and to perfect their battery management technology. Unlike Fisker, who uses an expensive custom battery pack Tesla's battery packs are stuffed with over 7000 18650 cells. The 18650 lithium cell is about as standard as it gets. Their drive train is much more compact than Fisker as well. They use a single induction motor that provides about as much power as the pair of motors Fisker uses but without requiring expensive rare-earth metals. Tesla's motor has no magnets in it.
While the Fisker Karma and
The problem dictating the solution (Score:4, Interesting)
In late March, Fisker put its entire U.S. workforce on furlough...Fisker asked 53 senior managers and executives to stay on board,
Layoff all the workers, keep the execs. That's what happens when the problem is dictating the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
I note there isn't any submitter here. Is Timmeyah pulling a solo run?
Re:Welcome back to drudgedot (Score:5, Insightful)
This is on the front page because Fisker is linked to Democrats, and the failure of this company makes them look bad.
And when Fisker first started talking about their cars and got all sorts of drooling interest here ... that's because it was Eeevil Republicans playing long ball and setting up slashdot users for a clever smackdown later when Fisker inevitably failed? Wow those guys are sinister geniuses!
Here's why Fisker is associated with Democrats: because a Democrat decided to hand them half a billion dollars borrowed from other places like China in a vain attempt to pander to the Greener Than Thou voting block. Yes, it was pure politics. You can't make Obama's political decision to give them other people's money (and the interest we'll be paying on that money for decades) go away.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that a theoretically promising and sexy-looking tech product company has badly fumbled something that an endless parade of people keep saying is the Super Sexy Green Future of driving around.
One of my customers invested a pile of money into becoming a Fisker dealer. They have been completely, royally screwed by the engineering, sales, and financial incompetence of that company - as well as bad luck over things like cars getting flooded in storage in storms, and more. Why is this "on the front page?" Because it's a classic tale of a tech venture gone sideways. And you doth protest way too much about the politics. Basically, you're using the opportunity to start a thread that bashes people you don't like. The hypocrisy is delicious.
Re:Welcome back to drudgedot (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be real though - the government didn't just invest in Fisker. They also invested in Tesla, which is going strong, along with Ford and Nissan. Nissan delivered with the Leaf, while Ford's return on that investment is much less direct but involves a few different combustion engine technologies/improvements and manufacturing line improvements.
The truth is that this is the way investment works - some companies are successful, others are not. Whether the government should be investing at these different levels is what's really up for debate. It's hard to deny that the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program has generally been a success, whether you believe that the government should have been the ones to invest or not. This program was a $25 billion program, and they lost $200 million of it on a bad investment. Considering the risk profile was expected to be 30%, it would take Ford or Nissan to fail on their obligations under the loan in order for it to surpass that threshold.
You also need to understand that Fisker didn't get all of the money they were guaranteed. A loan guarantee means they'll definitely loan up to a limit, not that Fisker immediately received that amount. The real number they got is about $200 million, not $500 million. Losing $200 million on a total of $25 billion invested in relatively unproven (in the market) technologies isn't all that bad.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whether the government should be investing at these different levels is what's really up for debate.
I question whether the government should be "investing" in any company, least of all green tech boondoggles like Fisker and Solyndra. Meanwhile, millions of Americans who sorely needed that extra 2% in their paychecks before the payroll tax cut expired have now been hit with a higher tax bill. People were surprised when their payroll tax withholdings increased because they believed Obama when he said that he wouldn't raise their taxes. How's that change working for ya? Meanwhile Obama blows money on stupid
Re:Welcome back to drudgedot (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic, we should never invest in R&D or anything remotely risky as long as there are needy people.
Why bother with cancer or diabetes research when we have so many who don't have medical coverage?
All those hundreds of billions should have been spent on more prescriptions and checkups, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Go watch the Republican debates and see which of their ideas "resonate". When you have a large collection of idiots, expect the stupid ideas to carry the most weight.
Your free market argument, in this case, is bullshit because those shitty mortgages were packaged up as safe financial instruments and sold as such.
That was fraud on a massive scale - and that's a crime.
And those thieving fuckers didn't "simply follow gov't regulations" - they WROTE THEM.
That's not how the world works. (Score:5, Insightful)
Qualified professional investors are limited in their ability to tackle big problems because they don't have enough money, they don't have enough time, or there is no way to hoard the results of a particular investment. Governments have lots of money, lots of time, and they don't care as much about hoarding the resulting benefit because their entire goal is to benefit society. Private investment gets trapped into local minimums and incrementalism.
I'll give you a few examples:
1. The railroad system (Pacific Railroad Act)
2. Morrill land-grant act for universities (Purdue, MIT, Cornell, etc.)
3. GI Bill of rights
4. Interstate highway system
5. The internet
6. NASA
etc., etc.
There are more examples here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-lazonick/nine-government-investmen_b_954185.html
Soon to be added to this list, 'Electric cars'.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is that supposed to be buying votes from, Fisker employees and investors? (Also, “teleprompters?” Fox News called from 2009, seems you’re infringing on their bullshit talking point)
Re: (Score:2)
And that 2% would make such a big difference in your life! Wow!
Only an ignorant young person, still in college with mommy and daddy paying the bills, or a rich jerk would say something like that. Plenty of people in America live paycheck to paycheck, just barely getting by. So yes, 2% is a big difference to most of us. Although I admit that it's not as burdensome for me personally as perhaps it is for others, that doesn't make it alright. Waste is waste and it ought to be called out. Now, some of you might say, "well yes but we spend even more on X" and you would be ri
Re: (Score:2)
"Elon Musk... doesn't count". So the question is.... who does?
When Warren Buffet [wikipedia.org] announces a major green technology investment and honestly promotes it to the shareholders in public at the annual Berkshire meeting, I will take another look. Until then I won't be holding my breath or investing my own money in green tech.
Re: (Score:2)
I will admit that the MidAmerican Energy [wikipedia.org] solar and wind projects are interesting, but I would like to see at least a few years of profitable operations from these generating projects to confirm their worth. I also own utility stock, but the wind and solar portfolio remains small relative to the coal and nuclear capacity at most of these companies. It should also be noted that MidAmerican energy is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway representing about 0.4 percent of total assets.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you feel the need to re-post this [slashdot.org] as AC?
Re: (Score:2)
The word "Democrat" appears nowhere in the linked article. Perhaps you're reading something else...?
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much all economic failures between 2008 and 2016 are "linked to the Democrats", because they are currently in power. Are you suggesting we just suspend reporting altogether until a Republican president gets elected again?
Re: (Score:3)
This is on the front page because Fisker is linked to Democrats, and the failure of this company makes them look bad.
Pretty much all economic failures between 2008 and 2016 are "linked to the Democrats", because they are currently in power. Are you suggesting we just suspend reporting altogether until a Republican president gets elected again?
Not at all. My point is that slashdot has taken a very conservative turn in the past 5-10 or so years.
That, and when the republicans had all the power (it could be argued that hasn't ended), we blamed all the economic problems on the democrats. While the GOP claims to be about "personal responsibility" they do a great job of avoiding ever taking responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot is not "conservative". It has remained fairly laissez-faire economically and socially liberal, a position that is represented poorly by both parties. You seem to be confusing opposition to the Democrats with support for the Republicans or conservatism.
Both Re
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes but it goes a little further than that. Our current national energy policy doesn't include mass storage of the generated electricity. AFAIK, the only way to do this would be widespread use of dams and reservoirs with hydroelectric generators but that goes against current environmental/social policy. That said, there is another consequence to forced adoption of electric cars without localized long-term energy storage and that is the people will gradually be forced to live and travel only where there
Re:And nobody learned nuthin' (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And nobody learned nuthin' (Score:4, Insightful)
people are just too cheap
It's true. Most people can't afford $100,000 worth of solar arrays and rechargeable cars that can only get them on a short errand. Damn cheapskates!
Re:And nobody learned nuthin' (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah USA's been down this road before. Didn't work then. Won't work now. For a while everyone was "by 2000 there will be no oil anywhere" and 20 years later (90's) people were driving land garbage scows and there was so much oil prices plummeted. Eco went away.
The current wave of Ecothink is similar to the last. Solar still won't work, not with photovoltaics in their current state. Corn is a joke. It's for eatin' and makin' hooch, not becoming fuel. It's upside-down, you spend more energy making than what you get out of it. Adding it to gasoline makes the cars unhappy and doesn't do a damn thing to improve MPG. Wishful thinking can't beat physics. People still fall for Eco and embrace it with religious fervor.
As for electric cars I'm all for it, just please no rows and rows and rows of ballast.. I mean batteries.. weighing down my car and needlessly using dangerous, expensive, hard-to-get materials.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And shit man, if you're worried about subsidies, why don't you ask the petroleum industry why they need so many tax breaks, why they need the support of military forces in the regions they operate, why they're sucking up to the government teat as much as big aggro.
Ok, do you have a phone number for the Petroleum Industry? They get the same tax breaks as anyone else. They do not get direct subsidies. Put down the pipe.
Re: (Score:2)
The only mention of tax breaks for energy from that article is this.
"Moreover, many of the individual exceptions that allow corporations to shield profits from taxation actually enjoy broad popularity, like tax breaks to support domestic manufacturing, low-income housing and green energy."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We've been through this before many times over the decades. Electric cars make no sense. Hydrogen is not a fuel. Space won't save us. When this will become clear, then the human species can mature a bit, and start the important projects for the next few centuries: to create a new social model to allow us to live on this planet because that's all we have.
You are making assumptions on the viability of paths based on current and past technology. Electric cars actually make a lot of sense, hydrogen is in fact a fuel, and though space may not save us from ourselves that does not mean that we will not have an increased presence there over the years due to advancing technological fronts. A half billion dollar experiment in an electric car company that failed is absolutely nothing compared to something truly idiotic like the invasion of Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tesla will be next. (Score:4, Informative)
How long did cars take to supplant horses? (Score:2)
Computers still haven't supplanted books and computers have been around for a while--should we give up on those?
Are you suggesting that there should be a time limit on the maturation of a technology? beyond which we just give up? Doesn't that sound kinda stupid to you?
Re: (Score:3)
Electric car technology is not competitive, period. Unless you artificially tax gasoline
Full stop. If you're going to discuss economic feasibility due to artificial taxes, you should first discuss how the artificially LOW state at which the gas tax currently resides acts as a detriment to such investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are a retard, and this is the most retarded FP I've ever seen. That is all.
It's a leaked copy of the Fisker business plan, so it's entirely on topic.
Re: (Score:2)
If that is the most retarded FP you've ever seen - then you're obviously new here. Hang around awhile. Or, just scroll back through the archives.
Re: Remember, boys and girls: (Score:2)
Indeed. Furthermore, how many trillions has the US spent supporting a government in Afghanistan that is no less hated and corrupt than the Republic of South Vietnam was? A government that will last just as long without US support?
And yet, these cretins worry over things costing less than a thousandth the cost. Keep cutting discretionary spending and keep stealing from social security to cut taxes on the rich, US, and you'll be just like Russia in no time. Minus the natural resources. We Norwegians hope
Re: (Score:2)
None but we're getting closer thanks to Obama are awesome Nobel Peace Prize winning President... Spending has more than double since 2009