fisker on verge of bankruptcy - buh bye...
04-24-13, 08:58 AM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
fisker on verge of bankruptcy - buh bye...
they've laid off 3/4 of the workforce. and this quote from article at link is particularly noteworthy...
this... 
and this 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ing-on-fisker/
your tax dollars at work.
The Energy Department seized $21 million from Fisker this month as it continued to seek repayment from the car maker for the 2009 loan. A payment from Fisker was due Monday, but was not made, a DOE official said.
Fisker has not built a vehicle since last summer and has failed to secure a buyer as its cash reserves have dwindled.
Vice President Joe Biden announced in late 2009 that Fisker would reopen a shuttered former General Motors factory in Wilmington, Del., to produce plug-in, electric hybrid vehicles. The plant was never completed and never produced any cars.
your tax dollars at work.
Last edited by bitkahuna; 04-24-13 at 09:10 AM.
04-24-13, 09:03 AM
#2
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 1,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They need to put some ppl in prison for this...they basically stole a couple hundred million $ from us and try to get away with it. bernard maidoff went to prison for doing the exact same thing and so should these crooks.
04-24-13, 09:25 AM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
So, personally, IMO, it may not be fair to compare them to Bernie Madoff. Madoff ran a completely illigitimate Ponzi-Scheme that was designed, from the start, as a deceptive, criminal operation. Fisker was simply a buisness that made big mistakes during a time when there was little room for error from mistakes.
04-24-13, 10:07 AM
#4
Lexus Champion
$171,000,000 potential default for the American Tax payer. That's a lot of money. Your elected government officials bet big on a private company and they are going to lose on this gamble for their green agenda.
For that kind of money, you could buy 6850 Priuses ($25K).
For that kind of money, you could buy 6850 Priuses ($25K).
04-24-13, 10:17 AM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
$171,000,000 potential default for the American Tax payer. That's a lot of money. Your elected government officials bet big on a private company and they are going to lose on this gamble for their green agenda.
For that kind of money, you could buy 6850 Priuses ($25K).
For that kind of money, you could buy 6850 Priuses ($25K).
I agree the govenment loan was questionable, but I don't see the company going bankrupt as something to send the company officials to prison for, as Stormwind is advocating. They simply introduced the wrong car at the wrong time.
This, BTW, is one reason I myself have said, numerous times, over the years, that, if significant numbers of alternate-fuel vehicles are going to be introduced, we have got to get adequate refuelling and servicing stations for them across the country. If we don't, then the fate of more alternate-fuel vehicles in the future probably won't be any different than that of Fisker.
So the moral of the story, as I see it, is put future Federal dollars into new alternate-fuel infrastructures (including electric-charging stations) instead of high-priced exotic vehicles.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-24-13 at 10:23 AM.
04-24-13, 10:18 AM
#6
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Banned
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think this is necessarily an issue of crime and punishment. First, there is never any guarantee that any new buisness will succeed in the long run (or even the short run) if they introduce the wrong product at the wrong time (witness what happened with the Edsel back in the late 50s, and with DeLorean's stainless-steel sport car in 1981-82). Fisker was a company that just introduced the wrong car at the wrong time (and somehow got the Administration to back it). The Karma was an expensive, niche vehicle introduced at a time when the recession-plagued auto market was just not ready for expensive niche vehicles. Nor, as is the case with other electric vehicles, was a nationwide recharging-infrastructure ready for these cars.
So, personally, IMO, it may not be fair to compare them to Bernie Madoff. Madoff ran a completely illigitimate Ponzi-Scheme that was designed, from the start, as a deceptive, criminal operation. Fisker was simply a buisness that made big mistakes during a time when there was little room for error from mistakes.
So, personally, IMO, it may not be fair to compare them to Bernie Madoff. Madoff ran a completely illigitimate Ponzi-Scheme that was designed, from the start, as a deceptive, criminal operation. Fisker was simply a buisness that made big mistakes during a time when there was little room for error from mistakes.
04-24-13, 10:27 AM
#7
Meanwhile at Tesla
fisker on verge of bankruptcy - buh bye...
Tesla stock reaches record high, brushes $53
Tesla Motors shares hit a record high Tuesday morning, reaching almost $53 a share in NASDAQ trading before leveling off slightly to about $51 as of late this afternoon Eastern time. Tesla touched $52.92 shortly after the markets opened on Tuesday. Shares for the company, which went public at $17 a share in June 2010, have jumped more than 50 percent during the past year.
The California-based maker of the all-electric Model S said earlier this month that Q1 was its first ever quarter in the black, noting that it beat sales targets. That news followed up Tesla chief Elon Musk's proclamation that it would pay back its US Department Energy loan in roughly half of the ten-year timeframe previously set. Musk has been vocal and optimistic about his company's future, which lead to an excited Tweet about an upcoming announcement, a Tweet that might get him in trouble with the SEC.
Musk isn't the only one who sees good things in Tesla's future. Last week, Time Magazine named Musk one of the 100 most influential people in the world. On Monday, Seeking Alpha went as far as to say Tesla shares could hit $144 in the "near mid term," especially as short sellers who expected the stock to fall are forced to cover their losses. Motley Fool took a more measured approach, saying that factors such as Tesla's cash position, its ability to sell cars to those other than early adopters and the prospect of increased EV competition from larger automakers will determine whether the stock surge is justified.
The California-based maker of the all-electric Model S said earlier this month that Q1 was its first ever quarter in the black, noting that it beat sales targets. That news followed up Tesla chief Elon Musk's proclamation that it would pay back its US Department Energy loan in roughly half of the ten-year timeframe previously set. Musk has been vocal and optimistic about his company's future, which lead to an excited Tweet about an upcoming announcement, a Tweet that might get him in trouble with the SEC.
Musk isn't the only one who sees good things in Tesla's future. Last week, Time Magazine named Musk one of the 100 most influential people in the world. On Monday, Seeking Alpha went as far as to say Tesla shares could hit $144 in the "near mid term," especially as short sellers who expected the stock to fall are forced to cover their losses. Motley Fool took a more measured approach, saying that factors such as Tesla's cash position, its ability to sell cars to those other than early adopters and the prospect of increased EV competition from larger automakers will determine whether the stock surge is justified.
Trending Topics
04-24-13, 10:33 AM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Very well said! While the taxpayer in hindsight was not well served by Fisker governmental largesse, it utterly pales in comparison to the F-35 (fighter/bomber) saga. While the latter will ultimately prove worthwhile, the vast overruns and delays will likely set a DOD benchmark.
Why do we want car companies that create jobs to fail? Why? They got the tax-payer money so you would think people would desire it to do well.
Sadly it was pretty obvious this wasn't a business venture to dump all this money behind. Fisker might be an amazing designer but running an auto company is something completely different. On paper it sounded good to have different parts of the car built in different plants but that was also a disaster.
Then you had the car itself if anyone has experienced it. We are talking 100k base for a 6000 lbs car that looked great but had no interior room, no trunk room, sub-par materials, a Cruze engine and there simply wasn't much of a market for it. I could see a large company take this risk but a small one? It simply cost way to much.
Sad to see it go but it was pretty obvious. It's also terribly sad to see Americans wanting Americans to fail.
04-24-13, 11:12 AM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
I certainly don't see it as a case where people (Americans or not) wanted Fisker to fail....after all, some of their own tax-dollars were involved. It was simple economic conditions that dictated it....and, to an extent, as I pointed out before, a lack of charging-infrastructure.
Though the circumstances were somewhat different, we saw much the same thing with the 1958 Edsel Citation...a nice (though controversially-styled) mid-priced family-sedan that, on paper, had everything it needed to compete with Oldsmobile/ Buick/Pontiac and Dodge/DeSoto/Chrysler. Mid-priced cars were selling very well at the time, and, until the Edsel's actual introduction in the fall of 1957, there was little or no indication of the sudden recesson that would hit in 1958.
Though the circumstances were somewhat different, we saw much the same thing with the 1958 Edsel Citation...a nice (though controversially-styled) mid-priced family-sedan that, on paper, had everything it needed to compete with Oldsmobile/ Buick/Pontiac and Dodge/DeSoto/Chrysler. Mid-priced cars were selling very well at the time, and, until the Edsel's actual introduction in the fall of 1957, there was little or no indication of the sudden recesson that would hit in 1958.
04-24-13, 11:15 AM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (20)
what's terribly sad and not fair is massive government handouts of Americans' money to an incompetent few to make complex things that few Americans see any value in besides a few rich insecure celebrities who want to proclaim their small carbon footprint as they return from their massively-carbon-emitting private jet flight to their gated mansions in their electric car.
04-24-13, 11:19 AM
#13
Lead Lap
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, Fisker needed to cave after the 2012 election. Fisker's main contribution thus far has been as a political talking point demonstrating a "success story". The election is long over, thus, it's no longer needed.
04-24-13, 12:09 PM
#14
Seems that the WH and the sycophants in the administration knew that Fisker was in deep trouble, but continued to pump our money into them: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...-faltering-ap/
04-25-13, 11:03 AM
#15
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Banned
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comparison was not one of moral equivalence but rather a comparison of dramatic difference. And yes, the defense establishment ought to be a principled steward of your tax dollars regardless of their mission. The propensity to empire-build and waste was well chronicled by President Eisenhower.....