Slashdot Mirror


Faraday Future Had the Worst Year Possible For an EV Startup (engadget.com)

Stop me if you've heard this one before: Faraday Future is almost out of cash. From a report: At the tail end of 2017, the much-hyped EV startup was sliding toward financial oblivion. But then a crucial round of funding from a then-mysterious benefactor gave the team a lifeline. Faraday planned to finish its first car, the FF 91, and start production before 2019. Like Tesla, the company wanted to usher in a new wave of electric, autonomous and "seamlessly connected" vehicles. But unlike its closest rival, Faraday hasn't spent the past year building and shipping transformative cars. Instead, it's been fighting the investor that decided to bail it out.

The beleaguered EV maker was originally saved by a company called Season Smart, which agreed to invest $2 billion, starting with an $800 million payment, in exchange for a 45 percent stake in the company. In June 2018, Season Smart was acquired by Evergrande Health, a subsidiary of a giant property developer in China, for roughly $853 million. Evergrande took control of Season Smart's stake and agreed to pay the remaining $1.2 billion, split into two $600 million chunks, in 2019 and 2020. As part of the updated deal, it took control of Faraday's assets and intellectual property.

For a while, everything seemed OK. Faraday began constructing a long-overdue factory in Hanford, California, where a Pirelli tire factory once stood. The company hoped it could eventually match Tesla's enormous Gigafactory in splendor and efficiency. But there was a problem. By July Faraday had already burned through its initial $800 million payment. To survive, the startup needed more money -- and it couldn't wait until 2019 for another cash injection.

52 comments

  1. STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not news. This is a sob story with a poor headline and a bad summary.

    And an editor who just won't edit. All of you, back to editor school. Off you go.

    1. Re:STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Slashdot has a daily quota of stories that fawn over Tesla. This is a story about not Tesla that tells you how wonderful and successful and transformative Tesla Tesla Tesla Tesla is.

    2. Re: STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it is a story about a young company. Obviously it has had a wild ride. And too many startups equate investor interest with sweet success. And yet it is all too well known what the consequences are. Is there sunshine yet? Or is it raining now?

    3. Re:STOP by tempo36 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The article mentions Tesla twice. Once as the maker of a similar EV, and again as a reference to building a factory. I don't think that's "fawning". It's EV news, and I suppose if you consider EV to be just about Tesla then you probably shouldn't ever read anything about EV. Unfortunately, Tesla is a relatively dominant company in the EV space, so they're going to be mentioned in articles about EV.

      FF grabbed a bunch of headlines when they launched making bold, impressive, and pretty hard to swallow claims about how great their EV was going to be. At the time I felt that they were doing a disservice to the EV market because people looked at their vaporware and thought "Why would I buy these shitty EVs on the market when these folks are going to deliver all that 10 times over?". Those who actually knew something about EV were skeptical, but many car buyers don't understand, yet, some of the limits on EV hardware. Turns out, FF really wasn't remotely positioned to deliver on its extensive claims.

      The only reason why I'd say it's not worth a headline is that it's no surprise at all that they're still falling on their face.

    4. Re:STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Media outlets are paid to push corporate propaganda and the editors are just doing their JOB! STOP HARASSING THEM!!

    5. Re:STOP by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      And an editor who just won't edit. All of you, back to editor school. Off you go.

      You're making the fatal assumption that they went to editor school in the first place.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is just Rei using it as a way to mention Tesla.

    7. Re:STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary also provides a gratuitous link to other Tesla articles. And it somehow forgets to mention all the other auto makers that have been developing electric vehicles for longer than Tesla has existed.

    8. Re:STOP by tempo36 · · Score: 3

      That Tesla link is the summary author's work, not the original article. Really you're going to complain about "all the other auto makers that have been developing electric vehicles"? Like who, GM? Or the Leaf? How would that paragraph have read..."Faraday Future, having recently claimed the ability to produce an EV sports car with full autonamous driving, which would occupy an entirely separate marketing niche from Nissan's Leaf, is struggling to produce units or complete their proposed factory. Having hoped to dethrone Nissan as the 2nd best selling EV worldwide, Faraday's hopes seem to be fading."

      Faraday Future wasn't trying to compete with the Leaf, or the Smart Car. Mentioning Tesla in an article about FF is appropriate, not spurious.

    9. Re:STOP by tempo36 · · Score: 1

      I will addend that by agreeing that the Leaf is the best selling EV worldwide through the length of it's production life, even if it's year-over-year sales currently lag behind Tesla.

      Nevertheless, FF's own marketing and demographic projection is clearly targeting Tesla, not Nissan, Ford, or anyone else.

    10. Re:STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re: STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia says "From 2003 to 2007 in the United States, there were 280,000 car fires per year, which caused 480 deaths."
      So many fires that it rarely makes it past local news. Pinto, cough, cough.

    12. Re: STOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other cars catch on fire because of age and poor maintenance. Tesla’s catch on fire because of their substandard engineering and shit build quality.

    13. Re: STOP by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Now if it'd been a story about Faraday Futas, that would be worthy of the Slashdot front page.

    14. Re:STOP by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Tesla got a lot of public support because a lot of the public wanted electric vehicles, even if they did not specifically want a Tesla vehicle. Now that the larger manufacturers have finally got on the electric vehicle band wagon, the need to support Tesla has diminished and of course any new comer, get's no special support at all. The big car manufacturers are going to make electric cars, the need to support any particular company in order to promote electric vehicles has diminished.

      From 2020 on, electric look to on the way to dominating the consumer vehicle market. Tesla will likely focus more and more on home power systems, because that is the next big market, solar, wind and batteries, selling back to the grid or tax free income by not buying off the grid.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re:STOP by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      From 2020 on, electric look to on the way to dominating the consumer vehicle market.

      No sooner than 2025. There are too many infrastructure issues to work out. If they could work out charging them, EVs would suit the needs of the majority of the population, but as it is, by 2020 they will probably still work for less than half of them. If it's anywhere near half, though, that's still quite a bright future for EVs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:STOP by drewsup · · Score: 1

      A more appropriate company would have been Fiskar...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    17. Re:STOP by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Start to dominate, not actually dominate but it will be quicker than you think because of higher capacity batteries and home charging. Then add in solar panels and another battery and basically tax free charging. So not necessarily super convenient and they might well have to figure out mobile rescue charging rather than towing, enough charge to get to the nearest charging station. Likely smart petrol station will add metered power points to their car parks. There will be a lot or parked cars with no charge, on the side of the road awaiting a charge. I can imagine they might require vehicles to allow connection from one car to another, so as to reduce the number of stuck vehicles.

      It will not be a smooth transition but really quite messy, especially with most people trying to charge at home, off their solar panels and their home battery, rather than paying probably something like 3 times as much buying a charge. So petrol stations with big debts going bankrupt and infernal combustion engines also not being able to refuel and facing long queue's at the remaining stations, Super markets will of course be making big investments to ad charging stations to most car parks and solar panels to their big flat roofs, putting more pressure on service stations with even fewer customers. Charging at a super market makes sense. Park, put your car on charge whilst you shop, 30 minutes to an hour, so as you enter the store your report you car park station and credit card details and do you shopping and on the way out pay for the charge and your groceries. So service stations are pretty much screwed, lots and lots of bankruptcy, it will be way easier to charge an electric car, that a petrol car.

      It will be chaotic, gas station here today and gone tomorrow and then hunting down then next one and massive queues. Which will force more people to go electric, you can see how that plays out in the end, pretty economically brutal for the existing set up. It kind of needs all consumer vehicles to fill their tanks at gas stations, as the percentages change, so the revenue collapses, forcing up margins due to reduce revenue, forcing up prices due to growing inefficiencies in the supply chain (less fuel revenue with the same cost of infrastructure) and this making electric more and more competitive.

      It will end up all quite short, sharp and brutal occuring over not many years. Many car manufacturers will go bankrupt, many, many service stations will go bankrupt, fossil fuel companies going bankrupt. It will be a major market adjustment.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:STOP by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "It will end up all quite short, sharp and brutal occuring over not many years. "

      This idea ignores the difficulty of actually achieving this. Even putting political issues aside, there are physical reasons it cannot happen that fast. We can't build battery packs, fast charging stations, OR grid improvements that quickly, let alone all three — and all three would be required to meet that schedule. Changes on that scale cannot be made that quickly in general, and there are specific reasons why this particular change cannot as well.

      I agree that EVs will dominate, but not within your time estimate.

      You can expect an entire additional generation of ICE-powered vehicles before EVs become dominant. It will be characterized by widespread deployment of mild hybrid vehicles. This is what every major automaker is planning, because it can be accomplished with the minimum possible R&D and capex investments. Switching to building EVs means developing whole new platforms, this is not something that happens overnight.

      TL;DR: You are ignoring institutional inertia.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:STOP by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Hence the brutality, it will be quite a mess, not in the least a smooth transition. You forget, putting a home power system into your home is not institutional but entirely your choice, same as charging your electric vehicle at home entirely tax free. It will be a pretty chaotic bunch of years. There is not good way through it, and every one will be playing catch up. I think ICE has already made it play as is now losing to full electric, except maybe for commercial vehicles. The short sharp and brutal bit, think of it like a tank on a ramp, it goes fast approaching and then slows down as it ramps up and then reaches the tipping point and wham, flips the other way. How long it takes to reach the tipping point is hard to tell but when it does, it will be brutal. So at a guess, some where between 2020 and 2030. Right now rushing up to the ramp, after 2020 driving up it and then sometime in the several years there in after, WHAM. Depends upon how many major manufacturers make the jump when and if consumers are willing to invest in vehicles that will lose market value based upon the cost of a electric conversion, I wont, my next car will be electric.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    20. Re:STOP by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You forget, putting a home power system into your home is not institutional but entirely your choice,

      This can only be done so rapidly, though. Most people are incapable of executing it correctly and will be forced to contract assistance. The equipment can only be produced so quickly as well. If everyone decided to install solar tomorrow, there wouldn't be enough hardware. There wouldn't be enough batteries, charge controllers, inverters, panels... And nobody wants to overproduce in idle times, and it takes time to bring on new staff and spin up more production facilities. Inertia.

      Depends upon how many major manufacturers make the jump when and if consumers are willing to invest in vehicles that will lose market value based upon the cost of a electric conversion, I wont, my next car will be electric.

      I've never bought a new car and won't start now, so if my prior trends hold, I'm going to have probably two more ICEs before I have an EV.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. same deal, but now you give more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The beleaguered EV maker was originally saved by a company called Season Smart, which agreed to invest $2 billion, starting with an $800 million payment, in exchange for a 45 percent stake in the company.

    ok

    In June 2018, Season Smart was acquired by Evergrande Health, a subsidiary of a giant property developer in China, for roughly $853 million. Evergrande took control of Season Smart's stake and agreed to pay the remaining $1.2 billion, split into two $600 million chunks, in 2019 and 2020. As part of the updated deal, it took control of Faraday's assets and intellectual property.

    How is that legal? Did they agree to 2bln for 45% or 800mln for 45% and 1.2bln for assets and IP?

    1. Re: same deal, but now you give more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not sound legal. But what do I know? I am a slashtard

    2. Re:same deal, but now you give more! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      This is why you need to read your contracts carefully or have a lawyer go over them before you sign. It sounds like the original agreement didn't specify a timeframe for the money to be sent from Season Smart to Faraday Future. And Evergrade Health took advantage of that to push some of the payment into the future, then took steps to guarantee Faraday would die before those payments would become due. Meanwhile, Faraday probably naively handed over control of its assets and IP immediately, before receiving full payment (this is something even prostitutes know not to do).

      Never underestimate the ability of investors to take more than they bargained for. When a venture capitalist firm agrees to invest money in your company, do not make the mistake of thinking of them as your savior. From that moment, they are and always will be locked into a power struggle with you for control of your company.

    3. Re: same deal, but now you give more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      âoeFrom that moment, they are and always will be locked into a power struggle with you for control of your company.âoe

      There are only 3 possible outcomes:
      - they win
      - you win
      - large crater

      Donâ(TM)t get into a deal that sets up this dynamic with you VCs. Make sure everyone agrees what the strategy and exit is first. Make sure there are covenants that will let you force the strategy. Then run the business by executing to that vision, no matter what they say.

    4. Re: same deal, but now you give more! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once someone external has control of your assets & IP, you are surplus to requirements.

  3. It was actually a success - mission accomplished by sasparillascott · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Financed by the Chinese who have set electric vehicles as one of the industry's to dominate in the future (they have these 25 year plans and EV's are part of it) - Faraday hired a bunch of folks from U.S. car companies (Tesla mostly), siphoned off whatever knowledge they wanted and then pulled the money out and left the U.S. company to die. The Chinese manufacturers vehicles look really good actually - SUV's that look like SUV's (the G3 especially).

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/...

  4. A story of reckless debt, and dodging creditors by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem is that the founder made a habit of borrowing tons of money to start new companies, and is now unlawfully dodging his creditors. The new investors are (rightfully) concerned that his creditors will come after his Faraday Futures stock, which would have given them near control of the company. The creditors want their money, they don't want to run an electric car start-up (that can't makes cars). Therefore they might well decide to liquidate the company's assets.

  5. Re:It was actually a success - mission accomplishe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SUV's that look like SUV's (the G3 especially).

    You're kidding right? Is there supposed to be a /s there? I clicked that linked, those tiny things do not look like SUVs. They look like sedans that had an awkward growth spurt.

  6. Re: A story of reckless debt, and dodging creditor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should just borrow more money to pay back the other money

  7. Rei/Elon story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only the CEO had told outrageous lies, insulted a hero, manipulated his stock, ripped off his investors, paid out himself and his friends n family through a bankruptcy scheme, treated his employees like shit and got stoned in an interview then they would have made it.

    1. Re:Rei/Elon story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know this story was submitted by Rei.

    2. Re: Rei/Elon story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still wonder if Rei is just an Elon alias.

      When the FTC first crawled up his ass for his illegal stock manipulation tweets and he was at risk for losing everything, Rei was suspiciously and completely dead silent for the entire time. Once the danger diminished, Rei came back in force with his/her usual spamming every article with insider Tesla knowledge, despite claiming to be an outsider.

      Rei = Elon is a very serious possibility.

    3. Re: Rei/Elon story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he is just another Musk fanboy. If you go to electrek.co there are a ton of them, all salivating over their savior Musk. Musk wouldn't bother with Slashdot - not enough readers.

  8. Re:It was actually a success - mission accomplishe by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    SUV's that look like SUV's (the G3 especially).

    You're kidding right? Is there supposed to be a /s there? I clicked that linked, those tiny things do not look like SUVs. They look like sedans that had an awkward growth spurt.

    Hav you been car shopping recently? The G3 looks like every other manufacturers soft SUV/cross-over.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  9. I had a job offer at FF in 2015 or 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a job offer a while back at FF. I thought it was in 2015 when I was still working at Ford, but maybe it was 2016. The company tried to stiff me on my travel expenses when I didn't take the job (it was like $300). You could smell the dysfunction at that place then.

    1. Re:I had a job offer at FF in 2015 or 2016 by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      Let's be honest... there was dysfunction long before that.

      - They named themselves Faraday.
      Instead of being original, they started from the very beginning as a "me too" company. Everything they did was to simply copy Tesla. And they intended to reach a point of competitive product with a version 1 vehicle while racing the clock against an established company like Tesla who has a rain-maker CEO.

      - Car that seems to completely lack design
      Honestly, the FF vehicle is an absolute mess. Look at it. It's an end-to-end disaster.

      - Tech that's not there
      A huge amount of what Tesla is selling is the gadgets and gizmos. Most of the Tesla drivers I know were sold on the bling instead of practical items.

      - They started by building it themselves.
      Tesla started by building their tech into someone else's design. In fact, in order to establish Tesla as a real player, Tesla's initial vehicles were based on Lotus gliders. In other words, Lotus was delivering cars without drive trains and Tesla was simply fitting tech. This allowed Tesla to avoid being just another unicorn startup. They actually managed to deliver a real product that would allow investors to have something to touch and feel. Faraday fails on every front here. In fact, Lotus was always special since they're kind of a budget sports car. So Elon probably got a great deal on the gliders.

      Faraday should have paid someone else to manufacture the majority of it. It was a total waste of money to tool a factory to produce a version 1 vehicle.

      Companies like Ford, GM and BMW for example should be desperately looking for partners these days. Their entire business is eroding. I own a BMW i3 and I expect this vehicle to be road worthy for 20-30 years with minimal additional cost. When the car is paid off sometime in 20 months or so, i'll take a loan to upgrade to the newest battery pack and add Airplay to the car... if these options prove too expensive, I'll dump it for a smaller Chinese EV. Ford, GM and BMW are now making almost entirely plastic, non-corrosive, minimal vibration vehicles. In fact, I'm trying to convince local tree-hugger political groups to mandate that all new cars sold in Norway should have "20 year plans" as a requirement. Meaning that all car companies should be required to offer plans to keep cars road worthy with a predictable TCO for a minimum of 20 years. This would be a huge positive environmental improvement... but it will destroy many legacy car companies if this becomes a thing.

      So Ford, GM, BMW, etc... companies who have proven they simply "don't get" the next phase of cars and will lose their asses to newcomers who will focus more on long term capitalization on existing vehicles (apps, features, upgrades, etc...) than on sales of replacement vehicles. As such, Faraday should have easily found someone willing to help produce for them.

      If nothing else, they could have simply had a Chinese company build them.

  10. ...match Tesla's enormous Gigafactory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Gigafactory is where Tesla makes batteries is it not?
    Tesla makes cars in the former NUMMI plant in Fremont.

    Can someone explain why FF would want their car factory to match the splendor of Tesla's battery factory?

    1. Re:...match Tesla's enormous Gigafactory? by BLToday · · Score: 1

      The Gigafactory is where Tesla makes batteries is it not?
      Tesla makes cars in the former NUMMI plant in Fremont.

      Can someone explain why FF would want their car factory to match the splendor of Tesla's battery factory?

      Simple answer: to scam more investors. The pitch from YT was “look we can match Tesla, don’t you want to be part of the next Tesla?”. It was an easy way to get people excited and hopefully invest into the company.

  11. Re: A story of reckless debt, and dodging creditor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  12. Re: A story of reckless debt, and dodging credito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    named after the franklin models 2, 3, 4, 5, etc all named a long time ago but just at a different company? Sounds like there is something else they are trying to name

  13. Re:It was actually a success - mission accomplishe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't this exactly what Musk said he wanted? Cheap electric cars for all, doesn't matter who makes em.

  14. Re:It was actually a success - mission accomplishe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your article doesn't even mention Faraday. Moreover the article mentions similarities with Tesla because Tesla opensourced their patents.

    The reason why Faraday went bankrupt was because LeEco the main company who owned Faraday went bankrupt, not because of some stupid conspiracy to siphon off knowledge.

  15. Re: It was actually a success - mission accomplish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except the tariffs mean we won't be able to afford these new Chinese EVs, and we won't have one of our own.

    Â\_(ãf)_/Â

  16. Worst possible by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    An investor drops out? That's the worst possible thing that can happen?

    There was no meteor strike on the main office, releasing a strain of bacteria that turned their hair blue and caused impotence? Termites didn't evolve a taste for flesh and start drilling into their feet? Global warming didn't atmospherically create a lens that concentrated all the warming right over their office, roasting them like ants? Giant birds of prey didn't swoop and steal parts from their cars in the middle of the night?

    (reads the article). Oh, they switched to an open office plan. I guess that is the worst possible year.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Worst possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battery technology today is crap. Once the next Lithium Ion comes onboard maybe.
      Oh i drove 300 milles now i need to turn around and do it again NOW. Nope not wit this turd. We're driving this to FL vacay. Nope. We are driving to CO nope. Forgot o plug it in last night. Powers out at home my car wont work. F i love my econo car.

    2. Re:Worst possible by mentil · · Score: 1

      GM could buy their assets with a leveraged buyout, then destroy them all EV1 style, then get another bailout from the US government because their green energy investments didn't work out 'through no fault of their own'.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  17. Re: It was actually a success - mission accomplish by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    That's okay, Trump will probably announce financing for coal-powered cars companies pretty soon.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  18. Ever since that pathetic demo fail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew Faraday Future was trash.

  19. Re: It was actually a success - mission accomplis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, if you want to power cars with coal, then EVs are the way to do it.

  20. Re: It was actually a success - mission accomplish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a cross over. Repeat after me SUV != crossover. They serve two different markers. One is for rich white women to feel superior, the other is for middle class people, to give them a sense of belonging.