Slashdot Mirror
Fisker Lays Off Most Workers, Plans To Shop Around Remaining Assets
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."
hi every1 im new!!!!!!! *holds up spork* my name is katy but u can call me t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m!!!!!!!! lol...as u can see im very random!!!! thats why i came here, 2 meet random ppl like me ^_^... im 13 years old (im mature 4 my age tho!!) i like 2 watch invader zim w/ my girlfreind (im bi if u dont like it deal w/it) its our favorite tv show!!! bcuz its SOOOO random!!!! shes random 2 of course but i want 2 meet more random ppl =) like they say the more the merrier!!!! lol...neways i hope 2 make alot of freinds here so give me lots of commentses!!!!DOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --- me bein random again ^_^ hehe...toodles!!!!!
love and waffles,
*~t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m~*
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.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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!
This story isn't on the front page because of the technology, because of the environmental promises of electric cars, or even because it is a business story. This is on the front page because Fisker is linked to Democrats, and the failure of this company makes them look bad. This story should be filed under politics, not technology or business.
Welcome back to drudgedot.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Another company borrowed huge sums of money from the Department of Energy only to declare bankruptcy a few years later. Sure, it's not a big piece of the pie as far as the US budget goes. But the US government isn't making a few bad decisions. But many thousands of them.
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 and so not very aerodynamic compared to what we could achieve (and so not as efficient). Sad that our society sometimes seems to be ruled by the sensibilities of a 13 year old but I guess that's just how it is.
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 . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
article is not about the scissors company Fiskars
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
How else do you expect to progress unless you make mistakes?
What amazes me is that nobody is learning anything from these green technology failures. Most people live in the real world where they know they can't afford to be green. Solar panels? That's nice in theory but when people realize that they might never be able to recoup the investment they say "Next!" Hybrid cars? Sounds fine on paper but when the owners discover how much it costs to replace the battery pack they don't bother installing one and instead run on gasoline only. And then of course most people have a NIMBY attitude towards green technology or they shoot themselves in the foot with their own love of the environment as in the case of killing a green energy project because of some endangered species.
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.
* $500M to develop electric cars: zOMG SOOOOOOOOOCIALISM!
* Unlimited funds to blow shit up in Iraq: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
I predict, that Tesla will fold next within couple of years. Electric car technology is not competitive, period. Unless you artificially tax gasoline to make conventional cars significantly more expensive to operate, there will be no economical electric car in many years ahead outside of golf course. Recent Tesla announcement that it is finally profitable is just a marketing gimmick to fool politicians and public so they can cough more money in support.Neither Tesla, nor Leaf nor Volt are viable economical products and can only be sustained by taxpayer and political correctness or by cash of corporate giant like GM or Nissan, that earn money in the gasoline powered cars.
JAM
This was to be expected.
There are people on /. who wouldn't understand such a thing for example. 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 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 meaningful act.
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 from his gov't ties.
You can't handle the truth.
Again we see the Obama Administration's lack of expertise in investing OUR money ($529 million). Did you know Fiskar makes the cars in Finland? Creating jobs, just not here.
Did someone at DOE go to Fisker and force them to take on this debt, or did they ASK FOR IT?
"Becoming saddled with" implies it was involuntary. But Fisker asked for these loans. When they couldn't get them on their own (banks and venture capitalists apparently aren't as stupid as they wanted them to be), they asked all of us to guarantee the loans. Well, the banks and VCs were smart, and our representatives in the transaction weren't.
It is the citizens of the United States of America that are "being saddled with" this extra debt.
Having their battery supplier fold didn't help matters either.
fencepost
just a little off
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.
Should the government just subside end user demand instead of subsiding capital. It seems like a more market oriented way to encourage production of something. Maybe the government should increase rebates for electric cars, but then again we have Telsa Motors (which just announced they were profitable in the last quarter) party because of a government subsidy and Tesla could be the next Apple of the automotive industry
Please, it's peanuts to everything else, and it's not that many jobs. They just don't have a factory of their own yet. Maybe they'll never get one, but if they did, i doubt they'd keep even part of the production in Finland.
Quit your whinning. Bush and the rest of the rebuplicans would've just wasted it on something totally useless, like gifts for each other and their rich friends. Atleast Fisker technology can be sold.
"They were told that the company could not afford to give them severance payments."
Meanwhile, the executive-level officers of the company are probably going to make out with the profit from cannibalizing its remains.
Stating the obvious...
The biggest difference between a loan guarantee or a grant, and a tax break is that the former two have a lot more accountability. There are tax breaks that are a lot bigger that have gone to various companies -- and have the same (negative) effect on the deficit. The difference is that the tax breaks are announced, but what they cost the country (in terms of a decrease in income) never really gets accounted for -- other than estimates that may, or may not, be accurate..
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I used to like Fiskers stuff, but lately all I find is crap (IMO) from them. No love lost.
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Exactly. FAIL! Your tax dollars flushed down the drain yet again. Get the Govt out of private enterprise - they can't create a balanced budget themselves so why should we trust them to prop up businesses? These people get rich, the company goes down the tank - and all we get is more public debt!
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'.
Choosing to take a loan is NOT anything like being "saddled" with debt.
Having the government implement a tax or fine against you, such as what recently happened in Cyprus, that's being saddled.
The horse doesn't willingly wiggle into the saddle. He's held in place and it's strapped onto his back. This did not happen to Fisker.
Fisker willingly chose to borrow money. That they can't repay it is their own doing. It's unfortunate that they are going away, as it is a great looking car. But, they brought this upon themselves.
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?
Bush's fault. Never mind the bad engineering, the bad (democrat controlled) press, the way-to-expensive product, the poor performance... and on and on.....
When are you do-gooders gonna realize that oil is here to stay, it is natural, stable, proven, cheap, versatile, etc..... Ha ha.... I don't pay taxes anymore (on "disability" and food stamps and free housing, etc.)... Keep working and sending your money to me and my buddies..... you do-gooders and gonna kill me with kindness.... back to my xbox and roku.... thanks for paying my cable bill too.
Doesn't Home Depot deliver?
Anyways, in other countries the "last mile" problem is solved by things like tuk-tuks, auto-rikshaws and the like (small vehicles designed to hold 6 or so people).
Most busybody city governments don't like that, though.
In NYC, there are informal (illegal) minivans that pick up passengers for a few dollars and drop them off where they want to go.
If cities allowed that kind of thing, the problem would be solved.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
They make damn good scissors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiskars