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."

29 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. And no one will learn yet again. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re: And no one will learn yet again. by hxnwix · · 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.

    2. Re: And no one will learn yet again. by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    3. Re: And no one will learn yet again. by khallow · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re: And no one will learn yet again. by JonBoy47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's also worth noting that Tesla has publicly committed to paying off its ATVM loans 5 years ahead of time. Of course, the DOE is making them pay off the loans early, but that's another matter... http://www.teslamotors.com/no_NO/blog/early-repayment-tesla%E2%80%99s-atvm-loan http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/update-elon-musk

    5. Re:And no one will learn yet again. by JonBoy47 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Public Transportation: A great way to get from someplace you don't live to someplace you don't work. It fails for this very important reason, and liberals never want to talk about...

    6. Re: And no one will learn yet again. by haruchai · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    7. Re:And no one will learn yet again. by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 4, 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.

    8. Re: And no one will learn yet again. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    9. Re:And no one will learn yet again. by jewens · · 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.

      --
      That group of bovine standing over there appears quite portentous. That's right it's an ominous cow herd.
  2. How many times do we have to go through this? by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    1. Re:How many times do we have to go through this? by guidryp · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:How many times do we have to go through this? by fche · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. Another one bites the dust by khallow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Another one bites the dust by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  4. " maximize the value of Fisker's core assets" by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, 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 . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  5. Re:Welcome back to drudgedot by ScentCone · · 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.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  6. Saddled? by guttentag · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the summary:

    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.

  7. As expected. by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:And nobody learned nuthin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The US gets less than 1 percent of its electricity from oil.

  9. Re:And nobody learned nuthin' by TigerPlish · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What amazes me is that nobody is learning anything from these green technology failures.

    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.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  10. Re:Welcome back to drudgedot by blackraven14250 · · 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.

  11. Re:And nobody learned nuthin' by similar_name · · Score: 3, Informative
  12. Re:And nobody learned nuthin' by ScentCone · · Score: 3, 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!

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  13. Re:Tesla will be next. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, of course the first electric car was around before the Model T and there still isn't an "affordable" electric car. In 1900, there were 1575 electric cars registered in the entire U.S., compared with 936 internal combustion cars. So, in 1900, electric cars were more popular than internal combustion cars, yet today when there a millions of internal combustion cars registered in the U.S. the number of electric cars is somewhere in the vicinity of .01% of that number. Exactly how long is this technology going to take to mature?

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  14. I saw this one coming by AaronW · · 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

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  15. Re:Welcome back to drudgedot by haruchai · · Score: 4, 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?

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  16. The problem dictating the solution by HangingChad · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  17. That's not how the world works. by Brannon · · Score: 4, 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'.