said about 150 employees had been fired while about 50
senior managers and executives had been retained.
If that is true, it says a lot about the internal culture.
And it ain't good.
April 22 deadline to repay a portion of a $193 million
low-interest loan from the United States Department of
Energy. Although Fisker was originally granted a $528.7
million loan in late 2009, that money was frozen after
Fisker fell short of its production targets.
Look, if the government loans you 1/2 billion of soft loans,
its really really important to cheat and lie about how those production targets are going.
Oh, and now that the US taxpayer has funded a 500m dollar investment into developing electric cars, European and Chinese manufacturers are sniffing around to pick it up at pennies on the dollar.
Come on guys! Pick free market or protectionism. And if you must mix the two, do it the right way round !
> said about 150 employees had been fired while about 50
senior managers and executives had been retained.
If that is true, it says a lot about the internal culture. And it ain't good.
IMO they aren't going to try to get the company afloat again; they're just shoring up the edges to sell themselves to someone for their IP and other assets. (at least I'd hope so, since only retaining execs/mgmt if you're a tech/manufacturing company with the intent to somehow turn this thing around and stay in business is just insanity)
My father was laid off last February when Fisker did their first round of layoffs on the east coast. What a terribly run company, which is sad, because the car really did look good (from some angles...)
They wanted to be a fresh and new car company, but ended up just hiring industry insiders with the same lumbering mindset of General Motors. Add more managers and executives to make things better, not more people who actually know what their doing. My father was head of distribution with 30+ years of experience under his belt taking cars from foreign countries and seeing them all the way through to the dealers. He was one of the first to be let go last year, which left them with no one who knew how to do customs forms, how to get cars off the boat and then prepare them for ground transport and sale, etc. If you can't move your product around (or even get it in to the country), you won't have much success.
Hurricane Sandy slammed the port where hundreds of Fisker Karmas, some of which were already sold to customers, were trapped due to no one knowing how to get them moved or out of customs. 320 were destroyed in the resulting fires due to salt water getting in to the high voltage system. Simply having someone who was even mildly familiar with the process of getting cars handled at the port and on to truck or rail could have prevented that, but instead, the cars just sat for months after my father was let go.
Obviously my story is just a personal one, but from what I've heard from other ex-Fisker employees, basically every department was ruined this way, too.
Another wasted 'investment' by the government in so-called green energy. Between the billions of dollars wasted on Solyndra, Fiskar and that cohort, we could have cut taxes and made it easier for successful companies to grow and expand. Instead we subsidize losing products while increasing the regulatory and tax burden on small businesses making it an exceptionally difficult growth environment. Electric cars might be nice in theory but their environmental impact is far worse than the normal cars we have today. The components in the batteries for instance produce far more pollutants in ther manufacture than a gasoline car produces in 5 years. Yet, electric cars "feel" good despite the irony that they do nothing to improve the environment.
Wow, this is the most uninformed post I have ever read on HN.
1. Government investments in alternative energy have been extraordinarily successful:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10165
To quote:
"the report examines 17 R&D programs in energy efficiency and 22 programs in fossil energy funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). These programs yielded economic returns of an estimated $40 billion from an investment of $13 billion."
And, you are missing the whole point. As the grid becomes completely generated by renewable, then the carbon footprint of electric vehicles will be drastically reduced.
I'd prefer that the government tax bads/externalities vs. trying to encourage good, though -- a fossil fuel tax which is small but constantly increasing would be the single best environmental and energy-independence policy the US could have. (I'd also consider a tax on fossil fuel imports on top of that, and surtaxes on certain means of extraction to cover the environmental risks and other externalities, but a lot of that could come from mining fees from DoI -- and, the is a good case for "use up the foreign and low-cost sources first, retaining US reserves longer").
If the tax goes from 5-10% now to something in the thousands of percent over 100 years, it would lower fossil fuel use even as efficiency increases, while encouraging alternate fuels. The only losers would be primary producers (and I guess refiners, etc.) of fossil fuels; broad-spectrum energy companies should do ok since other forms of energy are still available and would gradually replace fossil fuels.
There is not a shortage of capital. It's just that right now, energy investments in new technologies aren't always viable. Creating an escalating tax would instantly make a lot of new energy projects viable, and private capital would be happy to make loans/equity investments/etc.
Pigovian taxes are just the "tax externalities" part. I think it's just as important that it be operational on a long term scale, with a steady and predictable increase, to influence decisions.
It would be unfair to tax a company overnight at a high rate for this stuff, because it would strand a lot of current investments. Replacing capital goods 20y ahead of schedule might actually have an environmental cost higher than doing so in 5-10 years, since there's a lot of energy and other pollution embodied in the capital goods. It also picks winners and losers based on something which wasn't made clear to people in advance.
Just as bad is saying "in 10 years, we're going to heavily tax or ban X", which would cost industry (say) $1t. "Good" participants, say half the market, spend $500b fixing things. "Bad" participants spend nothing on remediation but $10b on lobbying and then strand the $500b improvements made by the "good" participants.
In the US, it would essentially require a treaty or constitutional amendment to bind the government to a long-term plan which might otherwise be overturned through lobbying.
An escalating tax at least has the benefit of being minor pain up front, and viewed as "fair", so industry is more likely to cooperate. It's not worth going to the mattresses over a 5% tax, particularly if it takes an immediate ban or 50% tax off the table. Over time, the revenue stream will become important to the Government and to other positive government programs, so it'll be harder for industry to lobby to overturn it. At most, they might be able to lobby for a "temporary" freeze at a certain level.
Hearing Republicans hyperventilate about Solyndra et al drives me up a wall. Private VC firms invest all the time in companies that fail, but somehow the government is supposed to have a 100% success rate in its VC investments? Please spare us your concern.
The government should not be in the VC business at all. It gets its cut of all economic activity so for a government controlling as much of global GDP as the US grants like DARPA gives are justifiable. Politically motivated "VC" is not. If you care about CO2 emissions the corn ethanol subsidies are bullshit and for much the same reasons so was Solyndra.
Because the alternative to funding Solyndras is clearly wars?
You do realize the disastrous ethanol subsidies were expanded during the Bush years, right? There's a lot of blame to go around for everyone on Capitol Hill.
I don't see a problem with the kind of research Obama wants to fund, but the money should go to universities producing publicly available research.
>> Because the alternative to funding Solyndras is clearly wars?
What I meant was that it is important to have perspective.
My problem is that Solyndra and Tesla are being held to a different standard altogether when it comes to Government spending. I am sick and tired of people complaining about these companies getting loan guarantees. Instead of looking at these loans in isolation they should look at the percentage of successful loans/guarantees made by the DoE. When you look at it from that perspective, money spent by DoE is the best bang for buck the Govt has got. We will never have a perfect scenario for Government spending. We should encourage innovation wherever it is happening be it a private company or a public entity as long as it fits in the overall strategy of moving the country forward. Upside to a successful Tesla cannot be valued in just dollars.
I ask: Should the government be involved in the free market by attempting to pick investments in order to guide growth in certain sectors of the economy?
My answer is: No. The Constitution does not allow for the government to perform this type of activity. Thus, the States did not agree to allow the Federal government to perform this type of activity. Due to the special place, power, and privilege of the Federal government - preventing overreach should be a prime concern for all citizens. If the citizenry decides to fundamentally and explicitly change the role of the Federal government, the Constitution should be amended to support that new role.
What happens if you picked wrong and bought a Karma instead of a Model S a few years ago? Is an orphaned Karma still a viable car, or will it drop in price rapidly (or go up, as a collector's item?)
I guess most people buying $100k cars can afford another one, though.
bought? such high profile celebs usually are given or lease at ridiculous discounts. di caprio is actually a face of the company (brand ambassador), he didn't pay a dime, rather was paid to show publically with it.
Many thousands of people had their cars replaced by insurance companies from the same storm. If Fisker didn't have the proper coverage that's simply their fault.
I had a bad feeing about these guys when Car and Driver published a review in which the green Fisker got 24 miles of range on a charge and, after that, retuned just 24 mpg on gasoline.
Overweight, overwrought. Further shows how impressive it is Tesla makes compelling electric cars -- no other "start up" has come close.
33 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 71.8 ms ] threadOh, and now that the US taxpayer has funded a 500m dollar investment into developing electric cars, European and Chinese manufacturers are sniffing around to pick it up at pennies on the dollar.
Come on guys! Pick free market or protectionism. And if you must mix the two, do it the right way round !
They spent $193 million from the $500 million before the US government cut them off. The "loan" was part of a 25 billion dollar DOE program.
If that is true, it says a lot about the internal culture. And it ain't good.
IMO they aren't going to try to get the company afloat again; they're just shoring up the edges to sell themselves to someone for their IP and other assets. (at least I'd hope so, since only retaining execs/mgmt if you're a tech/manufacturing company with the intent to somehow turn this thing around and stay in business is just insanity)
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/19/fisker-karma-cooling-fan-...
Hurricane Sandy slammed the port where hundreds of Fisker Karmas, some of which were already sold to customers, were trapped due to no one knowing how to get them moved or out of customs. 320 were destroyed in the resulting fires due to salt water getting in to the high voltage system. Simply having someone who was even mildly familiar with the process of getting cars handled at the port and on to truck or rail could have prevented that, but instead, the cars just sat for months after my father was let go.
Obviously my story is just a personal one, but from what I've heard from other ex-Fisker employees, basically every department was ruined this way, too.
http://green.autoblog.com/2012/12/29/fisker-sues-insurance-c...
B. The Department of Energy's loan program has been an overwhelming success; failure rates have been lower than expected. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/21/1038907/-Solyndra-a...
C. Electric cars have an overall lower carbon footprint than gasoline vehicles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle#Air_po...
And, you are missing the whole point. As the grid becomes completely generated by renewable, then the carbon footprint of electric vehicles will be drastically reduced.
If the tax goes from 5-10% now to something in the thousands of percent over 100 years, it would lower fossil fuel use even as efficiency increases, while encouraging alternate fuels. The only losers would be primary producers (and I guess refiners, etc.) of fossil fuels; broad-spectrum energy companies should do ok since other forms of energy are still available and would gradually replace fossil fuels.
There is not a shortage of capital. It's just that right now, energy investments in new technologies aren't always viable. Creating an escalating tax would instantly make a lot of new energy projects viable, and private capital would be happy to make loans/equity investments/etc.
It would be unfair to tax a company overnight at a high rate for this stuff, because it would strand a lot of current investments. Replacing capital goods 20y ahead of schedule might actually have an environmental cost higher than doing so in 5-10 years, since there's a lot of energy and other pollution embodied in the capital goods. It also picks winners and losers based on something which wasn't made clear to people in advance.
Just as bad is saying "in 10 years, we're going to heavily tax or ban X", which would cost industry (say) $1t. "Good" participants, say half the market, spend $500b fixing things. "Bad" participants spend nothing on remediation but $10b on lobbying and then strand the $500b improvements made by the "good" participants.
In the US, it would essentially require a treaty or constitutional amendment to bind the government to a long-term plan which might otherwise be overturned through lobbying.
An escalating tax at least has the benefit of being minor pain up front, and viewed as "fair", so industry is more likely to cooperate. It's not worth going to the mattresses over a 5% tax, particularly if it takes an immediate ban or 50% tax off the table. Over time, the revenue stream will become important to the Government and to other positive government programs, so it'll be harder for industry to lobby to overturn it. At most, they might be able to lobby for a "temporary" freeze at a certain level.
Both are great examples of doing it wrong.
You do realize the disastrous ethanol subsidies were expanded during the Bush years, right? There's a lot of blame to go around for everyone on Capitol Hill.
I don't see a problem with the kind of research Obama wants to fund, but the money should go to universities producing publicly available research.
My problem is that Solyndra and Tesla are being held to a different standard altogether when it comes to Government spending. I am sick and tired of people complaining about these companies getting loan guarantees. Instead of looking at these loans in isolation they should look at the percentage of successful loans/guarantees made by the DoE. When you look at it from that perspective, money spent by DoE is the best bang for buck the Govt has got. We will never have a perfect scenario for Government spending. We should encourage innovation wherever it is happening be it a private company or a public entity as long as it fits in the overall strategy of moving the country forward. Upside to a successful Tesla cannot be valued in just dollars.
I totally look at the loans in isolation.
I ask: Should the government be involved in the free market by attempting to pick investments in order to guide growth in certain sectors of the economy?
My answer is: No. The Constitution does not allow for the government to perform this type of activity. Thus, the States did not agree to allow the Federal government to perform this type of activity. Due to the special place, power, and privilege of the Federal government - preventing overreach should be a prime concern for all citizens. If the citizenry decides to fundamentally and explicitly change the role of the Federal government, the Constitution should be amended to support that new role.
I guess most people buying $100k cars can afford another one, though.
Overweight, overwrought. Further shows how impressive it is Tesla makes compelling electric cars -- no other "start up" has come close.